ALAIN CHALANDON South Europe Manager

1
(No Transcript)
2
(No Transcript)
3
S. MOYALCereal Market Manager France
CTU marketIn Europe / In France
4
CTU uses in Europe
5
UREA used on cereals in France ( of total Urea)
CTU uses are getting bigger in France because
of - IPU limitations on drained areas -
rye-grass (lolium spp) is becoming a main issue
in France and CTU is more efficient than IPU
on this weed - better weather conditions for
very early treatments and CTU is mainly used
in pre-emergence (while IPU is used mainly at
2-3 leaves stage in France)
6
GRAMINICIDE A.I. on cereals in France ( of
cereal Ha treated against grass)
Ha of cereals grown in France 2008 7.7 MHa
NB UREA IPU, CTU, linuron, FOPS
clodinafop, diclofop, fenoxaprop, SU
mesosulf., iodosulf., flupyrsulf.,
France 2008 Sulfonylurea were used on half of
the area of treated cereals (3.8MHa treated with
a SU) an explanation for the rapid onset of SU
resistance ? If all herbicides targeting the ALS
site (SU., florasulam, ) are considered, the
treated surface represented more than 7 Mha
7
Treated area (Ha)
Graminicide families (HRAC) used on the main
crops in France
8
Examples of graminicidesused on cereals
2
9
(No Transcript)
10
(No Transcript)
11
P. LAUXTechnical Manager Germany
Chlorotoluron Characteristics
12
Chlorotoluron
13
Chlorotoluron in Europe
Rates uses in EU
1500g/ha W, T, P
14
Phenyl urea class 28 Herbicides
C10H13CIN2O
C12H18N2O
15
Chlorotoluron adsorption to organic substances
Source EU Pesticides database,
http//ec.europa.eu/food/plant/protection/evaluati
on/existactive/list_chlortoluron.pdf,
13.05.2009 EU Pesticides database,
http//ec.europa.eu/food/plant/protection/evaluati
on/existactive/list1-41_en.pdf, 13.05.2009
Chlorotoluron is stronger adsorbed to organic
soil compounds than Isoproturon
16
Chlorotoluron presence in soil
Chlorotoluron
Isoproturon
Quelle EU Pesticides database,
http//ec.europa.eu/food/plant/protection/evaluati
on/existactive/list_chlortoluron.pdf,
13.05.2009 EU Pesticides database,
http//ec.europa.eu/food/plant/protection/evaluati
on/existactive/list1-41_en.pdf, 13.05.2009
Chlorotoluron is slower degraded in soil than
Isoproturon
17
Chlorotoluron efficacy against loose silky
bent in early post-emergence
11 trials from Germany, 2007-2008, EC 10-12
Efficacy
Chlorotoluron is very suitable for early
applications
Values of columns with different colors differ
significantly
18
Chlorotoluron Grass/weed spectrum
Ackerfuchsschwanz Black grass
Kamille-Arten Chamomile sp.
ÒÒ
ÒÒÒ
Windhalm Wind grass
Hirtentäschelkraut Shepherds-purse
ÒÒÒ
ÒÒÒ
Einj. Rispengras Pathgrass
Vogelmiere Common Chickweed
Gänsefuß-Arten Goosefoot sp.
ÒÒÒ
ÒÒÒ
ÒÒ
Weidelgras Ryegrass
Vergißmeinnicht Forget-me-not
ÒÒÒ
ÒÒÒ
Klatschmohn Common poppy
Kornblume Cornflower
ÒÒÒ
ÒÒ
very good efficacy
good efficacy
partial efficacy
ÒÒÒ
ÒÒ
Ò
Broad spectrum of grasses and weeds (Cornflower!)
19
Chlorotoluron efficacy against weeds in
winter cereals post emergence autumn
Forget-me-not
Isoproturon 1500 g/ha
Red deadnettle
Chlorotluron 2100 g/ha
Shepherds-purse
Pennycress
Trials from Germany 2004-2007
Efficacy
Values of columns with different colors differ
significantly
20
Chlorotoluron Efficacy against Pathgrass (Poa
annua)
21
Chlorotoluron Efficacy against Ryegrass
(Lolium Multiflorum)
22
Chlorotoluron Efficacy against Black grass
(Alopecurus myosuroides)
23
Efficacy against black grass in winter barley,
Sehnde-Evern (Niedersachsen)
The new formulation with Diflufenican
Wirkung
Variety Alinghi LWK Lower Saxony, Hannover
branch Treatment 19/11/2007 Assessment
30/04/2008
24
Chlorotoluron in tank mixture with Fenoxaprop-p
Efficacy against loose silky bent in winter wheat
Dülmen-Merfeld, Treatment 31.03.2008
Untreated Check Coverage 9
25
Chlorotoluron Characteristics Summary
1) Excellent suitability for early autumn
application
2) Strong residual and long term activity
control of subsequent emerging weeds
3) Broad grass and weed spectrum - Loose
Silky Bent, Black grass, Pathgrass, Ryegrass
- Very efficient against Cornflower, Chamomile
26
(No Transcript)
27
(No Transcript)
28
Chlorotoluron in CerealsTrial results and
herbicide recommendations 2009-2009
Dr D. WOLBER Plant Protection service Lower Saxony
29
Herbicide resistance loose silky bent
30
Herbicide resistance loose silky bent
Atlantis OD 0,6 l/ha(Iodosulfuron 1,86 g/l
Mesosulfuron 9,72 g/l)
2007 - 2008
Resistant samples (efficacy lt50)
Moderatly resistant samples 50-79,9
31
Herbicide resistance loose silky bent
Lexus 20 g/ha(Flurpyrsulfuron-Methyl 500 g/kg)
2006 - 2008
Resistant samples (efficacy lt50)
Moderatly resistant samples 50-79,9
32
Herbicide resistance loose silky bent
Monitor 12,5 g/ha(Sulfosulfuron 800 g/kg)
2007 - 2008
Resistant samples (efficacy lt50)
Moderatly resistant samples 50-79,9
33
Herbicide resistance loose silky bent
Axial 50 0,9 l/ha(Pinoxaden 100 g/l)bei
2007 - 2008
Resistant samples (efficacy lt50)
Moderatly resistant samples 50-79,9
34
Herbicide resistance loose silky bent
Lentipur/Toluron 3,0 l/ha(Chlortholuron 700 g/l)
2000 - 2008
Resistant samples (efficacy lt50)
Moderatly resistant samples 50-79,9
35
Herbicide resistance black grass
Arelon Top 3,0 l/ha(Isoproturon 500 g/l)
1987 - 2008
Resistant samples (efficacy lt50)
Moderatly resistant samples 50-79,9
36
Herbicide resistance black grass
Ralon Super 1,2 l/ha(Fenoxaprop-P 63,6 g/l)
2002 - 2008
Resistant samples (efficacy lt50)
Moderatly resistant samples 50-79,9
37
Herbicide resistance black grass
Topik 0,5 l/ha(Clodinafop 89,1 g/l)
2002 - 2007
Resistant samples (efficacy lt50)
Moderatly resistant samples 50-79,9
38
Herbicide resistance black grass
Focus Ultra 2,5 l/ha(Cyclocydim 100 g/l)
2002 - 2008
Resistant samples (efficacy lt50)
Moderatly resistant samples 50-79,9
39
Herbicide resistance black grass
Attribut 100 g/ha (Propoxycarbazone 663 g/kg)


