a

GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

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

GAO-06-337
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

February 2006

AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION 

USDA Needs to Build on 2005 Experience 

to Minimize the Effects of Asian Soybean 

Rust in the Future 

Highlights of GAO-06-337, a report to the 

Ranking Democratic Member, Committee 

on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, 

U.S. Senate 

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 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. 

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 

Source: Rural Development Center, Tifton Campus, University of Georgia.

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. 
Page i GAO-06-337 Asian Soybean Rust

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2

Background 4

2005 ASR Efforts Showed Benefits of a National Coordination 

Strategy and Highlight the Importance of Consistent Data and 

Strong Leadership 8

EPA, USDA, and Others Have Made More Fungicides Available While 

Continuing to Develop Longer-Term Solutions 18

Conclusion 26

Recommendations for Executive Action 27

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 27

Appendixes

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 29

Appendix II: Results of GAO’s Survey of Soybean-Producing States 31

Appendix III: 2005 Sentinel Plots and Soybean Acreage 47

Appendix IV: Approved Fungicides for Treating Soybeans for ASR 48

Appendix V: Progression of ASR during the 2005 Growing Season 50

Appendix VI: Comments from the U.S. Department of Agriculture 52

Appendix VII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 55

Related GAO Products 56

Tables Table 1: Type of Testing Performed on Samples Suspected of ASR in 

2005 12

Table 2: Fungicides Approved by EPA for Treating ASR on 

Soybeans, as of December 31, 2005 48

Table 3: Section 18 Fungicides Approved for ASR and States Where 

Approved, as of December 31, 2005 49

Figures Figure 1: Progression of Infection on a Soybean Plant 5

Figure 2: Spread of ASR across the World 6

Figure 3: Number of Sentinel Plots in Each State, 2005 10

Figure 4: Spraying at a Fungicide Trial in Colquitt County, 

Georgia 22

Figure 5: An Agricultural Research Containment Facility 25
Contents

Page ii GAO-06-337 Asian Soybean Rust

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

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. However, 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.
Page 1 GAO-06-337 Asian Soybean Rust

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

February 24, 2006 Letr

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.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. 

1

ASR can infect over 90 host plant species, including legumes, such as dry beans, peas, and 

kudzu. 
Page 2 GAO-06-337 Asian Soybean Rust

In May 2005, we reported on the status of USDA’s efforts to prepare for 

ASR’s entry into the United States.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 

2

GAO, Agriculture Production: USDA’s Preparation for Asian Soybean Rust, GAO-05-668R

(Washington, D.C.: May 17, 2005).
Page 3 GAO-06-337 Asian Soybean Rust

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 
Page 4 GAO-06-337 Asian Soybean Rust

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 
Page 5 GAO-06-337 Asian Soybean Rust

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

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. 

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3

Source: USDA. 
Page 6 GAO-06-337 Asian Soybean Rust

Figure 2: Spread of ASR across the World

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. 

1902

Japan

Sources: GAO, and Map Art.

1934

Southeast Asia, 1951 Australia India 1994

Hawaii

1996

Uganda, Rwanda, 

and Kenya

2001

Paraguay, 

South Africa

2002

Argentina, Brazil

2004

Southeastern

United States
Page 7 GAO-06-337 Asian Soybean Rust

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).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. 

3

Pub. L. No. 92-516, § 18 (1972) (codified at 7 U.S.C. § 136 p.).
Page 8 GAO-06-337 Asian Soybean Rust

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 
Page 9 GAO-06-337 Asian Soybean Rust

department’s ability to maintain the level of coordination, cooperation, and 

national priority that was achieved in 2005 to address ASR.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.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.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).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).8

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.
Page 10 GAO-06-337 Asian Soybean Rust

Figure 3: Number of Sentinel Plots in Each State, 2005

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— 

DE

50 KY

47 MD

33

NJ

67

OH

45

AL

35

AR

62

GA

25

IL

40

IN

17

IA

30

KS

30

LA

65

MI

30

MN

36

MO

39

NE

48

NY

10

ND

26

OK

5

PA

15

SC

11

SD

40

TN

30

TX

10

VA

56

WV

5

WI

20

FL

26

MS

62

NC

27

Source: GAO survey of soybean-producing states.
Page 11 GAO-06-337 Asian Soybean Rust

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.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.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 

9

The information from this restricted Web site is used to provide information for the public 

Web site. 

10North Central Soybean Research Program and USDA Protocol for Soybean Rust Sentinel 

Plots, updated April 7, 2005, and August 23, 2005.
Page 12 GAO-06-337 Asian Soybean Rust

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.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 

Source: GAO’s survey of soybean-producing states. 

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 

11In 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.

Type of testing 

Number of samples

screened or tested

Morphological examination only 2,202

Morphological exam and PCR 195

Morphological exam and ELISA 137

Morphological exam, ELISA, and PCR 71

Total 2,605
Page 13 GAO-06-337 Asian Soybean Rust

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.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.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

12Officials in the remaining two states that we surveyed indicated that they received no 

samples suspected of ASR during 2005. 

13This technique is still experimental.
Page 14 GAO-06-337 Asian Soybean Rust

using this information for research and plans to publish its findings in a 

professional journal.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.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 

14In 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.

15http://www.sbrusa.net/.
Page 15 GAO-06-337 Asian Soybean Rust

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.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

16Although ASR was confirmed in another four states, it was detected late in the growing 

season, making a recommendation unnecessary.
Page 16 GAO-06-337 Asian Soybean Rust

published on USDA’s restricted Web site.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.

17USDA’s model was developed by Pennsylvania State University, North Carolina State 

University, and ZedX, Inc., an information technology company.
Page 17 GAO-06-337 Asian Soybean Rust

• 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.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.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

18CSREES’ 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.

19CSREES transferred responsibility to SRIPMC because it had available staff and office 

space and was located in the South where ASR was present during 2005. 
Page 18 GAO-06-337 Asian Soybean Rust

monitoring, diagnostics, and communication efforts in 2006.20 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 

20USDA’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.
Page 19 GAO-06-337 Asian Soybean Rust

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.21 Nine of 

these products are curative,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 

21Thirty-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.

22These fungicides are classified as triazoles, which have some preventative properties.
Page 20 GAO-06-337 Asian Soybean Rust

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.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.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 

23Several 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.

24In 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.
Page 21 GAO-06-337 Asian Soybean Rust

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 2001,25 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.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

25USDA conducts its research efforts primarily through its Agricultural Research Service.

26The United Soybean Board is a marketing and research organization supported by soybean 

growers through a levy on their sales.
Page 22 GAO-06-337 Asian Soybean Rust

• 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

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

Source: GAO. 
Page 23 GAO-06-337 Asian Soybean Rust

fungicide efficacy data, including some data from private companies,27 to a 

USDA research Web site in 2003.28 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.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 

27Private companies often only study their own products, or they do not release comparative 

data to the public.

28http://www.ipmcenters.org/NewsAlerts/soybeanrust/efficacy.cfm.

29EPA 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.
Page 24 GAO-06-337 Asian Soybean Rust

16,000 soybean lines in its soybean germplasm collection.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 2006.31 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.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 2005,33 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. 

30Germplasm is the hereditary material in plant cells.

31Miles, 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/PHP2006-0104-01-RS. 

32USDA is currently still trying to identify all of the strains of ASR.

3370 Fed. Reg. 13242 (March 2005).
Page 25 GAO-06-337 Asian Soybean Rust

Figure 5: An Agricultural Research Containment Facility

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 

Source: GAO. 
Page 26 GAO-06-337 Asian Soybean Rust

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.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. 

34Epidemiology includes the incidence, distribution, and control of a disease.
Page 27 GAO-06-337 Asian Soybean Rust

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. 
Page 28 GAO-06-337 Asian Soybean Rust

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 http://www.gao.gov. 

If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at 

(202) 512-3841 or 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,

Daniel Bertoni

Acting Director, Natural Resources

 and Environment
Page 29 GAO-06-337 Asian Soybean Rust

Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology AAppenednxidexiIs

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
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 30 GAO-06-337 Asian Soybean Rust

-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 soybeanproducing 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 ASRresistant 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.
Page 31 GAO-06-337 Asian Soybean Rust

Appendix II

Results of GAO’s Survey of SoybeanProducing States ApendxiI

U.S. Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC

Asian Soybean Rust:

Soybean-Producing States’ 

Review of 2005 Events 

and Preparations for 2006 

Questions? Contact:

Deborah Ortega

or

Jim Dishmon 

(404) 679-1848 

(202) 512-9814 

ortegad@gao.gov

dishmonj@gao.gov

Please coordinate with 

others at your state’s

land grant university or in 

your state’s Department 

of Agriculture to 

complete this 

questionnaire.

Please fax your completed questionnaire to:

202-512-2502 (alternate #: 202-512-2514) 

by November 14.

For your convenience, the last page of this 

questionnaire is a fax cover sheet.

Part 1: Extension Programs

Someone knowledgeable about your state’s university extension program 

should answer Questions 1 - 2.

 N=31 

1. Do you plan to offer any Asian Soybean Rust (ASR) presentations, programs, or 

workshops for growers between November 1, 2005, and April 30, 2006? (For number, 

enter 0 if none. If you do not know the exact number, please provide an estimate.)

Number

Yes 30 Æ How many? Æ 459 Is this an estimate? Yes 27 No 3

No 1 Æ Go to Q3

Uncertain 0 Æ Go to Q3
Appendix II

Results of GAO’s Survey of SoybeanProducing States

Page 32 GAO-06-337 Asian Soybean Rust

N = 30 (Not all respondents answered all parts.) 

2a. Which of the following topics will likely be included in upcoming (that is,

between November 1, 2005, and April 30, 2006) extension presentations,

programs, or workshops on ASR? (Please check ’Will likely be included’ [Column 1] or 

’Will likely not be included’ [Column 2] for each topic.)

Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 

Topic

Will Likely

be Included

Will Likely Not

be Included

Three

Most

Critical

to

Include

a. Identification of ASR and “look-alike” 29 0 15

diseases

b. Types and purposes of fungicides 28 1 10

c. When to apply fungicides 29 0 24

d. Ground and aerial application 23 6 3

of fungicides 

e. Current ASR tracking and forecasting 29 1 14

information

f. Insurance coverage or disaster 15 13 2

funding for losses due to ASR

g. Observations and results from 2005, 30 0 19

“Lessons Learned”

2b. Which three of the above topics do you consider the most critical to include? (In

Column 3, please check the three topics you consider the most critical to include.)
Appendix II

Results of GAO’s Survey of SoybeanProducing States

Page 33 GAO-06-337 Asian Soybean Rust

Part 2: Sentinel Plots, Monitoring, and Scouting

Someone knowledgeable about your state’s sentinel plots and monitoring and 

scouting programs should answer Questions 3 – 14.

 N=31 

3. How many USDA-sponsored sentinel plots were in Total Number

your state in 2005? (Note: If you had plots that

were not USDA plots, record them in Question 4.) 331

3a. How many of these plots used only soybeans as 

the host? (Enter 0 if none.) 308

3b. How many of these plots used only other 

(nonsoybean) plants as hosts? (Enter 0 if 

)

10

3c.

13

How many of these plots used both soybeans

and other (nonsoybean) plants as hosts?

(Enter 0 if none.)

Rows 3a, 3b,

and 3c should

add up to the 

total number

above.

 N=31 

Total Number

711

4. How many other sentinel plots (e.g., funded or

sponsored by state government, the North Central

Soybean Research Program, the United Soybean 

Board, or by other grants.) were in your state in 

2005? (Enter 0 if none.)

4a. How many of these plots used only soybeans as 

the host? (Enter 0 if none.) 566

4b. How many of these plots used only other 

(nonsoybean) plants as hosts? (Enter 0 if 

none.) 79

4c.

66

How many of these plots used both soybeans

and other (nonsoybean) plants as hosts?

(Enter 0 if none.)

Rows 4a, 4b,

and 4c should

add up to the 

total number

above.
Appendix II

Results of GAO’s Survey of SoybeanProducing States

Page 34 GAO-06-337 Asian Soybean Rust

 N=31 

5. How often were individual USDA-sponsored sentinel plots typically monitored 

after the plants reached reproductive stages before ASR was detected and after 

ASR was detected in your state or a bordering state? (Please check one in each

column. If ASR was not detected in your state or a bordering state, leave the right 

column blank.)

