MSU Listserv


MICH-ORGANIC Archives

MICH-ORGANIC Archives


MICH-ORGANIC@LIST.MSU.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV at MSU

LISTSERV at MSU

MICH-ORGANIC Home

MICH-ORGANIC Home

MICH-ORGANIC  May 2008

MICH-ORGANIC May 2008

Subject:

codling moth info from MSU

From:

Vicki Morrone <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Vicki Morrone <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 21 May 2008 16:43:01 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (1 lines)

Dear apple growers,

If you are learning about Codling Moth this info may be helpful. It was published in MSU IPM notes: http://ipm.msu.edu/fruitpests/codlingmoth.htm
About codling moth of apples and pears Home > fruit > codling moth   The codling moth is a pest of apples and pears in the United States and Canada. It causes two types of injury to the fruit: deep entries and stings. Deep entries are caused by larvae that eat through the skin into the side or from the calyx end. Brown frass can usually be seen spilling outside the hole. Sting entries occur where the larvae died before gaining entry or where they began tunneling, stopped and then began other feeding entrances elsewhere on the fruit. Second-generation larvae cause most of the damage. Chemical control is achieved by killing the hatching larvae before it gains entry to the fruit. 

These insects overwinter as mature larvae in cocoons on tree trunks or scaffolds. The first moth of the season usually appears shortly in late bloom or petal fall. Moths emerge usually during the morning hours and begin laying eggs within two or three days if the evening temperatures are favorable, i.e., above 62 degrees F. Eggs hatch in six to 14 days, depending on the temperatures. Larvae feed inside fruit for about three weeks, after which they leave to seek a cocooning site on the trunk or larger branches of the tree.

The time spent in the cocoon depends on temperature and rainfall, but is usually 14 to 21 days. Many larvae do not transform to pupae during this time, however, but continue as larvae until the next spring. If insecticides are applied too late, larvae will tunnel into the fruit, where the insecticides do not affect them. 

Are conditions right for codling moth? 
Forecast models for codling moth available at Enviro-weather. Select a weather station from the map that is closest to your location. Then click on “fruit” for a list of weather resources and models for fruit production.

For information on the degree days of your area visit the CAT Alert weekly e news at http://www.ipm.msu.edu/cat08fruit/f05-20-08.htm#9 

Organic growers use Surround-Kaolin clay to manage this pest. This clay acts as a barrier to the moth, preventing her from ovipositioning on the fruit.. 


With regard to the efficacy of Entrust on Codling Moth I have found this work done by Washington State University presented at the Codling Moth Symposium 2003.
http://entomology.tfrec.wsu.edu/stableipm/WorkshopPDFs/Doerrpdf1.pdf

A study to look at the integrated management with Entrust and a virus that is allowed in organic farming, Cyd-X is found to manage codling moth. Here is the abstract and I have included the web link for those who would like to read the article.
Evaluation of the codling moth granulovirus and spinosad for codling moth control and impact on non-target species in pear orchards 
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WBP-4MSHY0P-2&_user=1111158&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000051676&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1111158&md5=08e9c8900f6fa3e6104a0da064f23a3e
Steven P. Arthurs, a, , Lawrence A. Laceya and Eugene R. Miliczkya
aYakima Agricultural Research Laboratory, USDA-ARS, 5230 Konnowac Pass Road, Wapato, WA 98951, USA

Received 6 October 2006;  
accepted 2 January 2007.  
Available online 9 January 2007. 

Abstract
We compared the efficacy of a commercial preparation of the codling moth, Cydia pomonella L., granulovirus, CpGV (Cyd-X®) and spinosad (Entrust®) at operational rates for codling moth control in 2004 and 2005. Concurrently we monitored the impact of treatments on populations of non-target arthropods. Spinosad was effective at protecting fruit, with 1.6% codling moth injury in experimental plots, compared with up to 37% injury in the untreated plots at harvest. Mid-season outbreaks of the pear psylla, Cacopsylla pyricola Foërster, were also reduced in spinosad plots. Spinosad was safe for several predators, notably the psylla predator Deraeocoris brevis Uhler, but reduced the abundance of hymenopteran parasitoids by 24% and 40% and non-target Diptera by 49% and 35%, respectively in 2004 and 2005. We found no evidence that spinosad disrupted natural control leading to increased densities of secondary pests including aphids and phytophagous mites. CpGV was less effective than spinosad at protecting fruit, with percentage of fruits attacked similar to controls, but killed the majority (67–71%) of neonate coding moth larvae and did not harm non-target species. Additional observations were conducted in commercial orchards (mixed pear and apple) where CpGV and spinosad were used operationally against existing codling moth infestations. In pear, two spray programs applied in replicated 0.4 ha blocks (i.e. CpGV followed by spinosad against the first and second larval generations, respectively and vice versa) reduced fruit injury at harvest and decreased orchard pheromone monitoring trap catches by 74% over two years. In apple, CpGV was less effective at protecting fruit in the first larval generation compared with spinosad, although population suppression was effective early in the season. Spinosad caused no disruptions of beneficial species or secondary pest outbreaks were observed in the commercial orchards. Our results suggest CpGV and spinosad can be effectively used in integrated pest management for codling moth.


Entrust/Success: Growers have been
using Success (spinosad) to successfully
manage leafroller and Lacanobia
fruitworm for several years. The use of
Success against CM in conventional
orchards has not been recommended,
though we have known it has activity, in
order to preserve its use for these other
pests. An organic formulation with the
same active ingredient as in Success,
spinosad, has recently been registered
and is marketed under the name Entrust.
This opens the door to the possible use
of spinosad against CM in organic
orchards where there are few other
alternatives.
The target of Entrust is the neonate
larva. Entrust must be ingested to be
effective, that is, prior to or as the larva
enters a fruit (Table 1). Entrust is a
nervous system toxicant acting at the
synapse. All research on the efficacy of
spinosad against CM has been done with
the Success formulation. We will
assume for sake of this discussion that
the Entrust formulation will work
similarly. Our research with Success
shows that the residual activity is the
limiting factor in CM control.
Therefore, more frequent applications at
lowered rates should enhance efficacy.
. 
Vicki Morrone
Organic Vegetable and Crop Outreach Specialist
Michigan State University
C.S. Mott Group for Sustainable Food Systems
303 Natural Resources Bldg.
East Lansing, MI 48824
517-353-3542
517-282-3557 (cell)
517-353-3834 (fax)
For information on organic agriculture production please visit: http://www.MichiganOrganic.msu.edu/
 Please consider the environment before printing this email


Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LIST.MSU.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager