Final Report for FNE93-033

Project Type: Farmer
Funds awarded in 1993: $1,839.00
Projected End Date: 12/31/1993
Region: Northeast
State: Pennsylvania
Project Leader:
Expand All

Project Information

Summary:

Note to readers, attached is the complete final report for FNE93-033.

Mating disruption is very effective. One tie per tree floods the air with pheromone and I feel one treatment per season if sufficient. However, weather will play a factor in longevity of the ties. The major drawback is the cost. OFM ties were $65 per acre. Greater Peach Tree borer was $15 per acre, and the LPTB ties would be $15 per acre.

Added up that is $95 per acre. While conventional treatments for the same time would be about one half that amount. So at this time I do not feel disrupting is the best economically. I suggested to the companies to develop a multiple pest tie to possibly take care of all the major insects for a certain fruit. I do feel very positive and I think in time these things will work out. Advantages are ease and speed of handling. The ties are non-toxic and 100 can be placed in 20 minutes. I put a few on some young trees and did not spray all season and the control was perfect. This technology is very safe to the environment, so it is difficult to put a dollar value on that.

I feel the leafwetness recorder is an invaluable tool. I feel more work needs to be done to find a good seeding rate, type of seed and weather but I am encouraged that this will replace soil fumigation. While I conducted these projects, I talked to our local fruit growers group. In February 1994 I will be speaking at Hershey fruit growers convention which is the biggest show on the east. That same week I will speak at PA Organization of LISA. Finally, I will be speaking at least once at the local winter fruit growers meeting.

Cooperators

Click linked name(s) to expand
  • William Kleiner

Research

Participation Summary
Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture or SARE.