IInnssiiddee tthhiissiissssuuee......

NewsletterVol. 39 No. 3 July 2008

224466

1100

CCaannaaddiiaann PPRRRR PPrrooggrraamm

GGLLPPss AArreeEEvveerryywwhheerree

TThhee GGoolldd ooff PPlleeaassuurree

TThhee 22000088FFaarrmm BBiillll

Specialty crop growers have newinsecticides in their tool boxes thisyear: DuPont's Altacor® andCoragen® containingchlorantraniliprole as the activeingredient (also known asRynaxypyr® or DPX-E2Y45) is nowregistered! IR-4 data was used tosupport a number of specialty cropsthat growers may be surprised to findinitially appearing on these globallabels.

The chlorantraniliprole regulatorypackage marked the first truly globalreview of a pest control productwhich included regulatory bodies ofUSA, Canada, Ireland, UK, Australiaand New Zealand. The registration isnow approved in the US and Canadawith uses pending in Australia andNew Zealand. Each countryparticipated in the review byreviewing certain sections of thepackage then providing reviews tothe other participating countries forpeer review. In some cases, if onecountry fell behind in the reviewprocess, other countries stepped upto ensure that the project mettimelines. In the end the package,with a global review, beat the USEPA Pesticide RegistrationImprovement Act (PRIA) mandatedtimelines. Although it is not likelythat all global reviews could meetsuch an aggressive timeline, theregulatory agencies are confidentthey can meet mandated timelineslike PRIA.

IR-4 was first informed ofchlorantraniliprole at a confidentialmeeting with DuPont personnel in thespring of 2003. The product was stillunder development but its superiorefficacy and wide margins of safetytowards man and the environmentindicated a good fit for Lepidopteracontrol in specialty crops. At IR-4 wewanted to do what we could to makesure specialty crop growers would beamong the first to take advantage ofthe benefits of this new class ofchemistry.

Under a secrecy agreement, DuPontshared with IR-4 their plans for initialregistration. They shared their globalstrategy and IR-4 shared the needs ofspecialty crop growers. A partnershipwas formed to address these needsand provide a new tool for growers.

IR-4 encouraged DuPont to releaseinformation on chlorantraniliprole atthe Food Use Workshop inSeptember of 2004 where manyresearchers, extension personnel, andprogressive growers were present.DuPont agreed, which marked thefirst time that the new product waspublicly presented. Severalentomologists and others familiar withthe IR-4 priority setting process wereanxious to submit project requests.Requests for peaches and/or grapescame in from Michigan, Pennsylvania,New Jersey, and Georgia. Theseprojects received High Priorityranking from stakeholders.

DuPont agreed to a joint IR-4research partnership to registerchlorantraniliprole on grapes andpeaches and assisted in funding fieldtrial sites. IR-4 managed these sites toproduce the residue samples whichwere analyzed in an IR-4 Laboratory(Jau Yoh’s Lab at the University ofFlorida).

The high priority need of these useswas also shared by our partners inCanada. The Agriculture & Agri-FoodCanada's Pest Management Centrealso provided field sites in Canada tocomplete the North Americanregistration package. The Canadiansites were managed by IR-4 with thesamples also going to the Universityof Florida analytical laboratory.Canadian participation guaranteed theregistration on grapes and peacheswould promote trade between theU.S. and Canada.

IRR--44,, DDuuPPoonntt,, aannddGGlloobbaall CCooooppeerraattiioonn—— bbyy IIRR--44 EEnnttoommoollooggyy PPrrooggrraamm MMaannaaggeerr,, KKeeiitthh DDoorrsscchhnneerr aanndd

IIRR--44 AAssssoocciiaattee DDiirreeccttoorr,, DDaann KKuunnkkeell

continued on page 3

.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. iirr44..rruuttggeerrss..eedduu .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

IInnffoorrmmaattiioonn EExxcchhaannggee

The IR-4 Newsletter is published quarterly for distribution to cooperators in ourpartner State/Federal/Industry research units, State and Federal officials, privateinterest groups, and private citizens. Material from the IR-4 Newsletter may bereproduced with credit to the publication. Major funding for IR-4 is provided byUSDA-CSREES and USDA-ARS in cooperation with the State Agricultural ExperimentStations. New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station Publication No.P-27200-08-03,supported by state, US Hatch Act, and other US Department of Agriculture funds.

EEddiittoorr:: SShheerrrriillyynnnn NNoovvaacckkIR-4 Public Relations and Communications, 732.932.9575 x 4632,novack@aesop.rutgers.eduNNeewwsslleetttteerr CCoommmmiitttteeee::IR-4 Administrative Advisors Chair, DDaanniieell RRoossssii,,Northeast Regional Field Coordinator, EEddiitthh LLuurrvveeyy, 315.787.2308. North Central Regional Director, BBoobb HHoolllliinnggwwoorrtthh,, 517.432.7718. Western Regional Assistant Field Coordinator, SStteepphheenn FFllaannaaggaann,, 541.752.9291. Southern Regional Field Coordinator, CChhaarrlliiee MMeeiisstteerr 352.392.2399, and AssistantRRoobbiinn AAddkkiinnss 352.392.1978. USDA/ARS Field Representative, BBeenn FFrraaeelliicchh, 229.386.3609. Commodity Liaison Committee member, DDaavvee TTrriinnkkaa of MBG Marketing,269.434.6791. AL State Liaison Representative, CChhaarrlleess GGiilllliiaammIR-4 HQ, Assistant Director, VVaann SSttaarrnneerr:: Technical Coordinator /Entomology, KKeenn SSaammooiill and Quality Assurance Specialist, JJaannee FFoorrddeerr 732.932.9575.

TThhee IIRR--44 NNeewwsslleetttteerr VVooll 3399.. NNoo..33 JJuullyy 22000088

22

In 2003, Agriculture and Agri-FoodCanada (AAFC) established the PestManagement Centre (PMC) toimplement its Pest ManagementPrograms. This was part of a federalgovernment initiative in response to anumber of concerns regardingagricultural pest management inCanada. Key issues included theavailability of minor use pesticideproducts to improve the competitiveposition of Canadian farmers, and theneed for strategies to reduce risks tohealth and the environment from theuse of pesticides in Canadianagriculture. The Minor Use PesticidesProgram (see IR-4 Newsletter Vol. 39No1 p. 6-7) was established toaddress the issue of access topesticides, while the Pesticide RiskReduction program, the subject ofthis article, was designed to supportgrowers' on-going efforts to managepests. Together, the programscontribute to sustainable pestmanagement strategies, and improvegrowers' access to reduced risk andminor use pesticides.

