We finally have a label for the insecticide Sequoia. It will be a good one to have in our roster of insecticides in strawberry, not only because it is pretty darn effective in controlling lygus, but also because it can be rotated in with the remaining usable materials we have and keep them effective that much longer.
It does come with the caveat of only being 12 months long, but there always is the possibility of renewal plus the regular Section 3 label is being worked on at the Federal level. Use directions for the Section 18 for Sequoia attached below as a pdf file.
The only way to get these labels in California is to have the efficacy from the field to prove that the insecticide actually does what it is supposed to do. This was a job led out of this office of UCCE, and it was a major commitment that stretched over something like 5 years. My colleagues and I get up well before daybreak to beat the wind and do the sprays, are out there week after week to collect the samples, and spend many hours at the microscope counting the lygus, beneficials and other bugs. This was a ton of work over many years and effort put in by some very committed people, in particular Shimat Joseph and Monise Sheehan of UC Cooperative Extension and Hillary Thomas at the time with the CSC, but at the end of the day the effort very much worth it because we got you your Sequioa label for lygus in strawberries.
I am very grateful to Dow Chemical, now Corteva Agrisciences, Jean-Mari Peltier who sheparded the application through the CDPR and all the growers who collaborated with us for the tremendous support they gave us over the years to get this label to you.
Growers, this is a Section 18, so as always you have to get it on your restricted use permit.
Questions about efficacy? Lots of studies on this site, type in lygus or sulfoxaflor in the search box and you'll see plenty of information on it.
You are welcome.
- Author: Mark Bolda
- Author: Shimat Joseph
Former UCCE Entomology Advisor Shimat Joseph and I just had the linked paper below published in Crop Protection.
Excellent overview of the lygus problem in California strawberries and evaluation of a combination of bug-vac use and the insecticide sulfoxaflor (not registered yet, but useful for this study since it actually works) for management of this pest.
A few points out of the paper to take back to the farm:
1- The use of the bug-vac alone was not sufficient to reduce lygus populations to below that of the untreated check.
2- Treatments using the insecticide sulfoxaflor alone and in combination with the bug-vac reduced the numbers of lygus and the number of cat faced fruit.
3- Neither the bug-vac or sulfoxaflor had any effect on predaceous heteropterans and spiders compared to the untreated check.
The implication out of this work and paper is that the use of an effective insecticide will continue to be the best tactic for control of lygus and mitigation of its damage in strawberries.
Link is here, it will be active until the beginning of October:
As many of you readers know, I have been following pretty closely the progress of the active ingredient sulfoxaflor (label name Sequoia), which was supposed to be registered for strawberries earlier this year but hit a snag.
Here is the latest on this material from the Western Farm Press:
Colleague Shimat Joseph and I happened into CDPR head Brian Leahy at an ANR meeting in Sacramento this past week, and as expected we got to talking about what the hold up is with the sulfoxaflor (Sequioa) registration for control of lygus on strawberries. Readers of this blog know that this is a pretty good material for lygus, and it's been a bit frustrating to not have the registration be approved yet.
Brian helpfully clarified to us that the approval for sulfoxaflor (Sequioa) was vacated in a Federal ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco in September.
The ruling was in regards to a lawsuit filed in 2013 against the US EPA, which is responsible for the registration of pesticides in the US (California has an additional layer of regulation through the CDPR), by the beekeeping industry which challenged EPA approval of neonicotinoids, of which sulfoxaflor was ruled to be a subclass.
This last point is arguable, since while sulfoxaflor targets the same receptors in the insect as a neonicotinoid, it belongs to a different class of chemistry, the sulfoxamines.
With regards to future registration of this product, the court said that the EPA "must obtain further data regarding the effects of sulfoxaflor on bees... before it grants approval."
The EPA has yet to formulate a response to this decision.