Agriculture Production
USDA Needs to Build on 2005 Experience to Minimize the Effects of Asian Soybean Rust in the Future Gao ID: GAO-06-337 February 24, 2006In 2005, U.S. agriculture faced potentially devastating losses from Asian Soybean Rust (ASR), a fungal disease that spreads airborne spores. Fungicides approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can protect against ASR. In 2005, growers in 31 states planted about 72.2 million soybean acres worth about $17 billion. While favorable weather conditions limited losses due to ASR, it still threatens the soybean industry. In May 2005, GAO described the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) efforts to prepare for ASR's entry, (Agriculture Production: USDA's Preparation for Asian Soybean Rust, GAO-05-668R). This report examines (1) USDA's strategy to minimize ASR's effects in 2005 and the lessons learned to improve future efforts and (2) USDA, EPA, and others' efforts to develop, test, and license fungicides for ASR and to identify and breed soybeans that tolerate it.
USDA developed and implemented a framework--with federal and state agencies, land grant universities, and industry--that effectively focused national attention on ASR in 2005 and helped growers make informed fungicide decisions. The framework was effective in several ways. For example, sentinel plots--about 2,500 square feet of soybeans or other host plants planted early in the growing season in the 31 soybean-producing states--provided early warning of ASR. Officials in 23 of 25 states GAO surveyed reported that this effort was effective. Researchers could also promptly identify and report on the incidence and severity of the disease on a USDA Web site, alerting officials and growers to ASR's spread. Going forward, however, differences in how researchers monitor, test, and report on the disease could lead to incomplete or inaccurate data and detract from the value of future prediction models. For example, models to forecast ASR's spread partly rely on states' observations of sentinel plots. USDA asked states to report results weekly, but updates ranged from 4 reports, in total, during the growing season in one state to 162 reports in another state. Inconsistencies also occurred in the designation and placement of plots and in the testing of samples for ASR. Further, changes to the successful management approach employed by USDA in 2005 raise questions about how the program will perform in 2006. For 2006, most operational responsibility for ASR will shift from USDA headquarters to a land grant university. GAO is concerned that USDA's lack of a detailed action plan describing how program responsibilities will be assumed and managed in 2006 could limit the effectiveness of ASR management for this year. EPA, USDA, and others increased the number of fungicides growers can use to combat ASR while efforts continue to develop ASR-tolerant soybeans. As of December 2005, EPA had approved 20 fungicides for treating ASR on soybeans, including 12 that had emergency exemptions. According to officials in the nine states where ASR was confirmed in 2005, growers had access to fungicides. USDA, universities, and private companies are also developing ASR-tolerant soybeans and have identified 800 possible lines of resistant soybeans, out of a total of 16,000 lines. USDA estimates it may take 5 to 9 years to develop commercially available ASR-tolerant soybeans.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-06-337, Agriculture Production: USDA Needs to Build on 2005 Experience to Minimize the Effects of Asian Soybean Rust in the Future
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-337
entitled 'Agriculture Production: USDA Needs to Build on 2005
Experience to Minimize the Effects of Asian Soybean Rust in the Future'
which was released on March 21, 2006.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Ranking Democratic Member, Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry, U.S. Senate:
February 2006:
Agriculture Production:
USDA Needs to Build on 2005 Experience to Minimize the Effects of Asian
Soybean Rust in the Future:
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-337]:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-06-337, a report to the Ranking Democratic Member,
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, U.S. Senate:
Why GAO Did This Study:
In 2005, U.S. agriculture faced potentially devastating losses from
Asian Soybean Rust (ASR), a fungal disease that spreads airborne
spores. Fungicides approved by the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) can protect against ASR. In 2005, growers in 31 states planted
about 72.2 million soybean acres worth about $17 billion. While
favorable weather conditions limited losses due to ASR, it still
threatens the soybean industry. In May 2005, GAO described the U.S.
Department of Agriculture‘s (USDA) efforts to prepare for ASR‘s entry,
(Agriculture Production: USDA‘s Preparation for Asian Soybean Rust, GAO-
05-668R). This report examines (1) USDA‘s strategy to minimize ASR‘s
effects in 2005 and the lessons learned to improve future efforts and
(2) USDA, EPA, and others‘ efforts to develop, test, and license
fungicides for ASR and to identify and breed soybeans that tolerate it.
What GAO Found:
USDA developed and implemented a framework”with federal and state
agencies, land grant universities, and industry”that effectively
focused national attention on ASR in 2005 and helped growers make
informed fungicide decisions. The framework was effective in several
ways. For example, sentinel plots”about 2,500 square feet of soybeans
or other host plants planted early in the growing season in the 31
soybean-producing states”provided early warning of ASR. Officials in 23
of 25 states GAO surveyed reported that this effort was effective.
Researchers could also promptly identify and report on the incidence
and severity of the disease on a USDA Web site, alerting officials and
growers to ASR‘s spread. Going forward, however, differences in how
researchers monitor, test, and report on the disease could lead to
incomplete or inaccurate data and detract from the value of future
prediction models. For example, models to forecast ASR‘s spread partly
rely on states‘ observations of sentinel plots. USDA asked states to
report results weekly, but updates ranged from 4 reports, in total,
during the growing season in one state to 162 reports in another state.
Inconsistencies also occurred in the designation and placement of plots
and in the testing of samples for ASR. Further, changes to the
successful management approach employed by USDA in 2005 raise questions
about how the program will perform in 2006. For 2006, most operational
responsibility for ASR will shift from USDA headquarters to a land
grant university. GAO is concerned that USDA‘s lack of a detailed
action plan describing how program responsibilities will be assumed and
managed in 2006 could limit the effectiveness of ASR management for
this year.
EPA, USDA, and others increased the number of fungicides growers can
use to combat ASR while efforts continue to develop ASR-tolerant
soybeans. As of December 2005, EPA had approved 20 fungicides for
treating ASR on soybeans, including 12 that had emergency exemptions.
According to officials in the nine states where ASR was confirmed in
2005, growers had access to fungicides. USDA, universities, and private
companies are also developing ASR-tolerant soybeans and have identified
800 possible lines of resistant soybeans, out of a total of 16,000
lines. USDA estimates it may take 5 to 9 years to develop commercially
available ASR-tolerant soybeans.
Soybean Plants Treated with Fungicides Next to ASR-infected Plants:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the Secretary of Agriculture provide additional
guidance on the monitoring, testing, and reporting on the incidence of
ASR and develop a detailed action plan describing how USDA plans to
manage the ASR program in 2006 to maintain the level of coordination,
cooperation, and national priority achieved in 2005. In commenting on a
draft of this report, USDA stated that the recommendations reflect its
ongoing efforts with states to combat the disease.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-337.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Daniel Bertoni at (202)
512-3841 or bertonid@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
2005 ASR Efforts Showed Benefits of a National Coordination Strategy
and Highlight the Importance of Consistent Data and Strong Leadership:
EPA, USDA, and Others Have Made More Fungicides Available While
Continuing to Develop Longer-Term Solutions:
Conclusion:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Results of GAO's Survey of Soybean-Producing States:
Appendix III: 2005 Sentinel Plots and Soybean Acreage:
Appendix IV: Approved Fungicides for Treating Soybeans for ASR:
Appendix V: Progression of ASR during the 2005 Growing Season:
Appendix VI: Comments from the U.S. Department of Agriculture:
Appendix VII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Tables:
Table 1: Type of Testing Performed on Samples Suspected of ASR in 2005:
Table 2: Fungicides Approved by EPA for Treating ASR on Soybeans, as of
December 31, 2005:
Table 3: Section 18 Fungicides Approved for ASR and States Where
Approved, as of December 31, 2005:
Figures:
Figure 1: Progression of Infection on a Soybean Plant:
Figure 2: Spread of ASR across the World:
Figure 3: Number of Sentinel Plots in Each State, 2005:
Figure 4: Spraying at a Fungicide Trial in Colquitt County, Georgia:
Figure 5: An Agricultural Research Containment Facility:
Abbreviations:
APHIS: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service:
ASR: Asian Soybean Rust:
CSREES: Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service:
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency:
ERS: Economic Research Service:
FIFRA: Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act:
RMA: Risk Management Agency:
SRIPMC: Southern Region Integrated Pest Management Center:
USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture:
Letter February 24, 2006:
The Honorable Tom Harkin:
Ranking Democratic Member:
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry:
United States Senate:
Dear Senator Harkin:
In 2005, U.S. agriculture faced potentially devastating losses from
Asian Soybean Rust (ASR), a fungal disease that has caused significant
crop losses in other parts of the world. When ASR infects a soybean
plant, spots and pustules begin to form on its leaves, which eventually
turn yellow and drop prematurely, damaging the plant and decreasing the
number and size of beans.[Footnote 1] ASR can destroy an entire field
within a few weeks. Weather conditions, such as rainfall, humidity, and
temperature, affect both the severity and incidence of ASR. However,
fungicides provide protection against ASR if they are applied correctly
and at the proper time. In 2005, U.S. growers in 31 states planted
about 72.2 million acres in soybeans that had a total estimated value
of about $17 billion.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has been preparing for the
arrival of ASR in the continental United States since its presence was
first detected in Brazil in 2002. ASR was discovered for the first time
in the continental United States, in Louisiana in November 2004--after
most of the crop had been harvested--and had little effect on soybean
production. During 2005, researchers confirmed the presence of ASR in
138 counties across nine southern states. Currently, no commercial
soybeans are resistant to ASR, and fungicides are generally recognized
as the most effective means for controlling the disease. USDA had
predicted that U.S. economic losses from ASR could reach as high as $2
billion annually, but growers experienced few crop losses from ASR in
2005 because weather conditions and other factors were not favorable to
the spread of the disease. In some cases, it appears that growers
experienced higher yields than expected because the threat of ASR
caused them to be more attentive to their crop. While few losses
occurred in 2005, ASR still poses a significant threat to the U.S.
soybean industry, depending on the severity and extent of subsequent
outbreaks.
