| PMEP Home Page |  |
Pesticide Use Information for New York State | |
NAPIAP Survey - Apples and Pears - 1995 | |
Apples & Pears: Introduction |
|
The authors gratefully acknowledge the help of the following people without whom this report could not have been completed: Steve Hoying, Deborah Breth, Warren Smith, Kevin Iungerman, Warren Stiles, Richard Straub, Joe Kovach, Art Agnello, Wayne Wilcox, Dave Rosenberger, Eric Harrington, Debbie Kalaf, Donna Kowalski, and Mary Partridge.
Scientists at Cornell's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (CALS) continue to research pest control techniques for apple and pear production systems. The scientists confront two different problems: the pests and the losses they cause, and the more general problem of designing and implementing pest management prgrams that apple and pear growers can accept.
New York Agricultural Statistics 1995-1996 reports that apples were harvested from 57,500 bearing acres in New York State in 1995. Pears were harvested from 2500 bearing acres. Nationally, New York ranked second behind Washington State in the production of apples. New York ranks fourth nationally in the production of pears. The value of the 1995 apple crop was estimated at 134 million dollars, while the value of the pear crop was estimated at 5.39 million dollars.
Present pest management techniques for apples and pears rely heavily on pesticides. The dependence on chemical control can have negative consequences, including the development of pesticide resistance, for example, apple scab resistance to Benomyl is widespread in New York. (Cornell Pest Management Recommendations for Tree Fruit, 1995). Dependence on pesticides can also cause the destruction of the natural enemies of certain pests, thus causing more pesti cides to be used. Overuse of pesticides can negatively affect endangered species, and contami nate groundwater as well. The latter is of greater concern in light of the New York State Pesticide and Groundwater Strategy: Draft Generic State Management Plan (GSMP), which, in the Envi ronmental Protection Agency's (EPA) federal strategy, establishes goals and a general framework for more specific pesticide management plans and implementation. It is a beginning for ap proaches to manage pesticide use and protect groundwater.
The goal of the GSMP is to protect human health and the environment, and to protect the integrity of the State's groundwater resources. At the same time, it recognizes the need to sustain the productivity and economic viability of New York's agriculture, and to provide control of pests which pose significant threats to food production, human health, and natural ecosystems.
The importance of the availability of comprehensive detailed pesticide usage inventories, giving geographic locations, application rates and timing of use cannot be understated. Pesticide use data supports the development and implementation of preventative approaches to groundwa ter contamination, improves response to EPA regulatory activity, provides information for
Cornell Cooperative Extension educational programs, identifies research needs and emerging new pest problems, and helps in developing IPM strategies that provide alternative pesticide use. Such data is provided in this report.
In addition, many pesticide handlers are unaware of the hazards of pesticide exposure and uninformed about the type of personal protective equipment (PPE) that should be worn. The health risks for these workers extend beyond the workplace when pesticide contaminated cloth ing is worn into the home or when it is washed with the family laundry. Worker safety also affects employers through lost workdays and costly litigation. Pesticide handlers, their families, and their employers need information about PPE that is based on current legislation, national education efforts, and ongoing research. To continue to serve the educational needs of pesticide handlers and their families, information is needed about their current practices and attitudes regarding the use of PPE. This report gives such information and reflects the requirements outlined in the new EPA Worker Protection Standard (WPS), and is based on specific pesticides and cultural practices of apple and pear producers.
Funding for this project was provided by the National Agricultural Pesticide Impact Assessment Program (NAPIAP), United States Department of Agriculture.
Pear Psylla
Registered insecticides (petroleum oils, amitraz, esfenvalerate, and permethrin) for summer use on pears have become increasingly unreliable in controlling pear psylla because of the development of resistance. In addition, New York growing conditions necessitate manage ment practices for fruit size attainment that are favorable to the rapid buildup of psylla popula tions. Contributing to this situation of incomplete control is the widespread use of materials, such as synthetic pyrethroids and carbamates, for other pests that are highly destructive to natural control agents. These factors virtually assure a yearly infestation of an insect that would other wise be a relatively insignificant orchard resident. Now, at best, a grower can hope to keep psylla populations just barely under control. Large numbers of adults left in the orchard at the end of the summer overwinter and initiate the next spring population, while natural control agents don't have the chance to recover before the next encounter with a pesticide application exposure.
In response to the above situation, New York State requested an emergency exemption in 1994 and 1995 for avermectin to assist growers in controlling pear psylla. During 1996, the registrant of avermectin, Merck Inc., received a pesticide residue tolerance on pears.
Obliquebanded leafroller
The obliquebanded leafroller has become one of the most serious pests directly damaging fruit in Western New York apple orchards. Growers began experiencing increased difficulty controlling the obliquebanded leafroller with the recommended pesticides during the last several years and, despite multiple insecticide applications, problem orchards usually end up with at least 3-4% damaged fruit at harvest. Orchards were constantly monitored by Cornell researchers during the 1995 season and an emergency exemption has been requested for the 1996 growing season.
Questionnaires were developed from previous NAPIAP and other surveys that had been conducted in New York State. The first drafts were reviewed by tree fruit specialists in the areas of weed, insect and disease control, IPM specialists and extension agents for comment and critique. Final survey forms were printed and duplicated (see Appendix for survey form samples) based on input from these groups.
Letters were sent to tree fruit extension agents explaining the project and requesting assistance in the implementation of the survey. A presentation was made at each of the Western New York Fruit Schools as well as the Hudson Valley Fruit School. Another presentation was made at a calibration meeting in the Champlain Valley. After the presentation surveys were handed out to growers, to complete and return, in postage-paid envelopes. Approximately 400 surveys were given out. The response rate was 10%. In addition, growers were able to receive one pesticide recertification credit for completing the survey.
One reason the response rate was low could be because fruit producers are feeling the pressure of too many surveys. With several different government agencies competing for the same data, growers may feel "surveyed to death." Some growers were suspicious that pesticide use data may be "used against them." The detailed pesticide use information that NAPIAP requires may also be a deterrent. Several growers returned surveys without filling out any of the pesticide section. One grower wrote, "This is really too much, don't you think?"
Once data were collected, database management files were developed using FileMaker Pro 3.0 for compilation and analysis of the data. This report contains data pertaining to the objectives stated previously.
Certain words and/or terms used throughout this report are defined below:
