Federal Way, IL, United States
Federal Way, IL, United States

Time filter

Source Type

News Article | November 24, 2016
Site: www.newsmaker.com.au

According to StratisticsMRC, the Global Crop Protection Chemicals market is estimated at $52.21 billion in 2015 and is expected to reach $85 billion by 2022 growing at a CAGR of 7.21% from 2015 to 2022. Due to the expanding population globally the demand for food is rising which in turn is fueling several market sectors in the agriculture industry. That type of market is crop protection chemicals, which consists of different crop chemicals to increase agricultural yield. Rising demand per hectare yield and increasing demand for food that is free from harmful organisms is boosting the global crop protection chemicals market. Some of the major challenges which the Crop Protection Chemicals market will face are increasing resistance of pests to crop chemicals, the ban imposed by market regulators, unfavourable effects of these chemicals on people’s health, extinction of rare beneficial species due to the use of crop chemicals, etc. Herbicides are most widely used and are expected to be the fastest-growing types in the coming couple of years. This is mainly due to the high usage of herbicides for removing out various herbs and useless weeds to reduce the crop loss. The oilseeds & cereals segment is projected to be the fastest growing market in the upcoming years. Increasing demand for cereals & oilseeds and high crop loss mainly due to unsafe herbs and weeds are forcing the market for crop protection chemicals used on cereals & oilseeds. Some of the key players in the market are The DOW Chemical Company, E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Company, Bayer Cropscience AG, Syngenta AG, Sumitomo Chemical Co., Ltd, FMC Corporation, BASF SE, Nufarm Limited, Monsanto Company, ADAMA Agricultural Solutions Ltd., Agrium, DuPont, Arysta LifeScience, Novozymes, Valent BioSciences, Nufarm and Cheminova. Types Covered: • Insecticides o Chlorpyrifos o Carbaryl o Pyrethrins and Pyrethroids o Malathion o Other Insecticides • Fungicides o Metalaxyl o Mancozeb o Chlorothalonil o Strobilurin o Other Fungicides • Herbicides o Glyphosate o Acetochlor o 2,4-Dinitrophenylhydrazine o Other Herbicides • Other Types Crop Types Covered: • Fruits & Vegetables • Cereals and grains o Wheat o Rice o Corn • Oilseeds and pulses o Sugarcane o Soya bean o Cotton o Sunflower o Rapeseed • Other Crops Segments Regions Covered: • North America o US o Canada o Mexico • Europe o Germany o France o Italy o UK  o Spain   o Rest of Europe     • Asia Pacific o Japan        o China        o India        o Australia        o New Zealand       o Rest of Asia Pacific     • Rest of the World o Middle East o Brazil o Argentina o South Africa o Egypt What our report offers: - Market share assessments for the regional and country level segments - Market share analysis of the top industry players - Strategic recommendations for the new entrants - Market forecasts for a minimum of 7 years of all the mentioned segments, sub segments and the regional markets - Market Trends (Drivers, Constraints, Opportunities, Threats, Challenges, Investment Opportunities, and recommendations) - Strategic recommendations in key business segments based on the market estimations - Competitive landscaping mapping the key common trends - Company profiling with detailed strategies, financials, and recent developments - Supply chain trends mapping the latest technological advancements


News Article | March 4, 2016
Site: cen.acs.org

More than 1 million people a year die from mosquito-borne illnesses such as malaria, dengue virus, and West Nile virus. And earlier this year, a dramatic increase in birth defects in Brazil was linked to the Zika virus, another mosquito-transmitted disease. Suppressing and controlling the spread of mosquito populations remains a major health challenge for nations in tropical and subtropical regions. Researchers and companies are working worldwide to develop new agents that are safe, effective, and affordable to protect people from mosquitoes. Here, we highlight three patents reporting new mosquito-control strategies from the databases of Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS). Jump to Topics: - Attacking a mosquito’s sweet tooth - A fatty solution to insecticide resistance - One-two punch for resistant mosquitoes Mosquitoes rely on plant sugars for energy. While female mosquitoes also drink blood, plant sugars are the only food source for male mosquitoes. Noting this, Michelle A. Brown, Martin A. Lomeli Jr., and Samer Elkashef of Olfactor Laboratories, a California-based biotech firm, developed a sugar mixture that kills mosquitoes (WO 2015200753) by exploring the mosquito-killing power of several mixtures of toxic and nontoxic sugars. They found that a 1:1 mixture of sucrose with glycyrrhizin was the most effective, with the sucrose attracting hungry insects and glycyrrhizin killing them through an unknown mechanism. After mosquitoes were fed the mixture for three days, about 50% of the insects died compared with only 2% of mosquitoes fed a sucrose-only diet. Not surprisingly, more male mosquitoes died than did female ones after being exposed to the toxic mixture. The scientists claim in the filing that because the mixture is derived from natural products, it should be less harmful to the environment and human health than synthetic insecticides. Pyrethroids are a class of insecticides that cause paralysis by preventing sodium ion channels from closing in insect nerve cells. Unfortunately, pyrethroid resistance is becoming a major hurdle in effectively suppressing mosquito populations. The usual approach to addressing such resistance—rotating through conventional insecticides—has created mosquitoes resistant to multiple classes of compounds. A serendipitous discovery from Valent BioSciences suggests a new approach to attacking resistant mosquitoes (US 20150094367). The Valent team found a mixture of permethrin, a commonly used pyrethroid, and fatty acids, such as octanoic, nonanoic, and decanoic acids, knocked down drug-resistant mosquitoes better than it did their nonresistant brethren. The amount of time to kill 50% of the resistant mosquitoes was 3.2 minutes, compared with 5.3 minutes for the nonresistant insects. The fatty acids alone were equally nonlethal to both mosquito groups, and exposure to just permethrin had the expected result of killing nonresistant mosquitoes quicker. Valent did not respond to C&EN’s request to elaborate on the possible mechanism behind this phenomenon before press time. But in its filing, the firm says that this fatty acid formulation may allow for the reuse of other pesticides that are no longer effective on resistant mosquitoes. Insecticide resistance in mosquitoes is a complex phenomenon that arises from constant exposure to the same class of compounds over multiple insect generations. Scientists at Bayer CropScience recently patented the simultaneous use of two different classes of insecticides, pyrethroids and neonicotinoids, to combat resistant mosquitoes (WO 2015197482). These two compound classes act on different proteins on the surfaces of insect cells, but they both cause paralysis and eventual death in insects. The Bayer team sprayed deltamethrin and clothianidin—a pyrethroid and a neonicotinoid, respectively—on different types of surfaces to test how well the mixture killed resistant mosquitoes. Five weeks after the treatment of a concrete surface, up to 97% of the mosquitoes that came into contact with the surface died within 24 hours. The mortality rate 60 weeks after treatment was still an impressive 83% for insects bumping into the surface in the past 24 hours. Justin McBeath, a vector control specialist at Bayer, tells C&EN that the firm has started a trial program in several endemic countries to test the real-world efficacy of the mixture.