2002 - 2008
Resistant samples (efficacy lt50)
Moderatly resistant samples 50-79,9
40
Herbicide resistance black grass
Lexus 20 g/ha(Flurpyrsulfuron-Methyl 500 g/kg)
2002 - 2008
Resistant samples (efficacy lt50)
Moderatly resistant samples 50-79,9
41
Herbicide resistance black grass
Atlantis WG 0,4 kg/ha Iodosulfuron 5,60 g/kg
Mesosulfuron 29,20 g/kg FHS und Atlantis OD
1,2 l/ha Iodosulfuron 1,86 g/l Mesosulfuron
9,72 g/l)
2002 - 2008
Resistant samples (efficacy lt50)
Moderatly resistant samples 50-79,9
42
Evaluation of IPU/CTU-products in spring
(extract 15.01.2009)
43
Registration of CTU-products 2009 (extract)
Distance to surface water State specific
distance to maintain
Cereal species x summer and winter form a)
Status 16.06.2008
Product
Active
44
Efficacy against loose silky bent in Lower
Saxony Single trials
45
Recommendations for grass and weed control
(extract)
Focus Loose silky bent and weeds in wheat,
barley, rye, triticale (autumn)
Carmina 1500 g/ha Chlortoluron 100 g/ha
Diflufenican CTU 1,5 - 2,0 Orbit 2,0 -
2,5
Post emergence BBCH 11-13
Without resistance development
Photosystem PII, group C
1050 - 1400 g/ha Chlortoluron 26,60 - 33,25 g/ha
Cinidon-ethyl 666 - 832,50 g/ha Pendimethalin
CTU varietal sensitivity to respect.
Triticale only Lentipur 700, Carmina 640 Rye
only Carmina 640 Toluron only after BBCH 13
46
Recommendations for grass and weed control
(extract)
Focus Black grass and weeds in winter wheat,
winter barley, triticale (autumn)
Fenuron Set 2,40,8 Orbit 2,0-2,5
Post emergence BBCH 11-13 14 days vegetation
necessary
1680 g/ha Chlortoluron 51 g/ha
Fenoxaprop-p 26,60 - 33,25 g/ha Cinidon-ethyl 666
- 832,50 g/ha Pendimethalin
Without resistance development ACCase, ALS
CTU respect varietal sensitivity
47
Recommendations for grass and weed control
(extract)
Focus Black grass (sensitive) and weeds in
winter wheat (spring)
Atlantis WG 400 (vor dem 15.3.) oder Atlantis
WG 500 g/ha (nach dem 15.3.) For resistance
prevention if ALS inhibitors were used in
autumn Fenuron Set 1,0 3,0 oder
Ralon-Super-Power-Plus 1,2 l/ha
2,24 g/ha Iodosulfuron11,68 g/ha Mesosulfuron
2,8 g/ha Iodosulfuron14,6 g/ha Mesosulfuron
2100g/ha Chlortoluron 63,60 g/ha Fenoxaprop-p
76,32 g/ha Fenoxaprop-p
Galium aparine Fluroxypyr late
treatment (ALS-free)
48
(No Transcript)
49
(No Transcript)
50
C. VACHER
CHLOROTOLURON one of the tools in grass
resistance prevention and management
51
weeds are the result of the crop system
52
Herbicides and Resistances in cereals
53
Herbicides and Resistances in cereals

