PESTICIDE RECORDS OF 150 KENTUCKY PRIVATE APPLICATORS TO BE CHECKED, IS EVERYBODY READY?

by Lee Townsend

One component of the 1990 Farm Bill included a requirement, effective May 10, 1993, that certified private pesticide applicators must keep records of their use of Restricted Use pesticides. Sometime between now and early March, inspectors will arrange to visit 150 randomly selected private applicators in Kentucky to see if they have the appropriate records. Individual applicators will be contacted by the inspector to schedule an appointment. There will be neither fines nor penalties associated with these records checks. More information is available from your county extension office or by calling Lee Townsend at (606) 257-7455.

ACEPHATE INSECTICIDE TO BE MARKETED

Acephate 75SP AG probably will be available through many Kentucky dealers and distributers for the 1997 growing season. Distributed by the Micro Flo Company, this product is "generic" Orthene. When the patent protection of a pesticide expires, other companies may chose to market the active ingredient. Acephate 75SP AG will have labels for selected field crops, including tobacco, and some vegetables. As is the case with many generics, the common name of the insecticide is also the brand name. (Micro Flo Co., Lakeland, FL)

PESTICIDE TRAINING MEETINGS:

KENTUCKY FERTILIZER AND AGRICULTURAL CHEMICAL ASSOCIATION LOUISVILLE MEETING

The 1997 KFACA Pesticide Workshop will be held from 9:00 am until 3:00 pm on February 11, 1997 at the Executive Inn in Louisville. The agenda of the meeting will be submitted to the Division of Pesticides for continuing education credit for Categories 1 (Ag), 10 (Demonstration and Research, 11 (Aerial), and 12 (Pesticide Dealer). Among the topics covered will be - Preplant Soil Fumigation in Tobacco for Controlling Root Diseases, Proper Application of Foliar Fungicides, Experimental Fungicides for Blue Mold Control in Tobacco, Weed Control With Genetically Altered Crops, Common Pokeweed Control in Field Crops, ALS-Resistant Smooth Pigweed in Kentucky, Evaluation of Insect Control by Selected Varieties of Bt-Corn, Alternatives in Tobacco Insect Control, and more. There will be a registration fee. Contact Tod Griffin, KFACA Executive Director, for more information (502) 226-1122.

UPCOMING KENTUCKY COMMERCIAL PESTICIDE APPLICATOR TRAINING SESSIONS

In all locations:

• Categories 1, 4, 10, 12 - 8:30 AM to Noon; testing at 1:00 PM
• Categories 2a, 3, 10, 12 - 9:45 AM to 2:00 PM; testing at 2:00 PM

Locations:

• February 4 - Univ. of Kentucky Research and Education Center, Princeton
• February 5 - English Park Center, Owensboro
• February 6 - Brown Co. Exposition Center, Western Kentucky Univ., Bowling Green
• February 7 - Hardin Co. Ext. Office, Elizabethtown
• February 11 - Boyle Co. Ext. Office, Danville
• February 13 - Boone Co. Ext. Office Burlington
• February 18 - Fayette Co. Ext. Office, Lexington
• February 20 - Pulaski Co. Ext. Office, Somerset

ACTIONS THAT FAVORED BLUE MOLD IN 1996

by William Nesmith

At a recent meeting with some growers, I presented a list of some of the actions that favored blue mold developed in Kentucky in 1996. Several have requested that I publish that list. So here it is:

• Blue mold-infected transplants moved in the trade, both from out-of-state and in-state plant sources.
• Greenhouses and plant beds were not managed to keep the foliage dry.
• Preventive fungicide applications were not made in most transplant production systems; instead, mostly rescue attempts were made.
• Blue mold infected transplants were knowingly set to the field, apparently with the assumption that blue mold would be easily controlled with fungicides.
• Abandoned transplant sites and sucker regrowth were left in the community as an "incubating nest" of blue mold.
• Tobacco spray equipment was not modified with appropriate drop nozzles in order to properly apply foliar fungicides, like Acrobat MZ. County Extension Agents estimated that at least 60% of the Acrobat MZ used was applied with roadcast-boom applications, rather than with sprayers modified with drop nozzles. As a result of poor coverage of the target plants, most of the fungicide applied was wasted. The estimated blue mold losses statewide were reduced by only 30% where broadcast applications were made, ranging from little or no control in large tobacco, to good control in newly transplanted crops.

How many of these actions are changeable?

MAJOR LABEL CHANGE FOR RIDOMIL ON TOBACCO

by William Nesmith

The 1997 label for Ridomil products does NOT support the use in any type of tobacco transplant production system. Only uses in the field is supported by the 1997 labels, as soil applications for control of Pythium, black shank, and metalaxyl-sensitive strains of blue mold. In other words, plant beds (out-door or in-door) are no longer authorized sites for use of Ridomil.

The reason for this change relates to management of metalaxyl-resistance in blue mold and other diseases. Continued use of metalaxyl-containing products in transplant production systems increases the risk of maintaining and increasing metalaxyl-resistant strains of blue mold in the overall population of the blue mold fungus.

USE NON-SYSTEMIC INSECTICIDE TO TREAT BEEF CATTLE IN WINTER

by Lee Townsend

Application of systemic insecticides, including Ivomec, to cattle now can cause host-parasite reactions. Cattle grubs are migrating through the bodies of infested animals. Depending on the cattle grub species present, the maggots can be in the spinal canal or the walls of the esophagus at this time of year. If the grubs are killed by a systemic insecticide while in these sensitive areas, the animals may have an adverse reaction. No grub treatments should be applied now.

Unless certified as treated, any animals purchased at this time of year should be treated twice for cattle lice before being added to the herd. If a grub treatment was not applied, be sure to use a non-systemic insecticide. Products containing permethrin or cyfluthrin are examples of safe choices. If the treatment history of the animals in not known, assume that cattle grubs are present and do not use a systemic product.

DEALING WITH HEAD LICE

by Mike Potter

Most people associate winter with the end of their insect problems. In the case of head lice, nothing could be farther from the truth. It is incorrect to associate head lice with the stigma of poverty and poor personal hygiene. In fact, it's estimated that ten percent of elementary school children are treated for head lice each year.

Diagnosing the Problem

Head lice are bloodsucking insects that live exclusively on man. They usually infest only the head, preferring the nape of the neck and the area behind the ears. Head lice are especially common on schoolchildren between the ages of three and ten. Schools bring large numbers of children together in close personal contact. Hats and coats are often shared or hung together in the same closet, permitting transfer of lice from one child to another. Transfer of head lice can also occur by using infested combs and brushes, or resting one's head on upholstered furniture or pillows recently used by an infested person.

The first indication of head lice is itching and scratching caused by the bloodsucking habits of the louse. Examination of the hair and scalp will usually reveal the white or grayish crawling forms (about the size of a sesame seed), and the yellowish white eggs (nits) attached to the hair shafts close to the scalp. The nits are sometimes mistaken for dandruff or residues of shampoo, but will not wash off or blow away. Usually all life stages can be seen with the naked eye, although a flashlight and hand lens are helpful. Red bite marks or scratch marks are often seen on the scalp or neck.

People should be aware that there are many other factors (other than lice) that may cause itching and irritation during winter. Dry air alone can cause irritation, producing a condition known as "winter itch". As skin loses moisture, itching results. A skin moisturizer or home humidifier is often helpful in these situations (See ENT-50 Invisible Itches: Insect and Non-Insect Causes).

Elimination and Prevention

There are four (4) key steps to eliminating head lice and preventing their return:

1. The child or infected person(s) should be treated with a medicated shampoo formulated specifically to control lice. Several different products, most containing pyrethrin, are available through pharmacists and physicians. Follow the directions on the package. Some products require retreatment in 7-10 days. If one family member is found to be infested, all others should be examined. Only those showing evidence of lice should be treated. All infested family members should be treated at the same time to prevent reinfestation from one person to another.
2. Remove all nits using a fine-tooth louse comb. Louse control shampoos often do not kill all the nits, and surviving eggs will hatch within 7-10 days, continuing the cycle of reinfestation. Dead nits also tend to remain attached to the hair, causing uncertainty about reinfestation. Nits are most easily removed by combing while the hair is slightly damp. They can also be picked out with fingernails, or cut out with a small safety scissors.
3. All personal articles that have been in contact with the infected individual should be deloused. Normal laundering with hot, soapy water (125 degrees F for 10 minutes), or dry cleaning will kill lice and nits on clothing, bed linens and towels. Combs and brushes should be soaked for 10 minutes in a pan of very hot water. (Note: steps 1-3 should be performed at the same time in order to avoid reinfestation after shampooing).
4. To reduce the chance of reinfestation, children should be instructed not to share hats, clothing or brushes with their classmates. Each child should have a separate storage space for their hats and other clothing at home and school to prevent contact with other garments. If this is not possible, coats should be hung on hooks so they do not touch, or on the backs of students' chairs.

Elimination of a head lice outbreak in a school, nursing home, or similar shared facility requires prompt, coordinated action and administrative support to prevent the spread of lice to uninfected individuals. Unless all affected persons are treated, the condition will continue.

Treatment of the premises or clothing with insecticides is generally not required or recommended for the control and prevention of head lice. This is because the lice cannot survive for any length of time off of their human host.

TOP TEN INSECTS (AND RELATED ARTHROPODS) SEEN BY UK SPECIALISTS

by Ric Bessin and Lee Townsend

The list is out, and the end-of-season rankings have been finalized. The top rankings represent the most common insect and related arthropods submitted by county agents and other clientele for identification and management recommendations. In fact, three pests at the top of the rankings are not even insects!

The arthropods that broke into this "top 10" are not necessarily the very common in Kentucky, nor are they necessarily the most important affecting agriculture, or man and animals in the Commonwealth. But they are the most common types sent in for diagnostic services where a specific identification and recommendation information are required.

Top ranking belongs to the eastern subterranean termite. These structural pests are frequently identified by county agents but are sent in for confirmation. Due to the high cost of repairing termite damage and expense of treatment, accurate identifications are essential. Often appearance of winged termite swarmers in the home is an indication of an active infestation. For information on termites see ENT 6,"Termites and Their Control," ENTFACT 604, "Termite Control:Answers for the Homeowner" or ENTFACT 605, "Protecting your Home from Termites."

The second ranking was captured by the lone star tick. While this can identified be identified as a tick by most county agents, heightened concerns about Lyme disease, the most publicized arthropod-borne disease in the United States for the past few years, prompted a lot of identification requests. The good news is that the adults of the lone star tick have not been shown to transmit Lyme disease. However, the lone star tick can vector rocky mountain spotted fever, another potentially deadly disease. For more information on ticks and these diseases see ENT 35, "Ticks and Disease in Kentucky."

Carpenter ants took the third spot. These can cause serious structural damage in the home as well. While carpenter ants don't eat wood, they hollow it out for nesting. Often they are found in wood that remains moist longer than normal due to leaky gutters or other factors. The situation must be corrected to allow the wood to dry out. Swarms of winged carpenter ants are a sign that they are nesting inside or very near the structure. Many different types of ants can be found in homes. Management recommendations vary drastically depending on the type of ant involved so accurate identification is a must. For more information on carpenter ants see ENT 57, "Ant Control In and Around Structures," or ENTFACT 603, "Carpenter Ants."

Carpet Beetles were forth and actually represent several species within a family. The varied carpet beetle was most common. This is another household pest. They attack items composed of animal fibers such as wool, furs, silk, feathers, felt, and leather. See ENTFACT 601, "Carpet Beetles," for more information.

Foreign grain beetle was fifth. This is a perennial top 10 beetle that shows up in August and September Large numbers may be found inside buildings. These beetles are very small and may be confused with some stored product pests, such as the sawtoothed grain beetle. Foreign grain beetles are frequently problems in new homes, feeding on mold spores that grow on poorly seasoned lumber. For information on identification and biology of foreign grain beetles see ENTFACT 610, "Foreign Grain Beetle."

Ground beetles were the sixth most commonly sent in insect. Like the soldier beetle larvae, these are predaceous insects that feed on other insects and occasionally are a nuisance when they wander indoors. The shiny black beetles may be mistaken for cockroaches, such as the Oriental cockroach that occurs in dark, damp basements. See ENTFACT 104, "Ground Beetles" for more information.

When combined, several species of aphids filled the seventh spot. Aphids are problem on many shade trees and ornamentals. Not only can they stunt growth by removing sap, but they can induce sooty mold to grow on the honeyew they deposit on plants resulting in a dirty gray to black appearance. See ENT-32, "Recommendations For Shade Tree And Woody Ornamental Pests" for more information.

Velvet ants were eighth. These medium-sized wasps, named because of its velvety appearance, may also be present in lawns or pastures. Males have wings, but females are wingless, and are sometimes confused with ants. Ants, however, have elbowed antennae, and a "hump" in the constriction between the thorax and abdomen. Velvet ants are either shades of brown or red and black, and females will sting if encountered. See ENTFACT 411,"Yard wasps" for more information.

The ninth spot was taken by the larger yellow ant. While not nearly as serious as the carpenter ant, the larger yellow ant can be a nuisance, particularly in the fall when the nests swarm. This insect has a distinct citronella smell when their bodies are crushed.

Indian meal moths filled the tenth spot. The larvae of this insect infest stored grain products. Frequently, the appearance of these distinctive moths indicate an infestation in the home. For information on Indian meal moths and their control see ENT 29, "Household Insect Control."

This wraps up the top ten for 1996. Another publication you should be familiar with when sending samples in for identification is ENTFACT 001, "Preparation of Insect Specimens for Identification."

Monte P. Johnson

EPA'S SUMMARY OF CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS AVAILABLE ON THE INTERNET

EPA's Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics and Training (OCEFT) announces the availability of the "Summary of Criminal Prosecutions," on EPA's Web Site. The summary is a collection of information on federal criminal prosecutions of individuals and organizations in which the investigations were conducted by EPA's Criminal Investigation Division. The case information begins with a factual background of the charges, judicial actions taken and disposition of the case. This summary covers cases from 1982 through 1992. OCEFT plans to publish additional volumes of the Summary as new information is formatted for internet access. The summary is accessed from EPA's Home Page at www.epa.gov. Enter http://es.inel.gov/oceft in the location field to access the OCEFT Home Page. Then scroll down to Summary of Criminal Prosecutions. Files can then be downloaded. The summary has six files. The three main files contain chronological listings of the cases and the case information. The remaining three files are ALPHAIN, MEDIAIN and TP. The ALPHAIN file is an alphabetical index by defendant name. The MEDIAIN file is a index by media (statute) that was the subject of the prosecution. The file TP is a cover page for those who might want to print out the entire document. (EPA Press Release, Nov. 18, 1996; Pest Management Notes, Dec. 2, 1996)

IDAHO PESTICIDE DISTRIBUTOR FINED $25,000 FOR FISH KILL

On Oct. 30, the Wilbur-Ellis Co. Inc., a San Francisco based fertilizer and pesticide distribution corporation that operates on a national and international scale, was sentenced to pay a $25,000 fine for negligently violating the Clean Water Act when it released rinse water that killed an estimated 40,000 fish in Idaho streams. This fine was the maximum fine that could be assessed for this conviction. The company did not have a permit to release the rinse water. The Idaho Department of Fish and Game and the Idaho Division of Environmental Quality estimated that approximately 40,000 fish were killed in an eight-mile stretch of Cow Creek and Union Flat Creek in Idaho as a result of the rinse-water release. This case was investigated by EPA's Criminal Investigation Division. (EPA Press Release, Nov. 18, 1996; Pest Management Notes, Dec. 2, 1996)

MISSISSIPPI MEN CHARGED WITH WIDESPREAD PESTICIDE MISUSE

On Nov. 25, 1996, Paul Walls Sr. and Dock Eatman Sr., both of Moss Point, Miss., were arrested on charges of violating the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act for the alleged unlicensed commercial application of the pesticides methyl parathion and Ambush, which contains the chemical permethrin. The charges which were filed on Nov. 22, 1996, also alleged that the two men unlawfully distributed methyl parathion. The charges state that homes, day care centers, a restaurant and a hotel in the Pascagoula, Miss., area were the sites of the alleged illegal pesticide application in 1995 and 1996. Methyl parathion and Ambush are insecticides which are labeled for outdoor agricultural uses in uninhabited fields. Walls was charged with 45 counts of illegal pesticide application and three counts of illegally distributing methyl parathion. Eatman was charged with 22 counts of illegal pesticide application and one count of illegally distributing methyl parathion. If convicted, Walls can be sentenced to a term of up to 48 years imprisonment and/or fined up to $4.8 million and Eatman can be sentenced to a term of up to 23 years imprisonment and/or fined $2.3 million. A number of homes in the Pascagoula area have been evacuated in a combined federal-state emergency response as a result of the alleged actions of the defendants. This case is being investigated by EPA's Criminal Investigation Division, the FBI and authorities from the State of Mississippi. (EPA Press Release Nov. 29, 1996; Pest Management Notes, Dec. 2, 1996)

MORE ON METHYL PARATHION (TAKEN FROM A. SCHREIBER)

This is just one more, and perhaps the most spectacular, example of how misuse of pesticides places legitimate and important use of pesticides at risk. I have recently been interacting with some individuals from EPA who stated that the Special Review Branch and the Office of General Council (OGC) at EPA wanted to use this oppurtunity to set a new precedent in enforcement. It was OGC's opinion that Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) gave them the authority to outright cancel a pesticide if it there was widespread misuse, which it felt was occurring this case. At one point, Lynn Goldman supported this position and there was serious consideration of cancellation of registrations of the EC formulation. Fortunately, cooler heads within EPA prevailed. One of the major reasons that EPA backed off was the base producer, Cheminova, has been very cooperative. The following is the state of negioations between Cheminova and EPA:

Cheminova has agreed to add a stenching agent (valeric acid smells like old socks or a locker room), use a barcoding system to track product, conduct an education program, package all products in returnable, refillable closed system containers, and recall all existing products. The only sticky point in the agreement is the schedule for phasing in returnable/refillable containers. EPA wants this done immediately but Cheminova wants to do it over a 3 year (55%, 80%, 100%) schedule. A compromise on a 2 year 75%/100% schedule might be possible. Right now EPA is trying to figure out what would be the impact of requiring closed containers would be. (Alan Schreiber, Agrichemical and Environmental Education Specialist, Washington State University - Food and Environmental Quality Lab, Dec. 18, 1996)

IPM ON THE WWW

Two sites on the WWW that are concerned with IPM are:

1. For more than three years, the Consortium for International Crop Protection (CICP) has sponsored IPMnet, a global integrated pest management information sharing effort. In mid-1995, through collaboration with the (U.S.) National IPM Network, the Consortium established a Web site that includes access to IPMnet NEWS, RESISTANT PEST MANAGEMENT, a periodic newsletter devoted to research concerning development of chemical resistance in pest species, and management techniques, technical information resources, and a forum, message center, and databases.

   HOW: use any one of the following channels:

   • Send an e-mail message to: and ask to have an IPMnet Registration form in hard copy sent to you via postal channels. CICP staff will respond promptly with a copy of the form. Be sure to provide CICP with your own postal address ... or,
   • Write to: CICP, NYSAES, Cornell Univ., Geneva, NY, 14456-0462, USA, and request a form be sent to you ... or,
   • Fax or telephone your request to CICP at: Fax: 1-315-787-2418; Phone: 1-315-787-2252... or,
   • On the Web, bring up the CICP web site at: http://ipmwww.ncsu.edu/cicp/cicp.html and fill in a registration form electronically
2. DIR: DATABASE OF IPM RESOURCES Jointly sponsored by the Consortium of International Crop Protection and the Integrated Plant Protection Center at Oregon State Univ. (USA), DIR was designed and created by W.I. Bajwa to provide a unified path to all facets of IPM information dispersed among hundreds of sites, electronic and otherwise. DIR searches can be initiated in several ways: by discipline, by crop, or by IPM topic. Dr. Bajwa cautions that DIR, while fully operative, remains a dynamic work in progress with further refinements and additional features still in the construction phase. The URL for DIR is: http://www.ippc.orst.edu/DIR/. The sponsors offer DIR as a free resource for the purpose of facilitating and encouraging global exchange of IPM-related information. FMI: W.I. Bajwa, IPPC, 2040 Cordley Hall, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR 97331, USA. Fax: 1-541-737-3080. E-mail, . Phone: 1-541-737-6272. ( CICP, Dec. 2, 1996; Pest Management Notes, Dec. 13, 1996)

THE FOOD QUALITY PROTECTION ACT (FQPA) OF 1996

The Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996 amends both the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to provide a comprehensive and protective regulatory scheme for pesticides. Highlights of the new law are:

• Health-Based Safety Standard for Pesticide Residues in Food: Replaces the zero-tolerance Delaney Clause with a risk-based standard that applies to both raw and processed foods. The new "reasonable certainty of no harm" standard has been translated as an additional lifetime risk of one in a million. It also considers toxic effects beyond cancer.
• Special Provisions for Infants and Children: Requires explicit determination that tolerances are safe for children that includes an additional safety factor of up to ten-fold.
• Limitations on Benefits Considerations: Places specific limits on benefits considerations when setting tolerances.
• Tolerance Reevaluation: Requires all existing tolerances be reviewed within 10 years to make sure they meet the requirements of the new health-based safety standard.
• Endocrine Disruptors: Provides for endocrine testing and requires manufacturers to provide data on their products.
• Enforcement: Enhances enforcement of pesticide residue standards by allowing FDA to impose civil penalties for tolerance violations.
• Right to Know: Requires distribution of a brochure in grocery stores on the health effects of pesticides, how to avoid risks, and which foods have tolerances for pesticide residues based on benefits considerations.
• Uniformity of Tolerances: States may not set tolerance levels different from national levels unless the state petitions EPA for an exception. This would not apply to tolerances that included benefits considerations.
• Pesticide Reregistration Program: Reauthorizes and increases user fees necessary to complete the review of older pesticides. Tolerances are also reassessed. Pesticide Registration Renewal: Requires EPA to periodically review pesticide registrations, with a goal of establishing a 15-year cycle.
• Registration of Safer Pesticides: Expedites review of safer pesticides.
• Minor Use Pesticides: Establishes minor use programs within EPA and USDA to coordinate minor use regulations and policy and provides a grant fund to support data development.
• Anti-microbial Pesticides: Establishes new requirements to expedite the review and registration of anti-microbial pesticides.
• Integrated Pest Management (IPM): IPM is defined as "a sustainable approach to managing pests by combining biological, cultural, physical and chemical tools in a way that minimizes economic, health and environmental risks." IPM is mandated to be used and promoted by federal agencies. (EPA, PPTS, 1996)

ROSE GROWERS GRANTED A TWO-YEAR WPS EXCEPTION

Effective as of December 18, 1996, EPA has granted a two-year exception to the WPS to allow greenhouse workers to harvest roses by hand before the restricted-entry intervals (REIs) have expired. A previous exception for the cut rose industry ended last June. The new request would allow:

• early entry into pesticide-treated areas in greenhouses for up to three hours during a 24-hour period
• early entry for up to eight hours within a 24-hour period during the two weeks prior to the major floral holidays (Christmas, Valentine's Day, Secretary's Day, Mother's Day, etc.)
• for products with 12-hour REIs, the early entry period for each harvester would not exceed four hours in any 12-hour REI period
• for products with REIs of 24 hours or more, early-entry workers would be required to wear additional personal protective equipment during the first 12 hours of the REI.

EPA has provided funding to NIOSH to conduct and evaluate personal protective clothing in reducing exposure, and also expects the rose industry to research and pilot alternative practices to reduce or eliminate the need for early entry for rose harvesting in greenhouses.

(Gempler's ALERT, December, 1996; EPA Press release, Dec. 20, 1996 via Pest Management Notes, Jan. 3, 1997)

ADDITIONS TO THE NAPIAP PESTICIDE INFORMATION LIBRARY

Three new additions to the NAPIAP Information Library include the following:

• Aerial Pesticide Drift Management (C-948) 1996 - Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service in cooperation with Arkansas and Kansas Cooperative Extension Services. 19 pp. Main topics covered include aerial spraying safeguards, aircraft spray system setup, weather, application, and post application. This manual can be purchased for $5.00 per copy (quantity discounts available) from University Mailing Services, Publishing & Printing East, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078.
• IPM Alternatives To Methyl Bromide - A compilation of articles from The IPM Practitioner. 1996 - 57 pp. Offers a series of articles covering California grape and strawberry production, disease suppressive media, steam and solarization in nursery crops, and Trichoderma seed treatments. Available through Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC), P. O. Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 94707. Telephone: 510/524-2567; email: birc@igc.apc.org; website: http://www.igc.apc.org/birc/
• Biologic and Economic Assessment of Benefits from Use of Phenoxy Herbicides in the United States - NAPIAP Report Number 1-PA-96. 1996 - 227 pp. Selected main topics include history of 2, 4-D and its impact on weed science, risk assessment of phenoxy herbicides, potential economic effects of banning phenoxy herbicides in U.S., and all the various uses of phenoxy herbicides. For more information contact: National Agricultural Pesticide Impact Assessment Program, USDA/CSREES, NAPIAP, Room 332-A, Aerospace Center, Washington, D.C. 20250.

All of these reports can be obtained on a loan basis from:
Monte P. Johnson, Dept. of Entomology, S-225 ASCN, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40546-0091, Telephone: 606/257-6693; Email: mjohnson@ca.uky.edu