Maize Fall Armyworm Control: How to Establish a Rational Insecticide Product Line?

The Fall Armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda), scientific name Spodoptera frugiperda, is a major Lepidoptera pest that damages corn. Its larvae continuously feed on corn leaves and, as they grow, penetrate the heart of the plant, making control more difficult in later stages.

Effective Fall Armyworm control does not involve constantly switching insecticides, but rather selecting the appropriate treatment timing based on field pest incidence, larval size, corn growth stage, and local resistance levels, and choosing products with different modes of action.

When establishing a corn insecticide product line, pesticide importers and distributors should focus on three key aspects:

1. The primary outbreak periods of Fall Armyworm in the region, as well as when farmers actually need to apply control measures.
2. What problems can different active ingredients address, and do they belong to different IRAC groups?
3. How can a balance be struck between registration, efficacy, resistance risk, and control costs per hectare?

For example, chlorantraniliprole, emamectin benzoate, indoxacarb, and spinosad can all be used for the management of susceptible lepidopteran larvae in some registered markets, but their modes of action, application conditions, and commercial positioning are not entirely the same.

Therefore, distributors should not simply ask, “Which product kills the fall armyworm?” but should further assess: which product categories the local market needs, what roles they each play, and whether it is truly necessary to sell them all simultaneously.

SunAgro’s insecticide product portfolio covers different modes of action, formulations, and control targets, serving as a foundation for planning a corn insecticide product line.

Why is the Fall Armyworm so difficult to control in cornfields?

The challenge in controlling the Fall Armyworm lies not only in its ability to rapidly cause leaf damage but also in the fact that its growth habits make larvae of different instars varying degrees of difficulty to control.

Larvae gradually penetrate into the maize heart

Newly hatched larvae are typically small and feed on the leaf surface.

As the larvae grow, they may enter the maize heart and hide among leaves that have not yet fully unfolded.

At this stage, the following signs may appear in the field:

• Minor feeding marks on the leaf surface
• Irregular feeding holes
• Feeding damage inside the corn heart
• Fecal matter near the corn heart
• In severe cases, damage to the growing point or other tissues

Older larvae that have penetrated deeper into the corn heart are more difficult to fully cover with standard foliar sprays.

Consequently, even if farmers use the appropriate insecticide, they may not achieve the desired results if the application is made too late.

Early detection of the pest and identification of the larval stage is generally more effective than waiting until the leaves are severely damaged and then resorting to expensive products.

Fall Armyworm may persist throughout a single corn growing season

The Fall Armyworm is highly migratory and can reproduce continuously in suitable environments.

Therefore, even after a field treatment effectively controls the existing larvae, a new cycle of egg-laying and hatching may still occur.

This means distributors need to explain to customers:

The success of a single control treatment should be judged based on the presence of live insects before and after treatment, fresh damage, and subsequent field monitoring—not solely on whether there are still insect holes in the corn leaves a few days later.

The presence of insect holes in corn does not necessarily mean pesticide application is required

This is the most commonly overlooked issue in Fall Armyworm control.

Sometimes, when farmers notice damage to corn leaves, they assume they must immediately spray insecticide.

In reality, however, the field may only contain traces of past feeding activity, without a sufficient number of live larvae.

Additionally, corn possesses a certain capacity to recover from leaf damage during specific growth stages.

Therefore, the extent of leaf damage alone cannot determine whether pesticide application is necessary.

A more reasonable assessment includes:

• Whether live larvae are present
• Which growth stage the larvae are primarily in
• Which growth stage the corn is currently in
• Whether new feeding traces continue to appear
• Whether the local economic threshold or action threshold has been reached
• How much economic loss continued damage might cause

The FAO also emphasizes in its Guidelines for Integrated Pest Management of the Fall Armyworm in Maize that decisions on whether to implement control measures should be based on field monitoring and actual pest conditions, rather than solely on leaf damage or the number of adult insects trapped.

When is the critical control window for the Fall Armyworm?

Generally speaking, younger larvae that are still actively feeding and have not yet retreated to deeper, more protected parts of the plant are the priority targets for treatment.

The reason is straightforward.

Younger larvae typically have smaller body sizes, are more likely to respond to appropriately applied, effective insecticides, and have not yet caused extensive irreversible damage to leaves or growing points.

As larvae grow larger, control efforts may become more difficult.

Key Management Points for Fall Armyworm at Different Stages of Maize Growth

Stages of Maize Growth	Primary Pest Risk	Key Management Issues	Implications for the Product Line
Emergence to Seedling Stage	Early Egg Laying and Feeding by Young Larvae	Presence of Live Larvae and Risk of Actual Damage	Establish Early Monitoring and Necessary Treatment Strategies
Early vegetative growth stage	Larvae begin to cause noticeable leaf damage	Whether local action thresholds have been reached	Core market for lepidopteran larval control
Heartleaf stage	Larvae penetrate the heart leaves	Larval size, timing of application, and coverage conditions	Requires high product efficacy and application precision
Tassel emergence and silking stage	Some larvae may damage reproductive tissues	Are there still live larvae present? Is it the Fall Armyworm (FAW)?	Distinguish between different pests and late-season registered uses
Grain Development Stage	Some pests may affect corn ears and kernels	Actual damage severity, PHI, and feasibility of treatment	Do not promise generic late-season remedial efficacy

This table does not imply that insecticides must be used at every stage of maize growth.

For distributors, its primary value lies in helping them understand: Different stages of maize growth require different pest management decisions; this does not mean a new product must be sold at every stage.

Why are older larvae harder to control?

Older larvae have typically already caused noticeable feeding damage and may be hiding in hard-to-reach locations.

At this stage, even if an insecticide is active against the pest species, its effectiveness may be compromised by the following factors:

• Insufficient effective dose reaching the larvae
• Difficulty in ensuring adequate penetration of the spray into the heart leaves
• Irreversible tissue damage already caused by the pest
• Variations in local population sensitivity to the active ingredient

Therefore, it should not be claimed that a particular pesticide guarantees the same effectiveness across all life stages.

If a large number of adults are trapped, should pesticide application be carried out immediately?

Pesticide application should not be decided based solely on the number of adults trapped.

Traps can help determine whether adult activity is present locally and whether pest trends are changing.

However, the number of adults does not equate to the actual number of larvae in the field.

Before deciding whether to treat, it is still necessary to check:

• egg masses or newly hatched larvae
• number of live larvae
• current fresh feeding damage
• maize growth stage
• Local Action Thresholds

This principle helps distributors reduce unnecessary pesticide applications and also extends the commercial lifespan of effective insecticides.

Which active ingredients are effective for Fall Armyworm management?

There are many chemical and biological control tools available for Fall Armyworm, but the primary modes of action vary among different products.

When planning their product portfolios, importers should first understand these differences before deciding which active ingredients and formulations are needed.

The products listed below represent technical approaches worth evaluating based on local conditions; they do not constitute a globally standardized recommendation list.

Key Active Ingredients for Fall Armyworm and IRAC Groups

Active Ingredients	IRAC Group	Primary Product Positioning	Key Points for Distributors to Review
Chlorantraniliprole	Group 28	Lepidopteran Larval Control	Local Susceptibility, Corn Registration, Application Window
Cyantraniliprole	Group 28	Management of Lepidopteran larvae and other pests in select markets	Overlaps with the mode of action of Chlorantraniliprole
Emamectin Benzoate	Group 6	Control of Susceptible Lepidopteran Larvae	Larval Stages, Formulations, Costs, and Resistance
Indoxacarb	Group 22A	Approaches to Larval Management Using Different Mechanisms of Action	Local Registrations, Scope of Use, and Susceptibility
Spinosad	Group 5	Bio-based chemical insecticides	Pest life stages, registrations, and product stability
Spinetoram	Group 5	Another Group 5 product approach	Should not be considered a different Group from Spinosad
Methoxyfenozide	Group 18	Larval growth and development regulation	Requirements for target larval stages and treatment windows
Lufenuron	Group 15	Larval development management	Should not be positioned as a general-purpose, fast-acting knockdown product
Lambda-Cyhalothrin	Group 3A	Chemical control strategies for some cost-sensitive markets	Pyrethroid resistance and off-target risks
Bacillus thuringiensis	Group 11A (applicable to Bt insecticidal protein categories)	Biological control, management of susceptible larvae	Strains, toxins, potency, and local resistance

Whether these products are suitable for controlling fall armyworm in corn must be confirmed based on the registered products, target pests, formulation types, and labels in the target country.

Chlorantraniliprole: Group 28 core candidate product

Chlorantraniliprole belongs to IRAC Group 28 and acts on the ryanodine receptor in insects, disrupting normal calcium ion regulation in muscle cells.

When susceptible larvae come into contact with or ingest an effective dose, they quickly cease normal feeding, followed by motor dysfunction, paralysis, and death.
For distributors, the primary product value of Chlorantraniliprole lies in:

Providing a product direction with a well-defined mode of action for the registered Lepidoptera larval control market.

For example, in the corn market, its suitability for controlling the Fall Armyworm, certain corn borers, and other registered chewing pests can be prioritized for evaluation.

However, one should not assume that Fall Armyworms (FAW) in all regions maintain the same level of susceptibility simply because Chlorantraniliprole belongs to the relatively mature diamide class of insecticides.

Relevant studies conducted in Brazil and Pakistan in 2025 have further demonstrated that different Fall Armyworm populations may exhibit significant variations in susceptibility to diamide-class products, as well as risks of resistance development.

Therefore, the commercial value of Group 28 products should be assessed in light of local efficacy data, resistance information, and registration status.

Emamectin Benzoate: Group 6 Larval Control

Emamectin Benzoate belongs to IRAC Group 6.It disrupts the neural and muscular activity of susceptible larvae by affecting the insects’ glutamate-gated chloride channels.In some registered markets, Emamectin Benzoate is an important candidate active ingredient for the control of Lepidoptera larvae.

From a product line perspective, one of the key differences between it and Chlorantraniliprole is:

They belong to different IRAC Groups.

This allows them to play distinct roles within local resistance management strategies.

However, this does not mean that both products must be used consecutively in the same corn field, nor does it imply that any country can adopt a fixed “Group 28 → Group 6” treatment protocol.

For a comprehensive comparison of the two in terms of efficacy, formulation, application timing, and market positioning, please refer to SunAgro’s Comparative Analysis of Chlorantraniliprole and Emamectin Benzoate.

Indoxacarb: A Complementary Option for Group 22A

Indoxacarb belongs to IRAC Group 22A and is an insecticide that affects voltage-gated sodium channels in insects.

In applicable registration markets, it can be evaluated as an alternative approach for managing Lepidoptera larvae.

For distributors already heavily reliant on Group 28 or Group 6 products, the commercial value of Indoxacarb may lie in adding an alternative product with a different mode of action.

However, when conducting a commercial assessment, it is still necessary to confirm:

whether the country permits the corresponding corn application, whether the local Fall Armyworm (FAW) population is susceptible, and whether there are any registration or trade restrictions.

Spinosad, Spinetoram: Group 5 Product Strategy

Both Spinosad and Spinetoram belong to IRAC Group 5.

They can play different commercial roles within certain registered pest management systems.

However, although Spinosad and Spinetoram are different active ingredients, they do not belong to different IRAC Groups.

If a distributor already carries one Group 5 product and wishes to add another Group 5 product, there must be clear:

• Differences in registered uses
• Differences in formulation types
• Differences in pest or crop markets
• Differences in pricing and channel positioning

Otherwise, this may simply increase inventory without truly enhancing the diversity of modes of action for resistance management.

Why is it not recommended to rely solely on low-cost pyrethroids?

Pyrethroid insecticides such as lambda-cyhalothrin have an established distribution network in some markets.
However, the risk of Fall Armyworm resistance to Group 3A cannot be ignored.

If pyrethroids have been used extensively and for a long time in a given area, adding another Group 3A brand will not resolve potential susceptibility issues associated with the same mode of action.

Therefore, low price should not be the sole criterion for product selection.

What truly needs to be calculated is the total cost of integrated pest management required to achieve actual control objectives, rather than the purchase price per bottle of insecticide.

How will Fall Armyworm resistance affect the corn insecticide product line?

For an importer with long-term experience in the corn market, resistance management is not merely a matter of technical training.It directly impacts:

• Which products still have sales value
• Whether new active ingredients are needed
• Whether existing inventory is too homogeneous
• Why customers repeatedly switch brands
• Whether a product can be sold continuously across multiple growing seasons

Why don’t different active ingredients necessarily represent different modes of action?

Distributors often assume:

As long as two products use different active ingredients, they can provide resistance rotation.

But in reality, IRAC classification is more important.

For example:

be interpreted?

Product portfolio	Do they belong to different IRAC Groups?	How should
Chlorantraniliprole + Cyantraniliprole	No	Both belong to Group 28
Chlorantraniliprole + Flubendiamide	No	Both belong to Group 28
Emamectin Benzoate + Abamectin	No	Both belong to Group 6
Spinosad + Spinetoram	No	Both belong to Group 5
Chlorantraniliprole + Emamectin Benzoate	Yes	Group 28 and Group 6
Chlorantraniliprole + Indoxacarb	Yes	Group 28 and Group 22A
Emamectin Benzoate + Spinosad	Yes	Group 6 and Group 5

The notation “belong to different Groups” in the table merely indicates that the two substances are classified under different primary modes of action; it does not automatically imply the absence of cross-resistance in any local population, nor does it constitute a fixed spray prescription.

Why can’t Group 28 be considered permanently effective?

Chlorantraniliprole, Cyantraniliprole, and other diamide products have been widely used in numerous agricultural markets worldwide.

Long-term, repeated reliance on Group 28 may exert sustained selective pressure on local FAW populations.

A 2025 Brazilian study on Cyantraniliprole resistance found that certain highly resistant FAW populations, identified through laboratory screening, also exhibited cross-resistance to other diamide products.

A related 2025 study in Pakistan also found variations in the susceptibility of field FAW populations to chlorantraniliprole across different regions.

These studies indicate:

Group 28 is an important product class, but it should not be regarded as a permanent solution that does not require resistance management.At the same time, these specific research findings cannot be directly generalized to the status of all FAW populations worldwide.

How can a more rational approach to resistance management be established?

The IRAC recommends that, within applicable pest management plans, treatment windows for different modes of action (MoA) should be scheduled around pest generations and crop growth stages to avoid repeated reliance on the same mode of action across consecutive generations.

However, before implementation, the following should be clarified:

Has the local FAW population already developed resistance to a particular Group?

Are there other effective Groups that have been validated locally?

How many generations of FAW might occur during a growing season?

What application frequencies and intervals are permitted under the registered label?

Are farmers also using the same Group extensively on other crops at the same time?

For distributors, the most important thing is not to provide farmers with a fixed rotation calendar.

Rather, it is to be able to explain why it is necessary to maintain a variety of effective modes of action, and when to stop relying on products whose efficacy has declined.

What role do biological control products play in Fall Armyworm management strategies?

FAW control should not rely solely on chemical insecticides.

In markets with appropriate registrations, supply, and technical capabilities, biological control products can be an important component of an integrated management system.

Can Bacillus thuringiensis control Fall Armyworm?

Certain Bacillus thuringiensis products active against the target larvae can be used for registered Fall Armyworm management, but effectiveness depends on the specific strain, toxin, larval stage, and application conditions.

Bacillus thuringiensis typically requires ingestion by susceptible larvae to be effective.

Therefore, its effectiveness is closely related to:

• whether the larvae are still actively feeding
• larval size
• leaf or heart leaf coverage
• product strain and potency
• UV exposure and rainfall conditions
• Local pest susceptibility

closely related.

This also means that Bacillus thuringiensis should not be marketed as:

“A product that quickly kills all FAWs at any time.”Compared to chemical products, biological agents generally require greater attention to larval age and application conditions.

For detailed usage restrictions and influencing factors, please refer to SunAgro’s Bt Insecticide Usage Guidelines.

Are Bt sprays and Bt maize the same thing?

No.

Bt sprays are pesticide products containing Bt strains or insecticidal proteins, which typically require that target pests come into contact with or ingest the product through application methods permitted by registration.

Bt Maize, on the other hand, refers to corn varieties capable of expressing specific Bt insecticidal proteins.

The product forms, application scenarios, and resistance management requirements for the two are not entirely the same.

In some regions, Bt Maize has been incorporated into integrated pest management (IPM) strategies for the fall armyworm, but its applicability depends on local agricultural biotechnology regulations, variety approvals, and resistance management requirements.

Distributors should not equate the sale of Bt biopesticides with the sale of Bt corn seeds.

Can biological control completely replace chemical insecticides?

It is not possible to draw a universal conclusion for the entire world.

In certain markets, reliance on chemical pesticides can be reduced through agronomic management, natural enemies, monitoring, and appropriate biological control products.

However, if pest pressure is high, the timing for field applications has been delayed, or there is an insufficient supply of suitable biological products, relying solely on a single biological agent may not meet actual needs.

A more reasonable product line strategy is:

Based on local growing conditions, incorporate proven biological control products into a comprehensive IPM system, rather than simply describing them as complete substitutes for chemical insecticides.

How should distributors build a Fall Armyworm insecticide product portfolio?

When building a product line, you should not start by deciding how many insecticides to sell.

Instead, you should first define which functions the market truly needs.

Category 1: Core Products Addressing Primary Pest Needs

If a market’s primary issue is persistent outbreaks of Fall Armyworm (FAW) larvae during the vegetative growth stage of corn, the first step is to evaluate a core product with clear registration and consistent field performance.

For example, where local pest sensitivity and registration requirements are suitable, chlorantraniliprole or other proven products for managing Lepidoptera larvae could be viable options.
Core products must meet the following criteria:

• Clearly defined target pests
• Registration for corn use
• Clear practical application window
• Cost appropriate for the target distribution channels
• Consistent supply

The core product does not necessarily have to be the most expensive product on the market; rather, it should be the product best suited to the primary customer base and the actual pest problem.

Category 2: Complementary Products with Different IRAC Groups

Once the core product has been identified, it is possible to further determine whether another product with a different mode of action is needed.

For example, if the core focus is Group 28, one can evaluate locally approved and effective products from Groups 6, 22A, 5, and others.

However, this does not mean that all markets must carry products from all these groups simultaneously.

In new markets with limited registration budgets and uncertain sales volumes, adding too many SKUs may actually create inventory pressure.

Different modes of action are valuable attributes for a product portfolio, but only if each product meets actual market demand and is effective.

Category 3: Biological control products suited for specific distribution channels

Professional growers in some markets may be more concerned with:

• Integrated Pest Management
• Biopesticides
• Natural Predator Protection
• Specific Residue Requirements
• Long-Term Resistance Management

In such cases, registered products such as Bacillus thuringiensis can be evaluated.

However, biological products require corresponding technical support.

If distributors cannot explain the requirements regarding the larval stage, storage, and application conditions, simply adding a Bt product will not necessarily lead to strong market performance.

How many FAW SKUs should be allocated to different markets?

There is no globally standardized number.

For new distributors just establishing a maize insecticide distribution channel, it is generally advisable to first consider whether a small number of products with clearly defined roles is needed, rather than introducing multiple active ingredients, formulations, and brands simultaneously.

Market Conditions	Possible Product Portfolio Structures	Key Objectives
New market entry; sales volume undetermined	One proven core candidate product	Reduce registration and inventory complexity
Persistent FAW issues; relatively mature market	Core product + effective candidate products from different Groups	Increase resistance management options
High acceptance of IPM	Chemical products + complementary products from different groups + registered biological products	Meet diverse management needs
Already has a large number of insecticide SKUs	First check for duplicate groups and overlapping uses	Optimize the existing portfolio rather than continuing to add products

These are product line planning frameworks; they do not require all farmers to use the products listed in the table sequentially during a single growing season.

Should FAW markets in Africa, South America, and Asia adopt the same product line?

No, they should not.

Even if the target pest is the same—Spodoptera frugiperda—actual commercial conditions may vary significantly across different markets.

African Market: Greater Emphasis on Affordability and Practical Application Conditions

For certain African corn markets, distributors may need to prioritize the following:

• Input levels per hectare of corn
• Differences between smallholder farmers and large-scale farms
• Conditions of spraying equipment
• Product packaging specifications
• Agricultural technical service capacity
• Availability of locally registered products

If a product entails high total cost of use but the target distribution channels lack the corresponding purchasing power, it may be difficult to establish stable sales—even if the technical positioning is correct.

On the other hand, the African market cannot be generalized as one where “only low-priced pesticides can be sold.”

For high-yield commodity corn, specialized farms, and distribution channels with good technical service capabilities, high-value products may also have commercial potential.

South American Market: Focus on Existing Product Portfolios and Resistance

Some corn-producing regions in South America have a long history of FAW management.

In such mature markets, distributors typically need to know not only:

“Can Chlorantraniliprole be used?”

but also:

“How long has Group 28 been in use locally?”

“Is there evidence of declining field sensitivity?”

“Do existing distribution channels already carry multiple similar products?”

“What additional value can the new product offer?”

In such markets, resistance information and analysis of the existing product portfolio are often more important than simply adding a new brand.

Asia and Other Emerging Markets: Focus on Registration and Cropping Systems

For corn markets in Asia and other regions where FAW management systems are still developing, importers should also verify:

• Whether the product is already registered for the relevant corn use
• Whether FAW is a clearly registered target
• Corn planting seasons and crop rotation practices
• Commonly used local insecticide groups
• Major distribution channels
• Farmers’ acceptance of different formulation types

Just because a product is well-established in other countries does not mean it can be directly replicated in the local corn market.

Why is there still no noticeable effect after spraying for Fall Armyworm?

When field complaints arise, the problem should not be directly attributed to “poor pesticide quality,” nor should resistance be assumed without investigation.

It is important to first distinguish between pest-related issues, application issues, and product quality issues.

Diagnosis of Common Field Issues

Field Observations	Possible Causes	Priority Checks
Older-stage larvae still visible after spraying	Larvae hidden inside the heart leaves, with insufficient exposed surface area	Larval age and coverage
Leaves still show numerous feeding holes	Existing damage does not disappear	Are there new feeding traces?
Significant decline in performance in a specific area	Resistance or differences in application conditions	Local sensitivity and history of pesticide use
Poor efficacy persists after switching brands	May still belong to the same IRAC group	Active ingredient and IRAC group
Bt products show no significant effect	Larvae are too large, insufficient feeding, environmental factors, etc.	Strain, larval stage, weather, and coverage
New young larvae appear after treatment	New round of egg laying and hatching	Follow-up field monitoring
Performance varies by batch	Differences in application conditions or product quality	Batch COA, specifications, and field records
Corn is already severely damaged	Treatment window may have been too late	Growth stage, live insects, and value of continued treatment

If an insecticide does not kill larvae immediately, does that mean it is ineffective?

Not necessarily.Insecticides with different modes of action may vary in the time it takes for feeding to cease, paralysis to set in, and death to occur.

For example, certain Group 28 products can cause susceptible larvae to stop feeding relatively quickly, but death may occur later.

Therefore, assessing actual efficacy should not rely solely on whether larvae die immediately but should also consider:

• Whether new feeding damage has ceased
• Whether the number of live larvae has changed
• Whether the larvae continue to move normally
• Local product label instructions and evaluation time requirements

“Rapid knockdown” cannot be used as a universal standard for evaluating the quality of all insecticides.

Why is switching to another insecticide still ineffective?

One possible reason is that both products belong to the same IRAC Group.

For example:

Switching from Chlorantraniliprole to Cyantraniliprole does not actually change the mode of action within Group 28.

However, it is also important to note:

Even when switching to a different Group, results may still be unsatisfactory if the larvae have already moved to hard-to-reach locations or if the local population is not susceptible to the alternative product.

Therefore, the correct post-sale diagnostic sequence should be:

Identify the pest → Check the larval stage → Verify registration and application conditions → Review the active ingredient and Group → Assess resistance → Finally, check product quality.

What should importers check before registering or purchasing FAW insecticides?

After identifying the specific active ingredient, it is also necessary to assess whether the product can remain on the market long-term.

For importers, a successful product line must not only demonstrate reliable insecticidal efficacy but also meet requirements regarding registration, quality, packaging, and supply.

First, confirm the scope of local registration

At a minimum, the following should be clarified:

• Target country
• Whether corn is a registered crop
• Whether Fall Armyworm is a registered target pest
• Whether the active ingredient and formulation are registrable
• Whether the application method is permitted
• PHI and other label restrictions
• Whether there are local regulatory or resistance management requirements

It is essential to distinguish between:

“This active ingredient can control FAW in other countries.”

And:

“This specific product has already obtained the corresponding registration for corn and FAW in the target country.”These two statements are not the same.

Do not judge product quality based solely on the active ingredient and its concentration

For example, two Chlorantraniliprole SC products may have the same labeled active ingredient concentration but may still differ in the following aspects:

• Active Ingredient Content
• Relevant Impurities
• Particle Size
• Suspensibility
• Storage Stability
• Packaging Compatibility
• Batch Consistency

For different formulation types such as EC, WG/WDG, and SC, the corresponding physicochemical quality requirements must also be verified.

A higher product concentration does not necessarily mean lower cost per hectare or better field performance.

What truly needs to be compared are:

Actual active ingredient application rate, registered uses, formulation quality, total cost, and supply stability.

What documents should be requested from suppliers?

Depending on the product and the local registration stage, you may request the following from suppliers:

Documentation	Primary Uses
COA	Verify Batch Quality
SDS / MSDS	To understand safety, storage, and transportation information
TDS	To understand technical specifications and product characteristics
Product Specification	To confirm quality parameters and acceptable tolerances
Formulation Information	To support dosage form evaluation and applicable registration requirements
Technical Source Information	To verify the source of the active ingredient and consistency with the registration
Available Registration Documents	To support the local registration evaluation
Packaging Information	Verify packaging, labeling, and shipping requirements

For products sold over the long term, importers should also verify whether future batches can maintain product sources and quality specifications consistent with the registration data.

Should distributors compare purchase prices or the cost of pest control per hectare?

Priority should be given to comparing the actual cost of pest control that meets local registration requirements.

The active ingredient content and registered application rates may vary among different products.

For example, a higher price per bottle for a product does not necessarily mean a higher actual cost per hectare.

At the same time, cost comparisons should also consider:

• Recommended application rates as per registration
• Sensitivity of the target pest
• Whether the product is suitable for the local application window
• Packaging specifications
• Logistics costs
• Product stability
• Post-Sales Technical Support

More importantly, non-compliant low doses should not be used as a basis for reducing the cost per hectare, as this may reduce efficacy and increase the risk of resistance selection.

Frequently Asked Questions on Fall Armyworm Control

Which insecticide is most effective against Fall Armyworm in corn?

There is no single “best” insecticide suitable for all global corn markets.

Chlorantraniliprole, Emamectin Benzoate, Indoxacarb, and others can all be considered as options in markets where they are registered.

The actual selection criteria should include local FAW susceptibility, larval stage, corn registration status, application conditions, and resistance management needs.

Can chlorantraniliprole control the fall armyworm?

Where it is registered for the crop and target pest, and local populations remain susceptible, chlorantraniliprole is an important candidate product for controlling fall armyworm larvae.

However, studies have documented declining susceptibility and the risk of resistance development in some regions; therefore, the same efficacy cannot be guaranteed for all populations worldwide.

Can chlorantraniliprole and cyantraniliprole be alternated to manage resistance?

The two should not be considered as a rotation based on different modes of action.

They both belong to IRAC Group 28.

Even if product names, active ingredient concentrations, and formulations differ, this does not mean their roles in resistance management are different.

Is Emamectin Benzoate suitable for the corn Fall Armyworm market?

In applicable registered markets, it can be evaluated as an important candidate within Group 6.

Whether it is worth introducing depends on local corn acreage, the susceptibility of the target pest, the existing product portfolio, formulation, and cost.

Just because it belongs to Group 6 does not mean that all resistant populations will necessarily be susceptible to it.

Can Bacillus thuringiensis control Fall Armyworm?

Certain approved Bt products can be used to manage susceptible Fall Armyworm larvae, but the strain, insecticidal protein, registered uses, and application conditions must be verified.

It is generally more important to focus on larval feeding behavior, instar stage, spray coverage, and environmental impact.

Not all Bt products should be considered equally effective against Fall Armyworm.

Why do new Fall Armyworms still appear after spraying corn?

Newly appearing larvae are not necessarily survivors from the previous population.

Fall Armyworms may continue to lay eggs and hatch, or new adults may migrate into the field.

Field monitoring should be conducted to distinguish between treatment failure of existing infestations and a new outbreak, rather than immediately concluding that the product is ineffective.

If corn leaves have many insect holes, is it necessary to spray immediately?

Not necessarily.

You should first confirm whether live larvae are present in the field and whether the current corn growth stage and pest infestation level have reached the local action threshold.Existing leaf holes will not disappear as a result of spraying.

How many types of Fall Armyworm insecticides should distributors carry?

There is no standard number; a clear product portfolio is more important than the number of SKUs.First, determine whether the local market needs a core control product, then assess whether it is necessary to add supplemental products from different IRAC groups and whether there is a suitable market for biological control.If existing products have highly overlapping modes of action, targets, and price points, adding more SKUs may only increase inventory and registration costs.

How to Build a Fall Armyworm Product Line for the Local Corn Market?

A well-designed FAW product line should address the following questions:

Product Line Evaluation Criteria	Key Considerations
Corn Planting Area	Is There Sufficient Market Demand?
FAW Outbreak Patterns	Which Growth Stage Does the Product Primarily Address?
Local Economic Threshold	When do farmers actually need to treat
Larval Stage	Is the target treatment window clearly defined
Existing IRAC Group	Is there over-reliance on a single mode of action
Resistance Records	Which Products Still Have Practical Technical Value
Existing Competitive Products	Is the Market Already Highly Homogeneous
Chemical vs. Biological Control	Is There a Need for Different Types of Products
Formulation and Packaging	Compatibility with distribution channels and application equipment
Registration Requirements	Can the product legally enter the market?
Cost per Hectare	Does the customer have the purchasing power?
Supplier stability	Can the supplier support long-term registration and repeat purchases?

For an importer just entering the corn market, priority should be given to identifying products with the clearest demand, rather than establishing a massive insecticide portfolio all at once.

For distributors with an established corn product line, the focus should be on examining:

Is there a gap in different IRAC groups, or is it simply a lack of another brand?

If the underlying technical issues remain unchanged, continuing to add products with the same functionality will make it difficult to create long-term value for the distribution channels.

Collaborate with SunAgro to plan a corn Fall Armyworm insecticide product line

Fall Armyworm management is not about finding a single insecticide that maintains the same efficacy in every country and at every stage of corn growth.

A truly valuable product portfolio requires a combination of:

Local pest outbreaks → Field monitoring → Larval treatment window → Different IRAC Groups → Product registration → Formulations and cost → Stable supply. SunAgro collaborates with pesticide importers, distributors, and registration partners to evaluate SunAgro-branded insecticides suitable for local registration and distribution based on regional crop and pest needs.

If you are establishing or adjusting a maize Fall Armyworm product line, we recommend first providing:

• Target countries and markets
• Major local corn-growing regions
• Primary Fall Armyworm outbreak periods
• Active ingredients currently used in insecticides
• Known resistance or treatment failure issues
• Distribution of existing IRAC Group products
• Desired active ingredients and formulations
• Local registration status and data requirements
• Target price range and estimated annual demand

Depending on the specific product and stage of collaboration, we can assist in discussing suitable active ingredients, formulations, technical documentation, sample evaluation, registration partnerships, and long-term supply plans.

Building a successful Fall Armyworm pesticide product line is not about giving distributors more products that kill pests, but about ensuring that each product has a clear role in pest control, aligns with market demand, and offers sustainable commercial value.