:Almond Pest Management Alliance
Year-End Report
Contract number: 97-0281
Contract title: "To Promote A Reduced-Risk System of Almond Production Through Alternative Practices"
Principal Investigator: Chris Heintz, Director of Research, Technology, and Education, Almond Board of California
Contractor organization:
Almond Board of California
1150 Ninth St., #1500
Modesto, CA 95354
209-549-8262 (phone)
209-549-8267 (fax)
www.almondboard.com
Date: Dec. 31, 1999
Prepared for California Department of Pesticide Regulation
Disclaimer
The statements and conclusions in this report are those of the contractor and not necessarily those of the California Department of Pesticide Regulation. The mention of commercial products, their source, or their use in connection with material reported herein is not to be construed as actual or implied endorsement of such products.
Acknowledgments
This report was prepared with the assistance of the following individuals as partners in the Almond Pest Management Alliance:
Almond Hullers and Processors Association
Gene Beach
2360 Lecco Way
Merced, CA 95340
(209)723-7661
Fax: (209) 723-7943
Email: genebeach@aol.com
Community Alliance with Family Farmers
Marcia Gibbs
P.O. Box 363
Davis, CA 95617
(530)756-8518
Fax: (530) 756-7857
University of California
Frank Zalom
Statewide IPM Project
Davis, CA 95616-8621
(530) 752-8350
Fax: (530) 752-6004
Email: fgzalom@ucdavis.edu
Walt Bentley
UC Regional IPM Entomologist
UC Kearney Ag Center
9240 S. Riverbend Ave.
Parlier, CA 93648
(209) 646-6527
Fax: (209) 646-6593
Email: walt@uckac.edu
Mario Viveros
Kern County Farm Advisor
1031 S. Mount Vernon Ave.
Bakersfield, CA 93307
(661) 868-6211
Fax: (661) 834-9359
Email: cekern@ucdavis.edu
Lonnie Hendricks
Merced County Farm Advisor
2145 W. Wardrobe Ave.
Merced, CA 95340
(209) 385-7403
Fax: (209) 722-8856
Email: lchendricks@ucdavis.edu
Roger Duncan
Stanislaus County Farm Advisor
3800 Cornucopia Way, Suite A
Modesto, CA 95355
(209) 525-6654
Fax: (209) 525-6840
Email: raduncan@ucdavis.edu
Carolyn Pickel
UC Area IPM Advisor - Sacramento Valley
UC Cooperative Extension
142 - A Garden Highway
Yuba City, CA 95941
(530) 822-7515
Fax: (530) 673-5368
Email: cxpickel@ucdavis.edu
Joe Connell
Butte County Farm Advisor
2279 Del Oro Ave., Suite B
Oroville, CA 95965
(530) 538-7201
Fax: (530) 538-7140
Mobile: (530) 521-8066
Email: jhconnell@ucdavis.edu
John Edstrom
Colusa/Sutter/Yuba Farm Advisor
P.O. Box 180
Colusa, CA 95932
(530) 458-0570
Fax: (530) 458-4625
Email: jpedstrom@ucdavis.edu
Bill Krueger
Glenn County Farm Advisor
P.O. Box 697
Orland, CA 95963
(530) 865-1107
Fax: (530) 865-1109
Email: whkrueger@ucdavis.edu
Rick Buchner
Tehama/Shasta County Farm Advisor
1754 Walnut St.
Red Bluff, CA 96080
(530) 527-3101
Fax: (530) 527-0917
Email: rpbuchner@ucdavis.edu
Wes Asai
Pomology Consulting
14113 Harding Rd.
Turlock, CA 95380
Cell phone: (209) 531-3735
Pager: (209) 990-3735
Office/fax: (209) 669-6123
Mark Looker
Project Administrator
717 El Vecino Ave.
Modesto, CA 95350
(209) 549-8262 ext. 108
Fax: (209) 549-8267
Email: mllooker@ainet.com
http://www.lookercomm.com/AlmondPMA/almondpma.htm
This report was submitted in fulfillment of DPR contract number 97-0281 "To Promote A Reduced System of Almond Production Through Alternative Practices" by the Almond Board of California under the (partial) sponsorship of the California Department of Pesticide Regulation. Work was completed as of July 31, 1999.
Table of Contents:
Abstract
The Almond Pest Management Alliance (PMA) was formed by the California almond industry in 1998 to evaluate the possibility of managing pests with less disruptive pesticides.
The Almond Board of California initiated discussions among industry stakeholders for the purpose of determining the feasibility of applying for a grant from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation to study reduced risk approaches.
Members of the PMA are: The Almond Board of California, the Almond Hullers and Processors Association, the Community Alliance With Family Farmers, the University of California Statewide IPM Project, and the University of California Cooperative Extension (UCCE) almond farm advisors.
The proposal "To Promote a Reduced-Risk System of Almond Production Through Alternative Practices" was funded with a $99,000 grant for the crop year Aug. 1, 1998 to July 31, 1999.
The project was divided up into three regional projects because of the vast size of the almond industry. Regional plots were established in the Northern Sacramento Valley (Butte County), the Central San Joaquin Valley (Stanislaus County), and the Southern San Joaquin Valley (Kern County.)
The purpose of each regional project was to compare "conventional" versus "reduced risk" approaches to treating pest problems.
Each project involved a local grower-cooperator who allowed division of an orchard into a "conventional" block versus a "reduced risk" block. Each project was supervised by a UCCE almond farm advisor with the assistance of a field scout.
The target pests addressed in all three regional projects included Navel Orangeworm (NOW), Peach Twig Borer (PTB), San Jose scale, mites and ants.
An important component of the project was outreach to growers to educate them about the days in each region and production of two newsletters mailed to growers and interested parties. issues involved in pesticide use and possible reduced risk scenarios. Outreach included two field days in each region and production of two newsletters mailed to growers and interested parties.
Because this is the first year of a multi-year project, the conclusions to be drawn are not definitive.
However, in general, the project demonstrated:
Executive Summary
The Almond Pest Management Alliance (PMA) was formed in 1998 to evaluate the possibility of managing pests with less disruptive pesticides.
The impetus for this collaborative approach grew out of two major concerns: Implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) with possible loss of some traditional crop protection tools, and growing public concern over water quality standards in the San Joaquin River and Sacramento River watersheds, with possible links to pesticides used by almond growers.
The Almond Board of California initiated discussions among various industry stakeholders to look at the possibility of forming a cooperative effort to pursue a grant available from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation. Those industry stakeholders include the Almond Board of California, the Almond Hullers and Processors Association, the Community Alliance With Family Farmers, the University of California Statewide IPM Project, and University of California Cooperative Extension (UCCE) almond farm advisors.
The proposal "To Promote a Reduced-Risk System of Almond Production Through Alternative Practices" was funded with a $99,000 grant for the crop year beginning Aug. 1, 1998 through July 31, 1999.
Because of the enormous scope of the California almond industry (nearly 480,000 producing acres ranging from Chico in the north to Bakersfield in the south) and the wide range of pests and various treatments used in different regions, the PMA set up three regional projects. Those projects were located in the Northern Sacramento Valley (Butte County), the Central San Joaquin Valley (Stanislaus County) and the Southern San Joaquin Valley (Kern County.)
Each project had an essential component: A local grower-cooperator who agreed to let his orchard be divided up to reflect "conventional" pesticide treatments as opposed to "reduced risk" approaches. Again, the interpretation of "conventional" versus "reduced risk" varies from region to region depending upon factors such as soil, climate, disease and pest pressures.
Each project was under the direct supervision of a UCCE farm advisor. Each advisor established the plot to best address local pest concerns and growing conditions that would be relevant to local growers. The advisors employed a field scout who performed the extensive monitoring required for such a project.
The target pests addressed across all three projects included Navel Orangeworm (NOW), Peach Twig Borer (PTB), San Jose scale, mites and ants.
The body of this report provides in detail how each regional project compared "conventional" versus "reduced-risk" treatments and offers the results in terms of damage from the target pests within the parameters of the two treatments.
It is important to note that there can be no definitive "conclusions" drawn from the first year of this study. A multi-year study is needed to make a science-based conclusion about these various approaches.
However, some general conclusions can be drawn from the first year:
The Almond PMA is proud of its outreach efforts. In this report, the PMA has documented the two fields days held in each of the three regions. All of the field events were well attended, drawing approximately 100 growers and Pest Control Advisors (PCA’s) to each event. Additionally, a newsletter was produced in the Fall and Spring and mailed to approximately 7,000 growers and interested parties.
The Almond PMA is run by a management team comprised of farm advisors, a private PCA and representatives from each of the collaborating organizations. The team meets on a quarterly basis to review the project and make decisions about its future course.
In general, the management team believes future improvements should include:
In conclusion, the Almond PMA in its first year demonstrated the following:
Almond Pest Management Alliance Final Report
INTRODUCTION
The Almond Pest Management Alliance (PMA) was funded by a $99,000 grant awarded by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) for the crop year Aug. 1, 1998 to July 31, 1999. The proposal is titled "To Promote a Reduced-Risk System of Almond Production Through Alternative Practices."
Members of the PMA are: the Almond Board of California, the Almond Hullers and Processors Association, the Community Alliance With Family Farmers, the University of California Statewide IPM Project, and University of California Cooperative Extension (UCCE) almond farm advisors.
Structurally, the Almond PMA is run by a management team composed of representatives from each of the identified organizations, as well as a private Pest Control Advisor (PCA.) The team meets on a quarterly basis to review the project's progress and make decisions about its future course. The administrative functions are overseen by the Almond Board of California.
Upon its formation, the Almond PMA set these basic objectives:
on almond pest management practices that reduce risks associated with pesticide use.
economic thresholds, so they can make informed choices about alternatives to preventative
disruptive sprays.
reduced risk system. Educate growers about alternative farming practices that have the potential
to reduce pesticide use and sustain profitability.
includes not only a projection of the risk reduced, but a discussion of the costs and benefits of
the solution and the practicality of adoption.
The need for this project is provided by two major concerns:
The target pests addressed across all three regional projects are Navel Orangeworm (NOW), Peach Twig Borer (PTB,) San Jose scale, mites and ants. These pests, in general, pose the greatest economic challenge to California almond growers.
The PMA views this project as an efficient way to bring together many years of research which have been spent on alternative and reduced risk management techniques and to apply practically the vast body of knowledge accumulated over the years by the University of California.
The Almond Board of California has been supporting an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) system for more than 25 years. During the 1997-98 crop year, the Almond Board funded ten IPM projects for a total of $190,270. These projects have helped reduce the use of pesticides through such studies as: Navel Orangeworm Orchard Sanitation and Early Harvest, Reducing Dormant Spray Hazards, Pheromones for Peach Twig Borer, and Alternatives for Soil Fumigation with Methyl Bromide. Results of these research projects are available from the Almond Board of California.
The Board has also received an "IPM Innovator Award" from CDPR for its innovative leadership role in the field of IPM.
The UC Statewide IPM Project is well recognized for its national leadership on IPM. The IPM Project publishes the well respected IPM for Almonds Manual. This publication states, "A good IPM program coordinates pest management activities with cultural operations to achieve economical and long-lasting solutions to pest problems."
Reduced risk strategies such as CAFF's Biologically Integrated Orchard Systems (BIOS) program seek to demonstrate that a small, but growing number of almond producers have been successfully reducing their insecticide, herbicide, and fertilizer inputs without affecting yield or quality. Most program growers have experience with individual components of the system, such as Bt sprays and insect releases. By combining these with seeded cover crops, modified mowers, increased monitoring, and habitat enhancement, BIOS growers have replaced the broad-spectrum chemical control on their farms with biological processes and selective insecticides
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The Almond PMA is designed to be demonstration project, with grower-cooperators in three regional areas. In these orchards, the data collected can enable the almond growing community to see a reduced risk system in action. With the information provided by the Alliance, growers and their Pest Control Advisors (PCA's) can see first-hand the monitoring techniques, the economics, the yields, the practices used and even talk with the grower himself about how the project works.
The three regional projects were set up in the following manner:
Stanislaus County
(The following information is taken from the year-end summary for this regional project. A complete copy of the year-end summary is attached as appendix #1)
The Stanislaus County PMA site is a research trial as well as a demonstration. The trial is being conducted in a uniform 120-acre orchard (Nonpareil:Carmel) west of Modesto. Three insect pest management program treatments are fully replicated three times within the 120-acre orchard. Each plot is approximately 13.5 acres in size. The treatments are:
Grower’s Standard Practice: This pest management program is fairly common in the Northern San Joaquin Valley. While most growers in this area apply a hull split spray for naval orangeworm control, our cooperator elects to target peach twig borer with a May spray. Specifically, pesticide treatments included:
Intermediate Program: In these areas, "reduced risk" pesticides are used. Specifically, pesticide treatments included:
Soft program: Pesticide treatments included:
All dormant and in-season sprays were applied in approximately 100 gallons of water per acre. Mummies were removed and destroyed in all treatments. Mummy counts were recorded on February 12 & 15, 1999 and averaged 0.4 mummies per tree. There were no differences between treatments. Cover crop management (periodic mowing of native vegetation), fertilization, and fungicide treatments did not differ between treatments. A nutrient buffer product (10-12-0) was included in the May sprays for all treatments.
Kern County
(The following information is taken from the year-end summary for this regional project. A complete copy of the year-end summary is attached as appendix #2)
There were two 40-acre blocks of hard shell varieties (Butte, Mission and Padre), and two-40 acre blocks of soft shells (Nonpareil, Sonora and Fritz). Each 40-acre block was divided into reduced input and conventional blocks. The demonstration was started in November 1998 with the planting of a cover crop and has continued until the present time.
Conventional Plot
Dormant spray: Diazinon & oil
July spray: organophosphate (Phosmet)
Mites: propargite (Omite)
Ants: abamectin (Clinch)
Fungicides: iprodione (Rovral)
Reduced Risk – Soft Plot
Dormant spray: oil only
Bloom spray: Bt (3 ap’s)
July spray: spinosad (Success)
Mites: preditory mite release
Ants: abamectin (Clinch)
Fungicides: iprodione (Rovral)
Cover Crop
Barley was selected as the cover crop because of the saline-alkali and poor drainage condition of the soil. The barley was seeded in every middle on both soft and hard shell blocks at a rate of 40 lbs. per acre. This was done in late November. At this time, an insectary was established on every 11th middle using the 1998 "BIOS Insectary Mix" (See Appendix B for mixture composition). The rate of seeding was 10 lbs. per acre.
The barley germinated well and created a solid cover. It did improve the drainage of the soil and provided a cool environment. The insectary mix didn’t do that well. The clovers, rye, vetch, coriander and celery didn’t germinate at all, and a limited number of toothpick weed and yarrow plants were present in the middles.
Pest Monitoring
Trapping for three key pests of almonds was done throughout the season. Traps were hung together on the same tree, seven trees in from the end of the row in Nonpareil and Mission varieties. Three San Jose Scale sticky traps were placed per block, six to seven feet high in the northeast quadrant of the tree on February 22, 1999, and were monitored weekly until the end of November. Pheromone lures were replaced every four weeks. Adult San Jose Scale moths were counted, as well as the Prospaltella and Aphytis adults. Double-sided sticky tapes were placed one per tree in each of the four trees surrounding the "trap tree" on April 15, 1999, and were collected and replaced every other week through November. The number of San Jose Scale crawlers per tape were then counted and recorded. Two peach twig borer traps were placed per block, six to seven feet high in the northeast quadrant of the tree on March 22, 1999; adult moths were counted weekly until the end of November. Pheromone lures were replaced every eight weeks. Two navel orangeworm traps per block containing an almond meal mixture were placed six to seven feet high in the north side of the tree on March 29,1999; eggs laid on the exterior grooves of the trap were counted weekly through the end of November. Bait was replaced every eight to ten weeks.
Dormant Spray
The dormant spray was done in the conventional blocks on January 4, 1999. It consisted of five pints of Diazinon and six gallons of oil in 200 gallons of water per acre. The reduced pesticide input was left unsprayed. The dormant spray treatment gave us mixed results for key pests in almonds. Table 1 shows that PTB emergence was not affected by the dormant spray. One can also say that dormant spray didn't completely eliminate the PTB in the orchard.
Butte County
(The following information is taken from the year-end summary for this regional project. A complete copy of the year-end summary is attached as appendix #3)
This orchard is approximately 49-acres. The grower's standard block is 27-acres, the PMA block is 22 -cres divided into a 12-acre soft treatment and a 10-acre organophosphate dormant treatment. Five of these 10-acres received an organophosphate hullsplit spray. Traps for San Jose Scale, Peach Twig Borer, and Navel Orangeworm were placed on the north side of the center Nonpareil row in each block and monitored weekly.
Dormant OP Plot
Dormant: organophosphate (Diazinon), oil & copper
Hullsplit spray:
a) organophosphate (Lorsban)
b) no organophosphate
Fungicides: myclobutanil (Rally)
cyprodinil (Vanguard)
Reduced Risk - Intermediate
Dormant spray: none
Bloom spray: Bt (2 ap’s)
May spray: none
Fungicides: iprodione (Rovral)
propiconazole (Break)
Captan (2)
Reduced Risk - Soft
Dormant spray: none
Bloom spray: Bt (2 ap’s)
May spray: none
Fungicides: myclobutanil (Rally)
cyprodinil (Vanguard)
Insecticide and Disease Control Applications (see Appendix 1)
Grower's Standard Practice 27 acres: Rovral, oil, and 10-52-10 was applied on 2/20/99, however, due to rain, only half of the orchard was treated. The second half of this spray application was on 2/26/99. Rovral was applied at 0.8 pounds per acre, oil at 1 gallon./ac, and 10-52-10 at 4 pounds per acre. On 3/9/99 Break was applied at 4 ounces per acre, Condor at 2 pints per acre, and 20-20-20 at 4 pounds per acre. Captan at 8 lbs/ac and Condor at 2 pints/acre was applied on 3/22/99. A final Captan was applied at 8 lbs/ac on 4/15/99.
PMA Soft Approach 22.5 acres: Rally and 10-52-10 was applied on 2/23/99 and 2/26/99 in alternate rows at rates of 6.4 ounces and 4 pounds per acre respectively. Vangard was applied on 3/9/99 to all 22.5 acres.
Soft 12.5 acres of 22.5: Vangard at a rate of 5 ounces plus Condor at a rate of 2 pints, and 20-20-20 at a rate of 4 pounds per acre was applied on 3/9/99. An additional Condor spray was applied on 3/22/99.
Dormant Spray Comparison (10 acres of the 22.5): Diazinon was applied at 4 pints, Kocide applied at 8 pounds, and oil applied at 4 gallons per acre on 1/28/99.
Hullsplit Spray 5 acres: Lorsban at 4 pints was applied 7/27/99 to 5 acres of the 10 acres receiving the Dormant spray.
Orchard Floor Management (See Appendix 2)
Strip Sprays: On 2/5/99 the strips in the tree row were treated with Roundup original at 3 pints per acre plus Goal at a rate of 6 ounces per acre. On 5/6/99, Roundup at 3 pints/ac was applied again to the strips. A final Roundup strip spray was completed on 6/24/99.
Solid Middles treatment: Roundup original was applied at 2 pints on 7/9/99 and again on 8/13/99 as a pre-harvest clean up spray.
Mechanical Chopping: Solid chops occurred on 3/10 and on 8/7. Alternate middle chopping occurred on 4/13, 4/28, 5/24, 6/16, 6/28, and 7/1. Normal orchard floor management practice in the orchard is to chop every-other middle and then chop the alternate middles the next time.
RESULTS
The Almond PMA project was successful in its first year in meeting the overall objectives it set forth in its original proposal.
Additionally, each of the regional projects achieved measurable results.
First, a comparison of the original objectives to the results obtained.
OVERALL PROJECT RESULTS
All three regional projects were successfully established. Two field days were conducted in each region in the winter and spring.
The local farm advisor closely observed each PMA demonstration site and each of the blocks
was monitored weekly by local field scouts for insect pests, beneficial insects and diseases. This monitoring information is critical in decision making in reduced-risk plots. The data was made available for viewing on the PMA website, was incorporated into PMA newsletters distributed to growers statewide, and was been compiled into final regional reports included as part of this document.
Through a series of field days and newsletters, information posted to the Almond PMA website
and news articles and grower to grower information sharing, the Almond PMA was effective in providing almond farmers with the information they needed to begin to implement reduced risk systems on their farms. The project emphasized to growers the importance of keeping historical records of their orchards, monitoring and making critical observations in their orchards. The PMA is providing growers with an understanding of the problems facing the grower community and offering alternatives that can benefit the farmer, the environment and human health.
The outreach component of the project was very effective. The two editions of the Almond PMA newsletter (See Appendix #4) were distributed to over 6,000 growers, PCA’s and industry representatives. Field days allowed growers to find out about the problems associated with pesticide use and the possible alternative solutions available.
Extensive efforts were made to inform growers about PMA field days. Direct mail flyers, press releases and Internet outreach (See Appendix #5) helped create awareness within the industry.
About 600 growers and pest control advisors attended these field days and workshops in Year 1, and the numbers at these field days keept growing, indicating an increasing interest in reduced risk management practices. Overall, grower reaction to the field days was positive, as documented in surveys conducted at each of the field days (See Appendix #5)
Information and outreach by local farm advisors also helped convey the message that reduced risk practices are needed in the industry and that there are viable alternatives available.
A half-page ad in "Nut Grower" magazine sponsored by CAFF and the Almond PMA was seen by several thousand growers (See Appendix #6) and helped raise awareness of the PMA project.
An opinion piece by PMA Administrator Mark Looker in the "Modesto Bee" (See Appendix #7) also received wide distribution and helped explain the purpose and goals of the Almond PMA to urban and agricultural readers and opinion leaders.
The PMA also provided an opportunity to conduct educational outreach with a variety of industry groups, schools, legislative and governmental regulatory agencies (See Appendix #8).
The Final Report on PMA Year One is being shared with growers through newsletters, the PMA website and meetings with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation (See Appendix #9)
The consensus from the local farm advisors who know firsthand about each of the demonstration orchards is that one year of data on production and costs is not sufficient information on which growers can base a decision about whether to adopt some of the alternative practices outlined in this project. A multi-year project will offer a much stronger base of knowledge for growers and PCA's to make an informed decision.
Economic analysis of the cost of "conventional" versus "reduced risk" approaches was completed as a component of two of the three regional projects' year-end reports.
That comparison, by regional project, is as follows:
Stanislaus County -
Cost Comparison
Conventional: $125.19/ac
Reduced Risk - Intermediate: $157.95/ac
Reduced Risk - Soft: $144.22/ac
Butte County -
Cost Comparison
Dormant OP with hullsplit: $93.39/ac
Dormant OP without hullsplit: $71.77/ac
Reduced Risk - Intermediate: $86.35/ac
Reduced Risk - Soft: $57.15/ac
Kern County -
Cost Comparison
Economic analysis was not available for Kern County at the time of this report.
REGIONAL PROJECT RESULTS
Each of the three regional projects was able to produce tentative measurable results. All of the UCCE farm advisors cautioned that the results are much too preliminary after only one year and should not be used as a basis for reaching definitive conclusions about the merits of the various practices employed by each project. Again, a multi-year project is necessary to produce sound scientific data. The results, by regional plot, are as follows:
Stanislaus County
This orchard has a history of being very clean with a very low reject level. It was a low pest pressure year with few NOW, PTB and ants. Shell seals were very tight. The dormant pyrethroid application decreased the San Jose scale population along with the beneficial populations.
Butte County
This orchard also has a history of low reject levels. Very little difference in damage from NOW, PTB, Oriental Fruit Moth and ants could be detected between the various treatments. There was also little difference in disease between the various treatments.
The reduced risk and intermediate plot has the lowest levels of San Jose Scale and parasites. The plot with a dormant OP application and hullsplit OP had the lowest level of San Jose scale and high levels of parasites.
Kern County
In the plot treated with a dormant OP, the reject level was .26%, while the reject level in the reduced risk plot was .06%
There was no significant difference in PTB between the two treatments.
The level of San Jose Scale was lower with the dormant and in-season OP treatment.
There was no significant difference in mites between the two treatments.
There were fewer ants with the dormant OP treatment.
ADDITIONAL MEASUREMENT OF GROWER PRACTICES
In an effort to gain important baseline information about current grower practices, the PMA and CAFF completed in the summer of 1999 a survey of 485 almond growers throughout the
state. This telephone questionnaire asked growers about their pesticide use, management practices, pest monitoring, how they make pest management decisions, and what they use as sources of information for their farming operation..
A final survey report prepared by the Almond PMA will attempt to show what management practices growers are using, what chemical applications they make, how they get their information and what biological products they are applying. A copy of this report will be forwarded to DPR when completed. The results of the survey will be a closer look at grower practices in almonds and provide significant baseline data for future reduced risk efforts.
DISCUSSION
Each of the three regional project farm advisors were asked to offer their comments on the success of the first year of the PMA project.
-Stanislaus County Farm Advisor Roger Duncan
It is vital that information from projects like this be collected for multiple years or else the
project is meaningless. It can sometimes take 2-3 years before significant shifts in pest populations occur. At this time there are no reasons to make significant changes in the Year Two work plan.
Most growers will not adopt major changes in management philosophy unless they can watch the
alternatives over a period of time. If through their observations they become confident in a new system, they will adopt it. It will take at least three seasons of data to convince most growers. It is a must to continue this project for several more seasons.
Kern County Farm Advisor Mario Viveros
The PMA project has allowed us to evaluate conventional pest management practices in the Southern San Joaquin Valley. We validated the value of some pesticides and we were surprised by the poor performance of others. We found that biological control can work for some pests but not for others.
It was our understanding that dormant sprays were the best time to control PTB. This was not the case in the PMA orchard. Both dormant and non-dormant sprayed blocks had the same adult population and the same number of shoot strikes. Furthermore, the reject levels were greater on the dormant sprayed (0.26%) than on the non-dormant sprayed (0.06%).
PTB can also be out of control at bloom time. From monitoring PTB emergence and bloom, we found that only one of the two or three Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) sprays can be combined with
the bloom spray. If a grower wants to control this pest, he will have to come back with one or two additional sprays at seven- or ten-day intervals. The data from the PMA project demonstrates the need for developing economic thresholds for PTB. Both the adult population and shoot strikes were very high but the reject levels for PTB were less than one percent.
Dormant sprays did control San Jose scale (SJS) and reduced the ant population throughout the season. At harvest time, the ant population in the dormant-sprayed block was reduced by 54%.
The reject level due to ants was less in the dormant-sprayed blocks than in the non-sprayed blocks. This also demonstrates the need for research on ant control during the dormant season.
We were successful in managing spider mites. The orchard was kept well watered. Based on mid-day stem water potential, the orchard never showed any major stress. The stress level varied from ideal to mild stress. Also, western predatory mites were released as soon as there was a
food source. Two applications of 2,500 predatory mites per acre were made: one on July 19th and the second on August 11th. After the second application, the mites were under control and no additional application of mites was necessary.
The PMA project clearly demonstrated that monitoring is the key for the success of a pest management program. The University of California has developed large amounts of pest and disease information but none has any value if it is not implemented in a pest and disease monitoring program. By monitoring the PMA orchard, we have discovered the dormant sprays are not controlling PTB, a key pest in almond orchards. On the other hand, dormant sprays may
help in the control of ants. Monitoring the water status of the almond trees and mite populations allows management of mites without the use of Omite. Monitoring pests and diseases is not
inexpensive. It costs three hours per acre in the PMA project. However there is no other orchard activity that can provide first-hand knowledge on what insects and diseases are doing in an orchard. Knowledge is a must to manage our insects and diseases in an effective manner.
The success of this project for the first year can be summarized in the following areas:
PMA as a teaching tool.
Growers have become aware of the importance of effective winter sanitation.
Growers have learned about the basic information the industry has on San Jose Scale control.
Growers became aware of the importance of spray coverage. You can't have an effective program without good coverage.
PMA as a Demonstration Tool.
We have a golden opportunity to assess and compare a reduced risk pesticide management
system with a conventional system.
To demonstrate the proper management of a cover crop in an almond orchard.
To demonstrate the intensity and amount of work required by a quality pest monitoring system.
To demonstrate the integration of all knowledge on horticulture, entomology, and plant
pathology in an almond management system.
The Value
This project has demonstrated that a reduced risk pesticide system in an almond orchard requires an intensive monitoring program. This project shows that before a grower reduces the amount of pesticides in his orchard he must invest time gathering information about his orchard.
Butte County Farm Advisor Joe Connell
In order to see real differences between different treatments, the project needs to be multi-year.
In the Northern growing region, the monitoring approach to disease control could serve to lower growers' production costs.
The almond industry in the Northern Sacramento Valley was very interested in this PMA project. The turnout at field days was very good.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The first year of the Almond Pest Management Alliance has clearly shown that the Almond PMA is an effective starting point for growers and Pest Control Advisors who are interested in learning about reduced risk systems. The impending loss of some traditional crop protection tools due to FQPA implementation, the possible risks to water quality from some dormant sprays, and a renewed interest in farming with more sustainable practices all point to the importance of the PMA project.
The Almond PMA was begun as a collaborative effort to address some of the pressing pesticide issues facing the state's $1 billion almond industry. The almond industry showed its willingness to provide leadership by working together with a broad array of partners. The Almond Board of California, the Almond Hullers and Processors Association, the Community Alliance With Family Farmers, the UC Statewide IPM Project and the UC Cooperative Extension almond farm advisors have all been focused on the goal of helping almond growers deal with the challenges presented by public concern over the use of pesticides.
The Almond PMA in its first year demonstrated the power of pooling resources to educate growers about reduced risk approaches. By working together, the various partners were able to reach more growers and Pest Control Advisors than any one individual organization could have reached on its own. UC farm advisors were able to have their limited resources expanded by the talents offered by PMA partners, whether it be in mailing out field day flyers, staffing sign-in booths, arranging for field day lunches or paying the salaries of field scouts who do the critical monitoring work.
By speaking with one voice on the critical issue of pesticide use, the Almond PMA has done much in the past year to raise awareness among growers.
This collective voice has also been valuable in helping educate governmental regulatory agencies about the many complex issues involved in almond production. The PMA has proven to be a valuable platform from which the industry can educate such agencies as the Environmental Protection Agency, the State Water Resources Control Board and the regional Water Quality Control Boards on almond production practices and the importance of controlling pests and diseases.
The first year has not been without its bumps. Among the lessons learned in Year One:
Two lessons rise above all else in the final analysis of Year One: