3 Results
Archived Content
Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please "contact us" to request a format other than those available.
This section highlights significant findings related to the use of pesticides and other pest management practices used by apple growers in 2005. Detailed statistical tables are included in Appendix A.
3.1 Methods of keeping records of pesticide applications
Written records were kept on over three-quarters (78.7%) of the producing area (Figure 2), while 12.8% of the producing area had electronic records kept. No records were kept for 8.6% of the producing area. Regional differences were apparent, with British Columbia having the largest producing area (20.8%) with no records kept.
3.2 Information kept in record keeping systems
For most of the producing area, records were kept for the product applied (91.9% of total producing area), the date of application (90.2%) and the rate of application (87.7%) (Figure 3). Targeted weed, insect or plant disease was recorded for just over half of the producing area. There were no significant regional differences with respect to the type of information recorded.
Figure 3
Information kept in record-keeping system, selected provinces,
apple producing area, 2005
3.3 Pesticide application
Pesticides are important pest management tools for growers, as demonstrated in Figure 4 (Tables A.3 to A.7, Appendix A). For all selected provinces, growers reported using pesticides on over 91.8% of the total apple producing area. This proportion reached over 97% in the Maritime Provinces and Ontario, while it was 84.2% in British Columbia and 86.0% in Quebec. A limitation of these data is that organic farmers using strictly nonchemical pest control methods were not specifically identified in the sample selection prior to data collection. It is likely that organic growers were under-represented in this pilot survey.
Figure 4
Producing area of apple growers reporting using pesticides,
selected provinces, 2005
A total of 924.7 tonnes of active ingredients included in insecticides, herbicides and fungicides were applied during the 2005 growing season on apple producing area. Over half (57.1%) of this total was applied to control insects, 40.8% to control diseases and 2.1% to control weeds.
Over 90% of the producing area was treated with insecticides, 86.6% with fungicides and 37.1% with herbicides. On average, insecticides and herbicides were applied 1.5 times during the season, while fungicides were applied more often (3.5 applications). The average rate of application for the crop year for all active ingredients was relatively small for herbicides (1.28 kilogram per hectare) compared to 2.41 kilograms per hectare for fungicides and 5.97 kilograms per hectare for insecticides (Table 3). Detailed information by province and active ingredient is presented in Appendix A, Tables A.3 to A.7.
Table 2
Pesticide use in apple production, selected provinces,
2005
3.4 Pesticide-use intensity
The following figures show that overall, most of the treated area was either within or below the labelled rate of application. No attempt was made to identify factors such as a severe insect, disease or weed infestation which may help to explain why a small portion of growers used a rate higher than the labelled rate. This type of analysis was beyond the scope of this report, but could be conducted in future research.
Figure 5 shows that most herbicide treatments (93.3%) were within or below the labelled rate of application. There was no significant difference across regions.
Figure 5
Herbicide-use intensity, selected provinces, apple producing area,
2005
Similarly, for insecticides, Figure 6 shows that 92.8% of insecticide treatments were within or below the labelled rate of application. There was a small difference across regions, with 15.4% of the insecticide treatments in British Columbia being higher than the labelled rate (Appendix A, Table A.13).
Figure 6
Insecticide-use intensity, selected provinces, apple producing
area, 2005
Figure 7 shows that most of the apple fungicide treatments (85.4%) were within or below the labelled rate of application. There were some significant differences across regions. In British Columbia, close to one-third (29.0%) of the fungicide treatments were above the labelled rate of application, while Quebec had the lowest percentage of fungicide treatments that were higher than labelled rates (6.6%).
Figure 7
Fungicide-use intensity, selected provinces, apple producing area,
2005
3.5 Pesticide spraying practices
Pesticide spraying practices have an impact on how much of the pesticide applied reaches the intended targeted pests. In the survey, growers were given a list of practices that are commonly recommended as ways to reduce spray drift and increase the precision of applications. The list included five practices dealing with sprayer maintenance and design (e.g., use of shrouds or cones to direct sprays, replacing the nozzle every three years) and five practices dealing with how sprayers are used (e.g., sprayer speed, wind direction). Respondents were instructed to check all the practices used.
Growers indicated that six of these practices were used on 60% or more of the apple producing area, with four of these being used on 80% or more of the producing area. The adoption of advanced low-drift spray equipment and maintenance practices was lower, with two of the five practices being used on less than half the producing area. These practices are relatively more costly and growers may not see the short-term payoff in using these practices (Figure 8).
Among the specific practices used in the majority of spray operations, sprayers were operated at less than 16 km/hour on 93.2% of the producing area, 87.8% of the apple producing area was sprayed only when wind speeds were low and airblast direction was adjusted for targeted height on 83.3% of the apple area.
As shown in Appendix A Table A.14, producers in British Columbia were less likely to calibrate sprayers annually (67.2% of growers practiced annual calibration in British Columbia) than farmers in other provinces, likely reflecting differences in the total number of applications and pesticide expenditures. The relatively higher percentage of high-density orchards planted to dwarf trees in British Columbia allow growers to use low boom height sprayers on almost 78.6% of apple hectares, compared to less than 37.3% of hectares in the other provinces.
Figure 8
Spraying practices, selected provinces, apple producing area,
2005
3.6 Pest management practices
Canadian consumers expect high quality produce. This high quality produce is partly achieved by controlling crop pests. The most common tools available are pesticides, which include herbicides to control weeds, fungicides to control diseases and insecticides to control insects. Pesticides provide immediate results in a cost effective way. Growers make the best use of this pest management tool by applying the right amount, by timing their applications at specific pest development stages, by using different products in combination, or switching and rotating the family of products used over time. These practices will be referred to in this section as pesticide dependent practices.
Other tools are used by growers to control crop pests. Some more obvious tools include selecting pest resistant crop varieties and disease free stock. Other practices are less common, such as altering fertilizer or irrigation water levels and releasing or attracting beneficial organisms. These management practices have to be planned out and results may not be apparent for a couple of years. These practices will be referred to as prevention based practices.
3.6.1 Insect incidences and management practices
This section highlights results related to the incidence of insects and the management practices used by apple growers to control them.
3.6.1.1 Changes in insect incidences
Insect pest pressure varies from year to year and from region to region. Growers were asked if insects in 2005 were more, less or about equally prevalent, compared to the last five years. For the 2005 growing season, insect pressure was reported as "about the same" on 56.1% of the apple producing area (Figure 9). Insects were "much less or less" prevalent than in recent years on 29.6% of the producing area and "more or much more" prevalent on 14.3% of the producing area.
More than 90% of the producing area in Quebec had insect pest pressure that was either lower than or the same as the last five years. In contrast, a significant amount of the producing area in Ontario (18.8%) and in British Columbia (16.3%) experienced insect pest pressure that was higher than it had been in the last five years (Appendix A, Table A.15).
3.6.1.2 Responses to greater insect pressure
Growers operating the orchards with "more or much more" insect pest pressure were asked what they plan to do in the next growing season in the hope of reducing their insect problems. Six practices were proposed, along with a box to identify "other" practices. Growers were instructed to check all the practices they planned to use.
Three of the listed practices involved more effective use and greater reliance on insecticides. Growers reported that on just under 60% of the producing area with greater insect pressure they plan to use two of the three pesticide-dependent actions (switch to a different insecticide, make an additional application), while 5.7% of the producing area would include a plan to increase rates of application (Figure 10).
Three other listed practices involved prevention-based integrated pest management (IPM) practices: scouting, use of forecasting systems and disruption of insect reproduction or development. Using these practices, growers know when insecticides need to be used and money is not wasted on needless applications. Growers reported plans to use two of these three tactics on more than 72% of the producing area with greater insect pressure and the third practice of disrupting insect reproduction or development on 62.9% of the producing area.
On almost the entire producing area (91.7%) operated by growers reporting to have "more" or "much more" insect problems compared to the last five years, growers planned to use prevention based practices in the future whereas 50% of this area was operated by growers who planned to apply an additional insecticide treatment to deal with future insect problems. Very little of the producing area under intense insect pressure was operated by growers who planned to increase rates of insecticide application in order to reduce insect problems in the future.
Figure 10
Actions planned to reduce insect problems, selected provinces,
apple producing area, 2005
3.6.1.3 Most prevalent insects
Very few growers in Canada had to deal with a new insect pest in 2005 (Figure 11). Ontario had the highest incidence of new pests reported (14.3% of the producing area), while British Columbia and the Maritime Provinces had the lowest incidences (less than 8% of producing area).
The most prevalent insects that apple growers had to control on selected orchards in 2005 were the codling moth (mainly in British Columbia and the Maritime Provinces) and the oblique banded leaf roller (in Ontario and Quebec) (Figure 12 and Appendix A, Table A.18).
Figure 12
Most prevalent insect, selected provinces, apple producing area,
2005
3.6.1.4 Practices used to control growers' most prevalent insect
Growers were asked to indicate from a list of six practices the ones that they used to control their most prevalent insect. Two of the practices were dependent on pesticides and were related to the timing of applications, while the other four practices were prevention-based and reflect a commitment on the part of the grower to use biologically-based, IPM control methods. Timing insecticide applications at specific life stages of their most prevalent apple insect was used on 92.9% of the producing area. Prevention-based practices were used on 46.4% of producing area. Thirty percent of the producing area was operated with growers making attempts to attract beneficial insects, while 6.7% of the producing area had beneficial organisms released in an attempt to control the most prevalent insect (Figure 13).
More than 85.3% of the apple orchard area was treated with an insecticide at specific, targeted times during the growing season to manage the orchard's most prevalent insect. Just over half of the producing area was sprayed at different times throughout the growing season for the same pest.
These results show that apple producers are diversifying the timing of their insecticide applications and in particular, targeting insects at early stages of development when they are often easier to control with limited reliance on broad spectrum, relatively higher-risk insecticides. Over 37% of the producing area was sprayed with a product targeting early nymphs or eggs, or treated with an insecticide that disrupts larval or nymph development. Insecticides were sprayed to control adult insects on 24.0% of the producing area.
Overall, data show that growers in British Columbia and in the Maritime Provinces are more likely to use prevention-based IPM systems than the Central Provinces, where growers typically face more intense insect pest pressure. Growers deployed one or more of these four practices on more than half of the producing area in the Maritime Provinces and British Columbia (Appendix A, Table A.19). Furthermore, producers in British Columbia used each of the four practices on 19% or more of the producing area, including mating disruption on 47.0%. In the Maritime Provinces, growers taking steps to attract beneficial organisms used this practice on 40.8% of their producing area.
3.6.2 Disease incidences and management practices
3.6.2.1 Changes in disease incidences
Growers were asked if diseases in 2005 were more, less or about equally prevalent, as compared to the last five years. On half the producing area, growers reported that the incidence of disease (fungus, bacteria and mildew) was "about the same" in 2005 compared to the last five years. Prevalence was "much less or less" on 31.8% of the producing area and "more or much more" on 18.2% of the producing area (Figure 14).
Disease pressure was significantly higher in the Maritime Provinces for one-quarter of the producing area. Forty three percent of the producing area in Ontario had less disease pressure than in previous years.
3.6.2.2 Responses to greater disease pressure
Growers who faced "more or much more" disease were asked to choose from a list of practices that they planned to do to help reduce disease problems during the next growing season. Three of the listed practices related to better use of fungicides and three related to prevention-based management practices.
Over three-quarters (77.5%) of the producing area with more disease pressure was operated by growers who planned to use prevention-based management practices to control diseases. More than 63% of the producing area was operated by growers who planned to use forecasting systems or scouting in order to help control disease damage in the future. Altering soil fertility or water management was chosen less frequently as a practice that would reduce disease pressure, with 13.4% of the producing area where growers had plans for these practices (Figure 15).
For nearly half of the producing area, growers planned to switch to a different fungicide and for 35.3% of the producing area, growers planned to apply an additional fungicide to deal with future disease problems. About 15.9% of the producing area was planned for increased fungicide rates of application. Quebec growers stand out as a group that planned to use less pesticide-dependent practices and planned to rely more heavily on prevention-based practices as compared with the other provinces. (Appendix A, Table A.21).
Figure 15
Actions planned to reduce disease problems, selected provinces,
apple producing area, 2005
3.6.2.3 Most prevalent diseases
Growers reported new plant diseases on 5.6% of the producing area in 2005 (Figure 16).
Apple scab, bacterial blight and mildew were the most prevalent diseases reported (Figure 17). By far the most prevalent disease reported was apple scab, which was a far bigger challenge in the Eastern provinces compared to British Columbia. This is likely due to climatic differences (Appendix A, Table A.23).
Figure 17
Most prevalent disease, selected provinces, apple producing area,
2005
3.6.2.4 Practices used to control growers' most prevalent disease
All growers were asked to report tools or methods they or their advisors use to make decisions on when to apply fungicides to control their most prevalent disease. Six tools were listed along with a box to identify "other" practices. Growers were instructed to check all the tools they used.
Eighty six percent of the producing area was operated by growers who considered climatic conditions when making decisions about when to apply fungicides (Figure 18). Very few growers made decisions with the help of agricultural consultants (represented 7.0% of the producing area and accounted for nearly all of the "Other" answers). Practices needed to optimize the benefits of each fungicide application, while minimizing overall use, were adopted on more than two-thirds of the producing area (scouting and using forecasting models). Just under one-third of the producing area was sprayed on a fixed schedule (calendar spraying), a practice that often raises growers' costs and environmental risks and can contribute to the risk of triggering resistance to fungicides among disease pathogens.
Growers were given a list of four basic IPM practices and three advanced IPM practices that are indicative of a heavy emphasis on prevention. They were asked to identify which practices they use to control their most prevalent disease.
Disease on 53.2% of the producing area was managed by growers making efforts to eliminate possible sources of disease inoculum, such as removing cull piles and pruning trees and host plants in nearby fields. Just under 37% of the producing area was managed with growers cleaning their equipment to reduce the risk of disease transport between locations (Figure 19). These basic IPM practices are recommended in all orchards, particularly in areas where plant diseases trigger the need for multiple fungicide applications, as is the case in the Ontario, Quebec and the Maritime Provinces.
The three more advanced IPM practices involve management of fertilizer rates and water applications to avoid either nutrient excesses (that can trigger a spike in disease organism populations), or impair plant defense responses (testing soil for micronutrients). Approximately 60% of the producing area was managed by growers who adjusted fertilizer rates to prevent excessive levels of nutrients in the root or foliage that could result in more disease. The soil was tested for micronutrient imbalances on 45.6% of the producing area. The degree of adoption of these practices shows that growers are willing to build more advanced preventive practices into their disease management systems.
Very few growers reported considering disease resistance or transplant disease when planting new trees. Only 11.6% of the producing area was planted with disease-free rootstock and 10.7% of the producing area was planted with a variety that had resistance to the most prevalent disease threat. This low percentage reflects the fact that many orchards were planted years ago when the most prevalent diseases were different.
3.6.3 Weed incidences and management practices
To manage weeds, apple growers reported mulching as the most common practice used on 27.1% of the producing area. By far the most common "other" method was mowing, which was used on 17.8% of the producing area (Figure 20).
Figure 20
Practices for weed management, selected provinces, apple producing
area, 2005
3.6.3.1 Changes in weed incidences
Growers were asked if, in 2005, weeds were more, less or about equally prevalent compared to the last five years. Seventy-nine percent of the producing area was operated by growers who reported that the incidence of weeds was "about the same" in 2005 compared to the last five years (Figure 21).
"Much less or less" weed pressure was indicated for 12.5% of the producing area and the incidence of weeds was "more or much more" on 8.5% of the producing area. Ontario had the most growers reporting higher weed incidence than in the past (15.3% of the producing area).
3.6.3.2 Responses to higher weed pressure
Growers facing "more or much more" weed problems were asked what they planned to do to reduce weed problems during the next growing season. Less than 42% of the producing area with higher weed pressure was operated by growers who planned to switch to different herbicides in the future. About 29.3% of the producing area with higher weed pressure area was operated by growers who plan to switch to a different weed control practice (Figure 22).
Figure 22
Actions planned to reduce weed problems, selected provinces, apple
producing area, 2005
3.7 Management practices and pest resistance to pesticides
3.7.1 Practices used to manage resistance to pesticides
Growers were given a list of four practices that can help manage the emergence of populations of weeds, insects and diseases resistant to pesticides and were asked to identify which practices they commonly use that can help avoid the emergence of pest resistance. Two practices involve rotation between different pesticide classes (different modes of action) and two are basic preventive IPM practices (planting a resistant variety and reducing pest populations through non-chemical means).
Growers operating 86.7% of the apple producing area said that they either always rotated or sometimes rotated to pesticides in different chemical families (Figure 23).
Reducing pest populations through non-chemical means was used on 37.6% of the producing area, while selecting more pest resistant crop varieties was reported on less than 4% of the producing area.
3.7.2 Growers' perception of pests becoming resistant to pesticides
Respondents were asked if any weeds, insects or plant diseases on their entire operation had displayed signs of resistance to the pesticide applied to control them. Growers were then asked to what extent pests are becoming resistant to each group of pesticides. Figure 24 displays the reported degree of resistance for weeds, insects and plant diseases.
Growers reported that weeds are not resistant to herbicides on 47.1% of the apple producing area, while weeds are becoming slightly resistant on more than one-third (37.1%) of the apple producing area. About 7.4% of the producing area was plagued by weeds reported to be resistant or very resistant, while resistance status was unknown on 8.4% of the area.
The prevalence of resistance was similar among insects, where growers reported no signs of resistance in insects on 45.4% of the producing area and slight resistance on 33.0% of the producing area. Insects were regarded as resistant or very resistant on 15.7% of the area.
Disease pathogens were reported as not resistant on 53.1% of the producing area, slightly resistant on 30.4% and as resistant or highly resistant on 10.9% of the producing area.
Canadian apple producers face a significant challenge in managing resistance, given that resistant weeds, insects and plant diseases are already present on about one-third of the producing area.
- Date modified: