Page images
PDF
EPUB

Mr. WHITTEN. I was told by a person who should know, that it never was actually banned.

Mr. MYERS. I am shocked. After all the talk we have had through the years on fireants and mirex.

Mr. WHITTEN. A former Under Secretary of Agriculture told me this last week.

Dr. KINNEY. It was my understanding that when it was found that mirex degraded to kepones which were suspect of being carcinogenic, a policy decision was established. I do not know if this was established by EPA or others. The policy decision was established that we should curtail the use of mirex until such time as we were sure it was safe.

Mr. WHITTEN. Just to pursue the record further, the testimony before the Committee was that if you used it twice in a year, you would get rid of the fireants, but EPA would let you use it only once a year, which would allow the ant colony time to rebuild in strength. Dr. KINNEY. The use of mirex, of course, is under the jurisdiction of APHIS. Again, we take guidance from APHIS in terms of chemicals that are used to control pests.

RESEARCH ON THE SOUTHERN PINE BEETLE

Mr. WHITTEN. What have you done on the Southern pine beetle? We gave you money and told you to get busy on that.

Dr. BERTRAND. The USDA has a $2 million program.

Mr. WHITTEN. We would like to judge it by the results. We know it costs money. We would like to know what the projects are and what progress you are making.

Dr. BERTRAND. Most of the work on the Southern pine beetle is carried on by the Forest Service, $1.3 million of it. We have a small effort in Cooperative Research. Dr. Thomas, do you know which university is working on that?

Dr. THOMAS. I do not know which universities, but there is an active program going on the pine beetle working in conjunction with the Forest Service.

Dr. BERTRAND. The Forest Service has leadership for that program. Our participation is minimal. The current allocation to Cooperative Research from the Forest Service that Dr. Thomas was alluding to is $633,000.

Mr. WHITTEN. I am sure our staff could find out the dollars and cents, but if you do not tell us, we do not know you have done anything for your money.

Dr. BERTRAND. Mr. Chairman, I do not have the details on that in view of the fact that we did not

Mr. WHITTEN. Do any of your associates know?

Dr. BERTRAND. I do not believe we came prepared for that.

Mr. WHITTEN. You must have come prepared for a whole lot of others judging by the number of people here in the room.

Dr. BERTRAND. You also asked about the tussock moth and the gypsy moth. We do have programs there also in cooperation—— Mr. WHITTEN. You might give us the details on those. Are you carrying those out? What progress are you making?

Mr. BERTRAND. Perhaps Dr. Klassen can answer that.

Dr. KLASSEN. I am with Agricultural Research. We do work with the gypsy moth, but not with the tussock moth.

Mr. WHITTEN. If you run into the tussock moth would you send somebody else to deal with that?

Dr. KLASSEN. I really think perhaps that-

[Additional information follows:]

Research on the tussock moth is conducted by the Forest Service and by several universities.

Mr. MYERS. Does someone have a program so we can keep all these players straight?

Dr. BERTRAND. Mr. Myers, the problem we are facing is that these areas of work are under the leadership of the Forest Service. Mr. WHITTEN. I understand that. But the question is why you should get in on the money if they are doing the work. That is a serious question.

Can anyone give me any information? Do we have someone on the Committee who can give us some information?

GYPSY MOTH RESEARCH

Mr. McHUGH. No, but I would like to hear what the gentleman has to say on the gypsy moth.

Dr. KLASSEN. In the case of the gypsy moth, we work cooperatively with the Forest Service and with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and a number of universities. In my agency we have worked on a number of problems such as finding an attractant and developing a use of that attractant against the gypsy moth. That attractant has been registered by two companies.

In addition, we have developed mass rearing capabilities in order to produce the virus that is needed to control the gypsy moth. We are working with the Forest Service to further develop effective formulations of that virus. In addition, we have developed a mass rearing capability to facilitate the sterile male release research and development program that is being conducted by FS and APHIS. We have introduced and established 12 different parasites for the gypsy moth and we are now shifting our work so we can make better use of those parasites.

Basically that has been our research program. I think we have been rather successful in it.

Mr. WHITTEN. As you can see, I am asking things which deserve an answer so our record will be complete. I hope you will put in the record some information on the progress you are making. I realize I sound like an adversary though I really am an advocate, but we cannot judge your accomplishments by how much money you get.

[The information follows:]

PROGRESS IN GYPSY MOTH RESEARCH

In 1980 the following progress was made in gypsy moth research:

1. The prototype technology for mass rearing in excess of 50,000 gypsy moths per day was essentially completed and was employed for mass production of the virus and of moths for sexual sterilization and release by APHIS and FS.

2. Optimal procedures and conditions for producing maximum yield of high quality virus were defined and implemented.

3. The cost of mass rearing gypsy moths was further reduced by 25-35 percent by using soybean protein to replace casein and by replacing agar with low cost gelling agents.

4. A greatly improved virus formulation was developed by utilizing COAX®, a feeding stimulant, boric acid and Eusolex®, a sunscreen to prevent inactivation of the virus. One acre equivalent of the formulation costs about $4.00.

5. A new method of synthesizing the sex attractant at a relatively low cost was evaluated and appears to be feasible.

6. Field populations were suppressed by using the sex attractants to disrupt communication between males and females. This method is effective against low level populations only. Similar studies were made in which populations were first suppressed with diflubenzuron, or with a new formulation of Bacillus thuringiensis. One sex attractant formulation gave suppression for more than one year.

7. The exotic predator Dinorhynchus dybowskyi was released in large numbers in Maryland, Pennsylvania and Connecticut. Large numbers of the parasite Anastatus disperis were shipped to states where this egg parasite is not yet established.

MAJOR INSECT PROBLEMS

Mr. WHITTEN. Some of the members of this Committee will recall an incident involving the Atomic Energy Commission some years ago. They had a $5 million a year project for basic research, just research for the sake of research. I read what this project covered. It was just finding answers for answers' sake on the grounds that somebody might be interested and might want to know. I asked them what they hoped to accomplish since the project was going on for five years. They said they hoped it would be $25 million a year by the end of five years. That was the answer given.

I am trying to find out what we are getting for our research money and how we can go about helping direct it to the areas of greatest need.

If Forest Service is doing all the work, why should we give you the money? And vice versa? I would like you to put into the record a detailed report on what progress you are making and what this Committee might do to see that the old problems get attention. I am sure you can go out and find new problems, but the old ones are destroying the country. We need emphasis on them.

The Japanese beetle does not seem to be bothering us at the moment. We think we have answers on the khapra beetle and the Mediterranean fruit fly, although we still have outbreaks every once in a while.

So, I wish you would give us a summary of these major problems and let us know what more can be done about them.

Dr. BERTRAND. We certainly will do that and respond specifically on these insects.

Mr. WHITTEN. You might add others. We have to justify the fact that you are getting an increase and everyone else is being cut. To get by with that we have to show that your work is worthwhile. We cannot simply say programs are carried out by the Forest Service. If you get the money, you have the responsibility.

Without objection, the information will be placed in the record at this point.

[The information follows:]

Insect Pests and Diseases in Agricultural Commodities

Insects and diseases cause crop and livestock losses of well over $40 billion. Many of them have major impacts on the environment. Brief accounts of some of these major pests follow. It is also noteworthy that a number of pests which were previously very destructive have become less of a threat because research has developed effective means of control. Some outstanding examples include the Hessian fly on wheat east of the Mississippi which is controlled with resistant wheat varieties at a savings to American agriculture of at least $40 million each year; the citrus black fly which is controlled by introduced parasites thus eliminating the need for $5 million/year control costs; the cereal leaf beetle and alfalfa weevil which are controlled largely by introduced parasites; the wheat stem sawfly which no longer causes problems because of resistant wheat varieties, and the pea aphid, the spotted aphid, and the blue aphid on alfalfa which are now controlled by resistant varieties. Additionally, the destructive potential of many other major pest insects such as the European corn borer and the boll weevil have been reduced through the application of modern, effective pest management technologies. On the other hand serious reversals have been suffered in dealing with pests such as soil insects and the gypsy moth.

Gypsy Moth

The ravages of the gypsy moth, a tree defoliator, appear to be progressively increasing every few years. In 1980, 5.1 million acres of forest were defoliated. This is an all time high. The pest was introduced into Massachussets in 1869 and was quarantined with moderate effectiveness for a number of decades. After DDT could no longer be used against the pest in the late 1950's, the pest spread rapidly throughout the northeastern corridor of the United States. There is a serious danger that the gypsy moth will spread down the Appalachian chain and ravage valuable forests in the southern U.S.

In areas where the pest is well established, the Forest Service cooperates with State agencies in providing assistance to reduce defoliation and tree mortality. On the other hand APHIS conducts cooperative programs to eradicate isolated infestations outside of the generally infested area and to retard the artificial and natural spread of the pest from the generally infested area.

Some specialists have estimated annual losses caused by the pest at $50 million. However, in 1975 benefit-cost analyses, which were conducted for current and future programs, resulted in estimates of a much greater magnitude. The annual damage caused by the pest in 1975 was estimated at $268 million and the benefit-cost ratio of research was estimated to be between 29.7 and 61.6. The annual damages without control in the entire area where the gypsy moth infestation has occurred and could potentially occur were estimated to be between $249.7 and $516.8 million. Oak mortality associated with recent outbreaks varied from 5 to 80 percent. In addition to timber losses, residential property values are reduced, outdoor recreation is impaired, and damage to wildlife and watersheds occurs.

Research has resulted in (1) establishment of 12 species of predators and parasites, (2) registration of several effective insecticides, (3) registration of a virus and of Bacillus thuringiensis both of which provide biological control, (4) identification, synthesis and use of the gypsy moth sex attractant to detect, delimit and suppress populations, (5) guidelines for

[ocr errors]

assessing socioeconomic impact caused by the gypsy moth, (6) procedures for risk-rating forest stand susceptibility to defoliation, and (7) mass rearing capability to produce both the virus and sterile moths.

A USDA Gypsy Moth Steering Committee outlined the following research approaches which are being followed in gypsy moth research: enhance the effectiveness of established natural enemies, (2) improve the effectiveness of microbial pesticides, (3) further develop use patterns for the sex attractant, (4) further develop the sterile male technique, (5) further develop silvicultural practices for reducing losses, (6) develop an understanding of aspects of population ecology needed to improve the use of control technology, and (7) develop combination treatments of various methods of suppressing the pest.

Khapra beetle

The khapra beetle is one of the most threatening foreign pests of stored grains and other commodities. Its establishment in the U.S. would cause millions of dollars of losses as well as disrupt domestic marketing and exports of U.S. products.

In 1966 after a decade of costly effort it was eradicated from the four southwestern states and from Mexico. This required the fumigation of nearly 800 buildings and extensive visual inspection of warehouses, transport vehicles, etc., for signs of larvae and cast skins.

During the past year the khapra beetle has again penetrated U.S. quarantines. It has been discovered in buildings in New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland

SEA/AR scientists and cooperators at the University of Wisconsin and Syracuse University have developed new sensitive techniques for detecting the pest, based on the identification and synthesis of the sex attractant emitted by the adult female. Perhaps more importantly, the scientists have identified several components of wheat germ oil which strongly attract the larvae of the pest.

The wheat germ oil attractants are used in traps which can be placed in locations where the beetles may be present. Male beetles seek females in the traps, but instead are killed by an insecticide. The use of these traps will reduce the costs of inspection and fumigation by providing posititve identification of the presence of the beetles, thus aiding in eradication.

Two additional approaches have been developed. One uses attractant baited traps to disseminate a protozoan disease that rapidly decimates the population. A second approach is to interbreed the pest with a related native species to produce sexually sterile hybrids.

Additional research is needed to (a) find replacements for methyl bromide and other fumigants, (b) obtain sufficient data needed to register the use of the pathogen, (c) conduct practical scale tests with the sterile hybrids, and (d) develop new attractant toxic bait combinations for prophylactic use.

« PreviousContinue »