ASR Not 

Yet

Detected

or Never

Detected

After

ASR

Detected

a. Daily 0 0

b. Several times a week 1 0

c. Weekly 29 5

d. Bi-weekly 1 2

e. Monthly 0 0

N=27

6. How often were individual other-sponsoreda

sentinel plots typically monitored 

after the plants reached reproductive stages before ASR was detected and after 

ASR was detected in your state or a bordering state? (Please check one in each

column. If ASR was not detected in your state or a bordering state, leave the right 

column blank.)

ASR Not 

Yet

Detected

or Never

Detected

After

ASR

Detected

a. Daily 0 0

b. Several times a week 1 0

c. Weekly 25 3

d. Bi-weekly 1 0

e. Monthly 0 0

a

Other-sponsored plots are funded or sponsored by state government, the North Central Soybean

Research Program, the United Soybean Board, or by other grants.
Appendix II

Results of GAO’s Survey of SoybeanProducing States

Page 35 GAO-06-337 Asian Soybean Rust

 N=31 

7. How many individuals in your state worked, on a regular basis, as monitors for 

2005 sentinel plots funded or sponsored by USDA or other sources? (Please

indicate number of monitors in each category. If none, enter 0.)

Monitors for Plots Sponsored by USDA 

or Other Sources 

Number of

Individuals

Approximate

Total

Number of

Hrs./Wk.

Spent

Monitoring

Check

Below if

You Don’t

Know # of 

Hours

(Sum)

a. Field-based extension or research personnel 29 354

b. Campus-based extension or research personnel 26 56

c. Private, independent crop consultants 17 46

d. State Department of Agriculture personnel 21 18

e. Agribusiness employees or consultants 19 69

f. USDA/APHIS personnel 21 11

g. Owner/operator 18 5

h. Other(s) (Please specify below.) 16 29

Three states listed other responses, including

master gardeners, students, retired 

extension specialists, and temporary employees.

 N=31 

8. Is the number of sentinel plot monitors planned for your state in 2006 the same, 

more, or less than in 2005? (Please check one.)

Same as 2005 18 More than 2005 5 Less than 2005 8

 N=31 

9. In your opinion, how effective was the sentinel plot monitoring program as an

early warning system in your state? (Please check one.)

a. Very effective 18

b. Somewhat effective 5

c. Neither effective nor ineffective 1

d. Somewhat ineffective 1

e. Very ineffective 0

f. Not applicable 6
Appendix II

Results of GAO’s Survey of SoybeanProducing States

Page 36 GAO-06-337 Asian Soybean Rust

N=30

10. In your opinion, which of the following was the most important benefit of your 

state’s sentinel plot program? (Please check one.)

a. Provided an early warning network 21

b. Supported research to quantify spore 0

production

c. Provided data for epidemiological 3

studies

d. Provided information to guide 6

decisions about fungicide application

e. Other (Please describe below.) 0

 N=31 

11. Did any of the following factors limit your state’s effectiveness in monitoring 

sentinel plots? (Please check ‘Limited Effectiveness’ or ‘Did Not Limit Effectiveness’ for 

each factor.)

Factors Limited

Effectiveness

Did Not Limit

Effectiveness

a. Insufficient funds to cover salaries of 11 20

monitors

b. Insufficient funds for travel and 11 20

travel-related expenses 

c. Insufficient number of qualified 14 17

personnel available

d. Lack of mobile diagnostic equipment 8 23

or inadequate equipment

e. Inadequate training 4 27

f. Other (Please specify below.) 2 4

Two states listed timeliness of receiving funds

and another listed the need to hire a 

plant pathologist to test samples.
Appendix II

Results of GAO’s Survey of SoybeanProducing States

Page 37 GAO-06-337 Asian Soybean Rust

 N=31 

Total Number

 795a

12. Assuming adequate funding, how many sentinel 

plots are planned in your state for 2006? (Enter 0 

if none.)

12a. How many of these plots will be USDAsponsored sentinel plots? (Enter 0 if none.) 323

12b.

402

How many of these plots will be sponsored

through other sourcesb

? (Please enter 0 if 

none. If not 0, specify source of funding below.)

Rows 12a and

12b should

add up to the 

total number

above.

a

 Two states representing a total of 70 plots did not separate their

plots between 12a and 12b so these amounts do not equal the total 

amount for question 12. b

 Other-sponsored plots include plots funded or sponsored by state

government, the North Central Soybean Research Program, the

United Soybean Board, or by other grants.

