slide 1

Back to the List of the Granted Patents                                      Click here to download KE000345 PDF

(11)Patent Number:    KE345
(45)Date of grant: 18/09/2009
(12)PATENT
(51)Int.Cl.6:A01N63/04
(21)Application Number: 1995/000039
(22)Filing Date: 26/09/1995
(30)Priority data: PM8407 26/09/1994 AU
(86)PCT data PCT/AU95/00633 26/09/1995 WO 96/09765 04/04/1996
 
(73) Owner: THE STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES; of, Dept of Agriculture, 161 Kite Street, Orange, NSW 2800, Australia
(72)Inventor: MENSAH, Robert, Kofi;
(74)Agent/address for correspondence: Waruinge & Waruinge Advocates, P.O.BOX 72384 Nairobi Kenya
 
(54) Title: A METHOD OF CONTROLLING MOTH AND OTHER INSECT PESTS
(57)Abstract:
A method of controlling moth and other insect pests in a habitat and attracting, augmenting or conserving natural enemies of the moth or other insect pests, which comprises treating the habitat     with yeast.
 
A METHOD OF CONTROLLING MOTH AND OTHER INSECT PESTS TECHNICAl FIELD
This invention relates to the use of yeast for the control of moth of other insect pests and for attracting and conserving predatory insects of the pests. In particular, the present invention relates to the use of yeast for the control of cotton bollworm and native budworm.
                                                   BACKGROUND    ART
Cotton bollworm (Helicoverpa armigera Hubner) and native bud worm (Helicoverpa punctigera wallengren) are the major pests of cotton. Both insects are polyphagous and they feed preferentially on young growing tips or reproductive structures. The adults feed on nectar and
the damage they cause is the result of the larvae feeding on leaves and buds or bolls. Infestations of these moths results in the loss of the terminal bud or fruiting structures either as floral buds (squares) or as fruit (bolls) causing considerable yield loss. Host plants other than cotton include maize, sorghum, wheat, sunflower, lucerne, various legumes especially soybean, pigeon pea and chickpea, tomatoes, okra, other vegetables, fruits, top fruits and citrus.
  H. armigera is cosmopolitan and is the principal species in the Old World from Africa to the Pacific Islands but H. punctigera is an endemic species. Infestation of cotton by Helicoverpa spp. may occur at anytime after seedling emergence, but their abundance is highly variable being influenced by environmental factors, natural enemy abundance, quality and quantity of host plants and also their migratory movements. The two species usually follow a regular pattern of abundance in all areas they attack with H. punctigera the dominant species prior to flowering and well into summer  (January). H. armigera becomes dominant from January onwards in most areas and is rarely seen in early season cotton.
The current control programme for cotton bollworm and native budworm in cotton relies heavily on synthetic insecticides. Cotton crops receive on average 12 insecticide and insecticide mixture sprays each season, although extremes of 18-20 sprays still occur. In 1991 Australian cotton growers spent approximately' A$74 million on insecticides, A$15 million on application costs and A$9 million for professional consultants giving total insect control costs approaching A$100 million per year. The over-reliance on insecticides and its associated problems of insecticide resistance especially in H. armigera, disruption of natural enemies of the pests and environmental consequences due to residues in soil and water, off-target drift near human habitation have cast doubt on the long term viability of the cotton
industry and the classical insecticide approach. It is therefore essential that an alternative non-chemical control measure be developed against the pest to achieve sustainability of cotton production.
Presently with our monoculture practices in agriculture and the use of pesticides we are inadvertently discriminating against beneficial insects. Many areas where crops are grown especially cotton growing areas are remote from wild vegetation. They are often treeless, bushless, rockless and often lay fallow most part of the year. With no natural refuges, no food sources for adult natural enemies of phytophagous insects, beneficial insects are made ineffective. There is therefore lack of diversity and instability in the agroecosystem.
 DISCLOSURE OF THE INVENTION
 In one aspect, the present invention provides a method of controlling moth or other insect pests in a habitat which comprises disrupting and suppressing female oviposition by treating the habitat with yeast.
In a second aspect, the present invention provides a method of controlling moth or other insect pests and attracting, augmenting and conserving natural enemies of the moth or other insect pests, in a habitat which comprises treating the habitat with yeast.
 In a third aspect, the present invention provides a method of controlling moth or other insect pests in a habitat and attracting, augmenting and conserving natural enemies of the moth or other insect pests, which comprises treating the habitat with yeast and one or more other food substances suitable for sustaining the natural enemies.
 The present invention controls moth or other pests through suppression and disruption of female oviposition.
