Agriculture Production: USDA Needs to Build on 2005 Experience to Minimize the Effects of Asian Soybean Rust in the Future
Released: 2006-03-21T00:00:00

Letter

Background

ASR, a disease caused by the fungus Phakopsora pachyrhizi, requires living host cells to survive. It can infect over 90 host species of legumes, such as kidney beans, chickpeas, and kudzu. When ASR infects soybeans, it causes the plants to lose their leaves prematurely, which reduces the size and number of the beans. In areas where the disease commonly occurs, up to 80 percent yield losses have been reported.

Environmental factors are critical to the incidence and severity of ASR. Long periods of leaf wetness, high humidity, and temperatures between 60 and 80 degrees Fahrenheit are ideal for spore germination. About 7 days after plants are infected with ASR, small brown spots surrounded by yellow rings appear on the leaf’s upper surface (stage 1). Within 10 days, pustules form in the spots, primarily on the undersides of the leaves (stage 2). These pustules have raised centers that eventually break open to reveal masses of fungal spores, called urediniospores (stage 3). Pustules can produce urediniospores for about 3 weeks. When the wind blows, the spores are dispersed, spreading the infection to other fields. Once windborne, the spores can reportedly travel hundreds of miles within a single day. Figure 1 shows the progression of infection on a soybean plant.

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.

2005 ASR Efforts Showed Benefits of a National Coordination Strategy and Highlight the Importance of Consistent Data and Strong Leadership

USDA’s development and implementation of a coordinated framework was instrumental in providing an effective response to ASR on soybeans in 2005. The framework includes (1) a surveillance and monitoring network, (2) a Web-based information system, (3) decision criteria for fungicide application, (4) predictive modeling, and (5) outreach for training, education, and information dissemination. The goal of the framework was to provide stakeholders with effective decision support for managing soybean rust during the 2005 growing season, and USDA was generally successful in doing so. However, inconsistencies in how researchers monitor, test, and report on the disease could lead to incomplete or inaccurate data and detract from the value of future prediction models. Furthermore, the success of the 2005 framework was due in part to the leadership of senior USDA officials, who were able to mount a national campaign. The transfer of operational responsibilities to a land grant university, under the direction of USDA, raises concerns about the department’s ability to maintain the level of coordination, cooperation, and national priority that was achieved in 2005 to address ASR.

The Surveillance and Monitoring Network Was Generally Implemented Effectively, but Inconsistencies Could Impair Future Predictive Efforts

The early detection of ASR through the sentinel plot network—one of the key components of the surveillance and monitoring program—was effective, according to officials in 23 of the 25 states we surveyed. 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.

USDA’s Web-Based Information System Was Viewed Favorably, but Users Suggested Improvements

As a means to share information among all interested parties, in March 2005, USDA activated the public ASR information Web site, which provided disease observations, management recommendations, and scouting information, among other things. The site allows growers and other interested parties to go to a single location for real-time, county-level information on the spread of the disease in soybean-producing states. The Web site displays two maps of the United States. One map shows the counties in which researchers scouted for ASR and did not find it (in green) and counties in which ASR was confirmed (in red). Another map allows the public to click on a state and obtain information on ASR management, such as disease management, scouting results, growth stages, and forecast outlook. In addition, the Web site provides a chronology of positive ASR detection by date confirmed, county, and state; information on the spread of ASR nationwide; and links to related Web sites.

USDA has also established a restricted Web site that has several access levels for various users, such as state specialists, observers, researchers, and selected industry representatives. Among other things, this site presents information on observed and predicted disease severity and spore deposition. The Web site is restricted to prevent unauthorized users from entering erroneous data and to allow state specialists to share and assess data before distributing information to the public. The information in this restricted Web site then becomes the basis for the information on the public Web site.

Officials in the soybean-producing states that we surveyed characterized USDA’s Web sites (public and restricted) as useful to their states. However, several officials provided suggestions for improvement. These suggestions included making the Web sites easier to use, giving multiple officials within each state access to update the Web sites, considering the needs of the colorblind, providing better instructions to users, recognizing the efforts of extension service personnel on the Web site, considering the needs of users without high-speed Internet connections, and publicizing the Web sites to a greater extent.

Decision Criteria for Fungicide Application Useful to Advisers and Soybean Growers in Responding to ASR

To educate and assist growers and extension personnel in making decisions regarding the use of fungicides to combat ASR, state land grant university extension specialists and USDA developed a fungicide guide. The April 2005 ASR fungicide manual—Using Foliar Fungicides to Manage Soybean Rust—was developed under a USDA grant by state extension and scientists at 22 U.S. universities, USDA, and the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food. It was widely available to state officials, growers, and other stakeholders. The manual provides basic fungicide information, such as the chemistry involved and the brand names of different products, as well as information on factors involved in making fungicide spray decisions, including whether to use a preventative or curative fungicide, and how and when to apply the fungicide. Over 150,000 copies of the manual were distributed during 2005. In addition, extension officials in the states we visited commented that the manual was very useful to growers in deciding when and how to apply fungicides during the 2005 crop season. Using information from USDA’s Web site and the ASR fungicide manual, extension service offices in five states where ASR was confirmed suggested that some growers apply fungicides for ASR at least once during the 2005 growing season.

Predictive Modeling Is a Work in Progress and Will Depend on Good Data in the Future

During the 2005 growing season, state specialists could obtain ASR forecast information from various models, synthesize the information, and use it to prepare state forecast outlooks for dissemination on USDA’s public Web site. These models included one supported by USDA that predicted the aerial spread of ASR spores from active source regions in the United States to other soybean-growing areas; the results of this model were published on USDA’s restricted Web site. Other ASR prediction models available during 2005 included one from the North American Disease Forecast Center at North Carolina State University and another developed by researchers at Iowa State University. These models depend in large part on timely and consistent data from the states’ observations and diagnostic testing results.

According to researchers who used the models, ASR prediction models tended to overstate the spread of ASR in 2005. However, this was the first full year that ASR was in the United States and it generally takes several years to calibrate and validate models like these. One researcher has proposed that USDA use an “ensemble approach” to predict the spread of ASR in 2006—that is, using forecast information from several ASR models in predicting the spread of ASR. Regardless of which models are used, inconsistencies in defining or designating sentinel plots, in diagnosing ASR, and hence in reporting the results to the Web site could affect the development of predictive models and ultimately could determine the difference between detecting ASR early, when it is most easily treated, or delaying detection until ASR is well established.

Outreach for Training, Education, and Information Dissemination Was Effective in 2005 and Is Planned to Continue in 2006

In preparation for the 2005 growing season, USDA and the 31 soybean-producing states we surveyed sponsored about 1,500 presentations, programs, and workshops on ASR. Officials in these states reported that they planned to offer over 400 presentations, programs, and workshops on ASR between November 1, 2005, and April 30, 2006. According to the state officials we surveyed, the three most important topics to include in these workshops are identification of ASR and “look-alike” diseases, availability and use of fungicides, and observations and results from 2005.

During the 2005 growing season, several other outreach efforts were also conducted to help growers. For example: Some states supported telephone hotlines that presented the latest information on ASR, enabling growers using cellular phones to get information when they were out in the fields.

The University of Kentucky created two ASR electronic mailing lists—one that facilitated discussion and information sharing about ASR among 137 industry, state, federal, and university officials and another that facilitated communication among 108 individuals regarding the soybean rust sentinel plot and surveillance network.

The American Phytopathological Society organized a symposium in November 2005—attended by over 350 participants—to discuss ASR and lessons learned during the past growing season.

Several states also displayed ASR information on their state Web sites.

Lack of an Action Plan Describing How Leadership Responsibilities Will Be Assumed and Managed in 2006 Raises Concerns About a Sustained National Effort for ASR

The national effort for ASR during the 2005 growing season was directed by senior APHIS headquarters officials, who coordinated the federal, state, and industry effort to develop the framework. Before and during the growing season, they conducted regular meetings with state specialists. According to a representative of the American Soybean Association, soybean growers were pleased with the central, coordinated effort led by APHIS to fight against ASR. In addition, 30 of the officials in the states we surveyed reported that communication was effective between their state and USDA in addressing ASR during 2005.

APHIS has been involved in preparing for ASR because of its responsibility to protect the nation from the introduction of foreign plant pests. However, now that ASR is in the United States, CSREES is responsible for managing efforts to minimize its effects. 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.

EPA, USDA, and Others Have Made More Fungicides Available While Continuing to Develop Longer-Term Solutions

As of December 31, 2005, EPA had approved a total of 20 fungicide products for treating ASR on soybeans, including 12 for which emergency exemptions were granted. Officials in the nine states where ASR was confirmed reported no problems in obtaining access to fungicide application equipment. While officials in three of these states reported that not all fungicide products were available to their growers, they did not indicate that growers experienced fungicide shortages overall. To determine which fungicides are the most effective under given conditions, USDA and private companies also supported research efforts at universities across the United States. For the longer term, USDA, universities, and private companies are conducting research to develop ASR-resistant or -tolerant soybeans but expect that these will not be available commercially for 5 to 9 years.

EPA and USDA Worked Cooperatively to Make Multiple Fungicides Available in 2005

Efforts to ensure that fungicides would be approved for treating ASR on soybeans have been under way for some time. (See app. IV for a complete list of approved fungicides.) Before March 2004, 4 fungicides had been registered for preventing ASR on soybeans. However, between March 2004 and June 2005, EPA approved another 16 fungicides—all in time for application during the 2005 growing season. These fungicides included the following: 4 registered fungicides that are preventative; and 12 fungicides for which emergency exemptions were granted. 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.

USDA and Other Sponsors Have Supported Research Efforts to Determine the Most Effective Types of Fungicides and Application Methods

USDA began evaluating fungicide efficacy for ASR in 2001, 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.

Rust-Resistant Soybeans Will Not Be Available to Growers for Several Years

Breeding commercial soybeans with resistance to or tolerance of ASR is generally regarded as the best long-term solution for managing the disease; and USDA, several universities, and private companies are currently working to develop such soybeans. Breeding new varieties of soybeans and making them commercially available takes time—up to 9 years—according to USDA officials. The Agricultural Research Service has approximately 16,000 soybean lines in its soybean germplasm collection. 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.

Conclusion

Effective, timely communication and coordination at the federal, state, and local levels, coupled with favorable weather conditions, were keys to limiting the impact of ASR on U.S. soybean production in 2005. Indeed, in many areas of the country, soybean production exceeded expectations, in part because producers were more attentive to their crop. While the experience in 2005 was favorable, it is unlikely that the fungus will be eliminated. Accordingly, it will still be important for all agricultural stakeholders to remain vigilant and to consistently monitor, test, and report on ASR and to develop models for predicting the spread of the disease.

Going forward, however, differences in how researchers monitor, test, and report on the disease could detract from the value of future prediction models.

The 2005 ASR experience also highlights the importance of preparing for, coordinating, and monitoring a new agricultural disease. The lessons learned from managing ASR could be valuable in minimizing the effects of other agricultural pests that threaten crops and can cause significant economic losses. In this regard, a clear plan of action and strong leadership in coordinating the actions of all stakeholders was important in 2005 and will continue to be critical to the success of efforts to monitor, report, and manage the spread of ASR in 2006.

Recommendations for Executive Action

We are making two recommendations to the Secretary of Agriculture to ensure continued strong leadership and improved efforts to predict and limit the spread of ASR.

To ensure reliable, quality reporting on the spread of the disease, USDA should provide additional guidance to state ASR program managers and monitors on the timing and frequency of reporting on the incidence of ASR, the designation of sentinel plots, and when to use advanced diagnostic testing.

To ensure that ASR continues to receive national priority and the same level of effective coordination and cooperation evidenced in 2005, USDA should develop a detailed action plan, prior to the beginning of the growing season, describing how it will manage ASR in 2006.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report to USDA and EPA for their review and comment. In oral comments, EPA told us that the factual information in our draft report is correct and provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. In written comments, USDA said that the report fairly describes USDA’s preparations related to ASR. In addition, it stated that both of the report’s recommendations reflect its ongoing cooperative efforts with states to combat the disease (see app. VI). USDA also provided a number of technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the appropriate committees; the Secretary of Agriculture; the Administrator of EPA; and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at 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.

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

To determine the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) strategy for minimizing the effects of Asian Soybean Rust (ASR) now that the disease has arrived in the continental United States and the lessons learned that could be used to improve future efforts, we interviewed officials from USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES), the Agricultural Research Service, the Farm Service Agency (FSA), and the Risk Management Agency (RMA) to identify efforts that have been implemented since November 2004. We also surveyed state officials in the 31 soybean-producing states that were included in USDA’s sentinel plot program to obtain information on their efforts to minimize the effects of ASR through education, training, surveillance, and testing and to obtain information about the lessons learned during the 2005 crop year. The survey included questions about the states’ university extension programs; sentinel plots, monitoring, and scouting; diagnostic screening and testing; fungicide use; and perceptions of USDA’s efforts. Prior to implementing our survey, we pretested the questionnaire with several state officials (university extension faculty) in Florida and Alabama. During these pretests, we interviewed the respondents to ensure that (1) the questions were clear and unambiguous, (2) the terms we used were precise, and (3) the survey did not place an undue burden on the staff completing it. The questionnaire was also reviewed by a GAO survey expert. We made changes to the questionnaire based on these pretests. We received responses from all 31 states surveyed. The state information presented in this report is based on information obtained from this survey and interviews with state officials. Appendix II contains the state questionnaire and aggregated responses. We conducted site visits to Alabama, Georgia, and Florida, where we inspected ASR-infected soybeans while touring sentinel plots, a fungicide efficacy trial, diagnostic facilities, and a commercial soybean field with state extension officials. We interviewed university extension faculty and laboratory diagnosticians in these states, as well as in Indiana and Iowa, to gain more in-depth information about their efforts to mitigate the effects of ASR and test for the disease. We also toured USDA diagnostic facilities in Beltsville, Maryland. In addition, we interviewed industry and trade representatives to discuss the adequacy of available fungicides and application equipment. Finally, we attended the November 2005 National Soybean Rust Symposium in Nashville, Tennessee to determine stakeholders’ assessment of USDA’s efforts.

To determine the progress that USDA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and others have made in developing, testing, and licensing fungicides to treat ASR and in identifying and breeding ASR-resistant or -tolerant soybeans, we interviewed officials from EPA and state departments of agriculture to obtain information about their efforts to license fungicides to treat ASR. In addition, we asked about the adequacy of fungicide supplies and equipment when surveying the 31 soybean- producing states that were included in USDA’s sentinel plot program. We interviewed Agricultural Research Service personnel as well as researchers from academia and industry and reviewed related reports and studies regarding efforts to research fungicide efficacy and identify and breed ASR- resistant or -tolerant soybeans. We also toured USDA research facilities at Ft. Detrick, Maryland.

We conducted our work between May 2005 and January 2006 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Results of GAO’s Survey of Soybean- Producing States

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.

2005 Sentinel Plots and Soybean Acreage

Progression of ASR during the 2005 Growing Season

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.

Comments from the U.S. Department of Agriculture

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Ronald E. Maxon, Jr., Assistant Director; James L. Dishmon, Jr.; Chad M. Gorman; Lynn M. Musser; Deborah S. Ortega; Paul J. Pansini; Carol Herrnstadt Shulman; and Amy E. Webbink made key contributions to this report.

Related GAO Products

Agriculture Production: USDA’s Preparation for Asian Soybean Rust. GAO-05-668R. Washington, D.C.: May 17, 2005.