In May 2005, we reported on the status of USDA's efforts to prepare for
ASR's entry into the United States.[Footnote 2] This report examines
(1) USDA's strategy for minimizing the effects of ASR in the 2005 crop
year and the lessons learned that could be used to improve future
efforts and (2) the progress USDA, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), and others have made in developing, testing, and licensing
fungicides to treat ASR and in identifying and breeding ASR-resistant
or ASR-tolerant soybeans.
In conducting our work, we met with USDA and EPA officials and reviewed
agency documents on strategy, planning, and funding. We interviewed
university extension faculty and laboratory diagnosticians in Georgia,
Florida, Alabama, Indiana, and Iowa. We selected the first three states
because they were the most significantly affected by ASR in 2005 and
the latter two because they are among the largest producers of soybeans
in the United States. We also surveyed officials from the 31 soybean-
producing states that were included in USDA's sentinel plot program to
obtain information about the events that occurred in 2005 as well as
their states' preparations for dealing with ASR in 2006 (see app. II
for a summary of survey results). We pretested the content and format
of the survey questionnaire with several state officials. We also
interviewed industry and trade representatives to discuss fungicides,
fungicide application equipment, and other issues related to ASR. A
more detailed description of our scope and methodology is presented in
appendix I. We performed our work between May 2005 and January 2006 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
In 2005, USDA developed and implemented a coordinated framework that
was effective in focusing national attention on ASR and enabling
growers to make informed decisions about fungicide application. The
framework includes a surveillance and monitoring network; a Web-based
information management system; criteria for deciding when to apply
fungicides; predictive modeling; and outreach. The framework was
effective in several respects. For example, the sentinel plot program-
-plots planted a few weeks before the beginning of the growing season
to serve as an advance warning system--allowed researchers to identify
and report on the incidence and severity of the disease immediately or
within a few days on USDA's ASR Web site, thereby alerting officials
and growers to the spread of the disease. Researchers also advised
growers about whether and what type of fungicide might be needed. State
officials in most of the soybean-producing states that we surveyed
characterized the 2005 sentinel plot program as effective in providing
timely information on the spread of ASR. However, certain
inconsistencies in implementation could hamper long-term efforts to
contain ASR. For example, models developed to forecast the spread of
ASR will need several years of consistently collected data to be most
effective. These models rely, in part, on states' observations of the
sentinel plots. Although USDA asked the states to report results at
least once a week, not all states did so. For example, two states
reported only four times during the entire growing season while another
reported almost daily. We also noted inconsistency in the designation
of sentinel plots. Some plots were stand-alone and some were part of
existing commercial fields. Stand-alone plots are generally easier to
access by monitors and may facilitate more regular monitoring and
reporting. In addition, we noted differences in the diagnostic testing
of plant samples. Some test results were based on visual inspection and
others were based on advanced screening techniques, which tend to
identify ASR earlier in the infection process. Going forward, such
inconsistencies could eventually undermine the value of predictive
modeling, whose accuracy depends upon collecting and analyzing timely,
uniform, and complete data. Finally, leadership is key to the continued
effectiveness of the ASR effort. The 2005 effort was directed by senior
USDA officials in headquarters. In 2006, however, USDA plans to
transfer most operational responsibility for ASR to a land grant
university in North Carolina. Changes to the successful management
approach employed by USDA in 2005 raise questions about how the program
will perform in 2006. At the time of our review, USDA lacked a plan
showing how all of the responsibilities carried out in 2005 would be
carried out in 2006. It is important that the department have such a
plan prior to the 2006 growing season to help ensure that it maintains
the level of coordination, cooperation, and national priority that was
achieved in 2005 to address ASR.
EPA, USDA, and others have made progress in increasing the number of
fungicides that growers can use to combat ASR, while researchers
continue their efforts to develop ASR-resistant or -tolerant soybeans.
As of December 31, 2005, EPA had approved a total of 20 fungicide
products for treating ASR on soybeans, including 12 for which emergency
exemptions were granted, and officials in the nine states where ASR was
confirmed reported that growers had access to fungicides. EPA also
established maximum residue levels for these exempted fungicides in
time for soybean growers to export their products to foreign markets.
To further minimize crop losses, USDA and private companies funded
fungicide efficacy trials at universities across the United States.
However, the trials produced inconsistent results, in part because
different protocols were followed, and the researchers concluded that
future trials should use uniform protocols to ensure consistent data
collection and interpretation. USDA, universities, and private
companies are also working to develop ASR-resistant or -tolerant
soybeans, and they identified about 800 possible resistant lines of
soybeans, out of a total of about 16,000 lines of soybeans. USDA
estimates it may take 5 to 9 years to develop and make commercially
available ASR-resistant or -tolerant soybeans. Until then, fungicides
will continue to be the primary method for controlling ASR.
To ensure continued progress in minimizing the effects of ASR and to
facilitate research, we are recommending that the Secretary of
Agriculture provide additional guidance to state ASR program managers
on monitoring, testing, and reporting on the incidence of ASR and
ensure that a detailed action plan for managing ASR in 2006 is in place
prior to the 2006 growing season.
We provided a draft of this report to USDA and EPA for their review and
comment. EPA provided oral technical comments, which we incorporated
into the report as appropriate. In its written comments, USDA said that
the report fairly describes USDA's preparations related to ASR and that
both of the report's recommendations reflect its ongoing cooperative
efforts with states to combat the disease. USDA also provided technical
comments, which we incorporated into the report as appropriate.
Background:
ASR, a disease caused by the fungus Phakopsora pachyrhizi, requires
living host cells to survive. It can infect over 90 host species of
legumes, such as kidney beans, chickpeas, and kudzu. When ASR infects
soybeans, it causes the plants to lose their leaves prematurely, which
reduces the size and number of the beans. In areas where the disease
commonly occurs, up to 80 percent yield losses have been reported.
Environmental factors are critical to the incidence and severity of
ASR. Long periods of leaf wetness, high humidity, and temperatures
between 60 and 80 degrees Fahrenheit are ideal for spore germination.
About 7 days after plants are infected with ASR, small brown spots
surrounded by yellow rings appear on the leaf's upper surface (stage
1). Within 10 days, pustules form in the spots, primarily on the
undersides of the leaves (stage 2). These pustules have raised centers
that eventually break open to reveal masses of fungal spores, called
urediniospores (stage 3). Pustules can produce urediniospores for about
3 weeks. When the wind blows, the spores are dispersed, spreading the
infection to other fields. Once windborne, the spores can reportedly
travel hundreds of miles within a single day. Figure 1 shows the
progression of infection on a soybean plant.
Figure 1: Progression of Infection on a Soybean Plant:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
ASR was first detected in Japan in 1902. By 1934, the disease was found
in several other Asian countries as well as Australia. In 1951, the
disease was first reported on soybeans in India. The disease was
confirmed, and widespread infestations occurred in several African
countries in 1996. In 2001, ASR was found in Paraguay and was detected
in Argentina the following year. By 2002 the disease was widespread
throughout Paraguay and in some limited areas of Brazil. ASR was first
discovered in the continental United States in Louisiana on November 9,
2004. Researchers believe the disease was carried to the United States
by tropical storms. Figure 2 shows the pattern of ASR's spread
throughout the world.
Figure 2: Spread of ASR across the World:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
USDA has been following the path of the disease and planning for its
introduction into the United States for several years. In May 2002,
three USDA agencies--the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS), the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service (CSREES), and the Agricultural Research Service--together with
the National Plant Board, industry, and several land grant universities
formed the ad hoc Soybean Rust Committee. In addition, USDA established
the National Plant Diagnostic Network to enable diagnosticians, state
regulatory personnel, and first detectors to communicate images and
methods of detection for ASR as well as other diseases in a timely
manner.
USDA determined that once ASR arrived in the United States it could not
be eradicated because of its rapid transmission rate and an abundance
of host species. Thus, it decided fungicides would be the primary means
of managing ASR in the United States and Canada until researchers can
develop acceptable soybean cultivars that are resistant to the disease.
Although the disease has resulted in significant losses in yield and
production in other countries, soybean growers have learned to
successfully manage the disease by applying appropriate fungicides.
However, the use of such fungicides increases the production costs
associated with soybeans, which had typically required relatively
little or no management in the United States. For example, during the
2003 to 2004 growing season, Brazilian growers spent close to $1
billion on fungicides to prevent and reduce the spread of the disease.
In the United States, the costs of applying fungicides for ASR are
estimated to range from $10 to $35 per acre for each application. The
total cost of applying fungicides will depend on the number of acres
treated.
All pesticides, including fungicides, must be registered and labeled in
accordance with EPA regulations in order for them to be sold or used in
the United States. If emergency conditions exist, however, EPA can
grant an emergency exemption to state and federal agencies that allows
the unregistered use of the pesticide under section 18 of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).[Footnote 3] EPA
regulations require state and federal agencies to submit an application
for emergency exemptions and set limits on the duration of those
exemptions. Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended
by the Food Quality Protection Act, EPA sets tolerances for pesticides-
-the maximum residue levels of pesticides permitted on foods. Unlike
its process for registering fungicides, EPA may grant an emergency
exemption for the use of a fungicide before it sets a tolerance for
that fungicide.
Fungicides for ASR are classified as preventative or curative.
Preventative fungicides, such as strobilurins, prevent fungi from
successfully infecting and/or penetrating the host tissue of the plant,
while curative fungicides, such as triazoles, inhibit or stop the
development of infections that have already begun. In addition, some
fungicides contain both preventative and curative chemicals.
To properly manage ASR, growers must apply the right class of
fungicides at the appropriate time and with proper equipment. Applying
fungicides too early can increase production costs, and the fungicide
could wear off by the time an infection actually occurs. However, if
growers wait too long to apply the fungicide, the disease could
progress to an untreatable stage, and some crop could be lost. In order
for fungicides to be optimally effective, they must be applied to the
whole plant and be placed as deeply into the canopy as possible because
the disease usually begins in the lower canopy before traveling into
the middle and upper canopies as the crop matures. Fungicides can be
applied by ground sprayers or from the air. Aerial application is a
viable alternative when rainfall makes the fields too muddy or when
large amounts of soybean acreage need to be sprayed within a short
time.
In April 2004, USDA's Economic Research Service (ERS) conducted a study
to project the potential economic losses associated with various
degrees of ASR infestation in the United States. ERS concluded that the
extent of economic impacts from ASR will depend on the timing,
location, spread, and severity of the disease as well as the response
of growers, livestock producers, and consumers of agricultural
commodities. For the first year of ASR's establishment in the United
States, ERS estimated that the expected value of net economic losses
could range from $640 million to $1.3 billion, depending on the
geographic extent and severity of the disease's initial entry.
When ASR was discovered in Louisiana in November 2004, it was too late
in the crop year to damage 2004 soybean production. Since ASR must have
a living host to survive the winter, USDA believed the disease could
only successfully survive over the winter in the southernmost areas of
the United States and would have to be reintroduced each year into more
northern soybean-producing areas. Therefore, its arrival provided an
early warning to USDA, growers, and industry, allowing them time to
prepare strategies for minimizing the impact of the disease before the
2005 crop year.
2005 ASR Efforts Showed Benefits of a National Coordination Strategy
and Highlight the Importance of Consistent Data and Strong Leadership:
USDA's development and implementation of a coordinated framework was
instrumental in providing an effective response to ASR on soybeans in
2005. The framework includes (1) a surveillance and monitoring network,
(2) a Web-based information system, (3) decision criteria for fungicide
application, (4) predictive modeling, and (5) outreach for training,
education, and information dissemination. The goal of the framework was
to provide stakeholders with effective decision support for managing
soybean rust during the 2005 growing season, and USDA was generally
successful in doing so. However, inconsistencies in how researchers
monitor, test, and report on the disease could lead to incomplete or
inaccurate data and detract from the value of future prediction models.
Furthermore, the success of the 2005 framework was due in part to the
leadership of senior USDA officials, who were able to mount a national
campaign. The transfer of operational responsibilities to a land grant
university, under the direction of USDA, raises concerns about the
department's ability to maintain the level of coordination,
cooperation, and national priority that was achieved in 2005 to address
ASR.[Footnote 4]
The Surveillance and Monitoring Network Was Generally Implemented
Effectively, but Inconsistencies Could Impair Future Predictive
Efforts:
The early detection of ASR through the sentinel plot network--one of
the key components of the surveillance and monitoring program--was
effective, according to officials in 23 of the 25 states we
surveyed.[Footnote 5] Sentinel plots--typically about 2,500 square feet
of soybeans, other host plants, or a combination of the two--are
planted a few weeks before the beginning of the growing season and
serve as an advance warning of approaching ASR. In total, states
monitored more than 1,000 sentinel plots in 2005. USDA and the North
Central Soybean Research Program, in affiliation with the United
Soybean Board, funded the sentinel plot network established under the
framework. USDA provided about $800,000 for a total of 300 plots in the
31 soybean-producing states and an additional 20 plots in 4 other
states that produce dry beans, such as navy beans and chick
peas.[Footnote 6] (USDA plans to fund a similar number of sentinel
plots in 2006.) The North Central Soybean Research Program and United
Soybean Board provided approximately $390,000 for a total of 400 plots
in 20 states (20 plots per state).[Footnote 7] In addition, some states
established and monitored other plots during the growing season.
Officials of the 31 states we surveyed provided data on the number of
sentinel plots sponsored by USDA and others during 2005 (see fig. 3).
[Footnote 8]
Figure 3: Number of Sentinel Plots in Each State, 2005:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
State personnel monitored these plots throughout the growing season to
determine the presence and severity of ASR. Within each state, a
designated official entered the monitoring data from the plots into
USDA's ASR Web site, an online, real-time data system. Once the data
were entered, growers and others could access the information to
determine in which counties ASR-infected plants were found. In
addition, state specialists used the Web site to provide guidance to
growers about whether and what type of fungicides should be applied.
Once ASR was detected and confirmed in a state, the framework specified
that mobile monitoring teams--one assigned to each of five regions--
would be dispatched to the affected areas to help determine the
severity and spread of the disease. During the 2005 growing season, the
disease was confined to the southeastern region, and therefore only the
team assigned to that region was deployed.
Researchers use the information from states on sentinel plot
monitoring, including diagnostic testing results, to develop prediction
models that estimate where and how severe ASR will be in certain areas
of a state or county. These models depend in large part on timely and
consistent data from the state observations and diagnostic testing
results. Researchers will rely on this information, in part, to
validate the predictive models over the next few years, while extension
personnel and growers rely on this information to make informed and
timely decisions on the need to apply fungicides.
USDA asked the states to monitor their sentinel plots at least once a
week and report the results on a weekly basis by posting them to a
restricted USDA Web site.[Footnote 9] Monitoring results from the
sentinel plots supported by USDA and the North Central Soybean Research
Program were to include, for example, the location, host, and severity
of the disease.[Footnote 10] However, state officials did not
consistently report weekly updated information to the Web site during
the 2005 growing season. Updates from the states ranged from a total of
4 each for two states to 162 for another. USDA also provided states
considerable flexibility in how they designated sentinel plots. In some
cases, fields were planted as stand-alone surveillance fields while in
other cases, sentinel plots were part of commercial fields. Such
differences might affect the extent to which crops are accessible for
crop monitors. While there is no evidence that this variation in plots
affected data reporting in 2005, a lack of consistency in designating
sentinel plots could ultimately affect the quality of data that are
essential to alerting USDA to the initial presence and spread of ASR in
future years.
Diagnostic testing was important to confirming suspected cases of ASR
because several plant diseases resemble it and because U.S. growers
have little experience in identifying ASR. States are to send the first
suspected sample of ASR on soybeans and each new host to USDA's APHIS
laboratory in Beltsville, Maryland, for confirmation testing. However,
subsequent samples submitted within each state may be tested at either
a state or National Plant Diagnostic Network laboratory. According to
our survey of officials in the 31 soybean-producing states, state
diagnostic laboratories received about 12,100 samples for ASR research
and screening. Of these samples, about 9,500 were submitted for routine
research or monitoring and about 2,600 were submitted specifically
because of suspected ASR. Of the total number of samples tested, only
877, or about 7 percent, tested positive for ASR. For samples suspected
of having ASR, states primarily relied on morphological examinations--
i.e., examining the spores from lesions on leaf samples, visually or
under a microscope--to screen the samples suspected of ASR. However, in
selected cases, the states conducted advanced screening using the
polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test or an enzyme-linked immunosorbent
assay (ELISA) test to detect the presence of ASR.[Footnote 11] Table 1
summarizes the results of states' tests performed on samples suspected
of having ASR in 2005.
Table 1: Type of Testing Performed on Samples Suspected of ASR in 2005:
Type of testing: Morphological examination only;
Number of samples screened or tested: 2,202.
Type of testing: Morphological exam and PCR;
Number of samples screened or tested: 195.
Type of testing: Morphological exam and ELISA;
Number of samples screened or tested: 137.
Type of testing: Morphological exam, ELISA, and PCR;
Number of samples screened or tested: 71.
Total;
Number of samples screened or tested: 2,605.
Source: GAO's survey of soybean-producing states.
[End of table]
The National Plant Diagnostic Network issued standard operating
procedures for how to submit samples to a diagnostic laboratory and
procedures for initially screening the samples and conducting advanced
screening. However, the procedures did not specify how often or under
what circumstances, the laboratory should conduct advanced screening to
confirm an initial diagnosis of ASR. Advanced screening might be
warranted because a morphological examination of a sample in the early
stages of the disease may fail to detect ASR. Also, in some cases,
diagnosticians may have limited experience in detecting the disease
morphologically. Conversely, officials in some states where ASR
appeared to be no real threat in 2005 may have believed that advanced
screening was not necessary. Officials in 13 of the states that we
surveyed reported that a morphological examination was the only type of
testing they performed on samples of suspected ASR. Officials in 13
states also indicated that they performed a morphological examination
as well as at least one other type of advanced screening test, and
officials in 3 states reported that they only performed advanced
screening on suspected cases of ASR.[Footnote 12] The various methods
used to diagnose ASR, and hence to report the results to the Web site,
could determine the difference between detecting the disease early,
when it is most easily treated, or delaying detection until it is well
established.
As of October 31, 2005, state laboratories had spent an estimated total
of $465,800 on screening and testing samples for ASR; about $14,600 of
this cost was offset by the fees the state laboratories charged for
sample testing. Most of the state officials we surveyed reported that
their states had sufficient funding and staffing to perform diagnostic
screening and testing for ASR during 2005. For 2006, officials from 30
of the states that we surveyed indicated that they plan to have the
same number or more laboratory staff. However, officials from nine of
the states indicated that they still lacked sufficient equipment to
perform recommended diagnostic testing. In addition to testing field
samples, USDA sampled rainwater to help in the early detection of
ASR.[Footnote 13] With these samples, scientists can detect spore
concentrations before ASR is apparent on the plant. Positive samples
were found in most of the regions tested, including the Midwest and the
Northeast, where ASR was not apparent on the plant. USDA is using this
information for research and plans to publish its findings in a
professional journal.[Footnote 14]
USDA's Web-Based Information System Was Viewed Favorably, but Users
Suggested Improvements:
As a means to share information among all interested parties, in March
2005, USDA activated the public ASR information Web site, which
provided disease observations, management recommendations, and scouting
information, among other things.[Footnote 15] The site allows growers
and other interested parties to go to a single location for real-time,
county-level information on the spread of the disease in soybean-
producing states. The Web site displays two maps of the United States.
One map shows the counties in which researchers scouted for ASR and did
not find it (in green) and counties in which ASR was confirmed (in
red). Another map allows the public to click on a state and obtain
information on ASR management, such as disease management, scouting
results, growth stages, and forecast outlook. In addition, the Web site
provides a chronology of positive ASR detection by date confirmed,
county, and state; information on the spread of ASR nationwide; and
links to related Web sites.
USDA has also established a restricted Web site that has several access
levels for various users, such as state specialists, observers,
researchers, and selected industry representatives. Among other things,
this site presents information on observed and predicted disease
severity and spore deposition. The Web site is restricted to prevent
unauthorized users from entering erroneous data and to allow state
specialists to share and assess data before distributing information to
the public. The information in this restricted Web site then becomes
the basis for the information on the public Web site.
Officials in the soybean-producing states that we surveyed
characterized USDA's Web sites (public and restricted) as useful to
their states. However, several officials provided suggestions for
improvement. These suggestions included making the Web sites easier to
use, giving multiple officials within each state access to update the
Web sites, considering the needs of the colorblind, providing better
instructions to users, recognizing the efforts of extension service
personnel on the Web site, considering the needs of users without high-
speed Internet connections, and publicizing the Web sites to a greater
extent.
Decision Criteria for Fungicide Application Useful to Advisers and
Soybean Growers in Responding to ASR:
To educate and assist growers and extension personnel in making
decisions regarding the use of fungicides to combat ASR, state land
grant university extension specialists and USDA developed a fungicide
guide. The April 2005 ASR fungicide manual--Using Foliar Fungicides to
Manage Soybean Rust--was developed under a USDA grant by state
extension and scientists at 22 U.S. universities, USDA, and the Ontario
Ministry of Agriculture and Food. It was widely available to state
officials, growers, and other stakeholders. The manual provides basic
fungicide information, such as the chemistry involved and the brand
names of different products, as well as information on factors involved
in making fungicide spray decisions, including whether to use a
preventative or curative fungicide, and how and when to apply the
fungicide. Over 150,000 copies of the manual were distributed during
2005. In addition, extension officials in the states we visited
commented that the manual was very useful to growers in deciding when
and how to apply fungicides during the 2005 crop season. Using
information from USDA's Web site and the ASR fungicide manual,
extension service offices in five states where ASR was confirmed
suggested that some growers apply fungicides for ASR at least once
during the 2005 growing season.[Footnote 16]
Predictive Modeling Is a Work in Progress and Will Depend on Good Data
in the Future:
During the 2005 growing season, state specialists could obtain ASR
forecast information from various models, synthesize the information,
and use it to prepare state forecast outlooks for dissemination on
USDA's public Web site. These models included one supported by USDA
that predicted the aerial spread of ASR spores from active source
regions in the United States to other soybean-growing areas; the
results of this model were published on USDA's restricted Web
site.[Footnote 17] Other ASR prediction models available during 2005
included one from the North American Disease Forecast Center at North
Carolina State University and another developed by researchers at Iowa
State University. These models depend in large part on timely and
consistent data from the states' observations and diagnostic testing
results.
According to researchers who used the models, ASR prediction models
tended to overstate the spread of ASR in 2005. However, this was the
first full year that ASR was in the United States and it generally
takes several years to calibrate and validate models like these. One
researcher has proposed that USDA use an "ensemble approach" to predict
the spread of ASR in 2006--that is, using forecast information from
several ASR models in predicting the spread of ASR. Regardless of which
models are used, inconsistencies in defining or designating sentinel
plots, in diagnosing ASR, and hence in reporting the results to the Web
site could affect the development of predictive models and ultimately
could determine the difference between detecting ASR early, when it is
most easily treated, or delaying detection until ASR is well
established.
Outreach for Training, Education, and Information Dissemination Was
Effective in 2005 and Is Planned to Continue in 2006:
In preparation for the 2005 growing season, USDA and the 31 soybean-
producing states we surveyed sponsored about 1,500 presentations,
programs, and workshops on ASR. Officials in these states reported that
they planned to offer over 400 presentations, programs, and workshops
on ASR between November 1, 2005, and April 30, 2006. According to the
state officials we surveyed, the three most important topics to include
in these workshops are identification of ASR and "look-alike" diseases,
availability and use of fungicides, and observations and results from
2005.
During the 2005 growing season, several other outreach efforts were
also conducted to help growers. For example:
* Some states supported telephone hotlines that presented the latest
information on ASR, enabling growers using cellular phones to get
information when they were out in the fields.
* The University of Kentucky created two ASR electronic mailing lists-
-one that facilitated discussion and information sharing about ASR
among 137 industry, state, federal, and university officials and
another that facilitated communication among 108 individuals regarding
the soybean rust sentinel plot and surveillance network.
* The American Phytopathological Society organized a symposium in
November 2005--attended by over 350 participants--to discuss ASR and
lessons learned during the past growing season.
* Several states also displayed ASR information on their state Web
sites.
Lack of an Action Plan Describing How Leadership Responsibilities Will
Be Assumed and Managed in 2006 Raises Concerns About a Sustained
National Effort for ASR:
The national effort for ASR during the 2005 growing season was directed
by senior APHIS headquarters officials, who coordinated the federal,
state, and industry effort to develop the framework. Before and during
the growing season, they conducted regular meetings with state
specialists. According to a representative of the American Soybean
Association, soybean growers were pleased with the central, coordinated
effort led by APHIS to fight against ASR. In addition, 30 of the
officials in the states we surveyed reported that communication was
effective between their state and USDA in addressing ASR during 2005.
APHIS has been involved in preparing for ASR because of its
responsibility to protect the nation from the introduction of foreign
plant pests. However, now that ASR is in the United States, CSREES is
responsible for managing efforts to minimize its effects.[Footnote 18]
In November 2005, USDA formally announced the transition of operational
responsibility for managing ASR in 2006, from APHIS to the Southern
Region Integrated Pest Management Center (SRIPMC) at North Carolina
State University, under the direction and coordination of
CSREES.[Footnote 19] The current ASR national system will be expanded
to provide growers with information about additional legume pests and
diseases in 2006. SRIPMC and USDA recently signed a cooperative
agreement that will provide about $2.4 million to fund ASR monitoring,
diagnostics, and communication efforts in 2006.[Footnote 20] Total
funding includes $1 million for sentinel plots and $800,000 for
diagnostic testing. In 2005, USDA provided nearly $1.2 million for
these activities.
During 2006, selected APHIS personnel will assist with the transition
to CSREES. One key APHIS official will serve as the national coleader
of the USDA Web site and train SRIPMC personnel, and a contractor will
continue to serve as data manager to help ensure that the Web site
continues to provide current, useful information. In addition, the
contractor will continue to provide meteorology and modeling expertise.
However, as of January 25, 2006, USDA lacked a detailed plan describing
how it plans to ensure that all elements of the 2005 framework will be
effectively implemented in 2006. In commenting on a draft of this
report, USDA reported that it was developing, but had not completed,
such a plan.
Changes to the successful management approach employed by USDA in 2005
raise questions about how the program will perform in 2006. We are
concerned that without a detailed action plan in place prior to the
2006 growing season, describing how CSREES will assume and manage
important responsibilities, USDA may not be able to ensure that the
level of coordination, cooperation, and national priority that was
achieved in 2005 to address ASR will continue in 2006.
EPA, USDA, and Others Have Made More Fungicides Available While
Continuing to Develop Longer-Term Solutions:
As of December 31, 2005, EPA had approved a total of 20 fungicide
products for treating ASR on soybeans, including 12 for which emergency
exemptions were granted. Officials in the nine states where ASR was
confirmed reported no problems in obtaining access to fungicide
application equipment. While officials in three of these states
reported that not all fungicide products were available to their
growers, they did not indicate that growers experienced fungicide
shortages overall. To determine which fungicides are the most effective
under given conditions, USDA and private companies also supported
research efforts at universities across the United States. For the
longer term, USDA, universities, and private companies are conducting
research to develop ASR-resistant or -tolerant soybeans but expect that
these will not be available commercially for 5 to 9 years.
EPA and USDA Worked Cooperatively to Make Multiple Fungicides Available
in 2005:
Efforts to ensure that fungicides would be approved for treating ASR on
soybeans have been under way for some time. (See app. IV for a complete
list of approved fungicides.) Before March 2004, 4 fungicides had been
registered for preventing ASR on soybeans. However, between March 2004
and June 2005, EPA approved another 16 fungicides--all in time for
application during the 2005 growing season. These fungicides included
the following:
* 4 registered fungicides that are preventative; and:
* 12 fungicides for which emergency exemptions were granted.[Footnote
21] Nine of these products are curative,[Footnote 22] and 3 have both
preventative and curative properties.
As of November 2005, five additional fungicides for ASR were pending
approval for emergency exemption, and two others were pending full
registration.
EPA was able to act expeditiously, in part because, in July 2002, USDA
and EPA began discussing preparations for emergency exemptions and
working with private industry and state departments of agriculture to
prepare for ASR. They identified fungicides with known efficacy against
ASR and fungicides that needed additional testing to gain EPA approval.
During 2003, USDA's Office of Pest Management Policy hosted several
teleconferences and meetings with researchers, EPA, and state officials
to discuss the development of emergency exemptions for soybeans and
other legumes. In November 2003, EPA suggested a procedure for states
to follow for requesting emergency exemptions. That is, although each
state typically submits a unique request to EPA for an emergency
exemption, EPA allowed Minnesota and South Dakota to prepare a joint
request for treating ASR on soybeans and allowed other states to copy
this request. USDA also began contacting states to offer help preparing
requests for emergency exemptions.
As a result of these preparations, when ASR was first confirmed in the
continental United States in November 2004, 26 states, representing 99
percent of the U.S. soybean acreage, had requested emergency exemptions
for fungicides to treat ASR, and 25 of these states had received at
least one emergency exemption. Furthermore, although emergency
exemptions are usually granted for a single year, EPA approved the
exemptions for ASR fungicides through November 2007, as quarantine
emergency exemptions. These exemptions may be authorized for up to 3
years in an emergency condition to control the introduction or spread
of any pest new to or not known to be widely prevalent or distributed
within and throughout the United States. Consequently, in 2007, states
will have to renew their emergency status, with the support of the
manufacturer; work to have these fungicides registered; or use already
registered fungicides.[Footnote 23] In addition to these efforts, in
April 2004, USDA met with the American Soyfoods Association of North
America to plan efficacy research on chemicals permitted to treat
organically grown soybeans and to discuss organic certification of
fields treated with conventional chemicals. Furthermore, by August
2005, EPA had established maximum residue levels for the exempted
fungicides in time for soybean growers to export their products to
foreign markets.
At the November 2005 ASR symposium, EPA announced that it remains
receptive to receiving future registration and exemption requests for
additional fungicides to treat ASR.[Footnote 24] According to state
officials with whom we spoke, the variety of fungicides available as a
result of the exemption process helped reduce the risk that ASR would
become resistant to fungicides and ensured that a supply of fungicides
would be available to growers.
In terms of the availability of application equipment and fungicides in
2005, the officials we surveyed in the nine states where ASR was
confirmed reported no problems with access to equipment. Although
officials in three of these states indicated that their growers did not
have access to all fungicide products, none of the states reported that
growers encountered any shortages of fungicides to treat their crop.
State, EPA, and USDA officials cautioned that actual fungicide
inventory and availability depends largely on market forces outside
their control. These officials also stated that it is not possible to
determine the sufficiency of fungicides and equipment for 2006 because
of uncertainties about (1) the timing and potential spread of ASR into
northern states, which do not generally apply fungicides on soybeans
and therefore may not have supplies and equipment available and (2) the
potential need in southern states for growers to use fungicides and
equipment for other major crops, such as peanuts, thereby creating a
shortage for use on soybeans.
USDA and Other Sponsors Have Supported Research Efforts to Determine
the Most Effective Types of Fungicides and Application Methods:
USDA began evaluating fungicide efficacy for ASR in 2001,[Footnote 25]
and it supported its own field work in this area from 2003 through 2005
in Africa and South America with funding from private companies and the
United Soybean Board.[Footnote 26] In addition, beginning in 2002, the
agency began contacting approximately 20 companies and trade
organizations to participate in efficacy trials for the registration of
ASR fungicides at several U.S. universities and international
locations. Efficacy trials examine the impact fungicides have on
factors such as crop yield and disease severity by testing the:
* effectiveness of fungicides under various spray conditions, such as
volume, pressure, and application frequency;
* effectiveness of fungicides under different crop conditions, such as
maturity, row spacing, and plant varieties; and:
* impact of various application techniques and equipment on such things
as coverage and penetration of the crop canopy.
Figure 4 shows the application of fungicides at a trial in 2005.
Figure 4: Spraying at a Fungicide Trial in Colquitt County, Georgia:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Conducting trials at different locations allows researchers to study
the effectiveness of fungicides and application methods in different
climates and on different strains of ASR. EPA can use efficacy data
from these trials to evaluate fungicides for emergency exemptions. USDA
started posting fungicide efficacy data, including some data from
private companies,[Footnote 27] to a USDA research Web site in
2003.[Footnote 28] According to agency officials, these trials showed
that (1) fungicides reduced crop losses, (2) some fungicides were more
effective than others, and (3) different fungicides with different
active ingredients were necessary to combat ASR because what works best
in one region may not be as effective in another. In terms of
equipment, the trials showed that better coverage of the plant using
higher spray volume is more important for effective spraying than the
type of nozzles used. USDA has not taken a position concerning the
application of fungicides on soybeans not threatened by ASR, although
some private companies have promoted such an approach.[Footnote 29]
Most recently, in 2005, researchers at southern universities conducted
efficacy trials on several fungicides approved by EPA and some
fungicides only approved for use in Brazil. Many of these trials were
conducted in areas infected with ASR. These trials produced mixed
results, but researchers concluded that timing the first spray may be
the most critical factor when applying fungicides to treat ASR.
Fungicide trials were also conducted in 2005 in 13 northern states
where ASR has not yet been confirmed. The researchers conducting these
trials focused on questions such as whether fungicides improved soybean
yields in the absence of ASR. These trials produced inconsistent data,
in part because different protocols--for example, plot management and
fungicide application techniques--were followed; and the researchers
concluded that uniform protocols should be established for future
trials to ensure consistent data collection and interpretation.
Rust-Resistant Soybeans Will Not Be Available to Growers for Several
Years:
Breeding commercial soybeans with resistance to or tolerance of ASR is
generally regarded as the best long-term solution for managing the
disease; and USDA, several universities, and private companies are
currently working to develop such soybeans. Breeding new varieties of
soybeans and making them commercially available takes time--up to 9
years--according to USDA officials. The Agricultural Research Service
has approximately 16,000 soybean lines in its soybean germplasm
collection.[Footnote 30] As of June 2005, researchers had finished an
initial screening of these lines. Approximately 800 lines were
identified as having some form of resistance or tolerance to ASR and
are currently being evaluated using more advanced screening tests.
Subsets of these 800 lines are also being evaluated in field trials in
collaboration with researchers in Africa, Asia, and South America. An
intermediate screening of these 800 lines was completed and the results
published in a scientific journal in January 2006.[Footnote 31] Some of
these lines are only resistant to a few of the known strains of ASR.
USDA researchers hope to eventually find lines that are resistant to
all known strains.[Footnote 32] The United Soybean Board and the Iowa
Soybean Association and Promotion Board have provided financial support
for this work.
In addition to the sheer volume of germplasm that researchers need to
examine, other factors have also contributed to the time taken to
identify soybean varieties that are resistant or tolerant to ASR.
Before USDA removed ASR from the select agents and toxins list under
the Agricultural Bioterrorism Protection Act of 2002 in March
2005,[Footnote 33] USDA's research in the United States was limited to
a few containment facilities. Researchers could not conduct yield loss
studies because the available containment facilities did not have
enough room to allow soybean plants to reach maturity. The limited
space in containment facilities has also slowed USDA's ability to
germinate and study foreign strains of ASR (see fig. 5). ASR's arrival
in the United States should facilitate USDA's efforts to study the
disease because researchers in affected states can now work with ASR
and soybean plants under field conditions.
Figure 5: An Agricultural Research Containment Facility:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
The Agricultural Research Service expects to have soybean germplasm
with some level of resistance to ASR within 5 years. It intends to work
with industry through cooperative research and development agreements
and other mechanisms to provide access to this germplasm so that
private companies can develop commercial soybeans with resistance or
tolerance to ASR. Commercialization may take an additional 2 to 4
years. According to agency researchers, it is difficult to develop
germplasm that is completely resistant to all strains of ASR; and
therefore, the most effective approach for developing resistance will
be to develop tolerant soybeans to provide growers more time each
season to prepare for and manage ASR.
The Agricultural Research Service is also conducting research to
examine the genetic variability among the various strains of ASR. The
expected outcomes of this project are to identify genes required for
the infection process and disease cycle, as well as the discovery of
potential targets for new fungicides. Both the Agricultural Research
Service and the United Soybean Board have supported this research, and
the agency has also worked with the Department of Energy's Joint Genome
Institute.
In April 2005, the Agricultural Research Service issued a National
Strategic Plan for the Coordination and Integration of Soybean Rust
Research. It began to develop this strategic plan at a meeting held in
December 2004, 3 weeks after the disease was confirmed in the
continental United States. USDA, together with the United Soybean Board
and the North Central Soybean Research Program, held a national
workshop with more than 90 soybean experts to set priorities, identify
strategic goals for ASR research, and develop a national research plan.
This plan is linked to the agency's overall strategic plan and
coordinated with other USDA agencies. The research plan also promises
project review and program assessment by independent peers via annual
research progress reports.
Of the research plan's six strategic goals, three aim directly at
developing ASR resistance or tolerance:
* develop new, high-yielding germplasm with resistance to soybean rust;
* determine the genetic basis for ASR's virulence and determine the
genetic basis for soybeans' resistance to ASR; and:
* improve understanding of ASR's biology and epidemiology.[Footnote 34]
The Agricultural Research Service has since developed a draft of an
action plan intended to measure the progress of the research plan
initiative.
Conclusion:
Effective, timely communication and coordination at the federal, state,
and local levels, coupled with favorable weather conditions, were keys
to limiting the impact of ASR on U.S. soybean production in 2005.
Indeed, in many areas of the country, soybean production exceeded
expectations, in part because producers were more attentive to their
crop. While the experience in 2005 was favorable, it is unlikely that
the fungus will be eliminated. Accordingly, it will still be important
for all agricultural stakeholders to remain vigilant and to
consistently monitor, test, and report on ASR and to develop models for
predicting the spread of the disease. Going forward, however,
differences in how researchers monitor, test, and report on the disease
could detract from the value of future prediction models.
The 2005 ASR experience also highlights the importance of preparing
for, coordinating, and monitoring a new agricultural disease. The
lessons learned from managing ASR could be valuable in minimizing the
effects of other agricultural pests that threaten crops and can cause
significant economic losses. In this regard, a clear plan of action and
strong leadership in coordinating the actions of all stakeholders was
important in 2005 and will continue to be critical to the success of
efforts to monitor, report, and manage the spread of ASR in 2006.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
We are making two recommendations to the Secretary of Agriculture to
ensure continued strong leadership and improved efforts to predict and
limit the spread of ASR.
* To ensure reliable, quality reporting on the spread of the disease,
USDA should provide additional guidance to state ASR program managers
and monitors on the timing and frequency of reporting on the incidence
of ASR, the designation of sentinel plots, and when to use advanced
diagnostic testing.
* To ensure that ASR continues to receive national priority and the
same level of effective coordination and cooperation evidenced in 2005,
USDA should develop a detailed action plan, prior to the beginning of
the growing season, describing how it will manage ASR in 2006.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to USDA and EPA for their review and
comment. In oral comments, EPA told us that the factual information in
our draft report is correct and provided technical comments, which we
incorporated as appropriate. In written comments, USDA said that the
report fairly describes USDA's preparations related to ASR. In
addition, it stated that both of the report's recommendations reflect
its ongoing cooperative efforts with states to combat the disease (see
app. VI). USDA also provided a number of technical comments, which we
incorporated as appropriate.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report
to the appropriate committees; the Secretary of Agriculture; the
Administrator of EPA; and other interested parties. In addition, the
report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202)
512-3841 or [Hyperlink, bertonid@gao.gov]. Contact points for our
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to
this report are listed in appendix VII.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Daniel Bertoni:
Acting Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
To determine the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) strategy for
minimizing the effects of Asian Soybean Rust (ASR) now that the disease
has arrived in the continental United States and the lessons learned
that could be used to improve future efforts, we interviewed officials
from USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES),
the Agricultural Research Service, the Farm Service Agency (FSA), and
the Risk Management Agency (RMA) to identify efforts that have been
implemented since November 2004. We also surveyed state officials in
the 31 soybean-producing states that were included in USDA's sentinel
plot program to obtain information on their efforts to minimize the
effects of ASR through education, training, surveillance, and testing
and to obtain information about the lessons learned during the 2005
crop year. The survey included questions about the states' university
extension programs; sentinel plots, monitoring, and scouting;
diagnostic screening and testing; fungicide use; and perceptions of
USDA's efforts. Prior to implementing our survey, we pretested the
questionnaire with several state officials (university extension
faculty) in Florida and Alabama. During these pretests, we interviewed
the respondents to ensure that (1) the questions were clear and
unambiguous, (2) the terms we used were precise, and (3) the survey did
not place an undue burden on the staff completing it. The questionnaire
was also reviewed by a GAO survey expert. We made changes to the
questionnaire based on these pretests. We received responses from all
31 states surveyed. The state information presented in this report is
based on information obtained from this survey and interviews with
state officials. Appendix II contains the state questionnaire and
aggregated responses. We conducted site visits to Alabama, Georgia, and
Florida, where we inspected ASR-infected soybeans while touring
sentinel plots, a fungicide efficacy trial, diagnostic facilities, and
a commercial soybean field with state extension officials. We
interviewed university extension faculty and laboratory diagnosticians
in these states, as well as in Indiana and Iowa, to gain more in-depth
information about their efforts to mitigate the effects of ASR and test
for the disease. We also toured USDA diagnostic facilities in
Beltsville, Maryland. In addition, we interviewed industry and trade
representatives to discuss the adequacy of available fungicides and
application equipment. Finally, we attended the November 2005 National
Soybean Rust Symposium in Nashville, Tennessee to determine
stakeholders' assessment of USDA's efforts.
To determine the progress that USDA, the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), and others have made in developing, testing, and
licensing fungicides to treat ASR and in identifying and breeding ASR-
resistant or -tolerant soybeans, we interviewed officials from EPA and
state departments of agriculture to obtain information about their
efforts to license fungicides to treat ASR. In addition, we asked about
the adequacy of fungicide supplies and equipment when surveying the 31
soybean-producing states that were included in USDA's sentinel plot
program. We interviewed Agricultural Research Service personnel as well
as researchers from academia and industry and reviewed related reports
and studies regarding efforts to research fungicide efficacy and
identify and breed ASR-resistant or -tolerant soybeans. We also toured
USDA research facilities at Ft. Detrick, Maryland.
We conducted our work between May 2005 and January 2006 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Results of GAO's Survey of Soybean-Producing States:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix III: 2005 Sentinel Plots and Soybean Acreage:
State: Alabama;
Soybean acres planted: 150,000;
USDA sentinel plots: 10;
Other sentinel plots[A]: 25.
State: Arkansas;
Soybean acres planted: 3,030,000;
USDA sentinel plots: 25;
Other sentinel plots[A]: 37.
State: Delaware;
Soybean acres planted: 185,000;
USDA sentinel plots: 6;
Other sentinel plots[A]: 44.
State: Florida;
Soybean acres planted: 11,000;
USDA sentinel plots: 15;
Other sentinel plots[A]: 11.
State: Georgia;
Soybean acres planted: 180,000;
USDA sentinel plots: 10;
Other sentinel plots[A]: 15.
State: Illinois;
Soybean acres planted: 9,500,000;
USDA sentinel plots: 10;
Other sentinel plots[A]: 30.
State: Indiana;
Soybean acres planted: 5,400,000;
USDA sentinel plots: 9;
Other sentinel plots[A]: 8.
State: Iowa;
Soybean acres planted: 10,100,000;
USDA sentinel plots: 10;
Other sentinel plots[A]: 20.
State: Kansas;
Soybean acres planted: 2,900,000;
USDA sentinel plots: 10;
Other sentinel plots[A]: 20.
State: Kentucky;
Soybean acres planted: 1,260,000;
USDA sentinel plots: 10;
Other sentinel plots[A]: 37.
State: Louisiana;
Soybean acres planted: 880,000;
USDA sentinel plots: 15;
Other sentinel plots[A]: 50.
State: Maryland;
Soybean acres planted: 480,000;
USDA sentinel plots: 5;
Other sentinel plots[A]: 28.
State: Michigan;
Soybean acres planted: 2,000,000;
USDA sentinel plots: 10;
Other sentinel plots[A]: 20.
State: Minnesota;
Soybean acres planted: 6,900,000;
USDA sentinel plots: 10;
Other sentinel plots[A]: 26.
State: Mississippi;
Soybean acres planted: 1,600,000;
USDA sentinel plots: 24;
Other sentinel plots[A]: 38.
State: Missouri;
Soybean acres planted: 5,000,000;
USDA sentinel plots: 16;
Other sentinel plots[A]: 23.
State: Nebraska;
Soybean acres planted: 4,700,000;
USDA sentinel plots: 10;
Other sentinel plots[A]: 38.
State: New Jersey;
Soybean acres planted: 95,000;
USDA sentinel plots: 5;
Other sentinel plots[A]: 62.
State: New York;
Soybean acres planted: 190,000;
USDA sentinel plots: 10;
Other sentinel plots[A]: 0.
State: North Carolina;
Soybean acres planted: 1,500,000;
USDA sentinel plots: 10;
Other sentinel plots[A]: 17.
State: North Dakota;
Soybean acres planted: 3,000,000;
USDA sentinel plots: 10;
Other sentinel plots[A]: 16.
State: Ohio;
Soybean acres planted: 4,500,000;
USDA sentinel plots: 10;
Other sentinel plots[A]: 35.
State: Oklahoma;
Soybean acres planted: 320,000;
USDA sentinel plots: 5;
Other sentinel plots[A]: 0.
State: Pennsylvania;
Soybean acres planted: 440,000;
USDA sentinel plots: 5;
Other sentinel plots[A]: 10.
State: South Carolina;
Soybean acres planted: 430,000;
USDA sentinel plots: 11;
Other sentinel plots[A]: 0.
State: South Dakota;
Soybean acres planted: 3,900,000;
USDA sentinel plots: 10;
Other sentinel plots[A]: 30.
State: Tennessee;
Soybean acres planted: 1,130,000;
USDA sentinel plots: 25;
Other sentinel plots[A]: 5.
State: Texas;
Soybean acres planted: 260,000;
USDA sentinel plots: 5;
Other sentinel plots[A]: 5.
State: Virginia;
Soybean acres planted: 530,000;
USDA sentinel plots: 5;
Other sentinel plots[A]: 51.
State: West Virginia;
Soybean acres planted: 19,000;
USDA sentinel plots: 5;
Other sentinel plots[A]: 0.
State: Wisconsin;
Soybean acres planted: 1,610,000;
USDA sentinel plots: 10;
Other sentinel plots[A]: 10.
State: Total;
Soybean acres planted: 72,200,000;
USDA sentinel plots: 331;
Other sentinel plots[A]: 711.
Source: GAO survey of soybean-producing states, USDA acreage data.
[A] Other sentinel plots were funded or sponsored by state government,
the North Central Soybean Research Program, or other grants.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Approved Fungicides for Treating Soybeans for ASR:
Table 2: Fungicides Approved by EPA for Treating ASR on Soybeans, as of
December 31, 2005:
Fungicide (Trade name): Quadris;
Active ingredients: Azoxystrobin;
Class of chemicals: Strobilurin;
Major properties: Preventative;
Type of label: Section 3;
Date first approved[A]: 4/10/03.
Fungicide (Trade name): Pristine;
Active ingredients: Boscalid & Pyraclostrobin;
Class of chemicals: Carboxamide & Strobilurin;
Major properties: Preventative;
Type of label: Section 3;
Date first approved[A]: 3/16/05.
Fungicide (Trade name): Bravo Weather Stik;
Active ingredients: Chlorothalonil;
Class of chemicals: Chloronitrile;
Major properties: Preventative;
Type of label: Section 3;
Date first approved[A]: 11/8/02.
Fungicide (Trade name): Echo 720;
Active ingredients: Chlorothalonil;
Class of chemicals: Chloronitrile;
Major properties: Preventative;
Type of label: Section 3;
Date first approved[A]: 6/17/03.
Fungicide (Trade name): Echo 90DF;
Active ingredients: Chlorothalonil;
Class of chemicals: Chloronitrile;
Major properties: Preventative;
Type of label: Section 3;
Date first approved[A]: 6/17/03.
Fungicide (Trade name): EQUUS 720 SST;
Active ingredients: Chlorothalonil;
Class of chemicals: Chloronitrile;
Major properties: Preventative;
Type of label: Section 3;
Date first approved[A]: 7/15/04.
Fungicide (Trade name): EQUUS DF;
Active ingredients: Chlorothalonil;
Class of chemicals: Chloronitrile;
Major properties: Preventative;
Type of label: Section 3;
Date first approved[A]: 7/15/04.
Fungicide (Trade name): Headline;
Active ingredients: Pyraclostrobin;
Class of chemicals: Strobilurin;
Major properties: Preventative;
Type of label: Section 3;
Date first approved[A]: 11/30/04.
Fungicide (Trade name): Tilt;
Active ingredients: Propiconazole;
Class of chemicals: Triazole;
Major properties: Curative;
Type of label: Section 18;
Date first approved[A]: 4/23/04;
Date tolerance level approved: 7/27/05;
Date expires: 11/10/07.
Fungicide (Trade name): Propimax;
Active ingredients: Propiconazole;
Class of chemicals: Triazole;
Major properties: Curative;
Type of label: Section 18;
Date first approved[A]: 4/23/04;
Date tolerance level approved: 7/27/05;
Date expires: 11/10/07.
Fungicide (Trade name): Bumper;
Active ingredients: Propiconazole;
Class of chemicals: Triazole;
Major properties: Curative;
Type of label: Section 18;
Date first approved[A]: 4/23/04;
Date tolerance level approved: 7/27/05;
Date expires: 11/10/07.
Fungicide (Trade name): Folicur 3.6F;
Active ingredients: Tebuconazole;
Class of chemicals: Triazole;
Major properties: Curative;
Type of label: Section 18;
Date first approved[A]: 7/20/04;
Date tolerance level approved: 8/4/05;
Date expires: 11/10/07.
Fungicide (Trade name): Orius 3.6F;
Active ingredients: Tebuconazole;
Class of chemicals: Triazole;
Major properties: Curative;
Type of label: Section 18;
Date first approved[A]: 4/21/05;
Date tolerance level approved: 8/4/05;
Date expires: 11/10/07.
Fungicide (Trade name): Uppercut;
Active ingredients: Tebuconazole;
Class of chemicals: Triazole;
Major properties: Curative;
Type of label: Section 18;
Date first approved[A]: 6/30/05;
Date tolerance level approved: 8/4/05;
Date expires: 11/10/07.
Fungicide (Trade name): Laredo EC;
Active ingredients: Myclobutanil;
Class of chemicals: Triazole;
Major properties: Curative;
Type of label: Section 18;
Date first approved[A]: 3/25/04;
Date tolerance level approved: 8/24/05;
Date expires: 11/10/07.
Fungicide (Trade name): Laredo EW;
Active ingredients: Myclobutanil;
Class of chemicals: Triazole;
Major properties: Curative;
Type of label: Section 18;
Date first approved[A]: 3/25/04;
Date tolerance level approved: 8/24/05;
Date expires: 11/10/07.
Fungicide (Trade name): Stratego;
Active ingredients: Propiconazole & Trifloxystrobin;
Class of chemicals: Triazole & Strobilurin;
Major properties: Curative and preventative;
Type of label: Section 18;
Date first approved[A]: 12/13/04;
Date tolerance level approved: 6/24/05; 7/27/05;
Date expires: 11/10/07.
Fungicide (Trade name): Domark 230 ME;
Active ingredients: Tetraconazole;
Class of chemicals: Triazole;
Major properties: Curative;
Type of label: Section 18;
Date first approved[A]: 3/2/05;
Date tolerance level approved: 6/1/05;
Date expires: 11/10/07.
Fungicide (Trade name): Quilt;
Active ingredients: Propiconazole & Azoxystrobin;
Class of chemicals: Triazole & Strobilurin;
Major properties: Curative and preventative;
Type of label: Section 18;
Date first approved[A]: 3/28/05;
Date tolerance level approved: 7/27/05;
Date expires: 11/10/07.
Fungicide (Trade name): Headline SBR;
Active ingredients: Tebuconazole & Pyraclostrobin;
Class of chemicals: Triazole & Strobilurin;
Major properties: Curative and preventative;
Type of label: Section 18;
Date first approved[A]: 3/28/05;
Date tolerance level approved: 8/4/05;
Date expires: 11/10/07.
Source: EPA.
[A] For some Section 3 products, this is the date fungicide
manufacturers notified EPA that Asian soybean rust was added to the
label as a treatable pest.
[End of table]
Table 3: Section 18 Fungicides Approved for ASR and States Where
Approved, as of December 31, 2005:
Fungicide: Tilt, Propimax, Bumper;
States with approved Section 18 requests: AL, AR, CO, DE, FL, GA, IA,
IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MD, MI, MN, MO, MS, NC, ND, NE, NJ, NY, OH, OK, PA,
SC, SD, TN, TX, VA, VT, WV, WI.
Fungicide: Folicur 3.6F;
States with approved Section 18 requests: AL, AR, CO, DE, FL, GA, IA,
IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MD, MI, MN, MO, MS, NC, ND, NE, NJ, NY, OH, OK, PA,
SC, SD, TN, TX, VA, VT, WV, WI.
Fungicide: Orius 3.6F;
States with approved Section 18 requests: AL, AR, CO, DE, FL, GA, IA,
IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MD, MI, MN, MO, MS, NC, ND, NE, NJ, NY, OH, OK, PA,
SC, SD, TN, TX, VA, VT, WV.
Fungicide: Uppercut;
States with approved Section 18 requests: AR, DE, IA, IL, IN, KY, MD,
MN, MO, MS, NC, NE, OH, SC, TN, VA.
Fungicide: Laredo EC, Laredo EW;
States with approved Section 18 requests: AL, AR, CO, DE, FL, GA, IA,
IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MD, MI, MN, MO, MS, NC, ND, NE, NJ , NY, OH, OK,
PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, VA, VT, WV, WI.
Fungicide: Stratego;
States with approved Section 18 requests: AL, AR, CO, DE, FL, GA, IA,
IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MD, MI, MN, MO, MS, NC, ND, NE, NJ, NY, OH, OK, PA,
SC, SD, TX, VA, TN, VT, WV, WI.
Fungicide: Domark 230 ME;
States with approved Section 18 requests: AL, AR, DE, GA, IA, IL, IN,
KS, KY, LA, MD, MI, MN, MO, MS, NC, ND, NE, NJ, NY, OH, OK, PA, SC, SD,
TN, TX, VA, VT, WV, WI.
Fungicide: Quilt;
States with approved Section 18 requests: AL, AR, CO, DE, FL, GA, IA,
IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MD, MI, MN, MO, MS, NC, ND, NE, NJ, NY, OH, OK, PA,
SC, SD, TN, TX, VA, VT, WV, WI.
Fungicide: Headline SBR;
States with approved Section 18 requests: AL, AR, CO, DE, FL, GA, IA,
IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MD, MI, MN, MO, MS, NC, ND, NE, NJ, NY, OH, OK, PA,
SC, SD, TN, TX, VA, VT, WV, WI.
Source: EPA.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix V: Progression of ASR during the 2005 Growing Season:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix VI: Comments from the U.S. Department of Agriculture:
USDA:
United States Department of Agriculture:
Office of the Secretary:
Washington, D.C. 20250:
FEB 15 2006:
Mr. Dan Bertoni:
Acting Director:
Natural Resources and Environment:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Bertoni:
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has reviewed the Government
Accountability Office's (GAO) draft report, "Agriculture Production:
USDA Needs to Build on 2005 Experience to Minimize the Effects of Asian
Soybean Rust in the Future" (GAO-06-337). We appreciate the opportunity
to review this document and are developing ways to address its
recommendations.
We have found that the report fairly describes USDA's preparations
related to ASR and that both of the report's recommendations reflect
our ongoing cooperative efforts with various States to combat this
disease. We will continue to provide additional guidance to our State
cooperators to facilitate the collection of the best possible
monitoring information during 2006. We also agree that our continued
actions will be best served through the detailed transition plan that
is currently under development with our State cooperators to further
ensure strong leadership in predicting and limiting the spread of ASR.
To these ends, we provide the following comments and observations based
on our review of the draft document provided to USDA.
In its report, GAO appropriately recognizes that multiple USDA agencies
and offices have been working to prepare for the onset of ASR. These
agencies include the Agricultural Marketing Service; the Agricultural
Research Service; the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service; the
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service; the
Foreign Agricultural Service; the Farm Service Agency; the Economic
Research Service; the Natural Resources Conservation Service; the
Office of Communications; the Office of Homeland Security; the Office
of Pest Management Policy; and the Risk Management Agency.
Research to identify the virulence of P. pachyrhizi as well as
potential crop resistance has been conducted by the Agricultural
Research Service since the 1980's. Since 2002, the other agencies
listed above have also been actively working to initially exclude the
disease organism, to prepare for its eventual arrival by training field
personnel around the country to recognize the disease, and to plan for
a national response once ASR was discovered in the continental United
States.
A central theme of the GAO report is a focus on the lack of uniformity
in the responses provided by each of the approximately 30 States
cooperating in the ASR response. During 2005, specific guidance was
provided in the mechanism for collecting and reporting observations
from the sentinel plot system. Once the initial detection was confirmed
by USDA, States did exercise latitude in their implementation of
diagnostic techniques and in their frequency of providing management
information for entry into the system.
