UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

m ~.,l~« 

MEMORANDUM 

OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY 

AND POLLUTION PREVENTION 

SUBJECT: BEAD Chemical Profile (BCP) for Registration Review: Pyraclostrobin (099100) 

FROM: 

THRU: 

Leonard Yourman, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist 

Biological Analysis Branch 

Jihad Alsadek, Ph.D., Economist 

Science Information and Analysis Branch 

AndrewLee,Ph.D.,Econornist tJ..i. ('.L Economic Analysis Branch ?__ 

Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503P) 

Arnet Jones, Chief 

Biological Analysis Branch 

Diann Sims, Chief 

Science Information and Analysis Branch r 

Timothy Kiely, Chief 9: W\_ \. 

Economic Analysis Branch ~ 

Biological and Economic Analysi Division (7 

TO: Jill Bloom, Chemical Review Manager 

Risk Management and Implementation Branch 2 

Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (7508P) 

Peer Review Panel date: January 22,2014 

SUMMARY 

Pyraclostrobin was first registered as a pesticide in the U.S. in 2002. This fungicide belongs to 

the quinone outside inhibitor (Qoi) group of fungicides that includes azoxystrobin and numerous 

other fungicides. 
Based on private market usage data from 2002-2012, usage in agriculture averaged 

approximately one million pounds active ingredient ( a.i.) applied annually on approximately 15 

million acres treated. The average a.i. rate over this time period was 0.067 pounds a.i./acre. 

A supplemental label for pyraclostrobin was given for use for "plant health" in 2008. The use 

for this purpose may have resulted in an increase in pyraclostrobin use around 2008, on wheat 

(Hershman, 2011), com (UNL, 2007), soybean (Kyveryga et al., 2013), and possibly sugarbeet 

(for possible enhanced postharvest benefits) (Campbell et al., 2012). Florida and Louisiana have 

had emergency exemptions to use pyracl9strobin to manage brown rust and orange rust of 

sugarcane since no other registered products provided acceptable control. 

The most recent data on use of pyraclostrobin for non-agriculture is from 2011. There were 

approximately 33,000 pounds used by professional turf management and horticulture, 39,000 

pounds a.i. on golf courses, and 1,000 pounds a.i. on institutional turf facilities (Kline, 2011). 

There were approximately 900,000 lb a.i. used in 2009 on nursery and floriculture (NASS 2009). 

INTRODUCTION 

The Biological and Economic Analysis Division (BEAD) Chemical Profile (BCP) provides an 

overview of the pest management roles and quantitative usage information for pyraclostrobin. 

The BCP includes summaries of previous BEAD products and available public and/or private 

use and usage data for pyraclostrobin to describe the role of this chemical in pest management. 

Additional information on use is available in the pyraclostrobin PRD Label Data Report. 

Information provided in this BCP may be used by stakeholders (e.g., users and registrants), OPP 

risk assessors, OPP risk managers, and the general public during the Registration Review process 

of this pesticide. 

USE SITES 

Agricultural Use Sites 

Pyraclostrobin registered agricultural use sites include berries, currant, grapes, citrus, nut trees, 

pome fruits, stone fruits, small fruits, tropical fruits, hops, mustard, safflowers, turmeric, 

cucurbits, melons, okra, conifer, fruiting vegetables, leafy vegetables, parsley, root crops, beans, 

com, peas, lentils, alfalfa, barley, oats, rye, wheat, triticale, sugarcane, ginseng, oil crops, cotton, 

flax, mint, olives, sorghum, sugar, sunflowers, soybeans, vegetable crops, forest plantations and 

rapeseed. 

Non-agricultural Use Sites 

Pyraclostrobin registered non-agricultural use sites include ornamentals, lilies, tulips and roses. 

2 
FORMULATIONS AND APPLICATION METHODS 

Pyraclostrobin formulations include some forms containing pyraclostrobin as the sole fungicide 

material, such as Cabrio® EG and Headline®, and some formulations are marketed as a premixture ofpyraclostrobin plus other active ingredients, such as the Pristine® product. Some 

formulations marketed are granular, emulsifiable, flowable and soluble concentrate, solutionready to use and soluble concentrate/solid. Depending on label specifications pyraclostrobin 

may be applied as a ground spray, aerial application, in-furrow, or through irrigation systems. 

PREVIOUS BEAD PRODUCTS REGARDING PYRACLOSTROBIN 

A Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA) for pyraclostrobin was prepared in 2013 (BEAD, 

2013). The SLUA provided percent crop treated for more than 50 crops for which usage data 

were available. For pyraclostrobin, the agricultural sites with the greatest number of pounds 

used were for corn, soybeans and wheat. In terms of the percent crop treated, corn averaged 1 0 

percent crop treated followed by soybeans and wheat which averaged 5 percent crop treated 

each. Strawberries averaged 65 percent crop treated followed by cherries and caneberries 50 

percent each, and blueberries and sugar beets 45 percent each. There are quite a few crops 

(seven of them in the crop profile) that are less than 2.5 percent crop treated such as lemons and 

pecans (BEAD 2013). The relatively high percent crop treated on strawberries, cherries and cane 

berries may indicate high benefits, or at the very least, a high reliance on pyraclostrobin to 

control plant pests in those crops. 

The OPP issued emergency exemptions for use ofpyraclostrobin (see Appendix B) to control 

Sclerotinia leaf drop in Belgian endive in California, orange rust in sugarcane in Florida, Texas, 

and Louisiana, and brown rust in Louisiana. For sugarcane uses emergency exemptions have 

been approved and are effective through 2014. 

USAGE 

Agricultural Usage 

Based on private market usage data from 2002-2012, usage averaged approximately one million 

pounds active ingredient (a.i.) applied annually on approximately 15 million acres treated. The 

average a.i. rate over this time period was 0.067 pounds a.i. /acre. Figure 1 presents 

pyraclostrobin usage in pounds a.i. over the 2002-2012 timeframe. Figure 2 presents total area 

treated in acres over the same timeframe (Proprietary Data, 2002-2012). Pyraclostrobin use has 

increased steadily for 5-6 years following registration, but has been steady the last 5 years. This 

may be due to the availability of new fungicide chemistries and the increasing importance of 

resistance management strategies that, for example, may limit the number of applications. This 

might also be reflected in the total area treated may increase while amount applied may not 

follow the same trend. 

3 
FIGURE 1. Pyraclostrobin Usa e in Pounds Active Ingredient 2002-2012) 

3,000,000 .,.--------------------------

Total Pounds AI 

N 

0 

0 

N 

m 

0 

0 

N 

""" 0 

0 

N 

Source: Proprietary Data, 2002-2012 

1.() 

0 

0 

N 

1.0 

0 

0 

N 

I' 

0 

0 

N 

Years 

00 

0 

0 

N 

0'1 

0 

0 

N 

0 

rl 

0 

N 

rl 

rl 

0 

N 

FIGURE 2. Pyraclostrobin Total Area Treated in Acres (2002-2012) 

35,000,000 

Total Area 

Treated 

N 

0 

0 

N 

m 

0 

0 

N 

0 """ 0 

N 

Source: Proprietary Data, 2002-2012 

1.() 

0 

0 

N 

1.0 

0 

0 

N 

I' 

0 

0 

N 

Years 

00 

0 

0 

N 

0'1 

0 

0 

N 

0 

rl 

0 

N 

rl 

rl 

0 

N 

N 

rl 

0 

N 

N 

rl 

0 

N 

Table 1 shows the percentage of total pounds (lbs) applied and total acres treated (TAT) for the 

five crops with the greatest usage. The increased use is likely due (at least in part) to a 

supplemental label approved by the Agency in 2008 that allowed the use of pyraclostrobin for 

"plant health" purposes without regard to the presence or potential for disease (see the section 

"Role ofPyraclostrobin in Disease Management", below). 

4 
Table 1. Pyraclostrobin Top Crops in Terms of Percent of Total Lbs. A.I. Applied & Total 

Area Treated (TAT) in Acres, 2008-2012 

Crop Total Pounds Applied (A.I ) Total Area Treated 

Com 39% 33% 

Soybeans 24% 35% 

Wheat, Winter 7% 8% 

Wheat, Spring 5% 7% 

Sugar Beets 5% 2% 

Source: Propnetary data, 2008-2012 

As seen in Table 2 below, pyraclostrobin top states in terms of both pounds applied and total area 

treated are Illinois and Iowa. Of the major users, Indiana has the lowest use in terms of 

pyraclostrobin percentages of pounds applied and acreage treated, 6 percent for each. 

Table 2. Pyraclostrobin Top States1 in Terms of Total Lbs. A.I. Applied & Total Area 

treated (TAT) in Acres, 2008-2012 

STATE Total Pounds Applied Total Area Treated 

Illinois 14% 15% 

Iowa 14% 14% 

California 8% 6% 

Minnesota 8% 8% 

North Dakota 7% 8% 

Nebraska 7% 7% 

Indiana 6% 6% 

Source: Propnetary data, 2008-2012 

1. There over 40 other states that use pyraclostrobin. 

The average a.i. rate for the top crops in terms of pounds a.i. applied was the highest for sugar 

beets at 0.146 lbs a.i. /acre and the lowest for soybeans at 0.053 lbs a.i. /acre as shown in Table 

3. 

Application Rates 

Table 3. Pyraclostrobin Use on Top Crops: Average A.I. Rate, 2008-2012 

Crop Average Pounds Average Total Acres A vg. A. I. Rate (lbs 

Treated* a. i./acres) 

Com 829,027 8,966,593 0.092 

Soybeans 500,368 9,379,542 0.053 

Sugar Beets 98,329 669,534 0.146 

Wheat, Spring 111,427 1,954,031 0.057 

Wheat, Winter 153,920 2,043,353 0.075 

*Total Acres Treated sums all acres treated for a crop, mcludmg those acres that receive multiple treatments. 

Source: Proprietary Data, 2008 -2012 

5 
Geographic Distribution of Pyraclostrobin Use 

Agricultural Use Intensity ofPyraclostrobin Use in the U.S. 

Another measure of usage is the use intensity. In this analysis, the use intensity is expressed as 

the average annual amount (in pounds) of the active ingredient applied per 1,000 acres of crop 

acres grown. This differs from the application rate, which is expressed as the pounds a.i. applied 

per treated area. Figure 3 spatially represents pyraclostrobin use intensity in the U.S., which 

appears particularly high in Connecticut and Massachusetts, although BEAD was unable to 

determine a reason. California also shows relatively high use intensity due to use on the high 

value crops almonds, grapes, strawberries and tomatoes. For more information about the 

methodology of this map see Appendix A. 

Figure 3. Annual average agricultural use intensity ofpyraclostrobin (2008-2012). 

Pounds Active Ingredient 

per 1,000 Crop Acres Grown 

0No0ata 

0 <4 

c:J 4-7 

8-12 

- 13-19 

- >19 

Non-Agricultural Usage 

There were approximately 33,000 pounds used by professional turf management and 

horticulture, 39,000 pounds a.i. on golf course and 1,000 pounds a.i. in institutional turf facilities. 

6 
There was approximately 900 pounds a.i. used in 2009 on nursery and floriculture (Kline, 2011; 

NASS, 2009). 

BIOLOGICAL ASPECTS RELEVANT TO PYRACLOSTROBIN 

The Fungicide Resistance Action Committee (FRAC) has designed a group cla.ssification system 

based on a fungicide's mode of action (FRAC, 2013). Pyraclostrobin is classified as a quinone 

outside inhibitor (Qoi) fungicide and FRAC lists it as a Group 11 fungicide. Qoi fungicides 

(some Qoi fungicides are also called "strobilurin" fungicides) have been very important in 

disease management since the first product ( azoxystrobin) was released in the late 1990s. They 

inhibit fungal respiration by binding to the "quinone outside" site of the mitochondrial 

cytochrome b protein. When the compound binds to the site it blocks electron transfer between 

cytochrome b and cytochrome c, which disrupts synthesis of ATP and ultimately inhibits cell 

respiration. Several Qoi fungicides are currently registered including pyraclostrobin, 

azoxystrobin, trifloxystrobin, famoxadone, fenamidone, kresoxim-methyl. Pyraclostrobin, like 

other Qoi fungicices, exhibits translaminar movement within the leaf (Vincelli, 2012). After 

application, most of the active ingredient is bound by the leaf cuticle, while some of the material 

moves into the underlying plant cells so that some of the chemical may be effective on a side of 

the leaf that was not initially exposed upon application. Pyraclostrobin, and other Qoi 

fungicides, acts as an effective preventative fungicide since it inhibits fungal germination. It is 

less effective as a curative treatment (after the plant is infected). In this case the fungicide is less 

effective against already present mycelial growth than as an inhibitor of spore germination. 

ROLE OF PYRACLOSTROBIN IN DISEASE MANAGEMENT 

Com, soybeans and wheat were the agricultural sites with the greatest number of pounds used. 

In terms ofthe percent crop treated, com averaged 10 percent crop treated followed by soybeans 

and wheat which averaged 5 percent crop treated each. Strawberries averaged 65 percent crop 

treated followed by cherries and caneberries-50 percent each, and blueberries and sugar 

beets-45 percent each. There are several crops (seven of them were listed in the SLUA crop 

profile) that show less than 2.5 percent crop treated, such as lemons and pecans (BEAD, 2013). 

The relatively high percent crop treated on strawberries, cherries and cane berries may indicate 

high benefits, or at the very least, a high reliance on pyraclostrobin to control plant pests in those 

crops. 

In 2008, the Agency granted a supplemental label for pyraclostrobin (Headline®) for use on 

registered crops for "disease control and plant health". The promotion of the use ofthe fungicide 

to gain additional "plant health" benefits (including stalk strength and increased yield) even in 

the absence of disease pressure has caused controversy within plant pathology circles (e.g., 

Letter, 2009) and has been questioned in terms of economic returns (e.g., Anderson, 2012). A 

real or perceived benefit for increased yield or other properties (such as stalk strength) may have 

resulted in an increase in pyraclostrobin use around 2008, on wheat (Hershman, 2011 ), com 

(UNL, 2007), soybean (Kyveryga et al., 2013), and possibly sugarbeet (for possible enhanced 

postharvest benefits) (Campbell et al., 2012). 

7 
There are, however, many disease control uses of pyraclostrobin on many crops targeting 

numerous pathogens. Pyraclostrobin is used to manage Cercospora leaf spot, an important 

disease of sugarbeet (Harveson, 2013). Recently, though, field resistance by Cercospora 

beticola to Qol fungicides has been reported for the first time (Kirk et al., 2012). Pyraclostrobin 

may be used on soybean where soybean rust has been identified (Rupe and Sconyers, 2008). 

Soybean rust was first identified in the U.S. (it has been an important disease in Asia, Africa, and 

South America for several years) in 2004, but it has not generally been a significant pest 

problem. Florida and Louisiana have had emergency exemptions to use pyraclostrobin to 

manage brown rust and orange rust of sugarcane since no other registered products appear to 

provide acceptable control. Orange rust was first identified in Florida in 2007 and brown rust 

was first identified in the 1970s. Breeding resistance has been the standard means of control but 

pathogens breakdown resistance rapidly and fungicides are used to manage the diseases until 

new cultivars are released. Currently, there is a limited-time supplemental label covering the use 

on sugarcane. 

