NYFVI Grant

1
NYFVI Grant Feb. 07-Jan 09Testing the PETE
Insect Developmental Model to Limit Resurgence of
CM in Apples

• Deborah I. Breth, CCE-LOF
• Art Agnello, NYSAES, CU
• Elizabeth Tee, CCE-LOF
• Funded by NYFVI and CCE-LOF

2
PETE?

• MSU model for 8 different fruit pests
• Predictive Extension Timing Estimator
• Listed universally as the timing model for CM in
  University Guidelines.
• Does it work?

3
Testing PETE

• 2 high pressure and 2 low pressure blocks
• Treatments include
• a) MSU "PETE" CM model using first trap catch of
  the season with first generation spray at 200-250
  DD (using a base temperature of 50 degrees F) and
  second generation spray at 1250 DD followed by a
  second application for each generation 10-14 days
  after the first.
• If greater than 5 moths per trap per week,
  continue spraying for the third generation
• b) Modified PETE based on seasonal trap catch
  data managing the first generation as above,
  200-250 DD50 F, but using a trap threshold of 5
  moths per trap per week, treating 7-10 days after
  exceeding that.
• c) the grower standard

4
Total Trap catch Per season -2007
Burnap Heberle Bartleson Brown
Total Avg CM per week 244 213 93 27
Total Avg OFM per week 382 253 163 207
Total Avg LAW per week 134 128 28 159

5
(No Transcript)
6
(No Transcript)
7
Recommended Spray Dates BrownPETE -Jun 10, 22,
Jul 28, Aug 9 Modified Aug 15
8
(No Transcript)
9
(No Transcript)
10
Recommended Spray Dates HeberlePETE Jun 7,
19, Jul 26, Aug 7Modified Jun 7, 19, Jul 1,
13, 25, Aug 10, 22, Sep 3, 15
11
(No Transcript)
12
Harvest Evaluations
Pressure Farm Treatment Means Means Means Means
Pressure Farm Treatment clean int lep worms sting
Low Brown PETE 99.2 0.2 0 0.15
Low Brown Modified PETE 98.5 0.1 0 0.5
Low Brown Grower Std 98.5 0.7 0 0.3
Low Bartleson PETE 93.9 a 0 0 b 2.3 a
Low Bartleson Modified PETE 97.0 a 0 0 b 0.8 b
Low Bartleson Grower Std 70.6 b 0 0.5 a 0.3 b
High Burnap PETE 92.7 b 2.5 a 0.5 a 2
High Burnap Modified PETE 94.9 ab 0.2 b 0 b 1.1
High Burnap Grower Std 97.5 a 0.4 b 0.1 b 0.9
High Heberle PETE 88.9 7.6 3.3 1.6 b
High Heberle Modified PETE 91 3.7 1.7 3.3 ab
High Heberle Grower Std 84.2 8.3 3.1 4.9 a
- Numbers with letters following are statistically different by treatment for that farm - Numbers with letters following are statistically different by treatment for that farm - Numbers with letters following are statistically different by treatment for that farm - Numbers with letters following are statistically different by treatment for that farm - Numbers with letters following are statistically different by treatment for that farm - Numbers with letters following are statistically different by treatment for that farm - Numbers with letters following are statistically different by treatment for that farm
- San Jose Scale infestation - San Jose Scale infestation - San Jose Scale infestation - San Jose Scale infestation - San Jose Scale infestation - San Jose Scale infestation - San Jose Scale infestation
13
NYFVI - Trap Network

• Pheromone traps (163)
• 32 locations
• to monitor adult CM, OFM, and LAW flight
• use information to predict insect development and
  spray timing.
• Traps were monitored weekly to maintain reliable
  data.
• The trap data was entered into an Excel
  spreadsheet that could be viewed on the LOF
  website at http//www.fruit.cornell.edu/lof/trapre
  ports/index.html)
• Harvest evaluations and spray records are being
  complied to help growers identify any weakness in
  spray schedule.

14
2007 Harvest Survey

• Number of growers 78
• (up from 49 in 2006)
• Number worms 466
• CM 83 - in 2002, 15CM, 75 OFM
• OFM/LAW 16
• Unidentified 8
• Number loads 313 infested

15
Harvest Survey

• Send letter to growers identifying ticket number,
  dates and variety, and pest identified in load
• Hope to identify specific problem areas
• Increases awareness of a growing problem that
  will impact on the economics of the fruit
  industry.

16
Managing CM and OFM with Mating Disruption

• Isomate CM/OFM TT 200 per acre
• Second season at Kast and Russell
• Splat ISCA Tech formulation for CM and OFM to
  apply before fruit set for full season control
• Checkmate CM-F, OFM-F apply 2 applications per
  generation, continued regular insecticide
  applications the first season

17
Mating Disruption with SPLAT for CM/OFM by ISCA
Technologies - 2007
18
Mating Disruption with Checkmate CM-F and OFM-F
Sprayable by Suterra 2007
19
Checkmate CM-F/OFM-F Spray Records
2006 2007 2007
KAST Grw Std MD Grw Std
OP 7 2 5
IGR 1
Pyrethroid 1 1 1
Neonic 2 5 2
Bio 0 0 0
Avaunt 0 0 0
Cost () 206 220 158
internal lep 3.4 1.0 7.2
Checkmate CM-F and OFM-F additional cost 164/acre Checkmate CM-F and OFM-F additional cost 164/acre Checkmate CM-F and OFM-F additional cost 164/acre Checkmate CM-F and OFM-F additional cost 164/acre
20
Does it pay if MD is 100-150/acre?

• If 1000 bu/acre
• If 40 lb/bu
• If 9.5/lb for peelers and canners
• If 7/lb for juice
• Then lose 1000 per acre
• If 5/lb for juice
• Then lose 1800 per acre

21
Summary

• Critical to know which leps are problems
• CM is primary pest for most farms where internal
  lep pests are a problem,
• but not all !!
• Mating Disruption is viable option for high
  pressure orchards need full insecticide program
  the first season
• Adds significant expense to spray cost ?
• Need cost analysisrejected loads cost 500-1800
  per acre depending on yield per acre and variety