| |
|
|
 | Acceso al texto completo restringido a Biblioteca INIA La Estanzuela. Por información adicional contacte bib_le@inia.org.uy. |
|
Registro completo
|
|
Biblioteca (s) : |
INIA La Estanzuela. |
|
Fecha : |
25/05/2020 |
|
Actualizado : |
25/05/2020 |
|
Tipo de producción científica : |
Artículos en Revistas Indexadas Internacionales |
|
Autor : |
CAMARGO, E. R.; ZAPIOLA, M.L.; AVILA, L.A.D; GARCIA, M.A.; PLAZA, G.; GAZZIERO, D.; VERONICA HOYOS, V. |
|
Afiliación : |
EDINALVO RABAIOLI CAMARGO, Adjunct Professor, Department of Crop Protection, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, RS, Brazil.; MARIA LUZ ZAPIOLA, Scientific Affairs Manager, ArgenBio, Ciudad Aut´onoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina.; LUIS ANTONIO DE AVILA, Associate Professor, Department of Crop Protection, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, RS, Brazil.; MILTON ALEJANDRO GARCIA LATASA, INIA (Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria), Uruguay; GUIDO PLAZA, Associate Professor, Department of Agronomy, National University of Colombia, Bogotá DC, Colombia.; DIONÍSIO GAZZIERO, Researcher, Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária, Londrina, PR, Brazil.; VERONICA HOYOS, Temporary Professor, College of Engineering, Magdalena University, Santa Marta, Magdalena, Colombia. |
|
Título : |
Current situation regarding herbicide regulation and public perception in South America(Conference Paper). |
|
Fecha de publicación : |
2020 |
|
Fuente / Imprenta : |
Weed Science, 1 May 2020, Volume 68, Issue 3, Pages 232-239. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/wsc.2020.14 |
|
DOI : |
10.1017/wsc.2020.14 |
|
Idioma : |
Inglés |
|
Notas : |
Article history: Received: 13 December 2019.//Revised: 27 January 2020//Accepted: 29 January 2020.Author for correspondence:Edinalvo Rabaioli Camargo, Department of Crop Protection, Federal University of Pelotas,Pelotas, RS, Brazil 96010-900.(Email: edinalvo_camargo@yahoo.com.br). |
|
Contenido : |
Abstract:
South American countries are important agricultural players worldwide. Pesticides are key components of their production systems and, in some cases, complement environmentally sound systems, such as no-till, which contributes to preserving soil productivity. In this review, presented in the symposium Global Perspective on Herbicides Being Banned during the 2019 Weed Science Society of America meeting, we describe the regulatory framework and current situation of restricted and banned herbicides in South America. We also discuss where the pressure for herbicide bans is coming from and the opportunities for improving herbicide use and public perception. Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Uruguay were chosen as representative countries of the region. They all have regulatory systems in place for pesticide registration and reevaluation based on science. Glyphosate, paraquat, and some 2,4-D formulations are in the spotlight. Glyphosate is being reevaluated in Brazil and, although banned within the city limits in some cities in Argentina and Uruguay, it can still be used in agriculture. Paraquat is prohibited for aerial applications in Colombia and is the only herbicide that needs a professional prescription in Uruguay. It was reevaluated in Brazil, resulting in a use-restriction phase in effect until 2020, when it will be permanently banned. Ester formulations of 2,4-D have been banned in Brazil since the early 2000s and have restrictions in some provinces in Argentina, where 2,4-D butyl and isobutyl esters will be prohibited starting April 2021. In Uruguay, atrazine is the only herbicide banned for agricultural use. The regulatory frameworks ensure that herbicides on the market are effective and safe. Reevaluation is an important part of the system and is conducted when there are reasonable concerns. There are opportunities to continue training pesticide handlers and applicators and to communicate the importance of adopting the best management practices where herbicides are part of the production system. MenosAbstract:
South American countries are important agricultural players worldwide. Pesticides are key components of their production systems and, in some cases, complement environmentally sound systems, such as no-till, which contributes to preserving soil productivity. In this review, presented in the symposium Global Perspective on Herbicides Being Banned during the 2019 Weed Science Society of America meeting, we describe the regulatory framework and current situation of restricted and banned herbicides in South America. We also discuss where the pressure for herbicide bans is coming from and the opportunities for improving herbicide use and public perception. Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Uruguay were chosen as representative countries of the region. They all have regulatory systems in place for pesticide registration and reevaluation based on science. Glyphosate, paraquat, and some 2,4-D formulations are in the spotlight. Glyphosate is being reevaluated in Brazil and, although banned within the city limits in some cities in Argentina and Uruguay, it can still be used in agriculture. Paraquat is prohibited for aerial applications in Colombia and is the only herbicide that needs a professional prescription in Uruguay. It was reevaluated in Brazil, resulting in a use-restriction phase in effect until 2020, when it will be permanently banned. Ester formulations of 2,4-D have been banned in Brazil since the early 2000s and have restrictions in some provinces in Argentina, w... Presentar Todo |
|
Palabras claves : |
CROP PROTECTION PRODUCTS; ENVIRONMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; HERBICIDE BANS; PESTICIDES; PUBLIC HEALTH; TOXICITY. |
|
Thesagro : |
HERBICIDAS. |
|
Asunto categoría : |
-- |
|
Marc : |
LEADER 03261naa a2200313 a 4500
001 1061078
005 2020-05-25
008 2020 bl uuuu u00u1 u #d
024 7 $a10.1017/wsc.2020.14$2DOI
100 1 $aCAMARGO, E. R.
245 $aCurrent situation regarding herbicide regulation and public perception in South America(Conference Paper).$h[electronic resource]
260 $c2020
500 $aArticle history: Received: 13 December 2019.//Revised: 27 January 2020//Accepted: 29 January 2020.Author for correspondence:Edinalvo Rabaioli Camargo, Department of Crop Protection, Federal University of Pelotas,Pelotas, RS, Brazil 96010-900.(Email: edinalvo_camargo@yahoo.com.br).
520 $aAbstract: South American countries are important agricultural players worldwide. Pesticides are key components of their production systems and, in some cases, complement environmentally sound systems, such as no-till, which contributes to preserving soil productivity. In this review, presented in the symposium Global Perspective on Herbicides Being Banned during the 2019 Weed Science Society of America meeting, we describe the regulatory framework and current situation of restricted and banned herbicides in South America. We also discuss where the pressure for herbicide bans is coming from and the opportunities for improving herbicide use and public perception. Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Uruguay were chosen as representative countries of the region. They all have regulatory systems in place for pesticide registration and reevaluation based on science. Glyphosate, paraquat, and some 2,4-D formulations are in the spotlight. Glyphosate is being reevaluated in Brazil and, although banned within the city limits in some cities in Argentina and Uruguay, it can still be used in agriculture. Paraquat is prohibited for aerial applications in Colombia and is the only herbicide that needs a professional prescription in Uruguay. It was reevaluated in Brazil, resulting in a use-restriction phase in effect until 2020, when it will be permanently banned. Ester formulations of 2,4-D have been banned in Brazil since the early 2000s and have restrictions in some provinces in Argentina, where 2,4-D butyl and isobutyl esters will be prohibited starting April 2021. In Uruguay, atrazine is the only herbicide banned for agricultural use. The regulatory frameworks ensure that herbicides on the market are effective and safe. Reevaluation is an important part of the system and is conducted when there are reasonable concerns. There are opportunities to continue training pesticide handlers and applicators and to communicate the importance of adopting the best management practices where herbicides are part of the production system.
650 $aHERBICIDAS
653 $aCROP PROTECTION PRODUCTS
653 $aENVIRONMENT
653 $aENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
653 $aHERBICIDE BANS
653 $aPESTICIDES
653 $aPUBLIC HEALTH
653 $aTOXICITY
700 1 $aZAPIOLA, M.L.
700 1 $aAVILA, L.A.D
700 1 $aGARCIA, M.A.
700 1 $aPLAZA, G.
700 1 $aGAZZIERO, D.
700 1 $aVERONICA HOYOS, V.
773 $tWeed Science, 1 May 2020, Volume 68, Issue 3, Pages 232-239. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/wsc.2020.14
Descargar
Esconder MarcPresentar Marc Completo |
|
Registro original : |
INIA La Estanzuela (LE) |
|
|
Biblioteca
|
Identificación
|
Origen
|
Tipo / Formato
|
Clasificación
|
Cutter
|
Registro
|
Volumen
|
Estado
|
Volver
|
|
|
|
Registro completo
|
|
Biblioteca (s) : |
INIA Tacuarembó. |
|
Fecha actual : |
11/02/2019 |
|
Actualizado : |
15/03/2019 |
|
Tipo de producción científica : |
Artículos en Revistas Indexadas Internacionales |
|
Circulación / Nivel : |
Internacional - -- |
|
Autor : |
MEDEROS, A.; CARRACELAS, B.; MINHO, A.P.; FERNÁNDEZ, S.; SÁNCHEZ, J. |
|
Afiliación : |
AMERICA ESTHER MEDEROS SILVEIRA, INIA (Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria), Uruguay; EMERITA BEATRIZ CARRACELAS MARQUEZ, INIA (Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria), Uruguay; Brazilian Agricultural Research Company, Embrapa Sudeste Livestock, São Carlos, SP, Brazil.; Faculty of Veterinary Sciences, Area of Parasitology and Parasitic Diseases, Veterinary. Research Center of Tandil, UNCPBA, Tandil, Argentina.; Center of Veterinary Epidemiological Research, University of Prince Edward Island, Canada. |
|
Título : |
Prevalence and Factors Associated with Anthelmintic Resistance in Gastrointestinal Nematodes of Cattle: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. |
|
Fecha de publicación : |
2018 |
|
Fuente / Imprenta : |
Journal of Veterinary Medicine and Health, v. 2, no. 2, 2018. OPEN ACCESS. |
|
Idioma : |
Inglés |
|
Notas : |
Article history: Received November 21, 2018; Accepted December 02, 2018; Published December 17, 2018. |
|
Contenido : |
A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted with the aim to measure the prevalence of anthelmintic resistance (AR) in cattle gastrointestinal nematodes (GIN) and potential management factors associated with development of such resistance. A search algorithm was constructed and a comprehensive search of the primary
literature was conducted in: CAB abstracts (1990-2016), Medline (1860-2016), Agricola (1924-2016) and Lilacs (1985-2016). Prevalence estimates were combined through meta-analysis (MA) using the logit prevalence and between-study heterogeneity was quantified. Twenty-nine publications (5 cross-sectional studies; 14 prevalence
surveys and 10 field trials) were included in this review. Random effects MA resulted in an overall AR prevalence of 72.0% (95% CI=58.4% to 80.0%). However, a high heterogeneity was observed (I2=55.9%). From studies reporting the nematode genera involved in the AR, Cooperia spp were present in 91.7% of the studies (n=24); Ostertagia sp. in 44.5% (n=22); Haemonchus sp. in 47.8% (n=23); Trichostrongylus sp. in 36.4% (n=22) and Oesophagostomum spp. in 23.8% (n=21). The included cross sectional studies suggested that frequency of treatments, age of cattle and type of management were potential management factors associated with AR in bovine GINs. However, more detailed studies are necessary to fully evaluate management guidelines for implementation of sustainable GIN control strategies. |
|
Palabras claves : |
META-ANALYSIS; PARASITES; RESISTANCE ESTABLISHMENT; RISK FACTORS; RUMINANTS. |
|
Asunto categoría : |
L73 Enfermedades de los animales |
|
URL : |
http://www.ainfo.inia.uy/digital/bitstream/item/12422/1/MEDEROS-2019.pdf
|
|
Marc : |
LEADER 02292naa a2200241 a 4500
001 1059484
005 2019-03-15
008 2018 bl uuuu u00u1 u #d
100 1 $aMEDEROS, A.
245 $aPrevalence and Factors Associated with Anthelmintic Resistance in Gastrointestinal Nematodes of Cattle$bA Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.$h[electronic resource]
260 $c2018
500 $aArticle history: Received November 21, 2018; Accepted December 02, 2018; Published December 17, 2018.
520 $aA systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted with the aim to measure the prevalence of anthelmintic resistance (AR) in cattle gastrointestinal nematodes (GIN) and potential management factors associated with development of such resistance. A search algorithm was constructed and a comprehensive search of the primary literature was conducted in: CAB abstracts (1990-2016), Medline (1860-2016), Agricola (1924-2016) and Lilacs (1985-2016). Prevalence estimates were combined through meta-analysis (MA) using the logit prevalence and between-study heterogeneity was quantified. Twenty-nine publications (5 cross-sectional studies; 14 prevalence surveys and 10 field trials) were included in this review. Random effects MA resulted in an overall AR prevalence of 72.0% (95% CI=58.4% to 80.0%). However, a high heterogeneity was observed (I2=55.9%). From studies reporting the nematode genera involved in the AR, Cooperia spp were present in 91.7% of the studies (n=24); Ostertagia sp. in 44.5% (n=22); Haemonchus sp. in 47.8% (n=23); Trichostrongylus sp. in 36.4% (n=22) and Oesophagostomum spp. in 23.8% (n=21). The included cross sectional studies suggested that frequency of treatments, age of cattle and type of management were potential management factors associated with AR in bovine GINs. However, more detailed studies are necessary to fully evaluate management guidelines for implementation of sustainable GIN control strategies.
653 $aMETA-ANALYSIS
653 $aPARASITES
653 $aRESISTANCE ESTABLISHMENT
653 $aRISK FACTORS
653 $aRUMINANTS
700 1 $aCARRACELAS, B.
700 1 $aMINHO, A.P.
700 1 $aFERNÁNDEZ, S.
700 1 $aSÁNCHEZ, J.
773 $tJournal of Veterinary Medicine and Health$gv. 2, no. 2, 2018. OPEN ACCESS.
Descargar
Esconder MarcPresentar Marc Completo |
|
Registro original : |
INIA Tacuarembó (TBO) |
|
|
Biblioteca
|
Identificación
|
Origen
|
Tipo / Formato
|
Clasificación
|
Cutter
|
Registro
|
Volumen
|
Estado
|
Volver
|
| Expresión de búsqueda válido. Check! |
|
|