• End of the eighties, surging in cereals of the
  first populations of grasses resistant to
  herbicides from "fops et dymes" family

• In 15 years, resistance to foliar graminicides
  (fops et dymes) became present in the different
  cereal areas

• 2006 in cereal, confirmation of the first cases
  of resistance to gramincides from the
  Sulfonylurea family

• Black-grass and rye-grass populations are
  becoming more and more difficult to control
  because of their resistance to A and/or B modes
  of action

54
Herbicides and Resistances in cereals
Areas where at least one case of resistance to
ALS inhibitors (mesosulfuron iodosulfuron type)
occurred (ARVALIS 2008 results, laboratory tests
from seeds)
Rye-grass
Black-Grass


Grasses in durum wheat are getting more and more
difficult to manage

55
Herbicides and Resistances in cereals



56
Herbicides and Resistances in cereals
Herbicides and Resistances in cereals
Treatment programs one of the tools to fight
resistance
RAY GRASS
57
Herbicides and Resistances in cereals

• Year by year, in resistance situations or in case
  of high population of grasses, treatment programs
  confirm their superiority compared to single
  application.
• Autumn early treatment allow to reduce part of
  the weed's concurrency and also allow to
  introduce modes of action which are different
  from those used at spring (fops or SU).
• On resistant grasses, Urea such as chlorotoluron
  are still a base for early programs, especially
  when mixed with prosulfocarb, flurtamone,
  pendimethaline or in the future with products
  containing flufenacet.
• Integrated in a program, chlorotoluron allow to
  delay the surging risk of black-grass/rye-grass
  resistant to Sulfonylurea

