Agriculture Production: USDA Needs to Build on 2005 Experience to
Minimize the Effects of Asian Soybean Rust in the Future	 
(24-FEB-06, GAO-06-337).					 
                                                                 
In 2005, U.S. agriculture faced potentially devastating losses	 
from Asian Soybean Rust (ASR), a fungal disease that spreads	 
airborne spores. Fungicides approved by the Environmental	 
Protection Agency (EPA) can protect against ASR. In 2005, growers
in 31 states planted about 72.2 million soybean acres worth about
$17 billion. While favorable weather conditions limited losses	 
due to ASR, it still threatens the soybean industry. In May 2005,
GAO described the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) efforts
to prepare for ASR's entry, (Agriculture Production: USDA's	 
Preparation for Asian Soybean Rust, GAO-05-668R). This report	 
examines (1) USDA's strategy to minimize ASR's effects in 2005	 
and the lessons learned to improve future efforts and (2) USDA,  
EPA, and others' efforts to develop, test, and license fungicides
for ASR and to identify and breed soybeans that tolerate it.	 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-06-337 					        
    ACCNO:   A47777						        
  TITLE:     Agriculture Production: USDA Needs to Build on 2005      
Experience to Minimize the Effects of Asian Soybean Rust in the  
Future								 
     DATE:   02/24/2006 
  SUBJECT:   Agricultural chemicals				 
	     Agricultural industry				 
	     Agricultural policies				 
	     Agricultural research				 
	     Disease detection or diagnosis			 
	     Environmental monitoring				 
	     Environmental policies				 
	     Farm produce					 
	     Interagency relations				 
	     Lessons learned					 
	     Pesticides 					 
	     Plant diseases					 
	     Plants (organisms) 				 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Asian soybean rust 				 
	     Environmental education				 
	     Environmental protection				 
	     Invasive species					 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-06-337

     

     * Report to the Ranking Democratic Member, Committee on Agriculture,
       Nutrition, and Forestry, U.S. Senate
          * February 2006
     * AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION
          * USDA Needs to Build on 2005 Experience to Minimize the Effects of
            Asian Soybean Rust in the Future
     * Contents
          * Results in Brief
          * Background
          * 2005 ASR Efforts Showed Benefits of a National Coordination
            Strategy and Highlight the Importance of Consistent Data and
            Strong Leadership
               * The Surveillance and Monitoring Network Was Generally
                 Implemented Effectively, but Inconsistencies Could Impair
                 Future Predictive Efforts
               * USDA's Web-Based Information System Was Viewed Favorably,
                 but Users Suggested Improvements
               * Decision Criteria for Fungicide Application Useful to
                 Advisers and Soybean Growers in Responding to ASR
               * Predictive Modeling Is a Work in Progress and Will Depend on
                 Good Data in the Future
               * Outreach for Training, Education, and Information
                 Dissemination Was Effective in 2005 and Is Planned to
                 Continue in 2006
               * 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
          * EPA, USDA, and Others Have Made More Fungicides Available While
            Continuing to Develop Longer-Term Solutions
               * EPA and USDA Worked Cooperatively to Make Multiple
                 Fungicides Available in 2005
               * USDA and Other Sponsors Have Supported Research Efforts to
                 Determine the Most Effective Types of Fungicides and
                 Application Methods
               * Rust-Resistant Soybeans Will Not Be Available to Growers for
                 Several Years
          * Conclusion
          * Recommendations for Executive Action
          * Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
     * Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
     * Results of GAO's Survey of Soybean- Producing States
     * 2005 Sentinel Plots and Soybean Acreage
     * Approved Fungicides for Treating Soybeans for ASR
     * Progression of ASR during the 2005 Growing Season
     * Comments from the U.S. Department of Agriculture
     * GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
     * Related GAO Products

Report to the Ranking Democratic Member, Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry, U.S. Senate

February 2006

AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION

USDA Needs to Build on 2005 Experience to Minimize the Effects of Asian
Soybean Rust in the Future

Contents

Tables

Figures

February 24, 2006Letter

The Honorable Tom Harkin Ranking Democratic Member Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry United States Senate