 N = 31 

13. Do you plan to make any major changes in how you will manage your sentinel 

plots for next year? (Please check one. If ‘Yes,’ please explain below.)

Yes 18 Æ What changes do you plan to make? (Please explain below.)

Various changes are planned, such as planting different maturity

groups, hiring additional monitors, changing the monitoring 

frequency, and examining more samples in the laboratory.

No 13

 N = 31 

14. About how often did your state typically update the USDA Soybean Rust Web sites 

with monitoring data? (Please check one in each column.)

Public

Web site

Research

(Password

Protected)

Web site

a. More than once a day 0 0

b. Daily 0 0

c. Several times a week 7 8

d. Weekly 17 20

e. Biweekly 7 2

f. Monthly 0 1
Appendix II

Results of GAO’s Survey of SoybeanProducing States

Page 38 GAO-06-337 Asian Soybean Rust

Part 3: Diagnostic Screening 

Someone knowledgeable about your state’s diagnostic screening for ASR should 

answer Questions 15 – 23.

 N=31 

Total Number

12119

15. From January 1, 2005, through October 31, 

2005, how many samples were received by 

your state’s diagnostic lab(s) for ASR 

research and screening purposes? (Enter 0 if 

none.)

9098

15a. How many of these samples were 

submitted for routine research or

monitoring purposes? (Enter 0 if none.)

15b.

 2605

How many of these samples were 

submitted because of suspected ASR?

(Enter 0 if none.)

15c.

416

How many samples were submitted for 

other reasons? (Please enter 0 if none, or 

specify reason for submitting below.)

Rows 15a, 15b, and

15c should add up

to the total number

above.

877

15d. How many of these samples (total

number, above) were positive for ASR?

(Enter 0 if none.)

15e. Of those samples submitted because of suspected ASR (15b, above), how 

many were screened and/or tested using each of the following procedures? 

(Enter 0 if none.)

Number Screened

and/or Tested

15e-1. Morphological examination only 2202

15e-2. Morphological exam + PCR 195

15e-3. Morphological exam + ELISA 137

15e-4. Morphological exam + PCR + 71

ELISA

Rows 15e-1, 15e-2,

15e-3 and 15e-4

should add up to 

the number of

samples in 15b,

above.
Appendix II

Results of GAO’s Survey of SoybeanProducing States

Page 39 GAO-06-337 Asian Soybean Rust

 N=31

16a. Of those samples identified in Question 15b (above), where were the samples 

collected and what was the host crop? (Please enter number of samples for each 

type of host for each location. If none, enter 0.)

Location Where Screening Samples Were Collected 

Host Sentinel

Plot

University 

Research 

Field

Commercial 

Field Other

Soybeans 1407 245 729 0

Kudzu 159 0 0 88

Other 4 20 0 36

16b. If you indicated that samples were screened from ‘Other’ hosts or at ‘Other’

locations, please specify host and/or location below.

Ten states listed other hosts, such as cowpeas, clover, snap beans, and lima beans, 

which were screened in roadside mobile plots and field borders where soybeans are 

commercially grown.

 N=31 (Not all respondents answered all parts.)

Dollars

Check if an 

estimate 

$465,793 27

17a. How much did your state’s diagnostic lab(s) 

spend on screening and testing samples for ASR 

from January 1, 2005, through October 31, 

2005? In your answer include equipment, 

supplies (e.g., slides), and salaries. (Enter 0 if 

none. If you do not know the exact amount, please 

provide an estimate.)

17b. Was any of the cost of screening and testing offset by fees charged for testing 

samples? (Please check one.)

Dollars

Yes 8 o How much was offset? $14,583

No 22

 N=31 

18. Did your state have sufficient funding to perform diagnostic screening and testing 

for ASR in 2005? (Please check one.)

Yes 25 No 6
Appendix II

Results of GAO’s Survey of SoybeanProducing States

Page 40 GAO-06-337 Asian Soybean Rust

 N=31 

Number of Staff

19. How many laboratory staff, including state laboratory staff,

performed diagnostic screening and testing for ASR, on a

regular basis, during the 2005 season? (Please enter number.

Enter 0 if none.)

76.5

 N=31 

20. Was the number of laboratory staff sufficient to perform diagnostic testing for 

ASR in 2005? (Please check one.)

Yes 28 No 1 Uncertain 2

 N=31 

21. Will the number of laboratory staff planned for 2006 be the same as for 2005? 

(Please check one.)

 Same as 2005 24 More than 6 Less than 2005 1

 N=31 

22. Did your state have sufficient laboratory equipment to perform screening and 

diagnostic testing for ASR in 2005? (Please check one.)

Yes 22

No 9 ÆWhat additional equipment was needed? (Please specify below.)

Six states listed PCR equipment and other sample testing

equipment and supplies, two listed microscopes, and

another listed ELISA.

 N=30 

23. Does your state plan to add laboratory equipment for screening or diagnostic

testing for ASR in 2006? (Please check one.)

Yes 15 ÆWhat additional equipment do you plan to obtain?

(Please specify below.)

Fifteen states responded, and most listed PCR equipment.

Other equipment listed includes microscopes, ELISA plate 

readers, and test kits for screening purposes.

No 15
Appendix II

Results of GAO’s Survey of SoybeanProducing States

Page 41 GAO-06-337 Asian Soybean Rust

Part 4: Fungicides 

Someone knowledgeable about fungicide application in your state should 

answer Questions 24 - 28.

 N=31 

24. From January 1, 2005, through October 31, 2005 was ASR confirmed in your 

state? (Please check one.)

Yes 7 No 24

 N=31 

25. Did your state’s extension service suggest or recommend applying fungicides for 

ASR? (Please check one.)

Yes 5 No 26 ÆGo to Question 27.

 N=5 

26. Were the suggestion(s) or recommendation(s) for applying fungicides posted on 

USDA’s Soybean Rust Web sites? (Please check one.)

Yes 5 No 0

 N=31 

27. Were there any problems involving equipment availability for ASR fungicide 

spraying in your state? (Please check one.)

Yes 0 Æ If Yes, please explain problems with equipment availability.

(Please use the space below.)

No 26

Uncertain 5
Appendix II

Results of GAO’s Survey of SoybeanProducing States

Page 42 GAO-06-337 Asian Soybean Rust

 N=31 

28. Were there any problems involving the availability of fungicides for ASR in your 

state? (Please check one.)

Yes 5 Æ If Yes, please explain problems with fungicide availability.

(Please use the space below.)

Three states where ASR was detected in 2005 noted that not all

fungicides were available to growers in their states. Another state 

where ASR was not detected made a similar comment, 

while another state said that the use of fungicides in the south led 

to a shortage of fungicides for the wheat crop in the north.

No 22

Uncertain 4

Part 5: USDA’s 2005 ASR Program

Someone knowledgeable about USDA’s efforts to minimize the impact of ASR 

in 2005 should answer Questions 29 – 33.

 N=31 

29. In your opinion, how effective were USDA’s efforts to minimize the 

impact of ASR? (Please check one.)

a. Very effective 19

b. Somewhat effective 9

c. Neither effective nor ineffective 1

d. Somewhat ineffective 0

e. Very ineffective 0

f. Uncertain 2
Appendix II

Results of GAO’s Survey of SoybeanProducing States

Page 43 GAO-06-337 Asian Soybean Rust

 N=13 

30. If you have any suggestions for improving USDA’s ASR program, please briefly

explain in the space below.

We received 13 comments regarding suggestions for improving USDA’s ASR program.

For example, some states commented that increased funding is needed or needs to be 

provided earlier. Another state noted more suspected ASR samples need to be 

examined by microscope because of look-alike diseases. One state said that USDA 

needs to determine and specify what sentinel plot monitoring data is essential for 

modeling purposes, and those monitoring the plots should adhere to a strict

methodology in collecting the data. Another state suggested that the program should 

be reduced in scope until the economic impact is greater.

 N=31 

31. In your opinion, how effective was communication between USDA and your

state in addressing ASR during 2005? (Please check one.)

a. Very effective 22

b. Somewhat effective 8

c. Neither effective nor ineffective 1

d. Somewhat ineffective 0

e. Very ineffective 0

f. Uncertain 0
Appendix II

Results of GAO’s Survey of SoybeanProducing States

Page 44 GAO-06-337 Asian Soybean Rust

 N=30 

32. In your opinion, to what extent were USDA’s Soybean Rust Web sites 

useful to your state? (Please check one in each column.)

Public

Web site

Research

(Password

Protected)

Web site

a. Very great extent 10 14

b. Great extent 11 11

c. Moderate extent 7 4

d. Some extent 2 1

e. Little or no extent 0 0

 N=12 

33. If you have specific suggestions for improving USDA’s Soybean Rust Web 

sites, please note them in the space below.

Twelve states provided comments. Several states suggested technical

improvements to USDA’s Web site for improved ease of use, and one state 

suggested that improvements were needed for growers using a dial-up connection

to download maps. One state suggested that the USDA Web site should consider 

using colors other than red and green to aid males who are color blind. One state 

commented that USDA’s public Web site needs more publicity, and another state 

suggested that land grant universities and extension educators be given more credit 

on the Web site.
Appendix II

Results of GAO’s Survey of SoybeanProducing States

Page 45 GAO-06-337 Asian Soybean Rust

Thank you for taking the time to answer this questionnaire. No

questionnaire of this type can cover every relevant topic. If you wish to 

expand your answer(s) or comment on any other topic related to ASR, 

please feel free to attach additional pages or to E-mail us.

Our report will be available early next spring. We will notify you when it is 

issued and provide you with a free copy.
Appendix II

Results of GAO’s Survey of SoybeanProducing States

Page 46 GAO-06-337 Asian Soybean Rust

Information About Individuals Completing Questionnaire

Name:

Title:

Department:

Organization:

Mailing Address:

City, State, Zip:

Phone: Email:

Name:

Title:

Department:

Organization:

Mailing Address:

City, State, Zip:

Phone: Email:

Name:

Title:

Department:

Organization:

Mailing Address:

City, State, Zip:

Phone: Email:

Name:

Title:

Department:

Organization:

Mailing Address:

City, State, Zip:

Phone: Email:
Page 47 GAO-06-337 Asian Soybean Rust

Appendix III

2005 Sentinel Plots and Soybean Acreage ApendxiI

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.

State

Soybean acres 

planted

USDA sentinel 

plots

Other sentinel 

plotsa

Alabama 150,000 10 25

Arkansas 3,030,000 25 37

Delaware 185,000 6 44

Florida 11,000 15 11

Georgia 180,000 10 15

Illinois 9,500,000 10 30

Indiana 5,400,000 9 8

Iowa 10,100,000 10 20

Kansas 2,900,000 10 20

Kentucky 1,260,000 10 37

Louisiana 880,000 15 50

Maryland 480,000 5 28

Michigan 2,000,000 10 20

Minnesota 6,900,000 10 26

Mississippi 1,600,000 24 38

Missouri 5,000,000 16 23

Nebraska 4,700,000 10 38

New Jersey 95,000 5 62

New York 190,000 10 0

North Carolina 1,500,000 10 17

North Dakota 3,000,000 10 16

Ohio 4,500,000 10 35

Oklahoma 320,000 5 0

Pennsylvania 440,000 5 10

South Carolina 430,000 11 0

South Dakota 3,900,000 10 30

Tennessee 1,130,000 25 5

Texas 260,000 5 5

Virginia 530,000 5 51

West Virginia 19,000 5 0

Wisconsin 1,610,000 10 10

Total 72,200,000 331 711
Page 48 GAO-06-337 Asian Soybean Rust

Appendix IV

Approved Fungicides for Treating Soybeans 

for ASR ApendxiIV

Table 2: Fungicides Approved by EPA for Treating ASR on Soybeans, as of December 31, 2005

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. 