58
Herbicides and Resistances in cereals
Chlortoluron, a tool for grasses resistance
prevention/managemet
-

• need to control for wheat varieties safety
• limitation to 1800g a.i./ha in France
• 1 treatment/year
• Crop safety issues when seeds are on the surface
• need to take in account the water issues before
  advertising
• short optimal use (2 leaves to tillering) after
  pre-emergence

• a mode of action (group C2) different from foliar
  grass herbicides.
• Urea are a family less impacted by resistance.
• an efficient active ingredient against grasses
  such as rye-grass
• early reducing concurrency of weeds
• tank-mixes opportunities
• good complementarities with roots targeting
  herbicides such as prosulfocarb, pen dimethaline
  (flufenacet in the future)

59
Herbicides and Resistances in cereals

• No miracle solution
• ? need to take advantage of every available
  options to control weeds
• ? need for an evaluation of the weeds potential
  and the resistance risk of the paddocks
• ? need to build programs in line with the
  paddock risks (environment and resistance) and at
  the rotation level

60
(No Transcript)
61
(No Transcript)
62
J. STATONNufarm UK
UK Key issues
63
UK Key issues

• Loss of key actives ie IPU, trifluralin
  especially in winter barley. Can CTU fill the gap
  left by IPU?
• Water stewardship
• Resistance
• Replacement for IPU diflufenican containing
  products

64
Stewardship

• A voluntary restriction of 2000g/ha CTU
• Minimise point source contamination
• Do not spray less than 48 hours prior to major
  rainfall event
• Voluntary 6 metre buffer grass strip or no spray
  zone
• Use CTU as early as possible

65
Strategy for use of chlorotoluron in the UK
66
Annual meadow-grass (Poa annua)
67
Control of annual meadow-grass 4 trials 2006
/2007 UK
Control ()
68
Control of Poa annua - Buckler
Poa annua control with Buckler 600g/l CTU
25g/l Diflufenican
Untreated Poa annua broadleaf
3.75 l/ha Buckler (CTU 2250g/ha DFF 94g/ha)
69
Control of Poa annua - Buckler
Mean of 3 sites Applied at GS 11-23 (of AMG)
Application dates 30th Nov 2nd Dec
Control
CTU 1500g/ha DFF 62.5g/ha
CTU 2250g/ha DFF 94g/ha
70
Blackgrass- (Alopecurus myosuroides)
71
Relationship between yield and headcount July -
Alopecurus m, Royston 2008
Yield t/ha
Blackgrass headcounts July 2008
72
Control of Alopecurus m. using IPU (1500g/ha)
or CTU (2000g 3500g/ha) 2007
control vs unt
Project 1045
73
Control of Alopecurus m. Royston 2008 July
Head Counts
NB pré-mergence / automn / spring no
treatment
74
Summary

• CTU subject to varietal restrictions will
  substitute for IPU in the UK market. These
  restrict use on less than 20 of varieties (2008)
• Stewardship is essential to prevent entry into
  watercourses. Nufarm trials have shown little
  benefit from the use of chlorotoluron over 2000g
  and will be supporting this in combination with
  other products in 2009 especially for use in
  programmes for control of Blackgrass
• Chlortoluron alone or in mix with diflufenican,
  as in Buckler, are very active against Annual
  meadowgrass. If anything more active than IPU
• Use CTU in the autumn as early as is practicable
  post -emergence or pre-emergence to help reduce
  the risk of CTU getting into watercourses

75
(No Transcript)
76
Pesticide Residues in Groundwater
Dr NEUFFER HBN Hydrogeologisches Büro
77
Pesticide Residues in Groundwater

• Since 1989 there is the limit 0.1 µg/l for
  pesticide residues in the groundwater.
• Active incredients which surpass this limit
  (laboratory studies, lysimeterstudies, field
  leaching studies, computersimulations) will not
  get a further access to the market.
• Active incredients on the market do not surpass
  the 0.1 µg/l limit while beeing used at good
  agricultural practice.
• In Groundwater Monitorings Programs however
  there are still today pesticides detected in the
  groundwater.
• Reaction of Registration Authorities
• Explanation of Findings
• Groundwater Monitoring

