Skip to main content

Reducing Bt trait acres in 2022 Minnesota Corn Production? Implications for European corn borer

Bruce Potter, Extension IPM Specialist; Ken Ostlie, Bill Hutchison, Extension Entomologists; Angie Peltier & Anthony Hanson, Extension Educators

Overwintering European corn borer larva and its
feeding damage within the lower stalk. While
stalk breakage or ear drop are readily visible,
the extent of tunneling and physiological yield
loss can be seen only after the stalk is split.
Photo: Bruce Potter, University of Minnesota.
The economics of corn production challenge many farmers to minimize production costs. Hybrid selection is one way to reduce costs. Planting corn hybrids without Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) proteins for protection against European corn borer (ECB), corn rootworm, or both will reduce seed costs. However, if not careful, farmers could inadvertently reduce crop revenues if they select hybrids without considering yield potential or insect populations in their fields.

Yield potential is the first thing to consider when selecting a corn hybrid. Bt traits protect the yield potential of a hybrid, but yield benefits only occur when targeted insect population densities are above economic injury levels. When insect pressure is low or absent, economic benefit with trait-protected hybrids only occurs if higher costs are offset by greater yields. Switching to less-expensive non-Bt seed can be a good strategy when yields are comparable or when seed cost savings exceed any reduced yield potential plus prospective insect losses. In many 2022 fields, planting corn without a Bt trait can work well, if you recognize and account for potential risk from ECB and other insect pests.

Historical, current, and future ECB populations

Between its introduction to the state in the 1940s and the advent of corn hybrids with Bt traits, ECB was responsible for significant yield losses throughout MN. After initially feeding on leaf tissue or pollen, 3rd stage larvae injure corn as they tunnel into the stalks, ears tips, and ear shanks. This injury reduces yield by interrupting the flow of water and nutrients. Harvestability is reduced when affected stalks lodge or break, or when tunnels in the shank cause ear drop.

Since the adoption of Bt corn 26 years ago, Bt use rates in Minnesota had grown to as high as 84% of the total acres planted in 2017-18. During 2021, Bt hybrids comprised 86% of Minnesota corn acres, 3% higher than 2020, and slightly higher than the 84% national average (Figure 1). 

Figure 1. Adoption of Bt corn hybrids. The Bt varieties include those that contain more than one gene that can resist different types of insects (e.g., European corn borer; corn rootworms) since 2000. Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, June Agricultural Survey as published in the NASS Acreage Report.

ECB populations in Minnesota, and throughout most of the Midwest, have been effectively suppressed by similar Bt adoption rates. ECB populations continue to be low in Minnesota where Bt use has remained high since 2007. Low ECB moth flights in 2021 (Figure 2) continue to parallel the low larval population densities detected in the fall surveys (Figures 3-4). Low ECB population densities have also been documented in other states such as Wisconsin, where Bt adoption rates also remain high (Figure 1).
Figure 2. MN black-light trap ECB captures for 2021. The June captures correspond to 1st generation and the mid- August to September flight corresponds to the 2nd generation. The 2nd generation ECB flight can overlap the univoltine moth flights that occur in July to August. The July data indicate that the univoltine population continues to be active in southern MN. Moths continued to be trapped at historically low numbers, for all locations. Source: MN Extension IPM Program: MN ECB blacklight trap captures.

ECB survey

During 2017-21, the MN Corn Research and Promotion Council has provided funding to increase the number of corn fields surveyed for overwintering larvae (Figure 3,5) and ECB injury (Figure 4,5). During 2021, 176 randomly selected commercial fields were evaluated for the presence of overwintering ECB larvae. Fall overwintering larval population densities in WC and NW Minnesota were somewhat lower in 2021 than in previous years. 
Figure 3.  Historical overwintering fall ECB populations (1995-1997) comparing a pre-Bt era infestation peak (1995), with the early years of commercialization (1996-1997), and with recent years (2019-2021). Source: UMN Extension IPM Program.
Figure 4. Changes in ECB injury (inches of tunneling/10 plants) from 2018-2021. Data from known non-Bt and randomly selected fields except for 2020 when only a few non-Bt field were sampled. Source: UMN Extension IPM Program (E.C. Burkness, W.D. Hutchison, A. Peltier & B.D. Potter). Copywrite University of Minnesota

Overall, 2021 ECB infestation levels observed were similar to 2017-2020 (Table 1, Figure 5) and remain at near historically low levels, averaging 0.0063 larvae/plant. These data compare to the state average overwintering larval number in random samples of 0.0120 in 2020, and 0.0039/plant in 2019.

The average density in known non-Bt fields remains much lower than the traditional economic threshold levels for ECB (typically greater than 0.5 larvae/plant). Forty fields, known to lack a Bt trait, were sampled and averaged 0.0475 larvae/plant. Be aware that the larvae/plant observations of overwintering ECB can underestimate yield loss from multivoltine populations when late instar larvae are killed by predation or parasitism. It is important to remember that these numbers are state averages, and the maps represent interpolated spatial data and do not reflect the densities within individual fields. In other words, they do not replace scouting for field-specific decisions.

Table 1. Statewide data for corn borer larvae in field corn, Minnesota 2017 - 2021.

Year Mean ECB larvae/plant (n)
2017 0.0054 (147)
2018 0.0080 (137)
2019 0.0039 (152)
2020 0.0120 (166)
2021 0.0063 (188)
Figure 5. Relative location of fields sampled in 2019 (left), 2020 (middle), and 2021 (right) for ECB. Legend: Gray - no ECB detected, Yellow - tunnels only (no larvae), Red - tunnels with larvae. Source: University of Minnesota Extension IPM program.

Resistance management

From an areawide and long-term resistance management view, it is prudent to maintain Bt-susceptible ECB in the state. Non-Bt, or “refuge,” corn is necessary to produce moths that have had less exposure to Bt traits as larvae, and thus should continue to be susceptible to Bt (see Ostlie et al. 1997). Theoretically, susceptible moths emerging from non-Bt fields should be more abundant than rare resistant survivors from Bt fields and available to mate with ECB moths emerging from nearby Bt fields. Such matings between moths from non-Bt and Bt fields should continue to keep the frequency of Bt-resistance genes low in the local ECB population. The subsequent ideal outcome is that susceptible genes dominate over time, helping conserve the Bt crop technology for long as possible. For ECB, this continues to be one of the ongoing success stories with Bt traits. The 2021 fall survey did not reveal any fields with suspected Bt-resistance, and the prolonged low ECB populations levels suggest Bt traits continue to work well.

The risk of ECB developing resistance to Bt is not zero, however, continued monitoring of ECB populations in Bt has value. For example, Bt resistance has appeared in ECB in Nova Scotia, Canada, arising from intensive use of one Bt trait. (Note: this ECB biotype does not occur in Minnesota).

One situation bears scrutiny with ear-feeding caterpillars, such as ECB. In the case of “refuge-in-a-bag” fields, pollen shed between the Bt ears and nearby non-Bt ears via refuge plants can lead to a mosaic of Bt expression in pollen and kernels of non-Bt ears – potentially reducing refuge efficacy and increasing selection pressure for resistance. This mosaic in kernel Bt expression is a concern for ECB, and other caterpillar pests, such as fall armyworm (FAW) and corn earworm (CEW); there are several cases of Bt resistance with FAW and CEW globally on multiple crops, including corn.

Managing ECB in the absence of Bt

Going into the summer of 2022, ECB populations should remain generally low statewide. However, scattered reports of damage to non-Bt corn demonstrate ECB is still present and thus continues to reflect a yield threat in Minnesota. Crop consultants and crop advisors often note building corn borer populations after several years of planting non-Bt corn. That said, a temporary increase in acres planted to non-Bt corn should not dramatically increase the risk of economic damage from ECB in the near-term, particularly if the non-Bt fields are surrounded by several Bt fields. However, this risk likely increases as the proportion of local fields planted to non-Bt increases, particularly where the local shift away from Bt dominates the locale for several years and where non-Bt corn is planted in large contiguous blocks. Most likely, the higher fall ECB populations observed in some fields reflect local non-Bt dominance in some areas of Minnesota (Figure 4). Because ECB colonizes over 100 host plants, such as sweet corn, peppers, green beans, and wild and cultivated hemp, there are ample hosts available in the Midwest region for ECB to maintain low-level populations; the species will not go extinct any time soon. Therefore, if growers choose to plant less Bt corn longer-term, ECB populations would be expected to increase.

Two ECB biotypes  

Another variable to consider is that two biotypes of ECB continue to be present in Minnesota. A univoltine biotype that produces a single generation each year was the first type introduced into the U.S and historically predominated in the northern and central corn-growing areas of the state. After the adoption of Bt, higher ECB densities have typically occurred in areas where univoltine populations predominate and Bt adoption rates are somewhat lower. The multivoltine biotype, which historically predominated in southern MN, typically produces two, or rarely three, larval generations depending on temperature accumulation and photoperiod cues. Multiple generations mean that the multivoltine biotype can be exposed to two or more rounds of selection. While ECB populations remain susceptible, this means Bt-corn can have a bigger impact on ECB multivoltine populations. Conversely, the multivoltine biotype might be expected to develop resistance more quickly when it appears.

Scout fields 

Risk of yield loss from ECB can be reduced if you scout fields and apply a labeled insecticide where needed. Early and late-planted fields will be most attractive to egg-laying 1st and 2nd generation moths of the multivoltine biotype, respectively. These fields should be scouted for ECB if planted to a hybrid without an above-ground Bt trait. In contrast, it takes univoltine larvae longer to complete development, so moths of this biotype produce an adult flight in-between the multivoltine 1st and 2nd generation moths. Where the univoltine biotype strain occurs, scouting should target fields from pre-tassel to near pollination when the flight is underway, typically mid-July to early August. Scouting should focus on small larvae in leaf axils and ears; a more challenging situation since larvae are no longer congregated in the whorl. In areas with biotype mixtures, mixed infestations can occur with overlapping and prolonged scouting windows throughout the summer. Degree-day models can help time scouting efforts but are not a substitute for being in the field.

European corn borer tunneling in corn stalk.
Photo: Bruce Potter
Bt corn should also receive some scouting attention late season to detect potential ECB resistance and attack by other ear-feeding caterpillars. While ECB resistance to Bt has not been detected in Midwest, several above-ground traits are now less effective against other pest species, such as corn earworm, western bean cutworm, and fall armyworm. Occasionally, refuge plants may be attacked but look for ECB attack beyond the proportion of refuge plants. In particular, examine leaf feeding from first-generation corn borers in earlier planted fields, stalk and ear tunneling in late-silking fields from univoltine and second-generation corn borers, ear feeding from corn earworm and western bean cutworm, and late-whorl and ear feeding from fall armyworm. If you do detect an unusually high proportion of injured plants, confirm you planted a hybrid or hybrids with above-ground Bt traits and notify your seed dealer. Independent confirmation is important so ask a trusted ag advisor to investigate or confirm your suspicions and test plants for Bt expression. Of course, we would appreciate a “heads-up.”

Notes on European corn borer, scouting and insecticide applications

  • Larvae are susceptible to insecticides for 10-14 days during each generation, from hatching to tunneling of the third or fourth stage. This limited window means your scouting efforts must be timed well. Timing can be difficult in areas with mixed univoltine and multivoltine biotypes.
  • As corn grows and the plant loses its whorl where larvae like to congregate, successive generations occupy leaf axils and ears lower in the corn canopy. End result: insecticide effectiveness declines with greater canopy interception by leaves above the larvae. Consequently, percentage control for well-timed applications declines from 85% (1st generation) to 70% (univoltine) to 50% (2nd generation). Expect control with insecticides, even if timed well, to be noticeably less effective than Bt traits (>99.5%).
  • Larvae that tunnel into the stalk, ear shank, or ear are not susceptible to insecticide sprays and should not be considered in your spray decision. Make sure there are still enough exposed, susceptible larvae to justify insecticide applications. Re-evaluate the field closer to application if there is a scheduling or weather-related delay in getting the field sprayed.
  • With aerial applications, water volume is critical… the more the better, with 5 gpa preferred. Performance is enhanced by heavy dew (favors movement of insecticide into whorl or leaf axils) and diminished when using lower water volume, when leaves are dry (no movement to leaf axils) and when hot temperatures increase evaporation of smaller spray droplets before they hit the target. Avoid use of spreader / sticker types of adjuvants.

When moving away from Bt traits to reduce costs, keep in mind three important considerations:

  1. Bt traits are a form of insurance. Moving away from Bt traits means that you are assuming the risk of insect attack and timely scouting will be critical for optimal management.
  2. Statewide, risk is generally low for yield loss from ECB, but risk is not zero. Looking ahead to this summer, the current low risk of ECB infestations in MN is based on two assumptions: the low-density larval trends observed the past 10 years will continue, and the pest will continue to be susceptible to all or most of the Bt proteins present in Bt corn hybrids. Each assumption is reasonable based on Bt adoption rates in MN (Fig. 1), especially given the past 8 years where Bt corn has averaged ~80% use in MN; also note that historically low ECB infestations have also occurred in WI for the past 8 years, with 65-75% Bt corn use.
  3. If you choose to plant fewer acres of Bt corn this year, and accept the risk of potential yield loss, you will need to minimize that risk through more active management (scouting + insecticides). Recently, growers who have reduced their reliance on Bt hybrids (and cost), typically plan for gradual reductions, e.g., from 80% Bt the previous year, to 70-75% Bt acres. This approach allows flexibility in reducing costs while not exposing the entire farm to the risk of ECB damage. Of course, when reducing the use of Bt hybrids, growers also need access to non-Bt hybrids that will still provide the necessary agronomic traits, desired maturities for their location, and competitive yields. Annual corn hybrid yield trials are published each year, and available through UMN Extension, MN Crop News, and Extension services in nearby states. After reducing Bt acres, growers should annually evaluate yield performance of Bt and non-Bt fields, evaluate the control obtained from scouting and insecticide use on non-Bt corn (noted above). Knowledge of each of these factors, along with knowledge sharing of any ECB “hot spots” on neighboring farms, is all valuable information in assessing the percentage Bt corn use for the following year.

For more information

Hodgson, E.W. & M. E. Rice. Ecology and management of the European corn borer in Iowa field corn. 2017. Iowa State University of Science and Technology.

Hutchison, W.D., E.C. Burkness, P.D. Mitchell, R.D. Moon, T.W. Leslie, S. J. Fleischer, M. Abrahamson, K.L. Hamilton, K.L. Steffey, M.E. Gray, R.L. Hellmich, L.V. Kaster, T.E. Hunt, R.J. Wright, K. Pecinovsky, T.L. Rabaey, B.R. Flood, E.S. Raun. 2010. Areawide suppression of European corn borer with Bt maize reaps savings to non –Bt maize growers. Science. 330:222-5. doi: 10.1126/science.1190242.

Mason, C.E., M.E. Rice, C.D. DiFonzo, R.P. Porter, and 20 others. 2018. European Corn Borer Ecology, Management, and Association with other Corn Pests, NCR 0327. Ames: Iowa State University Extension and Outreach.

Ostlie, K.R., W.D. Hutchison, and R. L. Hellmich (eds). 1997. Bt corn and the European corn borer: Long-term success through resistance management. NCR Cooperative Extension Service, Online:

Peltier, A., B. Potter, E. Burkness & B. Hutchison. 2021. European corn borer survey - 2017-2021: Northwest Minnesota. December 21st, MN Crop News, UMN Extension. Online:

Pilcher CD, Rice ME, Higgins RA, Steffey KL, Hellmich RL, Witkowski J, Calvin D, Ostlie KR, Gray M. 2002. Biotechnology and the European corn borer: measuring historical farmer perceptions and adoption of transgenic Bt corn as a pest management strategy. J. Econ. Entomol. 95(5):878-92.

Potter, B. 2020. European corn borer in Minnesota field corn, UMN Extension. Online:

USDA—ERS 2018. Adoption of genetically engineered crops in the U.S. Genetically engineered varieties of corn, upland cotton and soybeans by State and United States, 2000-20 adoption of genetically engineered crops in the U.S.

USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, June 2021 Acreage Report. Online:


This work was supported, in part by the farm families of Minnesota and their corn checkoff investment.

We would also like to thank those who helped with the 2021 fall survey: Eric Burkness for compiling data and mapping, Travis Vollmer for survey and mapping, and Dominique Ebbenga and Ryan Miller for surveys. We would also like to thank the corn producers and other agricultural professionals that provided locations for non-Bt fields.

Products are mentioned for illustrative purposes only. Their inclusion does not mean endorsement and their absence does not imply disapproval.

For University of Minnesota Extension, crop production information:

© 2022, Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
The University of Minnesota Extension is an equal opportunity educator and employer.

Print Friendly and PDF