PESTICIDES/FERTILIZERS: Pesticide R&D Update

Within the walls of pesticide manufacturers’ labs, armies of regulatory experts and chemists are at work researching new active ingredients and formulating pesticides. The success of their products – and whether or not you, the lawn care operator, will ever apply them – is determined by the thumbs up or thumbs down from an Environmental Protection Agency review. 

“All companies, I think it can be said, are looking for those products that have profiles in toxicology, ecotoxicology, environmental dissipation and product efficacy that are positively received through an EPA review,” says Kathie Kalmowitz, field development and technical specialty for BASF Professional Turf and Ornamentals, Raleigh, N.C.

Manufacturers estimate that it takes more than a decade of research and upward of $150 million to bring a turf and ornamental active ingredient to market.
 
A product’s ability to pass the EPA’s stringent review is the single most important factor that determines how pesticides are formulated and which ones are brought to market today. 
 
Re-registration is another concern for pesticide makers. In 2006, the EPA enacted its new registration review process, which replaces the pesticide re-registration and tolerance reassessment programs. The new registration review ensures that, as changes in science, public policy and the ability to assess risk evolve, all registered pesticides continue to meet the EPA standards of “no unreasonable adverse effects.”
 
“In the regulatory area we continue to see products that have been usable or allowed in lawn and landscape to be looked at through the re-registration process – and there’s a potential to lose products as we go forward,” says Dave Ross, technical manager, Syngenta Lawn & Garden, Greensboro, N.C. “On the other hand, it may allow registration for products that have been taken away to come back.”
 
The EPA registration review and other regulatory processes instituted by federal or state agencies has sparked research and development, says Jamie Breuninger, product technology leader, U.S. Specialties Division, Dow AgroSciences, Indianapolis. For example, Dow voluntarily withdrew the label for the use of Confront, a herbicide containing the active ingredient clopyralid, which motivated researchers within the company to develop new use patterns for existing active ingredients such as fluroxypyr.
 
Add to EPA pressures a growing customer appeal for efficiency-creating products, and you get demand for pesticides that do more with less. That is: better efficacy, less potential for an environmental impact.

LOWER AND NARROW. Today’s pesticides that meet EPA standards use a lower rate of active ingredient per acre than similar chemistry in the past and target a narrower pest spectrum than an older chemistry used for similar pest species, manufacturers say.
 
Due to scientific advancements in how new chemistries are discovered and synthesized to isolate their most active components, lower rates of active ingredients are necessary because of how biologically highly active a chemistry is on the target species.
 
“Sometimes you can deliver more efficiently with less active, which creates less exposure to the end user and environment,” Kalmowitz says.“The end result of lower rate products is that less formulated product has to go into the environment. This used to be referred to as ‘pounds on the ground,’ but is now applied as ‘ounces on the ground.’”
 
Another shift is toward narrower-spectrum products, notes Bill Brocker, vice president of marketing for PBI/Gordon, Kansas City, Mo. “Instead of the broad-based approach – a product trying to control everything – it’ll be products tailored to cover a small range, a very hard-to-control insect or weed.”
 
In addition to increasing efficacy, one factor contributing to a shift toward narrower-spectrum products is basic manufacturers’ competition from the generic suppliers. See “A Shift Among Suppliers” on page 106). Narrow-spectrum products may be part of a basic manufacturer’s patent-protection strategy, Kalmowitz says. “The tighter your product patent – active plus formulation – the better chance you have in defense with generic introduction many years down the road.”

COOL COMBOS. One trend spurred by active ingredients coming off patent and manufacturers creating narrower spectrum products is the advent of combination products – those that include at least two modes of action on one or more pests or species at different life stages. These may include both above surface and below surface insecticides, preemergent and postemergent herbicides or a variety of fungicides.
 
As more active ingredients come off patent, more combination products will enter the market, pesticide suppliers predict.
 
“Combining post-patent products is something that a lot of basic companies are looking at,” Breuninger says, noting the trend is more prevalent in Europe, but is gaining popularity in the United States. “The first option is to look internally, and if you can’t access it there, then you go externally. If both companies see value in the product, they’ll work together.”
 
One such partnership is the 2004 agreement between Bayer, Research Triangle Park, N.C., and Phildelphia-based FMC to bring a number of products to the turf and ornamental market. The alliance created the insecticide Allectus, which combines imidacloprid and bifenthrin and is aimed at controlling insects that thrive both above and below the surface. Also, Bayer announced in June that it acquired rights to FMC’s insecticide discovery pipeline, which enables Bayer the ability to discover and commercialize new insecticidal compounds. In return, FMC will receive royalty and milestone payments and access to certain Bayer CropScience products for premixes with FMC products.
 
Premixed formulations are advantageous because LCOs constantly search for labor savings. Various combinations pairing either fertilizers, insecticides, herbicides or fungicides are on the market. “Those will save the LCOs time and allow them to accomplish more in one trip,” says Steve Stansell, lawn, landscape and aquatics market manager for Syngenta Lawn & Garden. “It’s a broader spectrum that gives the LCO a unique tool to be more efficient and effective.”
 
Combinations in the granular form are particularly becoming more prevalent. LCOs already have the ability to create their own liquid combinations by tank mixing products, but they don’t have that luxury when using granulars. In addition to saving time by reducing the number of applications, granular combination products eliminate the risk of tank mix errors, compatibility issues and related chemical interaction risks.
 
Granular pesticides combined with fertilizers, which have been around for years, also remain popular because they save LCOs time.
 
“They’re a really nice delivery system for fertilizing and putting down a controlling product at once,” Breuninger says. In addition, some suppliers report research and development of combination products that combat up to three lawn problems – for example an insecticide-herbicide-fertilizer combination.

ODOR EATERS. Another pesticide research and development focus is an ever-increasing concentration on safety and factors that affect the perception of safety, like odor. “The more regulated the landscape continues to become, the more focus there is around the safety of the applicator and the people that are in contact with the pesticides,” says Tim Stoehr, NuFarm’s director of U.S. marketing and business development, Burr Ridge, Ill.
 
“People are looking for high-performance products, but they want products that have lower toxicity and less of an environmental footprint,” says Mike McDermott, global business leader, DuPont Professional Products, Wilmington, Del.
 
A focus on safety and exposure has driven research toward creating low-odor formulations, which benefits the applicator as well as property owners and their neighbors. “Odor is becoming a bigger issue,” Breuninger says.
 
“Lawn care services don’t want extremely pungent odor lingering for days,” Stoehr explains. As LCOs and their clients continue to request odorless pesticides, Breuninger says the decreasing use of solvents (fluids used to dissolve the active ingredient), will create a shift toward water-based formulations, especially in emulsifiable concentrates (ECs)
 
“Solvents in ECs may go away more as the demand for less odor continues,” he says. “If you develop new liquids that don’t have as much solvent, you get around the issue of phytotoxicity and odor.”
 
A new rule has come into play as the market requests low-odor products, Kalmowitz adds: “Most newer formulations developed for the landscape, ornamental and turf markets are generally not solvent-based.”
 
FORMULATION FADS. Although preferences often vary from region to region and LCOs praise liquid products for being easy to measure on the fly, environmental sensitivity is driving a movement toward granular products, pesticide suppliers say.
 
“If you remember what the industry was like 20 years ago, it was mostly lawn care tanker trucks,” Brocker says. “That’s not what it is today.” He says cost and customer perceptions have contributed to the shift toward granular products.
 
Although granular products may be more costly to ship and use when applied on a 1,000-square-foot basis, the equipment needed for a granular application (a spreader) tends to be less expensive than tank trucks and backpack sprayers. Also, the public’s perception plays a part. “Neighbors watching someone spread a granular product on the lawn doesn’t create the same image a spray tank does,” Brocker points out. “In some areas spreading is a more acceptable way of application.”
 
When LCOs do opt for liquids, suppliers say they increasingly prefer easy-to-mix concentrates over powders or water-dispersible granules. “Lawn and landscape professionals who prefer liquid formulations usually prefer water-based or improved dispersible granule formulations because they will carry less odor and tend to have less impact on the spray equipment,” says Paul McDonough, channel vice president, lawn and landscape sales for LESCO, Cleveland.
“These aqueous formulations create less clogging and settling and come out of the sprayers cleaner than the oil- or powder-based formulations generally do, so I think we’ll see more of those products coming down the line.”
 
Whether you’re talking about formulation type or packaging, it’s all about ease of use. “It seems that LCOs like to use containers that are graduated, offering pre-measured dosing for simple addition into a mix tank with only the requirement of slight agitation and then spray and go,” says Nick Hamon, director of technical development for Bayer.
 
Water-soluable packs, though not brand new to the market, remain
popular because they’re easy to measure and limit applicator exposure, Breuninger says.

LOOKING AHEAD. Although fewer active ingredients are in the pipeline than once were, the marketplace remains a competitive one.
 
Back in the manufacturers’ R&D labs, tight-lipped researchers test products LCOs dream of (see “Pesticide Wish List,” at right) and some beyond their wildest imaginations.
 
Complex combinations, time-release technology, perfected packaging and biotechnology are under the microscope – both the manufacturers’ and, someday soon, the EPA’s.
 
“There will continue to be more regulatory pressure and more legislation related to pesticides, both at the federal as well as the state and local level,”
McDermott says. “And it’s up to the manufacturers to come up with products that will meet regulatory mandates as well as their customers’ demands.”

EDITOR’S NOTE: The inclusion or omission of active ingredient or product brand mentions in this article should not be considered endorsements or exclusions by Lawn & Landscape.