78
Pflanzenschutzmittel-Rückstände im Grundwasser
HBN is in charge with Field Leaching Studies,
Explanation of Findings and Groundwater
Monitoring Studies since 1993. Up to now a total
of 567 detections in the groundwater of various
pesticides and from different producers had been
studied and more than 3500 groundwatersamples had
been taken. The steps from the sampled media
(groundwater) up to the listed figures of
detections including the possible mistakes are
shown on the next page.
79
Steps and mistakes
Detection
Sampling Date? Location (Coordinates Nr. of
Map)? Solitary Detection?
Analysing Lab
Analytical method? Additional Samples?
Sample
Transport and Strorage? Sampling Volume?
Sampling Technique
Cross-over contamination? Type of pump? Sampling
depth? / Discharged volume Discharge rate? /
Sampling protocol?
Measuring Point
Is really groundwater sampled? Is the measuring
point representative? Are there further accesses
then leaching?
Media (Groundwater)
80
Groundwater measuring and sampling
81
Fig. 1 Multiple Measuring Point Pesticide
detection in F2 und F3 were reported as 2
different location (nationwide monitoring)
82
Fig. 2 Groundwater Measuring point is
influenced by surface water
83
Fig. 3 Open well at sewage water treatment
plant The well was used in an official Pesticide
Monitoring
84
Fig. 4 Multipurpose Well Fire well Public
well Agricultural well for filling spraying
tanks Official Monitoring well for Pesticides
85
Fig. 5 Flooded well head in a field road
86
Fig. 6 Broken well with lizzard Lacerta
agilis. Holes are used as shelter by various
organisms carrying soil and pesticide residues
87
Fig. 7 Irrigation well in a hollow after heavy
rain
88
Main Reasons for Pesticide Residues in the
Groundwater

• Backflow while filling spraying tank at the well
• Direct entry into improper sealed wells in or
  near the field
• Infiltration of surface water River takes
  surface Run-Off from fields after application

89
How to avoid pesticides in the groundwater
Efforts for farmers

• Avoid entry of surface water into wells
• Top end pipe always above ground level
• Avoid backflow while filling spraying tank
• Keep filling pipe always above liquid
  level of tank
• Keep safety strips near surface waters
• Avoid Run-Off and Erosion from fields

90
(No Transcript)
91
(No Transcript)
92
L. Tilbury - E. Gibert - G. SergentEuropean
regulatory team
Chlorotoluron (CTU) EU Regulations
93
Overview

• Chlorotoluron (CTU) Regulatory Status
• New EU Regulation Key elements Impact
• Consequences

94
CTU Regulatory Status

• Active Substance re-registered in EU in 2006
  (Annex I listed)
• 10-year authorisation
• National re-evaluations of
• Formulations ongoing
• CTU alone CTU
• Diflufenican (DFF)

95
CTU Regulatory Status
National re-evaluations of Formulations - Timeline
96
New EU Regulation Key Elements Impact

• Cut-off based on Endocrine Disruption (ED)
• Label Risk phrases
• - Basis for potential Endocrine Disruption
• - No official definition to date
• - Temporary definition includes CTU
• - But probably not an ED substance
• Water Framework Directive
• Not a Priority Substance not listed
• Detected in some monitoring programmes

97
CTU Regulatory Status

• Protection of groundwater cited in the EU
  re-registration
• Groundwater modelling scenarii are acceptable
• EU criteria - Surface Water
• Non-target species (algae)
• - Algae recover within 7 days

98
CTU Regulatory Status

• Protection of groundwater cited in the EU
  re-registration
• Groundwater modelling scenarii are acceptable
• EU criteria - Surface Water
• Non-target species (algae)
• - Algae recover within 7 days

99
CTU Regulatory Status

• Protection of groundwater cited in the EU
  re-registration
• Groundwater modelling scenarii are acceptable
• EU criteria - Surface Water
• Non-target species (algae)
• - Algae recover within 7 days

100
CTU Regulatory Data Generation

• Mesocosm studies to start this autumn 2009
• Water Monitoring Studies
• Surface Water
• FR
• with Chambre dAgriculture Eure Loire
• DE
• Ground Water
• DE
• With UBA (Umweltbundesamt, theGerman Federal Env
  Agency)

