Agriculture Production: USDA Needs to Build on 2005 Experience to Minimize the Effects of Asian Soybean Rust in the Future
Published: 2006-02-24T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: 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. ASR can destroy an entire field within a few weeks. Weather  conditions, such as rainfall, humidity, and temperature, affect both the  severity and incidence of ASR. However, fungicides provide protection  against ASR if they are applied correctly and at the proper time. In 2005,  U.S. growers in 31 states planted about 72.2 million acres in soybeans that  had a total estimated value of about $17 billion.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has been preparing for the  arrival of ASR in the continental United States since its presence was first  detected in Brazil in 2002. ASR was discovered for the first time in the  continental United States, in Louisiana in November 2004—after most of  the crop had been harvested—and had little effect on soybean production.  During 2005, researchers confirmed the presence of ASR in 138 counties  across nine southern states. Currently, no commercial soybeans are  resistant to ASR, and fungicides are generally recognized as the most  effective means for controlling the disease. USDA had predicted that U.S.  economic losses from ASR could reach as high as $2 billion annually, but  growers experienced few crop losses from ASR in 2005 because weather  conditions and other factors were not favorable to the spread of the  disease. In some cases, it appears that growers experienced higher yields  than expected because the threat of ASR caused them to be more attentive  to their crop. While few losses occurred in 2005, ASR still poses a  significant threat to the U.S. soybean industry, depending on the severity  and extent of subsequent outbreaks.
In May 2005, we reported on the status of USDA’s efforts to prepare for  ASR’s entry into the United States. 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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: ASR, a disease caused by the fungus Phakopsora pachyrhizi, requires  living host cells to survive. It can infect over 90 host species of legumes,  such as kidney beans, chickpeas, and kudzu. When ASR infects soybeans, it  causes the plants to lose their leaves prematurely, which reduces the size  and number of the beans. In areas where the disease commonly occurs, up  to 80 percent yield losses have been reported.
Environmental factors are critical to the incidence and severity of ASR.  Long periods of leaf wetness, high humidity, and temperatures between 60  and 80 degrees Fahrenheit are ideal for spore germination. About 7 days  after plants are infected with ASR, small brown spots surrounded by yellow  rings appear on the leaf’s upper surface (stage 1). Within 10 days, pustules  form in the spots, primarily on the undersides of the leaves (stage 2). These  pustules have raised centers that eventually break open to reveal masses of  fungal spores, called urediniospores (stage 3). Pustules can produce  urediniospores for about 3 weeks. When the wind blows, the spores are  dispersed, spreading the infection to other fields. Once windborne, the  spores can reportedly travel hundreds of miles within a single day. Figure 1  shows the progression of infection on a soybean plant.
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.
USDA has been following the path of the disease and planning for its  introduction into the United States for several years. In May 2002, three  USDA agencies—the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS),  the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service  (CSREES), and the Agricultural Research Service—together with the  National Plant Board, industry, and several land grant universities formed  the ad hoc Soybean Rust Committee. In addition, USDA established the  National Plant Diagnostic Network to enable diagnosticians, state  regulatory personnel, and first detectors to communicate images and  methods of detection for ASR as well as other diseases in a timely manner.
USDA determined that once ASR arrived in the United States it could not  be eradicated because of its rapid transmission rate and an abundance of  host species. Thus, it decided fungicides would be the primary means of  managing ASR in the United States and Canada until researchers can  develop acceptable soybean cultivars that are resistant to the disease.  Although the disease has resulted in significant losses in yield and  production in other countries, soybean growers have learned to  successfully manage the disease by applying appropriate fungicides.
However, the use of such fungicides increases the production costs  associated with soybeans, which had typically required relatively little or  no management in the United States. For example, during the 2003 to 2004  growing season, Brazilian growers spent close to $1 billion on fungicides to  prevent and reduce the spread of the disease. In the United States, the costs  of applying fungicides for ASR are estimated to range from $10 to $35 per  acre for each application. The total cost of applying fungicides will depend  on the number of acres treated.
All pesticides, including fungicides, must be registered and labeled in  accordance with EPA regulations in order for them to be sold or used in the  United States. If emergency conditions exist, however, EPA can grant an  emergency exemption to state and federal agencies that allows the  unregistered use of the pesticide under section 18 of the Federal  Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). EPA regulations  require state and federal agencies to submit an application for emergency  exemptions and set limits on the duration of those exemptions. Under the  Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Food Quality  Protection Act, EPA sets tolerances for pesticides—the maximum residue  levels of pesticides permitted on foods. Unlike its process for registering  fungicides, EPA may grant an emergency exemption for the use of a  fungicide before it sets a tolerance for that fungicide.
Fungicides for ASR are classified as preventative or curative. Preventative  fungicides, such as strobilurins, prevent fungi from successfully infecting  and/or penetrating the host tissue of the plant, while curative fungicides,  such as triazoles, inhibit or stop the development of infections that have  already begun. In addition, some fungicides contain both preventative and  curative chemicals.
To properly manage ASR, growers must apply the right class of fungicides  at the appropriate time and with proper equipment. Applying fungicides too  early can increase production costs, and the fungicide could wear off by  the time an infection actually occurs. However, if growers wait too long to  apply the fungicide, the disease could progress to an untreatable stage, and  some crop could be lost. In order for fungicides to be optimally effective,  they must be applied to the whole plant and be placed as deeply into the  canopy as possible because the disease usually begins in the lower canopy  before traveling into the middle and upper canopies as the crop matures.
Fungicides can be applied by ground sprayers or from the air. Aerial  application is a viable alternative when rainfall makes the fields too muddy  or when large amounts of soybean acreage need to be sprayed within a  short time.
In April 2004, USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) conducted a study  to project the potential economic losses associated with various degrees of  ASR infestation in the United States. ERS concluded that the extent of  economic impacts from ASR will depend on the timing, location, spread,  and severity of the disease as well as the response of growers, livestock  producers, and consumers of agricultural commodities. For the first year of  ASR’s establishment in the United States, ERS estimated that the expected  value of net economic losses could range from $640 million to $1.3 billion,  depending on the geographic extent and severity of the disease’s initial  entry.
When ASR was discovered in Louisiana in November 2004, it was too late in  the crop year to damage 2004 soybean production. Since ASR must have a  living host to survive the winter, USDA believed the disease could only  successfully survive over the winter in the southernmost areas of the  United States and would have to be reintroduced each year into more  northern soybean-producing areas. Therefore, its arrival provided an early  warning to USDA, growers, and industry, allowing them time to prepare  strategies for minimizing the impact of the disease before the 2005 crop  year.
section_title: 2005 ASR Efforts Showed Benefits of a National Coordination Strategy and Highlight the Importance of Consistent Data and Strong Leadership
paragraphs: USDA’s development and implementation of a coordinated framework was  instrumental in providing an effective response to ASR on soybeans in  2005. The framework includes (1) a surveillance and monitoring network,  (2) a Web-based information system, (3) decision criteria for fungicide  application, (4) predictive modeling, and (5) outreach for training,  education, and information dissemination. The goal of the framework was  to provide stakeholders with effective decision support for managing  soybean rust during the 2005 growing season, and USDA was generally  successful in doing so. However, inconsistencies in how researchers  monitor, test, and report on the disease could lead to incomplete or  inaccurate data and detract from the value of future prediction models.  Furthermore, the success of the 2005 framework was due in part to the  leadership of senior USDA officials, who were able to mount a national  campaign. The transfer of operational responsibilities to a land grant  university, under the direction of USDA, raises concerns about the  department’s ability to maintain the level of coordination, cooperation, and  national priority that was achieved in 2005 to address ASR.
subsections: section_title: The Surveillance and Monitoring Network Was Generally Implemented Effectively, but Inconsistencies Could Impair Future Predictive Efforts
paragraphs: 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. 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. (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). 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).
State personnel monitored these plots throughout the growing season to  determine the presence and severity of ASR. Within each state, a  designated official entered the monitoring data from the plots into USDA’s  ASR Web site, an online, real-time data system. Once the data were entered,  growers and others could access the information to determine in which  counties ASR-infected plants were found. In addition, state specialists used  the Web site to provide guidance to growers about whether and what type  of fungicides should be applied.
Once ASR was detected and confirmed in a state, the framework specified  that mobile monitoring teams—one assigned to each of five regions—  would be dispatched to the affected areas to help determine the severity  and spread of the disease. During the 2005 growing season, the disease was  confined to the southeastern region, and therefore only the team assigned  to that region was deployed.
Researchers use the information from states on sentinel plot monitoring,  including diagnostic testing results, to develop prediction models that  estimate where and how severe ASR will be in certain areas of a state or  county. These models depend in large part on timely and consistent data  from the state observations and diagnostic testing results. Researchers will  rely on this information, in part, to validate the predictive models over the  next few years, while extension personnel and growers rely on this  information to make informed and timely decisions on the need to apply  fungicides.
USDA asked the states to monitor their sentinel plots at least once a week  and report the results on a weekly basis by posting them to a restricted  USDA Web site. 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. However, state  officials did not consistently report weekly updated information to the Web  site during the 2005 growing season. Updates from the states ranged from a  total of 4 each for two states to 162 for another. USDA also provided states  considerable flexibility in how they designated sentinel plots. In some  cases, fields were planted as stand-alone surveillance fields while in other  cases, sentinel plots were part of commercial fields. Such differences might  affect the extent to which crops are accessible for crop monitors. While  there is no evidence that this variation in plots affected data reporting in  2005, a lack of consistency in designating sentinel plots could ultimately  affect the quality of data that are essential to alerting USDA to the initial  presence and spread of ASR in future years.
Diagnostic testing was important to confirming suspected cases of ASR  because several plant diseases resemble it and because U.S. growers have  little experience in identifying ASR. States are to send the first suspected  sample of ASR on soybeans and each new host to USDA’s APHIS laboratory  in Beltsville, Maryland, for confirmation testing. However, subsequent  samples submitted within each state may be tested at either a state or  National Plant Diagnostic Network laboratory. According to our survey of  officials in the 31 soybean-producing states, state diagnostic laboratories  received about 12,100 samples for ASR research and screening. Of these  samples, about 9,500 were submitted for routine research or monitoring  and about 2,600 were submitted specifically because of suspected ASR. Of  the total number of samples tested, only 877, or about 7 percent, tested  positive for ASR. For samples suspected of having ASR, states primarily  relied on morphological examinations—i.e., examining the spores from  lesions on leaf samples, visually or under a microscope—to screen the  samples suspected of ASR. However, in selected cases, the states  conducted advanced screening using the polymerase chain reaction (PCR)  test or an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) test to detect the  presence of ASR. Table 1 summarizes the results of states’ tests  performed on samples suspected of having ASR in 2005.
The National Plant Diagnostic Network issued standard operating  procedures for how to submit samples to a diagnostic laboratory and  procedures for initially screening the samples and conducting advanced  screening. However, the procedures did not specify how often or under  what circumstances, the laboratory should conduct advanced screening to  confirm an initial diagnosis of ASR. Advanced screening might be  warranted because a morphological examination of a sample in the early  stages of the disease may fail to detect ASR. Also, in some cases,  diagnosticians may have limited experience in detecting the disease  morphologically. Conversely, officials in some states where ASR appeared  to be no real threat in 2005 may have believed that advanced screening was  not necessary. Officials in 13 of the states that we surveyed reported that a  morphological examination was the only type of testing they performed on  samples of suspected ASR. Officials in 13 states also indicated that they  performed a morphological examination as well as at least one other type  of advanced screening test, and officials in 3 states reported that they only  performed advanced screening on suspected cases of ASR. 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. With these samples, scientists can  detect spore concentrations before ASR is apparent on the plant. Positive  samples were found in most of the regions tested, including the Midwest  and the Northeast, where ASR was not apparent on the plant. USDA is using this information for research and plans to publish its findings in a  professional journal.
section_title: USDA’s Web-Based Information System Was Viewed Favorably, but Users Suggested Improvements
paragraphs: 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. The site allows growers and other  interested parties to go to a single location for real-time, county-level  information on the spread of the disease in soybean-producing states. The  Web site displays two maps of the United States. One map shows the  counties in which researchers scouted for ASR and did not find it (in green)  and counties in which ASR was confirmed (in red). Another map allows the  public to click on a state and obtain information on ASR management, such  as disease management, scouting results, growth stages, and forecast  outlook. In addition, the Web site provides a chronology of positive ASR  detection by date confirmed, county, and state; information on the spread  of ASR nationwide; and links to related Web sites.
USDA has also established a restricted Web site that has several access  levels for various users, such as state specialists, observers, researchers,  and selected industry representatives. Among other things, this site  presents information on observed and predicted disease severity and spore  deposition. The Web site is restricted to prevent unauthorized users from  entering erroneous data and to allow state specialists to share and assess  data before distributing information to the public. The information in this  restricted Web site then becomes the basis for the information on the  public Web site.
Officials in the soybean-producing states that we surveyed characterized  USDA’s Web sites (public and restricted) as useful to their states. However,  several officials provided suggestions for improvement. These suggestions  included making the Web sites easier to use, giving multiple officials within  each state access to update the Web sites, considering the needs of the  colorblind, providing better instructions to users, recognizing the efforts of  extension service personnel on the Web site, considering the needs of users  without high-speed Internet connections, and publicizing the Web sites to a  greater extent.
section_title: Decision Criteria for Fungicide Application Useful to Advisers and Soybean Growers in Responding to ASR
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Predictive Modeling Is a Work in Progress and Will Depend on Good Data in the Future
paragraphs: During the 2005 growing season, state specialists could obtain ASR  forecast information from various models, synthesize the information, and  use it to prepare state forecast outlooks for dissemination on USDA’s public  Web site. These models included one supported by USDA that predicted  the aerial spread of ASR spores from active source regions in the United  States to other soybean-growing areas; the results of this model were published on USDA’s restricted Web site. 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.
section_title: Outreach for Training, Education, and Information Dissemination Was Effective in 2005 and Is Planned to Continue in 2006
paragraphs: In preparation for the 2005 growing season, USDA and the 31  soybean-producing states we surveyed sponsored about 1,500  presentations, programs, and workshops on ASR. Officials in these states  reported that they planned to offer over 400 presentations, programs, and  workshops on ASR between November 1, 2005, and April 30, 2006.  According to the state officials we surveyed, the three most important  topics to include in these workshops are identification of ASR and  “look-alike” diseases, availability and use of fungicides, and observations  and results from 2005.
During the 2005 growing season, several other outreach efforts were also  conducted to help growers. For example:  Some states supported telephone hotlines that presented the latest  information on ASR, enabling growers using cellular phones to get  information when they were out in the fields.
The University of Kentucky created two ASR electronic mailing  lists—one that facilitated discussion and information sharing about ASR  among 137 industry, state, federal, and university officials and another  that facilitated communication among 108 individuals regarding the  soybean rust sentinel plot and surveillance network.
The American Phytopathological Society organized a symposium in  November 2005—attended by over 350 participants—to discuss ASR  and lessons learned during the past growing season.
Several states also displayed ASR information on their state Web sites.
section_title: 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
paragraphs: 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. 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. The current ASR national system will be  expanded to provide growers with information about additional legume  pests and diseases in 2006. SRIPMC and USDA recently signed a  cooperative agreement that will provide about $2.4 million to fund ASR monitoring, diagnostics, and communication efforts in 2006. 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.
section_title: EPA, USDA, and Others Have Made More Fungicides Available While Continuing to Develop Longer-Term Solutions
paragraphs: As of December 31, 2005, EPA had approved a total of 20 fungicide  products for treating ASR on soybeans, including 12 for which emergency  exemptions were granted. Officials in the nine states where ASR was  confirmed reported no problems in obtaining access to fungicide  application equipment. While officials in three of these states reported that  not all fungicide products were available to their growers, they did not  indicate that growers experienced fungicide shortages overall. To  determine which fungicides are the most effective under given conditions,  USDA and private companies also supported research efforts at  universities across the United States. For the longer term, USDA,  universities, and private companies are conducting research to develop  ASR-resistant or -tolerant soybeans but expect that these will not be  available commercially for 5 to 9 years.
subsections: section_title: EPA and USDA Worked Cooperatively to Make Multiple Fungicides Available in 2005
paragraphs: 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. Nine of  these products are curative, and 3 have both preventative and curative  properties.
As of November 2005, five additional fungicides for ASR were pending  approval for emergency exemption, and two others were pending full  registration.
EPA was able to act expeditiously, in part because, in July 2002, USDA and  EPA began discussing preparations for emergency exemptions and  working with private industry and state departments of agriculture to  prepare for ASR. They identified fungicides with known efficacy against  ASR and fungicides that needed additional testing to gain EPA approval.  During 2003, USDA’s Office of Pest Management Policy hosted several  teleconferences and meetings with researchers, EPA, and state officials to  discuss the development of emergency exemptions for soybeans and other  legumes. In November 2003, EPA suggested a procedure for states to follow  for requesting emergency exemptions. That is, although each state typically  submits a unique request to EPA for an emergency exemption, EPA allowed  Minnesota and South Dakota to prepare a joint request for treating ASR on  soybeans and allowed other states to copy this request. USDA also began  contacting states to offer help preparing requests for emergency  exemptions.
As a result of these preparations, when ASR was first confirmed in the  continental United States in November 2004, 26 states, representing 99  percent of the U.S. soybean acreage, had requested emergency exemptions  for fungicides to treat ASR, and 25 of these states had received at least one  emergency exemption. Furthermore, although emergency exemptions are  usually granted for a single year, EPA approved the exemptions for ASR  fungicides through November 2007, as quarantine emergency exemptions.  These exemptions may be authorized for up to 3 years in an emergency  condition to control the introduction or spread of any pest new to or not  known to be widely prevalent or distributed within and throughout the  United States. Consequently, in 2007, states will have to renew their  emergency status, with the support of the manufacturer; work to have  these fungicides registered; or use already registered fungicides. 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. According to state officials with whom  we spoke, the variety of fungicides available as a result of the exemption  process helped reduce the risk that ASR would become resistant to  fungicides and ensured that a supply of fungicides would be available to  growers.
In terms of the availability of application equipment and fungicides in 2005,  the officials we surveyed in the nine states where ASR was confirmed  reported no problems with access to equipment. Although officials in three  of these states indicated that their growers did not have access to all  fungicide products, none of the states reported that growers encountered  any shortages of fungicides to treat their crop. State, EPA, and USDA  officials cautioned that actual fungicide inventory and availability depends  largely on market forces outside their control. These officials also stated  that it is not possible to determine the sufficiency of fungicides and  equipment for 2006 because of uncertainties about (1) the timing and  potential spread of ASR into northern states, which do not generally apply  fungicides on soybeans and therefore may not have supplies and equipment  available and (2) the potential need in southern states for growers to use  fungicides and equipment for other major crops, such as peanuts, thereby  creating a shortage for use on soybeans.
section_title: USDA and Other Sponsors Have Supported Research Efforts to Determine the Most Effective Types of Fungicides and Application Methods
paragraphs: USDA began evaluating fungicide efficacy for ASR in 2001, 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. In addition, beginning in 2002, the agency began  contacting approximately 20 companies and trade organizations to  participate in efficacy trials for the registration of ASR fungicides at several  U.S. universities and international locations. Efficacy trials examine the  impact fungicides have on factors such as crop yield and disease severity  by testing the   effectiveness of fungicides under various spray conditions, such as  volume, pressure, and application frequency;  effectiveness of fungicides under different crop conditions, such as  maturity, row spacing, and plant varieties; and  impact of various application techniques and equipment on such things  as coverage and penetration of the crop canopy.
Figure 4 shows the application of fungicides at a trial in 2005.
Conducting trials at different locations allows researchers to study the  effectiveness of fungicides and application methods in different climates  and on different strains of ASR. EPA can use efficacy data from these trials  to evaluate fungicides for emergency exemptions. USDA started posting fungicide efficacy data, including some data from private companies, to a  USDA research Web site in 2003. 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.
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.
section_title: Rust-Resistant Soybeans Will Not Be Available to Growers for Several Years
paragraphs: Breeding commercial soybeans with resistance to or tolerance of ASR is  generally regarded as the best long-term solution for managing the disease;  and USDA, several universities, and private companies are currently  working to develop such soybeans. Breeding new varieties of soybeans and  making them commercially available takes time—up to 9 years—according  to USDA officials. The Agricultural Research Service has approximately  16,000 soybean lines in its soybean germplasm collection. 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. 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. 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, 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.
The Agricultural Research Service expects to have soybean germplasm  with some level of resistance to ASR within 5 years. It intends to work with  industry through cooperative research and development agreements and  other mechanisms to provide access to this germplasm so that private  companies can develop commercial soybeans with resistance or tolerance  to ASR. Commercialization may take an additional 2 to 4 years. According  to agency researchers, it is difficult to develop germplasm that is  completely resistant to all strains of ASR; and therefore, the most effective  approach for developing resistance will be to develop tolerant soybeans to  provide growers more time each season to prepare for and manage ASR.
The Agricultural Research Service is also conducting research to examine  the genetic variability among the various strains of ASR. The expected  outcomes of this project are to identify genes required for the infection  process and disease cycle, as well as the discovery of potential targets for  new fungicides. Both the Agricultural Research Service and the United  Soybean Board have supported this research, and the agency has also  worked with the Department of Energy’s Joint Genome Institute.
In April 2005, the Agricultural Research Service issued a National Strategic  Plan for the Coordination and Integration of Soybean Rust Research. It  began to develop this strategic plan at a meeting held in December 2004, 3  weeks after the disease was confirmed in the continental United States.  USDA, together with the United Soybean Board and the North Central  Soybean Research Program, held a national workshop with more than 90  soybean experts to set priorities, identify strategic goals for ASR research,  and develop a national research plan. This plan is linked to the agency’s  overall strategic plan and coordinated with other USDA agencies. The  research plan also promises project review and program assessment by  independent peers via annual research progress reports.
Of the research plan’s six strategic goals, three aim directly at developing  ASR resistance or tolerance:   develop new, high-yielding germplasm with resistance to soybean rust;   determine the genetic basis for ASR’s virulence and determine the  genetic basis for soybeans’ resistance to ASR; and  improve understanding of ASR’s biology and epidemiology.
The Agricultural Research Service has since developed a draft of an action  plan intended to measure the progress of the research plan initiative.
section_title: Conclusion
paragraphs: Effective, timely communication and coordination at the federal, state, and  local levels, coupled with favorable weather conditions, were keys to  limiting the impact of ASR on U.S. soybean production in 2005. Indeed, in  many areas of the country, soybean production exceeded expectations, in  part because producers were more attentive to their crop. While the  experience in 2005 was favorable, it is unlikely that the fungus will be  eliminated. Accordingly, it will still be important for all agricultural  stakeholders to remain vigilant and to consistently monitor, test, and report  on ASR and to develop models for predicting the spread of the disease.
Going forward, however, differences in how researchers monitor, test, and  report on the disease could detract from the value of future prediction  models.
The 2005 ASR experience also highlights the importance of preparing for,  coordinating, and monitoring a new agricultural disease. The lessons  learned from managing ASR could be valuable in minimizing the effects of  other agricultural pests that threaten crops and can cause significant  economic losses. In this regard, a clear plan of action and strong leadership  in coordinating the actions of all stakeholders was important in 2005 and  will continue to be critical to the success of efforts to monitor, report, and  manage the spread of ASR in 2006.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to USDA and EPA for their review and  comment. In oral comments, EPA told us that the factual information in our  draft report is correct and provided technical comments, which we  incorporated as appropriate. In written comments, USDA said that the  report fairly describes USDA’s preparations related to ASR. In addition, it  stated that both of the report’s recommendations reflect its ongoing  cooperative efforts with states to combat the disease (see app. VI). USDA  also provided a number of technical comments, which we incorporated as  appropriate.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the  appropriate committees; the Secretary of Agriculture; the Administrator of  EPA; and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at  no charge on the GAO Web site at 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.
section_title: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: To determine the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) strategy for  minimizing the effects of Asian Soybean Rust (ASR) now that the disease  has arrived in the continental United States and the lessons learned that  could be used to improve future efforts, we interviewed officials from  USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the  Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES),  the Agricultural Research Service, the Farm Service Agency (FSA), and the  Risk Management Agency (RMA) to identify efforts that have been  implemented since November 2004. We also surveyed state officials in the  31 soybean-producing states that were included in USDA’s sentinel plot  program to obtain information on their efforts to minimize the effects of  ASR through education, training, surveillance, and testing and to obtain  information about the lessons learned during the 2005 crop year. The  survey included questions about the states’ university extension programs;  sentinel plots, monitoring, and scouting; diagnostic screening and testing;  fungicide use; and perceptions of USDA’s efforts. Prior to implementing our  survey, we pretested the questionnaire with several state officials  (university extension faculty) in Florida and Alabama. During these  pretests, we interviewed the respondents to ensure that (1) the questions  were clear and unambiguous, (2) the terms we used were precise, and (3)  the survey did not place an undue burden on the staff completing it. The  questionnaire was also reviewed by a GAO survey expert. We made  changes to the questionnaire based on these pretests. We received  responses from all 31 states surveyed. The state information presented in  this report is based on information obtained from this survey and  interviews with state officials. Appendix II contains the state questionnaire  and aggregated responses. We conducted site visits to Alabama, Georgia,  and Florida, where we inspected ASR-infected soybeans while touring  sentinel plots, a fungicide efficacy trial, diagnostic facilities, and a  commercial soybean field with state extension officials. We interviewed  university extension faculty and laboratory diagnosticians in these states,  as well as in Indiana and Iowa, to gain more in-depth information about  their efforts to mitigate the effects of ASR and test for the disease. We also  toured USDA diagnostic facilities in Beltsville, Maryland. In addition, we  interviewed industry and trade representatives to discuss the adequacy of  available fungicides and application equipment. Finally, we attended the  November 2005 National Soybean Rust Symposium in Nashville, Tennessee  to determine stakeholders’ assessment of USDA’s efforts.
To determine the progress that USDA, the Environmental Protection  Agency (EPA), and others have made in developing, testing, and licensing  fungicides to treat ASR and in identifying and breeding ASR-resistant or  -tolerant soybeans, we interviewed officials from EPA and state  departments of agriculture to obtain information about their efforts to  license fungicides to treat ASR. In addition, we asked about the adequacy  of fungicide supplies and equipment when surveying the 31 soybean- producing states that were included in USDA’s sentinel plot program. We  interviewed Agricultural Research Service personnel as well as researchers  from academia and industry and reviewed related reports and studies  regarding efforts to research fungicide efficacy and identify and breed ASR- resistant or -tolerant soybeans. We also toured USDA research facilities at  Ft. Detrick, Maryland.
We conducted our work between May 2005 and January 2006 in accordance  with generally accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: Results of GAO’s Survey of Soybean- Producing States
paragraphs: 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.  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.)
Yes   How many?
Uncertain   Go to Q3 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’  or  ’Will likely not be included’  for each topic.) a. b.
Identification of ASR and “look-alike”  diseases Types and purposes of fungicides  c. d. f.
Insurance coverage or disaster funding for losses due to ASR g. Observations and results from 2005,  “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.)
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.  3. How many USDA-sponsored sentinel plots were in  3a. How many of these plots used only soybeans as  the host? (Enter 0 if none.) 3b. How many of these plots used only other  (nonsoybean) plants as hosts?  (Enter 0 if  3c.
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.
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.) 4b. How many of these plots used only other  (nonsoybean) plants as hosts?  (Enter 0 if  none.)
4c.
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.
Other-sponsored plots are funded or sponsored by state government, the North Central Soybean Research Program, the United Soybean Board, or by other grants.
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.)
Hrs./Wk. a. Field-based extension or research personnel b. Campus-based extension or research personnel c. Private, independent crop consultants d. State Department of Agriculture personnel  e. Agribusiness employees or consultants h. Other(s) (Please specify below.)
Three states listed other responses, including master gardeners, students, retired  extension specialists, and temporary employees. 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 More than 2005 9. In your opinion, how effective was the sentinel plot monitoring program as an early warning system in your state? (Please check one.) f. Not applicable  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  b. Supported research to quantify spore  c. Provided data for epidemiological d. Provided information to guide  e. Other  (Please describe below.) 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.) a.
Insufficient funds to cover salaries of  monitors b.
Insufficient funds for travel and travel-related expenses  c.
Insufficient number of qualified  personnel available d. Lack of mobile diagnostic equipment e.
Two states listed timeliness of receiving funds and another listed the need to hire a  plant pathologist to test samples.  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 USDA- sponsored sentinel plots? (Enter 0 if none.)
12b.
How many of these plots will be sponsored through other sources? (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.
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.  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  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. 14. About how often did your state typically update the USDA Soybean Rust Web sites  with monitoring data? (Please check one in each column.) (Password Protected)
Part 3:  Diagnostic Screening  Someone knowledgeable about your state’s diagnostic screening for ASR should  answer Questions 15 – 23.  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.) 15a. How many of these samples were  submitted for routine research or monitoring purposes? (Enter 0 if none.) 15b.
How many of these samples were  submitted because of suspected ASR? (Enter 0 if none.)
Rows 15a, 15b, and 15c should add up to the total number above.
15c.
Rows 15e-1, 15e-2, 15e-3 and 15e-4 should add up to  the number of samples in 15b, above.
ELISA 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  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.) 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.)
How much was offset? 18. Did your state have sufficient funding to perform diagnostic screening and testing  for ASR in 2005?  (Please check one.)
No 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.) 20. Was the number of laboratory staff sufficient to perform diagnostic testing for  ASR in 2005? (Please check one.) 21. Will the number of laboratory staff planned for 2006 be the same as for 2005?  (Please check one.)
What 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.  23. Does your state plan to add laboratory equipment for screening or diagnostic testing for ASR in 2006?  (Please check one.)
What 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 Someone knowledgeable about fungicide application in your state should  answer Questions 24 - 28.  24. From January 1, 2005, through October 31, 2005 was ASR confirmed in your  state?  (Please check one.)
No Go to Question 27.  26. Were the suggestion(s) or recommendation(s) for applying fungicides posted on  USDA’s Soybean Rust Web sites? (Please check one.) 27. Were there any problems involving equipment availability for ASR fungicide  spraying in your state? (Please check one.)
Yes 28. Were there any problems involving the availability of fungicides for ASR in your  state? (Please check one.)
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.
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.  29. In your opinion, how effective were USDA’s efforts to minimize the  impact of ASR? (Please check one.) f.
Uncertain 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. 31. In your opinion, how effective was communication between USDA and your state in addressing ASR during 2005? (Please check one.) c. d. e. f.
Uncertain 32. In your opinion, to what extent were USDA’s Soybean Rust Web sites  useful to your state?  (Please check one in each column.) (Password Protected) a. Very great extent e. Little or no extent 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.
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.
section_title: 2005 Sentinel Plots and Soybean Acreage
section_title: Progression of ASR during the 2005 Growing Season
paragraphs: The yer' firt confirmtion of ASR occrred  in Florid.
ASR was firt confirmed in Georgi.
ASR was firt confirmed in Alaba.
ASR was firt confirmed in Missssippi.
ASR was firt confirmed in Sth Crolin.
The last conty confirmtion of ASR for the  month of Septemer occrred in Georgi.
ASR was firt confirmed in Lo nd  North Crolin.
The yer'ast confirmtion of ASR occred in  Alaba. Thihow the firt  confirmtion of ASR in Texas nd Kentcky,  which occrred in Novemer.
section_title: Comments from the U.S. Department of Agriculture
section_title: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Agriculture Production: USDA’s Preparation for Asian Soybean Rust.  GAO-05-668R. Washington, D.C.: May 17, 2005.