Fungicide (Trade 

name) Active ingredients

Class of 

chemicals

Major 

properties

Type of 

label

Date 

first 

Approveda

Date 

tolerance 

level 

approved

Date

expires

Quadris Azoxystrobin Strobilurin Preventative Section 3 4/10/03

Pristine Boscalid & 

Pyraclostrobin

Carboxamide & 

Strobilurin

Preventative Section 3 3/16/05

Bravo Weather Stik Chlorothalonil Chloronitrile Preventative Section 3 11/8/02

Echo 720 Chlorothalonil Chloronitrile Preventative Section 3 6/17/03

Echo 90DF Chlorothalonil Chloronitrile Preventative Section 3 6/17/03

EQUUS 720 SST Chlorothalonil Chloronitrile Preventative Section 3 7/15/04

EQUUS DF Chlorothalonil Chloronitrile Preventative Section 3 7/15/04

Headline Pyraclostrobin Strobilurin Preventative Section 3 11/30/04

Tilt Propiconazole Triazole Curative Section 18 4/23/04 7/27/05 11/10/07

Propimax Propiconazole Triazole Curative Section 18 4/23/04 7/27/05 11/10/07

Bumper Propiconazole Triazole Curative Section 18 4/23/04 7/27/05 11/10/07

Folicur 3.6F Tebuconazole Triazole Curative Section 18 7/20/04 8/4/05 11/10/07

Orius 3.6F Tebuconazole Triazole Curative Section 18 4/21/05 8/4/05 11/10/07

Uppercut Tebuconazole Triazole Curative Section 18 6/30/05 8/4/05 11/10/07

Laredo EC Myclobutanil Triazole Curative Section 18 3/25/04 8/24/05 11/10/07

Laredo EW Myclobutanil Triazole Curative Section 18 3/25/04 8/24/05 11/10/07

Stratego Propiconazole & 

Trifloxystrobin

Triazole & 

Strobilurin 

Curative and 

preventative

Section 18 12/13/04 6/24/05

7/27/05

11/10/07

Domark 230 ME Tetraconazole Triazole Curative Section 18 3/2/05 6/1/05 11/10/07

Quilt Propiconazole & 

Azoxystrobin

Triazole & 

Strobilurin

Curative and 

preventative

Section 18 3/28/05 7/27/05 11/10/07

Headline SBR Tebuconazole & 

Pyraclostrobin 

Triazole & 

Strobilurin 

Curative and 

preventative

Section 18 3/28/05 8/4/05 11/10/07
Appendix IV

Approved Fungicides for Treating Soybeans 

for ASR

Page 49 GAO-06-337 Asian Soybean Rust

Table 3: Section 18 Fungicides Approved for ASR and States Where Approved, as of 

December 31, 2005

Source: EPA.

Fungicide States with approved Section 18 requests

Tilt 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 Propimax

Bumper

Folicur 3.6F 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

Orius 3.6F 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

Uppercut AR, DE, IA, IL, IN, KY, MD, MN, MO, MS, NC, NE, OH, SC, TN, VA

Laredo EC 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 Laredo EW

Stratego 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

Domark 230 ME 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

Quilt 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

Headline SBR 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
Page 50 GAO-06-337 Asian Soybean Rust

Appendix V

Progression of ASR during the 2005 Growing 

Season ApendxiV

February 24 The year's first confirmation of ASR occurred 

in Florida. April 27 ASR was first confirmed in Georgia.

June 30 ASR was first confirmed in Alabama. July 18 ASR was first confirmed in Mississippi.
Appendix V

Progression of ASR during the 2005 Growing 

Season

Page 51 GAO-06-337 Asian Soybean Rust

Source: GAO based on USDA information.

August 15 ASR was first confirmed in South Carolina. September 21 The last county confirmation of ASR for the 

month of September occurred in Georgia.

October 28 ASR was first confirmed in Louisiana and 

North Carolina. December 23 The year's last confirmation of ASR occured in Alabama. This map also shows the first 

confirmations of ASR in Texas and Kentucky, 

which occurred in November.

Scouted, confirmed
Page 52 GAO-06-337 Asian Soybean Rust

Appendix VI

Comments from the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture ApendxiVI
Appendix VI

Comments from the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture

Page 53 GAO-06-337 Asian Soybean Rust
Appendix VI

Comments from the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture

Page 54 GAO-06-337 Asian Soybean Rust
Page 55 GAO-06-337 Asian Soybean Rust

Appendix VII

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiVI

GAO Contacts Daniel Bertoni (202) 512-3841 or 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. 
Page 56 GAO-06-337 Asian Soybean Rust

Related GAO Products

Agriculture Production: USDA’s Preparation for Asian Soybean Rust.

GAO-05-668R. Washington, D.C.: May 17, 2005.

(360535)
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

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 GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to 

www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.”

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

Congressional 

Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548