 Preferably, the moth or other insect pests are cotton bollworm and native budworm.
 Habitat includes cotton, maize, sorghum, wheat, sunflower, lucerne, various legumes especially soybean, pigeon pea and chickpea, tomatoes, okra, other vegetables, fruits, top fruits, citrus and like plants.
 Yeast includes brewers' yeast, bakers' yeast, yeast hydrolysate, and enzymatically hydrolysed yeast products, and other yeast extracts. Suitable commercial yeast products include Feed Wheast (a product of Knudsen Creamery Company, Los Angeles, California, USA), PredFeed (a product of Custom Chemicides, Fresno. California) yeast protein (Bee Wheast), Yesta 20B (a product of CPC (United Kingdom) Limited, Bovril Food Ingredients Division, Staffordshire,UK).
 Preferably, the food substance suitable for attracting, augmenting or sustaining natural enemies includes one or more kinds of saccharides, crude proteins, fat, fibre or ash. Other substances include natural honeydews produced by some insects, pollen from flowers, molasses, sucrose, honey, date syrup (a product of Date Factory, Tripoli, Libya) tryptophan and the like.
 Preferably, the food substance is raw sugar. The yeast and raw sugar can be applied simultaneously or sequentially.
 The insects that are suitable for treatment by the present invention apart form cotton bollworm and native budworm, include thrips (plague thrips, cotton bud thrips, predatory thrips, onion thrips).
Beneficial insects of Helicoverpa spp. that can be attracted and or conserved by the present invention include Harmonia arcuata Fabricuis, Diomus notescens Blackburn, Coccinella repanda Thunberg, Dicranolauis bellulus Guerin (predatory beetles); Geocoris lubra Kirkaldy, Cermatuius nasalis Westwood, Nabis capsiformis Germar, Campylomma livida Reuter (predatory bugs); Chrysopa spp. Micromus tasmaniae Walker (predatory lacewings); Pterocormus promissorius Erichson, Hateropelma scaposum Morley Netelia producta (Brulle) (parasitoids), Archaearanea veruculata Urquhart, Oxyopes app. Lycosa spp. Salticidae spp., Diaea spp, Araneus spp. (spiders).
 The present invention is also suitable for integrating with chemical treatments and/or biological treatments against the relevant pest. Suitable chemical treatments include the use of insecticides such as organochlorines (eg endosulfan, dicofol), organophosphates (eg accephate Chlorpyrifos, demeton-s-methyl,    dimethoate,    disulfoton,    formothion, monocrotophos,    omethoate,    parathionmethyl,    phorate,  profenofos, sulprofos, thiometon), carbamates (aldicarb,
carbaryl,    methomyl,    thiodicarb),    pyretroids (alphamethrin,   beta-cyfluthrin,   deltamethrin, esfenvalerate, fenvalerate fluvalinate, lambda-cyhalothrin), chitin inhibitors (eg chlorfluazuron), synergists (eg piperonyl butoxide (PBO), petroleum spray oil and the like.
Suitable biological pesticides include Bacillus thuringiensis and Seem tree (Azadiracta indica) extracts which are known to suppress larval feeding of both cotton bollworm and native budworm.
 The present invention is also suitable for combining with other treatments in order to prevent build up of resistance by the pests. The other treatment can be applied simultaneously or sequentially. For example, for a sequential treatment with a particular treatment regime for the present invention, if the regime requires treatment every fortnight, then another treatment can be used every alternate fortnight to prevent the pests from building up resistance to the present treatment.
Typically, the present treatment is alternated with another treatment which includes a substance such as petroleum spray oil or a combination of petroleum spray oil and saccharides.
 Suitable petroleum spray oils are white oils or dormant or  summer spray oils as known in the
horticultural industry. These are typically C19-C28 hydrocarbons. Preferably, the petroleum spray oils are
C19-C21 but other hydrocarbons having acceptable  phytotoxicity may be used. There are a number of such products on the market which are suitable for use in the present invention. These are Sunspray Ultra-fine (USA EPA Reg. No. 862-23, Sunspray 6E Plus), and Sunspray 6 (USA EPA No. 862-11) and 7 (USA EPA No. 862-8), manufactured by the Sun Refining and Marketing Company, Philadelphia, PA, USA; Caltex Lo-Vis, marketed by Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Limited, Sydney and Ampol D-C-Tron and Ampol D-C-Tron NR, marketed by Ampol Limited, Sydney.
The petroleum spray oil and/or polysaccharide may be used in conjunction with suitable agronomically acceptable diluents and/or carriers and with other additives common in the art such as emulsifiers, wetting agents, surfactants stabilizers, spreaders or the like. A suitable additive for use in the present invention is Agral which is a nonylphenylethyleneoxide and is a non-ionic organic surfactant    sold by ICI.
                                        BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
 Figure 1 shows ovipositional response of cotton boll and native bud worms to various food sprays in commercial cotton at Norwood, near Moree (a) and Auscott, Narrabri
(b) during 1992/93 season. (T1 = brewers yeast; T2 = sugar; T3 =brewers yeast + sugar; T4 = polysaccharide     + petroleum oil).

Figure 2 shows effect of food spray (treatment 1) on the abundance of predatory beetles of Helicoverpa spp. on commercial cotton at Norwood, near Moree (Results from December 11, 1992 to January 21, 1993 using a sweep net (a), and from January 28, to March 4, 1993 using a D-vac
(b). Figure 3 shows effect of provision of food supplements (treatment 1) on numbers of predatory bugs of Helicoverpa spp. on commercial cotton at Norwood, near Moree (Results of sweep net catches (a) from December 11, 1992 to January 21, 1993, and (b) D - vac catches from January 28, to March 4, 1993).
 Figure 4 shows effect of food spray (treatment 1) on the abundance of predatory lacewings and spiders attaching Helicoverpa spp. on commercial cotton at
Norwood, near Moore (Results from December 11, 1992 to January 21, 1993 using a sweep net (a), and from January 28, to March 4, 1993 using a D-Vac (b).
Figure 5 shows provision of food supplements (treatment 1) on the abundance of some parasitoids of Helicoverpa spp. on commercial cotton at Norwood, near Morse (Results of sweep net catches).
                                    MODES OF CARRYING OUT THE INVENTION  
 A typical formulation of yeast extract of the present invention comprises 1.5 kg of yeast in 20 litres of water for application per hectare.
 A typical formulation of protein hydrolysate of brewers' yeast and sugar comprises of 1.5 kg of brewers' yeast + 1 kg of sugar in 20 litres of water per hectare. Typically, for good crop coverage, a formulation of 1.8 kg of brewers yeast + 1 kg of sugar in 30 litres of water per hectare is suitable.
 Typically, the treatment involves six sprays at fortnightly intervals.
 The yeast product used for all of the following experiments is Yesta 20B, a product of CPC (United Kingdom) Limited, Bovril Food Limited Ingredient Division, Staffordshire, UK.
Experiment    1
Mesh house study on ovipositional response of cotton bollworm and native budworm. An experiment to assess the ovipositional response of Helicoverpa armigera (cotton bollworm) and Helicoverpa punctigera (native budworm) was conducted under "free" and "no" choice conditions on cotton plants in a mesh house in November 1992 and January 1993 at the Narrabri Agricultural Research Station (MRS) (30° 13'S, 149° 47'E), which is situated 25 km west of Narrabri in New South Wales. The various food supplements/sprays evaluated were (1) 0.06kg of yeast in 1 L of water, (2) 0.07 kg raw sugar in 1 L of water, (3) a mixture of 0.06 kg yeast and 0.07 kg sugar in 1 L of water, (4) a mixture of 0.08 g polysaccharide and 7 ml (0.5%) petroleum oil in 1 L of water and (5) 1 L of water (control).
The experimental plants were potted cotton plants of 0.5 m high and of Sicala VI normal leaf variety. The experiment was designed as a randomised complete block with 10 replicates of each of the above 4 treatments and a control. Each replicate comprised four plants, and each row contained one replicate of each treatment. The trial was conducted separately for cotton bollworm and native budworm in the same mesh house.
Under "free" choice conditions, for each trial, the stems and leaves of each plant were sprayed in relation to each treatment for 10 seconds on both sides using a knapsack sprayer delivering 420 ml per minute. The control plants were sprayed with water. After treatment application 110 pairs (in the case of cotton bollworm) and 100 pairs (native budworm) were introduced into the mesh house to oviposit on the treated plants. The number of eggs laid on the plants were counted daily until the adults died thus giving the total number of eggs laid per plant per treatment.
 Under "no" choice conditions plants from same treatment were enclosed in cages within the mesh house so that insects had no other choice to select from other  plants receiving different treatments.    Eight pairs (cotton bollworm) and 5 pairs (native budworm) were released in each cage. The same number of males were released into the cages to ensure mating. Record was taken of the total number of eggs per plant per treatment. A11 the data in each experiment was subjected to analysis of variance and means were compared by Duncan's multiple range test (Zar 1984).
