Hi,

In my case, we tried to replace some of the pesticide treatments with an elicitor strategy. When the parasite pressure is low (whenever it occurs), or at the beginning of the season, 1/3 of the treatments was non-pesticidal. The results (on grapevine, a major pesticide-consuming crop) were encouraging, environmentally and economically speaking. But this requires the ability to follow the parasite pressure, in real-time, and to cross the informations with the weather forecast, the topography of the field, etc.

I hope it helped

Best regards. 

Hi,

Thanks for sharing this information. I guess this is a very good strategy that you follow. A complete non - pesticidal technique is perhaps not a feasible answer for most farmers especially economically  when harvesting crops matter.

As we have seen, of course as is expected, summers and monsoons are the worst times for managing pests. Non-pesticidal techniques yield better results comparatively in winters.

Best regards.

Hello,

   Tree fruit (especially apple) worldwide have many examples of where conservation of the biological control agents of 2ndary pests (non-fruit feeding) through the use of selective insecticides has greatly reduced if not eliminated the use of pesticides for European red mite, San Jose scale, and Woolly Apple Aphid. I have calculated that the conservation of the predatory mite, Typhlodromus pyri, has reduced miticide use by at least 90% saving apple growers about $1 million in direct pesticide costs alone and with less foliar injury. Some crops in India are still using the predatory lady beetles in the genus Stethorus, for control of mites in several crops.  See my review paper for Stethorus worldwide.  Currently we are conserving wild bees in habitat around fruit orchards and saving grower up to $200/A in honey bee rental costs and relying mostly on wild bees.  Check out the question on IPM and the discussion posed by Andras Bozsik on the Research Gate questions and answers.

In Pakistan, still pesticidal control is encouraged as farmers are not willing to take any risk about their crop and they believe that pesticidal control is the only option. True to sense that most of the other techniques largely depend upon the environment that is quite variable in the area.

In some experiments at our farm that i have observed crop losses were at the higher side when pesticides were not applied and all other measures were fully adopted.

I find Dr. Biddinger's point of view absolutely fascinating. It is very interesting to note that economic benefit can be achieved by using such practices too. Thank you for providing additional information. Will certainly look it up.

Mr. Shakir I assume your observation must be typical to hot humid countries like us and many others in South - East Asia. Have you tried non - pesticidal management techniques in winters? There could be some benefits.

Yes i think so because in winters only wheat is sown in majority of areas and pests are not a big problem in wheat in the area.

Nice Question on Burning Problems.

In my view Use of Pesticide is common now, as it is giving good results as compare to traditional/ Bio-pesticides. I would like suggest that the harmful effects of some pesticides like DDT, Endosulphan, etc., the farmer must be aware. Proper training, demo, should be employed before pesticide application in the farm field.

Non-pesticide management techniques are not so much effective in my view. Even in the IPM (Integrated Pest Management) Chemical use has been mentioned.

Exactly that might be quite possible. In fact slow conversion to methods which employ less of pesticidal and more of non pesticidal, organic and biological control of pests might prove helpful.

non pesticidal, organic and biological control of pests are not yet been found to be 100% efficient. But we can employ these techniques if the cost/benefit ratio is maintained.

I am speaking for tree fruit where the crop life is measured in decades, not months, so it has the potential of being a fairly stable agro-ecosystem since it is not plowed up after a few months and then rotated to some other crop.  For tree fruit in anything but a desert like the western US, organic actually means spraying twice as often as conventional because the products are not very effective and have no residual activity on diseases which drive the system.  When most people think off biological control outside of tree fruit, they think of bio-pesticides like Bt or mass releases of Trichogramma where they want 100% control or efficiency like Mayur suggests.  For a perennial crop, the pesticide effects Mayur mentioned cause 2ndary pests to flareup that would not normally be a problem due to biological control and if they are indirect pests such as mites or aphids that do not directly affect the fruit being sold, 100% efficacy is not needed and actually not desired.  The biological control agents will disappear if their is no food for them to feed on.  Our main mite predator in eastern US apple is the Phytoseiid predatory mite, Typhlodromus pyri that can feed on pollen, mildew spores, and other types of mites if the tetranychid pest mite populations become low.  The conservation of this predatory mite as I said before reduces miticide use by at least 90% and saves growers $50-100/acre in miticide costs alone.  In addition, resistance to miticides which occurred after only 3-5 years has been mostly eliminated.  The point is that biological control does not have to be 100% efficient depending on the pest. 

One other widely used  non-pesticidal system in tree fruit has been pheromone mating disruption for lepidopteran pests, including direct fruit feeding pests such as codling moth and Oriental fruit moth. If used properly in large areas, it can be just as effective as pesticide applications, but can reduce pest populations in the area over time which pesticides alone often can not.  As Mayur suggested, the problem with mating disruption has been keeping the cost/benefit ratio high enough for its use.  Mating disruption is significantly more expensive (Check out my Agnello et al. paper for an economic summary) than conventional pesticides.  But only when conventional pesticides work.  If the pest becomes resistant to the cheaper pesticide as codling moth did for us with azinphosmethyl,  the benefit of using mating disruption became much more attractive.  After a few more years of mating disruption the new product renaxypyr become available and their was no resistance, so many growers went back to that since if was cheaper and didn't require special labor like mating disruption.  Just put it in the tank with your fungicides and go. 

Always relying on a newer more effective pesticide to be developed when the old ones are lost due to resistance is what we refer to as the 'pesticide treadmill'.  It won't work long term, because the companies can't develop products quick enough in most cases and pest control in minor crops falls to the wayside as big corporations only make money on the big acreage crops.  Also government regulations driven by public opinion about pesticide safety can drive efficient pesticide options out of the picture such as what happened in the US with the Food Quality Protection Act or in the European Union where many effective and efficient fungicides and insecticides were unilaterally banned due to public opinion and cost/benefit arguments had no significance in the final decision.  In tree fruit in the EU, you have to demonstrate why you didn't use mating disruption as the control option before you are allowed to apply a pesticide.

 For another example, the neonicotinoid insecticides are some of the most effective and efficient insecticides ever developed, key to resistance management and preserving some biological control agents such as predatory mites in apple.  They were developed in response to FQPA where broadspectrum neurotoxic organophosphates were being eliminated from agriculture due to human health risks.  Neonicotinoids are very safe to people, but are being driven from many systems due to media hype about real and perceived effects on pollinators.  In the US and other countries, cost/benefit analysis and efficiency are not driving pest control options in many crops any longer.  Hope this helps.  David