Search

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) was amended in 1988 to require the reregistration of all pesticides registered before 1984 within 9 years. The FIFRA 88 required that all pesticide active ingredients must meet current registration standards, suspended the previous fee structure, and imposed a one-time registration fee and annual maintenance fees. New data generated because of FIFRA 88 must conform to EPA's Good Laboratory Practice Standards and animal studies must follow guidelines of the Animal Welfare Act. FIFRA 88 has significantly increased data requirements, data costs, and other pesticide registration and reregistration costs for most pesticides. The increased financial burden has caused industry and governmental agencies to drop minor-use registrations that could not generate sufficient profit to pay for reregistration. During 1989, over 19,000 pesticide registrations were canceled because of the imposition of annual maintenance fees levied by FIFRA 88. More registrations will be canceled in 1990 as registrants find that it is not cost-effective to provide data for many minor-use pesticides. This will result in the loss or further use restrictions on chemicals critical to manage vertebrate pests. In addition, the reregistration process will divert funds from research on alternative pest management practices at a time when that research is critically needed.

The use of biochemical or morphological genetic traits in a crop to protect ripening seeds or grain from bird damage remains a promising tool under certain situations. Research on bird-resistance in crops has focused on grain sorghum, com, sunflower and rice. This crop protection method involves feeding behavior of granivorous birds and its effectiveness depends on the availability of preferred alternate foods. That is, bird-resistant traits provide protection to the crop when other food choices are readily available; however, when alternate food is scarce or high bird populations create serious feeding competition, they are less effective. Several practical factors (i.e., efficacy expectations, agronomic considerations, and cost-effectiveness) were discussed that should be considered in adopting this bird damage control strategy.

In a program to evaluate repellents for protecting Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) seedlings from browsing by black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus), a preference-testing system was developed to supplement preliminary pen tests. The system uses an apparatus that presents individual test deer with a choice between two foods (usually feed pellets treated with a candidate repellent or a marginally palatable standard). The two foods are presented, in alternating positions, only long enough for the deer to make a choice; results are recorded in terms of percent choices made for the candidate repellent, or percent consumption. Tests thus far with a number of candidate repellents, including several chemical fractions derived from putrefied fish, have generally given clear-cut results, and the system appears very promising for this kind of evaluation. Although semi-tame deer and an experienced operator are required, the system uses very small amounts of candidate repellents, produces evaluations on a material in 1 to 2 days, can be used year-round, and permits observations of deer behavior during the choice process.