Open Forum: In an attempt to promote free and open discussion of issues, Agrichemical and Environmental News encourages letters and articles with differing views. To discuss submission of an article, please contact Dr. Allan Felsot at (509) 372-7365 or afelsot@tricity.wsu.edu; Dr. Catherine Daniels at (253) 445-4611 or cdaniels@tricity.wsu.edu; Dr. Doug Walsh at (509) 786-2226 or dwalsh@tricity.wsu.edu; Dr. Vincent Hebert at (509) 372-7393 or vhebert@tricity.wsu.edu; or AENews editor Sally O'Neal Coates at (509) 372-7378 or scoates@tricity.wsu.edu. EDITORIAL POLICY, GUIDELINES FOR SUBMISSION.

Go to Agrichemical and Environmental News Index

Go to WSPRS (Washington State Pest Management Resource Service) Home Page

Growing the Dry Bean Market

WSU and Bean/Cowpea CRSP Work to Expand Viability of Beans in Africa and at Home

Dr. Carol A. Miles, Agricultural Systems Specialist, with Madhu Sonde, Research Assistant, WSU

Dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) are the most important grain legume in the world for direct human consumption. Varieties of dry beans are widely cultivated in tropical, subtropical and temperate regions. They are a relatively low-cost food and they promote health with their high nutritive value. Indeed, dry beans can be considered a nearly perfect food based on their high protein content and high levels of fiber, complex carbohydrates, and other essential vitamins and minerals. A cup of cooked dry beans contains more calcium and iron than three ounces of cooked meat but contains no cholesterol, little fat, and few calories. They are the second most important source of human dietary protein worldwide and the third most important source of calories.

The Bean/Cowpea Collaborative Research Support Program (CRSP) was established by the United States Agency for International Development in 1980. The purpose of the Bean/Cowpea CRSP has been to increase the availability and utilization of high quality dry beans and cowpeas worldwide. “Cowpeas” are various Vigna spp. including the crop known commonly in the United States as “black-eyed pea" and they have properties similar to dry beans. The Bean/Cowpea CRSP has collaborative research programs in three regions of the world: East and Southern Africa, West Africa, and Latin America/Caribbean.

WSU - Bean/Cowpea CRSP’s Work in Africa

Washington State University (WSU) has been a major participant in the Bean/Cowpea CRSP in East Africa since the program’s inception. WSU scientists have conducted research and education activities to directly benefit farmers in East Africa as well as farmers in the United States. Today the WSU component of the Bean/Cowpea CRSP is working with scientists at the University of Malawi and Sokoine University of Agriculture in Tanzania to investigate dry bean seed production and dissemination systems, to investigate seed quality issues, and to develop new improved dry bean varieties.

I have led WSU’s Bean/Cowpea CRSP efforts in recent years, conducting research primarily at the university’s Vancouver Research and Extension Unit. My group’s efforts have been directed at developing sustainable dry bean production systems in the African nations of Malawi and Tanzania as well as here in Washington State by:

• Establishing participatory on-farm research trials to evaluate variety performance and to provide feedback to breeders to promote effective bean selection and breeding processes.
• Multiplying foundation, certified, and quality-declared seed or farmer-approved seed of Bean/Cowpea CRSP varieties to enhance maximum dissemination to rural communities.
• Studying the potential to reduce disease pressure from halo blight (Pseudomonas syringae) in the field and greenhouse.

In 2002, Dr. Phil Miklas, a Plant Research Geneticist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS), joined the Bean/Cowpea CRSP team. Dr. Miklas, based out of the WSU Irrigated Agriculture Research and Extension Center that USDA-ARS shares with WSU in Prosser, will be working in Tanzania and Washington to develop new improved bean varieties. Our collaborations with Dr. Miklas, such as on-farm trials in Moses Lake and Lopez Island, will expand the Bean/Cowpea CRSP’s impact both at home and abroad.

WSU/CRSP’s Work in Washington State

Here in the United States, per capita consumption of dry beans has increased from 5.1 pounds per person in 1984 to 8.1 pounds per person in 1999, a 58% increase. This increasing popularity creates a viable opportunity for expanding dry beans into niche markets. Dry beans are healthful and are available in many different colors and sizes, making them a viable alternative crop from a marketing standpoint for direct market farmers who are able to capture a high price for their produce. For example, in 2002 organic cranberry dry beans sold in the Olympia and Seattle farmers markets for $2.55 per pound. Dry beans are also suitable for niche markets from a production standpoint as they are relatively easy to grow and store. While dry beans are generally considered a large-scale bulk commodity crop, they need little in the way of specialized equipment, require low inputs, and store well, making the crop feasible for small-scale production.

This article will center on my group’s efforts in Vancouver, discussing the findings of our recent variety trials, halo blight disease research, and marketing studies directed at expanding niche markets in western Washington State.

Dry Bean Variety Trials

At Washington State University we have been investigating the potential to produce niche market dry bean varieties over the past three seasons, conducting our preliminary trials at the WSU Vancouver Research and Extension Station in western Washington. In Washington, as throughout the United States, dry beans are mainly grown on a large scale for bulk commodity markets; most of the large-scale production in Washington takes place in the Columbia Basin. In 2002, 82 million pounds of dry beans were produced on 41,000 acres and were valued at $16.6 million. In a survey that we conducted in 2002 we found that thirty-seven small-scale farmers grew dry beans in Washington for niche markets; of these, twenty-nine were located in western Washington. Much is known about large-scale bean production but little information is available regarding small-scale niche market production. A primary criterion for variety suitability in Washington (especially western Washington) is early maturity. Cool summer temperatures in the western part of the state result in slower growth; most varieties are harvested fifteen or more days later here than in the Midwest.

We planted 53 varieties of dry bean in 2001, 64 varieties in 2002, and 115 varieties this year (2003). Each year’s experimental plots were planted in a randomized complete block design with four replications. Plots were two rows wide and ten feet long, with two feet between rows and two inches of spacing within the rows. Our field site is certified organic and has been maintained accordingly. The plots were mechanically cultivated once a week to control weeds between rows and hand weeded to control in-row weeds as needed from July through August. We measured and recorded the number of days after planting (DAP) to emergence, date of first flower, date by which 50% of plants had flowered, date of harvest, number of plants in the stand, and height of plants. We harvested the bean plants from the center five feet of each double-row plot for a total harvest area of ten linear feet per plot. Whole plants were harvested, placed in burlap bags, and dried in field ovens for sixteen hours at 68^o C, until seed moisture was approximately 12%. We then selected ten pods at random from each plot harvest and measured pod length. We threshed and cleaned all the beans from each plot by hand and measured the total marketable bean weight. We also measured the weight of one hundred beans and the length and width of twenty-five beans from each plot.

Dry beans were harvested 105 to 139 days after planting, depending on variety (Table 1, at the end of this article following the references). We harvested at maturity, which, in the case of dry beans, means when pods are fully dried but have not yet shattered (harvesting after pod shatter leads to lower yield). Mean yield for a 10-foot row was about 1 lb., but yield differed significantly among varieties. In 2001, Pinks and Cranberry were the highest yielding types of beans whereas in 2002, Dark Red Kidney and White Kidney were the highest yielding types. Disease pressures emerged in the 2002 trials that are discussed in greater detail in the following section.

Our trial results indicate that more than fifty varieties of dry beans can be produced in western Washington. We found that the limiting factor to small-scale production of dry beans is suitable and affordable small-scale threshing equipment. A complete report of our variety trial is on the Web at http://SustainableSeedSystems.wsu.edu/nicheMarket/02DBVarietyReport.pdf.

Halo Blight Study

Halo blight (Pseudomonas syringae) can be a serious pest in dry beans, reducing yields and/or rendering the beans unmarketable. The first symptom is water-soaked spots followed by irregular brown spots on leaves' undersides. Later, spots show through the upper surface, usually surrounded by the characteristic yellow halo and often covered with a superficial bacterial sheen. Defoliation occurs in severe infections. Leaves on systemically infected plants may show yellowing and malformation without the appearance of necrotic symptoms. Infected plants often are stunted. Pods may turn dark and greasy-looking, with water-soaked spots and a bacterial ooze. Reddish, waxy cankers can develop on the stems, girdling and killing the bean plants. Halo blight is of concern to us because it is seed borne. If a farmer stores seed from infected plants, then the disease is very likely to affect the next crop very early in the season, when crop health and yield can be most seriously impacted. In a survey that we conducted in Washington in 2002 (discussed in the next section) we found that almost half of small-scale farmers saved dry bean seed from their fields.

In our variety trials described above, we first observed virus and halo blight symptoms on our bean plants in the field on July 1, 2002. Symptoms increased in severity and spread through the field as the season progressed. Cannellini, Dwayne Baptiste, Speckled Bays, Tongue of Fire, Celina’s Romano, Maine Yellow Eye, Nugget, and Serene were affected by halo blight. Cannellini, Andrew Kent, Speckled Bays, Orca, Trout/Jacob’s Cattle, Beka, Hutterite, Maefax, and Zert were affected by a poty virus. (Mosaic viruses such as bean common mosaic virus and bean yellow mosaic virus are caused by various species of the genus Potyvirus.) The incidence of disease in the 2002 trials led us to initiate a greenhouse research project in the winter of 2003. We concentrated on halo blight.

Our research team selected a random sample of seed from each of the eight varieties of dry beans that exhibited halo blight in our 2002 field trials and planted them in the greenhouse in January 2003. The study design was a randomized complete block with six replications. Beans were planted in one-gallon pots. Plants were observed for symptoms of halo blight throughout the growing period and seed was harvested in May. No halo blight symptoms were observed on plants or seeds. However, seeds carrying halo blight do not necessary exhibit visible symptoms. The next step will be to conduct laboratory analysis to determine whether the resulting seeds are free of halo blight.

Our objective in conducting this study was to determine if we could reduce the disease pressure due to halo blight by growing seed in an environment not conducive to disease development, i.e., in a greenhouse. If this method proves effective, we hope to provide our African colleagues with a simple technique that they can use to reduce the disease pressure in their seed stocks. In Tanzania and Malawi, seed is produced in the field and the environmental conditions are highly conducive to halo blight as well as other diseases. However, the African researchers have screenhouses on site, which they may be able to use in the off-season to grow beans for seed stock.

Dry Bean Niche Marketing in Washington

Toward the goal of expanding niche marketing of dry beans in Washington State, we have conducted both information gathering and information dissemination. Surveying growers was a vital first step in understanding producers' concerns. Providing information to both consumers and growers was the next step.

To better understand farmers’ problems in growing, storing, and marketing dry beans, we developed a short (thirteen questions) questionnaire and distributed it to 124 farmers. The survey was distributed via U.S. mail, then followed up through email (30) and telephone interviews (88). We found that telephone interviews were the most successful method of obtaining survey responses (65% response).

Forty-six farmers from eighteen counties in Washington responded to our survey. Seventeen (37%) respondents were located in eastern Washington and 29 (63%) were in western Washington. Eleven of the respondents in eastern Washington were in the Columbia Basin, of which nine were large-scale farmers who grew dry beans on 18 to 450 acres each, 155 acres on average. In contrast, 37 farmers who responded to our survey were small-scale farmers, each with a total dry bean production area of a minimum of 10 row-feet and a maximum of 1.25 acres, 0.13 acre on average.

All the large-scale farmer respondents were men, while just over half (57%) of the small-scale farmer respondents were women. These results imply that women actively participate in small-scale dry bean farming and do not participate in large-scale farming. Important findings from this survey were that small-scale farmers are currently growing dry beans in Washington, that most of these small-scale farmers were located in western Washington, that most were organic growers, and that most faced no serious problems with regard to pests either in the field or in storage. This survey did not adequately capture the large-scale dry bean producers in the state and therefore we feel that these survey results do not necessarily reflect the production issues experienced by large-scale farmers. A complete report from our survey can be found on the Internet at http://SustainableSeedSystems.wsu.edu.

Because of the relative ease of production and storage of dry beans and their long marketing window, dry beans have the potential to become an important crop for many small-scale farmers in the Pacific Northwest and elsewhere in the United States.

Next, we set out to spread the word about our research, educating both producers and consumers about dry beans. We have developed a Web page at http://SustainableSeedSystems.wsu.edu/nicheMarket/index.html on which you will find

• a publication entitled “Dry Bean Varieties for Niche Markets in the USA,” which describes and depicts (in a color photograph) 56 different dry bean varieties, emphasizing those most suitable for niche markets based upon our research;
• a consumer-oriented tri-fold brochure on dry beans, including their nutritional properties, how to reduce the flatulence they can cause, and how to select, cook, and store them;
• the complete report on our variety trials; and
• our grower survey.

We are committed to expanding knowledge among consumers and growers about dry beans. In addition to the Web page and marketing described above, we have conducted educational presentations on dry beans at small farm conferences, home garden workshops, and diabetes seminars. By promoting dry beans “from the ground up,” we believe we can grow the market for this commodity as a tasty, nutritious, economical food and a profitable niche-market crop.

Carol Miles and Madhu Sonde are with the WSU Vancouver Research and Extension Unit. They can be reached at milesc@wsu.edu or (360) 576-6030.

REFERENCES

Belshe, D., M. Boland, S. Daniel and D. O’Brien. 2001. Economic issues with dry-edible beans. Kansas State University.

CIAT 1993. Trends in CIAT commodities. Working Document No. 128. CIAT, Cali. Colombia.

Masangano, C. M. and C. A. Miles. 2003. Factors influencing farmers' adoption of Kalima bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) variety in Malawi. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture. In press.

Pachico, D. 1993. The demand for bean technology. In: Henry G., ed. Trends in CIAT commodities 1993. CIAT, Cali, Colombia. pp. 60-73.

USDA. 2003. Dry edible beans: Area planted and harvested, yield, and production by state and United States, 2000-2002. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/field/pcp-bban/cropan03.txt

TABLE 1
Harvest days after planting (DAP), total dry bean weight (grams) from 10-feet row and weight of 100 beans (grams) of dry beans grown at WSU Vancouver REU in 2001 and 2002.
Type and Variety		Harvest DAP		Total Bean Weight (g)		100-Bean Weight (g)
		2001	2002	2001	2002	2001	2002
Dark Red Kidney			115
	Montcalm	112	115	431.2	786.1	51.9	84.9
Light Red Kidney			113
	CELRK	110	115	437.9	499.4	63	59.5
	Kardinal	117	116	479.9	586	57	63.2
	Kintoki		108		672.6		67.5
White Kidney			118
	Cannellini	115	118	320.4	528	59.3	52.2
	Dwane Baptiste		118		708.1		57
Small White/Navy			116
	Arthur	112	118	481.5	496	14.7	16.8
	Norstar	112	115	465.6	364	17.8	17.7
Small Red/Red Mexican			110
	LeBaron	110	108	344.4	401.5	34.7	61.3
	Montezuma Red	111	110	401	606.2	36.3	35
	NW-63	116	113	655	513.2	34.6	33.6
Pink			112
	UI-537	115	110	592.9	369.7	36.4	33.3
	Pinks		115		459.2		33.3
Black			114
	UI-911	118	119	487.1	605.8	20.1	20.4
	Black Coco	118	118	416.7	584.5	54.3	56.1
	Major		105		649.1		36
	Midnight Black Turtle	118	117	517.4	633.8	17.9	18.8
Cranberry			116
	Andrew Kent	120	123	572.6	685.3	58.3	74.4
	Candy		119		436.1		139
	Cardinal	119	117	452.8	506.6	63.8	62
	Etna	114	112	639.5	608	69.7	62.5
	Speckled Bays	116	114	357.1	400.5	49.5	49.4
	Thort	114	113	452.2	532	55.3	53.7
	Tongue of Fire	116	113	502.9	294.9	58.8	52
	Vermont Cranberry	112	116	457.1	530.5	48.8	48.5
Yellow Eye/Partially Colored			114
	Celina's Romano		114		161.3		54.3
	Magpie		119		746.4		35.2
	Maine Yellow Eye	114	114	285.5	401.5	43.5	46.9
	Molasses Face		108		562.8		45.7
	Old Fashioned Soldier	114	113	575.9	634.6	66.2	55
	Orca (USWA-27)	117	116	435.2	563.1	32.5	35.4
(no photo)	Red Soldier		113		510.1		59.5
	Trout/Jacobs Cattle	114	112	394.3	357.7	66.5	66.7
Brown or Yellow Beans			112
	Beka		112		617.6		42.4
	Childer's Golden		114		224.8		21.6
	Hutterite		117		308.5		47.2
	Ireland Creek		112		554.1		54.5
	Lake Kivu		111		541.7		52.1
	Maefax		109		550.9		41.8
	Norwegian		108		664.2		37.8
	Zert		112		549.6		44.8
Flageolet			122
	French Flageolet	115	122	518.1	417.1	25.4	31.5
	French Shell Flambeau		131		575.6		27.6
(no photo)	Nugget		113		256.2		32
Other			117
	G18689	115	119	681.3	756.2	23.6	40.9
	Mansel Magic		113		627.7		100.2
	Mrocumiere		121		628.9		54.7
	Royal Burgundy		139		374		49.3
	Serene		112		327.4		66.2
(no photo)	Stevenson Blue Eye		119		487.4		50.3
Mean		115	111	446	497.7	47	47.5
P Value		0.0001	0.0001	0.0001	0	0.0001	0

Go to this issue's Table of Contents

Go to Agrichemical and Environmental News Index

Go to WSPRS (Washington State Pest Management Resource Service) Home Page

Pesticide Use and IPM Practices in Washington’s Pear and Cherry Orchards

Dr. Jay F. Brunner, Dr. John Dunley, Wendy Jones, Dr. Elizabeth Beers, Gerald V. Tangren, Dr. Chang-lin Xiao, and Dr. Gary G. Grove

In a previous Agrichemical and Environmental News article (Brunner et al. 2003), we discussed a decade of IPM practices on apple in Washington. This companion article discusses a decade of IPM practices in pear and presents some new data on sweet cherry.

Passage of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996 has probably impacted the use and availability of pesticides on apple to a greater extent than on pear and cherry. While pear is an important food in the diets of infants and children, insect management programs in pear rely less upon organophosphate insecticides than those in apple. And while organophosphate and carbamate insecticides are used on sweet cherry, this crop is not considered as important in the diets of infants and children as pome fruits such as apple and pear.

Pear and Cherry Pest Management Today

A comprehensive pear pesticide use survey was conducted in Washington in 1990 (Beers and Brunner 1991). The United States Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) initiated pesticide use surveys in 1991 and has conducted these every other year on fruit crops (NASS 1992, 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002). 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 provided by the 1990 survey in Washington. No comprehensive survey has been conducted for pesticide use and IPM practices on sweet cherry production in Washington.

The lack of data on pesticide use patterns and IPM practices has had many ramifications. Without data it is difficult to counter claims by anti-pesticide groups about how pesticides are actually being used. As educators it is important for us to document what IPM practices are being followed, over time, in Washington tree fruit crops in order to design and evaluate our outreach programs. The reasons for new data on pesticide use and IPM practices were further outlined in the previous article (Brunner et al. 2003).

The 2000 Survey

We prepared separate pest management practices surveys for pear and cherry using previous surveys as templates (Beers and Brunner 1991). We updated the technical content using the 2000 Crop Protection Guide (Smith et al. 2000). Each survey was reviewed by industry experts for accuracy and applicability. A standardized format was adopted for the surveys to allow for easier comparison and data entry; the format was designed to be as grower-friendly as possible and an electronic version of each survey was made available via the World Wide Web.

Each survey consisted of three parts: Part 1 dealt with general questions regarding the grower’s overall orchard operations; Part 2 pertained to a specific block (i.e., growing unit); and Part 3 contained detailed questions about pest management and horticultural practices broken into time intervals corresponding to growth stages and spray periods. (Examples of the survey questionnaires can be downloaded at Internet URL http://opus.tfrec.wsu.edu/~wjones/Survey2000/.)

Survey recipients for pear and sweet cherry were selected randomly from lists of growers and orchard managers provided by a statewide industry organization of tree fruit growers. In early March 2001, 863 pear and 499 cherry surveys were mailed. Return postage was pre-paid, responses were anonymous, and recipients were given approximately 45 days to respond. Growers answered questions based on the previous (2000) growing season.

Characterization of Farming Operations

Part I of the survey directed respondents to answer questions intended to characterized their farming operations as to general location; as being full-time or part-time; and as being conventional, organic, or transitional to organic. They were also asked which fruit crops and varieties, along with how many acres of each they grew.

Pest Management Advice

Fruit growers in Washington receive information and advice from private consultants, agricultural chemical industry fieldmen, fieldmen employed by growers or packinghouses, and university Cooperative Extension agents. Survey recipients were asked to rate these various information sources as being “very important,” “somewhat important,” or “not important” in helping to make pest control decisions.

Pest Management Activities

Washington state tree fruit growers employ a variety of pest management practices to help reduce reliance on pesticides as their 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 on a block (i.e., portion) of the farm that represented his or her typical pesticide use pattern. Questions included size of block, planting density, varieties planted, percentage of each variety planted, irrigation methods, cover crop management, and tree training system.

Reporting of Pesticide Use

We requested that the growers 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 target pest for each occasion a pesticide application was made.

Data Analysis

Surveys were screened to eliminate incomplete, imprecise, or unanswered 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.

Pear Pesticide Use and IPM Practices

In 1990, of the 1,068 surveys sent to active pear growers, 331 (31%) were completed and returned. These 331 growers produced pears on 9,682 acres representing approximately 39.3% of the total acres of pears grown in Washington (WASS 1995). In 2000, of the 863 surveys sent to prospective pear growers, 190 (22%) were returned, but of those only 129 (15% of the total sent) were complete and usable. The responses came from eight major growing regions across the state, representing a total of 3,160 production acres, or about 12.9% of the bearing pear acreage in Washington (WASS 2001). While the 2000 survey returns for pear were lower as a proportion of the total state acreage than those in 1990, the data should still reflect current trends in pesticide use and IPM practices in Washington pear production.

Changes in Farming Operations

The percentage of respondents reporting as full-time growers increased slightly from 82.5% in 1990 to 88.8% in 2000. There was a corresponding slight decrease in respondents categorizing themselves as part-time growers in 2000, 11.2%, compared with 17.5% in the 1990 survey. This means that about the same proportion of pear growers was dependant on off-farm income in both years. The average farm size of full-time growers was 137 acres compared to 24 acres for part-time growers. Most of the 2000 survey respondents (79.9%) characterized themselves as using conventional pest control practices. The remainder of growers were either certified organic (4.3%), were transitional organic (2.7%), or had some pear production under conventional and some organic management (13.4%) (Table 1). The most significant change from the 1990 survey was the increase in the number of growers involved in organic and transitional to organic production. In 1990, only 4.2% of the growers reported being involved in any organic production, while in 2000, over 20% reported activity in organic production. These data agree with other survey results showing a rapid increase in organic pear production in the late 1990s (Granatstein and Kirby 2002).

Pest Management Advice

Potential sources of pest management information and advice and the survey respondents’ ranking of their usefulness are summarized in Table 2.

A majority of growers identified professional crop consultants (private consultants, agricultural chemical fieldmen, packinghouse fieldmen) as being “very” or “somewhat” important resources for making pest management decisions in both years. Washington State University’s Crop Protection Guide and Cooperative Extension were identified by a majority of growers (78% and 74%, respectively) as being “very” or “somewhat” important in helping them make pest management decisions as well. Growers seem to rely more upon advice from other growers relative to their own experience, an interesting and somewhat perplexing finding.

Pest Management Practices

Table 3 summarizes use of pear pest management practices in 1990 and 2000. Whether conducted by the grower or a professional crop consultant, orchard monitoring was the most often used pest management practice, being identified by over 90% of the growers in both years. Alternate row spraying is a technique frequently used in parts of the eastern United States as a method for decreasing the overall amount of pesticide applied (Asquith and Hull 1979). The percent of growers reported using this method in pear declined slightly from the 1990 to 2000 survey, 44% to 38%. Reducing pesticide rates is a common practice in tree fruit pest management and, along with the choice of more selective chemicals, helps conserve certain beneficial species important in controlling pests such as pear psylla. The percent of growers that reported using reduced rates stayed the same, 67%, in both years. There was also no change in the percent of growers reporting the use of economic thresholds in their decision making for pest control. There was a slight increase in the percent of the growers who reported using pheromone traps in 2000, to 78% from 68%. The percent of growers indicating use of biological control in their pest management efforts increased from 58% to 64% over the decade. Questions about the use of degree-day models and integrated mite management were new in the 2000 survey. Seventy-seven percent of pear growers reported using degree-day models and 64% reported using integrated mite management. These results show that Washington pear growers are using slightly more IPM practices than a decade ago and the most important IPM practices (monitoring, biological control, use of models and economic thresholds) are used by over 60% of the growers.

Use of Mating Disruption

Mating disruption was not available in 1990 as a control for codling moth but questions about its use in pear were included in the 2000 survey. By 2000, about 50% of apple acreage in the state had adopted codling moth mating disruption, but this technique’s use in pear was not well documented. Pear growers surveyed were asked if they used mating disruption and if that use had increased or decreased since they first began using it. Results are shown in Table 4. Sixty-four percent of the pear growers reported using mating disruption and they had used it for an average of almost three years. The majority of the growers (75%) reported an increase in their use of mating disruption. Of those that reported decreased use of mating disruption, most cited that the orchard had been removed, that the method was too expensive, or that they experienced increased damage by codling moth or (more typically) other pests (Table 4).