Workers give an H9 bird flu vaccine to chicks at a farm in Changfeng district, Anhui province, April 14, 2013. Photo: Reuters. A 41-year-old man in eastern China’s Jiangsu province has been confirmed as the first case of a rare bird flu called H10N3, Beijing’s National Health Commission (NHC) said. The man, a resident of Zhenjiang City, was hospitalized on April 28 and was diagnosed with H10N3 on May 28, the NHC said on June 1, adding that his condition was stable. determined. The NHC did not give details on how the man became infected but said a check of his close contacts found no other cases and the risk of transmission was very low. What does the world know about H10N3? Little is known about this virus, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), which appears to be very rare in birds and does not cause serious illness. The World Health Organization (WHO) said that although the source of the patient’s exposure to the H10N3 virus has not been identified and no other cases have been found in the local population, there is still no indication of the disease. person-to-person transmission. However, avian influenza viruses may have little effect on birds but can have much more severe effects in humans, such as the H7N9 strain that killed nearly 300 people in China during the winter of 2016-2017. The WHO says there are only rare cases of human-to-human transmission of the H7N9 virus. What is the risk of H10N3 infection? The risk of further transmission of H10N3 is currently thought to be very low, with experts describing the case as “sporadic”. Such cases occasionally occur in China, where there are large numbers of domestic and wild birds of many species. And with increased surveillance of avian influenza among the population, more and more cases of avian influenza virus infections are occurring. In February, Russia reported its first human case of the highly damaging H5N8 virus on poultry farms across Europe, Russia and East Asia last winter. Authorities said seven people infected with the virus had no symptoms. Experts would be wary of any cluster of H10N3 cases, but for now, a single case is not a cause for concern. The WHO told Reuters in a statement: “As long as avian influenza viruses are circulating in poultry, sporadic human infection of avian influenza is not surprising, it is a living reminder that the threat of an influenza pandemic persists.” According to Filip Claes, regional laboratory coordinator of FAO’s Transboundary Animal Diseases Emergencies Center in the Asia Pacific regional office, only about 160 virus isolates have been reported. for 40 years to 2018. However, influenza viruses can mutate rapidly and mix with other strains circulating on farms or among migratory birds, known as “reclassification,” which means they can produce new strains of the virus. Genetic changes pose a threat of transmission to humans. What more will the world need to know? The genetic sequence of the virus that infects the patient has yet to be published and will be needed to fully assess its risk. Scientists will want to know how easily H10N3 can infect human cells to determine if it could pose a greater risk. For example, the H5N1 variant that first infected humans in 1997 is the most lethal, killing 455 people globally to date. It takes only a few mutations before the H5N1 variant is capable of spreading easily from person to person, said Ben Cowling, a professor at the University of Hong Kong’s School of Public Health. Having the genetic information of the H10N3 variant will help assess whether it is “closer to the virus we should be worried about,” he said.

According to Mr. Hoang Trung, Director of the Plant Protection Department, the use of drones in pesticide spraying has many advantages compared to traditional methods. Currently, many countries such as China, Japan, Korea … have also applied this technology, especially the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) is also interested in and testing this technology in some countries. Africa to control the desert locust epidemic. In recent years, the use of flying equipment in pesticide spraying in our country has become more and more popular. However, there are still many issues that need to be studied when using this device. Photo: TL. With the initiative in the past time, businesses have gone through many channels, imported drones with diverse configurations and capacities … showing the ability to apply this new technology solution quite effectively in pest control. on plants. Later, the drone can also be applied to sowing seeds in the Mekong Delta provinces or to apply foliar fertilizers … In addition to the benefits such as user safety, large capacity, time-saving …, this device also has some issues to be clarified. Accordingly, it is necessary to have a scientific basis, to guide effectively and strictly according to the provisions of law. Currently, there are no official results to confirm that using drones in pesticide spraying helps reduce the amount of pesticides. In the FAO guidelines for use, the drone is still just a tool that must use pesticides in accordance with the dosage stated on the label. In addition, there is the current situation, many places have overstated information and advertising that any crop, any form of medicine can use drones. This is information that has absolutely no scientific basis. The Plant Protection Department recognizes the results from the initiative of enterprises and organizations in researching and applying scientific and technological achievements to production. However, to use it effectively, there is a scientific basis and in accordance with the law. Therefore, in the coming time, it is necessary to have more in-depth and comprehensive studies and evaluations on both the efficiency of use as well as the technical and economic efficiency of the drone. In particular, it is necessary to evaluate the safety level of using drones in pesticide spraying for other objects in the area of ​​use such as aquatic products, bees, etc. In addition, it is necessary to delve into techniques and find out the forms drugs, biological effects can be used appropriately and effectively with drones. Secondly, it is necessary to study plant objects suitable for the use of drones in pesticide spraying. For example, in areas where scattered trees and industrial crops are grown, the use of drones can be said to be ineffective, or as objects on the underside of leaves such as mosquito bugs, anthracnose, etc. Therefore, harmful organisms also need to be evaluated and classified to apply drones appropriately in spraying pesticides. For example, objects lying in the trunk, on the ground, weeds clinging to the base have almost no effect when using a drone. The Department of Plant Protection will also study to provide guidance on the form of drugs to be used with drones. From the perspective of a state management agency, the Department is responsible for clarifying this issue. The use of drones in the past time has been effective and has many advantages on rice, but there have been no scientific studies on other crops. Illustrative photos. Hoang Trung also said that the mechanism of action of the drugs also needs to be evaluated before being used with drones. In addition, it is necessary to evaluate the plant objects and harmful objects that can use drones in spraying effectively. On the other hand, it will be necessary to evaluate and classify according to the capacity and specifications of the drone corresponding to the appropriate crop objects. For example, a large-capacity drone can be suitable for spraying pesticides for rice or some crops, but cannot be used for vegetables because it will destroy the plants… From the above assessments, the goal of the Plant Protection Department is to work with businesses to come up with procedures and documentation for using drones across the country. In addition, the Department will also develop standards for testing pesticides used by drones. Many concerns about the limitations of drones At the meeting, some opinions suggested that there should be more specific and scientific studies in the application of drones in pesticide spraying. According to a representative of the Southern Pesticide Testing Center (Pesticide Department), in order to spray effectively, pesticides must be able to contact the objects that need to be protected or destroyed. However, the use of drones may have many limitations in pesticide spraying such as difficulty in contact with pests and diseases such as brown planthoppers, dry streaks below for rice or thick canopy trees… In addition, the use of drones will use less water than traditional also reduces the effectiveness of the drug. Another problem is that using a drone causes the particles to fall freely but slowly, so it is possible that some of the medicine will evaporate before reaching the leaves. Using a drone with a more concentrated drug concentration than traditional spraying can also cause acute poisoning of plants. In addition, the use of drones will cause waste of pesticides, affecting the ecological environment if used for scattered crops. The Center for Plant Protection in the South (Department of Plant Protection) said that the application of drones in the Mekong Delta is increasingly popular on rice and some fruit trees. Many farmers rate drones as highly effective against pests located at the top of the foliage. The use of drones in pesticide spraying still has many limitations that need to be studied. Photo: TL. However, with trees with uneven heights in the same area such as coconuts, the ability to contact leaves is not optimal because the drone can only fly at a certain stable height that cannot be continuously changed. The height is suitable for each height of the crop, leading to the not equally optimal distance of pesticides to the top of the tree. The Northern Center for Plant Protection also said that it is necessary to study and evaluate the effectiveness of drones and devise ways to use each drug. In addition, there is a need to have scientific assessments of the effects on the environment and plants when using drones to spray pesticides with high concentrations (due to less water). Because normally, the amount of water when spraying pesticides is 400-500 l/ha, while using a drone it is only about 15 l/ha. Mr. Nguyen Quy Duong, Deputy Director of the Plant Protection Department suggested that in the coming time, there should be more assessments on the process and effectiveness of using drones for intercropping areas. According to Mr. Duong, in the Mekong Delta, people now use pre-germination herbicides and except yellow apple snails at the same time, so there is a need for studies on the possibility of using mixed drugs when spraying with drones. In addition, it is necessary to have a baseline standard for testing devices and forms of medicine to come here, it is necessary to clearly state on the drug label the dose used (amount of water) when used with a drone. The Plant Protection Department said that based on the results of businesses and units that have applied drones over the past time, as well as international experience, the Plant Protection Department will develop a master plan to continue researching. Research and perfect both equipment and processes to use in a scientific, safe and most effective way for the application of drones in plant protection. In the immediate future, the Department of Plant Protection suggests that it is necessary to focus on researching and perfecting the drone application process for 5 groups of liquid drugs including EC, SC, SE, SL, ME; 4 groups of solid drugs including WP, SP, WG, GR. Regarding plants, focus on researching and perfecting the process of applying drones to rice (focusing on leaf rollers, brown planthoppers, rice blasts, powdery mildew, herbicides); fall and powdery mildew on corn; aphids, downy mildew on fruit trees (especially citrus, mango, litchi; industrial plants such as coffee, tea, and cashew; caterpillars on pine trees and silkworms on cruciferous vegetables).