Experiment 2.
Field studies on Helicoverpa spp. Control experiments were conducted on commercial cotton
farms at Norwood (near Morse) and Auscott (near Narrabri) in the 1992/93 cotton season. The experimental plants at each study site were of the same age and of the normal leaf variety, Sicala VI. The treatments evaluated were (1) 7.20 kg protein hydrolysate of yeast, (2) 8.40 kg of sugar, (3) a mixture of 7.20 kg of yeast and 8.40 kg sugar, (4) 9.60 g polysaccharides and 840 ml petroleum oil, (5) control (untreated) and (6) control (growers insecticide treated plot). Experimental plots were arranged in a randomized complete block design with 4 replicates per treatment and an untreated control. Each replicate was 6 metre wide and 100 metre long. A 10 metre wide buffer separated each replicate to minimize spray drift between treatments and controls.
 Pre-treatment counts of insects were made 24 h before treatment application and post-treatment every 7 days until end of study. Foliar application of each treatment were applied on October 27, 1992 at Norwood and November 4, 1992 at Auscott and thereafter at fortnight intervals until the end of February, 1993 when spraying was stopped at all study areas. In all 6 sprays of each treatment were applied in each study site. Sprays were applied using a knapsack sprayer delivering 420 ml per minute. On each occasion, 120 L of spray was applied in relation to each treatment, i.e. 30 L of spray per replicate. The untreated control plants were sprayed with water and the growers plot (treated control) received 12 applications of synthetic insecticides and their mixtures by means ground rig (early season i.e. October to December) and by aircraft (mid to late season i.e. January - April). The kind of pesticide, date, rate
and method of applications are shown in Table 5. The growers plot was located 400 metres away from the other 4 treatments and the untreated control.
Counts of Helicoverpa spp. (eggs and larvae) were made on 1 metre sections in each replicate i.e. 4 metres for each treatment and control plots throughout the season. At each study site, the cumulative total number of eggs and larvae per metre from each treatment and control were computed. So also was the mean number of eggs and larvae per sample date per metre.
Final fruit yield (mature + open bolls) were assessed on 1 metre sections in each replicate i.e. 4 metres for each treatment and control plots at the and of the season. All data were analysed by analysis of variance and means separated by Duncan's multiple range test (Zar 1984).
To assess the effect of artificial food (represented by treatment 1) on natural enemies of cotton bollworm and native budworm, 20 sweeps using a sweep net (from December 11, 1992 to January 21, 1993) and a 20 metre vacuum sampling using a D-vac (from January 28, 1993 to March 4, 1993) were made on cotton plants at 20 metres, 50, 100, 200, 400 metres (i.e growers plot) away from treatment 1 (which is 0 metres). This was replicated 4 times at each distance. Data was expressed as numbers per sampling date per sweep or metre at each distance away from the food sprayed plot. Analysis of variance was used to analysed the data and means were compared by Duncan's multiple range test.
The results of the ovipositional    response experiments under "free" and "no" choice conditions in the mesh house are shown in Tables 1 and 2. Significant difference (P<0.05) in numbers of eggs per plant laid by cotton bollworm and native budworm were found among treatments under both "free" and "no" choice conditions in the mesh house (Table 1 and 2). Maximum numbers of eggs per plant were laid on control plants (i.e. plants sprayed with only water) and minimum numbers on plants
sprayed with protein hydrolysate of yeast (treatment 1) and a mixture of yeast and raw sugar (treatment 3). A mixture of polysaccharides and petroleum oil suppressed oviposition in cotton budworm but not in cotton bollworm (Table 1 and 2).
 Under field conditions, oviposition of Helicoverpa spp varied significantly (P<0.01) among treatments at both study sites (Table 3 and Fig. 1. Cotton plants which received yeast and a mixture of yeast and sugar sprays had the least numbers of eggs laid on them compared with plants which were sprayed with either synthetic insecticide or were left unsprayed (Table 3 and Fig 1). The higher numbers of eggs on the growers plot at both study sites indicate that the insecticides used by the growers had no ovicidal effect. Significant differences (P<0.05) in the numbers of larvae per sample date per metre were also detected among treatments only at Norwood with the growers farm recording the least numbers of larvae and that of the unsprayed plot the highest (Table 3). However there were no significant differences between the numbers of larvae per metre among the rest of the treatments. The insecticides applied by the grower at Norwood was responsible for the lower numbers of larvae on this plot. In contrast, the difference in numbers of larvae per sample date per metre among treatments at Auscott was not significantly different (p>0.05) even though the grower applied insecticides on this plot (Table 3). This was due possibly to the fact that the grower at Norwood applied more insecticides than the one at Auscott.
 The final fruit yield at Norwood was highest on the growers plot and also on plots which received yeast spray (treatment 1) but least on the other treatments (Table 4). In contrast the fruit yield at Auscott was highest on the yeast plot and lowest on the growers plot (Table 4). The average cost per hectare of yeast was $6.80 whereas that of the insecticides was $17 per ha in stage 1 (October - December) and $40/ha from January to March when Bt was used by the grower within the insecticide resistance management programme.
 Natural enemy numbers were highest on plots receiving yeast spray (treatment 1) and continued to decline to reach its lowest level on the insecticide treated growers plot located 400 meters away (Figs. 2, 3, 4 and 5). There was a general decline in natural enemy numbers away from the food sprayed plot (Figs. 2-5). The natural enemies of cotton bollworm and native budworm found in high numbers in the food spray plot included the predatory beetles H. arcuata (three - banded ladybird), D. notescens (two - spotted ladybird), C. repanda (transverse ladybird), D. bellulus (red and blue beetle) (Fig. 2); predatory bugs . G Lubra (big - eyed bug), C. livida (apple dimpling bug), C. nasalis (glossy shield bug) and N. capsiformis (damsel bug) (Fig.3); predatory lacewings .Chrysopa spp. (green lacewing), M. tasmaniae (brown lacewing) and spiders (Fig. 4); and parasitoids cotton bollworm and native budworm P. promissorius (banded caterpillar parasite) H. scaposum (two-toned caterpillar parasite) (Fig. 5). Insecticides applied in the growers plot could account for lower numbers of natural enemies recorded. The higher number on the food sprayed plot indicate an attraction and conservation of the beneficial insects.
The result of the study clearly demonstrate that protein hydrolysate of yeast deters oviposition of
Helicoverpa spp. females and also attracts and conserves  beneficial insects of the pest in commercial cotton farms  without affecting the yield of the crop. The low numbers  35 of eggs and larvae on plots receiving yeast spray was due  to a combination of oviposition suppression, predation  and parasitism. The food spray resulted in fewer eggs  being laid on the plot and these eggs were preyed upon by the natural enemies in this plot.
The pesticides applied to the growers plot at Norwood kept larval moth numbers low but it resulted in an outbreak of mites and aphids. None of the other treatments resulted in an outbreak of mites and aphids. There was no difference in the yields between pesticide treated plots and the yeast plots at the end of the season. Economically the food spray was cheaper and had no effect on the environment compared with insecticide spray.
 
TABLE 1. Ovipositional preferences of Helicoverpa armigera (n = 110 pairs) and H. punctigera (n = 100 pairs) on cotton plants sprayed with various food supplements in the mesh house at the Agricultural Research Station, Narrabri, November, 1992. (Results of free choice tests).
Treatments                                              H.    armigera                                      H.    punctigera
                                                                No. of    eggs/plant              No. of eggs/plant
                                                                (n = 40 plants/treatment)        (n = 40 plants/treatment)
0.06 kg of Brewers yeast in 1 L of water    11.78 a                                               2.10 a
0.07 kg of raw sugar in 1 L of water           17.10 b                                              19.40 b
0.06kg of Brewers yeast+0.07kg of sugar     10.78a                      3.73a                                                                 in 1 L of water   
0.08g polysaccharide +7 m1 (0.5%)        25.20c                    3.13a                                                                          petroleum oil in 1 L of water   
1L of water (Control)                28.50c                    23.17b

Means within a column followed by same letter not significantly different (P>0.05) (Duncan's Multiple Range test).
 
TABLE 2. No choice test for oviposition of Helicoverpa armigera (n= 8 pairs) and H. punctigera (n= 5 pairs) on cotton plants in the mesh house at the Agricultural Research Station, Narrabri, January 1993.
Treatments                                              H.    armigera                                      H.    punctigera
                                                                No. of    eggs/plant              No. of eggs/plant
                                                                (n = 40 plants/treatment)        (n = 40 plants/treatment)
0.06 kg of Brewers yeast in 1 L of water    1.11 a                                               0.37 a
0.07 kg of raw sugar in 1 L of water           3.82 ab                                              1.19 bc
0.06kg of Brewers yeast+0.07kg of sugar     3.61ab                             0.83ab                                                                 in 1 L of water   
0.08g polysaccharide +7 m1 (0.5%)        5.33 b                    1.99c                                                                          petroleum oil in 1 L of water   
1L of water (Control)                7.61 b                    4.45d

Means within column followed by same letter not significantly different (P>0.05) (Duncan's Multiple    Range        test).
 
TABLE 3. Mean numbers of Helicoverpa armigera and H. punctigera eggs and larvae/metre/sample date on commercial cotton plants sprayed with various food supplements at Norwood (Moree) and Auscott (Narrabri) October 1992 - March 1993.

Treatments                      Eggs/metre/sample date             Larvae/metre/sample date                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Norwood            Auscott               Norwood              Auscott                     
                                                                   
7.20kg    of    brewers                                                                                                                                  yeast in 120 L of water            1.85a                      0.36a                 1.31a                0.14a
8.40kg    of    sugar                                                                                                                                       in 120L of water                      2.79 ab                  0.89ab                 1.31a                0.09a
7.20kgofbrewersyeast+                                                                                                                        8.40kg    of sugar in 120L    of                                                                                                                                water                                       2.21a                   0.43a                  1.29a                  0.11a
9.60g polysaccharide+840m1                                                                                              petroleum oil in 120 L of water 3.83b                    0.59ab                 1.71a                  0.14a
Control (Unsprayed)                 6.44c                  1.09b              2.66b                  0.21a           
Growers plot (Treated control)  6.21c             2.39c                 *0.60c             0.27a

Means within column followed by same letter not significantly different (P>0.05) (Duncan's Multiple Range test).