News Article | November 15, 2016
Site: www.newsmaker.com.au

Wiseguyreports.Com Adds “Agroscience -Market Demand, Growth, Opportunities and analysis of Top Key Player Forecast to 2021” To Its Research Database This report studies sales (consumption) of Agroscience in Global market, especially in USA, China, Europe, Japan, India and Southeast Asia, focuses on top players in these regions/countries, with sales, price, revenue and market share for each player in these regions, covering Market Segment by Regions, this report splits Global into several key Regions, with sales (consumption), revenue, market share and growth rate of Agroscience in these regions, from 2011 to 2021 (forecast), like USA China Europe Japan India Southeast Asia Split by product Types, with sales, revenue, price and gross margin, market share and growth rate of each type, can be divided into Type I Type II Type III Split by applications, this report focuses on sales, market share and growth rate of Agroscience in each application, can be divided into Application 1 Application 2 Application 3 Global Agroscience Sales Market Report 2016 1 Agroscience Overview 1.1 Product Overview and Scope of Agroscience 1.2 Classification of Agroscience 1.2.1 Type I 1.2.2 Type II 1.2.3 Type III 1.3 Application of Agroscience 1.3.1 Application 1 1.3.2 Application 2 1.3.3 Application 3 1.4 Agroscience Market by Regions 1.4.1 USA Status and Prospect (2011-2021) 1.4.2 China Status and Prospect (2011-2021) 1.4.3 Europe Status and Prospect (2011-2021) 1.4.4 Japan Status and Prospect (2011-2021) 1.4.5 India Status and Prospect (2011-2021) 1.4.6 Southeast Asia Status and Prospect (2011-2021) 1.5 Global Market Size (Value and Volume) of Agroscience (2011-2021) 1.5.1 Global Agroscience Sales and Growth Rate (2011-2021) 1.5.2 Global Agroscience Revenue and Growth Rate (2011-2021) 9 Global Agroscience Manufacturers Analysis 9.1 Bioworks 9.1.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Competitors 9.1.2 Agroscience Product Type, Application and Specification 9.1.2.1 Type I 9.1.2.2 Type II 9.1.3 Bioworks Agroscience Sales, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2011-2016) 9.1.4 Main Business/Business Overview 9.2 Agrinos 9.2.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Competitors 9.2.2 120 Product Type, Application and Specification 9.2.2.1 Type I 9.2.2.2 Type II 9.2.3 Agrinos Agroscience Sales, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2011-2016) 9.2.4 Main Business/Business Overview 9.3 Dow AgroSciences 9.3.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Competitors 9.3.2 145 Product Type, Application and Specification 9.3.2.1 Type I 9.3.2.2 Type II 9.3.3 Dow AgroSciences Agroscience Sales, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2011-2016) 9.3.4 Main Business/Business Overview 9.4 Monsanto 9.4.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Competitors 9.4.2 Nov Product Type, Application and Specification 9.4.2.1 Type I 9.4.2.2 Type II 9.4.3 Monsanto Agroscience Sales, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2011-2016) 9.4.4 Main Business/Business Overview 9.5 Stoller?USA 9.5.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Competitors 9.5.2 Product Type, Application and Specification 9.5.2.1 Type I 9.5.2.2 Type II 9.5.3 Stoller?USA Agroscience Sales, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2011-2016) 9.5.4 Main Business/Business Overview 9.6 Syngenta 9.6.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Competitors 9.6.2 Million USD Product Type, Application and Specification 9.6.2.1 Type I 9.6.2.2 Type II 9.6.3 Syngenta Agroscience Sales, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2011-2016) 9.6.4 Main Business/Business Overview 9.7 Agrium 9.7.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Competitors 9.7.2 Agriculture Industry Product Type, Application and Specification 9.7.2.1 Type I 9.7.2.2 Type II 9.7.3 Agrium Agroscience Sales, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2011-2016) 9.7.4 Main Business/Business Overview 9.8 ADAMA 9.8.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Competitors 9.8.2 Product Type, Application and Specification 9.8.2.1 Type I 9.8.2.2 Type II 9.8.3 ADAMA Agroscience Sales, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2011-2016) 9.8.4 Main Business/Business Overview 9.9 Arysta LifeScience 9.9.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Competitors 9.9.2 Product Type, Application and Specification 9.9.2.1 Type I 9.9.2.2 Type II 9.9.3 Arysta LifeScience Agroscience Sales, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2011-2016) 9.9.4 Main Business/Business Overview 9.10 BASF 9.10.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Competitors 9.10.2 Product Type, Application and Specification 9.10.2.1 Type I 9.10.2.2 Type II 9.10.3 BASF Agroscience Sales, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2011-2016) 9.10.4 Main Business/Business Overview 9.11 Bayer CropScience 9.12 Biostadt 9.13 DuPont 9.14 FMC 9.15 Koppert 9.16 Novozymes 9.17 Nufarm 9.18 Sumitomo Chemical 9.19 Valagro 9.20 Valent BioSciences


News Article | November 11, 2016
Site: www.newsmaker.com.au

Notes: Sales, means the sales volume of Phosphorus Fertilizer Revenue, means the sales value of Phosphorus Fertilizer This report studies sales (consumption) of Phosphorus Fertilizer in Global market, especially in USA, China, Europe, Japan, India and Southeast Asia, focuses on top players in these regions/countries, with sales, price, revenue and market share for each player in these regions, covering BASF Bayer CropScience FMC Syngenta Adubos Sudoeste Agrium Dow AgroSciences DuPont EuroChem Koch Industries Novozymes PotashCorp Valent BioSciences Market Segment by Regions, this report splits Global into several key Regions, with sales (consumption), revenue, market share and growth rate of Phosphorus Fertilizer in these regions, from 2011 to 2021 (forecast), like USA China Europe Japan India Southeast Asia Split by product Types, with sales, revenue, price and gross margin, market share and growth rate of each type, can be divided into Type I Type II Type III Split by applications, this report focuses on sales, market share and growth rate of Phosphorus Fertilizer in each application, can be divided into Application 1 Application 2 Application 3 Global Phosphorus Fertilizer Sales Market Report 2016 1 Phosphorus Fertilizer Overview 1.1 Product Overview and Scope of Phosphorus Fertilizer 1.2 Classification of Phosphorus Fertilizer 1.2.1 Type I 1.2.2 Type II 1.2.3 Type III 1.3 Application of Phosphorus Fertilizer 1.3.1 Application 1 1.3.2 Application 2 1.3.3 Application 3 1.4 Phosphorus Fertilizer Market by Regions 1.4.1 USA Status and Prospect (2011-2021) 1.4.2 China Status and Prospect (2011-2021) 1.4.3 Europe Status and Prospect (2011-2021) 1.4.4 Japan Status and Prospect (2011-2021) 1.4.5 India Status and Prospect (2011-2021) 1.4.6 Southeast Asia Status and Prospect (2011-2021) 1.5 Global Market Size (Value and Volume) of Phosphorus Fertilizer (2011-2021) 1.5.1 Global Phosphorus Fertilizer Sales and Growth Rate (2011-2021) 1.5.2 Global Phosphorus Fertilizer Revenue and Growth Rate (2011-2021) 2 Global Phosphorus Fertilizer Competition by Manufacturers, Type and Application 2.1 Global Phosphorus Fertilizer Market Competition by Manufacturers 2.1.1 Global Phosphorus Fertilizer Sales and Market Share of Key Manufacturers (2011-2016) 2.1.2 Global Phosphorus Fertilizer Revenue and Share by Manufacturers (2011-2016) 2.2 Global Phosphorus Fertilizer (Volume and Value) by Type 2.2.1 Global Phosphorus Fertilizer Sales and Market Share by Type (2011-2016) 2.2.2 Global Phosphorus Fertilizer Revenue and Market Share by Type (2011-2016) 2.3 Global Phosphorus Fertilizer (Volume and Value) by Regions 2.3.1 Global Phosphorus Fertilizer Sales and Market Share by Regions (2011-2016) 2.3.2 Global Phosphorus Fertilizer Revenue and Market Share by Regions (2011-2016) 2.4 Global Phosphorus Fertilizer (Volume) by Application Figure Picture of Phosphorus Fertilizer Table Classification of Phosphorus Fertilizer Figure Global Sales Market Share of Phosphorus Fertilizer by Type in 2015 Figure Type I Picture Figure Type II Picture Table Applications of Phosphorus Fertilizer Figure Global Sales Market Share of Phosphorus Fertilizer by Application in 2015 Figure Application 1 Examples Figure Application 2 Examples Figure USA Phosphorus Fertilizer Revenue and Growth Rate (2011-2021) Figure China Phosphorus Fertilizer Revenue and Growth Rate (2011-2021) Figure Europe Phosphorus Fertilizer Revenue and Growth Rate (2011-2021) Figure Japan Phosphorus Fertilizer Revenue and Growth Rate (2011-2021) Figure India Phosphorus Fertilizer Revenue and Growth Rate (2011-2021) Figure Southeast Asia Phosphorus Fertilizer Revenue and Growth Rate (2011-2021) Figure Global Phosphorus Fertilizer Sales and Growth Rate (2011-2021) Figure Global Phosphorus Fertilizer Revenue and Growth Rate (2011-2021) Table Global Phosphorus Fertilizer Sales of Key Manufacturers (2011-2016) Table Global Phosphorus Fertilizer Sales Share by Manufacturers (2011-2016) Figure 2015 Phosphorus Fertilizer Sales Share by Manufacturers Figure 2016 Phosphorus Fertilizer Sales Share by Manufacturers Table Global Phosphorus Fertilizer Revenue by Manufacturers (2011-2016) Table Global Phosphorus Fertilizer Revenue Share by Manufacturers (2011-2016) Table 2015 Global Phosphorus Fertilizer Revenue Share by Manufacturers Table 2016 Global Phosphorus Fertilizer Revenue Share by Manufacturers Table Global Phosphorus Fertilizer Sales and Market Share by Type (2011-2016) Table Global Phosphorus Fertilizer Sales Share by Type (2011-2016) Figure Sales Market Share of Phosphorus Fertilizer by Type (2011-2016) Figure Global Phosphorus Fertilizer Sales Growth Rate by Type (2011-2016) Table Global Phosphorus Fertilizer Revenue and Market Share by Type (2011-2016) Table Global Phosphorus Fertilizer Revenue Share by Type (2011-2016) Figure Revenue Market Share of Phosphorus Fertilizer by Type (2011-2016) Figure Global Phosphorus Fertilizer Revenue Growth Rate by Type (2011-2016) Table Global Phosphorus Fertilizer Sales and Market Share by Regions (2011-2016) FOR ANY QUERY, REACH US @ Phosphorus Fertilizer Sales Global Market Research Report 2016


News Article | November 11, 2016
Site: www.newsmaker.com.au

Notes: Sales, means the sales volume of Agroscience Revenue, means the sales value of Agroscience This report studies sales (consumption) of Agroscience in Global market, especially in USA, China, Europe, Japan, India and Southeast Asia, focuses on top players in these regions/countries, with sales, price, revenue and market share for each player in these regions, covering Bioworks Agrinos Dow AgroSciences Monsanto Stoller?USA Syngenta Agrium ADAMA Arysta LifeScience BASF Bayer CropScience Biostadt DuPont FMC Koppert Novozymes Nufarm Sumitomo Chemical Valagro Valent BioSciences Market Segment by Regions, this report splits Global into several key Regions, with sales (consumption), revenue, market share and growth rate of Agroscience in these regions, from 2011 to 2021 (forecast), like USA China Europe Japan India Southeast Asia Split by product Types, with sales, revenue, price and gross margin, market share and growth rate of each type, can be divided into Type I Type II Type III Split by applications, this report focuses on sales, market share and growth rate of Agroscience in each application, can be divided into Application 1 Application 2 Application 3 Global Agroscience Sales Market Report 2016 1 Agroscience Overview 1.1 Product Overview and Scope of Agroscience 1.2 Classification of Agroscience 1.2.1 Type I 1.2.2 Type II 1.2.3 Type III 1.3 Application of Agroscience 1.3.1 Application 1 1.3.2 Application 2 1.3.3 Application 3 1.4 Agroscience Market by Regions 1.4.1 USA Status and Prospect (2011-2021) 1.4.2 China Status and Prospect (2011-2021) 1.4.3 Europe Status and Prospect (2011-2021) 1.4.4 Japan Status and Prospect (2011-2021) 1.4.5 India Status and Prospect (2011-2021) 1.4.6 Southeast Asia Status and Prospect (2011-2021) 1.5 Global Market Size (Value and Volume) of Agroscience (2011-2021) 1.5.1 Global Agroscience Sales and Growth Rate (2011-2021) 1.5.2 Global Agroscience Revenue and Growth Rate (2011-2021) 2 Global Agroscience Competition by Manufacturers, Type and Application 2.1 Global Agroscience Market Competition by Manufacturers 2.1.1 Global Agroscience Sales and Market Share of Key Manufacturers (2011-2016) 2.1.2 Global Agroscience Revenue and Share by Manufacturers (2011-2016) 2.2 Global Agroscience (Volume and Value) by Type 2.2.1 Global Agroscience Sales and Market Share by Type (2011-2016) 2.2.2 Global Agroscience Revenue and Market Share by Type (2011-2016) 2.3 Global Agroscience (Volume and Value) by Regions 2.3.1 Global Agroscience Sales and Market Share by Regions (2011-2016) 2.3.2 Global Agroscience Revenue and Market Share by Regions (2011-2016) 2.4 Global Agroscience (Volume) by Application Figure Picture of Agroscience Table Classification of Agroscience Figure Global Sales Market Share of Agroscience by Type in 2015 Figure Type I Picture Figure Type II Picture Table Applications of Agroscience Figure Global Sales Market Share of Agroscience by Application in 2015 Figure Application 1 Examples Figure Application 2 Examples Figure USA Agroscience Revenue and Growth Rate (2011-2021) Figure China Agroscience Revenue and Growth Rate (2011-2021) Figure Europe Agroscience Revenue and Growth Rate (2011-2021) Figure Japan Agroscience Revenue and Growth Rate (2011-2021) Figure India Agroscience Revenue and Growth Rate (2011-2021) Figure Southeast Asia Agroscience Revenue and Growth Rate (2011-2021) Figure Global Agroscience Sales and Growth Rate (2011-2021) Figure Global Agroscience Revenue and Growth Rate (2011-2021) Table Global Agroscience Sales of Key Manufacturers (2011-2016) Table Global Agroscience Sales Share by Manufacturers (2011-2016) Figure 2015 Agroscience Sales Share by Manufacturers Figure 2016 Agroscience Sales Share by Manufacturers Table Global Agroscience Revenue by Manufacturers (2011-2016) Table Global Agroscience Revenue Share by Manufacturers (2011-2016) Table 2015 Global Agroscience Revenue Share by Manufacturers Table 2016 Global Agroscience Revenue Share by Manufacturers Table Global Agroscience Sales and Market Share by Type (2011-2016) Table Global Agroscience Sales Share by Type (2011-2016) Figure Sales Market Share of Agroscience by Type (2011-2016) Figure Global Agroscience Sales Growth Rate by Type (2011-2016) Table Global Agroscience Revenue and Market Share by Type (2011-2016) Table Global Agroscience Revenue Share by Type (2011-2016) Figure Revenue Market Share of Agroscience by Type (2011-2016) Figure Global Agroscience Revenue Growth Rate by Type (2011-2016) Table Global Agroscience Sales and Market Share by Regions (2011-2016) Table Global Agroscience Sales Share by Regions (2011-2016) Figure Sales Market Share of Agroscience by Regions (2011-2016) Figure Global Agroscience Sales Growth Rate by Regions (2011-2016) FOR ANY QUERY, REACH US @ Agroscience Sales Global Market Research Report 2016


Rydzanicz K.,Wrocław University | Dechant P.,Valent BioSciences | Becker N.,German Mosquito Control Association KABS GFS | Becker N.,University of Heidelberg
Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association | Year: 2010

This paper presents results of studies evaluating the efficacy of various granular formulations of VectoBac® (Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis de Barjac Bti H-14 strain AM65-52) against immature mosquitoes in 2 distinct habitats in Poland and Germany. Meadows intermittently flooded with sewage water in the city of Wroclaw, Poland, provide ideal habitats for immature stages of Aedes caspius, Ae. vexans, and Culex pipiens pipiens. Helicopter applications of VectoBac G and VectoBac TP sand granules (VectoBac TP-SG) at rates of 5 and 10 kg/ha to the meadows resulted in between 70.9 and 97.4 larval mortality. In Germany, some swampy woodlands in the upper Rhine Valley provide ideal habitats for snowmelt mosquitoes, Aedes cantans, Ae. punctor, Ae. rusticus, and Ae. communis. Ground applications of VectoBac G, VectoBac TP-SG, and VectoBac WG IcyPearls (VectoBac WG-IP) were made to these habitats when the water temperature was ∼7°C. Larval mortality at 7-day post-application ranged from 90.9 (VectoBac TP-SG: 10 kg/ha) to 98.0 (VectoBac WG-IP: 15 kg/ha). In a separate microcosm trial within the same habitat, all 3 granule formulations controlled larvae of Ae. cantans for 3 wk. © 2010 by The American Mosquito Control Association, Inc.


Sanchez E.,Instituto Nacional de Tecnologia Agropecuaria | Curetti M.,Instituto Nacional de Tecnologia Agropecuaria | Retamales J.,Valent BioSciences
Acta Horticulturae | Year: 2011

Fruit set in pear (Pyrus communis L.) can be low and unpredictable. The aim of this study was to increase fruit set and subsequently yield in 'Abate Fetel' (AF) and 'Packham's Triumph' (PT) pears. The influence of aminoethoxyvinylglycine (AVG) application was investigated in a semi-commercial statistical trial in Río Negro, Argentina in the 2009-2010 season. The applications were randomly performed on eight rows at two stages of growth (full bloom and 14 days after full bloom) and two rates (125 and 250 mg L -1) with an untreated control. Application volume was set at 500 L ha -1 in order to make the application economically affordable for growers. Fruit drop, fruit set 60 DAFB, number of fruit per cm 2 branch cross sectional area, fruit size (weight, width, height), number of seeds per fruit and yield were evaluated. AVG 250 mg L -1 treatment at full bloom reduced yield in both cultivars (12% in PT and 8% in AF). However, treatments at 14 days after full bloom improved fruit set in both cultivars, but only the higher rate was effective in PT. In this cultivar, a 22% increase in fruit set and a 33% increase in yield were recorded with AVG application at 250 mg L -1. In AF, AVG 14 days after full bloom reduced fruit drop at 30 DAFB, improved fruit set (65%) and yield (16%), especially during the first harvest. We conclude that AVG at 250 mg L -1 applied two weeks after full bloom can increase fruit set and yield in the cultivars PT and AF.


Parker M.L.,North Carolina State University | Clark M.B.,North Carolina State University | Campbell C.,Valent BioSciences
Acta Horticulturae | Year: 2012

Abscisic acid (ABA) is one of the primary plant hormones reportedly involved in many plant responses to stress. Studies were undertaken to determine the effectiveness of exogenous ABA applications on bloom delay, fruit thinning, yield and fruit quality parameters at harvest in peach (Prunus persica L. Batsch). Foliar applications during the growing season (270 or 300 mg L -1) did not significantly affect shoot extension, fruit set or total yield and there were no consistent effects on flesh firmness, soluble solids content or red color development. Dormant applications to the top portion of the tree (300-1000 mg L-1) and dormant soil drench applications (150-500 mg L-1) were also evaluated. Three dormant applications of 300 mg L-1 ABA to the top portion of the plant may have accelerated bloom with no impact on fruit set in one year. Dormant soil applications did not appreciably affect bloom time consistently or fruit quality at harvest. A greenhouse study was also conducted with one year old grafted peach trees to see if a single ABA drench could impact young tree establishment under a drought condition. Dormant trees were potted, watered weekly and 59 days after planting, the pots were allowed to dry for approximately 10 days and then drenched with a 223 mg L-1 solution of ABA. After the ABA treatment one-half of the trees were watered 15 days later, and the other half 25 days after treatment when the untreated control trees were wilting. The trees were grown for the remainder of the season under optimal growing conditions. After leaf abscission the trees were destructively harvested and the trees treated with ABA had a significantly larger trunk diameter, 2-yr old fresh weight and overall tree fresh weight. The dry weight for the trees treated with ABA was significantly greater for the 1 and 2 year old wood, root system, and overall tree weight. © ISHS 2012.


Iburg J.P.,University of Georgia | Gray E.W.,University of Georgia | Wyatt R.D.,University of Georgia | Cox J.E.,University of Georgia | And 2 more authors.
Environmental Entomology | Year: 2011

Water was collected from a site on the Susquehanna River in eastern Pennsylvania, where less-than-optimal black fly larval mortality had been occasionally observed after treatment with Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. israelensis de Barjac insecticidal crystalline proteins (Bti ICPs). A series of experiments was conducted with Simulium vittatum Zetterstedt larvae to determine the water related factors responsible for the impaired response to Bti ICPs (Vectobac 12S, strain AM 6552). Seston in the water impaired the effectiveness of the ICPs, whereas the dissolved substances had no impact on larval mortality. Individual components of the seston then were exposed to the larvae followed by exposure to Bti ICPs. Exposure of larvae to selected minerals and nutritive organic material before ICP exposure resulted in no significant decrease in mortality. Exposure of larvae to silicon dioxide, cellulose, viable diatoms, and purified diatom frustules before Bti ICP exposure resulted in significant reductions in mortality. Exposure of larvae to purified diatom frustules from Cyclotella meneghiniana Ktzing resulted in the most severe impairment of mortality after Bti ICP exposure. It is postulated that frustule-induced impairment of feeding behavior is responsible for the impairment of larval mortality. © 2011 Entomological Society of America.


Bruckner J.V.,University of Georgia | Osmitiz M.T.G.,Science Strategies | Anand S.,DuPont Company | Minnema D.,Syngenta | And 3 more authors.
ACS Symposium Series | Year: 2012

The widespread use of pyrethroids as insecticides has resulted in exposure of much of the U.S. populace, including pregnant women and children. Greater susceptibility of preweanling rats to high doses of pyrethroids has led to concern that infants and children may be more sensitive than adults to neurotoxic effects at contemporary exposure levels. Research has shown that preweanling rats' low metabolic detoxification capacity is a major contributor to elevated blood and brain levels of the neurotoxic parent compounds. The Council for the Advancement of Pyrethroid Human Risk Assessment (CAPHRA) is initiating a series of research projects to learn more about factors that may contribute to age-dependent sensitivity to pyrethroids, and for their incorporation into physiological models capable of accurately predicting target organ (brain) dosimetry and toxicity in different age-groups for different exposure scenarios. In our own laboratory, CAPHRA is sponsoring investigations of age- and species-dependent: pyrethroid transportation in blood (plasma protein and lipoprotein binding); tissue:blood distribution; and blood-brain barrier (BBB) gastrointestinal (GI) barrier efficiency, including the potential role of GI and BBB efflux transporters. Experiments are underway with Caco-2 cells to characterize GI membrane flux and to learn whether pyrethroids are substrates for P-glycoprotein or other transporters. © 2012 American Chemical Society.

Loading Valent BioSciences collaborators
Loading Valent BioSciences collaborators