But few people know that inside the factory campus is also home to 600,000 bees. And every day, the bees are still rushing around in search of honey, living at the same pace as the production of supercars equipped with powerful V12 engines. Are the bees living in the Lamborghini factory responsible for helping the engineers here research to design models that inherit the aerodynamics from animals and insects as often seen in the history of the automotive industry? paint the world? A worker wearing protective gear with the Lamborghini logo checks honey at the beekeeping area in the factory Reality is not like that. On the occasion of May 20 every year chosen by FAO as World Honeybee Day, Lamborghini supercar company is also pleased to announce the latest count results of the population of bees in its factory which has reached 600,000. Back in 2016, the Italian supercar maker kicked off a biomonitoring project with the construction of eight beekeepers in the Lamborghini park at the Sant ‘Agata Bolognese factory. To date, the number of beekeepers has increased to 12 and it has an important task in understanding how the environment surrounding the plant affects the habitat of humans as well as insects. And bees, with their random behavior of pollinating in the process of collecting honey, will give quite accurate results on environmental quality. At certain times, entomologists associated with the Lamborghini factory will test the quality of honey and wax to assess environmental quality. Currently, the green trend in the auto industry is almost the target of many famous car manufacturers. Not only planting more trees, expanding static space, but some factories like Ford also increase waste water reuse or produce car accessories from recycled materials. As for beekeeping to assess the quality of the factory environment like Lamborghini, Bentley has recently learned and launched a similar project last year. Dinh Quy (according to Carscoops) Invite readers to collaborate, send news about the Department of Motor Vehicles by email: otoxemay@vietnamnet.vn. Appropriate content will be posted. Thank you!

A colony of giant grasshoppers is a terrible disaster. They begin with a black streak on the horizon, followed by darkening gradually. The small rustling noises gradually turned into the shrill noise of the millions of yellow insects that came. Since the end of 2019, grasshopper clouds have spread across the Horn of Africa, devastating crops and meadows, prompting people to trigger a massive campaign to destroy them. The ground and air spraying of insecticides in eight East African countries, coordinated by the World Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), prevented the worst scenario – the destruction of the grasshoppers. the food source of millions of people. In 2020, according to FAO calculations, the campaign will preserve the amount of grassland and food enough for 28 million people in the Horn of Africa and Yemen in a year. But this progress has come with unspecified consequences for the environment, and the difficult problem is to find a way to destroy this invasive insect without destroying plants, harming insects, and wild animals. wild and human. The consequences have not been determined To date, 2.3 million liters of chemical pesticides have been sprayed on 1.9 million hectares, at a cost of about $ 195 million (according to FAO statistics). This campaign will continue this year. Assessment of damage to the environment is not complete, but the effects of the insecticide have been recorded for centuries in other areas. Extensive pesticides not only kill grasshoppers, but also bees and other insects. They penetrate into water sources and can affect human health. Dino Martins, executive director of the Mpala Research Center in Kenya, said: “Of course there will be uncontrolled damage. All these chemicals are made to kill insects, and they do it with that. bulk”. Grasshoppers formed in 2018, after a hurricane brought heavy rains to the Arabian desert, allowing them to breed on wet sand. Strong winds in 2019 push the flock to Yemen, then across the Red Sea into Somalia, Ethiopia and Kenya. Grasshoppers proliferate quickly and eat everything in the way they fly. Photo: National Geographic. The spraying was carried out even when the Covid-19 pandemic spread around the world. Wearing masks, hundreds of local volunteers and Kenyan conscripts wore aerosols and sprayed the grasshoppers with any pesticide in stock. They sprayed tens of thousands of liters of deltamethrin, as well as hundreds of liters of fipronil, chlorpyrifos, and other insecticides. In particular, many types are banned in Europe and some parts of America. In the reported case in the northern Samburu region, a ground control team sprayed 35 times the recommended amount of chemicals on an area, killing both bees and beetles. “Originally, this was an emergency situation. The idea was to try to control as quickly as possible to control the environment,” said Thecla Mutia, head of the environmental impact monitoring group of locust control efforts in Kenya. ensure food security “. Struggled to find an alternative Pesticides are poisons. Four types used in Kenya under FAO censorship have a high risk of harming bees, low to moderate to birds, medium to high with grasshoppers and soil insects, such as ants and termites. The European Union has banned the use of chlorpyrifos since early 2020, and some American states such as New York, California, and Hawaii also banned it. Fenitrothion is not approved for use in Europe, but is used in the US and Australia against grasshoppers. “We are not hiding the nature of the insecticide, but we cannot do anything while the grasshoppers spread. We want to reduce the number of desert locusts,” said Cyril Ferrand, FAO’s team leader in Nairobi. in a responsible way. Grasshoppers wreak havoc on crops with terrifying speed and scale. Photo: BBC. Biological solutions that are non-toxic, which can kill grasshoppers without harming other species, have been around for decades. However, chemical pesticides remain the top choice, accounting for up to 90% of the solution sprayed during the campaign in East Africa. The development of biological insecticides began in the late 1980s, after the grasshopper epidemic lasted for many years, stretching from North Africa to India. Christiaan Kooyman, a Dutch scientist who makes a bio-insecticide from the fungus Metarhizium acridum, which attacks grasshoppers, said: “When we see the number of millions of liters of pesticides sprayed, even the community. Donating them was also frightened. And they asked, ‘What else can I do?’ Metarhizium, marketed since 1998, has been proposed by FAO as “the most suitable control solution” for grasshoppers, but is rarely used. The drug works slowly, giving it a low “suppression” rate – that is, killing after days instead of hours. At the same time, its use was very expensive and difficult, more effective with young than adult swarms of grasshoppers – which was a great threat at the time. The biggest advantage of Metarhizium – just killing grasshoppers – also makes it a less profitable product. Companies make very little money making the drug, and go through the costly licensing process in one country and take a long time until it is allowed to be used. “Grasshoppers don’t usually show up, and businesses aren’t interested in producing something that isn’t used,” said Graham Matthews, a scientist on the Pesticide Review Foundation founding council. The grasshoppers come, you don’t want to wait for new production, you want a solution. As a result, governments have used wide-ranging, readily available chemical pesticides. Pesticides are the solution of choice to control grasshoppers. Photo: FAO. What worries the farmers, herders, scientists and conservationists of Kenya with these chemicals is that there is so much unknown – if any – about the harm they cause. A US government assessment warns “the risk of a significant negative impact on the environment and human health”, and the World Bank considers that the risk to the environment is “enormous”. “The use of large amounts of pesticides will of course harm biodiversity, but the magnitude of the effects has not been determined,” said Sunday Ekesi, an entomologist who joined his own anti-desert locust force. Nairobi, said. A major concern in Kenya is the impact of pesticides on pollinators. Farmers believe that the disappearance of bees is a factor in the low production of honey and mango. However, the lack of surveillance information makes it difficult for scientists to know what is actually going on. FAO’s 2003 guidance on safety measures shows that aerial spraying has no less impact on human health than ground spray, but often presents “more environmental concern” because There is a risk of entering sensitive areas in the ecosystem. In general, Kenya’s current grasshopper eradication campaign has improved compared to the first few weeks. If done correctly, the environmental impact will be very low. However, not many official reports have been published on this matter. Aircraft sprayed insecticides in the area invaded by locusts. Photo: FAO. Raphael Wahome, an animal scientist at Nairobi University, said FAO needs to release reports soon, so that researchers can evaluate more comprehensively. “Our main concern is that it’s all focused on locust control without the parallel monitoring system for undesirable effects,” he said. occurred where the “pesticide was used”.