 |
 |
||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
Plants > Biotechnology / PNTs > Bt Crops Summary of Consultation on Pest Resistance
|
| Topic 1: | Discuss the acceptability of the two proposed refuge recommendations presented (see Jennifer Riebes presentation), in particular option 2. Are there other recommendations for IRM plans relative to field placement that should be considered? What are the issues important to consider when designing RM plan recommendations for growers? |
| Topic 2: | Reflect on Mark Sears' presentation on the Canadian Corn Pest Coalition experience. Would a Canadian Potato Pest Coalition be useful? If so, what form should it take and what should its goals be? What group, individual, agency could spearhead the process of development? Is there a way to harmonize the activity regionally, across provinces, and eventually including growers across the border in the US and Mexico? |
| Topic 3: | Discuss grower education on resistance management. What are some of the approaches that have worked to increase grower awareness of the importance of resistance management? How could these be better used for IRM education? Who should be the target audiences and who would make the best instructors? Reflect on the Corn Grower Guide, as developed by the Canadian Corn Pest Coalition, and determine if this would be useful as a model for potatoes. Why or why not? If so, make recommendations for development and use of a similar guide for potatoes. |
The following are synopses of the presentations.
Overview of Bt Potato Production in
Canada
Gary Hawkins, NatureMark Potatoes, Country Director, Canada
Mr. Hawkins opened the presentation portion of the consultation with an overview of NewLeaf potato production in Canada. The NewLeaf product was introduced in the United States in 1995 and in Canada in 1996. In 1999, there were 189 NewLeaf growers in Canada. According to Statistics Canada's Agriculture Division (July 1999), there were 389,300 acres of potatoes grown in Canada. Of this total, 10,000 acres were NewLeaf and 60,000 were designated refuge acres. Within the 10,000 NewLeaf acres, 21.4% were seed potato acres (2,154), and 78.6% were commercial production acres (7,934). The product breakdown of the 10,000 NewLeaf acres was: 514 acres of Leafroll & CPB Resistant; 3,552 acres of PVY & CPB Resistant; and 6, 022 acres of CPB Resistant varieties.
Potential for Development of Resistance to Btt by Colorado
Potato Beetle (CPB)
Jeff Stewart, Ph.D., Agriculture and
Agri-Food Canada, Crops and Livestock Research Centre
Dr. Stewart provided an overview of the process of resistance development, CPB resistance, and the potential for resistance to Bacilus thuringiensis var. tenebrionis (Btt), a particular strain of Bt specific to some species of Coleoptera beetles. Resistance is "the ability of strains of insects to withstand exposure to dosages of chemicals that would kill a normal, susceptible population." A number of factors affect resistance development, such as genetics (gene frequency, numbers, dominance, fitness), behaviour (mobility, single vs. multiple hosts), and operational (pesticide chemistry, number of applications).
Dr. Stewart reviewed the lifecycle of the Colorado Potato Beetle. The CPB and its resistance to insecticides is well-documented - since 1940, the insect has been adapting to insecticides. Ongoing monitoring for resistance is critical. Mr. Stewart stressed that it is easier to prevent than to manage.
CPB Mobility and Survival
Deanna Sexson, University of Wisconsin
Ms. Sexson reviewed a CPB management situation in Wisconsin, highlighting a resistance/pesticidal study. The three-year study examined a 45,000 acre area, of which 3,000 were potatoes. The area-wide scheme to manage the CPB used geomatics information systems (GIS) to plot and track range and mobility. The study looked at the effect of using different management styles, including Admire applications, Conventional cultivation and NewLeaf cultivation. Ms. Sexson noted the following conclusions that could be drawn from the study:
Managing CPB Resistance to Bt Potatoes
Mark Sears, Ph.D., Professor and
Chair, Environmental Biology, Ontario Agriculture College, University of
Guelph
The management strategy is built on two key components: high dose and refuge. Elements of the high dose component include: dose of protein expressed in potato plant is well above mortality level; and potential resistance in CPB is recessive and single gene expression. Elements of the refuge component of the management strategy include: sufficient CPB are able to mate with any survivors of the Bt crop; both time and space must be considered.
The refuge concept is designed to ensure that mating of any resistant beetles takes place with susceptible beetles. It involves three factors:
Beetle populations: One can expect 1 resistant beetle for every 500 susceptible beetles. The probability of two resistant beetles mating is very low and the frequency of resistant genes remains diluted in the population from the resistant x susceptible matings.
Location: closer is better - within or adjacent to Bt field.
Timing: mating takes place in fall and spring - overwintering sites are key to ensure mixed matings.
Dr. Sears provided a three-point refuge checklist:
susceptible beetles available (insecticide treatments allowed);
susceptible beetles near Bt fields (blocks or adjacent fields);
mixed matings preferred, location and distance from overwintering sites important.
CPB Resistance Management (RM) Recommendations for Bt Potatoes
Jennifer Riebe, NatureMark Potatoes, Technical Marketing/Product
Development
NatureMark's resistance management program is built around five key elements: Integrated Pest Management (IMP); "High expression"; refuge for susceptible insects; monitoring (scouting); training and education. Her presentation focused on recommendations for refuge management.
Basic recommendations included:
Ms. Riebe outlined two options of the proposed 2000 refuge placement plan:
Concerns of Organic Agriculture Regarding the use of
Bt
Potatoes
Al Geddry, Representing Robert MacDonald of the Canadian Organic Advisory
Board
Mr. Geddry discussed the issues from the organic agriculture perspective. Modern agriculture is largely based on production systems that require significant inputs of synthetic fertilizers, pesticides and/or pharmaceuticals to achieve high productivity and to reduce losses attributable to pests and disease. These practices have contributed significantly to global agricultural productivity in the past five decades. Yet, overproduction in industrialized countries and underproduction in developing countries, coupled with increasing input costs, have led to an overall decrease in farm income in many agricultural sectors. Furthermore, with increasing global concern that intensively synthetic-chemical based farming systems may accelerate the decline in environmental quality, the sustainability of modern agriculture is becoming the subject of great concern to policy makers, researchers, producers and consumers.
The goal of pest management within the organic agricultural system is to ensure a safe, effective and economical pest reduction process that provides pest suppression and product integrity in harmony with the environment. The organic community sees high dosage pesticides and the refuge strategy as having a negative effect on pest management and the use of Bt foliar spray as the "last tool in the toolbox."
More information on the organic perspective can be found at www.coab.ca.
Grower Experiences and Perspectives Panel
Participants heard the following first-hand experiences on Bt resistance and refuge strategies from a diverse group of growers, government officials, association executives and academe. This provided a broad range of perspectives and approaches and valuable information for consideration.
Growers provided their experiences with the cultivation of Bt potatoes. Many felt that the technology was very useful to them as a pest management option, particularly as Colorado potato beetles rapidly develop resistance to pesticide sprays. The growers tempered their enthusiasm with concerns about consumer acceptance of Bt potatoes and many felt that adequate and accurate information was not reaching the producers or the public.
The majority concern expressed by the panel was how refuge options would work and if neighboring properties could be included in the refuge design. The latter issue was of greatest concern to producers from PEI where fields are small and the 20% non-Bt variety refuge may be harder to implement. A minority of the producers felt that the resistance management proposals where too theoretical and that their necessity had yet to be proven. However most felt that the refuge strategy was a viable option for managing resistance and prolong the usefulness of the technology.
Canadian Corn Pest Coalition Experience
with Resistance Management Policy
Mark Sears, Ph.D., Professor and
Chair, Environmental Biology, Ontario Agriculture College, University of
Guelph
Participants then heard a presentation from Mark Sears about the successes and challenges of the implementation of the Corn Pest Coalition.
The Corn Pest Coalition was founded in 1997 to investigate the impact of Bt corn on Ontario and Quebec growers. Membership includes seed companies, researchers (university and AAFC), corn growers, and provincial extension personnel, with CFIA acting in an advisory capacity. The coalition has produced a position paper entitled "Responsible Deployment of Bt Corn for Management and Resistance to European Corn Borer" and an educational tool for growers, "A Grower's Handbook - Controlling European Corn Borer with Bt Corn Technology." Activities of the coalition focus on IRM strategy, deployment and monitoring, non-target impact (for example, ecological impact of Bt corn pollen on non-target Lepidoptera), and education/training. The mandate of the coalition is to: be objective; reach consensus; deliver a consistent message; and educate.
SYNTHESIS OF TABLE DISCUSSIONS
Participants worked in small table groups to share information, clarify content of presentations, discuss ideas and recommendations, and provide feedback on key issues. The following provides a synthesis of the common themes, questions, issues and concerns from the table discussion report books.
FIRST BREAKOUT SESSION
Participants were asked to discuss the acceptability of the two proposed refuge recommendations that had been presented, in particular Option 2.
| Option 1: | Plant every NewLeaf potato field within 800 m (2 mile) or less of the current year refuge (minimum 20% non-NewLeaf potatoes). |
| Option 2: | Plant every NewLeaf potato field within 800 m (2 mile) of land that was refuge last year. In addition, a current year refuge of 20% is to be planted, but may be located as desired within the farming unit. |
Discussion focused around two questions:
Key messages:
The table discussions included a number of technical/procedural questions, such as: "What is the maximum distance to refuge?" "What is a "farm unit?" "What is the degree of penetration - is it important to act now?"
Some participants suggested that an "Option 3" or an "Expanded Option 2" be considered. This option would allow growers to use a neighbour's refuge field with written agreement from the neighbour, rather than a refuge field within the farm unit.
The need for flexibility was one of the key messages delivered by participants. For example, allowing an RM plan's distance to be 1 km rather than 800 m. It was also suggested that RM plans be developed and evaluated on a regional or area basis. Suggested exemptions to refuge requirements included small acreage and areas that are free of the Colorado Potato Beetle, such as B.C.
Participants noted a number of concerns related to the RM plan in practice, including storage complexities and the increased potential for cross-over contamination. Concern was also raised about the effect of multiple seed lots on product quality. Some participants wondered if there should be separate/different regulations for seed growers and for commercial producers.
Participants felt that one of the key issues to be considered when designing RM plans is ease, or practicality, of application. Also, the plan needs to be economical and the costs clearly explained.
It is also important to ensure the credibility of the plan. Growers need to know and understand the long-term benefits of an RM plan. Enforcement and compliance measurement were also cited as areas that should be considered.
SECOND BREAKOUT SESSION
The second table discussion was based on Mark Sears' presentation on the Canadian Corn Pest Coalition experience. Participants were asked to consider:
Key Messages:
Participants agreed that a Canadian Potato Pest Coalition would be useful. Participants used "grass roots" and "broad spectrum" to describe the coalition's membership. Above all, there must be grower representation, and one suggestion was that growers be represented through the Canadian Horticulture Council. Many participants suggested that consumer input would be a necessary part of the coalition.
Goals for the coalition would include the development of an IRM plan that's acceptable to the majority of stakeholders. However, regional aspects and differences need to be considered. Suggested roles of the coalition included education, recommending research priorities, and information gathering, evaluation and dissemination. It was suggested that the coalition could also look beyond Btt issues, at future product concepts and broader pest management concerns.
Some participants cautioned that we should not "reinvent the wheel", i.e. that groups already exist that could take on this role, such as the PMRA CPB - IRM Steering Group. It was also suggested that the Canadian Horticulture Council Sub-Committee on Potatoes take on the role, with the provision that membership be broadened to include consumers, environmentalists, processors and developing companies. Participants also noted that the Canadian Horticulture Council has a NAFTA issues committee, thereby providing opportunity to work across borders.
THIRD BREAKOUT SESSION
The third table discussion focused on grower education. Participants considered the following questions:
Key Messages:
Provincial governments, grower magazines, potato board/agency newsletters, extension workshops, websites - these were some of the approaches identified by participants. One specific example cited was the Atlantic Potato Guide.
Some participants suggested that an educational component be part of the pesticide applicators' license. Some participants thought that such training should be a mandatory requirement to be a licensed grower.
Participants listed a number of possible instructors, including fieldsmen (chemical, processor, etc.), seed inspectors, researchers. It was also suggested that NatureMark representatives in each province work more closely with growers - "one-on-one contact" is important.
Participants agreed that a Corn Grower-type guide would be useful for potatoes. It was suggested that it be developed by the potato coalition, with input from researchers, grower organizations, seed companies, and regulatory agencies. An information session would also be useful.
Some participants also thought a consumer component should be part of an educational endeavor.
- A possible meeting in 6 months to continue the dialogue and education process.
- All decisions made must be science-based.
- Build mechanisms for CFIA and growers and all other interested parties to work and consult together (CFIA would like the CFA/CHC to consider leading a Bt potato coalition and CFIA to act in an advisory capacity).
 Top of Page |
Important Notices |