101
Consequences

• Nufarm will support CTU in Europe !
• Regulatory situation is manageable
• How you can support CTU
• Responsible agronomic use

102
(No Transcript)
103
(No Transcript)
104
C. ZAMBAUXDirecteur Marketing France
Nufarm conclusions
105
SUMMARY
Resistance to Weedsfuture possibilities for
farmers to manage it in terms of quality and
productivity.
Chlortoluron, an  old active ingredient  its
sustainability and interest for agriculture.
106
MAIN GRASS RESISTANCES IN EUROPE
A.I. and mode of action A ?Fops, Dimes, Den B
?Sulfos, imazam., "Xsulam", propoxycarb., C1 ?
Triazine (atrazine, ..), phenmedipham, .. C2 ?
Urée (IPU, CTU, linuron), D ? diquat,
paraquat F3 ? clomazone, amitrole, aclonifen G
? glyphosate K1 ?pendimethaline, trifluraline,
propyzamide, L ? dichlobenil, isoxaben, Z
? flamprop-M-methyl
Source www.weedscience.org
107
RESISTANCE
is a reality
All active ingredients are impacted Many
parameters regarding current usesincrease the
risk Crop rotation simplification and shorter
rotation, less active ingredients modes of
action available
108
RESISTANCE
Quick changes, CT short rotations
109
RESISTANCE
CONSEQUENCES Not only an efficacy
loss -Economical consequences, quality
loss. -Health consequences due to the reduced
capacity to manage diseases transmitted by weeds,
such as Claviceps purpurea (ergot of rye)
110
RESISTANCE
THE NUFARM SOLUTION THE RIGHT RATE
111
RESISTANCE
THE NUFARM SOLUTION PROGRAMME / MIXTURE
MANAGEMENT
112
Early application (1 -2 leaves of Lolium
multiflorum)- Trial 2009.
CA2313 (chlortoluron diflufenican)(CTU 1500 g) (E
78)
Chlortoluron 1800 g (E 70)
Chlortoluron 1200 g (E 50)
113
CHLORTOLURON SUSTAINABILITY
PROMOTE GOOD PRACTICES
In the 80s Rate/ soil type, Max 3000g/ha
2004-AFPP (France) Rate/ soil type, Max
1800g/ha
114
CHLORTOLURON SUSTAINABILITY
CHALLENGE REDUCE RUNOFF -Early treatment,
before drainage period. -Dont apply before
significant rainfall. -Respect buffer zones.
115
CONCLUSIONS
-Communicate and promote good practices to limit
runoff timing and geographies -Early
application, pre-emergence to early
post-emergence. -For Weed control, promote
programmes and mixtures more than a straight
chortoluron rate.
116
CONCLUSIONS
117
(No Transcript)
118
A. HAUSJELL
CONCLUSION
119
Nufarm (or its predecessors) have been in the CTU
business for more than 20 years As a member of
the Task Force Nufarm have successfully supported
CTU for Annex I inclusion Nufarm has been and
will be manufacturing CTU in its own plant in
Linz/Austria e Strong commitment to
Chlorotoluron
Chlorotoluron History in Nufarm
120
CTU has got registration in all relevant markets
in Europe Current Annex I listing until
2016 There are some issues but these are
manageable e Nufarm prepared to further
invest into support of Chlorotoluron
Chlorotoluron - Regulatory
121
Focus on mixture products and tank mixes Use rate
reduction in some areas Application timing e
Nufarm to take further responsibility for
Chlorotoluron
Chlorotoluron Stewardship
122
CTU for different weed situations
Alopecurus
Apera
Lolium
123
Resistance Strategies The use of mixtures or
sequences of herbicides with different modes of
actions is key HRAC C2 Inhibition of
photosynthesis at photosystem II Only
Chlorotoluron and Isoproturon as grass weed
herbicides in cereals are providing this
particular mode of action e We need to support
Chlorotoluron in furture to keep it as a
building block in resistance management against
Apera, Lolium, Poa and Alopecurus
CTU for different weed situations