The Pesticide Risk Reduction (PRR)program works jointly with HealthCanada's Pest ManagementRegulatory Agency (PMRA) todevelop strategies to reduce the risksfrom pesticides used in theagriculture and agri-food industry.

The PRR Program focuses on priorityareas for risk reduction through theuse of biological controls andreduced risk pest managementapproaches. As such, it is similar tothe Strategic Agricultural Initiative,and the Pesticide EnvironmentalStewardship Program of the US-EPAin supporting environmentally sound

agricultural and pest managementpractices.

The Program creates a frameworkthrough which growers develop andimplement pesticide risk reductionstrategies based on input fromstakeholders. An initial set of suchstrategies have advanced to the pointwhere adoption by interested growersis being promoted and supported.Many stakeholder consultationsinvolving grower groups and users,the pesticide industry, other levels ofgovernment and a number of publicinterest groups continue to beundertaken to ensure results arehighly focused on the sector's keyissues.

Program priorities are based on

pesticide risk and the potential forrisk reduction through integrated pestmanagement tools and practices.Commonalities among pests, cropsand risks are identified and strategiesare developed to find alternativesolutions, including biopesticides, toissues that may impact a variety ofcrops and pests.

To date several pest managementtools have been made available togrowers. As an example, aGrasshopper Identification & ControlMethods Handbook was developed tohelp growers distinguish beneficialgrasshoppers from harmful ones.Through the use of colorphotographs, the handbook displaysspecific features of grasshopper

CCaannaaddiiaann PPeessttiicciiddee RRiisskkRReedduuccttiioonn PPrrooggrraammAAcchhiieevviinngg SSuucccceessss—— bbyy SStteeffaann BBuussssmmaannnn,, PPrroojjeecctt CCoooorrddiinnaattoorr,, PPRRRR PPrrooggrraamm LLeesslliiee CCaassss,, AAccttiinngg MMaannaaggeerr,, PPRRRR PPrrooggrraamm

.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. iirr44..rruuttggeerrss..eedduu .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

IInnffoorrmmaattiioonn EExxcchhaannggee

33

species andcategorizedthem as highthreat, lowthreat orbeneficial.

The booklet helpsgrowers make better decisions aboutwhen to use pesticides and providesreviews of IPM practices forgrasshopper control aimed atreducing the amount of pesticideused and costs to the grower.

The booklet is the result of thecollaborative efforts of growerorganizations, research, andextension experts who all contributedin its development. A grower survey,revealed that the majority of growersinterviewed considered theinformation valuable, and due to highdemand, the handbook was updatedand reprinted in May, 2008. Thebooklet was recognized in 2007 withan Award for Excellence from TheCommunicator Awards based in NewYork.

The management of European cornborer (ECB) has also been a target ofthe PRR program. Funding to AAFCresearchers resulted in an alternativeapproach to manage ECB which hasbecome a severe pest of potatoes inEastern Canada in recent years. Evenwhen chemical insecticides are used,ECB is difficult to control becauselarvae enter the potato stems wherethey are protected from insecticidesprays. The problem arises whenlarvae over-winter in discardedpotato stems and emerge as mothswhich then lay their eggs on thepotato plants, renewing the cycle. Amechanical device was designed tocrush the larvae within potato stemsat harvest. This device attaches to aharvester just below the conveyerbelt that discards the potato stalksback into the field. The "Crusher"was tested on two commercial potatovarieties with excellent efficacyshown. Between 80-88% of thelarvae inside the stalks were crushed,and more than 95% of ECB larvaefailed to over-winter and emerge asmoths the next year. The flexibledesign makes the Crusher easy tobuild and attach to any harvester bysimply adjusting the length of thebrushes and rollers. Growers canharvest and control the insect pestsimultaneously, eliminating the need

for re-entry into the field andreducing pest pressure for thefollowing season.

The PRRP staff work with thebiopesticide industry by assistingwith registration submissions forproducts or uses which will providesolutions for pesticide risks identifiedin strategies. This assistance mayrange from regulatory path-finding tosubstantial work toward thecompletion of dossiers. Presently, 14product submissions comprisingalmost 100 uses have been made toPMRA, with numerous more usesand products at various stages ofcommercialization. In addition, thePMC is in discussion with the USEPA and the IR-4's BiopesticideProgram to capitalize on areas ofshared priority through collaborativeprojects.

As new crop protection technologiescome on stream, growers benefit bygaining access to more pestmanagement tools and approaches toreduce risks and input expenses.While contributing to innovation forgrowth, the Program also contributesto improved health andenvironmental sustainability.

The 2005 studies for chlorantra-niliprole on peaches and grapes ransmoothly. Field Research Directors,the Laboratory Research Director, IR-4 Quality Assurance personnel,and the IR-4 Study Director,expedited and completed reports onthe two studies in November of2006. This work was completedahead of IR-4's 30-month schedulein an effort to match DuPont'saggressive timeline for globalsubmission, which occurred inFebruary of 2007.

The cooperative studies forchlorantraniliprole serve as anexcellent example of what can be

accomplished when registrants, theIR-4 Project, and Canada's PestManagement Centre all work togetherto benefit North American specialtycrop growers. The work continues, asa proposal is now in process for EPA'sconsideration (as well as thosecountries participating in the globalreview) to consider major cropresidue data extrapolations that willfurther extend chlorantraniliprole useto specialty crops by generatingminimal residue data. This process,also known as "super crop grouping,"saves millions of research dollars asexampled by studies on spinosad,azoxystrobin, glyphosate andcarfentrazone.

Chlorantraniliprole is scheduled forJMPR review in September of 2008and it is hopeful that CodexMaximum Residue Limits (MRLs) willbe set by July of 2009. All of thesefactors illustrate the high level ofimportance placed on globalregistrations to insure that producemoving through global trade channelswill not be inhibited by pesticideresidues.

To learn more on furtherdevelopments of chlorantraniliproleand other new and exciting reducedrisk pest control products, visit their4 website at ir4.rutgers.edu.

IIRR--44,, DDuuPPoonntt continued from page1

.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. iirr44..rruuttggeerrss..eedduu .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 44

DDiidd YYoouu KKnnooww

I spend my summers working with IR-4 as a technician for University ofMaryland Lower Eastern ShoreResearch and Education Center, andfor IR-4 Field Research and Center

Director, Marylee Ross. I've workedwith Marylee since 2000. During thefall and spring, I'm an AssociateProfessor at Wesley College, Dover,DE, teaching Exercise Science(Physiology). In working these twodiverse careers, I soon noticed onepractice in common; the need tofollow protocols. The standards inagriculture are guided by GoodLaboratory Practices (GLPs), inexercise physiology, the AmericanCollege of Sports Medicine.

According to the OperationalHandbook of IR-4 to Fulfill theRequirements of EPA for GoodLaboratory Practices, "GoodLaboratory Practice (GLP), is whatdictates the expected quality andintegrity of all data collectionassociated with all protocols/researchconducted through the IR-4 programfor submission to EPA forconsideration and approval forpesticide registration. GLP establishesthe standards to be followed at alllevels of the research."

Upholding these standards reducesthe chances of incomplete, incorrect,or totally inadmissible data, which willmost assuredly delay or prevent thesubmission of the registration requestto EPA. My use of GLPs overlaps my

two worlds.

As a professor, my goal is to trainstudents prudently so that they learnto provide the most accurate exerciseprescriptions (Ex Rx) for varioussymptomatic and asymptomaticclienteles. Throughout my exercisephysiology classes, I impress upon mystudents the need for detail,observation/monitoring, protocolcompliance, and being able to explainhow deviations by them or thesubject may impact the final decisionconcerning the Ex Rx. I emphasize tothem this is the basis of GLPs inexercise physiology.

To provide the comparison of myworlds, let's look at one of the above,the importance of protocolcompliance. Like IR-4 trials, mystudents and I must follow an existingprotocol as specified. The protocolsare provided for the purpose ofcollecting data to indicatethe functional capacity levelsand/or symptom onsets ofour clients. Carefullyfollowed protocol and datacollection renders valuableinformation for us inknowing the appropriatelevel of exertion for eachclient. This can becompared to the results ofthe residue sampling thatdrives the decision of whether tomove the registration on to EPA.

As a Professional, I must followstandards or I could be responsiblefor doing more harm than good whenI have a client engaged in aninappropriate exercise program. Notfollowing the directives of theprotocol will cause erroneous datacollected on the subject. This couldultimately lead to misdirecteddecision making in the formulation ofthe initial Ex Rx or in the indication ofclientele adaptation and overloadconsiderations. Bottom line, failure to

follow the protocol could jeopardizethe well being of the client. In thecase of the cardiac/pulmonaryrehabilitation patient, this could bedisastrous. Knowing and using GLPshelps me and my students providequality exercise prescriptions.

Not following an IR-4 protocol maynot result in extra sore muscles orpossible loss of life, but it may causea lot of hearts to skip a few beatswhen the results turn out to bewasted time and resources. My goalin working for Marylee is to assist herin the successful execution of allprotocols so the chance for deviationor protocol failure is minimal to nil.To know that my actions couldimpact the progress of theregistration request, positively ornegatively, is no different than myactions taken with protocol execution,data collection, and decision makingfor an Ex Rx.

Following and assuring standards aremet in both of my worlds hasenhanced my awareness for GLPs.But following GLPs doesn't stop atthe classroom door or field site.

They are with us in everydayapplications. And when you look atthem this way they are not dauntingor hard to follow. For example, usingits simplest GLPs application, trymaking a pitcher of Kool-aid™ orlemonade without following thedirections. Either too much or toolittle water can result in some reallynasty Kool-aid™. No matter the levelof emphasis of GLP, do it right, do itas specified and the outcome will beas expected. Even for what may seemthe least essential part of using GLPs,if not followed completely, theoutcome could leave a "bad taste".

GGLLPPss:: TThheeyy''rree EEvveerryywwhheerree—— bbyy BBaarrbbaarraa AAbbbboott,, WWeesslleeyy CCoolllleeggee,, AAssssoocciiaattee PPrrooffeessssoorr aanndd IIRR--44 TTeecchhnniicciiaann

BBaarrbbaarraa AAbbbboott,, dduurriinngg hheerr ssuummmmeerr jjoobb aassssiissttiinngg wwiitthhtthhee IIRR--44 UUSSDDAA//EEPPAA ffiieelldd ttoouurr iinn 22000077

.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. iirr44..rruuttggeerrss..eedduu .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 55

Traditional growers are learning thata program using biopesticidesalongside conventional productsis often the most effective.

As Researchers and Extensionspecialists work with growersto reach that perfect balance ofefficacy and economy in their pestcontrol programs, many find that thepests themselves aren’t the onlychallenge. Another is the myth thatuse of conventional chemicals andbiopesticides is an either/orproposition.

Integrated Pest Management (IPM)advocates admit it’s easy to see howthis myth got started. Organicgrowers use biopesticides as a stand-alone because most products areregistered for use on organic crops.So biopesticides are oftenlinked to organic production.

But in reality, only organic growersuse biopesticides exclusively. In fact,organic production represents only asmall percentage of biopesticide use.All things considered — economics,efficacy, sustainability, and cropquality — traditional growers arelearning that a program usingbiopesticides alongside conventionalproducts is often most effective.

TToooo MMuucchh ooff aa GGoooodd TThhiinnggResistance management is one pieceof that puzzle. Hired in 1989 as anentomologist at the University ofGeorgia, Dr. Alton Sparks works tocontrol diamondback moth in colecrops. At that time, growers wereusing organophosphates to controldiamondback moth, but the pestdeveloped resistance.

A few years later, a new generation ofsynthetic chemistry came on themarket and, as Sparks has observed,“They worked great at first, but nowwe’re seeing resistance to thoseproducts.”

“In Georgia,” explains Dr. George

Kennedy, professor of entomology atNorth Carolina State University, “thegrowers were using one of the newerproducts almost exclusively, in spite ofthe fact the label told them not to.”Resistance developed as a result andnow, because of its overuse, Kennedysays the manufacturer is consideringtaking the product off the market inGeorgia.

To prolong the efficacy of syntheticpesticides, rotation is mandatory. Therecommendation for most products isthat they not be used more thantwice back to back. The productsneed to be rotated with a differentproduct containing a different modeof action. “Ideally,” says Sparks, “Youdon’t subject subsequent generationsto the same mode of action.”

Because biopesticides containmultiple modes of action, they arewell suited for rotation in pestmanagement programs. For example,a biopesticide like Bt createsholes in the gut of the pest, whereasconventional pesticides are oftenneurotoxins.

CCoommpplleemmeennttaarryy EEffffeeccttssMichael Braverman, manager,Biopesticide Program, IR-4 Project,Rutgers University, agrees that themessage is simple when encouraginggrowers to integrate biopesticidesinto their spray programs. “It isimportant to understand that it’s notbiopesticides versus conventional,” hepoints out, “it’s biopesticides andconventionals.”

Resistance management isn’t the onlybenefit, however. John Francis,director of marketing and technicalservices at BioWorks, Fairport, NY,says biopesticides can often add alevel of control while reducinggrowers’ costs, with a positive impacton crop quality.

In the case of one greenhousegrower, Francis recalls how he usedsynthetic fungicides to control

Pythium, Fusarium, and other diseasesin his poinsettias.The grower required12 pallets a year of the syntheticmaterial to get an acceptable level ofcontrol. However, once he mixed abiological fungicide into his program,he now uses only one pallet a year ofthe synthetic material.

Francis explains that the biologicalfungicide does a “marvelous” jobpreventing disease, but it is notsystemic. So to ensure initialcleanliness of the crop or to providecontrol during heavy disease pressure,the synthetic fungicideis applied as a drench to knock outexisting diseases.

AApppplliiccaattiioonn CCoonnssiiddeerraattiioonnssAnother key benefit that biopesticidesoffer is in the area of residuemanagement. Many growers like tocome in with an application close toharvest to maintain the quality of theirmature crop, especially if there is aweather event that would increasepests or diseases. Biopesticides offergrowers that flexibility.

In season, however, growers have theoption to apply biopesticides as astandalone, tank mixed with asynthetic chemical, or substituting abiological for a synthetic one or moretimes as part of the spray cycle.Multi-state trial results released in2007 by Valent BioSciences Corp.found that their Bt-based productsworked most efficiently when used inrotation as part of an IPM program.

The trial results showed that tank-mixtreatments were more effective thanrotational treatments, but also morecostly. The important message, saysDr. Ramon Georgis, global businessmanager microbials for ValentBiosciences and a co-author of thestudy, is that rotational treatmentswere found to be less expensive whileachieving a better level of control andproducing a higher yield than theplots treated with synthetic

PPaarrttnneerrss AAggaaiinnsstt PPeessttss—— bbyy JJiimm MMoooorree

continued on page 9

66

FFeeaattuurree AArrttiiccllee

Over the past several years there hasbeen significant debate anddiscussion of the governmentlegislation, called the 2008 Farm Bill,which shapes America's farm andfood policy. The first Farm Bill wasenacted by Congress after the GreatDepression. Since that time the FarmBill has been renewed every five toseven years. This spring, a new fiveyear version of the Farm Bill (officiallynamed Food, Energy andConservation Act of 2008) waspassed by Congress. The Bill was notsupported by President Bush and wasvetoed. However, there was enoughsupport in Congress to override thePresident's veto and the Farm Bill isnow law.

The deliberations on the 2008 FarmBill officially began with a series oflistening sessions arranged by theSecretary of Agriculture. There wasat least one listening session held inevery state in order to allowstakeholders to express to USDAofficials what they believe are themost critical priorities. During manyof these sessions, specialty cropgrowers spoke up and expressed theneed for a government investment inspecialty crops.

Prior to the listening session,specialty crop commodityorganizations joined together toestablish the Specialty Crop Farm BillAlliance (SCFBA). This groupconsisted of more than 120organizations representing growers offruits, vegetables, dried fruit, treenuts, nursery plants and otherproducts. Many of the provisionsdesired by the SCFBA were includedin a stand alone legislation titled"Equitable Agriculture Today (EAT)for a Healthy American Act". This2006 Bill included Titles onConservation, Trade, Invasive Pestand Diseases, Nutrition, AgricultureResearch, Commodity-Relatedprovisions as well as Specialty CropBlock Grants. When the provisions ofthe EAT Healthy Act were bundledwith the Farm Bill, members of theSCFBA spoke on behalf of specialtycrop provisions.

As with all good politics, the 2008Farm Bill is a legislation ofcompromise;a process of give andtake for all. Some groups were callingfor radical reforms eliminating directsubsidy payments to farmers; but inthe end subsidy payments werereformed, not eliminated. TheAmerican Farmland Trust noted ontheir website (www.farmland.org)"The new farm bill provides fundingto improve our environment, protectfarm and ranch land, make localfoods more widely available anddramatically increase food assistancefor families struggling with rising foodcosts. Equally as important, it makesreal gains in subsidy reform with thenew Average Crop Revenue Election(ACRE) program that fundamentallychanges how government supportoperates." They further note "Whilethe final compromise bill does notinclude all of the reforms we wouldlike to see, it is a significantimprovement in U.S. farm and foodpolicy. We will build off these newprograms, better policies andincreased funding now and in thefuture".

The SPCFBA, whose combinedvoices were heard, did see many, butnot all, of their priorities included inthe new law. For the first time,horticulture crops received a part ofthe $300 billion dollar investment tosupport an industry that accounts fornearly 50% of the farm gate value ofcrops. There are several programsand provisions which benefit specialtycrop producers. These include:• USDA-Foreign Agriculture Service's Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops (TASC) and Market Access Programs (MAP) which enhances trade assistance byproviding resources to help remove trade barriers and enhancemarket promotion tools that will help grow international markets. • Specialty Crop Block Grants program to State Departments of

Agriculture have been enhanced by$466 million over ten years. Thisprogram focuses on local, regionaland statewide programs to enhanceproducers' ability to compete in themarketplace and provide consumerswith safe, abundant food.• Expanding the USDA Fruit &Vegetable Snack Program to allschools in all 50 states. Thisprogram provides fresh fruit andvegetable snacks to elementaryschools and helps develop lifelonghealthy eating habits for childrenthrough consumption of fruits andvegetables. • Establishing a specialty cropresearch initiative consisting of$230 million of new mandatoryfunding to support thedevelopment and dissemination ofscience-based solutions and toolsto address the needs of specialtycrop growers. • Investing in prevention, earlydiscovery and mitigation programsfor invasive pests and diseases.• Creation of a permanent disasterprogram for certain specialty crops.• Creation of a clean plant networkfor elimination of plant diseases andbacteria during propagation• Research on the causes ofColony Collapse Disorder which isdevastating to honeybees that areimportant for the pollination ofmany specialty crops• Modification of Country ofOrigin labeling includingsignificantly reduced penalties formistakes in labeling, newrecordkeeping provisions and aprovision to allow a state, region orlocal descriptor to be deemedacceptable.

There were also significant changes tothe Research Title of the 2008 FarmBill. These provisions mayfundamentally change the domesticresearch infrastructure. Themodifications include:• Establishment of the National

TThhee 22000088 FFaarrmm BBiillll:: OOppppoorrtunities and Challenges forSSppeecciiaallttyy CCrrooppss aanndd tthhee IIR-4 Project — by IR-4 Executive Director, Jerry J. Baron

to be sold. To assist in a MRLglobalization effort, the USDA-ForeignAgriculture Service recently awardedIR-4 a three year, $600,000 TASCgrant to conduct a global pilot residuestudy (see related article p. 8).

Another area under the new Farm Billwhere IR-4 may become increasinglyactive is with comparative producttesting and efficacy data development.Using a 2005 IR-4 pilot project model,IR-4 already has the infrastructure tomanage a research program wheremultiple products (conventionalreduced risk and biopesticide) aretested side by side to identify the bestsolution for a pest management void.Several factors contribute to IR-4'sunique capacity to identify the mostcritical pest management voids. Itsrelationships with industry to movenumerous new (prior to firstregistration) products into testing, thefield infrastructure to conduct efficacytesting and IR-4's capacity to expediteresidue studies and registration forpromising products make itexceptionally qualified to manage thisresearch. Additionally, this comparativeproduct performance testing may beuseful in rapidly screening potentialsolutions for newly discovered invasivepests. It is anticipated that the IR-4Project will submit a proposal for thisinitiative under the Specialty CropResearch Initiative.

The transformation of CSREES into theNIFA (referred to earlier in this article)may have some impact on IR-4. The role of the new Office ofResearch, Extension and Education isstill unclear; therefore, IR-4 is watchingthis consolidation and its potentialimpact on the program. One change ofgreat interest to IR-4 is the possiblechange in indirect costs by the grantingagency, NIFA.

There will be many questions as thisnew Farm Bill is implemented; and wehope our questions will be answeredfavorably. Be assured that IR-4 and itsstakeholders are keeping a close watchon the implementation of the 2008Farm Bill and its impacts.

77

FFeeaattuurree AArrttiiccllee

Institute for Food and Agriculture(NIFA). The purpose of this newInstitute is to increase the standingand visibility of USDA's extramuralscience programs. Essentially,USDA-Cooperative Research,Education and Extension Service(CSREES) will be transformed intothe new institute. This change iscritically important for the IR-4Project because a significantamount of IR-4's resources aremanaged through CSREES. TheFarm Bill specified that the NIFADirector will be a distinguishedscientist, who must be nominatedby the President and confirmed bythe US Senate for a once-renewable six-year term.• The National Research Initiativewill be renamed Agriculture andFood Research Initiative (AFRI).Funding can be up to $700 millionannually. Of the amountappropriated, 60% will go to basicresearch and 40% to appliedresearch programs. • The Under Secretary forResearch, Education and Extensionwill be called USDA's ChiefScientist and will be responsible forAgriculture Research Service,Economic Research Service, andNational Agriculture StatisticsService. The Chief Scientist, whosemain task is to coordinate activesbetween NIFA and other research

services, willhave anexpanded staffin the newlycreatedResearch,Extension andEducationoffice. Therewill be sixdivisions in thisnew office, oneof them beingPlant Healthand Production.

• The Chief Scientist will becharged with preparing an annualRoad Map to guide all USDAresearch.

How will the Food, Energy andConservation Act of 2008 affect IR-4? First and foremost, SpecialtyCrops will have greater importanceunder the new law. This implies goodthings for the IR-4 Project and itscritical role in providing safe andeffective pest management tools forspecialty crop growers. Will the 45-year history of multi-disciplinaryresearch and the delivering of neededcrop protection products for specialtycrop growers translate into increasedand necessary funding for thetraditional mission of IR-4? Thisremains to be seen.

We do know that there are severalareas under the new Farm Bill thatwill likely consider grant proposalsfrom the IR-4 Project. For example,the Technical Assistance for SpecialtyCrops (TASC) program has alreadyfunded recent international IR-4activities aimed at helping toharmonize pesticide tolerances fornewer reduced risk products. Lack ofinternational Maximum Residue Limits(MRL) tolerances significantly limitsUS growers' ability to use the newerproducts, especially when growers donot know where their produce is likely

The 2008 Farm Bill: Opporrttuunniittiieess aanndd CChhaalllleennggeess ffoorrSpecialty Crops and the IIRR--44 PPrroojjeecctt —— bbyy IIRR--44 EExxeeccuuttiivvee DDiirreeccttoorr,, JJeerrrryy JJ.. BBaarroonn

88 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. iirr44..rruuttggeerrss..eedduu .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

IInnffoorrmmaattiioonn EExxcchhaannggee

In 2007, IR-4 submitted a multi-yearTechnical Assistance for SpecialtyCrops (TASC) funding requestproposal to the USDA ForeignAgriculture Service (USDA-FAS). Thegoals of the project, titledInternational Harmonization ofMaximum Residue Levels on SpecialtyCrops through Global Zoning ofResidue Data and Crop Grouping, areto expand export opportunities andincrease the number pesticidesavailable to US specialty cropgrowers, who are selling theirproduce in international markets.

This project will meet two prioritiesoutlined in the USDA's 2005Strategic Plan for FY2005-2010 andthe 2008 USDA Farm Bill. Thisproject addresses the USDA's goal ofenhancing internationalcompetitiveness of AmericanAgriculture through expanded exportopportunities, international economicdevelopment and trade capacitybuilding. The project also addressesthe USDA's objective to improvesanitary and phytosanitary (SPS)systems to facilitate internationaltrade; and strengthen globalparticipation in international standard-setting bodies, such as FoodAgricultural Organization/Codex.

AAccttiivviittyy CCoooorrddiinnaattiioonnThis study will be coordinatedthrough personnel at IR-4 ProjectHeadquarters. It will include: placingat least 15 trials in locationsthroughout the world, designingresearch protocols, contracting theanalysis of samples from the fieldsites, scrutinizing the results anddeveloping the final report. All qualitycontrol measures, similar to goodlaboratory practices, will beintegrated into the research andreport design. USDA-FAS, the U.S.Codex Office, U.S. EPA and the FAOwill provide policy input, and USDA-

FAS will assist with coordinationbetween partner governments.

The selection of participating countrieswill be based on the following criteria:global zone coverage, technical abilityand experience in conducting fieldtrials, ability to grow proposed fieldcrops, and commitment fromgovernments to participate in theprogram. If a proposed country doesnot meet these criteria, an alternatecountry will be selected. Under theproposal, the 15 trials will bedistributed as two trials conducted inthe U.S. and one trial each in Canada,Mexico, Brazil, Columbia, Spain, theUK, China, India, Japan, Korea, KenyaSouth Africa and Australia.

TTeesstt CCrroopp:: ""FFrruuiittiinngg VVeeggeettaabblleess"" The crop group, "fruiting vegetables",was selected as the test crop.Selection of this crop grouping isbased on: crops that can be grown inall of the global zones included in thisdemonstration, crops for which thesame pesticide(s) can be applied, andcrops for which a grouping isappropriate. Each site will be requiredto conduct the study on tomato and atleast one other of the proposed testcrops: Protected Tomato, Field BellPepper, Chili Pepper, Eggplantor Husk Tomato.

The intent of this demonstration is toestablish a model for ways in whichcountries from various global regionscan collaborate on data generationsharing for the determination of anMRL. Benefits of this demonstrationare not limited to this particular cropgroup. Success with this collaborativecrop grouping model will helpestablish the processes in which futurecollaborations can take place - and canbe targeted to more strategicallyaddress crops of high U.S. exportpotential.

TTeesstt CChheemmiiccaall//GGooooddAAggrriiccuullttuurraall PPrraaccttiiccee ((GGAAPP))// LLaabbThe specific pesticide(s) to beevaluated will be determined throughdiscussions with partnering countries,USDA/FAS, and U.S. industrycooperators. The pesticide(s),however, should not break downrapidly in order to obtain sufficientfield residues for analyses. The GAPshould include multiple applications(at least 2) with the last spray one tothree days prior to harvest.

The testing laboratories will bedetermined through discussions withparticipating countries, USDA/FAS,and U.S. industry cooperators.Ideally, a single lab will be used inorder to eliminate possible variationsin test results; however, this may notbe possible due to sample shippinglimitations. In that case, laboratorieswill receive training to conductanalyses using identical methods. Thelaboratory will analyze the resultingfield samples along with qualitycontrol samples and issue a reportoutlining the results.

It is anticipated that the first fieldtrials will be placed in SouthernHemisphere sites during the later partof this calendar year. The majority ofthe field trials will be in the field in2009. Next year will also start theresidue analysis phase. The goal is tocomplete the global residue study in2010.

IR-4 is proud to spearhead this effort.When completed, this program willnot only prove benefits to the testcrop group, it will ultimately benefitthe whole specialty crop industry bysetting in place a global system fornew pesticides registration andregulation.

TTeecchhnniiccaall AAssssiissttaannccee ffoorr SSppeecciiaallttyyCCrrooppss:: AAnn OOppppoorrttuunniittyy ffoorr IIRR--44 —— bbyy IIRR--44 EExxeeccuuttiivvee

DDiirreeccttoorr,, JJeerrrryy JJ.. BBaarroonn

timed for optimal efficacy, usuallyearly stage larva, just after egghatch,” he says. This method ofintegrating biological and syntheticproducts gives an acceptable level ofcontrol while notallowing the pest to build resistanceto a single mode of chemistry.“Almost all biological products arenot meant to be used as stand-alones,” he says. “They are designedto make all the inputs work better.”

Reprinted with permission fromAmerican Vegetable Grower June2008 issue, pg. 10. Moore is afreelance writer based in SouthernCalifornia. This article was preparedon behalf of the Biopesticide IndustryAlliance.

.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. iirr44..rruuttggeerrss..eedduu .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 99

insecticides alone.

A good example of thisbiologicalsynthetic chemistrypartnership can be seen in apple andpear crops in the Pacific Northwest.Here, codling moth is a majormenace and the pest has developedresistance to organophosphates.

Michael Dimock, director oftechnology and development forCertis USA, points out that manyconventional growers are rotatingbiological products with conventionalinputs to control codling moth.“Application of the biological is

The most recent recipient of theProfessors C.C. Compton & G.M.Markle Entomological Fund awardwas Ben McGraw of the RutgersDepartment of Entomology. Ben wasselected from NJ entomology studentapplicants who provided theircredentials to the SelectionCommittee. As part of the award,Ben received a stipend and acertificate, and his name was affixedto a permanent plaque whichrecognizes all 19 winners since theinception of the award. The conceptof this award is to annually recognizeoutstanding achievements bystudents in the field of entomologyin NJ, based on applicants' researchaccomplishments, academic andteaching achievement, papers andseminars presented, involvement indepartmental affairs, and other

independent entomologicalactivities. Contributions tothe fund continue to beaccepted (payable to theRutgers UniversityFoundation), and may besent to the chair of theSelection Committee, Dr.Van Starner, at IR-4 ProjectHeadquarters, Princeton, NJ.

In recognition of this beingthe 30th year since the firstC. C. Compton award waspresented, a special seminarwas given in the RutgersDepartment of Entomology by thefirst recipient of the award in 1978,Dr. Ed Rajotte, Professor ofEntomology and IPM Coordinator atThe Pennsylvania State University. Edgave an interesting "tour" of hisentomological pursuits beginningwith his focus on bees and blueberrypollination while at Rutgers, through

his many years of work in IntegratedPest Management. It was a bit of awalk down memory lane for Ed and afew other Rutgers entomologists inthe audience!

As the 2008 winner, Ben iscompleting his Ph.D. at Rutgers,studying biological control of theannual bluegrass weevil usingentomopathogenic nematodes. Hegot his start in entomology while atthe University of Maine studying theeffects of azadirachtin (Neem) on thenon-target arthropod community inspruce forest plantations. For the nextfour years after graduation Benhelped develop Bacillus thuringiensisand other microbial based insecticidesfor Mycogen Seeds/DowAgroSciences (San Diego,CA/Indianapolis, IN) and Agraquest(Davis, CA). In 2002 he begangraduate studies at the University ofMassachusetts, Amherst where hereceived a Masters in entomology,specializing in turfgrass pests. Benhopes to continue to conductresearch on entomopathogens aftergraduation from Rutgers to developless toxic, alternative controlstrategies for specialty crop growersor turfgrass managers.

BBeenn MMccGGrraaww WWiinnss tthhee PPrrooffeessssoorrss CC..CC.. CCoommppttoonn && GG..MM.. MMaarrkkllee EEnnttoommoollooggiiccaall FFuunnddAAwwaarrdd

PPiiccttuurreedd ll ttoo rr RRuuttggeerrss UUnniivveerrssiittyy CChhaaiirr,, DDeeppaarrttmmeenntt ooffEEnnttoommoollooggyy,, DDrr.. GGeeoorrggee HHaammiillttoonn;; AAwwaarrdd wwiinnnneerr,,PPhh..DD..ccaannddiiddaattee BBeenn MMccGGrraaww;; IIRR--44 AAssssiissttaanntt DDiirreeccttoorr,, DDrr.. VVaannSSttaarrnneerr;; PPeennnnssyyllvvaanniiaa SSttaattee UUnniivveerrssiittyy,, PPrrooffeessssoorr ooffEEnnttoommoollooggyy aanndd IInntteeggrraatteedd PPeesstt MMaannaaggeemmeenntt CCoooorrddiinnaattoorr,,DDeeppaarrttmmeenntt ooff EEnnttoommoollooggyy,, DDrr.. EEdd RRaajjoottttee..

PPeerrssoonnaalliittiieess iinn tthhee NNeewwss

Partners continued from page 5

(22:1n-9). The low amount ofsaturated fatty acids (<10%) is idealfor biodiesel and provides a strongpotential for higher ratio biodiesel topetroleum based diesel blending(B20 and above).

Camelina oil has been usedsuccessfully as an adjuvant inagricultural spraying applications andis becoming more attractive due tothe demand for biodiesel. There's alot of hope riding on this crop beingused as a biofuel.

Many U.S. states are looking intogrowing camelina as a biofuel crop.Oregon has just completed theconstruction of the nation’s firstoilseed crushing/processing plantbuilt in anticipation of the increasingdemand for camelina for use inbiodiesel and other products.Montana is also conducting a majoreffort to produce camelina on a largescale in dryland production, and hasembarked upon establishing a 100million gallon oilseed-based biodieselproduction plant. The plant isexpected to be completed in 2010.

In addition to Montana and Oregon,camelina is currently grown inSlovenia, Ukraine, China, Finland,Germany and Austria. With all thisrecent effort focused on a crop thathad been overlooked for years, onlytime will reveal if camelina lives up toits expectation. With diesel pricesclose to $5 a gallon (at the time ofthis writing) and rising steadily, this'gold of pleasure' might truly turn outto be gold.

This article used excerpts from EM8953-E January 2008 "Camelina" byDaryl T. Ehrensing, Oregon StateUniversity and Stephen O. Guy,University of Idaho, as well asexcerpts from "Camelina: The 'gold ofpleasure'" published inGillettenewsrecord.com May 11,2008 by Wendilyn Grasseschi.

.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. iirr44..rruuttggeerrss..eedduu .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1100

IInnffoorrmmaattiioonn EExxcchhaannggee

The California Gold Rush, whichbegan in January of 1848, madesome people rich and others not so.The newest Gold Rush may do thesame. When you firsthear the name of thisspecialty crop, Gold ofPleasure, you reallywant to learn more.Gold of Pleasure,otherwise known ascamelina (Camelinasativa L.) has a longhistory on this earth,but has only recentlybecome a crop withpromise. It was firstcultivated in northernEurope during the Bronze Age whenthe seeds were crushed and boiled torelease oil for food, medicinal useand lamp oil. Also known as falseflax, the Romans called it Gold ofPleasure because of its use as amassage oil.

The camelina seeds are up to 41percent oil, extremely high in proteinand full of vitamin E and omega-3oils, which are qualities that areattractive to the animal feed andhealth-food industries. Camelina isbeing marketed in Europe in saladdressing and as a cooking oil (it isnot suitable as a deep-fat fry oil).

Camelina’s residual ‘cake’(materialleft over after pressing for oil) isideally suited for animal feed and hasa protein profile on par with soy.Since camelina oil and meal arerelatively new food and feedingredients, there are no currentcommercial uses approved for it orany camelina products in the U.S.However, camelina meal is currentlyundergoing the FDA approval processfor use in animal feed.

In addition to oil and animal feed,camelina is also used in cosmetics,skincare products, soaps and softdetergents.

Some think camelina is a miraclecrop, since it can be grown with fewinput costs and under marginalconditions. It is generally grown as a

summer annual, but itcan be grown as a winterannual in milder climates,and matures in 85 to100 days. Germinationoccurs after soiltemperatures reach 38oF.In fact, camelina hasbeen treated like a weedfor most of modern

agriculture. So it’s ironic that weedcontrol presents the greatestchallenge in establishing acommercial crop of camelina.

Oregon State University researchersare currently screening pre- andpost-emergence herbicides forefficacy and phytotoxicity. IR-4 hassubmitted a no-data petition for asethoxydim/camelina residue project;and a request for pendimethalin/camelina is currently underevaluation.

CCaammeelliinnaa:: TThhee ffuuttuurree ooff ffuueell According to the Camelina Company,(www.camelinacompany.com/Marketing/AboutGreatPlains.aspx) camelinapresents a unique opportunity forproviding a reliable, inexpensivefeedstock for biodiesel production. Ithas several distinctive characteristicswhich make its oil perfect forbiodiesel. It contains a high amountof alpha-linolenic acid (18:3n-3),possesses elongase(s) operative withn-9 and n-6 fatty acids, and containsa significant proportion of erucic acid

TThheerree’’ss GGoolldd iinn TThheessee FFiieellddss

on the individualcommodity using fieldresidue data producedunder authority ofRDA. The FDA doesnot employ cropgrouping.

MMii--GGyyuunngg''ssCCoonncclluussiioonnssSouth Korea is in need of pesticides. Its regulationapproaches are different from those ofUS in registration and settingtolerances as well as management ofthe minor crop. Since Korea is one ofthe member countries of OECD andCodex, it takes part in globalharmonization. Even though globalharmonization looks like the long-term solution, one short-term solutionis for countries to share residueinformation and further to evolve aregulatory methodology, e.g.developing crop group conceptsregarding tolerance setting andextrapolation.

Mi-Gyung would like to see aprogram like IR-4 be established inSouth Korea.

.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. iirr44..rruuttggeerrss..eedduu .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1111

FFeeddeerraall RReeggiisstteerr:: 44//22//0088DDiiccaammbbaaTTrraaddee NNaammeess:: Vanquish, ClarityCCrroopp:: Sweet corn PPRR##:: 07376FFlloonniiccaammiiddTTrraaddee NNaammee:: BeleafCCrrooppss:: Root vegetables (except sugarbeet) subgroup 1B, Tuberous andcorm vegetables subgroup 1C,Brassica leafy greens subgroup 5B,Turnip greens, Okra, HopPPRR##:: 08753, 08754, 09518,08635, 08706

FFeeddeerraall RReeggiisstteerr:: 44//99//0088FFeennhheexxaammiiddTTrraaddee NNaammeess:: Decree, Elevate,TeldorCCrroopp:: Asparagus PPRR##:: 08692

BBuupprrooffeezziinnTTrraaddee NNaammeess:: Applaud, CourierCCrrooppss:: Leafy vegetables (exceptBrassica) group 4, Fruiting vegetablesgroup 8, Okra, Low growing berrysubgroup 13-07G, OlivePPRR##:: 06978, 09910, 08162,08848, 08932, 08964, 09004,07408, 08737, 09015

FFeeddeerraall RReeggiisstteerr:: 44//2233//0088CCyyaazzooffaammiiddTTrraaddee NNaammee:: RanmanCCrroopp:: Carrot PPRR##:: 08522

FFeeddeerraall RReeggiisstteerr:: 55//77//0088PPyyrriiddaallyyllTTrraaddee NNaammee:: Tesoro, Overture

The trade names listed below are provided as a means to identify the chemical for which a tolerance has been established. A trade namelisted here may not be the name of the product on which the new food use(s) will be registered. Only labeled products may be used on afood crop. Be sure to obtain current information about usage regulations and examine a current product label before applying anychemical.

CClleeaarraanncceess AApprriill ‘‘0088-- MMaayy ‘‘0088 IInnffoorrmmaattiioonn EExxcchhaannggee

CCrroopp:: Mustard greensPPRR##:: 08594, 08991SSppiirrooddiiccllooffeennTTrraaddee NNaammee:: EnvidorCCrroopp:: Hop PPRR##:: 08968

FFeeddeerraall RReeggiisstteerr:: 55//2288//0088FFlluuooppiiccoolliiddeeTTrraaddee NNaammee:: Infinito, PresidioCCrrooppss:: Root vegetables (exceptsugar beet and carrot) subgroup 1A,Leaves of root and tuber vegetablesgroup 2, Bulb vegetables group 3-07, Head and stem Brassicasubgroup 5APPRR##:: 09894, 09801, 09816,09892

PPeerrssoonnaalliittiieess iinn tthhee NNeewwss

In March, a visiting scholar fromSouth Korea's Andong NationalUniversity, Mi-Gyung Lee, joined IR-4 for a year-long sabbatical. Mi-Gyung is being sponsored throughher university to study the IR-4Project.

On May 30, Mi-Gyung presented aseminar of her study in the US. In order to help the audience identifywith South Korea, she made manycomparisons with her country andNew Jersey. She gave the audiencefacts about South Korea such as thepopulation totals approximately 45million, and the land area of SouthKorea is 38,345 square miles. UnlikeNJ, seventy percent of the land inSouth Korea is mountains and hills.Mi-Gyung is very comfortable withthe climate; like NJ, South Korea hasdistinct seasons and an annual meantemperature of 43-61oF.

Agriculture in South Korea is mostlycultivated in greenhouses, where 30%

of the country's vegetables are grown.The agricultural products found inSouth Korea are similar to the U.S.and include most specialty crops.They import wheat, soybean, corn,oranges, banana, grape and pineappleand export paprika, melon, tomato,cucumber, strawberry, apple, pear andmandarin. Ginseng, tea, and oilseedsare among the most importantspecialty crops to South Korea.

Currently, South Korean growers usea total of 22, 847 tons of pesticides(A.I.) a year. This is broken down into6,358 tons of fungicides, 7,663 tonsof insecticides and 5,921 tons ofherbicides. The Rural DevelopmentAgency (RDA) is the officeresponsible for registering theproducts used in South Korea andthey follow Pesticide ManagementLaw in their decision making process.RDA approves new usage andestablishes Good Agricultural Practicein the use of pesticides employing,human and environmental toxicitydata, efficacy and field residue data.

The Korean Food and DrugAdministration (FDA) sets toleranceson food commodities in associationwith Food Hygiene Law. It sets MRLs

VViissiittiinnggSScchhoollaarr

MMii--GGyyuunngg LLeeee,, IIRR--44VViissiittiinngg SScchhoollaarr..

IR-4 Headquarters, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey500 College Road EastSuite 201 WPrinceton, NJ 08540

PRESORTED FIRST CLASS MAIL

US POSTAGEPAID

JERSEY CITY, NJPERMIT NO. 295

AAddddrreessss SSeerrvviiccee RReeqquueesstteedd

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey • University of California • Cornell University• University of Florida • Michigan State University

Major funding for IR-4 isprovided by Special ResearchGrants and Hatch Act Fundsfrom USDA-CSREES, incooperation with the StateAgricultural ExperimentStations, and USDA-ARS.

IInnffoorrmmaattiioonn EExxcchhaannggeeCCoonnttaacctt IInnffoorrmmaattiioonn ffoorr IIRR--44 RReeggiioonnaall FFiieellddCCoooorrddiinnaattoorrss aanndd AARRSSDDiirreeccttoorr

NNoorrtthheeaasstt RReeggiioonn Ms. Edith Lurvey 315.787.2308ell10@cornell.edu

NNoorrtthh CCeennttrraall RReeggiioonnDr. Satoru Miyazaki 517.336.4611 ncrIR-4@msu.edu

SSoouutthheerrnn RReeggiioonnDr. Charles Meister 352.392.2399 cmeister@ufl.edu

WWeesstteerrnn RReeggiioonnMs. Rebecca Sisco 530.752.7634 rsisco@ucdavis.edu

UUSSDDAA--AARRSS Dr. Paul H. Schwartz301.504.8256paul.schwartz@ars.usda.gov

CCaalleennddaarr ooff EEvveennttssNNoorrtthh CCeennttrraall RReeggiioonnaall MMeeeettiinngg August 11-12, 2008 Madison, WI contact: Satoru Miyazaki 517.336.4611 22000088 SSoouutthheerrnn RReeggiioonn MMeeeettiinngg August 26-28, 2008 Richmond, VA contact: Robin Adkins 352.392.1978 x 424 22000088 FFoooodd UUssee WWoorrkksshhooppSeptember 16-17, 2008 Sacramento, CA contact: Cheryl Ferrazoli 732.932.9575 AARRSS LLiiaaiissoonn MMeeeettiinnggOctober 15-16, 2008 Beltsville, MD contact: Paul Schwartz 301.504.8256 22000088 NNaattiioonnaall RReesseeaarrcchh PPllaannnniinngg MMeeeettiinnggOctober 28-29, 2008 Princeton, NJ contact: Cheryl Ferrazoli 732.932.9575SSttrraatteeggiicc PPllaannnniinngg CCoonnffeerreenncceeDecember 9-10, 2008 Crystal City, VA contact: Cheryl Ferrazoli 732.932.9575NNaattiioonnaall TTrraaiinniinngg CCoonnffeerreenncceeFebruary 24-25, 2009 San Antonio, TX contact: Cheryl Ferrazoli 732.932.9575

PPoossiittiioonn AAnnnnoouunncceemmeennttIIRR--44 SSoouutthheerrnn RReeggiioonn FFiieelldd CCoooorrddiinnaattoorr This position has been posted on the University of Florida’s website To apply go to https://jobs.ufl.edu/applicants/jsp/shared/frameset/Frameset.jsp?time=1213993533319, then click on search positions, searchfor Research Progs/Svcs, CRD 3 and follow instructions from there.

Job Open Date 06-20-2008 Job Close Date 07-20-2008