Survey Results
2008 Apple Grower Survey
The 2008 Washington apple grower and manager pest management survey went out in February of 2009 to survey practices used during the 2008 crop season. Returns came in during July 2009. Out of nearly 1500 orchard owners and managers recieving surveys, about 27% choose to participate representing close to 78,000 acreas. Summary results of this survey were analyzed Fall of 2009 and are now available to view online.
Grower 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) you own or manage?
| Frequency of crop damage |
Frequency |
Percent |
| Never |
142 |
35.8 |
| Less than 1 out of every 5 years |
147 |
37.0 |
| About 1 out of every 5 years |
38 |
9.6 |
| About 2 out of every 5 years |
42 |
10.6 |
| About 3 out of every 5 years |
12 |
3.0 |
| About 4 out of every 5 years |
3 |
0.7 |
| Every year |
13 |
3.3 |
| Total |
397 |
100.0 |
Missing = 6 |
|
 |
C2: If no controls were applied for leafroller this year, what level of crop injury would you expect by harvest? *
| Level of leafroller injury |
Frequency |
Percent |
| Less than 1% |
79 |
20.2 |
| 1-2% |
57 |
14.6 |
| 3-5% |
78 |
19.9 |
| 6-10% |
72 |
18.4 |
| More than 10% |
106 |
26.9 |
| Total |
391 |
100.0 |
Missing = 12 |
|
 |
C3a: During the 2008 growing season, did you use the OP insecticides as a control for leafroller?
| OP Insecticide |
Frequency |
Percent |
Missing |
| Lorsban (chlorpyrifos) |
229 |
58.9 |
14 |
| Guthion (azinphos methyl) |
114 |
29.4 |
15 |
| Imidan (phosmet) |
54 |
14.1 |
20 |
| Diazinon |
19 |
5.0 |
20 |
|
 |
C3b: If you used the following OP insecticides as a control for leafrollers, please indicate the number of applications you used in 2008 (frequency with percent in parentheses).
Number of applications |
Guthion |
Chloropyrifos |
Imidan |
Diazinon |
| 1 application |
32 (29.1%) |
211
(94.2%) |
38 (73.1%) |
14 (82.4%) |
| 2 applications |
36 (32.7%) |
13
(5.8%) |
11 (21.2%) |
3
(17.6%) |
| 3 applications |
32 (29.1%) |
0
(0%) |
2 (3.8%) |
0 (0%) |
| 4+ applications |
10 (9.1%) |
0 (0%) |
1 (1.9%) |
0 (0%) |
| Total |
110 |
224 |
52 |
17 |
| Skipped |
274 |
160 |
329 |
364 |
| Missing |
19 |
19 |
22 |
22 |
|
 |
C4: Did your use of OP insecticides (Guthion, Lorsban, Diazinon, and Imidan) for leafroller control over the past three years (2006-2008) change?
| Change in OP use |
Frequency |
Percent |
| My use of OP insecticides for leafrooler control decreased over the past three years. |
114 |
29.9 |
| My use of OP insecticides for leafroller control remained about the same over the past three years. |
210 |
55.1 |
| My use of OP insecticides for leafroller control increased over the past three years. |
10 |
2.6 |
| I did not use OP insecticides over the past three years. |
47 |
12.4 |
| Total |
381 |
100.0 |
Missing = 22 |
|
 |
C5a: During the 2008 growing season, did you use the OP alternatives as a control for leafroller?
Insecticide |
Frequency |
Percent |
Missing |
| Horticultural spray oil |
253 |
64.9 |
13 |
| Delegate (spinetoram) |
210 |
54.3 |
16 |
| Success (spinosad)¹ |
193 |
49.9 |
16 |
| Intrepid (methoxyfenozide) |
173 |
44.8 |
17 |
| Altacor (rynaxypyr) |
105 |
27.7 |
24 |
| Proclaim (emamectin benzoate) |
90 |
23.5 |
20 |
| Esteem (pyriproxifen) |
86 |
22.9 |
27 |
| Rimon (novaluron) |
81 |
21.3 |
22 |
| Entrust/Success (spinosad) ¹ |
54 |
14.2 |
23 |
| Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) |
34 |
8.9 |
22 |
| Pheromones (mating disruption) |
|
|
|
| Other |
|
|
|
| ¹ Success was (unintentionally) listed twice as a choice for leafroller, once as Success and once as Success/Entrust |
|
Other:
• Warrior (2)
• Assail (1)
• Surround (1) |
|
 |
C5b: If you used the following OP alternatives as a control for leafroller, please indicate the number of applications you used in 2008 (frequency with percent in parentheses).
| OP alternative |
Number of applications |
|
| |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4+ |
Total |
Skipped |
Missing |
| Horticulural spray oil |
87 (53.7%) |
39 (24.1%) |
15 (9.2%) |
21 (13.0%) |
162 |
196 |
45 |
| Delegate (spinetoram) |
110 (75.9%) |
34 (23.4%) |
1 (0.7%) |
0 (0%) |
145 |
222 |
36 |
| Success (spinosad) |
111 (82.8%) |
20 (14.9%) |
3 (2.3%) |
0 (0%) |
134 |
232 |
37 |
| Intrepid (methoxyfenozide) |
104 (89.6%) |
11 (9.5%) |
1 (0.9%) |
0 (0%) |
116 |
251 |
36 |
| Altacor (rynaxypyr) |
43 (63.2%) |
23 (33.8%) |
2 (3.0%) |
0 (0%) |
68 |
303 |
32 |
| Proclaim (emamectin benzoate) |
57 (93.4%) |
4 (6.6%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
61 |
301 |
41 |
| Esteem (pyriproxifen) |
45 (83.3%) |
9 (16.7%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
54 |
315 |
34 |
| Rimon (novaluron) |
42 (76.4%) |
12 (21.8%) |
1 (1.8%) |
0 (0%) |
55 |
314 |
34 |
| Entrust/Success (spinosad) |
31 (72.1%) |
7 (16.3%) |
5 (11.6%) |
0 (0%) |
43 |
318 |
42 |
| Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) |
19 (73.1%) |
6 (23.1%) |
1 (3.8%) |
0 (0%) |
26 |
332 |
45 |
| Pheromones (mating disruption) |
25 (100%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
25 |
350 |
28 |
| Other (see C5a) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
1 (100%) |
0 (0%) |
1 |
402 |
0 |
|
 |
C6: Did your use of OP alternatives (listed in the previous question) for leafroller control decrease, remain about the same, or increase over the past three years (2006-2008)?
| OP alternative use |
Frequency |
Percent |
| My use of OP alternatives for leafroller control decreased over the past three years. |
47 |
12.2 |
| My use of OP alternatives for leafroller control remained about the same over the past three years. |
197 |
51.2 |
| My use of OP alternatives for codling leafroller increased over the past three years. |
96 |
24.9 |
| I did not use OP alternatives for leafroller control over the past three years. |
45 |
11.7 |
| Total |
385 |
100.0 |
Missing = 18 |
|
 |
C7: Over the past three years did leafroller injury in the apple orchard(s) you own or manage decrease, remain about the same, or increase?
| Change in leafroller injury |
Frequency |
Percent |
| leafroller injury decreased by more than 5% |
52 |
13.6 |
| leafroller injury decreased by 2-5% |
48 |
12.5 |
| leafroller injury remained about the same (± 0-2%) |
262 |
68.2 |
| leafroller injury increased by 2-5% |
18 |
4.7 |
| leafroller injury increased by more than 5% |
4 |
1.0 |
| Total |
384 |
100.0 |
Missing = 19 |
|
 |
C8: Over the past three years did the cost of leafroller control in the apple orchard(s) you own or manage decrease, remain about the same, or increase?
| Change in cost of leafroller control |
Frequency |
Percent |
| The cost of leafroller control decreased by more than 10% |
15 |
3.9 |
| The cost of leafroller control decreased by 3-10% |
14 |
3.7 |
| The cost of leafroller control remained about the same (± 0-3%) |
157 |
40.9 |
| The cost of leafroller control increased by 3-10% |
133 |
34.6 |
| The cost of leafroller control increased by more than 10% |
65 |
16.9 |
| Total |
384 |
100.0 |
Missing = 19 |
|
 |
C9: How often did you use the following IPM practices as part of your management program for leafrollers?
| IPM tactic |
Never |
Rarely |
Occasionally |
Often |
Missing |
| Field monitoring for damage |
22 (5.8%) |
21 (5.5%) |
85 (22.4%) |
252 (66.3%) |
23 |
| Resistance management strategies |
129 (36.5%) |
32 (9.1%) |
62 (17.6%) |
130 (36.8%) |
50 |
| Degree day models |
130 (36.8%) |
26 (7.4%) |
69 (19.5%) |
128 (36.3%) |
50 |
| Economic or treatment thresholds |
144 (41.3%) |
43 (12.3%) |
79 (22.6%) |
83 (23.8%) |
54 |
| Pheromone traps |
214 (59.8%) |
32 (8.9%) |
31 (8.7%) |
81 (22.6%) |
45 |
| Border sprays |
222 (62.2%) |
51 (14.3%) |
51 (14.3%) |
33 (9.2%) |
46 |
| Biological controls (parasites or predators) |
245 (70.6%) |
42 (12.1%) |
29 (8.4%) |
31 (8.9%) |
56 |
| Alternate row spraying |
261 (74.4%) |
50 (14.2%) |
26 (7.4%) |
14 (4.0%) |
52 |
| Reduced pesticide rates |
242 (68.8%) |
56 (15.9%) |
40 (11.4%) |
14 (4.0%) |
51 |
| Other |
58 (95.1%) |
2 (3.3%) |
0 (0%) |
1 (1.6%) |
342 |
|
Other
• Not much control
• Material alternator
• Alternate row spraying (future)
• Surround
• Checked traps no problem
|
 |
C10: Did your use of the IPM practices as a control for leafroller change?
| IPM tactic |
Did not use |
Decreased |
Same |
Increased |
Missing |
| Field monitoring for damage |
19 (5.2%) |
11 (3.0%) |
264 (71.9%) |
73 (19.9%) |
36 |
| Resistance management strategies |
83 (24.2%) |
11 (3.0%) |
181 (52.8%) |
68 (19.8%) |
60 |
| Degree day models |
90 (26.0%) |
12 (3.5%) |
184 (53.2%) |
60 (17.3%) |
57 |
| Economic or treatment thresholds |
90 (26.0%) |
12 (3.5%) |
204 (59.3%) |
38 (11.0%) |
59 |
| Pheromone traps |
130 (37.2%) |
22 (6.3%) |
168 (48.1%) |
29 (8.3%) |
54 |
| Biological controls (parasites or predators) |
164 (47.7%) |
15 (4.4%) |
148 (43.0%) |
17 (4.9%) |
59 |
| Border sprays |
140 (40.5%) |
23 (6.6%) |
168 (48.6%) |
15 (4.3%) |
57 |
| Reduced pesticide rates |
151 (43.9%) |
25 (7.3%) |
157 (45.6%) |
11 (3.2%) |
59 |
| Alternate row spraying |
168 (48.4%) |
24 (6.9%) |
149 (42.9%) |
6 (1.7%) |
56 |
| Other |
46 (53.5%) |
6 (7.0%) |
33 (38.4%) |
1 (1.2%) |
317 |
|
Other
• Surround
• Done with survey!! Survey is too
long!! Message to (name) and (name) –
Keep it short and simple. I’m sick of
farming tree fruits for no income!! I just
don’t care anymore!!
• For border sprays: Only with total area
sprays
|
 |
C11: What percentage of the apple acres you own or manage do your answers to Questions C1 through C10 (questions about leafrollers) apply to?
| Percentage of acreage |
Frequency |
Percent |
| 1-10% |
19 |
5.1 |
| 11-25% |
8 |
2.1 |
| 26-50% |
13 |
3.5 |
| 51-75% |
20 |
5.4 |
| 76-99% |
27 |
7.3 |
| 100% |
285 |
76.6 |
| Total |
372 |
100.0 |
Missing = 31 |
|
 |
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.
