 |
 |
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