Introduction

Since the passage of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996, use of pesticides in orchard crops has come under heavy scrutiny due to the new set of rules and standards for assessing the risks of pesticide exposure. In the state of Washington, this impacts an industry with an estimated farm gate value of $988 million and approximately 214,400 acres of apple, pear and cherry (WASS 2000).

To date, the result of FQPA has been either a loss of pesticides (methyl parathion in 1998) restrictions effecting use patterns (chlorpyrifos to prebloom use only in 1999 and formetanate hydrochloride use up to only the bloom period in 1999), or restrictions on the amount that can be used (limits on azinphos-methyl imposed in 1998). It is likely that cancellation of uses of traditional pesticides will continue and that those that remain will have further restrictions placed on how they can be used. EPA is approving new pesticides for use. However, these approvals often occur before scientists have the opportunity to determine how best to use them in IPM programs. While newer pesticides are typically safer to humans and the environment and are usually more selective, that is, they impact pests to a greater degree than natural enemies, they are also less efficacious than the products they replace.

The increased use of pheromones as pest control tools, replacement of organophosphate and carbamate insecticides with selective products and enhanced impact of biological control agents form the new hope for IPM programs in tree fruit crops. While great strides have been made in the last five years, as documented by the Codling Moth Areawide Management Project (Brunner, et al. 2001, Calkins 2000), the future remains uncertain.

A comprehensive apple and pear pesticide use survey was conducted in Washington in 1989 and 1990, respectively (Beers and Brunner 1991). Then the National Agricultural Statistics Service conducted pesticide use surveys every other year on fruit crops starting in 1991 (NASS 1992, 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000). While the NASS surveys provide general use data for pesticides and track changes in usage over time they lack the data necessary to assess pesticide use patterns or IPM practices within individual states that was provided in the 1989 and 1990 surveys in Washington. The lack of data on pesticide use patterns and IPM practices has had many ramifications. There are no real data to counter claims by anti-pesticide groups concerning how pesticides are used or what IPM practices are followed in Washington tree fruit crops. Without these data it has been difficult to accurately document current practices and changes that have occurred over time. 

The purpose of this study was to:

These survey data will also help answer questions such as:

Methodology

Separate pest management practices surveys were prepared for each of the orchard crops apple, pear and cherry. They were prepared using the 1989 and 1990 apple and pear surveys as templates (Beers and Brunner 1991). The technical content was updated using the 2000 Crop Protection Guide (Smith et. al. 2000). The new apple and pear surveys were used to design the cherry survey, for which no previous template existed. Each crop survey was reviewed by industry representatives for accuracy and applicability. A standardized format was adopted for all surveys to allow for easier comparison and data entry. The format was also designed to be as grower-friendly as possible. An electronic version of each survey was also available via the world-wide-web for any respondent wishing to submit the survey in that manor.

Each survey was broken up into three parts. Part I dealt with general questions regarding the grower's overall orchard operations and management practices. Part 2 repeated many of the first set of questions, but the grower was directed to answer specifically regarding the reporting block used for the next section. Part 3 contained questions relating to detailed pest management and horticultural practices used in a designated reporting block where practices were representative of their farm. This section was broken down by individual timing intervals corresponding to the growth stages and typical spray periods specific to the crop.  Examples of the letters sent to growers and survey for each crop are attached to this report as appendices. 

Survey recipients were selected at random from lists of growers and orchard managers for each of the three crops provided by an industry organization. The surveys were mailed in early March 2001 and consisted of 985 for apple, 863 for pear and 499 for cherry. Recipients were given approximately 45 days to respond by pre-paid postage. The anonymity of each respondent was insured by method of receiving surveys that eliminated association with their survey. Only descriptive information necessary to analyze the survey results was retained with the survey information.

Characterization of farming operations: Part I of the survey directed respondents to answer questions intended to characterize their farming operations. These questions included selecting the category which best described their operation as being full-time, part-time, conventional commercial, organic, or transition to organic. They were also asked which fruit crops and varieties, along with how many acres of each they grew. In addition, they were asked to choose which growing region their orchard was located.

Pest management advice: Fruit growers in Washington receive information and advice from a various sources to help them in making pest control decisions. Individuals providing advice can be grouped into three categories: private consultants, agricultural chemical industry fieldmen, and fieldmen employed by a grower or packinghouses. In addition to consultants and fieldmen, Cooperative Extension also provides advice to growers either directly, or through various media. These include: newsletters, radio programs, bulletins, and manuals. Growers also share advice with each other. Survey recipients were asked to rate these different information sources for helping to make pest control decisions. They were asked to mark 'very important', 'somewhat important', or 'not important' for each of the information sources. Respondents were also asked to list and rate any additional sources used.

Pest management activities: Washington state fruit growers may employ a variety of pest management practices to help reduce reliance on pesticides as the sole pest control tactic. Growers were asked which practices they used including: orchard monitoring, alternate row spraying, reduced pesticide rates, biological control, integrated mite management, economic thresholds, degree day models, and pheromone traps.

Reporting block information: Each grower was asked to report pesticide use from a portion of the farm that represented the 'typical' pesticide use pattern. Growers were asked a series of questions specifically about this reporting block such as, size of block, planting density, which varieties and the percentage of each. Several horticultural questions were asked including: irrigation methods, cover crop management, and tree training system.

Reporting of pesticide use: Each time a pesticide was applied, the grower was requested to report the tree phenology, date, method of application, volume applied per acre, percentage of acreage applied, chemical name, amount of formulated material per acre, and the target of the application.

Data analysis: Survey returns were screened to eliminate incomplete, imprecise, or unwillingness/inability to respond to questions. Once screened, survey data were coded and entered into a spreadsheet for analysis. The amount of active ingredient (AI) of each chemical was determined by multiplying the amount of formulated product used per acre as a portion of pound or gallon by the pounds of AI per pound or gallon in the formulation.

---