CA2091922A1

CA2091922A1 - Delivery system for insecticides

Info

Publication number: CA2091922A1
Application number: CA002091922A
Authority: CA
Inventors: John D. Knapp; William Hershal Denton
Original assignee: AgriSense Inc
Current assignee: AgriSense Inc
Priority date: 1992-04-02
Filing date: 1993-03-18
Publication date: 1993-10-03
Also published as: EP0563963A1; BR9301393A; KR930021065A; JPH06321720A; MX9301875A

Abstract

ABSTRACT OF THE INVENTION
An enhanced delivery system for insecticides which utilizes novel insect feeding stimulant compositions. These compositions consist essentially of:
(a) a yeast selected from the group consisting of Candida utilis, Pichia pastoris and Kluvomyces fragilis;
(b) a flour selected from the group consisting of: cotton seed flour, soybean flour, rice flour, wheat flour and rape seed (canola); and (c) a sugar source selected from the group consisting of sucrose, fructose and glucose.
In addition such compositions can contain dispersants, surfactants, and silica compounds along with a selected insecticide.

Description

, 32915CA

DELIVERY SYSTE~ FOR INSECTICIDES
This invention relates to compositions which stimulate insect feeding and a method for using such compositions for insect control.

~ACKGR WND
Insect control until recently has been accompli~hed by the application of insecticides. However, the widespread use of insecticides as the primary means of control1ing insects has several drawbacks. Because most insecticides indiscriminately kill all types of insects, beneficial insects are removed from the ecosystem. Insectlcides, when employed as the primary source of insect control, also exert a strong selective pressure on the development of more resistant pests. Once resistant insects appear, increased smounts of insecticide must be applied to maintain the same level of insect control or a new insecticide must be utilized. Unfortunately, many insecticides can build up in the ecosystem, creating a hazard to both the farmer and the consumer.
Alternste methods of insect control therefore nced to be i0plemented. Such methods of insect control should provide a gre~ter degree of selectivity and control of insect pests while msintaining a high crop yield and low negative environmental impact. The emphasis of pest management has moved toward bioinsecticides. These bioinsecticides must be ingested by or be iD direct coDtact wlth the targeted iDsects, and the need for ~n enbanced delivory system hRs th0refore ~ncreased. A feeding st~mulsnt applied ~lth th0 ,... . . . ...... .. ... .

.
' , ..

bioinsecticides should increa3e their efficacy. Host bioratlonal insactlcide~
and some chemical insecticides 9re ~tomsch poison~ which tend to inhibit insect feedlng and which depend upon the insect ingesting a lethal dosGge. A
feeding stimulant to overcome sub-lethal dosages ls therefore need~t. Such a composition to asslst in achlevlng an appropriate dosage to control insect population would be 8 signlficsnt contribution to the art.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
It is an ob~ect of the present inventlon to provide a dellvsry system for insectlcides which utilize novel compositions that act as feeding stimulants for insects.
It is another obJect of the present invention to provide novel feeding stimulant compositions which remains effective in the presence of insecticides which would otherwise inhibit insect feeding.
It is yet another ob~ect of the present inventlon to provide a telivery system for insecticides which encompasses the use of sn ~dditive package in combinatlon with novel feeding stimulsnt compositions to facilitate dispersal of said compositions.
It is a further ob~ect of the present invention to provide an insect control system which improves selectivity of insecticides and reduces the environmental impact of insecticides by reducing the quantity of insecticide necessary to achieve a lethal dosage.

These and other ob~ects of the present inveDtion will become apparent upon inspection of the disclosure and the claims herein provided.
In accordance with the present invention, I have discovered that by including a yeast selected from the group consisting of C8~d-dfl utflfs, Pfcbf~
p~storfs and ~luvom~ces fragllfs in a feeding composition for insects, insect feedlng 1~ ~ti ulated.

. ^ ` ' .
.

. , .. . ....... _ . .. . .. ... . .

, -.

One e-bodiment of the present invention relstes to novel fe~ding ~timulant compositions which con~ist essentially of:
(a) a yeast selectet from the group consisting of:
Csnt td~ ut ~l ~s, I~chl ~ p~storls and ~l uvomyces f r~g ~l l s;
(b) a flour selected from the group consisting of: cotton seed flour, rape seed flour, rice flour, and wheat flour; and (c) a polysaccharide source ~elected from the group consisting of sucrose, fructose, and glucose.
Another embodiment of the present invention relate~ to an additive package which when combined with the novel feeding stimulant compositions, facilitates dispersal of the composition in water.
A further embodiment of the present invention relates to an enhanced delivery system for insecticides which incorporates treating a locus with a novel feeding stimulant composition.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION
The novel feedin8 stlmulant compositions of the present invention provide vehicles by which biorational and conventional insecticide~, intended for insect ingestion, are delivered, while stimulating insect feeding.
Riorational insecticides are control agents and chemical analogues of naturally-occurring compounds used for insect control. These compounds can consist of viruses, bacteria, and fungi, or their by-products, or may be naturally occurring compounds such as borax. Conventional insecticides are co~pounds such as synthetic pyrethroids, organophosphates and chlorinated hydrocarbon~.
In keeping with the present invent~on, the basic feeding stimulant compositions consist assentially of a combination of yea~t, flour, ant sugar.

.:
.

::
~ , -2091 ~22 32916CA

Yeast sultable for use ln the compositlons of the present inventlon Are those stralns selected fro- the group conslsting of C~n~ldo utflls, ~luvooyc~ fr~g~l~s, snd Pfch~ p~stosJs. Preferred ~trains of each yeast specle are C~ndJdA utll~s ~RRL Y-1082, Rluvomyces fr~gllJs NRRL Y-2264, and P~ch~ p~storls NRRL Y-11431. In addltlon, both ~luvomyces fr~gJlfs and C~ndJd~ utll~s are mors preferable, a8 these yeasts have been approved by both the EPA and FDA for food snd feed use.
The yeast, when ln combination with flour and sugar significantly increases insect feedlng and thus provides the basis for an insect feeding stimulant to be used ~s an enhanced delivery system for insecticides.
The amount of yeast to be added to form the feeding stimulant compositions of the present invention is in the range of about 30 to about 40 weight percent of the total weight. The preferred amount of yeast is about 34 welght percent of the total weight.
The term flour as used herein refers to a ground seed having a p~rticle size of less than 100 microns and being selected from A group consisting of cotton seed flour, soybean flour, rice flour, wheat flour, and rape seed (canola). The cotton seed flour may be from either glanded or glandless cotton plants. Such flours in combination with the other ingredients of the present invention provide an effective insect feeding ~timulant. In one presently preferred embodiment, the flour is cotton seed flour.
The amount of flour to be added to any of the feeding stimulant compositions is about 35 to about 45 weight percent of the total weight. The preferred smount of flour is about 44 weight percent of the totsl weight.
The source of poly saccharide of the feeding stimulant compositions is at least one sugar selected fro~ tbe group consl~tlng of sucrose, fructose, and glucose. The preferred ~ugar of the present invention 1~ ~ucrose.

, .. , . - :

2091922 32~16CA

The a~ount of ~ugar to be added to any of the feeding ~tlmulant compo~$tions is in the ran8e of about 10 to about 20 weight percent of the totsl welght. The preferred smount of sugar ls about 14 weight percent of the total welght. The combination of the above three stlmulant components namely yeast, flour, and sugar, provldes the novel and effective insect feedin8 ~timulant compositions of the present invention.
In one preferred embodiment of the present invention, a fourth component, a vegetable oil, is included in the final composition. Addition of such vegetable olls is optional since the necessary flour component normally contalns a sufficient a~ount of oil to achieve the stimulatory result, and therefore renders the addition of the vegetable oil nonessential.
The vegetable oil is one selected from the group conslsting of cotton seed oil, peanut oil, corn oil, safflower oil and canola (r~pe seed) oll.
The amount of vegetable oil if included in any of the feeding stimulant compositioDs ls in the range of about 0 to about 4 percent of the total welght.
The preferred vegetable oil is cotton seed oil and the preferred amount of vegetable oll to be sdded is about 1.5 weight percent of the total weight when the yeast is about 34.0 weight percent of the total weight; the flour is about 44.0 weight percent of the total weight; and the sugar is about 14.0 weight percent of the total weight.
By combining this composition with various chemical and biorational insecticides which otherwise tend to inhibit insect feeding, the probleu of subleth~l dose ingestion i~ overcome.

The insectlcides can be blended into the feeding sti~ulant composition using any suitable means known to those of Hkill in the art.

.

.

:

The compo~ltlon~ of thls inventlon cay be ade lnto a try for-, (e.g. cake, wafer or pellet form) and used at an lnsect feetlng station and lngested, or may be made into a wettable powder, dry flowable or liquit formulstlon, and ussd to treat a locu~ on which target lnsects nre known to feed. If deslred, the inventive compositions msy also be used in combination wlth contact poisons snd dissase-caussl sgents in a osnner which would be known to those skilled in the srt.
Optionally there csn be present in the feediDg stimulant composition dispersants, surfactsnts, and/or silics compounds. These additives are beneflclal ln achlevlng an effective formulstlon such as a wettable powder.
However, such addltives mu~t neither act as an lnsect repellant nor counteract the stimulatory effects of the inventive compositions. CombiDing the additives with the novel feeding stimulant compositions prlor to p~ckaging the compositions serves to blend the sctive ingredients together ~nd facilitate the use of the stimulant composition as a spray insecticide.
The additlves, for purposes of the present lnventlon, fall into three categories. The flrst category of addltlves of the present lnvention ls disperssnts. The term dispersant as herein used includes materials thst reduce the cohesiveness of like psrticles, either solid or liquid.
Dispersants sre added during the preparstion of wettable powders or emulsifiable concentrates to facilitate dispersion and suspension of the ingredients in an aqueous solution to treat a locus. Suitable dlspersants arc those selected from a group of lignosufonates i.e. dlspersants for wettable powders, water dispersible granules and suspension concentrates; stsblllzers of liquid concentrates. Lignosulonates are water-soluble, anionic derivatives of llgnin.
Several dlfferent types of lignosulfonate dispersaDts exist aDd a proper ~atch of dlspersant with a speclfic ior~uls 18 required. T~o , . . .. . ~ .. ~ . .... , . . .......... -- , .. .

~, '~

2091922 32^916CA~

dlspersants which were found to be especlally useful in the practico of the present lnventlon were the sodlur salt of lignosulfonlc acid, commercially avallable as Reax 80N from Westvaco Polychemicals ant the sodiuo salt of a naphalene ~ulfonlc acid formaldehyde polymer, commercially availsble 4S Lomar PW from Nenkel Corporatlon.
The above two dispersants may either be used sep~rately (l.e. only one added to the composition) or in combination. However, it is preferred that they be used in combination because tests determined the co~binatlon provided quickest dispersal lnto the aqueous solutlon when used together in correct ratlo. The concentration of the preferred dispersants i8 in the range of about 2 to about 3 weight percent, and preferably about 2.6 weight percent of the total weight.
The second category of addltives as practiced in the present invention is surfactants. A surfactant, wettlng agent, is a substance that reduces the interfacial tension of two boundary lines. These materials can be classed as nonionlc, anionic and cationlc.
Factors involved in the selection of a surfactant as a wetting agent lnclude the homogenelty of concentrates, storage stability of powder or concentrate, the ease of mlxing ln water, effect of water hardness on dispersion or emulslon stabillty, and end use cost of ingredients. A
presently preferred surfactant is that whlch is commerclally known as Surfynol 82S from Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.; however, other suitable surfact~nts include but are not limited to those commercially known as and selected from the group consisting of Agriwet TF from Henkel Corporation, ~orwet DB from DeSoto, Inc., and Aerosol OTB from American Cyanamld Company.
The amount of surfactant to be added to the composltion ls in the range of about to about 1.5 to about 3 welght percent of the total weight. A

, . . , "

preferred anount of 3urfsctant is about 2.2 weight percent of the total weight.
The third category of addltives when for~ulatin~ a wettable powder that may be present i~ a silica compound. Any silica compound which 8110ws adtlng the oil in a dry state may be used. The presently preferred 8ilica compound i9 an amorphous, precipitated, hydrated silicon dlo~ide commercially avallable as HiSil 233 from PPG Industrles, Inc.
The smount of silica compound to be added to the composition 1~ in the range of about 1.5 to about 2.5 weight percent of the total weight. A
preferred a~ount of sillca compound is about 1.9 weight percent of the total weight.
A presently preferred additive psckage consisting of dispersants.
Reax 80N and Lomar PW which are respectively the sodium salt of lignosulfonlc acid, (HOCH,OAr)n(SO~Na)x where "n" and "x" are equal to a positive integer, and the sodium salt of naphthalene sulfonic acid formaldehyde poly~er, a surfactant Surfynol 825 3,6-dimethyl-4-octyne-3,6 dlol, and an amorphous ~ilicon dioxide, should be added ln amounts sufficient to effect the dispersal of the feeding stlmulant composltions in water. Facilltating the use of the inventive sy~tem is therefore accomplished by addition of thls addltive package to the basic feeding stimulant composition.
The preferred feeding composition inclusive of said additive package consists essentially of:
(a) C~ndid~ Ut~I fs yeast with a total weight percent of 34;
(b) cotton seed flour with a total weight percent of 43.8;
(c) sucrose with a total weight percent of 14;
(d) cotton seed oil witb a total weight percent of 1.5;
(e) lignosulfonlc acid, sodiuo salt (N0CH~OAr)ntSO~Na~s with a total weight percent of 1.3;

209~922 (f) naphthfllene sulfonic acid formAldehyde poly~er, sodiu~ ~alt wlth d total weight percent of 1.3;
(g) silicon dloxide with a total welght percent of 1.9; snd (h) 3,6-dimethyl-4-octyne-3,6-tiol on Mn s~orphous sllicon tio~lde wlth a total weight percent of 2.2.
The feeding stimulant composition consisting essentially of elther yeast, flour snd sugar or that composition consisting essentially of the yeast, flour, sugar and vegetable oil or the composition conslsting essentially of the yeast, flour, sugar, vegetable oil and the additive package, can be combined with an iDsecticids selected from the group consisting of conventional and biorational insecticites. Such insecticides are employed in an amount sufficient to provide lethal dosages of lnsecticide for the targeted insects.
Conventional insecticides ~ay be those selected from a group consisting of carbamates, ~ynthetic pyrethroids, and organophosphQtes; and said bioration~l insecticides are selected from the group consisting of pyrcthrum, Bsc~llus thur~ngleRs~s, and a~c~llus sph~er~cus. A presently preferred insecticide for use with the feeding sti~ulant of the present invention is ~cfllus t*urfng fens~s .
The feeding stimulant composition containing the insecticide can be ln the form of a wettable powder and can be easily packaged and stored until ready for use. Preferably, the wettable powder is blended with water and sprflyed onto a locus where the target insect is known to feed. The appetite of the feeding insect is stimulated and a lethal dose of insecticide ingested.

~ .

2 0 919 2 2 3~916CA

~XA~PLES
The following example~ are provlded Merely to lllustrate the inventlon and should not be read as to limit the 9cope of the inve~tion or the appended clalms ln any way.

ExamPl_ I

repArations of Feedin8 Com~ositions of Yeast. Flour. SuRar and Combinatlons Thereof Nine feedlng compositlons of yeast, flour, sugQr and combinations thereof were preparet ln the followlng manner. All compositions were bssed on weight percent of each in8redient inclusive of 3 percent agflr. Water made up the difference to 100 percent. Yeast was dried ~luvo~yces frag~lfs, commerclally available from Provesta Corporatlon, ~artlesville, Okl~homa. The flour was cottonseed flour; the sugar wss sucrose. The percentage of the yeast, flour, and sugar components ls listed ln Table I.
The feedlng damage tests were conducted using an agar drop assay.
Petrl dishes wlth a dlameter of 9 cm were used with moist filter paper in top lid. The bottom was the test arena where agar droplets (3 percent agar) contsinlng the selected feeding stl~ulant component were di~persed, 20 droplets in total. With dual choice test, 10 droplets of each ln alternating fashion. Tests were done in triplet for each choice of feeding co~positlon and run in growth chamber at 30C. Continuous light, from above, was used.
Thirty neonate larvae of ~elioth~s ze~ were used per petri dlsh. After 16-17 hours of lncubatlon, results were recorded by estimatlng the amount of surface feedlng on each droplet of agar æub~trate. Thls was routlnely done by classification in heavy, moderate, and low feeding damages. Low feedin8 damage was Just a few bites from the agar substrate. Moderate was up from a f~w bites to feeding damage along the perimeter but Dot OD top. If bites were t~ken from the top of the droplet but peri~eter was not completely fed UpOD, .

, ~, ' ' `, . . ' then thls wa~ still ~oderata feedlng. Hesvy feedlng wa~ full peri-etar fseding and feeding damage on top as well. Feeding damage results are showD
in Tsble I.

Table I
Feedin~ Stimulant Compositions Feedin~ Damsge Yeast Supar FlourHeavv~oderate Low 1. 1% - - 12 14 4 2. - lX - 21 7

3. - - 1% 2 13 15

4. lZ 1% - 13 14 3

5. lX - lZ 20 9

6. - 1% 1% 2 9 19

7. lZ lX lX 22 8 0

8. 1% - 2X 21 9 o

9. 2X - 1% 7 16 7 The results shown in Table I determined the efficacy of components used in a feeding stlumlant-differentiation of separate ingredients and indicate that cotton seed flour, and yeastl when used alone at 1 percent level, was not a good feeding material. Yeast and sugar are better tban flour. Combination of yeast and either sucrose or flour stimulated feeding.
Combination of sucrose and flour without yeast, on the other hand, did not stimulate feeding of the larvae. However, when yeast was added to flour alone and to the combination of sucrose and flour at 1 percent each, the feedin~ was ~ignificantly improved.

Example II

Preparation of the Feedin~ Stimulant Co~position Inclusive of Additives 8.1 pounds of ~ilicon dioxide, (HiSil 233), were added to a clean liquid-solid blender (Patter90n-Kelly twin shell blender) equipped with an inten~ifier bar and hend. After all clamps and discharge part~ were secured, 6.4 lb9. of heated cotton seed oll that had been unlfornly heated to 40-50 ln .. . .. ,, ., . . ~ ., .. , . . . . .. , , . . . , . ~ . .. ...

.
. . . , ~ ' ,~ :

, :

12 2 0 919 2 2 3~916CA
a ~eparate heatlng vessel were added to tbe blender. The m~xture W8~ then thoroughly mixed to obtain a uniform mixture.
The remaining formulfltion lngredlents shown in Table II lnfrs, were blended thoroughly in Q ribbon blender. The well ~ixed silicon dioxide -cotton seed oll mixture was then adted to the ribbon blender and was mixed thoroughly with the dry ingredients to obtain a uniform mixture.
The uniform mixture of the formulation ingred~ents were 910wly fed into a hammer mill with a 2-3 mm screen at a rate such that the mixture was kept below 40C. Product was discharged into a holding vessel. The particle size of the finished product in the holding vessel was 25 ~m.
Table II lists the ingredients used and their percent by weight.

32~16CA

Tsble II
Feed Stimulant Formulatlon In8redientWel~ht (Per cent by wt.) Provesteen T: 158.7 lbs. (34.0) Dried Candida utilis yeast, com~ercially svallable from Provests Corporation, Bartlesville, Oklahoms.
Pharmamedla (sifted): 123.4 lbs. (43.8) Cottonseed flour, commercially available from CCT Corporation, Litchfield, Arizona.
Sucrose (dry) 51.4 lbs. (14.0) Surfynol 825: 8.9 lbs. ( 2.2) 3,6-Dimethyl-4-octyne-3,6-diol on smorphous silicon oxide.
Reax 80N: 5.6 lbs. ( 1.3) Sodium lignosulfonate commercially available from Westvaco, Charleston, South Carolina.
Lomar PW: 5.6 lbs. ( 1.3) Sodium salt of naphthalene s~lfonic acid -formaldehyde polymer, commercially available from Henkel Chemical, Ambler, Pennsylvania.
HiSil 233- 8.1 lbs. ~ 1.9) Silicon dioxide, may be omitted, depending on type of blending equipment.
Cotton seed oil 6.4 lbs. ( 1.5) (c_ude or once-refined) , ,.

Comparative Dsta OD the Effect of the Feedln~ Stimulsnt ComPositiOn of E~ample II
A serles of tests were conducted to demonstr~te thc effect on feedin8 of the stimulaDt composition of Exa~ple II.
The tests of Exsmple~ V were coDducted in the following manner:
In each ca~e, the feeding stimulant formulation was suspended in sufflcient water to disperse uniformly at the rats of 5 to 50 gallons of sprfly solution per acre over the desired acreage through standard agricultural spray equipment. The gallonage delivery was calibrated in each case to disparse the feeding stimulant formulatlon at the rates of 0.5 to 5.0 pounds of formulation per acre. The method of application is known to those skilled in the art of pesticide applications.

Example III
A lettuce crop having a crop size of 128 sq. ft. and an insect populstion of 11.8 to 20.4 lQrvae per plant was treated with Javclin WG, a formulation of Bacillus thuringiensis commercially available from Sandoz Crop Protection Corporation. The slone effected no reduction of a populstion of Spodopt~r~ exf~us (beet srmyworm). Nowever, when feeding stimulant was dispersed at ~ rste of one-half pound per acre in combination with the tisper~al of ~lllus thurfng~ensfs at a rate of one-half pound per acre, a 60 percent mortslity or reduction of the population was observed.

Example IV
Young cotton pl~nts in pots in the greenhouse were artificially infested with larvae of the corn earworn, ~elfothfs ze~, at the rate of 10 larvae pcr plsnt ~nd treated with DiPel 2X, a formulation of BAc~llus tburfDgf~nsfs commercially available from Abbott L~boratories. A mort~lity level of 95 percent was achieved with the addition of the feeding stimul~nt .
.. . . . . . . ... ...
;

' 2 0 9 19 2 2 ~2916CA
lS
composition; this high level was never sble to be achieved w ing DlPel 2X
~10D~ .

Example V
A cotton crop having an area of 0.25 acre, wss treated with Bactospeine, a formulation of B~c~llus thur~ng~ens~s commercially avallable from Montqrey Chemical Company, the mortallty level of a population of Isttg~ane ~creA (saltmarsh caterpillar) was only 42 percent. When the feeding stimulant composition of Exsmple II was additionally dispersed st the ~ame rate l.e., one-half pound per acre, the mortality level increaset to 82 percent.
Examples III - V demonstrate that mortality levels Yignificantly increa~e when the feeding stimulant composition is dlspersed onto crops in atditlon to the dispersal of ~clllus thur~n~ens fs sources.
Comparative te~ts using D8c~11us thurfng~ens~s dispersal slone, B~clllus thur~ng~ens~s in combin~tion with a known feeding composition, and B~c~llus thur~ng~ens~s in combination with the feeding stimulant composition of the present invention demon~trate that the inventive feeding stimulant composition increases insect feeding over the other compositions a9 evidenced by the overall percentage of crop damage.
When BAC~11US thur~ng~ens~s (Javeline WG) was dispersed alone onto a watermelon crop, overall damage to the crop by a population of Spodopte~A
exf~u~ (beet armyworm) Wa9 52 percent dnmage. When ~sc ~llus thurlng~ens~s (Javelin WG) was combined with COAX, a phagostimulant currently on the market and commercially available from CCT Corporation, the damage was 26 percent.
When ~Ac~llus thurfng~ens~s (Javeline WG) was combined with an inventlve feeding stlMulant co~po~ition, the damage was 18 percent. Thu~ the re~ult~
indic~te that overall crop da~age can be significantly reduced by the addition ```' ` - ~ ~ - . . .. ~.. , : , .
` : ' ` ' :
' '`' ': ' ~ ::
::

2 0 9 1 9 2 2 3~916C~

of tha lnventlve fe~dlng stimulant coopositlon wblch causc~ lncreaJ~d lnsect ingestlon of 0BC111U~ thurlo~ens~s, which lead~ to increasa~ lnsect mortality level which ultlmately result~ in decreased crop da-age.

Example VI
A crop of seedless watermelon with 8 total area of 96 acres, and h~vlng an average of 61 percent of the melons infested wlth larvae of the beet armyworm, Spodopt~ ex~gu~, was divlded lnto 81~ (6) treatment plot~.
Following treatment of two plots wlth a combination of Lannate and Asana (both bsin8 chemical insecticldes commerclally avallable from DuPont Chemicsl Company), the level of infestation by the larvae was 32 ~nd 74 percent. When the feeding stlmulant was additlonally sprayed with the ~bove in~ecticides OD
two plots, the lnfestation level was 8 and 16 percent respectively. The chemical composition of Lannate is S-methyl-N-(methylcarba~oyl)oxy-thio-acetimldate. The che~ical compositlon of Asana (esfenvalerate) i8 (S)-cyano(3-phenoxyphenyl)methyl-(S)-4-chloro-alpha~ methylethyl) benzene acetate.

Example VII
A crop of seedles~ waterMelon with a total area of 96 acres, and having an average of 88 percent of the melons infested witb larvae of the beet srmyworm, Spodopter~ exigua, was divided into six (6) treatment plots.
Following treatment of two of the plot~ with a co~bination of Lannate (commercially availabla from DuPont Chemical Company), the iDfestation level by the larvae was 72 percent and 24 percen$. Following treat~ent of two plots with a combination of Lannate (commercially available froo DuPont Chemical Compsny) and Pounce, (per-ethrin), commerclally avallable froa FMC Corporation ~nd having the chealcal conpo~ition (3-phenoxyph~nyl)-ethyl(~)cic, , . . ~ .

trans-3-(2,2-dlchloroethen~1)-2,2-dlcethylcyclop ropane-carboxylate, wlth tbe di~persal of the feeding stl-ulant composltion, the lnfest~tlon level wa~ 8 percent ant 12 percent respectively. ~he~ Lannate and Pounce were disperset in combine~tion wlth the phagostl~ulant, Coax (currently available on the market and commerclally available from CCT Corporation), or the phagostlmulant, Entice (commercislly svailable from Fermone Company), the infestatlon levels were 26 percent and 24 percent, respectlvely.
Examples VI-VII deoonstrate that mortality levels significantly increase when the feeding stimulant composition ls dispersed onto crops in addlt$on to dispersal of conventional insecticides.
Tests were carried out to determine tbe effectiveness of a liquid formulatlon insect feeding stimulant formulation. The ingredients used in the formul~tion are listed in Table III below.

Table III
Ingredients of Feeding Stimulant Formulstion 2S9-02 In~redients Percenta~e by total weight Cottonseed Flour 12 Yeastl 9 Sucrose 3.75 Slpernat 50 s2 0.3 Soy leclthln surfactant 0.6 Sorbic Acid preservative 1.0 Cottonseed Oil 4.0 Bond sticker3 10 Emulsifier~ 5 Water 54.85 -, Dried Kluvomyces fraRill~ yea~t, avallable fro~ Provestfl Corporation, Bartl~sville, Oklaho~a.
Amorphous ~lllcon dloxlde, commerclally avallable fro~ Degussa Corporation.
An agrlcultural sticker used ln pesticide, containing (by wei~ht):
synth~tic latex (45X), primsry alipbatic oxyalkylated slcohol (10X) snd inert ingredient (45Z), commercially available from Loveland Indu~tries, Inc.
4 ATPlus 1992 emulsifier commercially availsble fro~ ICI Americas Inc.
The stimulant formulation was mlxed in A laboratory blender until of unlform consistency based on visual observations and then used for insect feeding tssts. The feediDg tests were carried out wlth agar based feeding mixture in 9 cm diameter petri dishes containing the stimulant formulat~oD in a 30C growth chamber having a light source on the top. Neonate larvae of selected species were placed in the petri dishes containing the feeding ~ixture. The petri dishes were then sealed w~th parafilm, incubated in the chamber, and mortality was recorded daily for four days. The results, obtained in triplet, are shown in Table IV.

Table IV
Test on feedin~ stimulant formulation~
Formulation Mortalitv (% after 4 davs) 1. Control2 40 2. Control plus Bond Sticker 36 3. Control plus Invention3 56 ~ Three tays old Heliothis virescens larvae were used in the tests.
2 Bacillus thuringiensis spores in oil flowable.
~ See Table III for invention feeding stimulant formulation.

These results demonstrate that ths invention feeding stimulant formulation (3) ~lgnificantly increases the feed efficiency resulting iD a higher death rate of tbe larvae.

, 2091922 32~16CA

Ressonabls variatlon~ and eodificstion~, not departlng fro~ the essence and ~pirit of the invention, are conte~plated to be within the scope of patent protection sought.

Claims

THAT WHICH IS CLAIMED IS:

1. A feeding stimulant composition consisting essentially of:
(a) a yeast selected from the group consisting of Candida utilis, Pichia pastoris and Kluvomyces fragilis;
(b) a flour selected from the group consisting of cotton seed flour, rape seed flour, rice flour, and wheat flour; and (c) a polysaccharide source selected from the group consisting of sucrose, fructose, and glucose.

2. A composition in accordance with claim 1 wherein:
(a) said yeast is present in a range of about 30 to about 40 weight percent of the total weight;
(b) said flour is present in a range of about 35 to about 45 weight percent of the total weight;
(c) said sugar is present in a range of about 10 to about 20 weight percent of the total weight.

3. A composition in accordance with claim 2 wherein said yeast is Candida utilis, said flour is cotton seed flour, said sugar source is sucrose.

4. A composition in accordance with claim 3 wherein:
(a) said yeast is present in an amount of about 34 weight percent of total weight;
(b) said flour is present in an amount of about 44 weight percent of total weight; and (c) said sugar is present in an amount of about 14 weight percent of total weight.

5. A composition in accordance with claim 1 additionally comprising a vegetable oil selected from the group consisting of cotton seed oil, peanut oil corn oil, safflower oil and canola (rape seed) oil.

6. A composition in accordance with claim 5 wherein said additive vegetable oil is present in a range of about 0 to about 4 weight percent of the total weight.

7. A composition in accordance with claim 5 wherein said vegetable oil is cotton seed oil.

8. A composition in accordance with claim 7 wherein:
(a) said vegetable oil is present in an amount of about 1.5 weight percent of the total weight;
(b) said yeast is present in an amount of about 34 weight percent of the total weight;
(c) said flour is present in an amount of about 44 weight percent of the total weight; and (d) said sugar is present in an amount of about 14 weight percent of the total weight.

9. A composition in accordance with claim 1 having additionally present therein an additive composition consisting essentially of:
(a) at least one dispersant;
(b) at least one surfactant; and (c) at least one silica compound.

10. A composition in accordance with claim 9 wherein:
(a) said dispersant is selected from the group consisting of:
lignosulfonic acid, sodium salt (HOCH3OAr)n(SO3Na)x; naphthalene sulfonic acid formaldehyde polymer, sodium salt, and mixtures thereof;
(b) said surfactant is 3,6-dimethyl-4-octyne-3,6-diol on an amorphous silicon dioxide; and (c) said silica compound is silicon dioxide (SiO2)x.

11. A composition in accordance with claim 10 wherein said additive composition is present in an amount sufficient to effect dispersing of said feeding stimulant composition in water.

12. A composition in accordance with claim 10 wherein:
(a) said dispersant is present in a range of about 2 to about 3 weight percent of the total weight;
(b) said surfactant is present in a range of about 1.5 to about 3 weight percent of the total weight; and (c) said silica compound is present in a range of about 1.5 to about 2.5 weight percent of the total weight.

13. A composition in accordance with claim 10 wherein said dispersants are the sodium salt of lignosulfonic acid, (HOCH3OAr)n(SO3Na)x and the sodium salt of naphthalene sulfonic acid formaldehyde polymer; said surfactant is 3,6-dimethyl-4-octyne-3,6-diol on an amorphous silicon dioxide;
and said silica compound is silicon dioxide, (SiO2)x.

14. A composition in accordance with claim 13 wherein:
(a) said dispersants are present in an amount of: about 1.3 weight percent of the total weight for said lignosulfonic acid; and about 1.3 weight percent of the total weight for said naphalene sulfonic acid;
(b) said surfactant is present in an amount of about 2.2 weight percent of the total weight; and (c) said silica is present in an amount of about 1.9 weight percent of the total weight.

15. A composition in accordance with claim 2 wherein an insecticide is additionally present in an amount sufficient to infect target insects.

16. A composition in accordance with claim 15 wherein the insecticide is selected from the group consisting of conventional and biorational insecticides.

17. A composition in accordance with claim 16 wherein said convention insecticides are selected from a group consisting of: carbamates, synthetic pyrethroids, and organophosphate.

18. A composition in accordance with claim 16 wherein said biorational insecticides are selected from the group consisting of:
pyrethrum, Bacillus thuringiensis, and Bacillus sphaericus.

19. A composition in accordance with claim 9 wherein an insecticide is additionally present in an amount sufficient to infect target insects.

20. A composition in accordance with claim 19 wherein the insecticides are selected from the group consisting of conventional and biorational insecticides.

21. A composition in accordance with claim 20 wherein said convention insecticides are selected from a group consisting of: carbamates, synthetic pyrethroids, and organophosphate.

22. A composition in accordance with claim 20 wherein said biorational insecticides are selected from the group consisting of:
pyrethrum, Bacillus thuringiensis, and Bacillus sphaericus.

23. A feeding stimulant composition consisting essentially of:
(a) Candida Utilis yeast with a total weight percent of 34;
(b) cotton seed flour with a total weight percent of 43.8;
(c) sucrose with a total weight percent of 14;
(d) cotton seed oil with a total weight percent of 1.5;
(e) lignosulfonic acid, sodium salt (HOCH3OAr)n(SO3Na)x with a total weight percent of 1.3;
(f) naphthalene sulfonic acid formaldehyde polymer, sodium salt with a total weight percent of 1.3;
(g) silicon dioxide (SiO2)x with a total weight percent of 1.9; and (h) 3,6-dimethyl-4-octyne-3,6-diol on an amorphous silicon dioxlds with a total weight percent of 2.2.

24. A method for the control of insect population comprising blending the feeding stimulant composition of claim 23 with the insecticide Bacillus thuringiensis and water and spraying the mixture onto a locus in an amount sufficient to infect target insects.