Cotton Insects

• Thrips infestations have been severe.
• Beet armyworms have been found in seedling cotton.
• Emerging boll weevil numbers remain very low.
• Plant bugs and cotton fleahopper numbers in wild hosts a concern.

Unusual Pest Happenings Outside of Cotton.

• Early infestations in corn included fall armyworm, and beet armyworm
• Pests to watch.

Cotton Agronomy

• Numerous hail and wind events.
• Yield potential for fields replanted to cotton.
• Assessing stand damage from weather events.
• Late planting considerations.
• Watch for roundup ready over-the-top window closure.

Replant Decisions to Other Crops.

Insecticide Product Information.

Welcome to the first issue of FOCUS for the 2001 season. FOCUS will again be released only electronically no later than Friday afternoon on a weekly basis. We will continue to concentrate on insect management but will also have sections on agronomy, irrigation, diseases, weed control and other topics as is relevant and when provided by contributors. The management of insects is contingent on proper crop management and the two can not be logically separated. We will again provide an overview of the insect situation across the High Plains region with in-depth management suggestions. This approach will result in a longer newsletter than most but we hope will provide a valued resource of information. If you are interested in a more concise presentation of the situation and management tips as well as more localized information, you are encouraged to use the links at the top of the page to access the various county IPM newsletters as well as other topics and resources on the other two listed links.

If you have a unique situation or any question, we encourage you to e-mail us your information or questions for answers. We are especially interested in your views as they often provide the basis for topics in the next issue of FOCUS. As always, we wish you good fortune in what appears to be another really tough year. JFL

The 2001 cotton season is off to a rocky start with a significant amount of the dryland acreage still in need of rain while several hundred thousand acres of predominantly irrigated cotton has been severely damaged or lost to several weather events which included heavy rains, hail, tornadoes, high winds and blowing sand. With insurance deadlines past or rapidly approaching, producers have some tough decisions to make---replant to cotton, leave existing stand, or plant to another crop? The weather damaged crop will also make it more difficult to tell whether the Roundup application window has past.

Making decisions for insect control in weather damaged cotton is always tough but will be even harder this year with depressed cotton prices and carry-over debt from last year's horrible insect problems. Unusual pest problems have been the rule this year with true armyworms and beet armyworms in corn, beet armyworms in seedling cotton, and record thrips infestations in many cotton fields. There is a potential for further beet armyworm problems in cotton and fleahopper and plant bug problems similar to those experienced in 1999. On the bright side, boll weevil numbers are way down with existing eradication programs probably a year closer to eradication than before this weevil-killing winter. Also, there are lots of new insecticides available through new product registrations or Section 18 registrations.

There have been many unusual pest problems outside of our main crops including hordes of black ground beetles, whitelined sphinx caterpillars (hornworms), zillions of moths of every species imaginable, diamondback moth larvae on Tansy mustard in wheat fields, grasshoppers staging in rangeland and pasture areas, buck moth caterpillars in shinnery oak and chiles, a type of June beetle feeding on peanuts and now moving waves of false chinch bugs.

Thrips infestations have been severe across the area this year. Unfortunately, with a poor economic outlook for cotton, and in a belt-tightening effort to trim production costs, many producers opted to forego at-planting insecticide treatments for thrips. With thrips numbers at record levels, this probably was the worst year in my 25 year career in the High Plains for producers to have done this.

Anyone that has spent some time outdoors the last several weeks knows just how bad thrips (picture) have been. Clouds of thrips have caused misery to those unfortunate souls that wore light colored shirts. As wheat matured and other hosts dried up, winged adult thrips left in mass in search of suitable hosts. Any cotton that was up was fair game. Some fields with cotyledon cotton averaged as high as 15 adult thrips per plant. Most fields averaged from 1-3 thrips per plant. A week later this adult infestation resulted in 5-55 immature thrips per plant.

What are thrips doing to plants? Well the obvious damage is to leaf buds, which when damaged fail to open as normal leaves (picture). While these same thrips are grazing on leaf buds in the terminal, they are also feeding on tiny squares---even in cotton with only one or two nodes. This feeding results in square loss even before you know it. The end result is loss of earliness and more importantly, yield. Adverse weather enhances thrips damage by encouraging them to feed more in the terminal than on the undersides of expanded leaves or cotyledons. The return of good weather relieves this pressure and also accelerates plant growth out of the vulnerability stage.

If your new growth looks good following a treatment, then no further treatment will probably be needed even if adult thrips are present. I would go to a short scouting interval to catch any reproduction before significant damage can take place.

Foliar insecticides that are effective include dimethoate, Bidrin, and Orthene. These are all locally systemic materials but may not provide adequate control beyond 3 days if the field is exposed to high adult thrips pressure. Emilio Nino (Castro/Lamb County IPM agent) and I have two tests out---one north of Earth and another later planted field east of Amherst. Table 1 gives the results after two checks in the Earth test. Temik, regardless of rate used, and the Adage seed treatment are holding their own after 18 days. For some reason though the Adage seed treatment is not doing as good a job as Temik in preventing reproduction. The Gaucho seed treatment has been ineffective again. This product does not control western flower thrips, our most common species. The Orthene planterbox treatment has provided marginal control while the foliar Orthene spray based on Extension's ET values has provided some control but has been less than stellar in performance. I think the heavy adult thrips pressure is overwhelming some of these treatments.

Table 1. Thrips Control Test - North of Earth, Texas. 2001. 1/

1/ Hamilton Farms. Planted May 18.
2/ Selected treatments
3/ Treated following counts 5/31 & 6/6. Extension’s threshold 1st date was 1/plant, 2nd date, 2/plant.
4/ Codyledons with 1st true leaf still folded.
5/ 2nd true leaf unfolding
6/ Means within a column followed by the same letter are not different at the 0.05 probability level (DNMRT)
7/ (#) = % immatures

Bottom line? I think Temik is still the insecticide to beat. Has Temik performance been perfect? Absolutely not! Under the conditions we have experienced this year, I would not expect Temik to provide absolute protection for 3-4 weeks like it normally does. Where heavy rains have occurred, leaching has removed the Temik from the plant's root zone. Where dry conditions have prevailed, the Temik has not been adequately activated to do its job. Also, adult thrips must feed on the Temik treated plants before they die. Before their demise, high thrips numbers can cause considerable damage. Can I explain all Temik performance problems on the basis of the above? No I can't. There have been instances where Temik failed to perform in spite of proper rates and calibration. I still hold out hope that the Adage seed treatment will end up a worthy alternative to Temik.

Texas Boll Weevil Eradication Foundation beet armyworm trap catches have been very high for the last several weeks across the West Texas area, especially compared to last year at this time. At the same time, trap catches in South Texas have continued to be fairly low and similar to those from the previous four years. It appears that we had a large carryover from last year's heavy, late season infestations. What will happen in the coming months is anyone's guess but I sure would prepare for the worst. With Tracer, Steward and Intrepid available as fully registered beet armyworm insecticides and Denim available through a section 18, I would hope that supplies would hold up. But will producers hold up under this additional financial stress?

Emerging boll weevil numbers remain very low compared to previous years. Apparently, we had our first significant winter mortality since the boll weevil moved into the High Plains area beginning in 1991. Our overwintering studies, both dig-up cages and overwintering site survey, indicated low weevil survival. Even more importantly, our site survey showed a significant drop in overall weevil numbers, dead or live. This could indicate that we had a high percentage of reproductive weevils present in fields at the time they lost their host plants to cutout or plant killing frosts. I theorize that reproductive weevils do not move to overwintering sites like those that have fattened up and achieved diapause status.

Our GRID trapping program began in May and will continue through early November. We are in the 7^th year of a cooperative project with Plains Cotton Growers, Inc. Numbers of boll weevils are down according to this survey and their distribution is a reflection of where the eradication program was active last year. Even with low trap catch numbers I think the accumulative May map clearly shows program impact. (go to PCG to view map)

Vydate is the material of choice for lower trap catches. If you are unlucky enough to have high trap catches at the time of squaring, you may need to switch to methyl parathion, ULV malathion or Guthion. These materials would have to be used on a short interval application schedule and would decimate your natural enemy populations. Phaser or Thiodan may be the ticket one fields, which barely trigger a treatment and beneficial insects are very important.

We will be using COTMAN, an expert system to track squaring in our cotton fields and research plots to assist later on in determining when we can stop spraying for fruit feeding caterpillars and when the crop is ready for termination. This plant monitoring decision tool is very helpful in tracking plant growth and development and giving an early warning of developing problems, with enough lead time to make a correction once the cause is identified. You will definitely see more on COTMAN in the coming issues of FOCUS and in county IPM agent newsletters. JFL

What a strange way to start the season. Tansy mustard is, of course, not a crop for which we are known, but people driving through the Southern High Plains might have thought us the world's leading producer of the stuff. And to make matters worse, most of it west of a line from Tulia to Lubbock was loaded with thousands of diamondback moth larvae (picture) that clung to equipment working the wheat fields. Diamondback moth larvae are very serious pests of plants in the cabbage family such as cabbage and broccoli. This caused no concern for later field crops but it started the season off in a most unusual manner. Reports began to filter in sometime in late March and caused entomologists to begin consulting tarot cards and tea leaves to guess at what the rest of the year might portend.

And then things got a little more weird. We had heavy infestations of whitelined sphinx from the Rolling Plains up to the southern part of District 2. Stephen Biles (IPM Agent, Nolan and Scurry Counties) provided some excellent photos. I observed heavy moth flights in Lubbock as well, but not as heavy as in the southern counties. This insect can be a problem in cotton. I have included Emory Boring's news release on this unusual pest. Unfortunately this plague did not occur alone, and extremely heavy armyworm infestations occurred in the same general area. Mitchell County Agricultural Agent John Senter reported newly baled hay being eaten from the inside by armyworms trapped in the round bales. And entomologists in San Angelo began to send notices of heavy lubber grasshopper infestations (photo).

Clyde Crumley, former IPM Agent in Gaines County and now with the Llano Estacado Water District, and Scott Russell (IPM Agent in Terry/Yoakum counties) reported an unidentified beetle defoliating a few peanut fields. Clyde is so old that if he has not seen a pest before, I really take notice. College Station taxonomist Ed Riley identified the beetle as Phyllophaga lanceolata (photo). This is the same genus as the more common June beetles. We have good pictures, but I hope to not need them again.

And in case you still do not believe this has been a strange year, James Powell, a private consultant, reported a maggot that was killing watermelon transplants in large areas of fields. This turned out to be seedcorn maggot, an occasional pest of many types of seedlings, especially in fields high in organic matter. And then there was the invasion of the buck moth larvae (photo) in a few chile fields. These giant caterpillars develop on shinnery oaks. We hypothesized (guessed) that the larvae were moving off the oaks in search of a place to pupate, and stopped for some lunch on the way.

Pests to watch: Grasshoppers are heavy in some areas. Scott Russell reports both migratory and lubber grasshopper (photo) damage in several fields adjacent to rangeland or pasture. Because of their wide host range, many crops are at risk and it would be worth monitoring for this pest. It is much easier to control grasshoppers when they are young, and border sprays will be more effective now than later.

False chinch bugs have been reported on the move again this year. They are probably moving out of maturing wheat fields, weeds that are drying down such as Tansy mustard and out playa lake bottoms. We have had problems with this pest in the past with large numbers moving into adjacent crops. If sufficient numbers infest plants they can kill these plants through their piercing, sucking feeding habits. One year we observed many rows of seedling cotton destroyed by false chinch bugs. At times there were so many bugs that the ground appeared to move.

European corn borer moths (photo) are flying now, so start checking corn for egg masses (photo). Don't forget to monitor for rootworm damage in those few fields that are corn after corn. PP

Well, here we go with the 2001 season. We are off to a very rough start. A quarter-horse owner might say that we have been "bumped at the gate." Earlier in the year, we had very good rainfall across much of the region, and although cotton prices were low, the moisture was very welcome. For January through April, Lubbock was at 4.8 inches, compared to the long-term average of 2.9. Of course, we certainly did have some dry pockets across region. Along with the rainfall, we had plenty of spring plant growth in ditches and other non-cropland areas. This vegetation became hosts for many insect species, which has resulted in considerable early season insect pressure in the region.

Many planters began rolling across the region due to fairly warm temperatures in late April and very early May. A significant cool spell occurred which lasted from May 4 through 8. Low temperatures cooled off to the 40's and planting came to a halt. After the warmup, planting resumed until the 21^st when temperatures took another nose-dive and cooled off to the low to mid-40s across much of the area. Some early planted fields had reasonably good stands, but others had poor stands due to low seedling vigor and the high stress environment. The irrigated crop was planted in a timely manner, with estimates of up to 95% planted by May 25. However, dryland planting still lagged behind due to poor soil moisture across most of the area south of Lubbock. (graph of May temperatures)

Several tens of thousands of acres were affected by blowing sand generated by high 80 mph winds May 20. Damage was confined to high areas in sandy fields, although some entire fields were lost. Damage was noted from Gaines, Terry, Dawson, Yoakum, Hockley, Lubbock, Parmer, and Bailey counties. Some reports of severe blowing sand damage from Collingsworth and Donley counties were also received. Central and western portions of Dawson County were hit by a hail storm on May 26. This storm destroyed irrigated cotton stands on several thousand acres. The most significant High Plains storm yet rolled across the area on the evening of May 30 generating winds up to 105 mph, large volumes of hail, and damaging blowing sand. This was a critical blow as it caught many producers up against the final insurance planting dates. Counties affected by this storm included southeast Bailey, southwest Lamb, eastern Hockley, western and southern Lubbock, northern and eastern Lynn and western Garza counties. The path was generally south of and parallel to Highway 84 and ran from Muleshoe to Garza County, and made a significant turn south in western Lubbock county.

It has been estimated that up to 500 thousand acres were under the path of this large storm. It is much harder to determine the exact acreage of cotton that was destroyed. The final number is still not determined as yet, due to the nature of the cutoff date for Lynn County, but up to 300 thousand acres were probably destroyed by this storm. A lighter-weight sequel was encountered in Hale, Floyd, and Crosby counties on the morning of June 1. Damage up to 70 thousand cotton acres was reported in Crosby County. This storm had hail and damaging winds and hit these counties four days before the insurance cutoff date of June 5. An additional storm brewed up on the late afternoon of June 5 and generated several tornadoes and large hail, which damaged more cotton and irrigation equipment in Floyd County. By the time the dust settles on the June 10 cutoff date for Lynn County and the final tally is determined, I will not be surprised to see estimates as high as 450 thousand acres or perhaps more destroyed by these meteorological events (Table 2).

Table 2. Estimated accumulated cotton acres destroyed, replant cotton acres, and center pivots damaged or destroyed from recent storms in the High Plains region. 1/

1/ Estimates provided by Texas Agricultural Extension Service agents in respective counties.

The producers who are most severely impacted are those who will have very marginal severely damaged stands that exhibit poor recovery. The production economics are certainly challenging enough this year without having to nurse a sick crop through an input-expensive year with very poor commodity price prospects.

Another challenge, which has not has not received as much attention, is the situation surrounding the bulk of our dryland production. Many areas had inadequate rainfall to enable the seed to be placed into good moisture at planting. Many producers in Gaines, Terry, Yoakum, Lynn and Dawson counties have dry-planted their fields up against the final planting cutoff dates. It has been estimated that up to 500-750 thousand acres of dryland may be affected in this manner.

Assessing Stand Damage from Weather Events. When making replant decisions, the first rule is to not make the final judgment on the extent of damage to the crop too quickly. Cotton has a tremendous capacity to recover from adversities. It is usually best to delay the final stand evaluation until after the crop is exposed to 2 or 3 days of good growing conditions. In the meantime, it is important to protect the crop from further damage with timely tillage operations. Tilling crusted fields will minimize wind and sand damage, improve aeration, and hasten warming and drying of the soil that in turn will slow development of seedling disease populations.

To determine remaining plant populations, count the number of plants that are showing signs of recovery in a predetermined length of row (i.e. 50 feet). Periodically, dig up the plants in a 3 to 5 foot section of row and critically examine the root systems, stems and terminals to insure the plants are capable of recovery. Make several stand counts at random locations in the field. In addition to plant numbers, make note of the number and length of skips in the rows being counted. Also, indicate the locations within the field where the counts were made. Sometimes, replanting may be necessary only in part of a field. Based on data reported by Dr. Levon Ray, if 2 or more reasonably healthy plants remain per row-foot in 40 inch rows and there long skips are not encountered, the stand is probably adequate for optimum lint production (yield-stand relationship). Once populations drop below 1.5 plants per row-foot, then lint yields decline rapidly in a linear fashion. Our experience in a 1999 project confirmed this yield-stand relationship at AGCARES.

Plant spacing uniformity is a critical consideration in replant decisions. Poor spacing uniformity, or skips, may cause significant yield reductions even though the average number of plants per acre is adequate for optimum production. James Supak and Don Wanjura found that skips, which decreased stands by 26 and 45%, lowered yields by 13 and 26%, respectively, even though final plant densities were in excess of 2 plants per foot of row.

Table 3. The effects of skippy stands on cotton yields on the Texas High Plains, 1981-1984*.

*Tests conducted at the Texas A&M University Research and Extension Center at Lubbock by Dr. Don Wanjura, Ag Engineer, USDA-ARS, and Dr. James Supak, Extension Agronomist - Cotton.

The rate and extent of crop recovery will be largely dependent on the level of damage to the stems and leaves. Plants cut-off below the cotyledonary nodes will not survive. Likewise, those with deep stem bruises may eventually die or only partially recover. Plants that lost terminals may survive if viable buds remain on the plant and the portion of the stem below these buds is intact. Plants that are essentially defoliated can survive if stem damage is minimal. Any remaining viable leaf tissue (whole leaves, portions of damaged leaves) will increase chances for survival and hasten recovery of plants with intact stems.

Early season defoliation of young cotton seedlings can have a profound effect on crop yield potential. Severity of defoliation and crop recovery are important factors to consider. A summary of two years (1996 and 1997) of unpublished data from a seedling defoliation experiment conducted by Dr. Don Wanjura, USDA-ARS agricultural engineer in Lubbock is reported below. I think this data may be pertinent to the decision making process for some environmentally damaged fields. The treatments used in the study included 1) control, 2) removal of one cotyledon, 3) removal of both cotyledons, 4) removal of all true leaves, 5) removal of one cotyledon and all true leaves, and 6) removal of both cotyledons and all true leaves. The leaf removal technique employed mimicked leaf loss, but not stem and/or terminal bud damage.

The way I see it, it is a best case scenario for only defoliation effects since other potential yield loss effects such as poor stand, root health, stem damage (and subsequent potential for break-over after the boll load gets established), terminal loss, etc., are not included.

In 1996, Paymaster HS26 was planted on May 20 at 65,000 seeds/acre (about 16 lb/acre). Defoliation treatments were imposed on June 14, when cotton was 2.2 inches tall with 2.8 main stem nodes. Recovery data were collected on July 12. Plant survival from the most severe defoliation treatment (both cotyledons and all true leaves removed) was only 35% by July 12, whereas in the control treatment, survival was 95%. The first killing freeze was on October 22.

 Table 4. Seedling cotton defoliation experiment, Lubbock, 1996.

Wanjura and Upchurch unpublished data.
Means within a column followed by same letter are not statistically different at the 0.05 probability level according to the Duncan=s New Multiple Range Test.

 Table 5. Seedling cotton defoliation experiment, Lubbock, 1997.

Wanjura and Upchurch unpublished data.
Means within a column followed by same letter are not statistically different at the 0.05 probability level according to the Duncan=s New Multiple Range Test.

During the 1997 crop year, Paymaster HS26 was planted on May 16 at 58,000 seeds/acre (about 14 lb/acre). Defoliation treatments were imposed on June 11, when cotton was 2.8 inches tall with 2.3 main stem nodes. Recovery data were collected on July 11. Plant survival from the most severe defoliation treatment (both cotyledons and all true leaves removed) was only 28% by July 9, whereas in the control treatment, survival was 90%. The first killing freeze was on October 26.

Differences in yield effects among treatments between the two years were attributed to differences in the amount of total water available to the crop. The 1996 growing season had nearly 25 inches of moisture available (rainfall plus irrigation), whereas the 1997 year had only 16 inches. These findings indicate that seasonal yield potential should be considered when making replant decision. Plant survival was reduced considerably by the most severe defoliation treatments.

Late Planting Considerations. Dr. John Gannaway has evaluated conventional variety performance under late-planted (mid-June) conditions at the Texas Agricultural Experiment Stations at Halfway and Lubbock. In general, short-season varieties have lower fiber quality (shorter, weaker), but produce higher lint yields than longer season types produced under short-season conditions. In short-season environments varieties such as Paymaster 183, AFD Rocket, All-Tex Express and All-Tex Quickie are generally expected to produce higher yields than other longer season types. However, a 3-year mean summary from Halfway and Lubbock for the years 1997, 1998, and 1999 indicates that Paymaster 2200RR yielded similarly to Paymaster 183. Fall heat unit accumulation in those seasons was certainly above average in those years, and benefited the longer season variety.

Seed availability of various varieties may be an issue, so growers should contact seed companies to determine other potential options. Closely monitoring fruit retention will be key to success of any late planted cotton crop in the High Plains. It is critical that outstanding square retention be the goal going into early bloom. Depending upon the location, the issue of fighting late season insects also presents a serious hurdle for any late planted crop.

For more detailed information, visit the Lubbock Center Web site at
http://lubbock.tamu.edu/cotton/cotton.html and retrieve the following documents:
Making Replant Decisions and Effects of Stand Loss and Skips on Cotton Yields

Watch for Roundup Ready Over-the-Top Window Closure. Complicating matters further, while producers are busy fighting sand, replanting, etc. some earlier planted Roundup Ready fields are nearing the end of the over the top window for Roundup applications. Cotton that was planted around May 1 that has had no environmental damage reached the cutoff stage this week. The considerable thrips and wind/sand damage has ragged up the plants. This has resulted in severe stress, stacked nodes and has made staging the seedling plants more difficult. Where leaves have been lost or badly damaged, it is imperative that mainstem nodes be counted in order to properly stage the cotton. (See photos and info here.) Slide 3, Slide 4, Slide 5, Cotton Diagram

If late applications are made, then significant yield losses can be encountered. Field research conducted at the Lubbock Center last year indicated that when Roundup Ultra was applied at 1 qt/acre over-the-top late at the 8-node stage, the corresponding yield reduction was nearly 20%. This data was obtained from a small-plot replicated project that included 9 Roundup Ready varieties with 4 replications. The 20% yield reduction was the average of all 9 varieties across the 4 replications (36 observations total).

Some questions have been asked concerning the use of Roundup/insecticide tank mixes. Generally Orthene, dimethoate, and Bidrin have been the tank-mix partners mentioned for thrips control. No problems with cotton phytotoxicity or product efficacy have been noted. RB

Growers who are in the midst of deciding what to do with damaged crop stands have several resources available for evaluating hail damage on cotton and other crops. First, don't make a decision too quickly on damaged stands (unless you are replanting in time to meet an insurance cut-off date). As is the case with any crop, often replant decisions are made on insufficient information and emotion, and tearing up a stand that in fact still has respectable yield potential is a mistake to avoid.

There is plenty of time to replant to other crops, so that shouldn't factor in terminating a questionable cotton stand. As usual, cotton herbicides, goals of the producer, and production economics will dictate which crop may be more suitable to a particular situation. Only when planting dates reach mid-June might maturity class (shorter) become a consideration for most replant crops.

Evaluating Stand Loss and Replant Decisions for Sorghum, Sunflower, and Corn. For many growers, particularly from the Lubbock area and northwest, if cotton has been hailed out then other crops may be heavily damaged as well. The following resources are also available from your CEA or http://lubbock.tamu.edu (unless noted otherwise).

• Assessing Hail and Freeze Damage to Field Corn and Sorghum, John Bremer, Cloyce Coffman, and Steve Livingston; Texas Ag. Extension Service, publication B-6014 (PDF file) (1995).
• Assessing Damaged Corn and Sorghum, Cloyce Coffman, Texas Ag. Extension Service, (May 2000). (http://taexsoilcrop.tamu.edu)
• Evaluating Hail Injury and Stand Reduction in Texas Sunflower, Calvin Trostle, Texas Ag. Extension Service, Lubbock (2001)

All county TAEX offices received the above documents via e-mail earlier this week. For information on evaluating weather damage to other crops contact Calvin Trostle, Extension Agronomy, Lubbock, at the above phone or e-mail. c-trostle@tamu.edu

TAEX - Lubbock released "Alternative Crop Options after Failed Cotton and Late-Season Crop Planting for the Texas South Plains," by Calvin Trostle, on June 5^th. The documents contains basic starter information such as last recommended planting dates, seeding rates, etc. for numerous crops, including grain sorghum, sunflower, guar, and soybean. In addition, contractor contacts are provided for black-eyed pea, other dry beans, seed vegetables, and sesame. The document is available by calling your local TAEX office, the Lubbock Center at 806.746.6101, or from the Internet at http://lubbock.tamu.edu

Syngenta's Centric insecticide recently received full registration on cotton. Pests listed on the label include aphids, thrips, tarnished plant bugs, whiteflies and cotton fleahoppers. My main interest in the product is in aphid control. We had requested a section 18 for Centric for this year for aphid control. Our tests indicate it is a very good aphid control product and should be seriously considered when aphids become a problem.

Another Syngenta product, Adage Seed Treatment, is being renamed Cruiser in the U. S. market, a name already in use in the rest of the world.

Other section 18's granted this year include Furadan 4F for aphid control and Denim for beet armyworm control. Furadan will be easier to use as producers will not have to demonstrate resistance to existing products before use. They will be able to address aphid infestations immediately with Furadan without first using another product.

Denim joins a growing arsenal of effective insecticides to address beet armyworms, including Steward, Intrepid and Tracer.

We now have a section 18 for the use of Tracer on peanuts against lepidoptera (caterpillars), and Capture on sorghum grown for seed to control Banks grass mite. The Texas Department of Agriculture (TDA) has been working hard to help us get products before we are in crisis, and we should commend them for their efforts. They are working on a Section 18 for Tracer in alfalfa. Section 18 notifications can be found on the TDA website at http://www.agr.state.tx.us/pesticide/18crops.htm .