NYFVI Grant – Feb. 07-Jan 09NYFVI Grant – Feb. 07-Jan 09Testing the “PETE” Insect Testing the “PETE” Insect Developmental Model to Developmental Model to

Limit Resurgence of CM in Limit Resurgence of CM in ApplesApples

Deborah I. Breth, CCE-LOFDeborah I. Breth, CCE-LOFArt Agnello, NYSAES, CUArt Agnello, NYSAES, CUElizabeth Tee, CCE-LOFElizabeth Tee, CCE-LOF

Funded by NYFVI and CCE-LOFFunded by NYFVI and CCE-LOF

PETE?PETE?

MSU model for 8 different fruit pestsMSU model for 8 different fruit pests ““Predictive Extension Timing Predictive Extension Timing

Estimator”Estimator” Listed universally as the timing Listed universally as the timing

model for CM in University model for CM in University Guidelines.Guidelines.

Does it work?Does it work?

Testing PETETesting PETE 2 high pressure and 2 low pressure blocks2 high pressure and 2 low pressure blocks Treatments include: Treatments include:

– a) MSU "PETE" CM model using first trap catch a) MSU "PETE" CM model using first trap catch of the season with first generation spray at of the season with first generation spray at 200-250 DD (using a base temperature of 50 200-250 DD (using a base temperature of 50 degrees F) and second generation spray at degrees F) and second generation spray at 1250 DD followed by a second application for 1250 DD followed by a second application for each generation 10-14 days after the first. each generation 10-14 days after the first. If greater than 5 moths per trap per week, If greater than 5 moths per trap per week, continue spraying for the third generationcontinue spraying for the third generation

– b) “Modified PETE” – based on seasonal trap b) “Modified PETE” – based on seasonal trap catch data managing the first generation as catch data managing the first generation as above, 200-250 DD50 F, but using a trap above, 200-250 DD50 F, but using a trap threshold of 5 moths per trap per week, threshold of 5 moths per trap per week, treating 7-10 days after exceeding that. treating 7-10 days after exceeding that.

– c) the grower standardc) the grower standard

Total Trap catch Per season -Total Trap catch Per season -20072007

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

Brown Internal Lep Trap Catch 2007

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Av

era

ge

# M

oth

s p

er

Tra

p

Brown CM

Brown OFM

Brown LAW

Brown CM Threshold

Brown 1st Gen OFM Threshold

Brown 2nd Gen OFM Threshold

Waterport Accumulated DD & Precip

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

Acc

um

ula

ted

DD

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

Pre

cip

(in

.)

Rain

Acc DD45

Acc DD50

Recommended Spray Dates – BrownRecommended Spray Dates – BrownPETE -Jun 10, 22, Jul 28, Aug 9 PETE -Jun 10, 22, Jul 28, Aug 9

Modified – Aug 15Modified – Aug 15

Brown Spray RecordsDate Material % Internal lep

PETE 12-Jun Imidan 70-W27-Jun Imidan 70-W17-Aug Assail 30 SG 0

Modified 11-Jun Danitol 2.4 EC17-Aug Assail 30 SG 0

GS 12-Jun Imidan 70-W17-Aug Assail 30 SG 0

Heberle Internal Lep Trap Catch 2007

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Ave

rag

e #

Mo

ths

per

Tra

p

CM

CM check

OFM

OFM check

LAW

CM Threshold

1st Gen OFM Threshold

2nd Gen OFM Threshold

Heberle Accumulated DD & Precip

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

Acc

um

ula

ted

DD

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

Pre

cip

(in

.)

Rain

ACC DD45

Acc DD50

Recommended Spray Dates – HeberleRecommended Spray Dates – HeberlePETE – Jun 7, 19, Jul 26, Aug 7PETE – Jun 7, 19, Jul 26, Aug 7

Modified – Jun 7, 19, Jul 1, 13, 25, Aug 10, 22, Sep 3, Modified – Jun 7, 19, Jul 1, 13, 25, Aug 10, 22, Sep 3, 1515

Heberle Spray RecordsDate Material % Internal lep

PETE 13-Jun Calypso29-Jun Calypso30-Jul Calypso *15-Aug Assail 30 SG12-Sep Assail 30 SG 7.6

Modified 13-Jun Calypso29-Jun Calypso10-Jul Danitol30-Jul Calypso15-Aug Assail 30 SG30-Aug Imidan12-Sep Assail 30 SG 3.7

GS 13-Jun Calypso29-Jun Calypso10-Jul Danitol30-Jul Calypso15-Aug Assail 30 SG12-Sep Assail 30 SG 8.3

Burnap Internal Lep Trap Catch 2007

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Ave

rag

e #

Mo

ths

per

Tra

p

CM

LAW

OFM

CM Threshold

1st Gen OFM Threshold

2nd Gen OFM Threshold

Harvest EvaluationsHarvest Evaluations

PressurPressuree FarmFarm TreatmentTreatment

MeansMeans

% clean% clean % int lep% int lep % worms% worms % sting% sting

LowLow Brown PETE 99.2 0.2 0 0.15

Modified PETE 98.5 0.1 0 0.5

Grower Std 98.5 0.7 0 0.3

Bartleson PETE 93.9 a* 0 0 b 2.3 a

Modified PETE 97.0 a 0 0 b 0.8 b

Grower Std 70.6 b** 0 0.5 a 0.3 b

HighHigh Burnap PETE 92.7 b 2.5 a 0.5 a 2

Modified PETE 94.9 ab 0.2 b 0 b 1.1

Grower Std 97.5 a 0.4 b 0.1 b 0.9

Heberle PETE 88.9 7.6 3.3 1.6 b

Modified PETE 91 3.7 1.7 3.3 ab

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

** - San Jose Scale infestation** - San Jose Scale infestation

NYFVI - Trap NetworkNYFVI - Trap Network Pheromone traps (163) Pheromone traps (163) 32 locations 32 locations to monitor adult CM, OFM, and LAW flight to monitor adult CM, OFM, and LAW flight use information to predict insect development and use information to predict insect development and

spray timing. spray timing. Traps were monitored weekly to maintain reliable Traps were monitored weekly to maintain reliable

data. data. The trap data was entered into an Excel spreadsheet The trap data was entered into an Excel spreadsheet

that could be viewed on the LOF website at that could be viewed on the LOF website at http://www.fruit.cornell.edu/lof/trapreports/index.htmlhttp://www.fruit.cornell.edu/lof/trapreports/index.html))

Harvest evaluations and spray records are being Harvest evaluations and spray records are being complied to help growers identify any weakness in complied to help growers identify any weakness in spray schedule. spray schedule.

2007 Harvest Survey2007 Harvest Survey

Number of growers – 78 Number of growers – 78 – (up from 49 in 2006)(up from 49 in 2006)

Number worms – 466Number worms – 466 CM – 83% - in 2002, 15%CM, 75% CM – 83% - in 2002, 15%CM, 75%

OFMOFM OFM/LAW – 16%OFM/LAW – 16% Unidentified – 8%Unidentified – 8% Number loads – 313 infestedNumber loads – 313 infested

Harvest SurveyHarvest Survey

Send letter to growers identifying Send letter to growers identifying ticket number, dates and variety, ticket number, dates and variety, and pest identified in loadand pest identified in load

Hope to identify specific problem Hope to identify specific problem areasareas

Increases awareness of a growing Increases awareness of a growing problem that will impact on the problem that will impact on the economics of the fruit industry. economics of the fruit industry.

Managing CM and OFM with Managing CM and OFM with Mating DisruptionMating Disruption

Isomate CM/OFM TT – 200 per acreIsomate CM/OFM TT – 200 per acre Second season at Kast and RussellSecond season at Kast and Russell Splat – ISCA Tech formulation for CM and Splat – ISCA Tech formulation for CM and

OFM to apply before fruit set for full OFM to apply before fruit set for full season controlseason control

Checkmate CM-F, OFM-F – apply 2 Checkmate CM-F, OFM-F – apply 2 applications per generation, continued applications per generation, continued regular insecticide applications the first regular insecticide applications the first seasonseason

Kalir MD vs Grw Std

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

5/7

/20

07

5/1

4/2

00

7

5/2

1/2

00

7

5/2

8/2

00

7

6/4

/20

07

6/1

1/2

00

7

6/1

8/2

00

7

6/2

5/2

00

7

7/2

/20

07

7/9

/20

07

7/1

6/2

00

7

7/2

3/2

00

7

7/3

0/2

00

7

8/6

/20

07

8/1

3/2

00

7

8/2

0/2

00

7

8/2

7/2

00

7

9/3

/20

07

9/1

0/2

00

7

9/1

7/2

00

7

9/2

4/2

00

7

Mo

ths

pe

r tr

ap

CM-MD

OFM-MD

LAW-MD

CM-GS

OFM-GS

CM Threshold

1st Gen OFM Threshold

2nd Gen OFM Threshold

Internal Lep damageSPLAT - 1.2 %, 0 worms Grw Std - 16.6%, 2.2 % wormsOP's - 3, Pyrethroids - 3, Neonic - 3

Mating Disruption with SPLAT for CM/OFM by ISCA Technologies - 2007

Morrisey Internal Lep Trap Catch 2007

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Ave

rag

e #

Mo

ths

per

Tra

p

OFM

High CM

Low CM

CM

CM Threshold

1st Gen OFM Threshold

2nd Gen OFM Threshold

Internal Lep DamageCheckmate CM F + OFM F - 1 %, 0.3% worms

OP's - 3, Pyrethroids - 1, Neonics - 5

Mating Disruption with Checkmate CM-F and OFM-F Sprayable by Suterra – 2007

Checkmate CM-F/OFM-F Checkmate CM-F/OFM-F Spray RecordsSpray Records

20062006 20072007

KASTKASTGrwGrwStdStd MD MD

GrwGrwStdStd

OPOP 77 22 55

IGRIGR 11

PyrethroidPyrethroid 11 11 11

NeonicNeonic 22 55 22

BioBio 00 00 00

AvauntAvaunt 00 00 00

Cost ($)Cost ($) 206206 220*220* 158158

% internal lep% internal lep 3.43.4 1.01.0 7.27.2

* Checkmate CM-F and OFM-F additional cost $164/acre* Checkmate CM-F and OFM-F additional cost $164/acre

Does it pay if MD is Does it pay if MD is 100-150/acre?100-150/acre?

If 1000 bu/acreIf 1000 bu/acre If 40 lb/buIf 40 lb/bu If 9.5/lb for peelers and cannersIf 9.5/lb for peelers and canners If 7/lb for juiceIf 7/lb for juice

Then lose $1000 per acreThen lose $1000 per acre If 5/lb for juiceIf 5/lb for juice Then lose $1800 per acreThen lose $1800 per acre

SummarySummary Critical to know which leps are problemsCritical to know which leps are problems CM is primary pest for most farms where CM is primary pest for most farms where

internal lep pests are a problem, internal lep pests are a problem, – but not all !!but not all !!

Mating Disruption is viable option for high Mating Disruption is viable option for high pressure orchards – need full insecticide pressure orchards – need full insecticide program the first seasonprogram the first season

Adds significant expense to spray cost ?Adds significant expense to spray cost ? Need cost analysis…rejected loads cost Need cost analysis…rejected loads cost

$500-1800 per acre depending on yield $500-1800 per acre depending on yield per acre and varietyper acre and variety