Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

2 nd TSB project meeting Bio-control of grain storage insect pests Bryony Taylor, Dave Moore, Emma Thompson, Steve Edgington.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "2 nd TSB project meeting Bio-control of grain storage insect pests Bryony Taylor, Dave Moore, Emma Thompson, Steve Edgington."— Presentation transcript:

1 2 nd TSB project meeting Bio-control of grain storage insect pests Bryony Taylor, Dave Moore, Emma Thompson, Steve Edgington

2 Aims of work Create a formulation that: is compatible with existing spray equipment produces a droplet range appropriate for a contact biopesticide has an even coverage. The undiluted formulation will: need to be stored without affecting the viability of the conidia have minimal separation or sedimentation

3 Aims of work If the formulation is to be used with a knapsack sprayer: it will need to suspend readily in a water based tank mix produce no clogging of the nozzle. If a ULV sprayer is considered the formulation will need to be: oil based compatible with ULV sprayer technology.

4 Considerations-Current application technology used in grain stores 61% of farms use fabric treatments only to treat their grain stores and a further 34% use both fabric and grain treatments 56% of fabric treatments were applied using spray technology which included knapsack and hand held sprayers Other methodologies include fogging, dusting (Pirimiphos methyl and silica), mist and smoke

5 Formulation issues Conidia are hydrophobic therefore need co-formulants to disperse in water Bb conidia lose viability quickly when stored in a water based formulation Emulsifiers need to be added to break the surface tension Some have been shown to affect conidial viability Careful screening needs to be carried out

6 Co-formulants Co-formulants to be tested were carefully considered and chosen on the basis of: suitability previous research listing in the adjuvant section of the UK pesticide guide 2010 availability (some have been withdrawn)

7 Q: Are these co-formulants toxic to Bb? Dispersents:

8 Q: Are these co-formulants toxic to Bb?

9

10 Concentration ● For contact biopesticides it is recommended that 50-70 drops per cm 2 ● Normal amount of spray to apply to a grainstore is 5l/100m 2 which is also the recommended amount on the Actellic 900 label ● The FAO recommend this may be increased on more porous surfaces to 10-20l/100m 2 or reduced when applied to metalwork. ● We aimed to test formulations at these concentrations AIM: to deliver a dose of both 5 x 10 9 conidia per m 2 and 2.5 x 10 10 conidia per m 2

11 Concentration If the target application rate is 10L per 100m 2 for a porous surface, then we will need to apply: 1L for 10m 2 100ml for 1m 2. AIM: 5 x 10 9 and 2.5 x 10 10 per m 2 Need to suspend these amounts of conidia in co-formulant and then make up to 100ml using H 2 O

12 Concentration Spores per gram were calculated from a previously mass produced lot of IMI 389521 (received July 2008). The average spores per gram were calculated to be 6.7 x 10 10 Recent trials have shown that 75% entostat:25% conidia has been effective in trials using the dust formulation, thus we will test at these levels initially.

13 Experiment 1 Codacide Addit Cropoil Output Cropspray 11E Silwet L77

14 Results All adjuvants mixed well after 1 minute on the whirlimixer

15 Results 1 ml paste was mixed with 99ml water to see if a stable emulsion could be formed

16 Results Codacide suspended easily forming a consistent emulsion Addit was slightly more difficult to suspend and had ~10ml foam Codacide Addit

17 Results Cropoil suspended well, but residue left on glass Output adhered to the original tube but with vigorous shaking suspended. It dispersed well, but had ~8ml of foam Output Cropoil

18 Results Cropspray 11E did not suspend in water Silwet L77 suspended easily. Roughly 10ml foaming Silwet L77 Cropspray 11E

19 After 16h Codacide: Yellow scum on top, large particles settled at the bottom of the tube

20 After 16h Addit: Foam reduced however layer of white scum at top and settling powder at the bottom

21 After 16h Cropoil: Little sedimentation at bottom, however layer at top observed

22 After 16h Output: Settling observed, little floating matter

23 After 16h Silwet L77: Foam subsided, settling of powder at the bottom

24 Experiment 2: Viability study 0.1 g conidia and 0.3g entostat mixed with 8 co-formulants Conidia only and conidia+entostat controls Kept at 5˚C and 25 ˚C Viability regularly checked

25 Viability Tests 5˚C

26 Viability Tests 25˚C

27 Conclusion ● Viability lower than previous batches (problem in transport?) ● Output co-formulant can be discounted ● Variability may be due to large amount on entostat/particles on plates ● Continue and replicate studies

28 Observations During viability study, at both 5˚C and 25˚C ; all liquid formulations re-suspended easily, even after 28 days of storage All formulations showed settling of a fine powder at the bottom of tube; apart from Silwet L77 However, there was a gelatinous ‘blob’ in the middle of the 5˚C tube Settling

29 Experiment 3 ● Codacide ● Addit ● Cropoil ● Silwet L77 ● *Break-thru S 240* (new co-formulant) ● 0.373g conidia + 1.193g of entostat (1:3) ● 1ml of adjuvant added initially, then a further 1ml ● Water added to tube and inverted 10,20,30 times and 10sec, 20sec and 1min on the whirlimixer ● Those emulsifying were added to 98ml water 2.5 x 10 10 formulations

30 Results 1 ml of liquid was not enough to form a paste 2ml enough to form paste All paste were very viscous

31 Codacide: Was not able to mix into water Waxy floating particles present

32 Addit: Was difficult to form an emulsion after inversions/using whirlimixer Eventual emulsion formed, however large particles present In 98ml water, 10-20ml foam

33 Cropoil Was not able to mix into water A waxy mat formed on top of the water

34 Silwet L77: Formed emulsion easily, although some paste stuck to side of tube Dispersed well in water with 20- 30ml foam

35 Break thru S 240: Mixed easily with water, with a little sticking to sides of tube In 98ml water, after 10 inversions 30-40ml foam

36 Future experiments ● Reduce settling with addition of varying levels of clay ● Repeat viability experiments and include Breakthru ● Look at particle sizing of promising formulations ● Investigate how well formulations spray ● AOB: ● Project student started this week ● Molecular characterisation of isolate underway

37 Thank You


Download ppt "2 nd TSB project meeting Bio-control of grain storage insect pests Bryony Taylor, Dave Moore, Emma Thompson, Steve Edgington."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google