[go: up one dir, main page]

WO2024201100A1 - Formulation pour la lutte biologique contre des insectes ravageurs de stocks de grains - Google Patents

Formulation pour la lutte biologique contre des insectes ravageurs de stocks de grains Download PDF

Info

Publication number
WO2024201100A1
WO2024201100A1 PCT/IB2023/053035 IB2023053035W WO2024201100A1 WO 2024201100 A1 WO2024201100 A1 WO 2024201100A1 IB 2023053035 W IB2023053035 W IB 2023053035W WO 2024201100 A1 WO2024201100 A1 WO 2024201100A1
Authority
WO
WIPO (PCT)
Prior art keywords
formulation
control
ppm
azadirachtin
spinosad
Prior art date
Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
Pending
Application number
PCT/IB2023/053035
Other languages
English (en)
Spanish (es)
Inventor
Adrian Abel Ranzuglia
Current Assignee (The listed assignees may be inaccurate. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy of the list.)
Individual
Original Assignee
Individual
Priority date (The priority date is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the date listed.)
Filing date
Publication date
Application filed by Individual filed Critical Individual
Priority to PCT/IB2023/053035 priority Critical patent/WO2024201100A1/fr
Publication of WO2024201100A1 publication Critical patent/WO2024201100A1/fr
Anticipated expiration legal-status Critical
Pending legal-status Critical Current

Links

Classifications

    • A—HUMAN NECESSITIES
    • A01—AGRICULTURE; FORESTRY; ANIMAL HUSBANDRY; HUNTING; TRAPPING; FISHING
    • A01N—PRESERVATION OF BODIES OF HUMANS OR ANIMALS OR PLANTS OR PARTS THEREOF; BIOCIDES, e.g. AS DISINFECTANTS, AS PESTICIDES OR AS HERBICIDES; PEST REPELLANTS OR ATTRACTANTS; PLANT GROWTH REGULATORS
    • A01N25/00—Biocides, pest repellants or attractants, or plant growth regulators, characterised by their forms, or by their non-active ingredients or by their methods of application, e.g. seed treatment or sequential application; Substances for reducing the noxious effect of the active ingredients to organisms other than pests
    • A01N25/12—Powders or granules
    • A—HUMAN NECESSITIES
    • A01—AGRICULTURE; FORESTRY; ANIMAL HUSBANDRY; HUNTING; TRAPPING; FISHING
    • A01N—PRESERVATION OF BODIES OF HUMANS OR ANIMALS OR PLANTS OR PARTS THEREOF; BIOCIDES, e.g. AS DISINFECTANTS, AS PESTICIDES OR AS HERBICIDES; PEST REPELLANTS OR ATTRACTANTS; PLANT GROWTH REGULATORS
    • A01N43/00—Biocides, pest repellants or attractants, or plant growth regulators containing heterocyclic compounds
    • A01N43/02—Biocides, pest repellants or attractants, or plant growth regulators containing heterocyclic compounds having rings with one or more oxygen or sulfur atoms as the only ring hetero atoms
    • A01N43/04—Biocides, pest repellants or attractants, or plant growth regulators containing heterocyclic compounds having rings with one or more oxygen or sulfur atoms as the only ring hetero atoms with one hetero atom
    • A01N43/22—Biocides, pest repellants or attractants, or plant growth regulators containing heterocyclic compounds having rings with one or more oxygen or sulfur atoms as the only ring hetero atoms with one hetero atom rings with more than six members
    • A—HUMAN NECESSITIES
    • A01—AGRICULTURE; FORESTRY; ANIMAL HUSBANDRY; HUNTING; TRAPPING; FISHING
    • A01N—PRESERVATION OF BODIES OF HUMANS OR ANIMALS OR PLANTS OR PARTS THEREOF; BIOCIDES, e.g. AS DISINFECTANTS, AS PESTICIDES OR AS HERBICIDES; PEST REPELLANTS OR ATTRACTANTS; PLANT GROWTH REGULATORS
    • A01N43/00—Biocides, pest repellants or attractants, or plant growth regulators containing heterocyclic compounds
    • A01N43/90—Biocides, pest repellants or attractants, or plant growth regulators containing heterocyclic compounds having two or more relevant hetero rings, condensed among themselves or with a common carbocyclic ring system

