| PMEP Home Page |  |
Pesticide Use Information for New York State | |
NAPIAP Survey - Grapes - 1993 |
|
Pesticide Management Education Program
and
The Department of Textiles & Apparel
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853-0901
Funded By The National Agricultural Pesticide Impact Assessment Program United States Department of Agriculture
New York has approximately 32,500 acres of grapes. It is a national leader in fruit production, ranking third behind California and Washington in total grape production. Significant grape acreage is concentrated in ten counties located in four regions: Western New York, the Finger Lakes region, Long Island, and the Hudson River Valley (Figure 1).
The value of the 1993 New York State grape crop was estimated at $26.5 million dollars with 118,000 tons of grapes (all varieties) being produced. Average yield was estimated at 3.6 tons/acre (New York State Agricultural Statistics Service, 1993 Annual Summary).
Programs attempting to address the issues surrounding pesticides have a critical need to obtain use information about those chemicals being applied in the grape productions systems in New York State. Downy mildew, a serious disease of grapes, is currently controlled by the use of one of three fungicide complexes--captan, EBDC fungicides, or copper. Although reregistered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), captan has been suspended from use by all juice processors in New York. Some wineries are also reluctant to use captan because of its poor public image. EBDC fungicides, such as maneb and mancozeb, have been reregistered by the EPA but most juice processors continue to restrict their use to the prebloom period in spite of a 66-day preharvest interval (PHI).
Because all processors in New York apply these restrictions regarding captan and the EBDCs, growers do not have the option of selling their crop to less restrictive processors. Furthermore, unless the recent ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California against EPA's interpretation of the Delaney Clause is reversed, or new legislation is passed, the registration of captan and the EBDC fungicides for processed grapes will be canceled.
Further developments affecting the grape industry in New York are:
Due to the aforementioned problems facing the grape industry, it is essential to compile not only pesticide use data, but also all pest management practices currently employed by grape producers. This report contains such a compilation. This information should aid policy makers, researchers, extension specialists and industry personnel in evaluating pesticide use patterns, current pest management strategies, and the economic impacts of regulatory actions on specific pesticides. Funding for this project was provided by the National Agricultural Pesticide Impact Assessment Program (NAPIAP), United States Department of Agriculture.
Letters were sent to grape processors, specialists and extension agents explaining the project and requesting assistance in the implementation of the survey. A one hour pesticide applicator training presentation on EPA's "Special Review" process, and personal protective equipment (PPE) use (see section two of this report) was given prior to the completion of the survey questionnaire. In order to attract growers to the meetings, two recertification credits were given to all those who participated. Three meetings were set up: one on Long Island, and two which covered the Finger Lakes region. A mailing list was used to send surveys to Western New York grape growers. Response was approximately 25%.
Once data were collected, database management files were developed using FileMaker Pro 2.0 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 paper are defined below:
Table 1: Demographics of grape vineyards in New York in 1993
______________________________________________________________________________
Average # of growers
Region # of Bearing Non-bearing yield reporting
Grape type records acreage acreage (tons) yield
______________________________________________________________________________
Western New York (Chautauqua, Erie, Niagara Counties)
Juice 86 3,518.7 175.2 5.2 84
Wine 4 66.0 0.0 2.5 3
Table 3 14.5 0.0 4.5 2
Totals 93 3,599.2 175.2 5.1 89
Finger Lakes (Cayuga, Ontario, Schuyler, Seneca, Steuben, Yates Counties)
Juice 4 226.5 10.5 5.7 3
Wine 33 3,037.9 53.2 4.7 29
Table 1 5.0 0.0 NS 0
Totals 38 3,269.4 63.7 4.8 32
Long Island (Suffolk County)
Wine 6 171.0 12.5 2.6 6
Totals 6 171.0 12.5 2.6 6
Total Juice 90 3,745.2 185.5 5.2 87
Total Wine 43 3,274.9 65.9 4.3 38
Total Table 4 19.5 0.0 4.5 2
TOTAL 137 7,039.6 251.4 4.9 127
______________________________________________________________________________
NS = not specified
One hundred and thirteen growers (81.9%) indicated they were under contract with a processor (Table 2). Ninety-one (80.5%) of those under contract indicated there were pesticide restrictions placed on them by the processor. Table 3 summarizes those restrictions. Although answers varied, over half of the growers indicated that captan use was not allowed, and that EBDCs could not be used after bloom.
Table 2: Contracts and restrictions for grape growers in NY for 1993
______________________________________________________________________________
Under contract? # of % of
With whom? records records
______________________________________________________________________________
No 25 18.1
Yes 113 81.9
National Grape Cooperative 60 53.1
Westfield Grower's Cooperative 20 17.7
Canandaigua Wine Co. 13 11.5
Cliffstar 5 4.4
Coca Cola Foods 3 2.7
Royal Wine Company 3 2.7
Seneca Foods 2 1.8
Taylor Wine Company 2 1.8
Not specified 2 1.8
Fall Bright the Winemakers Shoppe 1 0.9
Mogen David 1 0.9
Red Wing 1 0.9
______________________________________________________________________________
Table 3: Restrictions placed on grape growers in NY for 1993 (91 records)
______________________________________________________________________________
# of % of
growers records
with with
What restrictions are placed on growers? restrictions restictions
______________________________________________________________________________
No EBDC use after bloom 57 62.6
No captan 49 53.8
No Alar 19 20.9
Not specified 10 11.0
Only use approved products 9 9.9
No parathion 7 7.7
No Roundup after bloom 3 3.3
No Benlate 2 2.2
No 2,4-D 1 1.1
Several 1 1.1
Must follow label requirements 1 1.1
Do not use any restricted material before harvest 1 1.1
Only use pesticides in Cornell Recommends 1 1.1
Do not remember 1 1.1
______________________________________________________________________________
Table 4: NY grape growers using herbicides in 1993
______________________________________________________________________________
# of growers # of Acreage
using # of applications receiving
Region herbicides applications per grower herbicides
______________________________________________________________________________
Western 87 238 2.7 3,478.2
Finger Lakes 33 88 2.7 2,932.4
Long Island 5 15 3.0 131.0
Total 125 341 2.7 6,541.6
______________________________________________________________________________
Table 5 summarizes who applied the herbicides to grapes in 1993. Ninety- eight percent of herbicide applications were made by the grower, or his/her employee. The type of application equipment used most often was a boom sprayer (84.5%, Table 6). All herbicide applications were ground applications.
Table 5: Who applied herbicides to NY grape crop in 1993 ______________________________________________________________________________ Who applied # of applications % of applications ______________________________________________________________________________ Grower/employee 335 98.2 Custom applicator 6 1.8 ______________________________________________________________________________ Table 6: Equipment used to apply herbicides to NY grape crop in 1993 ______________________________________________________________________________ Type of equipment # of applications % of applications ______________________________________________________________________________ Boom sprayer 288 84.5 Not specified 26 7.6 Air-blast sprayer 12 3.5 Hand-held sprayer 10 2.9 Piston-pump sprayer 5 1.5 ______________________________________________________________________________
Table 7 summarizes the herbicides used by grape growers in 1993. A total of 34,015.42 lbs of herbicide active ingredients were applied to 6,541.6 acres of vineyard surveyed in 1993. The active ingredient used most often was diuron (applied by 72.8% of growers using herbicides). It was applied to 244.84 acres an average of 1.2 times at a rate of 9.0 or 9.6 lbs active ingredient per acre, for a total of 20,389.49 lbs diuron applied to the survey area.
Table 7: Herbicide use on NY grape crop in 1993 (all regions)
______________________________________________________________________________
Rate
Active Total AI per Total
Ingred. # of acres Times Acre acre lbs AI
Trade Name records treated a/ appl. b/ treatmts (lb) c/ applied
______________________________________________________________________________
diuron 91 20,389.49
Direx &
Karmex 4L 13 244.84 1.2 293.81 9.0 2,644.29
Direx 80DF,
Diuron 80WDG
& Karmex DF 78 1,848.46 1.0 1,848.46 9.6 17,745.20
glyphosate 89 4,120.26
Roundup 89 3,092.23 1.3 4,120.26 1.0 4,120.26
simazine 65 7,571.69
Princep
Caliber 90 29 476.10 1.0 476.10 4.77 2,271.00
Princep 4L, 80W,
& Simazine 80W 30 643.81 1.0 643.81 4.8 3,090.29
Sim-trol &
Simazine 4L 6 460.50 1.2 552.6 4.0 2,210.40
paraquat 54 1,532.45
Gramoxone Extra 54 1,451.69 1.1 1,634.61 0.94 1,532.45
oryzalin 5 306.23
Surflan A.S. 5 51.04 1.0 51.04 6.0 306.23
norflurazon 4 95.30
Solicam DF 4 24.25 1.0 24.25 3.93 95.30
Total 34,015.42
______________________________________________________________________________
a/ When under-trellis applications were made, acres treated are based on
width of spray band and distance between vineyard rows.
b/ Average, weighted by acres treated.
c/ Based on high label rates
Figure 2 illustrates the pounds of herbicide active ingredients applied to the 1993 grape crop in each region. Long Island growers did not use diuron or norflurazon, and Finger Lakes growers used neither oryzalin nor norflurazon.
Pounds of herbicide active ingredients applied per acre in each region are shown in Figure 3. Long Island growers treated 131 acres with 558.54 lbs (AI) of herbicides (4.3 lbs AI/A); Finger Lakes growers applied 15,790.23 lbs to 2,932.4 acres (5.4 lbs AI/A), and Western New York growers used 18,380.51 lbs (AI) of herbicides on 3,478.2 acres of vineyard (5.3 lbs AI/A).
Herbicide applications were made both pre- and post- weed emergence almost equally (Table 8). The most common site of application of herbicides was "under the trellis" (69.8%, Table 9).
Table 8: Timing of application of herbicides on NY grape crop in 1993
______________________________________________________________________________
# of % of
Time of Application applications applications
______________________________________________________________________________
Preemergence 169 49.6
Postemergence 172 50.4
______________________________________________________________________________
Table 9: Site of application of herbicides on NY grape crop in 1993
______________________________________________________________________________
# of % of
Site of Application applications applications
______________________________________________________________________________
Under the trellis 238 69.8
Between the row 53 15.5
Spot treatment 50 14.7
______________________________________________________________________________
Table 10 indicates the frequency of herbicide applications for weed pests. Annual grass and annual broadleaf weeds accounted for 59.8% and 57.2% of herbicide applications, respectively, to vineyards in 1993. Broadleaf weeds (both annual and perennial) were targeted more often on Long Island, while annual weeds (both broadleaf and grasses) were targeted more often in the Finger Lakes and Western New York. There was no chemical suckering control indicated on Long Island (Figure 4). A cost comparison of herbicides used in vineyards is shown in Table 11.
Table 10: Frequency of herbicide applications for target pests of grapes in NY
in 1993
______________________________________________________________________________
# of % of
Weed pest applications applications
______________________________________________________________________________
Annual grass 204 59.8
Annual broadleaf 195 57.2
Perennial broadleaf 170 49.9
Perennial grass 170 49.9
Biennial weeds 129 37.8
Chemical suckering 36 10.6
Not specified 65 19.1
______________________________________________________________________________
Table 11: Cost comparison of herbicides used in grape production
______________________________________________________________________________
Maximum Median Cost per Avg. #
Active rate/A cost/lb acre per of times Total
Herbicide ingredient (lbs of AI) of AI a/ application applied cost
______________________________________________________________________________
Karmex 4L diuron 9.0 $5.06 $45.54 1.2 $54.65
Karmex DF diuron 9.6 5.06 48.48 1.0 48.58
Roundup glyphosate 1.0 12.50 12.50 1.3 16.25
Princep
Cal 90 simazine 4.77 3.50 16.70 1.0 16.70
Princep 4L simazine 4.8 3.00 14.40 1.0 14.40
Princep 80W simazine 4.8 3.50 16.80 1.0 16.80
Gramoxone
Extra paraquat 0.938 7.84 7.35 1.1 8.09
Surflan A.S. oryzalin 6.0 16.16 96.96 1.0 96.96
Solicam DF norflurazon 3.93 19.00 74.67 1.0 74.67
______________________________________________________________________________
a/ Price obtained from AGCHEMPRICE Current U.S.A. Prices of Non-Fertilizer
Agricultural Chemicals April 1992. Published by DPRA Incorporated. Costs may
not reflect 1994 prices, and may vary.
Table 12: NY grape growers using insecticides in 1993
______________________________________________________________________________
# of growers Avg. # of Acreage
using # of applications receiving
Region insecticides applications per grower herbicides
______________________________________________________________________________
Western 50 90 1.8 1,960.5
Finger Lakes 17 30 1.8 975.0
Long Island 5 16 3.2 142.0
Total 72 136 1.9 3,077.5
______________________________________________________________________________
Table 13 summarizes who applied insecticides to grapes in 1993. Ninety- eight and one-half percent of insecticide applications were made by the grower/employee. The majority of applications (94.1%, Table 14) were foliar and applied with an air-blast sprayer (84.6%, Table 15).
Table 13: Who applied insecticides to NY grape crop in 1993
______________________________________________________________________________
# of % of
Who applied applications applications
______________________________________________________________________________
Grower/employee 134 98.5
Custom applicator 2 1.5
______________________________________________________________________________
Table 14: Type of coverage of insecticides on NY grape crop in 1993
______________________________________________________________________________
# of % of
Type of coverage applications applications
______________________________________________________________________________
Foliar 128 94.1
Border/spot 5 3.7
Not specified 3 2.2
______________________________________________________________________________
Table 15: Equipment used to apply insecticides to NY grape crop in 1993
______________________________________________________________________________
# of % of
Type of equipment applications applications
______________________________________________________________________________
Air-blast sprayer 115 84.6
Boom sprayer 17 12.5
Helicopter 1 0.7
Not specified 3 2.2
______________________________________________________________________________
Table 16 summarizes the insecticides used by grape growers in 1993. A total of 9,204.97 lbs of insecticide active ingredients were applied to 3,077.5 acres of vineyard surveyed in 1993. The active ingredient used most often was carbaryl (applied by 95.8% of growers using insecticides). It was applied to 2,460.1 acres, an average of 1.7 times at a rate of 2.0 lbs active ingredient per acre, for a total of 8,364.34 lbs carbaryl applied to the survey area.
Table 16: Insecticide use on NY grape crop in 1993 ______________________________________________________________________________ Active Total Rate Total Ingred. # of acres Times Acre AI per lbs AI Trade Name records sprayed appl. treatmts acre applied ______________________________________________________________________________ carbaryl 69 8,364.34 Carbaryl & Sevin 69 2,460.1 1.7 4,182.17 2.0 8,364.34 methyl parathion 8 388.00 Penncap-M 8 170.0 1.1 194.00 2.0 388.00 dicofol 5 169.63 Kelthane 35 2 50.0 1.3 65.00 1.225 79.63 Kelthane 50 3 72.0 1.0 72.00 1.25 90.00 azinphos-methyl 3 95.00 Guthion WP 3 55.0 1.7 95.00 1.0 95.00 phosmet 3 153.00 Imidan 50-WP 3 67.0 1.5 102.00 1.5 153.00 fenbutatin-oxide 1 35.00 Vendex 50WP 1 28.0 1.0 28.0 1.25 35.00 Total 9,204.97 ______________________________________________________________________________
Figure 5 illustrates the pounds of insecticide active ingredients applied to the 1993 grape crop in each region. Long Island growers were the only growers who applied dicofol, fenbutatin-oxide or phosmet, while Western New York growers were the only ones to apply azinphos-methyl.
Pounds of insecticide active ingredients applied per acre in each region is shown in Figure 6. Long Island vineyards carried the greatest insecticide load - 545.83 lbs (AI) of insecticides to 142.0 acres (3.8 lbs AI/A). Western New York growers applied 6,445.10 lbs of insecticide active ingredients to 1,960.5 acres (3.3 lbs AI/A), and 975.0 Finger Lakes acres were treated with 2,575.20 lbs (2.6 lbs AI/A).
Insecticide applications were applied most frequently as a midsummer spray (36.0%), followed by second postbloom and first postbloom sprays (25.0% and 19.9% respectively, Table 17). Long Island growers applied insecticides as first and second postbloom and midsummer sprays only, while Western New York growers applied insecticides at all stages except bud swell and 1 inch shoot growth (Figure 7).
Table 17: Timing of insecticide application on NY grape crop in 1993
______________________________________________________________________________
# of % of
Time of Application applications applications
______________________________________________________________________________
Bud swell 1 0.7
1" shoot growth 1 0.7
3-5" shoot growth 2 1.5
10-12" shoot growth 9 6.6
Prebloom 9 6.6
Trace bloom 2 1.5
1st postbloom spray 27 19.9
2nd postbloom spray 34 25.0
Midsummer spray 49 36.0
Postharvest 2 1.5
______________________________________________________________________________
Table 18 indicates the frequency of insecticide applications for insect pests. Applications made for both grape berry moth and leafhoppers were most common (56.6%), followed by applications to control the Japanese flea beetle (43.4%). A similar pattern was followed in Western New York and the Finger Lakes, but on Long Island, the most common target pest was the European red mite which received 43.8% of all insecticide applications there (Figure 8).
Table 18: Frequency of insecticide applications for target pests of grapes in
NY in 1993
______________________________________________________________________________
# of % of
Insect pest applications applications
______________________________________________________________________________
Grape berry moth and
Leafhopper together 77 56.6
Japanese beetle 59 43.4
Grape flea beetle 25 18.4
Grape berry moth 24 17.6
Leafhopper 14 10.3
Grape cane girdler 11 8.1
Climbing cutworm 8 5.9
European red mite 7 5.1
Not specified 7 5.1
Grape rootworm 5 3.7
Grape cane gallmaker 2 1.5
Rose chafer 2 1.5
Leafrollers 2 1.5
______________________________________________________________________________
A cost comparison of insecticides used on vineyards is shown in Table 19.
Table 19: Cost comparison of insecticides used in grape production
______________________________________________________________________________
Maximum Median Cost per Avg. #
Active rate/A cost/lb acre per of times Total
Insecticide ingredient (lbs of AI) of AI a/ application applied cost
______________________________________________________________________________
Guthion WP azinphos-
methyl 1.0 $12.60 $12.60 1.7 $21.42
Sevin 50W carbaryl 2.0 5.50 11.00 1.7 18.70
Sevin 80S carbaryl 2.0 5.00 10.00 1.7 17.00
Kelthane 35 dicofol 1.225 17.71 21.69 1.3 28.20
Vendex 50WP fenbutatin-
oxide 1.25 36.43 45.54 1.0 45.54
Penncap-M methyl
parathion 2.0 10.50 21.00 1.1 23.10
Imidan 50-WP phosmet 1.5 5.80 8.70 1.5 13.05
______________________________________________________________________________
a/ Price obtained from AGCHEMPRICE Current U.S.A. Prices of Non-Fertilizer
Agricultural Chemicals April 1992. Published by DPRA Incorporated. Costs may
not reflect 1994 prices, and may vary.
Table 20: NY grape growers using fungicides in 1993
______________________________________________________________________________
# of growers Acreage
using # of # applications receiving
Region fungicides applications per grower fungicides
______________________________________________________________________________
Western 88 375 4.3 3,508.2
Finger Lakes 36 443 12.3 3,247.4
Long Island 6 109 18.2 171.0
Total 130 927 7.1 6,926.6
______________________________________________________________________________
All of the fungicide applications were made by the grower/employee in 1993. Eighty-five percent were made with an air-blast sprayer (Table 21), and all were foliar applications.
Table 21: Equipment used to apply fungicides to NY grape crop in 1993
______________________________________________________________________________
# of % of
Type of equipment applications applications
______________________________________________________________________________
Air-blast sprayer 792 85.4
Boom sprayer 107 11.5
Hand-held sprayer 6 0.6
Not specified 22 2.4
______________________________________________________________________________
Table 22 summarizes the fungicides used by grape growers in 1993. A total of 123,725.6 lbs of fungicide active ingredients were applied to 6,926.6 acres of vineyard surveyed. The active ingredient used most often was mancozeb (applied by 72.3% of growers using fungicides). A total of 40,280 lbs mancozeb was applied to 4,696 vineyard acres. Although used by only 37.7% of growers, the amount of sulfur applied to New York vineyards (55,827 lbs) was even greater than the amount of mancozeb.
Figure 9 illustrates the pounds of the eight most widely used fungicide active ingredients applied in each region. The majority of sulfur (89.4%), mancozeb (70.5%), and captan (85.6%) was applied in the Finger Lakes. Long Island growers did not use myclobutanil or fenarimol, and they used extremely small amounts of triadimefon (7.4%) and mancozeb (6.5%).
Table 22: Fungicide use on NY grape crop in 1993 (all regions) ______________________________________________________________________________ Active Total Rate Total Ingred. # of acres Times Acre AI per lbs AI Trade Name records sprayed appl. treatmts acre applied ______________________________________________________________________________ mancozeb 94 40,280.02 Dithane DF, Manzate 200 DF, & Penncozeb DF 51 1,702.5 2.2 3,745.50 3.0 11,236.50 Dithane M-45, Mancozeb 80W, & Penncozeb 41 2,893.5 3.1 8,969.85 3.2 28,703.52 Mancozeb 4L 2 100.0 1.0 100.0 3.4 340.00 myclobutanil 76 1,063.07 Nova 40W 76 4,062.0 2.1 8,504.55 0.125 1,063.07 sulfur 49 55,827.23 Micro Flo Sulfur 3 75.2 6.0 450.20 6.0 2,701.20 Microthiol Special 2 53.0 3.8 203.00 8.0 1,624.00 Super Six Liquid Sulfur 7 95.4 3.7 356.67 1.5 535.01 Thiolux 2 56.0 2.5 140.00 4.8 672.00 Wettable Sulfur 35 2,417.7 4.5 10,933.70 4.6 50,295.02 triadimefon 47 690.79 Bayleton 47 2,171.0 1.7 3,684.20 0.188 690.79 ferbam 47 3,654.51 Carbamate WDG 47 1,508.5 1.6 2,404.28 1.52 3,654.51 fenarimol 41 168.14 Rubigan E.C. 41 1,994.8 1.8 3,592.80 0.047 168.14 maneb 29 11,523.34 Maneb 80 8 542.0 2.8 1,536.50 3.2 4,916.80 Manex II 21 1,261.5 1.5 1,943.10 3.4 6,606.54 captan 25 5,142.54 Captan 50-WP, 80-WP, & Captec 4L 25 1,353.3 1.9 2,571.27 2.0 5,142.54 copper hydroxide 19 809.90 Kocide 101 10 482.5 1.0 482.50 1.0 482.50 Kocide DF 9 409.3 1.0 409.25 0.8 327.40 copper oxychloride sulfate 19 1,773.00 C-O-C-S WDG 19 721.5 1.2 886.50 2.0 1,773.00 iprodione 15 545.50 Rovral 15 357.0 1.5 545.50 1.0 545.50 maneb and dinocap 6 1,718.08 Dikar 6 470.0 1.2 560.00 3.07 1,718.08 copper sulfate 4 268.18 Basicop 4 253.0 1.0 253.00 1.06 268.18 benomyl 4 66.00 Benlate 4 88.0 1.0 88.00 0.75 66.00 copper 3 130.47 Tenn-Cop 5E 3 46.1 1.0 46.39 2.81 130.47 metalaxyl & copper 3 25.20 hydroxide Ridomil/ Copper 70W 3 18.0 1.0 18.00 1.4 25.20 metalaxyl 1 34.00 Ridomil 2E 1 17.0 1.0 17.00 2.0 34.00 dinocap 1 5.63 Karathane LC 1 7.5 1.0 7.50 0.75 5.63 Total 123,725.60 ______________________________________________________________________________
Pounds of fungicide active ingredients applied per acre in each region is shown in Figure 10. As with insecticides, Long Island vineyards carried the greatest fungicide load, applying 8,254.5 lbs (AI) to 171 acres (48.3 lbs AI/A). The Finger Lakes growers applied 91,617.95 lbs of fungicide active ingredients to 3,247.4 acres (28.2 lbs AI/A), and the vineyards surveyed in Western New York carried a fungicide load of only 6.8 lbs AI/A (23,695.35 lbs {AI} applied to 3,508.2 acres).
Fungicide applications were applied most frequently as a midsummer spray (22.0%), followed by prebloom sprays (19.5%, Table 23). All three regions followed this same pattern. Figure 11 illustrates fungicide applications at different stages of vineyard development. Where EBDCs were not used for juice grapes after first bloom (generally in Western New York), myclobutanil and triadimefon became popular.
Table 23: Timing of application of fungicides on NY grape crop for 1993
______________________________________________________________________________
# of % of
Time of Application applications applications
______________________________________________________________________________
Bud swell 12 1.3
1" shoot growth 44 4.7
3-5" shoot growth 89 9.6
10-12" shoot growth 110 11.9
Prebloom 177 19.5
Trace bloom 19 2.0
1st postbloom spray 147 15.9
2nd postbloom spray 120 12.9
Midsummer spray 204 22.0
Postharvest 4 0.4
______________________________________________________________________________
Table 24 indicates the frequency of fungicide applications for disease pests. Fungicides were applied most often for powdery mildew and black rot (72.0% and 68.6% respectively), followed by downy mildew (52.5%). Finger Lakes growers applied fungicides for the previously mentioned pests in that same order, while Western New York growers applied for black rot most often (76%). Long Island growers applied fungicides for all three of the above diseases and for Phomopsis Cane and Leaf Spot with the same frequency (Figure 12). A cost comparison of fungicides used on vineyards is shown in Table 25.
Table 24: Frequency of fungicide applications for target pests of grapes
______________________________________________________________________________
# of % of
Disease pest applications applications
______________________________________________________________________________
Powdery mildew 667 72.0
Black rot 636 68.6
Downy mildew 487 52.5
Phomopsis Cane and Leaf Spot 246 26.5
Botrytis bunch rot 65 7.0
Not specified 48 5.2
______________________________________________________________________________
Table 25: Cost comparison of fungicides used in grape production
______________________________________________________________________________
Maximum Median Cost per Avg. #
Active rate/A cost/lb acre per of times Total
Fungicide ingredient (lbs of AI) of AI a/ application applied cost
______________________________________________________________________________
Benlate benomyl 0.75 $30.90 $23.18 1.0 $23.18
Captan 50-WP captan 2.0 4.12 8.24 1.9 15.66
Rovral iprodione 1.0 37.50 37.50 1.5 56.25
Dithane DF mancozeb 3.0 3.60 10.80 2.2 23.76
Dithane M-45 mancozeb 3.2 3.40 10.88 3.1 33.73
Manzate 200DF mancozeb 3.0 2.20 6.60 2.2 14.52
Ridomil 2E metalaxyl 2.0 71.00 142.00 1.0 142.00
Wettable
Sulfur sulfur 4.6 0.16 0.74 4.5 3.31
Bayleton triadimefon 0.18 92.00 16.42 1.7 27.92
______________________________________________________________________________
a/ Price obtained from AGCHEMPRICE Current U.S.A. Prices of Non-Fertilizer
Agricultural Chemicals April 1992. Published by DPRA Incorporated. Costs may
not reflect 1994 prices, and may vary.
Table 26: NY grape growers using tank mixes in 1993
______________________________________________________________________________
# of growers Avg. # of Acreage
using # of applications receiving
Region tank mixes applications per grower tank mixes
______________________________________________________________________________
Western 36 60 1.6 1,488.3
Finger Lakes 12 25 2.1 853.5
Long Island 5 8 1.6 136.5
Total 53 93 1.8 2,478.3
______________________________________________________________________________
All of the tank mix applications were made by the grower/employee and were foliar applications. The type of equipment used most often to apply tank mixes was an air-blast sprayer (72.0%, Table 27).
Table 27: Equipment used to apply tank mixes to NY grape crop in 1993
______________________________________________________________________________
# of % of
Type of equipment applications applications
______________________________________________________________________________
Air-blast sprayer 67 72.0
Boom sprayer 18 19.4
Hand-held sprayer 3 3.2
Not specified 5 5.4
______________________________________________________________________________
Table 28 summarizes the tank mixes used by grape growers in 1993. The combination of carbaryl and myclobutanil (Sevin and Nova) was the most common tank mix. Seventeen growers (32% of those using tank mixes) applied Sevin/Nova on 662.6 acres, an average of 1.3 times for a total of 1,830.4 lbs AI applied. Carbaryl was the insecticide active ingredient used most often in tank mixes, and myclobutanil was the fungicide AI used most often in tank mixes.
Table 28: Tank mix use on NY grape crop in 1993 (all regions) ______________________________________________________________________________ Active Total Rate Total Ingred. # of acres Times Acre AI per lbs AI Trade Name records sprayed appl. treatmts acre applied ______________________________________________________________________________ azinphos-methyl & captan Guthion, Captan 1 6.0 1.0 6.00 3.0 18.00 azinphos-methyl & triadimefon Guthion, Bayleton 1 1.5 1.0 1.50 2.19 3.28 captan & carbaryl Captan, Sevin 2 21.5 1.0 21.50 4.0 86.00 captan, carbaryl, & benomyl Captan, Sevin, Benlate 1 6.0 2.0 12.00 4.75 57.00 captan, carbaryl, dicofol & triadimefon Captan, Sevin, Kelthane, Bayleton 1 50.0 1.0 50.00 5.44 271.88 captan, carbaryl & myclobutanil Captan, Sevin, Nova 2 100.0 1.0 100.00 4.13 412.50 captan, carbaryl & triadimefon Captan, Sevin, Bayleton 2 40.3 1.0 40.25 4.19 168.55 captan, triadimefon & dicofol Captan, Bayleton, Kelthane 1 10.0 1.0 10.00 3.39 33.88 captan, triadimefon & fenbutatin-oxide Captan, Bayleton, Vendex 1 28.0 1.0 28.00 3.44 96.25 captan, triadimefon, phosmet Captan, Bayleton, Imidan 1 28.0 1.0 28.00 3.69 103.25 carbaryl, dicofol, ferbam & sulfur Sevin, Kelthane, Carbamate, Liquid Sulfur 1 29.0 1.0 29.00 6.27 181.83 carbaryl & fenarimol Sevin, Rubigan 1 45.0 1.0 45.00 2.05 92.11 carbaryl, fenarimol & ferbam Sevin, Rubigan, Carbamate 2 126.0 1.0 126.00 3.57 449.42 carbaryl, fenarimol & mancozeb Sevin, Rubigan, Dithane/ Penncozeb/ Mancozeb 5 338.0 1.3 439.40 5.25 2,305.53 carbaryl, fenarimol & maneb Sevin, Rubigan, Maneb 1 9.5 1.0 9.50 5.25 49.84 carbaryl & ferbam Sevin, Carbamate 1 105.0 1.0 105.00 3.52 369.60 carbaryl, ferbam & myclobutanil Sevin, Carbamate, Nova 3 32.0 1.0 32.00 3.65 116.64 carbaryl, ferbam, myclobutanil & sulfur Sevin, Carbamate, Nova, Wettable Sulfur 1 2.0 1.0 2.00 8.25 16.49 carbaryl, ferbam & triadimefon Sevin, Carbamate, Bayleton 1 10.0 1.0 10.00 4.19 41.88 carbaryl & mancozeb Sevin, Penncozeb 1 40.0 1.0 40.00 5.00 200.00 carbaryl, mancozeb & myclobutanil Sevin, Dithane, Nova 2 45.0 1.9 85.50 5.33 455.29 carbaryl, mancozeb, myclobutanil & sulfur Sevin, Dithane, Nova, Sulfur 1 50.0 1.0 50.00 9.925 496.25 carbaryl, mancozeb & sulfur Sevin, Dithane/ Penncozeb Micro Flo/ Wettable Sulfur 2 57.0 1.0 57.00 10.58 603.20 carbaryl, mancozeb & triadimefon Sevin, Penncozeb, Bayleton 1 45.0 2.0 90.00 5.19 466.88 carbaryl, maneb, & sulfur Sevin, Manex, Sulfur 1 17.0 1.0 17.00 10.00 170.00 carbaryl, methyl parathion & triadimefon Sevin, Penncap-M, Bayleton 1 10.0 1.0 10.00 4.19 41.88 carbaryl & myclobutanil Sevin, Nova 17 662.6 1.3 861.38 2.13 1,830.43 carbaryl & triadimefon Sevin, Bayleton 2 30.0 3.5 104.00 2.19 227.50 carbaryl, triadimefon & maneb Sevin, Bayleton, Maneb 1 290.0 2.0 580.00 5.39 3,124.75 dinocap, ferbam & methyl parathion Karathane, Carbamate, Penncap-M 2 65.4 1.0 65.40 4.27 279.26 fenarimol, ferbam & methyl parathion Rubigan, Carbamate, Penncap-M 2 71.5 1.0 71.50 3.57 255.03 fenarimol & methyl parathion Rubigan, Penncap-M 1 130.0 1.0 130.00 2.05 266.08 ferbam, methyl parathion & myclobutanil Carbamate, Penncap-M, Nova 1 37.0 1.0 37.00 3.65 134.87 mancozeb & methyl parathion Penncozeb, Penncap-M 1 12.0 3.0 36.00 5.20 187.20 mancozeb, methyl parathion & sulfur Manzate, Penncap-M, Sulfur 1 5.0 1.0 5.00 9.60 48.00 methyl parathion & myclobutanil Penncap-M, Nova 5 244.25 1.4 344.25 2.13 731.53 Total 14,392.08 ______________________________________________________________________________
Figure 13 illustrates the pounds of tank mix active ingredients applied per acre in each region. Although more tank mixes were used in Western New York than in the Finger Lakes or Long Island, Western New York vineyards received a considerably smaller pesticide load (4.0 lbs/A for Western New York vs. 9.3 and 10.7 lbs/A for the Finger Lakes and Long Island, respectively). This is due, in part, to the fact that almost all tank mixes in Western New York used myclobutanil (low rate of active ingredient per acre), while tank mixes in the Finger Lakes and on Long Island used more products with higher active ingredient rates per acre (mancozeb and sulfur).
Tank mix applications were applied most often as midsummer sprays (39.7%, Table 29), followed by first and second postbloom sprays. Twenty-five percent of the midsummer applications and one-third of the first and second postbloom sprays were tank mixes of Nova and Sevin.
Table 29: Timing of application of tank mixes on NY grape crop in 1993
______________________________________________________________________________
# of % of
Time of Application applications applications
______________________________________________________________________________
Bud swell 0 0.0
1" shoot growth 2 2.2
3-5" shoot growth 2 2.2
10-12" shoot growth 1 1.1
Prebloom 11 11.8
Trace bloom 0 0.0
1st postbloom spray 20 21.5
2nd postbloom spray 21 22.6
Midsummer spray 36 38.7
Postharvest 0 0.0
______________________________________________________________________________
Table 30 indicates the frequency of tank mix applications for insect and disease pests. Tank mixes were applied most often for leafhopper (74.2%), grape berry moth (72.0%), black rot (87.1%) and powdery mildew (87.1%). Fifty-one applications (54.8%) were made for all four of the above. Only eight of the grape berry moth and ten of the leafhopper applications were made without targeting both insect pests. Only six black rot and powdery mildew applications were made without targeting both diseases.
Table 30: Frequency of tank mix applications for target pests of grapes (all
regions) in NY in 1993
______________________________________________________________________________
# of % of # of % of
Insect pest appl. appl. Disease pest appl. appl.
______________________________________________________________________________
Leafhopper 69 74.2 Black rot 81 87.1
Grape berry moth 67 72.0 Powdery mildew 81 87.1
Japanese beetle 44 47.3 Downy mildew 55 59.1
Grape flea beetle 17 18.3 Phomopsis cane
Grape cane girdler 13 14.0 and leaf spots 29 31.2
Grape cane gallmaker 11 11.8 Botrytis bunch rot 9 9.7
Not specified 8 8.6 Not specified 4 4.3
Climbing cutworm 5 5.4
Grape rootworm 5 5.4
European red mite 3 3.2
Rose chafer 2 2.1
Thrips 1 1.1
______________________________________________________________________________
Figure 14 illustrates the frequency of tank mix use for target pests by region. Western New York growers were the only ones who targeted thrips, rose chafers and botrytis bunch rot. Long Island growers targeted Japanese beetle and European red mite most often. All tank mix applications on Long Island that targeted Japanese beetle were also used for powdery and downy mildew, as well as black rot. Forty-four of the 46 tank mix applications that targeted grape berry moth in Western New York also targeted black rot and powdery mildew. Twenty-one of the 22 tank mix applications targeting downy mildew in the Finger Lakes also targeted leafhoppers.
Table 31: Cost of chemical pest control per acre for NY grape crop in 1993
______________________________________________________________________________
# of % of
Cost records records
______________________________________________________________________________
$0 1 0.7
$11-50 2 1.4
$51-150 15 10.9
$151-250 12 8.7
Over $250 (amount not specified) 26 18.8
$251-500 8 5.8
$501-750 6 4.3
$751-1,000 8 5.8
$1,000-1,500 12 8.7
$1,501-2,000 2 1.4
$2,001-3,000 9 6.5
$3,001-5,000 9 6.5
$5,001-7,500 4 2.9
$7,501-10,000 8 5.8
$10,001-25,000 3 2.2
$28,000 1 0.7
$90,000 1 0.7
Don't know 2 1.4
Not specified 8 5.8
______________________________________________________________________________
Nonchemical pest control cost was $0 (58.0%, Table 32). It is unclear what growers considered nonchemical control when answering this question, but some of the comments on the surveys indicated the following: leaf removal, hedging, bird control and hydraulic grape hoe. There is, however, a cost attached to nonchemical methods which include man hours and equipment costs.
Table 32: Cost of nonchemical pest control per acre for NY grape crop in
1993
______________________________________________________________________________
# of % of
Cost records records
______________________________________________________________________________
$0 80 58.0
Less than $10 1 0.7
$11-50 11 8.0
$51-150 6 4.4
$151-250 9 6.5
Over $250 (amount not specified) 7 5.1
$251-750 3 2.1
$751-2000 4 2.8
Not specified 14 10.1
Don't know 2 1.4
______________________________________________________________________________
Forty three and one-half percent of the growers surveyed indicated that they calibrated their application equipment once per season (Table 33). Approximately one-third calibrated before each application. The most common method of calibrating equipment was the "known area method" (spray water on a measured acre and then calculate how many gallons of water were used) (38.4%, Table 34).
Table 33: Frequency of calibration of equipment for NY grape crop in 1993
______________________________________________________________________________
# of % of
Frequency of calibration records records
______________________________________________________________________________
Once per season 60 43.5
Before each application 41 29.7
Two to three times a season 29 21.0
At the time of equipment purchase 2 1.4
At the time of equipment purchase
and once a season 2 1.4
Not specified 2 1.4
Before each application & two to
three times a season 1 0.7
Every two to three years 1 0.7
______________________________________________________________________________
Table 34: How NY grape growers calibrated their equipment in 1993
______________________________________________________________________________
# of % of
Method of calibration records records
______________________________________________________________________________
Gallons of water/acre 53 38.4
Nozzle output (quart jar method) 23 16.7
Gallons of water/acre, speed of equipment 18 13.0
According to manual 14 10.1
Not specified 11 8.0
Acres covered over time 3 2.2
Gallons of water /acre and nozzle output 3 2.2
Other a/ 13 9.4
______________________________________________________________________________
a/Other includes: "adjust pressure as the acre is sprayed",
"experimentation", "feet X mph X psi", "land speed and pressure", "make sure
everything works properly", "not easily", "person who services sprayer does
it", "replace tee jets and maintain proper pressure", "stopwatch distance" and
"the right way".
Growers were asked to select one of the following choices releated to applying pesticides in their vineyard in 1993: "spray schedule", "presence of pest" or "IPM program." The results are shown in Table 35. Almost half of the growers indicated they used a spray schedule that was recommended by Extension (Table 36). There were many comments on this question indicating that growers felt the question was difficult to answer:
Table 35: Basis for application of pesticides on NY grape crop in 1993
______________________________________________________________________________
# of % of
Basis for application records records
______________________________________________________________________________
Spray schedule 63 45.7
Presence of pest 36 26.1
IPM program 30 21.7
All three 4 2.9
Presence of pest and spray schedule 2 1.4
Not specified 2 1.4
Presence of pest and IPM program 1 0.7
______________________________________________________________________________
Table 36: Recommendation of spray schedule on NY grape crop in 1993
______________________________________________________________________________
# of % of
Who recommends schedule records records
______________________________________________________________________________
Extension system 24 34.8
Extension system and myself 11 15.9
Myself 10 14.5
Extension system and pesticide dealer 4 5.8
Extension system and processor 4 5.8
Processor 4 5.8
Various combinations of above 12 17.4
______________________________________________________________________________
Tables 37, 38 and 39 show the spray schedules used by growers who indicated that they used a spray schedule to apply pesticides in 1993. Thirty-seven Western New York growers, 25 Finger Lakes growers and two Long Island growers used spray schedules. Herbicide sprays consisted of a preemergent spray of either diuron or simazine (Table 37) in Western New York and the Finger Lakes, oryzalin or simazine on Long Island, and a postemergent spray of glyphosate or paraquat. Western New York and Finger Lakes growers also used glyphosate for spot treatments. Eight percent of Western New York growers and 16% of Finger Lakes growers who said they used a spray schedule in 1993 did not use any herbicides.
Table 37: Herbicide spray schedule used by NY grape growers in 1993
______________________________________________________________________________
Western Finger Lakes Long Island
____________________ ___________________ __________________
% growers % growers % growers
Timing AI using AI using AI using
______________________________________________________________________________
Pre- diuron 67.5 diuron 60.0 oryzalin 50.0
emergeence simazine 40.5 simazine 48.0 simazine 50.0
glyphosate 8.0 paraquat 4.0
norflurazon 5.4
Post- glyphosate 67.6 paraquat 64.0 glyphosate 100.0
emergence paraquat 24.3 glyphosate 48.0 paraquat 50.0
diuron 13.5 simazine 8.0
simazine 2.7
norflurazon 2.7
Spot treatment glyphosate 24.3 glyphosate 32.0
paraquat 2.7 paraquat 20.0
simazine 4.0
______________________________________________________________________________
Insecticide sprays in Western New York and the Finger Lakes consisted of a prebloom (includes bud swell through prebloom) spray(s) of carbaryl, a postbloom (includes first and second postbloom sprays) spray(s) of carbaryl, and a midsummer spray(s) of carbaryl. Forty-three percent of Western New York growers and 60% of Finger Lakes growers using spray schedules did not use insecticides alone on their 1993 grape crop. Long Island growers using a spray schedule did not apply a prebloom spray, applied dicofol postbloom, and carbaryl midsummer (Table 38).
Table 38: Insecticide spray schedule used by NY grape growers in 1993
______________________________________________________________________________
Western Finger Lakes Long Island
____________________ ___________________ __________________
% growers % growers % growers
Timing AI using AI using AI using
______________________________________________________________________________
Prebloom carbaryl 18.9 carbaryl 20.0 none used
methyl methyl
parathion 2.7 parathion 4.0
Postbloom carbaryl 72.0 carbaryl 24.0 dicofol 100.0
methyl methyl phosmet 50.0
parathion 2.7 parathion 8.0
azinphos-
methyl 2.7
Midsummer carbaryl 37.9 carbaryl 12.0 carbaryl 100.0
azinphos- methyl dicofol 50.0
methyl 5.4 parathion 4.0
phosmet 50.0
______________________________________________________________________________
The most common prebloom fungicide sprays for all three regions were mancozeb and/or sulfur for those growers who used a spray schedule (Table 39). The postbloom sprays in Western New York were myclobutanil, while mancozeb and sulfur were applied in the Finger Lakes region. Long Island growers applied captan and triadimefon. Midsummer copper applications were most common in Western New York, sulfur and captan in the Finger Lakes and captan, copper, iprodione and sulfur on Long Island. Eight percent of Western New York and Finger Lakes growers who used spray schedules, did not apply fungicides (not including fungicides in tank mixes) to their 1993 grape crop.
Table 39: Fungicide spray schedule used by NY grape growers in 1993
______________________________________________________________________________
Western Finger Lakes Long Island
____________________ ___________________ __________________
% growers % growers % growers
Timing AI using AI using AI using
______________________________________________________________________________
Prebloom mancozeb 45.9 mancozeb 88.0 mancozeb 100.0
maneb 27.0 sulfur 72.0 sulfur 100.0
triadimefon 13.5 fenarimol 52.0 triadimefon 50.0
fenarimol 10.8 triadimefon 44.0
sulfur 10.8 maneb 28.0
maneb/dinocap 5.4 myclobutanil 24.0
ferbam 16.0 captan 11.0
Postbloom myclobutanil 43.2 mancozeb 75.9 captan 100.0
ferbam 27.0 sulfur 68.0 triadimefon 100.0
triadimefon 24.3 myclobutanil 44.0 ferbam 50.0
copper oxychloride fenarimol 44.0 benomyl 50.0
sulfate 13.5 ferbam 32.0
fenarimol 8.1 captan 24.0
maneb 24.0
benomyl 4.0
copper oxy
sulfate 4.0
iprodione 4.0
metalaxyl 4.0
Midsummer copper sulfur 48.0 captan 100.0
hydroxide 21.6
copper oxychloride captan 40.0 copper 100.0
sulfate 16.2 iprodione 32.0 iprodione 100.0
triadimefon 16.2 myclobutanil 20.0 sulfur 100.0
myclobutanil 13.5 triadimefon 20.0 triadimefon 100.0
captan 8.1 fenarimol 12.0 ferbam 50.0
copper mancozeb 12.0
sulfate 2.7
______________________________________________________________________________
Sixty-five percent of Western New York growers and 64% of Finger Lakes growers using a spray schedule did not apply tank mixes to their 1993 grape crop. In addition, 16.2% of Western New York growers made a postbloom and/or midsummer application of carbaryl and myclobutanil. Growers selected "Extension" (87.0%, Table 40) as the primary source for pesticide information relating to pesticide application decisions. "Past success" was next with 53.6% responding.
Table 40: Decision about which pesticides to apply on NY grape crop in 1993 ______________________________________________________________________________ Who recommends, or who decides # of responses % of records ______________________________________________________________________________ Extension system 120 87.0 Past success with product 74 53.6 Processor 57 41.3 Salesperson 42 30.4 Other grower 19 13.8 Private consultant 11 8.0 Other a/ 7 5.1 ______________________________________________________________________________ a/ Other includes: "cost", "safety", "availability" or no answer specified
The most common alternative method used by grape growers to control pest problems in the vineyard in 1993 was mowing (82.6%, Table 41). Over half the growers used pruning (to remove infected or infested growth) and cultivation as alternative methods. Figure 15 illustrates alternative methods used by region. Long Island growers indicated pruning was used most often followed by row orientation and then mowing. Western New York growers pruned more often, while Finger Lakes growers mulched at greater frequency.
Table 41: Alternative methods used to control grape pests in NY in 1993
______________________________________________________________________________
# of % of
Alternative method responses records
______________________________________________________________________________
Mowing 114 82.6
Pruning to remove infected or infested growth 76 55.1
Cultivation 74 53.6
Burn/bury/remove infected plants/berries 36 26.1
Rows oriented to promote good air circulation 26 18.8
Cover crop 25 18.1
Mulching 25 18.1
Other a/ 13 9.4
Do not use 5 3.6
Baited traps 1 0.7
______________________________________________________________________________
a/ Other includes: "leaf removal in fruit zone", "bird netting", "shoot
thinning", "summer pruning", "canopy management", "grub hoe", "do not know",
"mating disruption", "encouraging insect eating birds to nest around vineyard"
Respondents indicated that pesticides were stored in a locked storage facility (60.1%, Table 42). Empty containers were burned (64.5%) or sent to the landfill after triple rinsing (47.1%, Table 43). Unwanted or unused pesticides were carried over to the next season (76.8%, Table 44) and rinsate was disposed of by spraying it back into the vineyard (48.1%, Table 45).
Table 42: Storage of pesticides for NY grape crop in 1993
______________________________________________________________________________
# of % of
Storage location responses records
______________________________________________________________________________
Locked storage facility 83 60.1
Barn/tool shed 19 13.8
Open storage facility 13 9.4
Garage 7 5.1
Only buy what is needed, do not store 5 3.6
Not specified 4 2.9
Locked storage facility and basement of home 3 2.2
Locked storage in barn/tool shed 2 1.4
Basement of home 1 0.7
Return unused to supplier, do no store 1 0.7
______________________________________________________________________________
Table 43: Disposal of empty pesticide containers for NY grape crop in 1993
______________________________________________________________________________
# of % of
Method of disposal responses records
______________________________________________________________________________
Burn 89 64.5
Landfill after triple rinsing 65 47.1
Recycle after triple rinsing 18 13.0
Bury 10 7.2
Return to pesticide manufacturer/dealer 4 2.9
Other a/ 5 3.6
______________________________________________________________________________
a/ Other includes: "according to label", "landfill without rinsing" or no
answer specified
Table 44: Disposal of unwanted/unused pesticides for NY grape crop in 1993
______________________________________________________________________________
# of % of
Method of disposal responses records
______________________________________________________________________________
Carry over to next season 106 76.8
Return to pesticide manufacturer/dealer 31 22.5
Only buy as needed/ use up 15 10.9
Bury 8 5.8
Spray on non crop land areas 5 3.6
Not specified 4 2.9
Sell to other growers 3 2.2
Amnesty programs 3 2.2
Other a/ 12 17.4
______________________________________________________________________________
a/ Other includes: "according to label", "spray on crop", "need help with
unwanted material"
Table 45: Disposal of rinsate for NY grape crop in 1993
______________________________________________________________________________
# of % of
Method of rinsate disposal records records
______________________________________________________________________________
Spray back into vineyard 66 48.1
Not specified 30 21.7
Dump on ground 11 8.0
Spray on non-crop field 8 5.8
Other a/ 8 5.8
Spray on border rows 6 4.3
Burn 4 2.9
Do not know 3 2.2
Spray on crops 2 1.4
______________________________________________________________________________
a/ Other includes: "according to label", "burn and bury", "daily removal",
"empty sprayer is filled with water and detergent and used to wash the
equipment off", "landfill", "safely", "trash removal", "wash with water 3
times and dispose"
In 1979, approximately 38% of acre-treatments were mixes of fungicides and insecticides. Applications of tank mixes dropped considerably in 1993, where only 5% of acre-treatments were mixes. This shows that growers are more aware of integrated pest management (IPM) practices, as IPM is trying to separate insecticide and fungicide applications. In Western New York where 8.4% of acre-treatments were tank mixes, grape berry moth phenology used was to time pesticide applications. With IPM, the prebloom spray is eliminated, and future sprays are dependent on risk and scouting, allowing fungicides to be sprayed on a preventive basis (at 3 inch shoot growth), rather than corrective basis. In the Finger Lakes region, where only 3.4% of acre- treatments were tank mixes, diseases are more of a concern and growers used to routinely add an insecticide with their fungicide applications. With IPM, insecticide applications should be based on both risk assessment and scouting. The sharp decrease in tank mix applications in both areas indicates grower acceptance of IPM practices.
As in 1979, fungicides were the most used group of pesticides. Benomyl, captan and folpet were most widely used in 1979, while mancozeb, myclobutanil and sulfur were most common in 1993. That 78,000 lbs of captan were applied in 1979, and only 5,100 lbs were applied in 1993 is indicative of the fact that many processors discourage the use of captan. As in 1979, the primary diseases were black rot and powdery mildew.
Insecticide applications in 1979 consisted most commonly of carbaryl and parathion, but there were at least ten different insecticide active ingredients used. In 1993, carbaryl was used most often, but there were only six different AIs used. The primary pests are still grape berry moth and leafhopper. Herbicide use has remained the same, with diuron being used most often.
Data collection from 1987-1989 on 1,660 acres of grapes in New York showed that fungicides accounted for 63% of total pesticide use, insecticides accounted for 22% and herbicides accounted for 15% (Long Range Plan for Grapes). In 1993, fungicides accounted for 74 %, insecticides for 6% and herbicides for 20%. This is consistent with national trends observed by the National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy (Gianessi and Anderson). It has been estimated that IPM techniques for grapes can reduce insecticide use by 50-70%. Since insecticide use as a percent of total pesticide use decreased by 75% since 1989, it is apparent that New York growers are using IPM techniques, at least for insect control.
In 1979, spray schedules determined pesticide use on 91.5% of vineyard acres (Fluke, Marsh and Osteen, 1982), while in 1993 spray schedules determined only 54.8% of pesticide use. As was evidenced by comments stated previously, many of the schedules took IPM practices and presence of pest into account. In addition, only 3% of vineyard acres were under an IPM program in 1979 versus 20% in 1993.
For cultural weed control, 95% of vineyard acreage was mowed in order to chop prunings and control growth between rows in 1979. In 1993, 85% was mowed. This is also consistent with IPM practices. IPM is trying to move away from mowing because it is not as cost effective or as good at reducing competition as a low volume application of Roundup. Use of propwould increase by $50 per acre. According to Knutson, without fungicides, there would be a 37 percent reduction in yield, while decreasing fungicide use by one-half would reduce yield by 12%. Without the use of insecticides, yields would decrease by 10% and reducing insecticide applications by one-half would cause a yield loss of 4 percent.
In this survey, only one grower did not use pesticides in 1993. This grower reported yield of juice grapes at 4 tons/acre, a 20% reduction from the average reported yield for all growers surveyed. Eleven growers did not use herbicides; they reported an average yield of 4.5 tons/acre (10% reduction). All growers, other than the one who did not use pesticides, reported using a fungicide (includes fungicides in tank mixes). Twenty-two growers indicated insecticides were not used in 1993. These growers reported an average yield of 4.9 tons/acre: no change from those who used insecticides. Many variables are associated with yield (i.e. cultural practices, cropping histrory, climate, etc.), thus comparisons made of yields of growers not using pesticides must be assessed with that in mind.
To Top
For more information relative to pesticides and their use in New York State, please contact the PMEP staff at:
|
 |
This site is supported, in part, by funding from the  |