Resistance has been documented for some fungal pathogens (e.g, Kirk et al., 2012) and product 

labels have extensive resistant management language to maintain the effectiveness of this group 

of fungicides. In spite of resistance to some pathogens, Qol products are among the most widely 

used fungicides due to their effectiveness in managing many diseases caused by numerous fungal 

pathogens (Vincelli, 2012). Group 11 fungicides have been shown to exhibit cross-resistance; 

that is, a pathogen that has developed resistance to one of the Group 11 active ingredients is 

regarded to have resistance to the other Group 11 active ingredients. Nevertheless, each Qol 

active ingredient has a different chemical structure and characteristic (e.g., systemic mobility 

within the plant can vary among different active ingredients). For many uses Qol fungicides 

may be considered interchangeable in terms of effectiveness, while in other situations individual 

Qol active ingredients may exhibit different levels of efficacy (depending on the crop system and 

pathogen). As such, in some situations, a particular Qol active ingredient may be recommended, 

or not, in preference to another Qol fungicide. For example, azoxystrobin (a Qol fungicide) is 

highly phytotoxic to some apple varieties (due to genetic factors of the varieties) even when 

exposed by drift (Purdue, 2008). Other Qol fungicides including pyraclostrobin are used on 

apple trees to control apple scab. Pyraclostrobin is used as a foliar treatment for blackleg of 

several Brassica (cole) crops and is the only Qol fungicide listed by some extension services for 

managing blackleg for these crops (e.g., Cornell, 2013; Midwest, 2013; KY, 2013). 

Pyraclostrobin is used to treat 15 percent of apples, 10 percent of cabbage, 5 percent of broccoli 

and less than 2.5 percent of cauliflowers. 

DATA NEEDS 

The Agency currently does not have important information on pyraclostrobin. Our databases do 

not survey certain registered crops such as: currant, tropical fruits, hops, mustard, safflowers, 

turmeric, okra, conifer, parsley, lentils, alfalfa, barley, oats, rye, triticale, ginseng, flax, mint, 

olives, sorghum, sugar, sunflowers, rapeseed, ornamentals, lilies, tulips and roses. Information 

such as typical rates, pounds applied, application methods and timing may be useful in future 

assessments if risks are indicated and may improve future assessments conducted by the Agency 

related to the use and benefits of pyraclostrobin. Information regarding recent incidences of · 

8 
resistance to pyraclostrobin leading to any failures in disease management will help in benefits 

assessments. 

REFERENCES 

Anderson, B. B. 2012. Question fungicide use. Com & Soybean Digest. Dec. 14, 2012. 

http:/ I comandsoybeandigest.com/ crop-chemicals/ question-fungicide-use 

BEAD. 2013. Screening Level Usage Analysis-Pyraclostrobin. Biological and Economic 

Analysis Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, US Environmental Protection Agency. April 

15, 2013. 

http://iaspub.epa.gov/apex/pesticides/f?p=CHEMICALSEARCH:3:0::N0:1,3,31,7,12,25:P3 XC 

HEMICAL ID:3649 

Campbell, L., Fugate, K., and Smith, L. 2012. Effect ofpyraclostrobin on postharvest storage 

and quality of sugarbeet harvested before and after a frost. USDA-ARS. 

https:/ /www.ars.usda.gov/researchlpublications/publications.htm?seg no 115=271284 

Cornell. 2013. Chapter 15-Cabbage, Broccoli, Cauliflower, and Brussels Sprouts. 2014 

Integrated Crop and Pest Management Guidelines for Commercial Vegetable Production, 

Cornell University Cooperative Extension. http:/ /veg-guidelines.cce.comell.edu/15frameset.html 

Harveson, R. M. 2013. Cercospora leaf spot of sugar beet. University ofNebraska Extension 

Publ. G 1753. http://ianrpubs.unl.edu/live/g1753/build/g1753.pdf 

Hershman, D. E. 2011. Fungicide use in wheat. University of Kentucky Extension Publ. PPFSA G-SG-05. http:/ /www2. ca. uky .edu/ agcollege/plantpathology/ ext files/PPFShtml/ppfsagsg5. pdf 

Kirk, W. W., Hanson, L. E., Granc, G. D., Stump, W. L., Gachango, E., Clark, G., and Stewart, 

J. 2012. First report of strobilurin resistance in Cercospora beticola in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris) 

in Michigan and Nebraska, USA. New Disease Reports 26:3. 

http:/ /www.ndrs.org. uk/pdfs/026/NDR 026003 .pdf 

Kline. 2011. Kline Professional Turf and Ornamental Markets for Pesticides and Fertilizers 

2012. 

KY. 2013. 2014-2015 Vegetable Production Guide for Commercial Growers. Cole Crops, p. 33. 

http:/ /www2 .ca. uky.edu/ agc/pubs/id/id3 6/020-077. pdf 

Kyveryga, P.M., Blackmer, T. M., and Mueller, D. S., 2013. When do foliar pyraclostrobin 

fungicide applications produce profitable soybean yield responses? Plant Management Network 

Plant Health Progress, Sept. 28, 2013. 

http://www.isafarmnet.com/pdf/Fungicide Soybean Plant Health Progress 2013.pdf 

9 
Purdue. 2008. Facts for fancy fruit. Purdue University Extension vol. 8, Issue 7, July 14, 2008. 

http://www .hort. purdue.edu/fff/FFF08/FFF08-07. pdf 

Letter. 2009. Letter from Universities Regarding the Strobilurin, Pyraclostrobin (Headline), 

Supplemental Label, Feb. 13, 2009. http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulatinglheadline-letter.pdf 

Midwest. 2013. Brassica and Leafy Greens, p. 82. Midwest Vegetable Production Guide for 

Commercial Growers, 2014. http://www.btny.purdue.edu/pubs/id/id-56/80 ColeBrassica.pdf 

NASS. 2009. USDA Nursery and Floriculture. 

http://www.nass.usda.gov/Data and Statistics/PreDefined Queries/2009 Nursery and Floriculture Chern Usage/index.asp 

Proprietary Data. 2002-2012. (pesticide usage data) 

Rupe, J. and Sconyers, L. 2008. Soybean Rust. APSnet, The Plant Health Instructor. 

http://www.apsnet.org/edcenter/intropp/lessons/fungi/Basidiomycetes/Pages/SoybeanRust.aspx 

UNL. 2007. Results ofNebraska foliar fungicide trials on com. University ofNebraska 

Extension CropWatch, July 13, 2007. 

http:/ /cropwatch. unl.edu/web/cropwatch/archive?articleid=.ARCHIVES.2007 .CROP 18. CORN 

FUNGICIDES.HTM 

USDA, 2006-2010. NASS Crop Reporting Districts (shape file ofCRDs). Available at: 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/arms/resourceregions/resourceregions.htm#nass. 

http://www.nass.usda.gov/Data and Statistics/County Data Files/Frequently Asked Questions 

/county list.txt 

USDA, 2007. Census of Agriculture. (Land in Farms). Available at: 

http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/index.asp. 

Vincelli, P. 2012. Qoi (strobilurin) fungicides: Benefits and risks. Plant Health Instructor, 

APSnet Publication. 

http://www.apsnet.org/edcenter/advanced/topics/Pages/StrobilurinFungicides.aspx. 

10 
APPENDIX A 

The map included herein is primarily for the use of the risk assessors in the Environmental Fate 

and Effects Division. The map provides a very broad geographical view of the average annual 

amount (in pounds) of the active ingredient applied per 1,000 acres of crop acres grown. These 

data are included in the maps because risk assessors are interested in the amount of a pesticide 

used across agricultural land. The calculated values presented in the map are not equivalent to 

an application rate (lb ail A). 

The data used to make these maps have several limitations. Any interpretation of the maps 

should consider the underlying data and the associated limitations carefully. 

The numerator (annual average pounds applied) is based on private market surveys of pesticide 

use in agriculture averaged over the last five years (Proprietary Data, 2008-2012). These surveys 

cover about 60 crops and are targeted in states that produce the majority of the crop. Although 

the surveys capture most of the use of a particular active ingredient in agriculture, there are 

several limitations to these surveys. 

• States with minor production of a surveyed crop are not sampled 

• Not all types of pesticides are surveyed in every crop in every year 

• Many specialty crops with very small acreages are not included in the survey 

The result of these limitations is that states that show no usage may actually have a small amount 

of the active ingredient being used. In some cases the displayed use intensity may be distorted 

because the surveyed crops and the reported pesticide usage may not accurately represent the 

actual pesticide usage on the crops produced in the state. 

