4.Area-Wide Mating Disruption of Codling Moth in New York

tion flight starting on Aug 4, peaking onAug 25. Based on trap activity in the area,using the trap threshold of 5 moths accumulatedper trap, we would recommendDelegate or Rynaxypyr (Altacor or VoliamXpress) for the second generation. Weneeded to integrate the control of otherpests including leafrollers and apple maggotlater in the season.Other pests were controlled as neededusing other insecticides including chlorpyrifospre-bloom, Proclaim, and pyrethroids.In 2010, to prevent economicdamage from apple maggot with reducedinsecticide use, we hung maggot trapsin early July around the perimeter of orchardsin areas of high risk.Fruit Evaluations: Fruit damage assessmentswere made in July to evaluatecontrol of the first generation. Fruit damagewas evaluated at harvest by picking 50apples from the top and 50 from the bottomfrom each of 5 trees scattered acrossthe individual blocks of fruit by variety.We evaluated 15,000 to 18,000 apples eachyear for damage from various insect pests.ResultsTrap Counts: Tables 1 and 2 summarizethe seasonal total CM and OFM adultscaught per trap for 2008-2010 for variouslure types. In 2008, seasonal total of150 CM were caught per trap. Trap shutdown in 2009 was significantly improvedcompared to 2008. The comparable lure,CM 10X, caught only 11 moths for the seasonalper trap total compared to 150 theprevious year – a 92% reduction. The nonmatingdisruption counts were reducedfrom 2008 levels by only 58%. There wasalso a reduction in the total moth catchin the non-mating disruption sites dueto the plume effect downwind. Researchreported by Casado (2010) at UC-Berkeleyshowed suppression of CM male capturesdownwind in a plume 250 ft. wide by 900feet long from a single Puffer.Table 2 illustrates the relatively lowpressure of OFM in the disrupted areabut it remains a significant pest wherenot disrupted. As OFM pheromone wasincorporated in the whole disrupted areain 2010, OFM trap catch was essentiallyshut down using mating disruption asillustrated in Figure 5. In 2008-09, onlythe 10-20 acres of Long View S/Hilltopmoths per trap included OFM pheromone for mating disruption.The CM trap data plotted in Figure 6 using CM10X lures illustratesthe poor trap shutdown using the sprayable pheromones.Trap counts using CM10X lures clearly exceeded the 5 CM perFigure 5. 2010 OFM trap catch is essentially eliminated under mating disruption.# Moths per Trap60.050.040.030.020.010.00.08-May15-May22-May29-MayFigure 6. 2008 CM weekly trap catch using CM10X lures and sprayable pheromones.moths per trap 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 26-­‐Apr 3-­‐May 10-­‐May 16-­‐Apr 23-­‐Apr 30-­‐Apr Average RME OFM Trap Catch 2010 17-­‐May 24-­‐May 31-­‐May 7-­‐Jun 14-­‐Jun 21-­‐Jun Figure 6. Average CM Trap Catch, 2008NEW YORK FRUIT QUARTERLY . VOLUME 18 . NUMBER 4 . WINTER 2010 215-JunFigure 7. 2010 trap data for CM using CM-DA Combo lures.12-Jun19-Jun7-­‐May 14-­‐May 21-­‐May 28-­‐May 4-­‐Jun 11-­‐Jun 26-Jun3-JulFigure 7. CM DA Trap Catch 2010 10-Jul17-Jul24-Jul31-Jul7-AugOverall Avg OFM Apple Hill OFM Longview OFM HillTop Fruit Farm OFM McKeon's Fruit Farm 28-­‐Jun 5-­‐Jul 12-­‐Jul 19-­‐Jul 26-­‐Jul 2-­‐Aug 9-­‐Aug 16-­‐Aug 23-­‐Aug 30-­‐Aug 6-­‐Sep 13-­‐Sep 14-AugApple Hill - CM10XLong View N - CM10XLong View S - CM10XMcKeon Fruit Farm - CM10XCheck NW - no MD, std CM lureCheck E - no MD, std CM lureCheck NE - no MD, std CM luretrap threshold for 9-11 weeks during the growing season in 2008using sprayable pheromones. These growers only applied a totalof 4 or 5 Checkmate CM-F sprays for the season leaving longperiods without saturating the orchard with pheromone in 2008.21-Aug28-Aug4-Sep20-­‐Sep 27-­‐Sep 4-­‐Oct 11-­‐Oct 11-SepApple Hill CM-­‐DA Longview CM-­‐DA HillTop CM-­‐DA McKeon's Fruit Farm CM-­‐DA 18-Sep18-­‐Jun 25-­‐Jun 2-­‐Jul 9-­‐Jul 16-­‐Jul 23-­‐Jul 30-­‐Jul 6-­‐Aug 13-­‐Aug 20-­‐Aug 27-­‐Aug 3-­‐Sep 10-­‐Sep 17-­‐Sep 24-­‐Sep 1-­‐Oct 8-­‐Oct

But after implementingmore stable saturationof the area using Puffers in2009 and 2010, the scale ofFigure 7 was significantlyreduced from a peak flightof 38 moths in early Augustof 2008 to 4 in August of2010 using CM-DA Combolures. Trap counts in 2010never exceeded the threshold.However, we continuedto see 3 distinct flight peakseven under low pressure:the “A” and “B” peaks of themoth emergence from theoverwintereing larvae andthe second generation flightin August. The “B” peak(Breth, 2009) is the mostcommon area of weaknessin control programs leadingto fruit damage.Insecticide Use andCost: Table 4 shows thecost of pheromones and insecticidesper acre targetinginternal lep pests. Table 5shows the number of insecticideapplications targetinginternal leps. In 2008, pheromonesadded $100-120 peracre and still required 5-6insecticides the first seasonFigure 8. Sting damage from internal lep, less than1/8 inch deep, either newly hatched larva orlarva died after penetrating skin.Table 3.in this heavy pressure site. In 2008, growers spent nearly $300/acre managing CM and OFM. The insecticide choices in 2008were changed from organophosphates (OPs) and pyrethroidsused in 2007, to more costly neonicotinoids and Delegate.In 2009, growers reduced insecticide applications to 3-4,reducing material costs to control CM to $216-250 per acre. Thecosts were not reduced significantly since new classes of insecticidesare more expensive than older OP’s and pyrethroids, butmore effective. In 2010, growers were able to reduce the numberof insecticides targeting codling moth to one per generation.Fruit Damage Evaluation: Table 3 shows the overall fruitdamage caused by internal lep pests as the sum of % deep andsting damage and the % of apples with larvae detected. In 2008,there was 0.7% deep feeding, 1.8% sting damage, and 0.3% wormsin fruit compared to >12% damage and 5% larvae in fruit in 2007.In 2009, there was essentially no deep feeding detected, 0.1% stingdamage, and in all of the 18,000 apples, one worm was detectedand identified as OFM (which was not under pheromone disruption).The pressure in 2009 was not as high as 2008 due to thecool, wet weather interfering with CM mating activity, howevera sprayed orchard without mating disruption in the region had12% lep damage and 2.6% worms detected indicating sufficientpressure requiring control measures. The conditions for CMactivity were excellent in 2010; the unsprayed orchard had 29%fruit damage and 13% fruit were infested with larvae at harvest.Economic Risk: An Excel Workbook was developed toTotal % internal lep damage (deep and stings) and % fruit with larvae.Figure 9. Deep feeding penetrating more than 1/8 inchdeep often reaching the seed cavity indicatingsuccessful larval development.2008 2009 2010Treatment Farm % Damage % Worms % Damage % Worms % Damage % WormsMating Apple Hill 2.7 0.38 0.2 0.02 0.2 0.09Disruption LongView N 1.4 0.04 0 0 0.2 0.12Lonview S/Hilltop 2.5 0.27 0.1 0 0.1 0McKeon 2.9 0.33 0 0 0 0Non-Disrupted South East 0.8 0 0 0 0 0North East 1.6 0 0 0 nd ndNorth 19 8 3.6 0 0.6 0Non-Disrupted Unsprayed nd nd nd nd 29 13.4assess the economic risks and benefits of using mating disruptionusing partial budget analysis. Using mating disruption toimprove control of internal lep pests increased cash inflow dueto increased fruit value, increased cash outflow with the cost ofadditional pheromones, and decreased cash outflow by limitingthe time and energy used to manage wormy truckloads offruit. Partial Budget Analysis showed that mating disruption isan economically feasible solution for growers who divert 5-10%of fruit from juice grade to regular and premium grade appleson 50 acres of premium varieties at $12.5-13 per cwt. In thiscircumstance, the grower increased available cash to a 50-acreoperation in the range of $319-17,500 for a single year of matingdisruption plus proper insecticide choice and timing. Matingdisruption is economically feasible if:• implemented in moderate to high pressure orchards thattypically sustain 5-10% damage.• used in orchards with moderate to high yield of 750-1200bushels per acre.• used in orchards with high value apples with a regularvs. premium price of $12.50-13.00 per cwt (100 lbs.).This partial budget analysis predicts that if apple prices areless than $11 per cwt, the high insecticide plus pheromone costsin the first year to clean up the population will not break even orresult in more cash available. In order to be economically feasibleafter the first year, the cost of the pheromone and insecticidesmust decrease in order to break even since the biggest increase22 NEW YORK STATE HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY

in returns due tothe improvementin fruit qualityand value will onlybe significant inthe first season.However, growersmight considerthe increase infruit value derivedfrom the first seasonas a resourceavailable to carrythe cost of pheromonesthroughsubsequent seasonsuntil the problem isrectified.Table 4.Pheromone plus insecticide costsSpray costs 2008 2009 2010Apple Hill 290 217 182Long View 253 217 172Hilltop FF --- --- 163McKeon FF 290 217 178Table 5. Insecticide applications targetingcodling moth*Orchard 2008 2009 2010Apple Hill 6 3 2Long View 6 3 2Hilltop FF --- --- 2McKeon FF 6 3 2*some sprays are not included in this evaluationsince they were targeting other pests including PC,OBLR, WAA, and Apple Maggot.This project has demonstrated that if mating disruption isimplemented on a multi-year basis, insecticides targeting forCM can be applied at timings recommended for “low” pressureorchards with one spray per generation. This project and othertrials have demonstrated that pheromone application rates canbe reduced by 25% in some cases. The insecticide inputs shouldonly be reduced if there was no damage to fruit detected duringthe previous harvest, and no damage is detected from the firstgeneration as determined by monitoring of fruit damage in July.Monitoring moth activity with traps is still critical in decidingthe intensity of insecticide applications for these pests.ConclusionsLabor availability and pest pressure are the biggest factors inchoosing a pheromone dispenser type. In our project, traps werenot zeroed for most of the 2008 season due to: 1) inconsistentsaturation of the orchards with pheromone, 2) the tendency ofgrowers to wait until they detected significant CM flight beforethey applied pheromones, and 3) the delay in waiting until aninsecticide was scheduled. Growers also experienced rainfall removingthe sprayable pheromone residue. Sprayable pheromoneshave been successful in other areas with more frequent applicationbut require much more management to achieve control of thispest complex. Better control of CM activity was obtained usingmore stable dispenser types of pheromone including the Puffertechnology and the hand applied dispensers such as Isomate TTCM/OFM.This project has been successful in reducing trap catch signifyingreduced moth activity. When pheromones are used in combinationwith effective insecticides and the proper spray timing, wehave shown a significant reduction in pest damage. Overall, usingmating disruption in theory will result in less mating, fewer eggs,and fewer eggs hatching preventing the sting and deep damage.Since this pest builds from generation to generation, from year toyear in the orchard, control strategies will need to be intensifiedas the problem exceeds an economic threshold. But as the pestdamage is reduced to a very low level, these pests likely can betreated as a background pest with less intensive management andcost required. The value of mating disruption is clear in cleaningup high pressure orchards that sustain more than 5% fruit damageusing a combination of mating disruption and well-timedinsecticide applications.It is difficult to measure the economic value of a grower’sreputation for wormy apples, and how that might impact hisability to maintain a market for fruit. It is also difficult to measurethe management time in picking around worm-damaged applesat harvest to avoid fruit rejections or downgrading quality. Onlytime will tell if mating disruption pheromones will continue to beused for the pest management. Under high pest pressure, and withthe potential of insecticide resistance to new insecticides, matingdisruption is a very effective tool to manage internal lep pests.Literature CitedAgnello, A.M. and Reissig, W.H. 2009. Mechanically AppliedPheromone Products for Mating Disruption of CodlingMoth and Oriental Fruit Moth in Apples. New York FruitQuarterly 17:1.Breth, D.I. 2009. Testing the “PETE” Insect Development PredictionModel to Limit the Resurgence of Codling Moth inApples. New York Fruit Quarterly 17:2.Breth, D.I. 2010. Cleaning up internal leps in area-wide matingdisruption project. Abstract in 2010 Empire State Fruit andVegetable EXPO Page 4-6.Casado, D. et.al. 2010. Understanding Mating disruption byaerosol puffers: trap suppression, mating delay, and matefinding. Abstracts of the 84 th Annual Western Orchard Pestand Disease management Conference Page 31.AcknowledgementsWe gratefully acknowledge the technical help of Elizabeth Teeand Ron Faro, Program Assistants for CCE-Lake Ontario FruitTeam and Michael Burlee, Crop Protection Services. We alsoacknowledge the support of the participating growers and of ArtAgnello, Professor, Department of Entomology, Cornell Universityand Matt Wells, Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Mott’s. Thisproject was supported by USDA/NIFA under Award Number2007-49200-03888.Debbie Breth is a senior extension associate and team leaderof the Lake Ontario Fruit Program of Cornell CooperativeExtension who specializes in integrated pest management.Alison DeMarree is a an extension educator with the LakeOntario Fruit Program of Cornell Cooperative Extension whospecializes in Economics and Farm Business Management.Art Agnello is a research and extension professor in theDept. of Entomology at Geneva who leads Cornell’s applepest management program. Liz Tee is a extension programassistant who works with Debbie Breth.NEW YORK FRUIT QUARTERLY . VOLUME 18 . NUMBER 4 . WINTER 2010 23

Refrigerated andVentilated Systems forYour Fruit and VegetableStorages• COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION• DESIGN, SALES AND SERVICE• SERVING AGRICULTURE FOR OVER 30 YEARSFree Consultation and QuoteCall Mike Mager at 585-343-267875YearsSince 1932TheBestBerryPlants• Strawberries, raspberries, blueberries,blackberries, gooseberries and more!• Where the pros go for plans and plants.• Call for a free catalog andplasticulture guide!REFRIGERATION CO. OF BATAVIA26 Cedar Street, Batavia, NY 14020www.arcticrefrigeration.com41 River RoadSouth DeerfieldMassachusetts 01373www.noursefarms.com 413.665.265824 NEW YORK STATE HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY