SAES-422 Multistate Research Activity Accomplishments Report
Sections
Status: Approved
Basic Information
- Project No. and Title: NCR46 : Development, Optimization and Delivery of Management Strategies for Corn Rootworms
- Period Covered: 01/01/2002 to 12/01/2002
- Date of Report: 06/30/2003
- Annual Meeting Dates: 01/30/2003 to 01/31/2003
Participants
Attendees (L. Bledsoe, M. Boetel, C. DiFonzo, R. Edwards, W. French, B. Fuller, M. Gray, C. Guse, B. Hibbard, R. Higgins, T. Hurley, D. Kopp, E. Levine, L. Meinke, P. Mitchell, K. Ostlie, C. Pierce, P. Porter, S. Pueppke, S. Ratcliffe, A. Schaafsma, J. Shaw, E. Shields, P. Sloderbeck, J. Spencer, J. Tollefson, J. Wedberg, and G. Wilde) introduced themselves.
Preliminary Business Meeting:
1.) Approval of 2001 minutes:
Chair Meinke reminded committee that 2001 minutes were sent out via email last year and a few suggested corrections were incorporated at that time; asked the group if there were any additional suggestions for corrections of the 2001 minutes; hearing none, approval of minutes was assumed.
2.) Appointment of Nominations Committee:
Chair Meinke appointed K. Ostlie and E. Levine to Nominations committee and charged them with coming up with at least one nominee for the final business meeting.
3.) Time and place for 2003 meeting:
Chair Meinke appointed J. Tollefson and J. Wedberg to serve as Time and Place committee. Asked them to give report on NC-205 committee?s plans for 2003.
J. Wedberg stated that NC-205 had asked whether NCR-46 would like to meet first, and had suggested either Baltimore, MD or Kansas City, MO as possible venues.
J. Tollefson added that NC-205 voted to let NCR-46 meet first and that executive committees of each group should meet to arrange details.
Discussion regarding value of continued combined meetings: much value regarding committee decisions and discussions on IRM, etc; an extra = day has become a necessary component of our meeting because of significant amount of time IRM discussions are taking; some expressed concern since NCR-46 is not a funded committee. NC-205 has been considering CIMMYT as a venue for the 2004 meeting. NCR-46 meeting first would be a good idea since we will have several important issues to discuss. A scientific advisory panel for issues relating to transgenic rootworm-protected corn may be formed.
Final Business Meeting
1.) Nominations committee report:
E. Levine forwarded nomination of Bruce Hibbard as 2003 secretary and informed group that Bruce had been contacted and was willing to serve.
Moved by J. Tollefson and seconded by K. Ostlie for nominations to cease. No discussion. Motion carried unanimously.
2.) Time and place committee report
On behalf of the time and place committee, J. Wedberg requested discussion among group regarding timing of meeting (NCR-46 possibly meeting first in next year?s combined meeting).
Discussion: our meeting first may have value with possibility of significant changes and market launch in near future. May also be beneficial by allowing us to formulate structure of our discussion with NC-205 and other entities during joint meetings.
Proposed format:
Sunday, 26 January 2003, 1-5 p.m.
? NCR-46 IRM discussion
Monday, 27 January 2003
? 8 a.m. - noon: NCR-46 Preliminary Business meeting & state reports
? 1-5 p.m.: state reports cont?d & Final Business meeting
? Joint meeting with NC-205
Tuesday, 28 January 2003
? 8 a.m. - noon: Closed NCR-46/NC-205 meeting
? 1-5 p.m.: NCR46-hosted portion of Joint NCR-46/NC-205/EPA/Industry meeting
Wednesday, 28 January 2003
? 8 a.m. - noon: NC205-hosted ? ? ? ? ?
Motion by J. Tollefson, seconded by J. Wedberg to approve proposed dates and format. No discussion. Motion carried unanimously.
Proposed locations: Baltimore, MD and Kansas City, MO.
Kansas City preferred (within driving distance for many regional attendees; likely to be more economical location; convenient since it?s an airline hub).
Motion by E. Shields and seconded by B. Fuller to hold the 2003 meeting in Kansas City, MO. No discussion. Motion carried unanimously.
B. Hibbard volunteered to serve as chair of local arrangements.
Downtown Kansas City preferred by group over airport hotel location.
Dates, format, and location will be recommended to NC-205.
3.) Executive committee report:
List was sent around table for attendees to identify their respective areas of expertise for IRM subcommittee and NCR-46 Executive committee to utilize for contacting individuals when questions/issues come up.
M. Boetel presented executive committee?s proposed IRM subcommittee membership/structure. Proposed initial at-large membership to include L. Meinke, E. Shields, K. Ostlie, and J. Tollefson with NCR-46 Chair as an ex-officio member.
Discussion: may be value in having Canadian linkage/representation; major issues or formalized documents will still be brought before entire NCR-46 membership or presented for review via e-mail, etc.
Suggestion by J. Tollefson that proposed ad-hoc subcommittee designated as ?NCR-46 IRM Subcommittee? be formed and be comprised of 6 individuals:
Four NCR-46 participants (appointed by NCR-46 Executive Committee)
NCR-46 Chair (ex-officio)
Canadian liaison/representative (ex-officio).
Moved by E. Shields and seconded by B. Fuller to accept J. Tollefson?s suggested format. No discussion. Motion carried unanimously.
4.) Membership issues
Discussion: Confusion has arisen with EPA and others regarding official state representatives versus participants/affiliates. There are a few listed members that attend very infrequently and other attendees that participate regularly. No good record regarding official format for deciding on official voting member status. Historically, committee meeting has been closed to outside industry, but open to anyone in universities, USDA, etc. from public sector research/extension. Concern exists among some non-members regarding documentation of time and accounting for efforts with their respective administrators. Should officers and ?members? listed on NCR-46 letters and official documents possibly continue to be appointed state representatives and the 2 official USDA members? Should we have 2 membership categories: 1) official state representatives; and 2) at-large membership? NC-205 uses two categories: official state reps and cooperators but does not include graduate students. Currently, no official assigned representative from Ohio to replace Hal Willson (deceased).
Conclusions: No formal changes regarding membership designation. Officership and voting status will remain with official state and USDA representatives, but interactions and contributions by cooperators/affiliates valued and welcome. Administrative advisor should continue to archive official membership list and NCR-46 Executive Committee should maintain official membership list in addition to cooperator list. Executive committee should follow up to determine if Ohio representative has been appointed (consider contacting J. Kovach, OSU, Wooster, OH).
1.) Approval of 2001 minutes:
Chair Meinke reminded committee that 2001 minutes were sent out via email last year and a few suggested corrections were incorporated at that time; asked the group if there were any additional suggestions for corrections of the 2001 minutes; hearing none, approval of minutes was assumed.
2.) Appointment of Nominations Committee:
Chair Meinke appointed K. Ostlie and E. Levine to Nominations committee and charged them with coming up with at least one nominee for the final business meeting.
3.) Time and place for 2003 meeting:
Chair Meinke appointed J. Tollefson and J. Wedberg to serve as Time and Place committee. Asked them to give report on NC-205 committee?s plans for 2003.
J. Wedberg stated that NC-205 had asked whether NCR-46 would like to meet first, and had suggested either Baltimore, MD or Kansas City, MO as possible venues.
J. Tollefson added that NC-205 voted to let NCR-46 meet first and that executive committees of each group should meet to arrange details.
Discussion regarding value of continued combined meetings: much value regarding committee decisions and discussions on IRM, etc; an extra = day has become a necessary component of our meeting because of significant amount of time IRM discussions are taking; some expressed concern since NCR-46 is not a funded committee. NC-205 has been considering CIMMYT as a venue for the 2004 meeting. NCR-46 meeting first would be a good idea since we will have several important issues to discuss. A scientific advisory panel for issues relating to transgenic rootworm-protected corn may be formed.
Final Business Meeting
1.) Nominations committee report:
E. Levine forwarded nomination of Bruce Hibbard as 2003 secretary and informed group that Bruce had been contacted and was willing to serve.
Moved by J. Tollefson and seconded by K. Ostlie for nominations to cease. No discussion. Motion carried unanimously.
2.) Time and place committee report
On behalf of the time and place committee, J. Wedberg requested discussion among group regarding timing of meeting (NCR-46 possibly meeting first in next year?s combined meeting).
Discussion: our meeting first may have value with possibility of significant changes and market launch in near future. May also be beneficial by allowing us to formulate structure of our discussion with NC-205 and other entities during joint meetings.
Proposed format:
Sunday, 26 January 2003, 1-5 p.m.
? NCR-46 IRM discussion
Monday, 27 January 2003
? 8 a.m. - noon: NCR-46 Preliminary Business meeting & state reports
? 1-5 p.m.: state reports cont?d & Final Business meeting
? Joint meeting with NC-205
Tuesday, 28 January 2003
? 8 a.m. - noon: Closed NCR-46/NC-205 meeting
? 1-5 p.m.: NCR46-hosted portion of Joint NCR-46/NC-205/EPA/Industry meeting
Wednesday, 28 January 2003
? 8 a.m. - noon: NC205-hosted ? ? ? ? ?
Motion by J. Tollefson, seconded by J. Wedberg to approve proposed dates and format. No discussion. Motion carried unanimously.
Proposed locations: Baltimore, MD and Kansas City, MO.
Kansas City preferred (within driving distance for many regional attendees; likely to be more economical location; convenient since it?s an airline hub).
Motion by E. Shields and seconded by B. Fuller to hold the 2003 meeting in Kansas City, MO. No discussion. Motion carried unanimously.
B. Hibbard volunteered to serve as chair of local arrangements.
Downtown Kansas City preferred by group over airport hotel location.
Dates, format, and location will be recommended to NC-205.
3.) Executive committee report:
List was sent around table for attendees to identify their respective areas of expertise for IRM subcommittee and NCR-46 Executive committee to utilize for contacting individuals when questions/issues come up.
M. Boetel presented executive committee?s proposed IRM subcommittee membership/structure. Proposed initial at-large membership to include L. Meinke, E. Shields, K. Ostlie, and J. Tollefson with NCR-46 Chair as an ex-officio member.
Discussion: may be value in having Canadian linkage/representation; major issues or formalized documents will still be brought before entire NCR-46 membership or presented for review via e-mail, etc.
Suggestion by J. Tollefson that proposed ad-hoc subcommittee designated as ?NCR-46 IRM Subcommittee? be formed and be comprised of 6 individuals:
Four NCR-46 participants (appointed by NCR-46 Executive Committee)
NCR-46 Chair (ex-officio)
Canadian liaison/representative (ex-officio).
Moved by E. Shields and seconded by B. Fuller to accept J. Tollefson?s suggested format. No discussion. Motion carried unanimously.
4.) Membership issues
Discussion: Confusion has arisen with EPA and others regarding official state representatives versus participants/affiliates. There are a few listed members that attend very infrequently and other attendees that participate regularly. No good record regarding official format for deciding on official voting member status. Historically, committee meeting has been closed to outside industry, but open to anyone in universities, USDA, etc. from public sector research/extension. Concern exists among some non-members regarding documentation of time and accounting for efforts with their respective administrators. Should officers and ?members? listed on NCR-46 letters and official documents possibly continue to be appointed state representatives and the 2 official USDA members? Should we have 2 membership categories: 1) official state representatives; and 2) at-large membership? NC-205 uses two categories: official state reps and cooperators but does not include graduate students. Currently, no official assigned representative from Ohio to replace Hal Willson (deceased).
Conclusions: No formal changes regarding membership designation. Officership and voting status will remain with official state and USDA representatives, but interactions and contributions by cooperators/affiliates valued and welcome. Administrative advisor should continue to archive official membership list and NCR-46 Executive Committee should maintain official membership list in addition to cooperator list. Executive committee should follow up to determine if Ohio representative has been appointed (consider contacting J. Kovach, OSU, Wooster, OH).
Accomplishments
Status of Corn Rootworm Management Guide and website (Ken Ostlie):
Editorial committee consists of C. DiFonzo, L. Meinke, J. Tollefson, J. Wedberg, K. Ostlie, and B. Fuller. J. Wedberg, having professor emeritus status, may have more time than others, and has agreed to serve as chief editor. An FTP site at ftp://www.crwncr46@users.coafes.umn.edu has been set up with the following download folders: Covers/Outline, The Diabrotica, Life Cycle, Injury/Impacts, Monitoring/Scouting, Cultural & Natural Control, Insecticide Management Native Resistance, Host Plant Resistance, Areawide Management, and Photographs & Artwork. When attempting to access, you will be prompted for the password, which is ?crwpub?. Access is 24 h/day & 7 d/week. Original documents will be left intact, but can be downloaded, revised, and re-submitted. Updated draft files should be saved with initials of updating author. Take-home assignment: log on, download Covers/Outline folder, add your name to relevant sections as reviewer/contributor if willing and able, edit or write a section, upload file (use modified filename if modified a previous file). Editorial committee will review current set of contributions and begin coarse edits. Emphasis is on producing an image-rich document directed at progressive growers and agricultural professionals. Please review your slide files and consider submitting CRW-related images for use in the guide.
P. Porter offered high-resolution slide scanning capability if needed.
3.) General IRM discussion:
a) NCR-46 ongoing role with industry/EPA pertaining to transgenic corn
L. Meinke ? Ag. industry, general public, EPA may have certain expectations of us; what should ongoing role of NCR-46 be relative to transgenics/IRM? Transgenic/IRM issues have taken up so much time during past few years that we have not been able to adequately carry out our normal research & survey information exchanges. Where do we prioritize? Leadership on IRM will be needed, but we can?t necessarily be available for every beckon call of EPA either. Should we construct an IRM subcommittee to buffer our Executive Committee so they are still able to carry on normal business of NCR-46 throughout year? If so, how form subcommittee?
Discussion regarding possible subcommittee resulted in consensus opinion that subcommittee of 3-5 individuals be formed to handle IRM/transgenic rootworm-protected corn issues. NCR-46 Chair will defer to subcommittee representative or appropriate expert in CRW specialty area when necessary to address questions from EPA, media, etc. Efforts of subcommittee will allow NCR-46 Chair to focus on other important business (i.e., meetings, publications, etc.) that have been displaced over past few years due to IRM issues. Our Canadian counterparts may appreciate linkage with NCR-46 IRM subcommittee, and the interaction will likely be beneficial to both entities.
Motion by J. Wedberg to form a subcommittee structured to address IRM and nontarget impact issues relating to rootworm-protected transgenic corn. Seconded by K. Ostlie. No further discussion. Motion carried unanimously.
Executive committee was charged with structuring committee and agreed to meet Wednesday evening to draft a proposal for group to discuss during final business meeting Thursday morning.
b.) Discussion of IRM alternatives:
EPA is interested in our consideration of alternatives beyond the current IRM focus.
What are current/possible IRM alternatives?
Within-field ? block, strip, seed mix
Adjacent field
Mode of action rotation
Technology rotation
Prescriptive use of transgenic products
Spatial crop rotation
Limits on market penetration
Community refuge (for instances of many farms combined)
On-farm refuge requirement
Areawide CRW management
No refuge
Concerns regarding IRM:
We do not want to imply non-interest in major changes to interim IRM plan on part of NCR-46.
Why assume that a refuge is an absolute necessity since multiple modes of action/toxins are being developed and anticipated to be available to producers?
Difficult to arrive at optimal IRM plan until product is actually in marketplace for 1-3 years. Identification of research needs remains important.
Growers look forward to getting away from insecticide use; most proposed IRM plans appear to keep them locked in to soil insecticide use to protect refuge corn.
Seed mix may still warrant further consideration; may result in more random mating.
Growers like simplicity (i.e., ?refuge in the bag?) of seed mix.
Larval movement: will resistance gene frequency be increased if larvae pass through first instar on nontransgenic roots then move to transgenic plant as harder-to-kill later instars?
Stacked transgenic products: are separate IRM plans needed?
Compliance with IRM plan will rely on simplicity/ease of adoption.
Editorial committee consists of C. DiFonzo, L. Meinke, J. Tollefson, J. Wedberg, K. Ostlie, and B. Fuller. J. Wedberg, having professor emeritus status, may have more time than others, and has agreed to serve as chief editor. An FTP site at ftp://www.crwncr46@users.coafes.umn.edu has been set up with the following download folders: Covers/Outline, The Diabrotica, Life Cycle, Injury/Impacts, Monitoring/Scouting, Cultural & Natural Control, Insecticide Management Native Resistance, Host Plant Resistance, Areawide Management, and Photographs & Artwork. When attempting to access, you will be prompted for the password, which is ?crwpub?. Access is 24 h/day & 7 d/week. Original documents will be left intact, but can be downloaded, revised, and re-submitted. Updated draft files should be saved with initials of updating author. Take-home assignment: log on, download Covers/Outline folder, add your name to relevant sections as reviewer/contributor if willing and able, edit or write a section, upload file (use modified filename if modified a previous file). Editorial committee will review current set of contributions and begin coarse edits. Emphasis is on producing an image-rich document directed at progressive growers and agricultural professionals. Please review your slide files and consider submitting CRW-related images for use in the guide.
P. Porter offered high-resolution slide scanning capability if needed.
3.) General IRM discussion:
a) NCR-46 ongoing role with industry/EPA pertaining to transgenic corn
L. Meinke ? Ag. industry, general public, EPA may have certain expectations of us; what should ongoing role of NCR-46 be relative to transgenics/IRM? Transgenic/IRM issues have taken up so much time during past few years that we have not been able to adequately carry out our normal research & survey information exchanges. Where do we prioritize? Leadership on IRM will be needed, but we can?t necessarily be available for every beckon call of EPA either. Should we construct an IRM subcommittee to buffer our Executive Committee so they are still able to carry on normal business of NCR-46 throughout year? If so, how form subcommittee?
Discussion regarding possible subcommittee resulted in consensus opinion that subcommittee of 3-5 individuals be formed to handle IRM/transgenic rootworm-protected corn issues. NCR-46 Chair will defer to subcommittee representative or appropriate expert in CRW specialty area when necessary to address questions from EPA, media, etc. Efforts of subcommittee will allow NCR-46 Chair to focus on other important business (i.e., meetings, publications, etc.) that have been displaced over past few years due to IRM issues. Our Canadian counterparts may appreciate linkage with NCR-46 IRM subcommittee, and the interaction will likely be beneficial to both entities.
Motion by J. Wedberg to form a subcommittee structured to address IRM and nontarget impact issues relating to rootworm-protected transgenic corn. Seconded by K. Ostlie. No further discussion. Motion carried unanimously.
Executive committee was charged with structuring committee and agreed to meet Wednesday evening to draft a proposal for group to discuss during final business meeting Thursday morning.
b.) Discussion of IRM alternatives:
EPA is interested in our consideration of alternatives beyond the current IRM focus.
What are current/possible IRM alternatives?
Within-field ? block, strip, seed mix
Adjacent field
Mode of action rotation
Technology rotation
Prescriptive use of transgenic products
Spatial crop rotation
Limits on market penetration
Community refuge (for instances of many farms combined)
On-farm refuge requirement
Areawide CRW management
No refuge
Concerns regarding IRM:
We do not want to imply non-interest in major changes to interim IRM plan on part of NCR-46.
Why assume that a refuge is an absolute necessity since multiple modes of action/toxins are being developed and anticipated to be available to producers?
Difficult to arrive at optimal IRM plan until product is actually in marketplace for 1-3 years. Identification of research needs remains important.
Growers look forward to getting away from insecticide use; most proposed IRM plans appear to keep them locked in to soil insecticide use to protect refuge corn.
Seed mix may still warrant further consideration; may result in more random mating.
Growers like simplicity (i.e., ?refuge in the bag?) of seed mix.
Larval movement: will resistance gene frequency be increased if larvae pass through first instar on nontransgenic roots then move to transgenic plant as harder-to-kill later instars?
Stacked transgenic products: are separate IRM plans needed?
Compliance with IRM plan will rely on simplicity/ease of adoption.