Definitions

  • the main object of this invention patent is a new formulation developed exclusively for biological control of insect pests in grain storage.
  • this new formulation with insecticidal, weevil-killing and acachocidal action is used for the biological control of insects of primary and secondary infestation (both in larval and adult stages) and mites, in the storage of grains in general, oilseeds, legumes and organic grains in general.
  • Biocarrier consists of a solid substrate, rich in proteins, sugars and carbohydrates, which acts as a food attractant (kairomone), which incorporates the active ingredient(s) of the biological insecticide. These active ingredients are obtained by extractive, fermentative or biotechnological processes.
  • Grain storage arises as a consequence of the randomness and seasonality of agricultural production.
  • the objective of grain storage is to preserve it for more or less prolonged periods of time, without deteriorating in quality or safety, as it was harvested. Direct consumption and industrialization depend on the preservation of its quality during transport and storage.
  • Quality deteriorations are related to properties such as percentage of protein, starch, oil, baking quality, percentage of damaged grains and nutritional value, among others.
  • Insect pests of stored grains cause direct damage by consuming dry matter and losing commercial quality (chopped grain, contamination, objectionable odor, etc.), and indirect damage, such as heating of the grain, moisture migration, fungal development and mycotoxin formation.
  • the species of insects and mites that attack cereal and oilseed grains are numerous and are divided into primary infestation pests and secondary infestation pests.
  • Primary infestation species attack whole, healthy grain, either while the crop is standing or when the grain is stored. In general, they develop most of their biological cycle inside the grain and the adult insect leaves the chopped grain when it emerges.
  • Secondary infestation species attack broken grains or grains that have previously been damaged by primary infestation pests. They also affect the products obtained from grain milling.
  • Stored grains can become infested with insects through three main pathways:
  • Infestation in the field Infestation begins in the field, prior to harvest. They are transported to storage as adults along with the grain and/or as eggs or larvae inside the grain. In the latter case, the infestation is difficult to detect in sampling and analysis upon receipt at the plant.
  • Grain infestation comes from insect populations that remain in the storage facilities feeding on bulk residues that have not been properly removed with sanitation and cleaning practices.
  • Migratory infestation This comes from flying insects, both primary or secondary infestation, as well as light insects and mites, which reach the bulk transported by the wind, from the vicinity of the collection plant, transport, etc.
  • Preventive treatments consist of applying residual insecticides to the grain in motion that is being stored, in order to prevent the development of pests during a certain storage period.
  • synthetic insecticides are used, in liquid or solid formulations, sprayed or dusted on the bulk when the new crop enters the plant, or when carrying out a transile.
  • Biocarrier As an alternative to the use of synthetic insecticides, biological insecticides (biochemical, botanical or microbiological) have been developed, which are currently approved for use exclusively in extensive and intensive agriculture. With the current application methodology, their use is not applicable to the post-harvest of cereals and oilseeds, since they act systemically. [0013]
  • the application of the formulation of the present invention, called “Biocarrier” represents an innovative technological solution to this problem, since firstly Biocarrier behaves as an attractive substrate for the insect pest, acting as a preferred food over the grain in question, and secondly, it contains an active ingredient capable of killing the insect pest by ingestion. It allows the use of active ingredients that have a low toxicological impact on the human population, being even compatible with organic agriculture.
  • the objective of the present invention is a new formulation composed of a substrate that acts as a carrier or transporter of the biological active ingredient, forming a formulation that, on the one hand, attracts the insect over the mass of stored grains, and on the other, when consumed by insects, acts on the digestive tract, causing their death. Death occurs after a single or repeated ingestion, depending on the type of insect in question.
  • the objective of the present invention is a formulation that uses biological insecticides, which act exclusively through the digestive tract, and when associated with a food bait, it ensures that the insect is attracted, goes in search of food, ingests it and dies, this food being the vehicle of the biological insecticide.
  • the objective of the invention is a new and novel formulation that can have countless compositions, said compositions having as common points the use of active ingredients classified as "biological", one or more of said biological active ingredients being able to be used in said formulation, being the ones currently available on the market or any other new type of active ingredient to be developed in the future, this being at least one active ingredient associated with a food bait with attractant properties (kairomonas).
  • the active ingredients comprising the formulation of the present invention are substances considered to be of slight toxicological concern by FAO/WHO and which do not present residue tolerances for international trade (MRLs), with the exception of spinosyns, which despite their biological origin have established MRLs in some countries, although they are authorized for organic agriculture.
  • MRLs residue tolerances for international trade
  • Baculovirus Host-specific occluded pathogenic viruses.
  • GVs Granuloviruses
  • NMVs Nucleopolyhedroviruses
  • Food attractants can be of various formulations and their combination with at least one active ingredient gives rise to numerous compositions, the novelty of the invention being the association of a food attractant carrier with at least one biological active ingredient.
  • Active ingredient one active ingredient or several active ingredients combined
  • the new result and the industrial application of the formulations of the present invention consists in the effectiveness in the control of storage pest insects, treating the grains with a biological insecticide associated with an attractant food carrier (attractant bait or kairomone).
  • biological insecticides are not used in the post-harvest, since their use is not effective because biological insecticides act exclusively through the digestive tract. If the biological insecticide is sprayed directly on the grain (this being the only application technique or methodology known and used prior to the present invention) the insect would be forced to eat the grain, and in turn, the small portion of the grain that it eats would have to provide the required amount of insecticide to cause its death, this being impossible because: • Not all insects can attack the whole grain,
  • Biocarrier is a new formulation that attracts insects over the grain mass. The insect is attracted by this formulation and, when searching for it, ingests it and dies. This result is not only novel, but also unprecedented in the art. It has been proven through multiple tests that both primary and secondary infestation insects consume the food substrate (food bait or kairomone), plus the biological active ingredient that makes up the formulations of the invention (Biocarrier). This determines the death of the insect by ingestion of the biological insecticide.
  • Non-limiting example of a Biocarrier Composition is a Biocarrier Composition
  • Active ingredient (see active ingredient and % w/w used in each test)
  • Attractant concentration tolerance ⁇ 10% w/w of each nutrient.
  • Prototype formulations evaluated in efficacy trials a) Prototype formulation 1 b) Prototype formulation 2 c) Prototype formulation 3 d) Prototype formulation 4 e) Prototype formulation 5
  • formulations of the invention proved to be more effective than the most widely used commercial witness in post-harvest cereals (insecticide synthetic - active ingredient Deltamethina), showing significantly higher levels of control than the practice of control by spraying the grain mass with a residual synthetic insecticide.
  • Biocarrier also represents an important contribution to food safety and a sustainable strategy for managing resistance to synthetic insecticides, demonstrated in this trial in the partial efficacy of deltamethna control.
  • the granular formulation of the invention can be physically separated from the mass of the bulk, together with the dead insects, by means of known mechanical separation practices, such as sieves or the like, as the formulation has an average granulometry lower than the granulometry of the treated bulk.
  • Each experimental unit consisted of a 2000 cm 3 glass jar, with a lid and a 154 pm metal sieve mesh, with 1000 g of treated cereal grains, according to the assigned treatment.
  • Each EU was incorporated with 50 individuals from the same cohort, of adults of Tenebroides maur ⁇ tanicus, Cryptolestes ferrugineus and Oryzaephilus surinamensis, in jars with wheat. While
  • Sitophilus granarias, Sitophilus oryzae, Sitophilus zeamais, Rhizopertha dominica and Sitotroga cerealella larvae were added to jars with corn.
  • the EU were assigned to each of the evaluated treatments, using a completely randomized design (CRD), with four replicates per treatment. All the grain used during the trial was treated on the same day, so this moment was considered as “time zero”.
  • the live, affected and dead insects of each species were counted at 12, 24, 36, 48, 72 and 96 hours after the insects were incorporated into each experimental unit. At the end of the first month of observation, 50 insects were incorporated again. This Methodology was continued until the 6-month period was completed.
