Tree Fruit Research & Extension Center

Apple IPM Transition Project

Survey Results

2009 Field Season Consultant Survey

The 2009 Field Season Consultant Survey was mailed out in January 2010. The results of that survey are now available for viewing online here or you can download the written report. The results of this survey will be compared to the 2007 Field Season Consultant Survey and compiled. A report of compariative findings will be posted when complete.

2009 Consultant Survey Results
Select desired tab heading to view result sections.

 

Click on the question panel to open results. Click again to close results. Javascript must be enabled to view panels.

C1: How frequently do leafrollers cause unacceptable crop damage in the apple orchard(s) for which you make recommendations?

 

  Frequency Percent
Never 21 17.5
Less than 1 out of every 5 years 62 51.7
About 1 out of every 5 years 17 14.2
About 2 out of every 5 years 9 7.5
About 3 out of every 5 years 4 3.3
About 4 out of every 5 years 5 4.2
Every year 2 1.6
Total 120 100.0
Missing = 0
C1

 

 
C2: If no controls were applied for leafroller this year, what level of crop injury would you expect by harvest?

 

  Frequency Percent
Less than 1% 11 9.2
1-2% 19 16.0
3-5% 32 26.9
6-10% 22 18.5
More than 10% 35 29.4
Total 119 100.0
Missing = 1
C2
 
C3a: During the 2009 growing season, did you recommend the following OP insecticides as a control for leafrollers?

 

  Frequency Percent
Lorsban (chlorpyrifos) 72 61.0
Guthion (azinphos methyl) 6 5.1
Imidan (phosmet) 5 4.2
Diazinon 3 2.5
Missing = 2
C3a
 
C3b: If you recommended the following OP insecticides as a control for leafrollers, please indicate the number of applications recommended for a typical orchard in 2009 (frequency, with percent in parentheses).

 

Number of applications Lorsban Guthion Imidan Diazinon
1 application 68 (94.4%) 2 (33.3%) 2 (40.0%) 2
(66.7%)
2 applications 2
(2.8%)
2 (33.3%) 30 (60.0%) 1
(33.3%)
3 applications 1
(1.4%)
2 (33.3%) 0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
4+ applications 1
(1.4%)
0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
Total 72 6 5 3
Skipped 0 0 0 0
N/A 48 114 115 117
C3b
 
C4: Did your use of OP insecticides (Guthion, Lorsban, Diazinon, and Imidan) for leafroller control decrease, remain about the same, or increase over the past three years (2007–2009)?

 

  Frequency Percent
My recommendation of OP insecticides for leafroller control decreased over the past three years 40 33.9
My recommendation of OP insecticides for leafroller control remained about the same over the past three years 47 39.8
My recommendation of OP insecticides for leafroller control increased over the past three years 2 1.7
I did not recommend OP insecticides in 2007–2009 29 24.6
Total 118 100.0
Missing = 2
C4
 
C5a: During the 2009 growing season, did you recommend any of the following OP alternatives as a control for leafroller?

 

Insecticide Frequency Percent
Delegate (spinetoram) 89 75.4
Intrepid (methoxyfenozide) 73 61.9
Altacor (rynaxypyr) 73 61.9
Entrust/Success (spinosad) 68 57.6
Proclaim (emamectin benzoate) 54 45.8
Horticultural spray oil 43 36.4
Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) 43 36.4
Esteem (pyriproxifen) 39 33.1
Rimon (novaluron) 38 32.2
Pheromones (mating disruption) 22 18.6
Warrior (lambda cyhalothrin) 10 8.5
Belt (flubendiamide) 5 4.2
Danitol (fenpropathrin) 2 1.7
Voliam Flexi 1 0.8
Voliam Express 1 0.8
Other 1 0.8
Missing = 2
C5a
 
C5b: If you recommended the following OP alternatives as a control for leafroller, please indicate the number of applications you recommended for a typical orchard in 2009 (frequency, with percent in parentheses).

 

  Number of applications      
Insecticide 1 2 3 4+ Total Skipped N/A
Delegate (spinetoram) 55 61.8%) 31 (34.8%) 2 (2.3%) 1 (1.1%) 89 (100%) 0 31
Intrepid (methoxyfenozide) 61 (85.9%) 5 (7.1%) 1 (1.4%) 4 (5.6%) 71 (100%) 2 47
Altacor (rynaxypyr) 45 (62.5%) 24 (33.3%) 2 (2.8%) 1 (1.4%) 72 (100%) 1 47
Entrust/Success (spinosad) 45 (68.2%) 19 (28.8%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (3.0%) 66 (100%) 2 52
Proclaim (emamectin benzoate) 48 (90.6%) 4 (7.5%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (1.9%) 53 (100%) 1 66
Horticultural spray oil 19 (47.5%) 8 (20.0%) 7 (17.5%) 6 (15.0%) 40 (100%) 3 77
Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) 15 (34.9%) 21 (48.8%) 5 (11.6%) 2 (4.7%) 43 (100%) 0 77
Esteem (pyrifoxen) 34 (89.5%) 3 (7.9%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (2.6%) 38 (100%) 1 81
Rimon (novaluron) 26 (68.4%) 10 (26.4%) 1 (2.6%) 1 (2.6%) 38 (100%) 0 82
Pheromones (mating disruption) 16 (72.7%) 5 (22.7%) 1 (4.6%) 0 (0.0%) 22 (100%) 0 98
Warrior (lambda-cyhalothrin) 7 (77.8%) 2 (22.2%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 9 (100%) 1 110
Belt (flubendiamide) 5 (100.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 5 (100%) 0 115
Danitol (fenpropathrin) 2 (100%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (100%) 0 118
Voliam Flexi 1 (100%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (100%) 0 119
Voliam Express 0 (0.0%) 1 (100%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (100%) 0 119
Other 0 (0.0%) 1 (100%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (100%) 0 119
C5b
 
C6: Did your recommendations of OP alternatives (listed in Question C5) for leafroller control decrease, remain about the same, or increase over the past three years (2007–2009)?

 

  Frequency Percent
My recommendation of OP alternatives for leafroller control decreased over the past three years. 14 12.0
My recommendation of OP alternatives for leafroller control remained about the same over the past three years. 53 45.3
My recommendation of OP alternatives for leafroller control increased over the past three years. 43 36.7
I did not recommend OP alternatives for leafroller control in 2007–2009. 7 6.0
Total 117 100.0
Missing = 3
C6
 
C7: Over the past three years did leafroller injury in the apple orchard(s) for which you make recommendations decrease,increase, or remain about the same?

 

  Frequency Percent
Leafroller injury decreased by more than 5% 25 21.2
Leafroller injury decreased by 2–5% 33 28.0
Leafroller injury remained about the same (± 0–2%) 55 46.6
Leafroller injury increased by 2–5% 5 4.2
Leafroller injury increased by more than 5% 0 0.0
Total 118 100.0
Missing = 2
C7


 
C8: Over the past three years did the cost of leafroller control in the apple orchard(s) for which you make recommendations decrease, increase, or remain about the same?

 

  Frequency Percent
The cost of leafroller control decreased by more than 10% 3 2.6
The cost of leafroller control decreased by 3–10% 10 8.5
The cost of leafroller control remained about the same (± 0–3%) 45 38.5
The cost of leafroller control increased by 3–10% 48 41.0
The cost of leafroller control increased by more than 10% 11 9.4
Total 117 100.0
Missing = 3
C8
 
C9: How often did you recommend the following IPM practices as part of your consulting program for leafrollers?

 

IPM tactic Never Rarely Occasionally Often Missing
Field monitoring for damage 1 (0.9%) 5 (4.3%) 10 (8.5%) 101 (86.3%) 3
Resistance management strategies 4 (3.5%) 5 (4.3%) 20 (17.2%) 87 (75.0%) 4
Degree day models 3 (2.5%) 11 (9.4%) 25 (21.4%) 78 (66.7%) 3
Economic or treatment thresholds 17 (14.5%) 14 (12.0%) 44 (37.6%) 42 (35.9%) 3
Pheromone traps 22 (18.8%) 25 (21.4%) 28 (23.9%) 42 (35.9%) 3
Biological controls (parasites or predators) 59 (50.9%) 23 (19.8%) 23 (19.8%) 11 (9.5%) 4
Border sprays 66 (56.4%) 21 (17.9%) 20 (17.1%) 10 (8.6%) 3
Reduced pesticide rates 72 (61.5%) 27 (23.1%) 15 (12.8%) 3 (2.6%) 3
Alternate row spraying 77 (66.9%) 24 (20.9%) 14 (12.2%) 0 (0.0%) 5
Other 7 (87.5%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (12.5%) 112
C9

 

 
C10: Did your recommendations of the IPM practices (listed in Question C9) as a control for leafroller decrease, remain the same, or increase over the past three years (2007–2009)? (frequency, with percent in parentheses)

 

 IPM tactic Did not use  Decreased  Same  Increased  Missing
Resistance management strategies 4 (3.4%) 2 (1.7%) 61 (51.2%) 52 (43.7%) 1
Degree day models 3 (2.5%) 2 (1.7%) 69 (58.0%) 45 (37.8%) 1
Field monitoring for damage 1 (0.8%) 3 (2.5%) 88 (74.0%) 27 (22.7%) 1
Economic or treatment thresholds 15 (12.7%) 4 (3.4%) 75 (63.6%) 24 (20.3%) 2
Pheromone traps 23 (19.3%) 5 (4.2%) 70 (58.8%) 21 (17.7%) 1
Biological controls (parasites or predators) 47 (39.5%) 0 (0.0%) 60 (50.4%) 12 (10.1%) 1
Border sprays 48 (40.3%) 6 (5.1%) 55 (46.2%) 10 (8.4%) 1
Reduced pesticide rates 59 (49.6%) 14 (11.7%) 39 (32.8%) 7 (5.9%) 1
Alternate row spraying 61 (51.2%) 9 (7.6%) 42 (35.3%) 7 (5.9%) 1
Other 4 (50.0%) 0 (0.0%) 4 (50.0%) 0 (0.0%) 112
C10
 
C11: What percentage of the apple acres for which you make recommendations do your answers to Questions C1 through C10 (questions about leafrollers) apply to?

 

  Frequency Percent
1-10% 1 0.9
11-25% 5 4.2
26-50% 7 5.9
51-75% 18 15.1
76-99% 43 36.1
100% 45 37.8
Total 119 100.0
Missing = 1
C11
 
 

Secondary content using h2 tag.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Heading using the h3 tag

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

WSU-Tree Fruit Research & Extension Center, 1100 N Western Ave., Wenatchee, WA 98801 509-663-8181, Contact Us