NCC PINK BOLLWORM TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MEETING
Thursday, March 19th, 2009, 9:00 a.m.
A meeting of the National
Cotton Council Pink Bollworm Technical Advisory Committee was held at the
Arizona Cotton Research & Protection Council office located at
Chairman Bob Staten called
the meeting to order at 9:05 am.
Chairman Staten requested a roll call.
The roll call reflected a quorum:
In attendance:
Bob Staten, Charles
Allen, Larry Antilla, Ted Boratynski, Tom Miller, Steven Naranjo, Jim Rudig,
Don Parker and Robert Hull.
Absent: Joe
Ellington, Jim Ed Miller, Craig Brown, Steve Birdsall and Bruce Tabashnik.
Also present: Dr. Richard Zink, Director, CPHST,
Phx, AZ and Ft. Collins, CO; Edward
Herrera, Texas Boll Weevil Program, El Paso / Trans Pecos, TX; Ernie Miller, Facility Director, PBW Rearing
Facility, Phoenix, AZ; Greg Simmons,
CPHST, Phoenix, AZ; Michelle Walters, USDA
APHIS PPQ CPHST, Phoenix, AZ; Cloti
Tate, USDA APHIS PPQ CPHST, Phoenix, AZ; Leighton Liesner, ACRPC SIT Program
Coordinator, Phoenix, AZ; Mike Whitlow,
ACRPC Program Coordinator, Phoenix, AZ; and ACRPC Secretary Letitia Tamulis,
Phoenix, AZ.
Chairman Staten briefly went
over agenda items and reviewed what was to be discussed. He advised that time is running out to get
any transgenic in the field and stressed the need to have very definitive, very
analyzable data on competitiveness on the DS Red pink bollworm strain versus
the standard APHIS strain. The objective
is to obtain enough solid information to confirm whether or not the insect is either
as good as or better than the APHIS strain.
The test run last year was more operational. The DS Red did not perform as well, and there
was some concern that it was simply the difference in zones. We will need highly analyzable replicated
data to clearly illustrate any differences.
Dr. Staten stressed the
importance of the decision we make as to whether or not to incorporate DS Red
into the facility. Once we go into the
facility with it, we cannot rear two insect strains unless someone will
maintain a strain somewhere else. It has
to be all DS Red.
There are two proposed field
trial options that are on the table: the
San Joaquin with Jim Rudig and Greg Simmons, and in
Jim Rudig reported that we
are trying to obtain comparative data on the two strains. In San Joaquin Valley, they have 14 sections
and looked at different release rates; 75 moths/acre/day (lowest number of
moths necessary to effect control); 150 moths/acre/day (more consistent with
average release rates used over the past 5-10 years); and 200 moths/acre/day
(what we use to start off our releases which gives us the flexibility to be
able to add sections). Jim distributed a
hand out describing the proposed trial in detail.
Greg advised that the goal
of this trail is to conduct it in an area in order to obtain stakeholder
acceptance, CDFA testing (so they can have access in using the technology), as
well as getting more comparative release data.
This is not an operational experiment.
In the field lab,
Greg stated that it is also
a comparative experiment as they will be comparing the two strains. Greg discussed many specific details that
were noted in the hand out. Jim did not
agree with the facility rearing the strains and CPHST collecting them in their
own collection systems. Greg's position
was to control everything possible on this test including rearing and felt that
it contributed to continuity. Dr. Staten
agreed with Greg. Greg went over further
details referring to the hand out regarding releases and shippers and
aircraft. Greg discussed every other day
shipping a different strain, stating that it would be easier on him rearing and
handling the moths here, preserves the ability for CDFA to easily do their
quality control testing in their lab, as well as saving costs on shipping
without having to deal with extra boxes.
Greg reported that with using the alternating box method, they will be
operating on a two-week cycle.
Steve Naranjo asked if the
goal of this experiment is to take the information gathered to a peer review
journal in order to get it published.
Dr. Staten advised that it was.
Steve Naranjo asked questions concerning replication. There was much discussion regarding how to break
down the areas. The possibility or
running the identical trial in
Don Parker likes the idea of
rearing both of the insects together.
Rearing insects can have a big impact on the fitness of the insect. Consistency of personnel, diet, etc. can have
a big impact on the fullness of the insect.
Charles Allen asked Steve Naranjo if you could replicate based on an
area of
Charles was concerned with
the frustration we have encountered with dyed moths in not being able to
isolate a moth based on the time it was released. We do not know when we pick up a moth that doesn't
have color, how long it has been out there.
He sees that same concern here.
You lack having that longevity in the field. Greg advised that he has some longevity data
from field cage studies. Greg offered
that he would be able to conduct that again for this experiment.
Charles stated he would like
to see a single release study (DS Red & lab moths) one time and then you
trap and determine how long you capture those moths comparatively based on the
number of moths that were released. Then
you may replicate that over time in order to get your replicates. Dr. Staten said that could actually be done
as a separate experiment, and it doesn't necessarily have to be done in
Jim reported that they are
planning on releasing on every field this year.
Charles advised that they will not be releasing on every field in the
Trans Pecos area. Ted Boratynski was
concerned regarding the "check,” in the competitive measure in the moths
when they are competing against each other.
Would you need fields where one field has DS Red and one field has
APHIS? Greg felt that if we were not
flooding the traps with too many, we are out of that issue at least as it
relates to recapture. Different factors
concerning recapture rates were discussed.
Dr. Staten requested
clarification on which insects go on which fields on the map that was
distributed.
Tom Miller did not feel that
it would be a good idea to use
Dr. Miller asked why do we
care about the competitiveness between the APHIS and DS Red strains? Greg answered that we want to be able to
provide information if we make a decision to switch strains that we are not
buying into a strain that isn't as good as the strain we are using. Steve felt that Ted's idea of having these
separate areas is a more meaningful measure of their performance than in an
area where you are only going to be releasing one. Dr. Staten stated the problem would be that
there would not be a sufficient number of natives to look at to get any kind of
measurement, regardless of whether we work in AZ or CA. The problem exists to minimize variability
between treatments (paired comparison).
If you have separate field releases, we will not have the energy to do a
lot of these. We cannot do a large
number of replications in the
Greg reiterated that we are
trying to eliminate differences by doing everything the same as possible and
primarily focusing on recapture rates.
Dr. Staten agreed and felt it was the most reliable set of data to
acquire over time as compared to mating stations where you look at so few
numbers. Larry agrees with Don
Parker. Larry verified that as far as
the number of moths put up, one would use an estimate of the total of moths,
rather than weight, so you could have equivalent numbers of moths released rather
than an equivalent number of grams. Larry
advised that the danger is releasing one insect one day and the other insect
another day is there will be variations in conditions regarding wind, heat,
delays in flights, etc. The only
solution to address that would be to release both insects at the same time;
however that would lend itself to its own set of issues. However, with this experiment being conducted
for such a long period of time, the variables will become less of an
issue.
Upon inquiry, Jim answered
that the traps are being monitored weekly.
Jim stated that if we mix the strains, that would totally eliminate any
variability concerning grower treatments or any other concerns, if they are
released at the same time. You do make
it more difficult to complete the mating study.
If we could figure out a way to identify the strains in the cold room,
then we can move ahead with that procedure.
We already sort them by gender.
Steve asked if that was the only limitation to mixing. Greg replied that when they mixed in the 2007
trial, there were fewer insects. To get
the numbers right, it is very complicated.
You know what the ratio is, and you use that as an index for trap
capture, and that is a lot of more complicated.
It does keep the release numbers the same. It does entail taking two quality control
samples and other factors come into play.
It is a lot more work for our staff to make that happen, but we can do
that. The bigger issue with the bigger
trial is mixing the insects actually into the release machine itself without
shipper. You don't want to handle them
too much.
Dr. Staten asked if Greg has
considered extending the parameter of the test of “equalness“ to start with
introducing equal numbers of pupae in each tray into the inclusion system. Greg felt that in doing the design, he came
up with what would be easier to control and easier on his staff, but it is a
good idea.
Ted suggested doing two
flights in one day with each insect. It
was subsequently determined that it would not necessarily be feasible due to
the cost of the flights, and also it would still be subject to a different time
and temperature of the day, and other variables that optimally should try and
be avoided. Tom Miller felt that even a
one-degree difference when releasing the moth may make a significant
difference. Also,
Ernie Miller advised that
the empty weight of the old shipper is actually heavier. Jim advised that if they have passengers on
the flight, the shipment gets bumped, however, it is a rare event. If we were to use two shippers, that would
increase the probability of being bumped.
Dr. Staten was concerned that the bigger issue is that
Upon inquiry, Jim reported
that the wind is not measured, but the temperature is, and the information
gathered is put into a heat unit model in order to make generation
predictions. If our trapping drops
suddenly, the information is also looked at.
Upon inquiry, Ernie advised
that you can not partition a shipper, however he does have a prototype unit
that has three separate magazines within the unit. Ernie offered that if we built two more of
those shippers, that may solve the problem.
Tom Miller was concerned that if you have a release of APHIS in one area
and DS Red in another area, there are many factors that can come into play to
effect the separate environments such as wind or temperature.
Jim stated that if we were
to design the longevity test of the two different strains, we will select
probably a four-mile separation between the two release points, as well as
large block cotton, preferably the same grower, so that we can at least have a
data set in those fields. Charles Allen
asked for clarification. Jim reported
that it would be two different locations and a one-time release situation. One strain we would apply one day and then
the next day we would apply the other strain and then just trap them out. Tom Miller stated that even a one-degree
difference would sometimes have a significant effect on the trap catch. Dr. Staten advised that would show only if
there is a big difference between the two strains. It would not show small differences. Charles stated that it may be a good addition
to what Greg already has. Dr. Staten
commented that it would be relatively simple to complete. The test that Jim described would generate a
lot of data. Then you have to go back to
the questions of whether or not the data will be analyzable, utilizable and
publishable. This is such a groundbreaking
event, you would want this for the future insect pests of the world.
Jim discussed the APHIS
reared moth, even though it’s under a 26 million per day strain, as being the
bench standard by which we are trying to compare this DS Red. One of the arguments Greg had was that he
didn’t want his moth to be considered a “pampered” moth because of the
conditions that he is rearing it in. Greg
saw Ernie’s production technique. So has
Cloti. In this large-scale operation
where we could be releasing over 2,000 acres instead of 1,000 acres in a
variety of climate conditions and growing conditions in the
Steve Naranjo asked Greg how
much different his rearing system is compared to Ernie Millers. Greg advised that there are a lot of little
things that go on, but the biggest issue is the management of a colony is
slightly different because of the scale.
We also have the issue of the same people. There are a lot of things that are difficult
to control unless you use the same personnel with the same protocol. They are issues of scale and personnel. Steve Naranjo verified that it is quality
control issues. Greg agreed. Cloti stated that there are not as many
larvae being damaged, and there are differences. Ernie views their rearing facility as a
“pampered” system, compared to his, even though a lot of the technology
employed is the same as his, there is a difference. He notes differences in production between 2
million, 10 million and 26 million.
There are some costs when you push them to the high levels. There is also a difference in the
personnel. Ernie’s rearing system makes
more effort for our layers than for the rest of the colony. The density in the rearing containers is less;
therefore the return from that rearing unit is a little bit less, resulting in fewer
issues with pupation substrates.
Dr. Staten found that the
size of the moth depended on what time of the day or what time the cut was
being taken out of the enclosure would determine whether it was a large or
small moth. There are many many nuances
that determine so many different factors which are controlled by human
decisions and it could give us variables that I do not want to see here. If we are going to do this, we need to
control these variables to the maximum degree possible.
Steve felt that there would
be potentially more replications versus fewer replications. How big of a difference is biologically
significant, because you can manipulate the statistics based on replication to
get whatever answer you want. You want
your “confidence band” to be as large as possible. If you do two replications, you are almost
certain you will find no difference.
However, if you do ten replications, you more than likely might find
something, even if it’s small. The more
replications, the more powerful the test.
How big of a difference is biologically meaning in terms of comparing
these two strains is the critical question.
That will determine how many replications are necessary.
Greg reported that this test
is more ambitious than their 2007 test.
Greg stated that it comes down to cost and program effectiveness. Steve advised that you have to look at how
big of a statistical difference is biologically meaningful, meaning that you
could have an insect that is 5% different in whatever you use to compare it,
however, if it gets the job done, then it may not matter. You have to determine what is
meaningful.
Charles stated that the
production itself is introducing a lot of differences between the two different
rearing facilities, which is muddying the water already. You’re not going to be cut real thin in terms
of looking at small differences and come up with those differences because the
rearing is different. Greg agreed. Charles stated that if we went to a DS Red
moth, it would be subject to the mass-rearing rules. Greg agreed.
Charles advised that you would have to write that in when presenting
your data, and does not feel that we could deal with that statistically. You would be dealing with a messier data
set.
Dr. Staten advised that the
most important issue is that the DS Red is an APHIS moth with one construct
introduced two times, so the only thing we really want to know is whether or
not that introduction changes the insect.
It may be there are some other subtle things, but the closer we can
control all of the variables, the better off we are.
Members liked the idea of
the partitioned shipping container so the release is the same every day in the
field and it does reduce the variability.
Ernie estimated the cost to be around $1,500. Ernie asked if you wanted to release six
consecutive days. Dr. Staten advised
that he can not release DS Red on his northern counties, so on the APHIS shipments,
Jim is treating the DS Red blocks and continuing to treat the other blocks. Jim said he has to release on the map on
those areas that aren’t receiving DS Red.
The only way he could do it without doing two flights a day, is every
other day. Dr. Staten verified that a
partition shipper would not help you.
Greg advised that not on that issue, but it would help with the mixing
issue only.
Greg is concerned about the
amount of staff hours that would have to go into rearing more insects. The size is right and the labor fits. The other design that was proposed by John
Klaus and then by Bob, is just mixing the pupae in the inclusion boxes and
taking what you get. There’s no
handling. It’s pre-mixed. The only issue you have is that the numbers
aren’t going to be exactly the same, but we can measure that. It just makes the analysis a little more
complicated, but over time the inclusion rates will even out. We will have to record what actually went
out, track it, index the trap recapture in our analysis, and work it through
the data. It will make the analysis more
difficult, but it can be done. It’s
simple because the handling is taken out of the equation and it’s actually a
nice design.
Upon inquiry, Ernie
explained that the shippers are like having three suitcases in one box where
each compartment is totally isolated, but when you pull the guillotine, they
will fall in the hopper at the same time and be augured out at the same
time. Charles mentioned that the only
thing you would need to do is maybe some quality control to sample and make
sure that the release ratio is equally distributed.
Dr. Staten verified Jim’s
calendar that was distributed concerning the alternating days and two-week time
cycle. The good part of it is as you add
finds, you will not be changing the release rates in one place by taking
something from here to treat another find; you will just be getting more APHIS
moths. Jim said that if he were to get a
find in Kern county, he would want to add that find section to the DS Red APHIS
strain test because he is dividing it, from an operational standpoint, into two
separate routes. You have to factor the
flight time route into the equation. Dr.
Staten confirmed that the same thing will happen in this test where the bottom section
[the one by itself] when you start release over last years cotton, then by June
or July you find out there’s no cotton in that field, and then it will be
dropped. So, there will be a real chance
that you will loose a rep at that point.
These are not this year’s cotton at the start of the season. These are going to be released over last year’s
cotton. As time progresses, there will
be shifts in this map. At some point in
June or July, you will have stabilized this years release areas. Jim advised that is true only if there are no
additional natives found outside these sections. Dr. Staten said that they will most likely
still get releases the rest of the season.
Jim agreed.
In the past, he had gone two
weeks beyond the second field generation.
He has not caught a native in a section under release at two weeks
beyond the second field generation. Jim
has the option of dropping that section from release. About that time, around mid-August, Jim is
picking up natives in other areas and we want to take the moths and put them in
the other areas. Because of the decline
in acreage that
Upon inquiry, Jim advised
that the traps are located in the same spot for the whole season, on the edge
of the cotton field. Trap placement does
not change through out the season. Dr.
Staten noted that the allocation of conventional APHIS moths to the
Jim estimated that he should
have a finalized map of the Kern county map by June 1st, and if
there’s no cotton in there, he will drop.
June 1st is way beyond over-wintering emergence, and there
would be no need to be releasing on that after that peak of over-wintering if
there’s no cotton on there. Jim advised
that he will concur with the group.
Steve asked if we try and
find a way around the one release a week versus two the following week. Greg noted that if we do any other design
other than this design, we can not send two shippers a day. This is the only design that keeps the
strains separate when they arrive at the CDFA lab. If it’s important to get the quality control
data from the CDFA lab, the only way we can accomplish that is to have them
separated. Jim inquired on Ernie’s
partition box. Greg concurred. Dr. Staten advised that this group is not
anticipated to make management decisions.
If the people who run the test see that they have a better way, they
will do what they have to do to manage this test. Dr. Staten wants to be able to tell the Pink
Bollworm Action Committee that the test that is going to be run was vetted as
well as we possibly could and be able to say that this is probably the best
test we can run. There has been a lot of
intense planning detail and thought put into this.
Dr. Staten had hoped that we
had a mixed shipment over the entire
Don Parker asked that the
Committee advise all members concerning the recent job changes that have
occurred. Charles Allen has taken
another position. Larry Smith will be
taking his place (who was also in attendance).
Greg Simmons accepted a four-year TDY on LBAM position in
Dr. Staten advised that we
will now review the competitiveness studies in
Leighton distributed a hand
out and advised that he and Cloti have made some modifications to their
proposal based on some concerns that were raised earlier this morning, and he
will incorporate those modifications during his discussion with the group. A couple of questions that motivated these
designs in regards to DS Red are what is the point to releasing sterile
moths? It is to mitigate an in-field
population or prevent a population from moving in. With an over-flooding type situation, you
have a smaller native population, and you are releasing sterile moths to do
that. This brought forth the idea of
using ratios.
One of the moths performing
as “established population”, and in over-flooding moths, as sterile released
insects like the program would do. The
second question is in regards to competitiveness. We have seen in program data vast differences
in captures in light situations when the numbers of moths are decreased per
acre per day. That is the rational
behind the structure of our study.
We originally planned for eleven
treatments, four replications and forty-four fields (10-20 acres on each
field). We discussed doing alternate
releases; DS Red one day and APHIS the next day. We also discussed doing single native
releases (one flight APHIS and one flight DS Red) on the same day. Several methods were discussed.
We submitted our study to
Bob and the statistician reviewed it and advised the best method of approach is
what Bob expressed earlier. Cloti and I
further refined the study in asking how we can simplify it and get more
replications out of it. With some
guidance from Ernie and Bob and Larry, we have decided that the best way to
achieve our goal would be to have three treatments at 100 moths/acre/day, 250
moths/acre/day and 600 moths/acre/day.
Those would be half DS Red and half APHIS moths. Under those conditions, we would be able to
do six replications, eighteen fields, and would consume 1.5 million DS Red
moths.
In consideration of targeting
on a per field basis, we have solved an anticipated problem in the time lost
when the pilot flips the switch to release insects, compared to when they are
actually coming out of the plane. We have
created a buffer for the pilot, so that the pilot will be in full-release mode when
he goes over the field.
Cloti feels that it is a
good design to show a side-by-side comparison behavior of the two strains as
well as providing the capture rate data and longevity. Additionally, it would be convenient as we
would conduct it in Maricopa county.
Leighton advised that under this structure, the moths would be packaged
together under one shipper. Releases
would be done in three days. Bob
verified that it would be conducted on a group of Bt fields where there is very
little activity. Leighton
concurred.
Bob inquired whether it
would be appropriate for the program to avoid that area and consider these the
refugia moths for that area. Leighton
concurred and further advised there would be four weeks or releases, and
trapping two weeks beyond that. Dr.
Staten said that assuming we do not get permit in California, if you had the
“full tilt” production, could you do this over a month period of time and go
through and see what your data is doing, and have the ability to modify it
quickly if you wanted to. You could get
a full set of data and evaluate and turn it into a three-tiered test? Leighton advised that it was possible.
Upon inquiry, Leighton
explained that he was using the 600 moth release rates because of the
limitations of the machine. At 600,
which would not be too far off from what we have done in the past with extra
moths trying to mitigate a population, the pilot would be making four passes
over the field just to satisfy this. Bob
clarified that three treatments would be run six times for a total of eighteen
fields. Leighton concurred. Ted clarified that eighteen fields would be
the total. Dr. Staten commented that it
is far more a conventional replicated laboratory trial rather than trying to
run in an operational mode.
Upon inquiry, Cloti advised
that that they would be able to do mating propensity 48-hours after sorting
them by gender. Jim explained how they
currently sort them by gender in
Steve asked what the
hypothesis is. Do you expect that when
you get higher densities, you are going to get radical changes in behavior of
these two strains? Leighton advised that
he has seen that indicated in program data in
Cloti added that we are
looking to see if we can get traps shut down earlier with the higher densities
of moths. Leighton stated that would put
pressure on the insect. Dr. Staten
clarified that one of Leighton and Cloti’s hypothesis is that one of these may
show up different from the other because it is a high number rather than low
numbers. Leighton advised that it might
accentuate a difference between the moths.
Jim asked if you would know
whether or not it was females out calling from one strain versus the other or
males being more responsive in one strain.
Dr. Staten stated that you would not know. Cloti offered to put out mating cages and
actually go out and look. We can’t
really get a sense of what the females actual do. Cloti offered to look at it to see which
males are responding to females and things of that nature.
Don Parker verified that the
different treatment rates are trying to see when you shut down the traps. The purpose of the DS Red would be to make
sure you are getting similar performance behavior between the two strains, so
that you know what you expect to catch. Steve
inquired, and Cloti confirmed that they would be rearing these themselves. Dr. Staten noted that the ultimate question
would be where would we put the priority if we had the choice to run both? We don’t have the choice to run both? That is the idea.
Don inquired on the trap
density. Leighton advised that it was up
for discussion. Dr. Staten advised
normally a non-Bt field would be trapped at one trap per ten acres and one
could assume that would be the minimum trap density. Leighton concurred. Leighton advised that he uses fifteen for the
purposes of discussion because in the original document he assumed 10-20
acres.
Leighton advised that
originally he was hoping to do this in Pinal county where he had ideal cotton
fields spread out around the
Don advised that you may not
have a cluster of traps at that one location.
If you had a field that had adequate isolation from your adjacent
fields, you may be able to run a trap line across there to see dispersal out at
those different densities, and you may also be able to get some longevity
information. Leighton advised there
would three releases per week for four weeks for a total of twelve completely
mixed releases.
Don inquired if it was
documented enough on the movement of insects from the release site. Dr. Staten reported that we did use data that
was presented to EPA. The vast majority
of movement from the
Charles Allen verified his
understanding concerning the number of reps, fields, mixing of moths, etc. and
inquired how you would design it on a map.
Cloti answered that in general he would try and block it, but he wasn’t
sure how the fields were set up in Maricopa county. Charles asked if you would try and put three
fields; one with 100, 250 and 600 in each block. Cloti advised that they would try and select
three fields with similar conditions.
Charles verified that for the three fields in one replication, and you
may also call that a block, to be similar, but maybe somewhat dissimilar and
maybe somewhat geographically isolated from the three fields in the next
block. Cloti agreed. Steve stated that you would want sufficient
independence even between the fields within a rep, but you want something like
an equivalent planting date, or an equivalent variety, within a rep. The goal would be to eliminate as much
variation as you can. Charles felt that
you could completely minimize it, but the danger in that where you may have
several treatments under fairly similar conditions. Charles would rather see it blocked.
Dr. Staten asked Cloti and
Leighton to point out on the map where their likely location would be. Leighton showed where you would be splitting
Maricopa and showed the possibility of locations. Leighton advised that one of the areas mentioned
last year as well as this year is 100% Bt.
Cloti reiterated that they will try and get fields that are as similar
as possible, such as the same grower in order to have the same cultural
practices.
Charles asked that with the
exception of the high release rate, what do you get from this data that you
don’t get from the previous one. Cloti
verified that you would get the same data.
Charles stated that as far as resources and personnel are decisions that
Cloti and Leighton would have to make, as well as the locality. Charles felt that you may get to a point
where you can do one, and not both. Dr.
Staten suspects that may be the case.
Dr. Staten feels that it’s absolutely critical that we have some
options. There is a real good chance
that
Greg advised that we have a
choice number two. Greg advised that the
same experiment we have for Jim with the permit submitted, we talked about
having an aircraft. His intention was to
repeat the 2007 experiment on a larger scale.
Dr. Staten requested that we finish discussing
Leighton stated that if it
is going to be done in
Greg added that a permit has
been applied for with a design that would encompass either experiment. An
Don noted that one of the
big differences between the two is that it would test political waters in
Charles advised that the
Ted asked if there would
program releases to satisfy EPA over other fields in the area. Dr. Staten reported that there will be
program releases that will satisfy EPA.
Under these circumstances, you can probably keep the drop plane at a
reasonable distance and this is all Bt.
USDA recommends 10 per acre per
day. USDA is recommending that we avoid
these areas for a certain amount of time.
We can probably avoid these areas for a certain period of time under
intensive monitoring. We can keep test
integrity from other releases here by keeping them in a strict Bt area where we
have no hazard, and monitoring to make sure there are no natives found during
this time period that would cause us concern from our resistance perspective.
Ted asked how handle the
data for grower applications if you have one rep that gets hit and another that
doesn’t. The grower could use an
application of insecticide on one field and not the other. Dr. Staten reported that insecticide use in
Tom expressed concern over
proximity effects, distance between the fields and temperature differences. Leighton reported that one of the options he
has available is that program-wise he has one trap per forty acres on all of
the Bt cotton. He could pull from some
of the program traps to glean some of the information.
Leighton was asked what he
thinks the planting will look like in 2009?
Will you have a good enough grid to do what you need to do with the
program data? Larry advised that it
should be similar. He has heard from his
growers that it should be about the same acreage, maybe a little more, but
that’s optimistic. Leighton added that
he does not anticipate any non-Bt cotton in that area.
When asked how the day would
go, Leighton replied that ideally, we would get the moths packaged in the
shipper, and get them to the airport. We
would commence release as early as possible on the test fields. Charles asked about the release rates. Leighton specified that the higher rate is
the one that has a problem with the number of passes. The intermediate rate would be two passes and
the lower rate would be one pass. Dr.
Staten verified that the control setting on the plane is the same. Upon inquiry, Leighton advised that they will
have to flip the switch on the plane as well.
He will have to calibrate the release rates. Even at the intermediate rate, you start
running into output problems.
Charles verified that the
number may not come out exactly as you have them, but those are the target
numbers. The release rate, whatever it
is, will be the same each week. Leighton
reported that it will be the same machine, same auger, same pilot, etc. Leighton advised that they will have
distinguished calibrated settings on the machine, and there are four switch
settings. It was clarified that Leighton
will fly three days a week. Leighton
advised he uses standard measures, and if it’s spread out over a distance, one
release will start out at one end, and then the next one will be reversed.
Dr. Staten offered that if
you are looking to run this at first bloom, you may want to run your high rate
at a low elevation of flight in order to see just how much movement we will get
before you pick your fields and the distances between them. You can do that with standard APHIS
moths. You can set up some very
intensive trap grids, and would definitely be worthwhile.
Charles asked if there was a
difference in wind and speed during early season in
Greg discussed Oxitec’s
riddle strain. Dr. Staten advised that
we will try and cover other things if we have time, and urged that we stick to
the agenda. Dr. Staten welcomed Bob Hull
and went over a very brief overview of what the Committee was currently
discussing. The goal is for the
Technical Committee to vet both proposed trials and advise the Action Committee
that we have reviewed these projects scientifically. Upon inquiry, Don advised that we are
submitting scientific discussion to the Technical Committee. The TAC can report to the AC that we reviewed
the research proposals and offered scientific comment to the researchers for
their consideration.
Jim Rudig went over 1x
(125), 2x (250) and 4x (500) and advised that if throwing a switch is not an
option, doing it in flight would simply it.
Dr. Staten then asked if there were any comments by non-Committee
individuals.
Dr. Miller advised that in looking
at the design, the field size is too small.
He felt that in releasing by aircraft, there is a delay in response by
the pilot concerning the release activating in the machine which runs about a
quarter-mile. There isn’t much room for
error. Dr. Staten advised that he is
planning on leading the field by as much as a field length in order to
accommodate that delay. Leighton advised
that there are differences from machine to machine as well, in how fast the
gate opens and he will measure that and factor it in. Jim agreed with Ernie and stated you are
going one mile in thirty seconds, and it’s very difficult to target a
field. Leighton advised that he would
buffer it out on the pilot’s AgNav screen.
Dr. Miller asked for clarification in the reason for using three
densities. Dr. Staten advised that you
may get a feel for some interaction that no one has ever expected.
Steve Naranjo stated that a
bigger test is always going to be more powerful, and that it would be a
contingency analysis, or a ratio of the two strains could be the response
variable. Dr. Staten confirmed that it
would be a relatively simple statistic, but it would be powerful. Steve concurred. Ted asked how you would know if what you are
seeing is real. Dr. Staten advised that
is the crux of the entire discussion.
Charles stated that he would
like to see a design like that. If the
reason for the
Don advised that the
difference in what Greg was doing was that he was releasing over that section
and they are talking about an isolated field.
Greg argued that the tests are the same.
Leighton advised that he sees different trends in the data at different
rates. Charles advised that the release
rate is really not the objective. The
goal is whether or not DS Red is responding differently from APHIS. When reviewing the designs, we don’t have to
really get into things that do not pertain to the objective. The release rate is interesting, but we want
to see if the two moths are similar in their response to the pheromone
trap. Leighton advised that the response
changes as the density of moths changes.
Charles felt that it may be addressed in both
Greg advised that the number
of moths they are asking for, he feels he could supply. On a smaller scale, he could probably handle
it. It would be more of a question of
staff and resources, but moth-wise, he could do it. He would like to try to include some of the
other questions including getting some longevity data out it. That could be the benefit of running both of
the studies. You are only talking about
189,000 moths per week, which are the moths that would be tossed on the
off-day, so he would have enough moths.
Leighton advised that he has not had enough time to re-write the
proposal and that it is going to change again if we follow Jim’s suggestion,
which Leighton feels he should. It won’t
effect any of the things we are trying to look at if we go 100-200-400. Leighton was calculating about 250,000 moths
per week per treatment. Greg advised
that if it were a
Michelle Walters stated that
sometimes they are releasing a lot of moths and we don’t catch them as we want
to in order to do the ratios, but she doesn’t know why it is or how to measure
it. She reported that they are not
responding to the trap, but that doesn’t mean that they are even in the field,
or that they are shut down by too many females.
Wild moths don’t do that. Why do
we think our sterile moths do that? Michelle
stated that if you do the study, you are dealing with reared moths. It would tell you something about how reared
moths behave, especially using a lot of replications. As opposed to the Fall, Summer would be a
good time to perform that test.
Upon inquiry, Dr. Staten
reported that he has not seen data that shows that you are getting trap shut
down by excessive number. You get lower
and lower percentages of recover, but has never seen it “beat” the numbers in
the field. Leighton advised that you are
trying to compare a released moth to a wild moth. He is doing something with the released moths
that you would never see in a wild population anyway with the
over-flooding. Michelle stated that in
Buckeye during the middle of the day she had seen pink bollworm flying around,
which means that they do not have any place to land. Charles agreed. Dr. Staten concurred.
Don Parker reported that
there is some data showing pheromone interference with trapping. There is biological data supporting that
hypothesis. Dr. Staten reported that the
pheromone reception in the sterile is not the same as the native. Michelle confirmed that the sterile is more
easily confused. Dr. Staten agreed.
Bobby Hull expressed
concerning that we are comparing one false moth to another false moth, when
really we want to compare to real moths.
All of the historical data we have is comparing native moths to the
APHIS moth, and so now we are studying the relationship of the dyed moth to the
APHIS moth, and in a real population sense, we really want to compared the
native moth with the dyed moth. Dr.
Staten advised that right now we can’t.
The more important issue is did we do anything at all by inserting that
gene in two locations to the APHIS strain, because they are actually the same
moth, with the exception of the existence of two constructs on two separate
chromosomes.
The question is whether or
not we are we going to change the rearing facility to the new moth. Dr. Staten reported that he does not know of
anywhere the test could be run where we would have enough native insects moth
left to get a comparison against native insects. There are a few places in
Dr. Staten will go through
all of the minutes after Tish has completed them. Those of you who are designing experiments
and those of you in management have as much benefit as possible out of
this.
Tom Miller inquired whether
or not Dr. Staten wanted him to take a copy of the description of the intended
experiments and it past the editor of the Journal of Economic Entomology. They are pretty quick about turning things
around. Don Parker expressed concern
regarding our function, which is just to provide input, and feels that should
be the decision of the researchers themselves.
That would be great to offer them, and may be very helpful to them, if
they agree. We do not want to dictate
their research. Dr. Miller said that if
the researchers are interested, they can get in touch with him. Greg asked if he could list him as a
suggested reviewer of the 2007 work. Dr.
Miller said that if it is the same thing, that would be fine.
Dr. Staten advised that he
is going to table the program release issues for the moment, and asked Cloti to
provide a quick summary of other marker work.
Cloti advised that he is currently looking for a supplier for strontium
and rubidium in order to perform testing on their diet. If he is able to obtain it at a reasonable
price, his goal is to make diet with rubidium in it and to perform testing in
field cages. Currently, he has looked at
the literature and has some concentrations for rubidium that he may use. Upon inquiry, Cloti reported that he found
literature on rubidium that mentions strontium.
Charles asked what the objective is in using the markers. Cloti reported that it gives you an
additional marker besides the Calico red dye.
It would be done in the APHIS lab.
Dr. Staten advised that once incorporated in the body of the insect, he
would guess that it would have less chance of being lost over time. Dr. Miller concurred. Charles inquired on the cost. Cloti advised that the price for rubidium is
$150 for 100 grams, although that is pure.
He tried to do the stable isotopes with Carbon 13 and Carbon 12, with
mixed results. Cloti suspects that may
have been due to the fact that it was not pure sugar cane, but rather some sugar
bead beat sugar. Ernie advised that do
now have sugar cane. There is no label
that identifies it as cane sugar unless you specifically order cane sugar and
this year we are 100% cane sugar. Dr.
Staten urged Cloti to summarize all of the literature he can find on both
rubidium, and everything you can find on strontium. Rubidium is even used as a trace element to
measure competitiveness of sterile moths.
The data was very compelling that it had no effect on the
competitiveness of the moth. If we can
find a way to use rubidium, even if it’s only used for the last three weeks of
production, the time when the issue over marking seems to be most acute is at
the end of the season, when you’ve pulled release, the temperature has fallen,
the moth is living a long time. That
seems to be when we get dye depletion by age, if that is what has happened to
us in the
Dr. Staten moved the
discussion toward the requested change in definition of eradication, and
distributed a hand out. He also stated
that we need to discuss minimum standards for trapping like
Dr. Staten reported that
there was a definition of “eradication” put forth at the last Board
meeting. Larry distributed a hand out
reflecting the exact wording that the Arizona Cotton Research & Protection
Council proposed. The top paragraph went
through the Action Committee at their last meeting. When it came back to Arizona, the experiences
of the Arizona growers, particularly with karnal bunt, makes them very
sensitive on how eradication is defined, and how regulations might have
unintended consequences to them and their livelihood. Dr. Staten advised that it is an emotional
issue. They have forwarded to the Action
Committee a request for changing the wording of the first paragraph. It will certainly be a more fluid term at the
ground level. The question is will it
satisfy the people who are promoting changes in labels and others. It is strange to promote a position leaning
towards eliminating regulation, not asking for regulation.
Larry reported that the
Arizona Cotton Growers Association has a Pink Bollworm Committee among it’s
members. It is apart from the
Council. Rick Lavis is their key
lobbyist, which lends itself to thinking about law and statute. Basically, they have two approaches. They do not like the idea of zero
tolerance. Zeros are difficult to deal
with.
More importantly to that
group is by statute,
Larry reported that
From a practical standpoint
as a program manager, Larry believes that we will be completed by the end of
this year. In other words, in 2010,
Larry does not expect to have to put any pheromone or insecticide on any non-Bt
cotton in central or eastern
Bob Hull stated that at the
end of the day we have to loose our mindset and realize that there will be a
few moths from time to time. We have to set
up a system of cooperation within government and science that will take care of
these stragglers moths and also any outbreaks that may occur. We need a funding source to take care of
those issues. Certainly, the
Dr. Miller advised that the
greatest danger in the aftermath of a successful pink bollworm eradication
program is complacency. If you are
dealing in the post-eradication era, all fields become monitoring sites, no
matter what kind. Dr. Miller likes the
definition, and stated he understands taking into account the “fly-ins”. If you switch the complacency of everyone
involved to realize that any field in the pink bollworm free area now becomes a
huge magnet, it becomes a sensor or detector for fly-ins. It is human nature to be complacent when the
problem is gone.
Charles deferred to Mr.
Smith (his replacement). Mr. Smith felt
that you must have flexibility, and liked the definition.
Don liked the definition as
well. If you find something at the level
that we had defined it before, you can run into a lot of problems. The zero detection of carcinogen functionally
worked at that time, but then over time, the ability to detect something
increased so dramatically, that it ended up locking out everything. You can paint yourself into a corner by
passing something too stringent. It can
defeat the purpose you are trying to achieve.
Steve advised that the
insect will never be truly eradicated from
Jim also likes the first
paragraph because it is consistent with Fruit Fly eradication definitions. They even came up with a number of males in a
geographic area, and simply because you catch one or two males does not mean
that you have a problem.
Dr. Staten advised that the
weak spot in item number one could be attacked when we go for the 24c because
we haven’t defined what it means to not have evidence of a breeding
population. Hopefully, we can defer that
if we have very strong, well-written contingency plans for what we do when we
find even a single moth in an area. Then
our argument will be that they really don’t care how we define
eradication. You can’t respond to a
resistant population as well as we will respond to even a single find. That should eliminate those concerns. The rest of the argument will be amongst
those who want to write and publish papers.
Dr. Staten is willing to accept this, and the test will be when we go to
EPA.
Don stated that EPA and the
natural refuge is not as important as upsetting the growers over this
definition. Dr. Staten concurred. Don advised that we would be better off not
to have natural refuge because of the disagreement with EPA, than to have
growers upset and filing a lawsuit because of a definition. Larry reported that natural refuge is
extremely important to
Don asked that if that
definition then did not change, because we wanted to satisfy something with
EPA, we are stuck with the original definition and that definition then met
some straggler moth came through and prevented you from having eradicated an
area within your four year period of time, would you then have a grower
problem? Larry stated that if it weren’t
properly explained, we could. Don
reiterated that the scenario could be a little more serious rather than dealing
with EPA over that. Larry reported that
he felt the growers could be dealt with, and liked the broader definition,
which allows some flexibility, knowing that our plan is to be as stringent as
possible. Larry felt that the
contingency / remedial action plan will probably matter more to EPA. If you have the ability to react and have a
plan in place that will allow you to respond should anything come up would
satisfy them and felt we could have the best of both worlds. Don concurred.
Greg discussed continued
support from USDA for sterile insect budget.
As it relates to the definition of reproducing population, we may want
to do some research on that issue, so that we do keep tools and budget
available to us for the post-eradication phase.
That would help our side to keep supporting the rest of the eradication
and the post-eradication. What is the
evidence of reproducing applications?
Some of this is researchable, and that we could maybe help in addressing
it specifically to the program.
M/S/P Don Parker moved to accept the
amended definition (item #1) of eradication as proposed by the
[Polled: Bob Hull,
Jim Rudig, Steve Naranjo, Don Parker, Charles Allen / Larry Smith, Tom Miller,
Ted Boratynski, Bob Staten, Larry Antilla]
Jim Rudig reported that in
the
Larry reported that it is
similar to boll weevil in post-eradication development. A single weevil does not trigger an
overwhelming response, but it does trigger a series of actions. It is only two or more that result in
escalating scenarios. A remedial action
plan can be included and is not vague.
If you go out and cut a few bolls and don’t find anything, you surmise
it is not reproducing.
Steve inquired about the
eradication definition for boll weevil.
Larry answered that basically it was the inability to find any
reproducing populations. In 1991, we did
not catch any weevils at all. In 1994,
we caught one near a railroad track out of 2,500 traps per year.
Jim reported that the last
weevil he caught was in 1990 and declared it eradicated in 1993. Dr. Staten reported that there is no
consistency in the definition of eradication for boll weevil from state to
state. Some states did not have
declaration criteria.
Dr. Staten moved the
discussion to step down monitoring guidelines and emergency response plan. Item #3 refers to monitoring guidelines,
which we should define. Charles stated that
you can scientifically get a handle on it.
As long as we understand that, and consider the risk, that should be the
objective.
Dr. Staten reported that
they had an elaborate plan which they put before the group during the National
Cotton Council meeting. We will have to
talk about traps per acre.
Don asked if there are
sufficient differences in the
Dr. Staten feels most
comfortable leaving the minimum standards in place for two years after
eradication as far as trap density. They
were good enough to get us here. Ted
verified that there is one trap per ten acres in conventional and one trap per
forty acres in non-Bt cotton in
Don stated that it is not a
good idea to separate
A member stated that Dr.
Staten reported earlier that
Charles felt that you could
work some of this through definitions.
You could use the words “not generally” or “not widely” infested or something along those lines in
order to make a distinction in
Jim advised that he
disagreed in that if he has gone through it and trapped it 1/40 and 1/10 and hasn’t
found anything, why do you think you need to continue trapping at that
level? Jim feels you do not, but you can
go to a different level. Jim feels that
the trapping density needs to be tied to the control activity, if you find
it. Ted clarified that it’s detection
and monitoring, not control.
Larry stated that if we do
not find any larvae in central and eastern
Charles remembers that in
the boll weevil discussions, you set up risk zones, so that in the higher risk
areas, there is a different minimum standard compared to the lower risk
areas. Larry advised that pink bollworm
moves a lot differently than boll weevil.
Charles felt that if you were not held to minimum standards, and were
able to convey that to the growers, you could trap at more dense levels.
Upon inquiry, Jim advised
that infested sections were trapped at one to forty, which is the standard
Charles advised that you
could set up risk zones. Jim said that
he has bio-potential zones that have low risk due to climatology, and forty
years of trapping data. Don stated that
we have to keep in mind too that while everyone here understands this now, a
couple of years from now, you will have some people who don’t understand it and
will ask why they are paying this for so many traps. Budgetary issues will exist and we need to be
honest about what is a comfortable trapping density at the minimum. We know that there is not a lot of data to
support it one way or the other, but we need to focus on the minimum.
Larry advised that his
concern is that until we are at a point where the entire area has been completed
eradicated, he can not afford to back off on the trapping, because he does not
have enough money to do a wide spread treatment program. At the end of this year, Larry looses the
ability to fund anything other than sterile moth treatments, with the exception
of a small contingency fund which can be used to treat small acreage that may
be re-infested. If he had a thousand
acres that were infested, that would create a huge problem budgetarily. Bob Hull stated that there needs to be a new
referendum stating that we are at about an eradication point, or bale
assessment fees to justify having a big enough contingency fund in order to
deal with these issues.
Jim deals with a large
geographic area, as
Don advised that it does
help to discuss things that go on in boll weevil while we are talking about
pink bollworm post-eradication. If we
can use some of their experience, that would be to our advantage. Charles inquired, and Larry answered, that
his trapping for boll weevil now is a trap per quarter section in cotton on as
much of a grid as possible, beyond fifty miles of the border. Within fifty miles of the border, which is
probably not applicable anymore, we are at a trap per forty acres.
Dr. Staten stated that
Upon inquiry, Jim reported
that the
Charles stated that since
the pink bollworm in more apt to movement, state that beyond one hundred miles
of an active pink bollworm population, a minimum standard would be one trap per
hundred acres. Then you would have the
flexibility within the
Upon inquiry, Dr. Staten
answered that if
Bob Hull stated that when we
don’t have the ability to attack a problem freely, quickly and accurately, we
have got a problem. Don reported that the
Boll Weevil Technical Advisory Committee had a recommendation that there needs
to be a reserve pool for use wherever needed, because of the difficulties
associated with moving funds across the states.
There was supposed to be a program fund in order to deal with
outbreaks. Charles advised that the fund
was only accessible if the program met the minimum standards.
Ted Boratynski asked about
an area where they stockpiled equipment and things of that nature, that they
could bring to bear. Don reported that
there had been some proposals, but it has not been finalized. Larry advised that a while ago, there was a
discussion that occurred regarding various areas having some sort of
contingency fund regarding minimum standards in order to be able to tap into
that pool. Larry wasn’t sure if that
stuck or not. Charles advised that it is
a concept, but is not complete. Don
Parker advised that things should get wrapped up soon. Within two years, we will no longer have a
Boll Weevil Action Committee, rather we will have a Boll Weevil Post-Action
Committee where everything has to roll into a totally different approach and
totally different structure.
Don asked if the Committee
is in consensus in the approach that the trap densities are based on the distance
from the risk zone? Dr. Staten felt that
is our best option. Don stated we should
start discussing the actual distances we want to use. Ted asked if we are going to discuss what is
going to happen in the areas that have been declared eradicated in the two
years after the eradication is declared.
Don stated that we should define our distances first from the risk
zones. Upon Dr. Staten’s request,
Leighton put up the map districts on the screen.
Dr. Staten asked that we get
some broad concepts of how this should flow and then get a small group write it
up and write it out because we are starting to run out of time. Don concurred. If we look at a map, we know what we want to
happen in the
Let’s look at Trans Pecos
and Juarez. Don asked which specific
area was
Don advised that there is a
referendum coming up in
The other risk in that area
other than the highway is
Charles advised that there
are active populations of pink bollworm within one hundred miles of cotton in
the Trans Pecos area. If you use the
hundred mile criteria, it’s where the trap density could drop off with the
Trans Pecos. You could do the same thing
along the river in
Dr. Staten reported that it
is still active eradication, so it is the hazard. Charles advised that he is looking beyond
that. In 2008, that area would be
eradicated. We didn’t find any evidence
of reproduction in the
Charles stated that he
didn’t catch anything within season, until last season. Charles reported that they went about eight
weeks without catching anything, and felt it was unreasonable to think that you
have a reproducing population when you are able to go to the middle of the year
without catching anything. Dr. Staten
disagreed. Charles stated that it could
be argued you don’t have a reproducing population right now in the Trans Pecos
area, according to this definition. Dr.
Staten stated that’s why he disagrees.
Don Parker agreed with
Charles, stating that by this definition, that is the case. Greg suggested that we may want to do some
research on this. Greg advised he
understands that the Committee is defining it that way in order to have a
resolution to use for the program. Don
stated that it would probably be a good idea, but we would need to have
something before the research can be done.
We have been trying to stress that.
Larry advised that one or two adult captures would not meet the
generational structure criteria.
Charles feels very strongly
that the late season captures were not native moths. The problem is that it’s guess. Dr. Staten reported that we have never
generated a fraction of data that says that dye is completely gone in any moth
that we know was ours under any experimental conditions. Charles reported that Greg Simmons has. Don stated that it was worth pointing out and
asked Greg to elaborate. Greg stated
that he did find one that was negative for Calico red, but positive for DS Red
on a PCR test. We also discovered that
the fluorescent microscope has an error rate.
We measured error rates on Calico and DS Red fluorescence. There were some moths we couldn’t PCR for
technical reasons. You can see the
Calico red going away. Dr. Staten
concurred, but we don’t have a body of experimental data where we have been
able to demonstrate that and define it under any controlled conditions.
The problem is even if we
know that it is possible, we have no way of knowing which one it is, and
therefore can not assign a probability statement. If you are very sure they were native,
Jim advised that concerning
the draft document that is a risk-based monitoring and post-eradication
scenario discussed earlier, Larry Antilla, Edward Herrera and I circulate what
is written up. Dr. Staten advised that
as Chairman, he would like to make the appointments. Jim stated that he was volunteering and
making a suggestion. Dr. Staten that
since he is here with Larry, Dr. Staten will work with Larry to draft
something, and get Jim on the phone and get it to him. We will do it in two tiers. We’ll do that and do the next tier. Dr. Staten would like to get it to Charles as
well because he is now neutral as far as program, which is a nice thing to have
him on the Committee. He is no longer a
Program Manager. The reason Dr. Staten
does not like Jim’s idea, is because it is all program management and Dr.
Staten wants it to come from the scientists as well. Jim concurred.
Dr. Staten suggested that we
look at it, look at the geography, and see how it fits. Make sure it’s going to stand up to the test
that we think it ought to stand up and then define those distances based on
that. Are people going to be comfortable
with having one trap per ten and one trap per forty? Are we going to be comfortable in
Dr. Staten advised that
given field sizes and field geography, perhaps we should look at the maps of
the area, and ask if we have this kind of density, what is it going to look
like, and are we going to find it in any field before we get a large larval
infestation. Jim stated that you can do
that trap density on a risk based approach.
There may be areas that you define as high risk or low risk areas where
you assign a particular trap density in order to distinguish. We can change that density and not loose the
program.
Larry advised that we can
also incorporate Charle’s idea, for example in
Don felt that there is
something we should clear up before the Draft Committee gets together so that
we know how to start approaching things.
Since we are going with the risk zones, he verified that Dr. Staten’s
intention is to keep
Ted asked how long you have
the sterile insect will be one of your tools.
Dr. Staten requested everyone look at the template carefully and make
sure that this is what we want to be working with. Don reported that earlier we had comments
about the nine square mile block, and because traps double in the nine square
mile, there were some heavy comments.
Dr. Staten advised we can back up on the trap data. Dr. Staten discussed the nine square mile
block when he met with Joe and Edward. Dr. Staten wanted to make sure that we
were all on the same page in how releases would be handled, because the plane
was flying out of
Greg asked if we should put
release rates into the document. Dr.
Staten said that we probably won’t.
Steve suggested that another source for information may be the pink
bollworm resistance to Bt remedial action plan.
Dr. Staten reported that is where they got the information for the nine
square mile concept. Upon inquiry by Ted
regarding the location of the epicenter, Dr. Staten reported that you could
never really define the true epicenter.
A member inquired whether or
not they should go farther in order to define larval finds, or is that the
second layer. Dr. Staten felt we should
look at evidence of reproduction. Bob
Hull stated that alerting the community is a good idea. You have PCA’s and farmers out in the
field. With the bloom survey, even if
you just ask people to look for the rosetta blooms, it still can be pretty
effective. Dr. Staten noted that the
early historical cases in
Don asked if there should be
a sterile release on any cotton field, with the capture at the epicenter, and when
comparing some of the boll weevil information, it was when you had a capture,
you increased your trapping, and if there was another capture, then you had
treatment around there. Larry agreed and
noted that your epicenter would expand around that. Don stated that if you have a capture on a
field, is that enough to justify that expense when it may have been a fly
in. Jim advised that you don’t have a
choice. You have to err on the
aggressive side and put out traps because the risk is too high.
Dr. Staten advised that the
technology for control in boll weevil is to kill it. Jim stated that he has had different criteria
depending on where he caught the moth.
If it is his hot zone, he immediately throws another trap in that field
and starts sterile release on that field the next day. If it’s in our least-concerned bio-potential
zone, we increase the trap density and sit on it and see what happens. In some cases, nothing ever happens. Charles stated that he doesn’t have a
bio-potential zone in
Don stated that if you are
talking about a minimum standard document, is the minimum response that is
acceptable going to be a sterile release on any cotton field within nine square
miles of that epicenter. Jim asked if
you don’t set a precedent in doing that where you are not going to treat, in
terms of where APHIS might go in the future in terms of rearing and
availability of steriles, and where that might go from there. Dr. Staten does not want anyone to draw
parallels too much between boll weevil and pink bollworm. We are using soft technology with pink
bollworm, and not killing it. Don
agreed.
Charles noted that there is
a very small window of time where you have the ability to address it before
that insect is in there laying eggs. Don
agreed. Charles asked the location of
the densest cotton producing area in 2009, and how many acres of cotton would
be within a nine square mile block? Dr.
Staten answered it would be in
The discussion moved to regulatory
issues, and referred to the document Greg distributed. Dr. Staten said that the reality is that the
regulatory issue has fallen to program managers. Dr. Staten reported that USDA APHIS has
agreed to absorb the cost of going after a general release plant permit for DS
Red. It will take more than a year. We should have a conference call, and we will
have to get it to Joe. He has two draft
letters. One refers to each program
manager sending in the request for the permit in order to release for DS Red. The other is to do it as a group where it would
be a document that each program manager would sign. When you release your sterile insects, you
are now releasing it under a permit that was applied for by the person who
receives the sterile insects. This keeps
it in that arena. It is incredibly
complex paperwork and there are a lot of things that make it very
difficult. You will be authorizing Bob
Rose to do it at the expense of APHIS.
Don stated that each program manager would be liable for meeting all of
the requirements of the permit. Dr.
Staten advised that is true with any permit.
The bad news is that sterile insects are excluding from labeling as
pesticides. Dr. Staten suggested that we
have a program manager call and get all of the information to you guys and do
it by conference call. Larry said that
he has not seen the document, and asked if he would have to discuss any
liability issues with the Attorney General for example. Dr. Staten advised that he believes it is
just like any other bio-control release permit.
Dr. Staten said that the
other issue they want to pursue is going forward to the organic grower
associations and trying to turn that around.
Don hopes that they would talk to the Council before initiating anything
like that, because he has been in communication with the BRS administration on
the improper solicitation of information.
Rebecca was doing an environmental assessment, which does not require
input from the organic association.
Upon inquiry, Don answered
that when the organic growers were asked about their position, they said they
really didn’t have one, and subsequently, they advised that genetically
engineered insects did not fit the model of organic. It was not compatible. Jim advised that as a condition of the permit
in
Don stated that he did have
a request in with BRS today trying to get some information. We have made a formal request this morning on
the status of permits and have not heard back yet.
M/S/P Steve Naranjo moved to adjourn the
meeting. Ted Boratynski seconded the
motion and the motion passed unopposed.