Dear Senator Harkin:

In 2005, U.S. agriculture faced potentially devastating losses from Asian
Soybean Rust (ASR), a fungal disease that has caused significant crop
losses in other parts of the world. When ASR infects a soybean plant,
spots and pustules begin to form on its leaves, which eventually turn
yellow and drop prematurely, damaging the plant and decreasing the number
and size of beans.1 ASR can destroy an entire field within a few weeks.
Weather conditions, such as rainfall, humidity, and temperature, affect
both the severity and incidence of ASR. However, fungicides provide
protection against ASR if they are applied correctly and at the proper
time. In 2005, U.S. growers in 31 states planted about 72.2 million acres
in soybeans that had a total estimated value of about $17 billion.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has been preparing for the
arrival of ASR in the continental United States since its presence was
first detected in Brazil in 2002. ASR was discovered for the first time in
the continental United States, in Louisiana in November 2004-after most of
the crop had been harvested-and had little effect on soybean production.
During 2005, researchers confirmed the presence of ASR in 138 counties
across nine southern states. Currently, no commercial soybeans are
resistant to ASR, and fungicides are generally recognized as the most
effective means for controlling the disease. USDA had predicted that U.S.
economic losses from ASR could reach as high as $2 billion annually, but
growers experienced few crop losses from ASR in 2005 because weather
conditions and other factors were not favorable to the spread of the
disease. In some cases, it appears that growers experienced higher yields
than expected because the threat of ASR caused them to be more attentive
to their crop. While few losses occurred in 2005, ASR still poses a
significant threat to the U.S. soybean industry, depending on the severity
and extent of subsequent outbreaks.

In May 2005, we reported on the status of USDA's efforts to prepare for
ASR's entry into the United States.2 This report examines (1) USDA's
strategy for minimizing the effects of ASR in the 2005 crop year and the
lessons learned that could be used to improve future efforts and (2) the
progress USDA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and others have
made in developing, testing, and licensing fungicides to treat ASR and in
identifying and breeding ASR-resistant or ASR-tolerant soybeans.

In conducting our work, we met with USDA and EPA officials and reviewed
agency documents on strategy, planning, and funding. We interviewed
university extension faculty and laboratory diagnosticians in Georgia,
Florida, Alabama, Indiana, and Iowa. We selected the first three states
because they were the most significantly affected by ASR in 2005 and the
latter two because they are among the largest producers of soybeans in the
United States. We also surveyed officials from the 31 soybean-producing
states that were included in USDA's sentinel plot program to obtain
information about the events that occurred in 2005 as well as their
states' preparations for dealing with ASR in 2006 (see app. II for a
summary of survey results). We pretested the content and format of the
survey questionnaire with several state officials. We also interviewed
industry and trade representatives to discuss fungicides, fungicide
application equipment, and other issues related to ASR. A more detailed
description of our scope and methodology is presented in appendix I. We
performed our work between May 2005 and January 2006 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.

Results in Brief

In 2005, USDA developed and implemented a coordinated framework that was
effective in focusing national attention on ASR and enabling growers to
make informed decisions about fungicide application. The framework
includes a surveillance and monitoring network; a Web-based information
management system; criteria for deciding when to apply fungicides;
predictive modeling; and outreach. The framework was effective in several
respects. For example, the sentinel plot program-plots planted a few weeks
before the beginning of the growing season to serve as an advance warning
system-allowed researchers to identify and report on the incidence and
severity of the disease immediately or within a few days on USDA's ASR Web
site, thereby alerting officials and growers to the spread of the disease.
Researchers also advised growers about whether and what type of fungicide
might be needed. State officials in most of the soybean-producing states
that we surveyed characterized the 2005 sentinel plot program as effective
in providing timely information on the spread of ASR. However, certain
inconsistencies in implementation could hamper long-term efforts to
contain ASR. For example, models developed to forecast the spread of ASR
will need several years of consistently collected data to be most
effective. These models rely, in part, on states' observations of the
sentinel plots. Although USDA asked the states to report results at least
once a week, not all states did so. For example, two states reported only
four times during the entire growing season while another reported almost
daily. We also noted inconsistency in the designation of sentinel plots.
Some plots were stand-alone and some were part of existing commercial
fields. Stand-alone plots are generally easier to access by monitors and
may facilitate more regular monitoring and reporting. In addition, we
noted differences in the diagnostic testing of plant samples. Some test
results were based on visual inspection and others were based on advanced
screening techniques, which tend to identify ASR earlier in the infection
process. Going forward, such inconsistencies could eventually undermine
the value of predictive modeling, whose accuracy depends upon collecting
and analyzing timely, uniform, and complete data. Finally, leadership is
key to the continued effectiveness of the ASR effort. The 2005 effort was
directed by senior USDA officials in headquarters. In 2006, however, USDA
plans to transfer most operational responsibility for ASR to a land grant
university in North Carolina. Changes to the successful management
approach employed by USDA in 2005 raise questions about how the program
will perform in 2006. At the time of our review, USDA lacked a plan
showing how all of the responsibilities carried out in 2005 would be
carried out in 2006. It is important that the department have such a plan
prior to the 2006 growing season to help ensure that it maintains the
level of coordination, cooperation, and national priority that was
achieved in 2005 to address ASR.

EPA, USDA, and others have made progress in increasing the number of
fungicides that growers can use to combat ASR, while researchers continue
their efforts to develop ASR-resistant or -tolerant soybeans. 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, and officials in the nine states where ASR was confirmed reported
that growers had access to fungicides. EPA also established maximum
residue levels for these exempted fungicides in time for soybean growers
to export their products to foreign markets. To further minimize crop
losses, USDA and private companies funded fungicide efficacy trials at
universities across the United States. However, the trials produced
inconsistent results, in part because different protocols were followed,
and the researchers concluded that future trials should use uniform
protocols to ensure consistent data collection and interpretation. USDA,
universities, and private companies are also working to develop
ASR-resistant or -tolerant soybeans, and they identified about 800
possible resistant lines of soybeans, out of a total of about 16,000 lines
of soybeans. USDA estimates it may take 5 to 9 years to develop and make
commercially available ASR-resistant or -tolerant soybeans. Until then,
fungicides will continue to be the primary method for controlling ASR.

To ensure continued progress in minimizing the effects of ASR and to
facilitate research, we are recommending that the Secretary of Agriculture
provide additional guidance to state ASR program managers on monitoring,
testing, and reporting on the incidence of ASR and ensure that a detailed
action plan for managing ASR in 2006 is in place prior to the 2006 growing
season.

We provided a draft of this report to USDA and EPA for their review and
comment. EPA provided oral technical comments, which we incorporated into
the report as appropriate. In its written comments, USDA said that the
report fairly describes USDA's preparations related to ASR and that both
of the report's recommendations reflect its ongoing cooperative efforts
with states to combat the disease. USDA also provided technical comments,
which we incorporated into the report as appropriate.

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.

Figure 1: 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.

Figure 2: Spread of ASR across 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).3 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.4

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.5 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.6  (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).7 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).8

Figure 3: Number of Sentinel Plots in Each State, 2005

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.9 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.10 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.11 Table 1 summarizes the results of states' tests
performed on samples suspected of having ASR in 2005.

Table 1: Type of Testing Performed on Samples Suspected of ASR in 2005

                                        

             Type of testing             Number of samples screened or tested 
Morphological examination only                                       2,202 
Morphological exam and PCR                                             195 
Morphological exam and ELISA                                           137 
Morphological exam, ELISA, and PCR                                      71 
Total                                                                2,605 

Source: GAO's survey of soybean-producing states.

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.12 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.13 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.14

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.15 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.16

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.17 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:

o 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.

o 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.

o 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.

o 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.18 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.19 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 2006.20 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:

o 4 registered fungicides that are preventative; and

o 12 fungicides for which emergency exemptions were granted.21 Nine of
these products are curative,22 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.23 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.24 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 2001,25 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.26 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

o effectiveness of fungicides under various spray conditions, such as
volume, pressure, and application frequency;

o effectiveness of fungicides under different crop conditions, such as
maturity, row spacing, and plant varieties; and

o 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.

Figure 4: Spraying at a Fungicide Trial in Colquitt County, Georgia

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,27 to
a USDA research Web site in 2003.28 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.29

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.30
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
2006.31 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.32 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 2005,33 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.

Figure 5: An Agricultural Research Containment Facility

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:

o develop new, high-yielding germplasm with resistance to soybean rust;

o determine the genetic basis for ASR's virulence and determine the
genetic basis for soybeans' resistance to ASR; and

o improve understanding of ASR's biology and epidemiology.34

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.

o 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.

o 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 h  ttp://www.gao.gov.

If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202)
512-3841 or [email protected] . 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.

Sincerely yours,

Daniel Bertoni Acting Director, Natural Resources and Environment

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology Appendix I

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 Appendix II

2005 Sentinel Plots and Soybean Acreage Appendix III

                                        

       State      Soybean acres planted      USDA sentinel     Other sentinel 
                                                     plots             plotsa 
Alabama                      150,000                 10                 25 
Arkansas                   3,030,000                 25                 37 
Delaware                     185,000                  6                 44 
Florida                       11,000                 15                 11 
Georgia                      180,000                 10                 15 
Illinois                   9,500,000                 10                 30 
Indiana                    5,400,000                  9                  8 
Iowa                      10,100,000                 10                 20 
Kansas                     2,900,000                 10                 20 
Kentucky                   1,260,000                 10                 37 
Louisiana                    880,000                 15                 50 
Maryland                     480,000                  5                 28 
Michigan                   2,000,000                 10                 20 
Minnesota                  6,900,000                 10                 26 
Mississippi                1,600,000                 24                 38 
Missouri                   5,000,000                 16                 23 
Nebraska                   4,700,000                 10                 38 
New Jersey                    95,000                  5                 62 
New York                     190,000                 10                  0 
North Carolina             1,500,000                 10                 17 
North Dakota               3,000,000                 10                 16 
Ohio                       4,500,000                 10                 35 
Oklahoma                     320,000                  5                  0 
Pennsylvania                 440,000                  5                 10 
South Carolina               430,000                 11                  0 
South Dakota               3,900,000                 10                 30 
Tennessee                  1,130,000                 25                  5 
Texas                        260,000                  5                  5 
Virginia                     530,000                  5                 51 
West Virginia                 19,000                  5                  0 
Wisconsin                  1,610,000                 10                 10 
Total                     72,200,000                331                711 

Source: GAO survey of soybean-producing states, USDA acreage data.

aOther sentinel plots were funded or sponsored by state government, the
North Central Soybean Research Program, or other grants.

Approved Fungicides for Treating Soybeans for ASR Appendix IV

Table 2: Fungicides Approved by EPA for Treating ASR on Soybeans, as of
December 31, 2005

                                        

Fungicide     Active        Class of       Major     Type of      Date      Date     Date 
 (Trade     ingredients     chemicals    properties   label            tolerance          
  name)                                                          first     level  expires 
                                                                        approved 
                                                             Approveda           
Quadris   Azoxystrobin    Strobilurin   Preventative Section   4/10/03           
                                                     3                           
Pristine  Boscalid &      Carboxamide & Preventative Section   3/16/05           
          Pyraclostrobin  Strobilurin                3                           
Bravo     Chlorothalonil  Chloronitrile Preventative Section   11/8/02           
Weather                                              3                           
Stik                                                                             
Echo 720  Chlorothalonil  Chloronitrile Preventative Section   6/17/03           
                                                     3                           
Echo 90DF Chlorothalonil  Chloronitrile Preventative Section   6/17/03           
                                                     3                           
EQUUS 720 Chlorothalonil  Chloronitrile Preventative Section   7/15/04           
SST                                                  3                           
EQUUS DF  Chlorothalonil  Chloronitrile Preventative Section   7/15/04           
                                                     3                           
Headline  Pyraclostrobin  Strobilurin   Preventative Section  11/30/04           
                                                     3                           
Tilt      Propiconazole   Triazole      Curative     Section   4/23/04   7/27/05 11/10/07 
                                                     18                          
Propimax  Propiconazole   Triazole      Curative     Section   4/23/04   7/27/05 11/10/07 
                                                     18                          
Bumper    Propiconazole   Triazole      Curative     Section   4/23/04   7/27/05 11/10/07 
                                                     18                          
Folicur   Tebuconazole    Triazole      Curative     Section   7/20/04    8/4/05 11/10/07 
3.6F                                                 18                          
Orius     Tebuconazole    Triazole      Curative     Section   4/21/05    8/4/05 11/10/07 
3.6F                                                 18                          
Uppercut  Tebuconazole    Triazole      Curative     Section   6/30/05    8/4/05 11/10/07 
                                                     18                          
Laredo EC Myclobutanil    Triazole      Curative     Section   3/25/04   8/24/05 11/10/07 
                                                     18                          
Laredo EW Myclobutanil    Triazole      Curative     Section   3/25/04   8/24/05 11/10/07 
                                                     18                          
Stratego  Propiconazole & Triazole &    Curative and Section  12/13/04   6/24/05 11/10/07 
          Trifloxystrobin Strobilurin   preventative 18                          
                                                                         7/27/05 
Domark    Tetraconazole   Triazole      Curative     Section    3/2/05    6/1/05 11/10/07 
230 ME                                               18                          
Quilt     Propiconazole & Triazole &    Curative and Section   3/28/05   7/27/05 11/10/07 
          Azoxystrobin    Strobilurin   preventative 18                          
Headline  Tebuconazole &  Triazole &    Curative and Section   3/28/05    8/4/05 11/10/07 
SBR       Pyraclostrobin  Strobilurin   preventative 18                          

Source: EPA.

aFor some Section 3 products, this is the date fungicide manufacturers
notified EPA that Asian soybean rust was added to the label as a treatable
pest.

Table 3: Section 18 Fungicides Approved for ASR and States Where Approved,
as of December 31, 2005

                                        

     Fungicide             States with approved Section 18 requests           
Tilt          AL, AR, CO, DE, FL, GA, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MD, MI, MN,  
                 MO, MS,                                                      
Propimax                                                                   
                 NC, ND, NE, NJ, NY, OH, OK, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, VA, VT, WV,  
Bumper        WI                                                           
Folicur 3.6F  AL, AR, CO, DE, FL, GA, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MD, MI, MN,  
                 MO, MS,                                                      
                                                                              
                 NC, ND, NE, NJ, NY, OH, OK, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, VA, VT, WV,  
                 WI                                                           
Orius 3.6F    AL, AR, CO, DE, FL, GA, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MD, MI, MN,  
                 MO, MS,                                                      
                                                                              
                 NC, ND, NE, NJ, NY, OH, OK, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, VA, VT, WV   
Uppercut      AR, DE, IA, IL, IN, KY, MD, MN, MO, MS, NC, NE, OH, SC, TN,  
                 VA                                                           
Laredo EC     AL, AR, CO, DE, FL, GA, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MD, MI, MN,  
                 MO, MS,                                                      
                                                                              
Laredo EW     NC, ND, NE, NJ , NY, OH, OK, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, VA, VT, WV, 
                 WI                                                           
Stratego      AL, AR, CO, DE, FL, GA, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MD, MI, MN,  
                 MO, MS,                                                      
                                                                              
                 NC, ND, NE, NJ, NY, OH, OK, PA, SC, SD, TX, VA, TN, VT, WV,  
                 WI                                                           
Domark 230 ME AL, AR, DE, GA, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MD, MI, MN, MO, MS,  
                 NC, ND,                                                      
                                                                              
                 NE, NJ, NY, OH, OK, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, VA, VT, WV, WI       
Quilt         AL, AR, CO, DE, FL, GA, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MD, MI, MN,  
                 MO, MS,                                                      
                                                                              
                 NC, ND, NE, NJ, NY, OH, OK, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, VA, VT, WV,  
                 WI                                                           
Headline SBR  AL, AR, CO, DE, FL, GA, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MD, MI, MN,  
                 MO, MS,                                                      
                                                                              
                 NC, ND, NE, NJ, NY, OH, OK, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, VA, VT, WV,  
                 WI                                                           

Source: EPA.

Progression of ASR during the 2005 Growing Season Appendix V

Comments from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Appendix VI

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments Appendix VII

Daniel Bertoni (202) 512-3841 or [email protected]

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.

(360535)

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt? GAO-06-337 .

To view the full product, including the scope

and methodology, click on the link above.

For more information, contact Daniel Bertoni at (202) 512-3841 or
[email protected].

Highlights of GAO-06-337 , a report to the Ranking Democratic Member,
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, U.S. Senate

February 2006

AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION

USDA Needs to Build on 2005 Experience to Minimize the Effects of Asian
Soybean Rust in the Future

In 2005, U.S. agriculture faced potentially devastating losses from Asian
Soybean Rust (ASR), a fungal disease that spreads airborne spores.
Fungicides approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can
protect against ASR. In 2005, growers in 31 states planted about 72.2
million soybean acres worth about $17 billion. While favorable weather
conditions limited losses due to ASR, it still threatens the soybean
industry. In May 2005, GAO described the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
(USDA) efforts to prepare for ASR's entry, (Agriculture Production: USDA's
Preparation for Asian Soybean Rust, GAO-05-668R). This report examines (1)
USDA's strategy to minimize ASR's effects in 2005 and the lessons learned
to improve future efforts and (2) USDA, EPA, and others' efforts to
develop, test, and license fungicides for ASR and to identify and breed
soybeans that tolerate it.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the Secretary of Agriculture provide additional
guidance on the monitoring, testing, and reporting on the incidence of ASR
and develop a detailed action plan describing how USDA plans to manage the
ASR program in 2006 to maintain the level of coordination, cooperation,
and national priority achieved in 2005. In commenting on a draft of this
report, USDA stated that the recommendations reflect its ongoing efforts
with states to combat the disease.

USDA developed and implemented a framework-with federal and state
agencies, land grant universities, and industry-that effectively focused
national attention on ASR in 2005 and helped growers make informed
fungicide decisions. The framework was effective in several ways. For
example, sentinel plots-about 2,500 square feet of soybeans or other host
plants planted early in the growing season in the 31 soybean-producing
states-provided early warning of ASR. Officials in 23 of 25 states GAO
surveyed reported that this effort was effective. Researchers could also
promptly identify and report on the incidence and severity of the disease
on a USDA Web site, alerting officials and growers to ASR's spread. Going
forward, however, differences in how researchers monitor, test, and report
on the disease could lead to incomplete or inaccurate data and detract
from the value of future prediction models. For example, models to
forecast ASR's spread partly rely on states' observations of sentinel
plots. USDA asked states to report results weekly, but updates ranged from
4 reports, in total, during the growing season in one state to 162 reports
in another state. Inconsistencies also occurred in the designation and
placement of plots and in the testing of samples for ASR. Further, changes
to the successful management approach employed by USDA in 2005 raise
questions about how the program will perform in 2006. For 2006, most
operational responsibility for ASR will shift from USDA headquarters to a
land grant university. GAO is concerned that USDA's lack of a detailed
action plan describing how program responsibilities will be assumed and
managed in 2006 could limit the effectiveness of ASR management for this
year.

EPA, USDA, and others increased the number of fungicides growers can use
to combat ASR while efforts continue to develop ASR-tolerant soybeans. As
of December 2005, EPA had approved 20 fungicides for treating ASR on
soybeans, including 12 that had emergency exemptions. According to
officials in the nine states where ASR was confirmed in 2005, growers had
access to fungicides. USDA, universities, and private companies are also
developing ASR-tolerant soybeans and have identified 800 possible lines of
resistant soybeans, out of a total of 16,000 lines. USDA estimates it may
take 5 to 9 years to develop commercially available ASR-tolerant soybeans.

Soybean Plants Treated with Fungicides Next to ASR-infected Plants
*** End of document. ***