| PMEP Home Page |  |
Pesticide Use Information for New York State | |
NAPIAP Survey - Apples and Pears - 1995 | |
Apples & Pear Survey: Wildlife and Misc. |
|
Table 8 shows the methods used, both chemical and non-chemical, to control deer and/or rabbit damage in apple/pear orchards in 1995. Deer and/or rabbits were a problem for 89.2% of the apple/pear producers surveyed. Chemical control was not widely used against these pests. Three growers had "other" responses to this question. Two of the growers reported using Hinder, while the other grower did not list the product used. Soap bars were the most popular non -pesticidal means of control, with 81.8% of growers who had a problem with deer and/or rabbits reporting their use.
The 1995 Pest Management Recommendations for Tree Fruit has this to say about soap bars: "Many growers also experiment with soap bars as a noncommercial deer repellent. Grow ers should carefully evaluate the cost effectiveness of bars before applying them, as hanging bars requires a substantial labor investment. In addition, soap bars may also increase vole damage" (p.168). The popularity of soap bars suggests that growers are willing to make the labor invest ment.
Growers did not report using habitat modification to control deer and/or rabbits. The Pest Management Recommendations state that habitat modification and exclusion methods offer the best chance of long-term control (p.169). However, initial expense of these efforts is higher than other methods.
| Were Deer/Rabbits a problem? |
# of records | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| no | 1 | ||
| yes | 36 | ||
| Chemical control used | # of records | Other control used | # of records |
| BGR Deer-Away | 0 | soap bars | 27 |
| Chew-Not | 0 | exclusion | 4 |
| Bonide Rabbit-Deer | 0 | habitat modification | 0 |
| Hot Sauce Animal Repellent | 0 | trapping | 1 |
| other | 3 | shooting | 12 |
| other | 4 | ||
Table 9 shows the methods, chemical and other, that growers used to control meadow and pine vole damage. Meadow and pine voles were a problem for 97.3% of the apple/pear produc ers surveyed. The most popular chemical control used against these pests was "Rodenticide for Orchard Mice" (zinc phosphide). The rest of the chemical controls used had the active ingredient zinc phosphide as well.
Other controls used against meadow and pine voles included mowing/herbicides, and wire or nylon guards. The 1995 Tree Fruit Recommendations state, "Careful mowing and herbicide treatment will lower rodent numbers because voles require green, growing vegetation for survival and breeding" (p.170). Nylon guards are also recommended for younger, more sensitive trees.
| Were Voles a problem? |
# of records | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| no | 1 | ||
| yes | 36 | ||
| Chemical control used | # of records | Other control used | # of records |
| 2-100 Field Mouse Bait | 0 | mowing/herbicides | 33 |
| Rodenticide for orchard mice | 11 | field sanitation | 12 |
| ZP | 4 | wire or nylon guards | 24 |
| Hopkins ZP Bait | 8 | other | 1 |
| ZP Rodent Bait AG | 7 | ||
| ZP on wheat | 0 | ||
| ZP on rolled oats | 6 | ||
| ZP concentrate | 0 | ||
| other | 3 | ||
Table 10 shows the methods used to combat woodchuck damage by apple and pear growers. Woodchucks were a problem for 70.3% of the apple/pear producers surveyed. A small number of growers tried fumigation to combat this pest. One grower mentioned using fire to "smoke" the woodchuck out of its den. Non-chemical means seemed to be more popular against woodchucks. Shooting and trapping were the two methods most commonly used while one grower used nylon guards specifically against woodchucks. It should be noted that the Pest Management Recommendations state that lethal controls are only somewhat successful in pro tecting orchards against woodchucks (p.170).
Four growers mentioned other wildlife problems besides the ones described on the survey. Two growers reported "birds" as a problem, while another grower reported that turkeys posed a problem. Raccoons and chipmunks were also reported as causing crop damage. The controls ranged from nets for bird control, to shooting to control the raccoons.
| Were Woodchucks a Problem? | # of Records | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| No | 11 | ||
| Yes | 26 | ||
| Chemical Control Used | # of Records | Other Control Used | # of Records |
| Fumigation | 7 | Shooting | 19 |
| Other | 2 | Trapping | 11 |
| Fencing | 0 | ||
| Predator Odors | 0 | ||
| Other | 1 |
Table 11 shows the number of apple and pear producers who are certified pesticide applicators. All of the apple/pear producers surveyed were certified pesticide applicators. In order to purchase restricted-use pesticides, a grower must be a certified pesticide applicator.
| Are you certified? | # of records |
|---|---|
| yes | 37 |
Chemical pest control remains a major expense for apple and pear producers. Of the 35 growers who responded to this question, 29, or 82.9% spent over 151 dollars per acre on chemical pest control. In fact, 45.7% of the growers re ported spending over 250 dollars per acre on chemical pest control. Despite the use of IPM practices documented earlier, apple and pear producers still find it necessary to purchase chemical controls.
| Cost | # of records |
|---|---|
| 0$ per acre | 0 |
| less than $50 per acre | 1 |
| $51-75 per acre | 3 |
| $76-100 per acre | 1 |
| $101-150 per acre | 1 |
| $151-200 per acre | 8 |
| $201-250 per acre | 5 |
| over $250 per acre | 16 |
Table 13 shows the frequency of pesticide equipment calibration by apple and pear growers. According to the New York State Pesticide Applicators Training Manual (PAT manual), calibration of pesticide application equipment is the first step in controlling the amount of pesti cide applied to orchards. Without accurate calibration, a grower has no way of knowing if the amount of pesticide applied is at the recommended rate. Calibration should ideally be performed often. The two most popular responses for apple and pear growers were "once a season" and "two to three times a season."
This may not be often enough to be considered accurate calibration. Ninety point six perecent of the apple growers and 4 of 5 pear growers reported using equipment calibration to reduce spray dosage as a method of integrated pest management. The actual reported frequency of calibration suggests that growers might not be as accurate as they think.
| Frequency of Calibration | # of records |
|---|---|
| At the time of equipment purchase | 0 |
| Before each application | 4 |
| Once a season | 14 |
| Two to three times a season | 14 |
| Every two to three years | 3 |
| Never | 1 |
| Other | 4 |
Table 14 shows the storage practices of apple/pear producers. Storage of pesticides should occur, if possible, in a separate building designed for storing pesticides. If this is not possible, then a wing or corner on the ground floor of a building should be used (PAT manual, 1990). The pesticide storage area should be locked to prevent access from anyone not trained in the use of pesticides. This includes pets and other animals. Herbicides should be stored sepa rately from pesticides and other materials to avoid contamination. Eighty-three point eight perecent of the apple and pear growers indicated that they stored pesticides locked up in a sepa rate "pesticide only" location. Eighty-one percent indicated that they stored pesticides only in original containers.
| Storage Practice | # of Records |
|---|---|
| Stored with non-pesticide materials | 7 |
| Stored only in original containers | 30 |
| Locked up in separate "pesticide only" location | 31 |
| Stored in unlocked "pesticide only" location | 6 |
| Other | 3 |
Tables 15 and 16 address the issue of pesticide disposal. Disposal is a twofold problem: unwanted or unused pesticides, and empty pesticide containers. According to the PAT manual, disposal of unwanted/unused pesticides can be done in several ways: (a) factory-sealed pesti cides may be returned to the manufacturer, (b) excess pesticide mixture can be sprayed on an other labeled site where the same pest problem is, or (c) they can be picked up at "Pesticide Clean Up Days." Eighty-one point one percent of apple and pear growers responded that they carry over pesticides to the next season. Only 29.7% of those surveyed return unused pesticides to the manufacturer or dealer.
| Disposal Method | # of Records |
|---|---|
| Bury | 0 |
| Landfill | 0 |
| Give to other growers | 2 |
| Return to pesticide manufacturer/dealer | 11 |
| Spray on non-cropland areas | 0 |
| Carry over to next season | 30 |
| Do not have any unwanted/unused pesticides | 5 |
| Other | 4 |
| Disposal Method | # of Records |
|---|---|
| Bury | 2 |
| Burn | 26 |
| Landfill after triple-rinsing | 15 |
| Recycle after triple-rinsing | 5 |
| Return to pesticide manufacturer/dealer | 1 |
| Other | 5 |
Empty pesticide containers still contain small amounts of pesticide residue even after rinsing (PAT manual, 1990). Containers should be separated into "burnable," "non-burnable" and those that contain mercury, lead, cadmium, or inorganic pesticides. The PAT manual gives these rules:
The majority of apple/pear producers surveyed burned their empty pesticide containers in 1995 (70.3%). An additional 40.5% took their containers to a landfill after triple-rinsing them (more than one response was allowed for this question). Very few growers either buried their used containers or returned them to the manufacturer.
Table 17 shows the resources New York apple and pear producers used in 1995 to help make their decisions regarding pest control options for their orchards. The three most common responses were "Cornell Recommends," "Cooperative Extension agent/specialist," and "past success with product." "Past success with product" may be a problematic response because relying on the same pesticides year after year can build up pest resistance.
| Who/What | # of Records |
|---|---|
| Magazine, Radio, or TV advertisement | 0 |
| Cooperative Extension agent/specialist | 30 |
| Another farmer/grower | 7 |
| Farm supply dealer | 3 |
| Chemical salesperson | 16 |
| Private consultant | 18 |
| Past success with product | 27 |
| Cornell Recommends | 32 |
| Other | 1 |
