PMEP Home Page --> Pesticide Use Information for New York State --> NAPIAP Survey - Grapes - 1993

Pest And Pesticide Use Assessment And Use And Care Of Personal Protective Equipment For Grape Production In New York State For 1993

Mary S. Partridge
Charlotte Coffman
William G. Smith
Donald A. Rutz

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

Contents:

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the help of the following people without whom this report could not have been completed: Linda Aures, Tom Davenport, Eric Harrington, Debbie Kalaf, Jim Kamas, Joe Kovach, Donna Kowalski, Dave Peterson, Tim Weigle, Alice Wise, and especially the growers who took the time to attend meetings and fill out the surveys.

Introduction

The overall assessment and effectiveness of pest control techniques for grape production systems are an ongoing process for scientists at Cornell's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. Not only must the specifics of pest dynamics and pest induced losses be assessed, but the more general problem of designing and implementing appropriate pest management systems for grower acceptance must be addressed as well.

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.

Objectives

To obtain the following information for grape production systems in New York State:
  1. Acres planted
  2. Average yield
  3. Contract, processor and restriction information
  4. For each pest type (weed, insect and diseases affecting crop
    1. Chemical used for control
      1. Formulation
      2. Who applied
      3. Acres treated
      4. Number of treatments
      5. Application site
    2. Time of application
    3. Target pest(s)
    4. Cost comparison of chemicals
  5. Alternative Control Measures: cultural, biological, no treatment
  6. Potential yield changes from alternatives
  7. Cost per acre
    1. Chemical control
    2. Non-chemical control
  8. Calibration of equipment
    1. Frequency
    2. Method
  9. Basis for application, and recommendation of pesticides
  10. Storage of pesticides
  11. Disposal
    1. Rinsate
    2. Unwanted/unused pesticides
    3. Empty pesticide containers

Project Design, Implementation And Analysis

Questionnaires were developed from previous NAPIAP and other surveys that had been conducted in New York State. The first drafts were reviewed by grape specialists, IPM specialists, extension agents and grape processors 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 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:

Active ingredient (AI)
The portion of the pesticide product which controls the pest. All quantities and application rates are reported in pounds of active ingredient.
Acres treated
The area treated with a pesticide one or more times.
Number of applications
Number of times a pesticide was applied to acres treated.
Times applied
Average number of applications, weighted by acres treated.
Acre treatments
"Acres treated" multiplied by "times applied."
Record
One survey complete with all responses within that survey (synonymous with one grower or one grape producer).
Response
One entry within a record (survey). Since there can be more than one response to certain questions, the distinction between records and responses is important.
Product name/trade name
The name designated for a chemical by a company. Similar formulations can have different product/trade names.
Fungicides
Materials that control diseases.
Herbicides
Materials that control weeds.
Insecticides
Materials that control insects. Miticides, materials that control mites, are included in this category.
Tank mixes
Two or more pesticides mixed in the same spray tank by the grower and applied together. In this survey pesticides mixed together were only considered tank mixes if they were two different types a fungicide and insecticide mixed together, rather than two or more of the same type of pesticide mixed together.

Demographics

The total 1993 acreage of the 137 vineyards sampled was 7,291 acres (22% of total NY grape acreage) with only 251.4 acres nonbearing (Table 1). The Finger Lakes region produced 1,838 acres (88.8%) of grapes for wine, 227 acres (11.0%) for juice and 5 acres (0.2%) of table grapes. In Western New York, 97.6% of the 3,603 acres reported were in juice production, 1.8% were for wine and 0.4% were for table grapes. All of the Long Island grape production was for wine. The average yield for wine grapes was 4.3 tons/acre, 5.2 tons/acre for juice, and 4.5 tons/acre for table grapes.


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
______________________________________________________________________________


Herbicide Use

One hundred and twenty-five (91.2%) growers made 341 herbicide applications to 92.9% of the vineyard acres in 1993, for an average of 2.7 applications per grower (Table 4). The percent of growers using herbicides in Western New York, the Finger Lakes and Long Island was approximately the same (93.5%, 86.8% and 83.3%, respectively). Growers in Western New York applied herbicides to 96.6% of their acreage, 89.7% in the Finger Lakes and 76.6% on Long Island.


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.


Insecticide Use

Seventy-two (52.6%) growers made 136 insecticide applications to 43.5% of the vineyard acres in 1993. An average of 1.9 applications were made per grower (Table 12). Long Island growers, who applied insecticides to 83.0% of grape acreage, made considerably more applications than Finger Lakes or Western New York growers. Vineyards in the Fingers Lakes and Western New York received insecticide treatments on 29.8% and 54.4% of acreage, respectively.


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.


Fungicide Use

One hundred and thirty (94.9%) growers made 927 fungicide applications to 89.4% of the vineyard acres in 1993, for an average of 7.1 applications per grower (Table 20). Western New York growers made considerably less applications per grower (4.3), than growers in the Finger Lakes and Long Island (12.3 and 18.2, respectively). However, percent of acreage treated was approximately the same (Western New York - 97.5%, Finger Lakes - 99.3% and Long Island - 100%).


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.


Tank Mix Use

Fifty-three (38.7%) growers made tank mix (combination of insecticide and fungicide) applications to 35.2% of the vineyard acres surveyed in 1993. An average of 1.8 tank mix applications were made per grower (Table 26). Growers in all three regions made approximately the same number of applications, but growers on Long Island treated a greater percentage of vineyard acres: 79.8% vs. 41.4% for Western New York and 26.0% for the Finger Lakes region.


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.

Miscellaneous

The cost of chemical pest control is illustrated in Table 31. The most common amount spent on chemical pest control, not including the response "over $250" where the actual amount was unspecified, was $51 - 150 (10.9%) followed by $151 - 250 (8.7%). It is unclear from the answers whether or not growers read the question correctly, since it asked for a per acre cost, and many of these answers appear to be extremely high.


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"


Conclusions

In 1979, Fluke, Marsh and Osteen conducted a grape production pesticide use survey in New York and Pennsylvania, covering 39,270 acres. Grape growers treated 95% of the vineyard acreage surveyed with pesticides; Finger Lakes growers treated 99% and growers in Pennsylvania and Western New York treated 93% (Fluke, Marsh and Osteen, 1982). In 1993, growers treated an average of 68% of vineyard acreage surveyed; Finger Lakes growers treated an average of 61%, Western New York growers treated an average of 73% and growers on Long Island treated an average of 85% with pesticides. This is a considerable reduction since 1979, especially in the Finger Lakes. On average, in 1979, each grower applied 10.6 lbs (AI) of pesticides per acre; in 1993 that number decreased to 8.4 lbs AI/A.

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.