  • Each EU was stored in a breeding chamber under controlled conditions of temperature and humidity (28 °C ⁇ 1 °C and 70% RH) and absence of light.
  • a Tuckey test was performed, with multiple a posteriori comparisons. The mortality values were corrected by the Abbott formula.
  • TDK Infestation in treated plot after applying the treatment
  • Treatment 2 Commercial chemical control (synthetic insecticide - active ingredient Deltamethrin)
  • Treatment 7 carrier with 1% Spinosad + 1.2% Azadirachtin, equivalent to 5 ppm Spinosad + 6 ppm Azadirachtin
  • Biocarrier achieved effective residual control of S. granar ⁇ as during the six months of the trial. No statistically significant differences were observed between the Biocarrier formulations with 5 and 10 ppm of Spinosad, in any of the six re-infestations carried out. Although the residual control efficacy was slightly reduced during the fifth and sixth months, the formulation with Spinosad achieved significantly higher control efficacy than the commercial chemical control from the fourth month onwards.
  • Table 1 Cumulative mortality for Sitophilus granar ⁇ as (Grain weevil), at 4 days for each month of observation in corn grains. a.2.) Formulation with Azadirachtin.
  • Biocarrier achieved effective residual control of S. granaria during the six months of the trial. No significant differences were observed between the formulations with 6 and 12 ppm of Azadirachtin, in any of the six re-infestations carried out.
  • the formulation with Azadirachtin achieved an efficacy of significantly superior control to the commercial chemical witness from the fourth month onwards. a.3.) Formulation with Spinosad + Azadirachtin.
  • Biocarrier achieved effective residual control of S. oryzae throughout the six months of the trial. No statistically significant differences were observed between the formulations with 5 and 10 ppm Spinosad in any of the six reinfestations carried out. Although the residual control efficacy was slightly reduced during the fifth and sixth months, Spinosad achieved significantly higher control efficacy than the commercial chemical control from the fourth month onwards. b.2.) Formulation with Azadirachtin.
  • Biocarrier achieved effective residual control of S. oryzae during the six months of the trial. No significant differences were observed between the formulations with 6 and 12 ppm of Azadirachtin, in any of the six reinfestations carried out. The formulation with Azadirachtin achieved a significantly higher control efficacy than the commercial chemical control from the fourth month onwards.
  • Table 2 Cumulative mortality for Sitophilus oryzae (Rice weevil), at 4 days for each month of observation in corn grains.
  • the formulation of the invention achieved an effective residual control of S. zeamais during the six months of the trial. No statistically significant differences were observed between the formulations with 5 and 10 ppm of Spinosad in the first months, from the fifth month onwards the residual control efficacy of the formulation with the highest concentration was higher than that of 5 ppm.
  • the formulation with Spinosad achieved a significantly higher control efficacy than the commercial chemical control from the fourth month onwards. c.2.) Formulation with Azadirachtin.
  • Biocarrier achieved effective residual control of S. zeamais throughout the six months of the trial. No significant differences were observed between the formulations with 6 and 12 ppm of Azadirachtin, in any of the six reinfestations carried out. The formulation with Azadirachtin achieved significantly higher control efficacy than the commercial chemical control from the fourth month of the trial.
  • Table 3 Cumulative mortality for Sitophilus zeamais (Corn weevil), at 4 days for each month of observation in corn grains.
  • the formulation of the invention achieved an effective residual control of the Flattened Woodworm during the six months of the trial. No significant differences were observed between the formulations with 6 and 12 ppm of Azadirachtin, in any of the six re-infestations carried out.
  • the formulation with Azadirachtin achieved a significantly higher control efficacy than the commercial chemical control from the fourth month of the trial. d3.) Formulation with Spinosad + Azadirachtin.
  • Table 4 Cumulative mortality for Cryptolestes ferrugineus (Flattened woodworm), at 4 days for each month of observation in wheat grains.
  • Biocarrier achieved effective residual control of the Large Woodworm up to the sixth month. No statistically significant differences were observed between the formulations with 5 and 10 ppm in any of the six re-infestations carried out.
  • the formulation with Spinosad achieved a significantly higher control efficacy than the commercial chemical control from the second re-infestation until the sixth month. e.2.) Formulation with Azadirachtin.
  • Biocarrier achieved effective residual control of the Large Woodworm during the six months of the trial. No significant differences were observed between the formulations with 6 and 12 ppm of Azadirachtin in the first months, however, from the fifth reinfestation onwards the formulation with 12 ppm was more effective than the 6 ppm one, although this difference was not statistically significant.
  • the formulation with Azadirachtin achieved significantly higher control efficacy than the commercial chemical control from the fourth month of the trial. e.3.) Formulation with Spinosad + Azadirachtin.
  • Biocarrier achieved effective residual control of Spinosad up to the sixth month. No statistically significant differences were observed between the formulations with 5 and 10 ppm of Spinosad in any of the six reinfestations carried out, however, from the fifth reinfestation onwards the control efficacy of the formulation with 10 ppm was superior.
  • the formulation with Spinosad achieved significantly higher control efficacy than the commercial chemical control from the second reinfestation until the sixth month. f.2.) Formulation with Azadirachtin.
  • Biocarrier achieved effective residual control of the Toothed Woodworm during the six months of the trial. No significant differences were observed between the formulations with 6 and 12 ppm of Azadirachtin in the first months, however, from the fifth re-infestation onwards the formulation with 12 ppm was more effective than the 6 ppm, although this difference was not statistically significant.
  • the formulation with Azadirachtin achieved significantly higher control efficacy than the commercial chemical control from the fourth month of the trial. f.3.) Biocarier with Spinosad + Azadirachtin.
  • Biocarrier achieved effective residual control of Cereal Moth up to the sixth month. No statistically significant differences were observed between the formulations with 5 and 10 ppm of Spinosad in any of the six reinfestations carried out, however, from the fifth reinfestation onwards the efficacy of the formulation with 10 ppm was superior (although this difference was not statistically significant).
  • the formulation with Spinosad achieved significantly higher control efficacy than the commercial chemical control from the second reinfestation and up to the sixth month. g.2.) Formulation with Azadirachtin.
  • Biocarrier achieved effective residual control of Cereal Moth during the six months of the trial. No significant differences were observed between the Biocarrier formulations with 6 and 12 ppm of Azadirachtin in the first months, however, from the fifth reinfestation onwards the formulation with 12 ppm was more effective than the one with 6 ppm, although this difference was not statistically significant.
  • the formulation with Azadirachtin achieved significantly higher control efficacy than the commercial chemical control from the fourth month of the trial.
  • Table 7 Cumulative mortality for Sitotroga cerealella (Cereal popper), at 4 days for each month of observation in corn grains.
  • Biocarrier achieved effective residual control of the Cereal borer up to the sixth month. No statistically significant differences were observed between the formulations with 5 and 10 ppm of Spinosad in the first months, from the fifth month onwards the residual control efficacy of the formulation with the highest concentration was higher than that of 5 ppm.
  • the formulation with Spinosad achieved a significantly higher control efficacy than the commercial chemical control from the fourth month onwards. h.2.) Formulation with Azadirachtin.
  • the formulation of the invention achieved an effective residual control of the cereal borer during the six months of the test. No significant differences were observed between the formulations with 6 and 12 ppm of Azadirachtin.
  • the formulation with Azadirachtin achieved a significantly higher control efficacy than the commercial chemical control from the fourth month of the test. h.3.) Formulation with Spinosad + Azadirachtin.
  • Table 8 Cumulative mortality for Rhizopertha dominica (Cereal borer), at 4 days for each month of observation in corn grains.
  • Figure 1 Cumulative mortality for Sitophilus granarias (Grain weevil), by observation time, in the first artificial infestation.
  • Figure 2 Cumulative mortality for Sitophilus granarias (Grain weevil), by observation time, in the second artificial infestation.
  • Figure 3 Cumulative mortality for Sitophilus granarias (Grain weevil), by observation time, in the third artificial infestation.
  • Figure 4 Cumulative mortality for Sitophilus granarias (Grain weevil), by observation time, in the fourth artificial infestation.
  • Figure 5 Cumulative mortality for Sitophilus granarias (Grain weevil), by observation time, in the fifth artificial infestation.
  • Figure 6 Cumulative mortality for Sitophilus granarias (Grain weevil), by observation time, in the sixth artificial infestation.
  • Figure 7 Cumulative mortality for Sitophilus oryzae (Rice weevil), by observation time, in the first artificial infestation.
  • Figure 8 Cumulative mortality for Sitophilus oryzae (Rice weevil), by observation time, in the second artificial infestation.
  • Figure 9 Cumulative mortality for Sitophilus oryzae (Rice weevil), by observation time, in the third artificial infestation.
  • Figure 10 Cumulative mortality for Sitophilus oryzae (Rice weevil), by observation time, in the fourth artificial infestation.
  • Figure 11 Cumulative mortality for Sitophilus oryzae (Rice weevil), by observation time, in the fifth artificial infestation.
  • Figure 13 Cumulative mortality for Sitophilus zeamais (Corn weevil), by observation time, in the first artificial infestation.
  • Figure 14 Cumulative mortality for Sitophilus zeamais (Corn weevil), by observation time, in the second artificial infestation.
  • Figure 15 Cumulative mortality for Sitophilus zeamais (Corn weevil), by observation time, in the third artificial infestation.
  • Figure 16 Cumulative mortality for Sitophilus zeamais (Corn weevil), by observation time, in the fourth artificial infestation.
  • Figure 17 Cumulative mortality for Sitophilus zeamais (Corn weevil), by observation time, in the fifth artificial infestation.
  • Figure 18 Cumulative mortality for Sitophilus zeamais (Corn weevil), by observation time, in the sixth artificial infestation.
  • Figure 19 Cumulative mortality for Cryptolestes ferrugineus (Flattened woodworm), by observation time, in the first artificial infestation.
  • Figure 20 Cumulative mortality for Cryptolestes ferrugineus (Flattened woodworm), by observation time, in the second artificial infestation.
  • Figure 21 Cumulative mortality for Cryptolestes ferrugineus (Flattened woodworm), by observation time, in the third artificial infestation.
  • Figure 22 Cumulative mortality for Cryptolestes ferrugineus (Flattened woodworm), by observation time, in the fourth artificial infestation.
  • Figure 23 Cumulative mortality for Cryptolestes ferrugineus (Flattened woodworm), by observation time, in the fifth artificial infestation.
  • Figure 24 Cumulative mortality for Cryptolestes ferrugineus (Flattened woodworm), by observation time, in the sixth artificial infestation.
  • Figure 25 Cumulative mortality for Tenebroides maur ⁇ tanicus (Large woodworm), by observation time, in the first artificial infestation.
  • Figure 28 Cumulative mortality for Tenebroides maur ⁇ tanicus (Large woodworm), by observation time, in the fourth artificial infestation.
  • Figure 29 Cumulative mortality for Tenebroides mauritanicus (Large woodworm), by observation time, in the fifth infestation
  • Figure 30 Cumulative mortality for Tenebroides maur ⁇ tanicus (Large woodworm), by observation time, in the sixth artificial infestation.
  • Figure 31 Cumulative mortality for Oryzaephilus surinamensis L. (Serrated woodworm), by observation time, in the first artificial infestation.
  • Figure 32 Cumulative mortality for Oryzaephilus surinamensis L. (Serrated woodworm), by observation time, in the second artificial infestation.
  • Figure 33 Cumulative mortality for Oryzaephilus surinamensis L. (Serrated woodworm), by observation time, in the third artificial infestation.
  • Figure 34 Cumulative mortality for Oryzaephilus surinamensis L. (Serrated woodworm), by observation time, in the fourth artificial infestation.
  • Figure 35 Cumulative mortality for Oryzaephilus surinamensis L. (Serrated woodworm), by observation time, in the fifth artificial infestation.
  • Figure 36 Cumulative mortality for Oryzaephilus surinamensis L. (Serrated woodworm), by observation time, in the sixth artificial infestation.
  • Figure 37 Cumulative mortality for the Cereal Poultry Moth (Sitotroga cerealella), by observation time, in the first artificial infestation.
  • Figure 38 Cumulative mortality for the Cereal Poultry Moth (Sitotroga cerealella), by observation time, in the second artificial infestation.
  • Figure 39 Cumulative mortality for the Cereal Poultry Moth (Sitotroga cerealella), by observation time, in the third artificial infestation.
  • Figure 40 Cumulative mortality for the Cereal Poultry Moth (Sitotroga cerealella), by observation time, in the fourth artificial infestation.
  • Figure 41 Cumulative mortality for the Cereal Poultry Moth (Sitotroga cerealella), by observation time, in the fifth artificial infestation.
  • Figure 42 Cumulative mortality for the Cereal Poison (Sitotroga cerealella), by observation time, in the sixth artificial infestation.
  • Figure 43 Cumulative mortality for the European grain borer (Rhizopertha dominica), by observation time, in the first artificial infestation 5.
  • Figure 44 Cumulative mortality for the European grain borer (Rhizopertha dominica), by observation time, in the second artificial infestation.
  • Figure 45 Cumulative mortality for the European grain borer (Rhizopertha dominica), by observation time, in the third artificial infestation.
  • Figure 46 Cumulative mortality for the European grain borer (Rhizopertha dominica), by observation time, in the fourth artificial infestation.

Landscapes

  • Life Sciences & Earth Sciences (AREA)
  • Health & Medical Sciences (AREA)
  • General Health & Medical Sciences (AREA)
  • Dentistry (AREA)
  • Plant Pathology (AREA)
  • Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
  • Pest Control & Pesticides (AREA)
  • Agronomy & Crop Science (AREA)
  • Wood Science & Technology (AREA)
  • Zoology (AREA)
  • Environmental Sciences (AREA)
  • Toxicology (AREA)
  • Agricultural Chemicals And Associated Chemicals (AREA)

Abstract

L'invention concerne une formulation pour la lutte biologique contre des insectes ravageurs de stocks de grains, pendant la post-récolte, comprenant un substrat solide granulaire constitué par un attractif alimentaire renfermant entre 0,2 % et 3 % d'un principe actif biologique, choisi parmi les insecticides biochimiques, botaniques ou microbiologiques, ledit granulé présentant en outre une granulométrie comprise entre 1 mm et 2,5 mm.
PCT/IB2023/053035 2023-03-27 2023-03-27 Formulation pour la lutte biologique contre des insectes ravageurs de stocks de grains Pending WO2024201100A1 (fr)

Priority Applications (1)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
PCT/IB2023/053035 WO2024201100A1 (fr) 2023-03-27 2023-03-27 Formulation pour la lutte biologique contre des insectes ravageurs de stocks de grains

Applications Claiming Priority (1)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
PCT/IB2023/053035 WO2024201100A1 (fr) 2023-03-27 2023-03-27 Formulation pour la lutte biologique contre des insectes ravageurs de stocks de grains

Publications (1)

Publication Number Publication Date
WO2024201100A1 true WO2024201100A1 (fr) 2024-10-03

Family

ID=92903456

Family Applications (1)

Application Number Title Priority Date Filing Date
PCT/IB2023/053035 Pending WO2024201100A1 (fr) 2023-03-27 2023-03-27 Formulation pour la lutte biologique contre des insectes ravageurs de stocks de grains

Country Status (1)

Country Link
WO (1) WO2024201100A1 (fr)

Citations (5)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
EP0229191A1 (fr) * 1985-07-18 1987-07-22 Earth Chemical Co., Ltd. Composition attirant les mouches
JPH1192301A (ja) * 1995-07-13 1999-04-06 Earth Chem Corp Ltd 害虫防除用毒餌剤、害虫誘引剤および害虫の防除方法
WO2006007595A2 (fr) * 2004-07-01 2006-01-19 E.I. Dupont De Nemours And Company Melanges synergiques d'agents de lutte contre les invertebres a base d'anthranilamide
CN109430273A (zh) * 2018-12-06 2019-03-08 山东圣鹏科技股份有限公司 一种含多杀霉素的储粮杀虫剂及其制备方法以及应用
US20210345605A1 (en) * 2018-10-26 2021-11-11 Citeq B.V. Biological pest control agent

Patent Citations (5)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
EP0229191A1 (fr) * 1985-07-18 1987-07-22 Earth Chemical Co., Ltd. Composition attirant les mouches
JPH1192301A (ja) * 1995-07-13 1999-04-06 Earth Chem Corp Ltd 害虫防除用毒餌剤、害虫誘引剤および害虫の防除方法
WO2006007595A2 (fr) * 2004-07-01 2006-01-19 E.I. Dupont De Nemours And Company Melanges synergiques d'agents de lutte contre les invertebres a base d'anthranilamide
US20210345605A1 (en) * 2018-10-26 2021-11-11 Citeq B.V. Biological pest control agent
CN109430273A (zh) * 2018-12-06 2019-03-08 山东圣鹏科技股份有限公司 一种含多杀霉素的储粮杀虫剂及其制备方法以及应用

Similar Documents

Publication Publication Date Title
Ahmad et al. Stored grain pests and current advances for their management
Adedire et al. Biological activity of tree marigold, Tithonia diversifolia, on cowpea seed bruchid, Callosobruchus maculatus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae)
Padın et al. Grain loss caused by Tribolium castaneum, Sitophilus oryzae and Acanthoscelides obtectus in stored durum wheat and beans treated with Beauveria bassiana
Tripathi Pests of stored grains
Mazarin et al. Synergistic effects of wood ash and essential oil on fecundity, pupal eclosion and adult mortality of Callosobruchus maculatus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) cowpea seed weevil
Atanda et al. Protection of grains and cereals-A Review
Okonkwo et al. Evaluation of efficacy of a long lasting insecticide incorporated polypropylene bag as stored grain protectant against insect pests on cowpea and maize
WO2024201100A1 (fr) Formulation pour la lutte biologique contre des insectes ravageurs de stocks de grains
Singh et al. Eco-friendly organic management of rust red flour beetle, Tribolium castaneum (Herbst) under stored conditions
KR101953984B1 (ko) 비스트리플루론 및 인독사카브를 유효성분으로 포함하는 해충 방제용 조성물
Lindgren et al. Residues in raw and processed foods resulting from post-harvest insecticidal treatments
Payne Harvest and storage management of wheat
WO2025243073A1 (fr) Formulation pour la lutte biologique contre les insectes ravageurs des stocks de grains
Ghosh et al. Drying and storing lentils: engineering and entomological aspects
US9420779B1 (en) Insect baits
Ofuya et al. Potential synergism of diatomaceous earth and Piper guineense for management of Callosobruchus maculatus in stored cowpea
US10893677B2 (en) Pest control composition
Bukar et al. Insecticidal Activity of Mahogany Oil (Khaya senegalensis (Devs.)) Against Lesser Grain Borer (Rhyzopertha dominica (Fabricius))(Coleoptera: Bostrichidae) On Cowpea Seed (Vigna unguiculata (Linnaeus: Walper))
PULIHASIH INVENTORY OF PESTS IN FOOD WAREHOUSES
Scholar Efficacy of Mahogany Oil (Khaya Senegalensis (Devs.)) As Grain Protectants against Lesser Grain Borer (Rhyzopertha Dominica (Fabricius))(Coleoptera: Bostrichidae) On Cowpea Seed (Vigna Unguiculata (Linnaeus: Walper))
Sunmonu et al. Effects of Diatomaceous Earth on the Proximate Composition of Stored Cowpea Variety (IT96D-610K)
Adeyemi et al. Evaluation of the effectiveness of propolis and garlic in the management of maize weevil (Sitophilus zeamais) in stored maize (Zea mays) grains
García et al. Antifeedant, horizontal transfer and repellent activities of free and microencapsulated food grade antioxidants against postharvest pest insects (Oryzaephilus surinamensis (Linnaeus, 1758) and Tribolium castaneum (Herbst, 1797))(Coleoptera: Silvanidae, Tenebrionidae) of peanuts (Arachis hypogaea L.)(Fabaceae)
Himanshu et al. Stored Grain Insect Pest and their Management in the Kumaun Region of Uttarakhand: A Review
Sunmonu et al. Effects of Diatomaceous Earth (Bularafa) treatment on Proximate Composition of Stored Cowpea Variety (IT96D–610K).

Legal Events

Date Code Title Description
REG Reference to national code

Ref country code: BR

Ref legal event code: B01A

Ref document number: 112024021185

Country of ref document: BR

121 Ep: the epo has been informed by wipo that ep was designated in this application

Ref document number: 23930168

Country of ref document: EP

Kind code of ref document: A1

ENP Entry into the national phase

Ref document number: 112024021185

Country of ref document: BR

Kind code of ref document: A2

Effective date: 20241011

NENP Non-entry into the national phase

Ref country code: DE