TABLE 4. Comparison of the final fruit yield per metre (mature + open bolls) on the various food sprayed plots and growers plot receiving conventional control programme at Norwood, March, 18, 1993 and Auscott, March, 22, 1993. (Mean of 4 replicates per treatment).





Treatments                            Norwood       Auscott                     
                                       No. of mature bolls/m                No of mature bolls/m
7.20kg    of    brewers                                                                                                                                  yeast in 120 L of water                93.00a                                        118.50a
8.40kg    of    sugar                                                                                                                                       in 120L of water                          71.25b                                         90.25b           
7.20kgofbrewersyeast+                                                                                                                        8.40kg    of sugar in 120L of          71.25b                              93.00b                                                                                                                 water                                      
9.60g polysaccharide+840m1                                                                                              petroleum oil                               84.75b                                        98.50b
Control (Unsprayed)                 75.25b                        91.00b

Growers plot (Treated control)  99.00a                76.25c

Means within column followed by same letter not significantly different (P>0.05) (Duncan's Multiple Range test).
 
TABLE 5. Coventional control programme based on current pest thresholds used by Grower during the 1992/93 cotton season.
Pesticides                     Date of application                  Rate               Method of application
Lorsban            11-12-92                 0.6L/ha           Water    injection
Temik                “  “                3.0kg/ha           Applicator on planter
Endo    ULV         12-11-92                3.0L/ha             By    air
Dipel    ES                      “  “                                       3.0L/ha           Ground    rig
Endo    ULV        26-11-92                3.0L/ha            By    air
Dipel    ES            27-11-92                3.0L/ha           Ground    rig
Endo    ULV        5-12-92                3.0L/ha            By    air
Rogor            5-12-92                0.5L/ha           By     air
Thuricide            11-12-92                2.5L/ha             By     ground    rig
Larvin            11-12-92                0.5L/ha             By     ground    rig
Endo    EC           18-12-92                2.1L/ha            By    air
Larvin    375                ”   “               0.5L/ha             By    air
Larvin    375           30-12-92                0.5L/ha             By    air
Maverik           10-1-93                3.5L/ha             By    air
Endo    ULV        27-1-93                3.0L/ha            By    air
Bt                27-1-93                2.0L/ha             By    air
Bulldock            9-2-93                2.5L                       By    air
Lannate            9-2-93                1.0L                 By    air
Thuricide            18-2-93                2.5L                 By    air
Larvin    375            18-2-93                0.5L              By    air
Talstar            18-2-93                0.8L               By    air
Razor            11-3-93                0.5L                By    air
 
CLAIMS
1. A method of controlling moth or other insect pests in a habitat which comprises disrupting and suppressing female oviposition by treating the habitat with yeast.
2. A method of controlling moth or other insect pests in a habitat and attracting, augmenting or conserving natural enemies of the moth or other insect pests, which comprises treating the habitat with yeast.
3.A method of controlling moth or other insect pests in a habitat and attracting, augmenting or conserving natural enemies of the moth or other insect pests, which comprises treating the habitat with yeast and one or more other food substances suitable for sustaining the natural enemies.
4. A method according to claim 2 or 3 characterized in that moth or other insect pests are controlled through suppression and disruption of female oviposition.
5. A method according to any one of the preceding claims characterized in that the habitat is cotton.
6. A method according to claim 5 characterized in that the moth or other insect pest is Cotton bollworm (Helicoverpa armigera Hubner).
7.    A method according to claim 5 characterized in that the moth or other insect pest is native bud worm 25 (Helicoverpa punctigera Wallengren).
8.    A method according to any one of claims 1 to 4 characterized in that the habitat is a fruit or vegetable field.

Newsletter

Join our newsletter for CIPIT news through subscriptions!

SEND

Social Media

Contact Us

TEL : (254) 703 034 612