Information Requests Monitoring System

This data is maintained as an archive.

Request ID: 112
Request From: Steve Toth
Date Requested: Mar 25, 2005
Request: Please forward the following request for information on chloroneb to the experts in your respective states/territories. Note the April 12, 2005 deadline. Thanks. Steve Toth --------------------------------------------- EPA has requested USDA / IPM Regional Centers feedback regarding the usage and benefits of chloroneb. The reregistration eligibility decision (RED) document for chloroneb is scheduled for completion in September '05. Phase I review of the draft RED has been completed. EPA is now evaluating next steps. Our feedback will assist them in their decisions. It will be helpful to have your responses sent to me by April 12. Attached is the use closure memo dated October, 28, 2003. Chloroneb's Major Crops Uses Are: 1. sugar beets, soybeans, cotton, and beans (string, field, green, kidney, lima, navy, pole, snap, wax, black-eyed peas, cowpeas and lupine). Treated cottonseed are used in the cotton growing states of CA, AZ, MS, LA, AR, TX and KS with lower use in AL, GA, SC, TN and NC. 2. Turf uses are primarily Midwestern and northeastern states as well as Florida for use on golf courses by professional applicators. 3. Major woody ornamental uses include ferns, azaleas, and poinsettas. 4. Pending uses are: sunflower seed (non-food use) and safflower seed. Label application rates and other use directions are in the attached closure memo (in Word & Word Perfect formats): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please provide your feedback to the following six EPA questions for the seed treatment and foliar uses of chloroneb. Use Practices (1) Describe the typical personal protective equipment (PPE) used for mixing, loading and applying. Benefits (2) What is unique about products containing this active ingredient? (3) What alternatives are available? (4) Are there any constraints to the use of alternatives such as cost or efficacy? (5) Is there any geographic area where there are no alternatives? (6) Which crops are most important? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Active Chloroneb Registrations, all are being supported by Kincaid Inc. EPA Reg. No. 1381-166 - AGRISOLUTIONS DELTA-COAT AD EPA Reg. No. 9198-204 - ANDERSONS GOLF PRODUCTS FUNGICIDE IX EPA Reg. No. 51036-258 - CHLORAXYL SEED TREATER EPA Reg. No. 73782-1 - CHLORONEB FUNGICIDE TECHNICAL EPA Reg. No. 1381-183 - DELTA-COAT II EPA Reg. No. 73782-2 - DEMOSAN 65W EPA Reg. No. 2217-692 - GORDON'S PROFESSIONAL TURF PRODUCTS TEREMEC SP TURF FUNGICIDE EPA Reg. No. 7501-68 - GUSTAFSON FLO PRO D SEED PROTECTANT EPA Reg. No. 73782-4 - K.E. CHLORONEB SYSTEMIC FLOWABLE FUNGICIDE EPA Reg. No. 2935-414 - NU-FLOW D EPA Reg. No. 2935-413 - NU-FLOW ND EPA Reg. No. 9198-182 - PROTURF FUNGICIDE II EPA Reg. No. 73782-3 - TERRANEB SP TURF FUNGICIDE Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or comments. (See attached file: chloroneb use closure memo.doc) Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or comments. Teung F. Chin, Ph.D. Biological Scientist Office of Pest Management Policy Agricultural Research Service United States Department of Agriculture LOCATED AT: USDA Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service 4700 River Road, Unit 149 (Room 5A66) Riverdale, MD 20737-1237 Phone (301) 734-8943 Fax (301) 734-5992 Teung.F.Chin@usda.gov http://www.ars.usda.gov/opmp

Responses
Responder: Paul Vincelli
State: KY
Date Requested: Mar 28, 2005
Response: I include chloroneb in my turf disease control recommendations (see http://www.ca.uky.edu/agc/pubs/ppa/ppa1/ppa1.pdf). However, there are so few published data over the past 25 years on its efficacy that I don't have good information on how well it performs compared to other currently labeled products. Therefore I do not specifically receommend it when faced with disease situations for which it is labeled. There are many effective alternatives, as you can see from my publication. I do not have actual use figures for turfgrass situations in Kentucky but I know that some golf course superintendents do use it.

Responder: Paul Guillebeau
State: GA
Date Requested: Mar 28, 2005
Response: Request forwarded to UGA Extension plant pathology specialists.

Responder: Mark Mossler
State: FL
Date Requested: Apr 12, 2005
Not Important/Relevant to my state(s)
Response: This ai seems to have little use in FL. Inquiry to plant pathologists netted zero returns of chloroneb utility.

Responder: Charles Luper
State: OK
Date Requested: Apr 12, 2005
Response: Response from Plant Pathologist is that this it not really used in Oklahoma on turfgrasses. No realy responses back from field crop guys could have some uses in cotton but this is not a major product for Oklahoma.

Responder: Allen Straw
State: TN
Date Requested: Apr 14, 2005
Response: Chloroneb is important to us in Tennessee. Most of our 10,000 to 12,000 acres of snap bean seed is treated with Chloroneb. Until recently our only other option has been Maxim. I do not have any hard data to support this, but I do believe that our growers get better Rhizoctonia control when using chloroneb vs. Maxim. Just recently (June 2003) Dynasty was labeled for use as a seed treatment. Azoxystrobin is very effective on Rhizoctonia, but to date none of the seed companies have been very interested in switching to a Dynasty treatment. I am presently doing some work with Dynasty and I understand one of the seed companies is doing some large block plantings with some Dynasty treated seed. My personal preference would be to retain chloroneb as a seed treatment and use Quadris in-furrow. If you need further information, please feel free to contact me. R. Allen Straw Assistant Professor Plant Sciences Commercial Vegetables and Strawberries UT Institute of Agriculture 2431 Joe Johnson Drive 252 Ellington Plant Sciences Knoxville, TN 37996-4561 Phone: (865) 974-7422 FAX: (865) 974-8850

Responder: Mark Mossler
State: PR
Date Requested: Apr 14, 2005
Not Important/Relevant to my state(s)
Response: IPM personnel in Puerto Rico have replied that chloroneb is not used in that territory.

Responder: Gene Milus
State: AR
Date Requested: Apr 14, 2005
Response: I am not aware of any critical need for it on turf in Arkansas. Gene Milus University of Arkansas

Responder: Steve Vann
State: AR
Date Requested: Apr 14, 2005
Response: I don't see a special place for this material in the inventory. Steve Vann Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service

Responder: Craig Canaday
State: TN
Date Requested: Apr 14, 2005
Response: I agree with Allen Straw. Chloroneb continues to be an important seed treatment fungicide for control of snap bean seedling diseases in Tennessee. It was very rapidly adopted by TN growers following my research findings and recommendation for its use in the early 1990's. It will be one of the materials included in the standard snap bean seed treatment used on much of the seed planted in Tennessee this year (i.e., seed varieties sold by Harris Moran). I have no experience with chloroneb other than as a seed treatment at the rates recommended in the attachment (both the wetable powder and flowable formulations). I do have some recent results that relate to its continued use as a seed treatment compared with alternative materials: In 2003, I included in my spring seed treatment test a comparison of Chloroneb 65W @ 4 oz/cwt against Maxim 4 FS @ 0.08 fl oz/cwt. [Both seed treatments also included Apron XL LS @ 0.16 fl oz and Ag.Strep sp @ 0.89 oz/cwt.] The test was conducted twice, one as a mid-April planting [cool soil] and once as a mid-May planting [warmer soil] with four replications per planting. While the differences were not significant (P=0.05), stands with Chloroneb 65W were 14 - 16% higher than with the Maxim 4 FS and yields were 16% - 62% greater with Chloroneb 65W than with the Maxim 4 FS. In 2004 on soybeans, I compared Catapult XL @ 7.0 fl oz/cwt [a flowable formulation of chloroneb + mefenoxam] against Quadris @ 0.6 fl oz/1000 row-ft (in-furrow spray). Seedling emergence, stands, and yields were significantly greater (P < 0.05) with the Catapult seed treatment than with the in-furrow spray. It should also be noted that the effect of azoxystrobin on the cytochrome bc1 complex may interfere with nitrogen fixation by symbiotic bacteria. Based on the data I have to date, I strongly support the continued use of chloroneb as a seed treatment for both snap bean and soybean. Craig H. Canaday Associate Professor - Vegetable Pathology Dept. of Entomology and Plant Pathology The University of Tennessee West Tennessee Experiment Station 605 Airways Blvd. Jackson, TN 38301 Phone: (731) 425-4746 (office) Phone: (731) 424-1643 (WTES) FAX (731) 425-4760 email: ccanaday@utk.edu

Responder: Robert (Bob) Bellinger
State: SC
Date Requested: May 10, 2005
Response: Steve, FYI - no one responded to this for cotton or poinsettia for SC. Bob B.

Return to Other Requests