The denominator (1,000 crop acres grown) was also obtained from the same private market 

survey database. The "Crop Acres Grown" variable represents the total acres grown in a given 

state of all of the surveyed crops. This value is independent of pesticide usage and pesticide 

registration. It is important to note that the surveyed crops (about 60) are sampled from states 

that are major producers of each crop. Therefore, there are cases where the actual crop acreage in 

a state is higher than that reported by crop acres grown in the survey because either that state 

and/ or crop was not included in the survey. 

The reader should pay particular attention to the figure legends and realize that a map prepared 

for a particular chemical is not directly comparable to a map prepared for a different chemical as 

the legend bins will likely be different. 

11 
A lppen d. IX B . FIFRA S ec f wn 18 A . ctwns on p :'yrac 1 os t ro b. m b ::>Y OPP 

Site Pest Applicant Response Status Date 

BELGIAN ENDIVE White Mold (Sclerotinia CALIFORNIA Il/Il/20II ISSUED sclerotiorum) 

BELGIAN ENDIVE White Mold (Sclerotinia CALIFORNIA Il!I5/20I2 ISSUED sclerotiorum) 

BELGIAN ENDIVE White Mold (Sclerotinia CALIFORNIA IO/I4/20IO ISSUED sclerotiorum) 

BELGIAN ENDIVE White Mold (Sclerotinia CALIFORNIA Il/29/2007 CRISIS APPROVED sclerotiorum) 

BELGIAN ENDIVE White Mold (Sclerotinia CALIFORNIA 9/30/2008 WITHDRAWN sclerotiorum) 

BELGIAN ENDIVE White Mold (Sclerotinia CALIFORNIA I 11I4/2008 ISSUED sclerotiorum) 

BELGIAN ENDIVE White Mold (Sclerotinia CALIFORNIA I 1120/2007 WITHDRAWN sclerotiorum) 

BELGIAN ENDIVE White Mold (Sclerotinia CALIFORNIA I0/30/2013 WITHDRAWN sclerotiorum) 

BELGIAN ENDIVE White Mold (Sclerotinia CALIFORNIA Il/I3/2009 ISSUED sclerotiorum) 

SUGARCANE ORANGE RUST FLORIDA 11Il/20I2 ISSUED 

SUGARCANE ORANGE RUST FLORIDA 11II/20I2 ISSUED 

SUGARCANE ORANGE RUST FLORIDA IO/I/2009 ISSUED 

SUGARCANE ORANGE RUST FLORIDA IO/I/2009 ISSUED 

SUGARCANE ORANGE RUST FLORIDA 4/I8/2008 CRISIS APPROVED 

SUGARCANE ORANGE RUST FLORIDA 4/I8/2008 CRISIS APPROVED 

SUGARCANE ORANGE RUST LOUISIANA 3/27/20I2 ISSUED 

SUGARCANE ORANGE RUST LOUISIANA 3/27/20I2 ISSUED 

SUGARCANE BROWN RUST LOUISIANA 2/I2/20I3 ISSUED 

SUGARCANE BROWN RUST LOUISIANA 2/I2/20I3 ISSUED 

SUGARCANE ORANGERUST LOUISIANA I0/112009 ISSUED 

SUGARCANE BROWN RUST LOUISIANA 3/22/20I2 ISSUED 

SUGARCANE BROWN RUST LOUISIANA 2/4/2009 ISSUED 

SUGARCANE BROWN RUST LOUISIANA 2/4/2009 ISSUED 

SUGARCANE BROWN RUST LOUISIANA 4/29/2008 ISSUED 

SUGARCANE BROWN RUST LOUISIANA 4/29/2008 ISSUED 

SUGARCANE BROWN RUST LOUISIANA 3/22/20I2 ISSUED 

SUGARCANE ORANGE RUST LOUISIANA I0/112009 ISSUED 

SUGARCANE ORANGE RUST TEXAS 6/I4/20IO ISSUED 

SUGARCANE ORANGE RUST TEXAS 6/I4/20IO ISSUED 

12