Economic costs ofFusarium Head Blight, scab and deoxynivalenol

Abstract

Fusarium Head Blight (FHB) has led to major economic costs for wheat and barley producers. Grain products and feed grain contaminated with deoxynivalenol (DON) (commonly known as vomitoxin) are subject to Food and Drug Administration advisory limits and as a result end-users place restrictions on their use. This has led to steep price discounts, as well as higher risks for producers and grain merchandisers. Varietal research has led to development of varieties that are resistant or moderately resistant to FHB. Studies indicate combinations of genetic resistance, fungicides and some management practices (combine settings, tillage practices, etc.) can be used to decrease economic costs due to FHB. The purpose of this study was to estimate the economic costs of scab. To do so we developed several economic models, analysed extensive data and conducted surveys of wheat flour millers, barley maltsters, and grain handlers. A detailed assessment of costs indicates the most important costs accrued by the wheat and barley industries were the risk premium paid to induce adoption of DON reducing technologies and the value of yield forgone. These were followed by the direct costs of fungicide, added shipping costs, testing and segregation and discounts.

Combinational Inhibitory Action of Hedychium spicatum L. Essential Oil and γ-Radiation on Growth Rate and Mycotoxins Content of Fusarium graminearum in Maize: Response Surface Methodology

“…The DON and ZEA have been detected in wide range of agricultural commodities, such as barley, corn, corn silage, hay, oats, rice, sesame seed, sorghum, and wheat (CAST, 2003 ; Zinedine et al, 2007 ). Particularly, Fusarium head blight (FHB) in wheat and barley, and Gibberella ear rot in maize caused by F. graminearum is a devastating plant disease of temperate regions and results in yield loss and mycotoxins contamination (Wilson et al, 2018 ). Most lately, Xu et al ( 2018 ) from North China Plain have detected as high as 95.7% of maize germ contamination with DON and measured average attendance of DON in processed products of maize germs as 163.7–1175.2 μg/kg.…”

Factors related to the economic performance of wheat commercial fields

“…This situation may imply a rise in fungicide applications, increasing the fungicide cost and total cost and decreasing the economic performance (Tables 1 and 3). Besides, the high precipitation might increase nitrogen and other nutrients losses (Marschner & Rengel, 2012), and imply in reduction of wheat price due to mycotoxins levels (Wilson et al, 2018). Thus, under these conditions, there are many sources with potential to decrease the economic performance, which can cite low yield potential, lower price and high plant protection costs.…”

“…Excluding the price factor, the climatic conditions are one of the most important elements for wheat economic return, since they can significantly affect grain yield and influence costs and, consequently, determine the farmer's economic revenue. Besides, it can affect wheat technological quality and impact on the grain price (Wilson et al, 2018). This factor, linked with the high cost of inputs, places Brazil among the countries with the highest wheat production expenditure.…”

Disease Management and Estimated Effects on DON (Deoxynivalenol) Contamination in Fusarium Infested Barley

“…DON in barley results in substantial price reductions, downgrading to feed barley, or even rejection for barley producers in the Northern Great Plains. Another consequence occurs when barley producers modify production choices, such as including crops less vulnerable to FHB [4].Management of FHB caused by F. graminearum relies on an integrated program using genetic resistance, fungicides, and cultural practices such as tillage, adjusting planting dates, and crop rotation. Employment of several management tools together has the greatest effect on decreasing losses due to FHB and DON in wheat [5,6].…”

“…DON in barley results in substantial price reductions, downgrading to feed barley, or even rejection for barley producers in the Northern Great Plains. Another consequence occurs when barley producers modify production choices, such as including crops less vulnerable to FHB [4].…”