GAO correctly reports that States varied in their level of response
(e.g. frequency of reporting), but those States in which the disease
was found provided information on a timely basis to inform the State
specialists and the USDA data collection/modeling system. As the
principal information collected from sentinel plots is the presence or
absence of ASR at any given point during the season, there is always a
tradeoff between the frequency of making observations and the cost of
conducting an individual trial.
It is the position of USDA that most States did provide information in
a timely and accurate fashion. For example, States reported their
observations based on the (a) growth stage and (b) potential
susceptibility of host plants based on their proximity to known areas
of ASR infection. Six States (i.e. Colorado, Iowa, Missouri, Ohio,
Washington, and Wisconsin) reported fewer than seven times during the
season. States that reported several times weekly were much closer to
or actually comprised the infected areas (e.g. Alabama, Florida,
Georgia, Mississippi, and South Carolina). Lessons learned from the
diversity of these individual responses will be considered carefully
during the implementation of the 2006 sentinel plot program.
Training on the visual detection of ASR was provided to more than
15,000 individuals prior to the 2005 growing season. To a trained
diagnostician, visual identification of ASR in the field can be quite
straightforward if the pathogen is sporulating, but USDA also
implemented standardized procedures to confirm first-find diagnoses in
2005-including microscopic examination and testing using the validated
real-time polymerase chain reaction test.
Additional molecular and biochemical identification techniques were
available, and State diagnosticians had latitude to determine the
techniques they believed were appropriate to use in processing samples
from sentinel plots and producers' fields during 2005. Guidelines for
diagnostic labs regarding screening procedures are being refined based
on USDA's experience in 2005 and as new technologies become available
that may allow earlier detection of infection (e.g. before
sporulation). We would like to note, however, that the use of different
diagnostic techniques by various States is not a shortcoming; rather,
it reflects flexibility in providing a local response subject to
availability of resources and skilled personnel as well as the volume
of samples that a diagnostic facility may anticipate. USDA is working
with the National Plant Diagnostic Network in modifying standard
operating procedures based on experience gained during the 2005 season.
With regard to the modeling employed by USDA to predict the movement of
ASR, these models integrate weather data, disease incidence reports,
crop growth stage, and plant disease development information in order
to derive estimates of where the disease may emerge. Much experience
gained from other plant disease modeling has been incorporated into the
techniques utilized by USDA to anticipate movement of ASR. The
availability and use of other models, supported or developed in part by
funding from USDA, is viewed as an asset in providing predictive
information to the ASR specialists.
With guidance from its Risk Management Agency, USDA has placed
increased emphasis on good farming practices for combating ASR and has
posted management information on the USDA website. In combating ASR,
soybean growers are required to carry out good farming practices in
order to receive crop insurance indemnities that may result from
soybean rust. The guidance provided through the website by State and
local Cooperative Extension System personnel was based on local ASR
observations through the monitoring effort. This interaction between
State and Federal authorities and local soybean growers reduced
fungicide inputs, increased the effectiveness of preventative and
curative fungicide applications, and provided growers with
documentation necessary to prove their use of good farming practices.
Since May 2005, efforts have been underway at USDA to provide the
framework for the ASR response in 2006. The State and Federal
cooperative framework established in response to ASR will continue,
with the notable change that funding for the State sentinel plot
program will be provided through the Southern Regional Integrated Pest
Management Center at North Carolina State University rather than
directly from USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. A
written plan outlining the elements of this program has been developed
and is being finalized in conjunction with the States that are
cooperating in the 2006 ASR response. As the establishment and
management of the plots previously has been conducted primarily through
the land-grant universities in most of the affected States, USDA's
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service will
oversee the ASR response in 2006. This change is not intended to alter
the USDA commitment to a national ASR response; rather, it more
accurately reflects the coordinated management and funding mechanisms
to be employed in 2006.
Again, I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the draft report. The
document is informative and thorough, and I hope that our observations
prove useful in helping others to better understand USDA's role in
combating ASR.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Mike Johanns:
Secretary:
Appendix VII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Daniel Bertoni (202) 512-3841 or [Hyperlink, bertonid@gao.gov]:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, Ronald E. Maxon, Jr., Assistant
Director; James L. Dishmon, Jr; Chad M. Gorman; Lynn M. Musser; Deborah
S. Ortega; Paul J. Pansini; Carol Herrnstadt Shulman; and Amy E.
Webbink made key contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Agriculture Production: USDA's Preparation for Asian Soybean Rust.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-668R]. Washington,
D.C.: May 17, 2005.
(360535):
FOOTNOTES
[1] ASR can infect over 90 host plant species, including legumes, such
as dry beans, peas, and kudzu.
[2] GAO, Agriculture Production: USDA's Preparation for Asian Soybean
Rust, GAO-05-668R (Washington, D.C.: May 17, 2005).
[3] Pub. L. No. 92-516, § 18 (1972) (codified at 7 U.S.C. § 136 p.)
[4] In addition to steps taken as part of USDA's coordinated framework,
unavoidable crop losses due to ASR are covered under the federal crop
insurance program administered by USDA's Risk Management Agency (RMA).
As of December 31, 2005, no one had filed a claim for crop loss from
ASR.
[5] Six states did not express a view on the effectiveness of the
sentinel plot program.
[6] Five of these plots were located in Puerto Rico.
[7] According to USDA officials, USDA provided more money per plot
because it funded the "infrastructure" for the sentinel plot network,
which included transportation expenses and equipment, in addition to
salaries for personnel to monitor the plots and, in some cases, the
rental of farmland to maintain them.
[8] Other plots included those funded by the North Central Soybean
Research Program, the United Soybean Board, state governments, or other
grants; plots not monitored by state officials, such as those sponsored
by private industry, are not included in this total.
[9] The information from this restricted Web site is used to provide
information for the public Web site.
[10] North Central Soybean Research Program and USDA Protocol for
Soybean Rust Sentinel Plots, updated April 7, 2005, and August 23,
2005.
[11] In the PCR test, Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is extracted from
spores or infected leaf samples, subjected to PCR, and then ground and
purified before being analyzed for the presence of key diagnostic
sequences of DNA that distinguish ASR from related species. The ELISA
test, which is conducted similarly, requires about 2 hours and is the
first commercial rapid kit available to detect soybean rust in plant
tissue. Although ELISA is capable of detecting soybean rust at a very
early stage, unlike the PCR test, USDA officials were uncertain whether
it can distinguish between ASR and other types of rust.
[12] Officials in the remaining two states that we surveyed indicated
that they received no samples suspected of ASR during 2005.
[13] This technique is still experimental.
[14] In addition to the monitoring plan laid out in the framework,
industry distributed various types of "spore traps" to collect spore
samples in the air. Researchers hoped that these traps would allow them
to detect the presence of ASR spores before the disease had spread to
soybean fields. However, because the traps did not collect enough
spores for testing and because ASR and other rust spores are similar in
appearance, USDA issued a position statement in August 2005, stating
that many challenges and questions need to be resolved before spore
data can be used most effectively.
[15] http://www.sbrusa.net/.
[16] Although ASR was confirmed in another four states, it was detected
late in the growing season, making a recommendation unnecessary.
[17] USDA's model was developed by Pennsylvania State University, North
Carolina State University, and ZedX, Inc., an information technology
company.
[18] CSREES' mission is to advance knowledge for agriculture, the
environment, human health and well-being, and communities by supporting
research, education, and extension programs in the Land-Grant
University System and other partner organizations.
[19] CSREES transferred responsibility to SRIPMC because it had
available staff and office space and was located in the South where ASR
was present during 2005.
[20] USDA's RMA will fund this effort in 2006 as part of an initiative
to develop a broader system. According to RMA, this effort is aimed at
providing a mechanism to educate farmers about risk-management
strategies and providing timely information about good farming
practices specific to current crop pest and disease status--ASR and
others.
[21] Thirty-three states, including the 31 soybean-producing states
participating in USDA's sentinel plot program, have received emergency
exemptions to use some or all of these fungicides.
[22] These fungicides are classified as triazoles, which have some
preventative properties.
[23] Several of the pesticides for which emergency exemptions have been
granted are under consideration at EPA for registration for use on
soybeans. The science and regulatory evaluations on certain of the
currently authorized section 18 products and other fungicides proposed
by their manufacturer for control of ASR may be completed prior to the
expiration date for the emergency exemptions.
[24] In early 2004, USDA met with state and federal officials to begin
making plans for exemptions to use fungicides to treat other leguminous
crops, such as peas and lima beans, but they did not begin working to
develop them with EPA until December 2004. Although EPA also allowed
Florida and Tennessee to prepare a joint request for emergency
exemptions to use fungicides to treat ASR on other leguminous crops, as
of December 31, 2005, no states had been approved for these exemptions.
[25] USDA conducts its research efforts primarily through its
Agricultural Research Service.
[26] The United Soybean Board is a marketing and research organization
supported by soybean growers through a levy on their sales.
[27] Private companies often only study their own products, or they do
not release comparative data to the public.
[28] http://www.ipmcenters.org/NewsAlerts/soybeanrust/efficacy.cfm.
[29] EPA may consider marketing or promotion of an exempted pesticide
for uses other than those approved in the emergency exemption to be
illegal. 40 C.F.R. § 168.22.
[30] Germplasm is the hereditary material in plant cells.
[31] Miles, M.R; Frederick, R.D; and Hartman, G.L., 2006. Evaluation of
soybean germplasm for resistance to Phakopsora pachyrhizi. Online.
Plant Health Progress doi: 10.1094/PHP-2006-0104-01-RS.
[32] USDA is currently still trying to identify all of the strains of
ASR.
[33] 70 Fed. Reg. 13242 (March 2005).
[34] Epidemiology includes the incidence, distribution, and control of
a disease.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
