Florida Strawberry Integrated Pest Management and Pesticide Use Survey for 1995

Pesticide Program Home Page | Pest Management Home Page
Agricultural & Natural Resources Development Home Page

M. J. Aerts and O. N. Nesheim, Pesticide Information Office, Univ. of Florida, IFAS, 1997, 33 pp.
 

Summarized by John F. Baniecki
Extension Specialist-Plant Pathology/Entomology;
National Agricultural Pesticide Impact Assessment Program (NAPIAP) Representative
and M. P. Culik
Program Specialist -Pest Management: NAPIAP Program
WVU Extension Service

The recent publication "Strawberry Integrated Pest Management and Pesticide Use Survey for 1995" (Aerts and Nesheim 1997) summarizes results of a survey conducted to obtain information on the use of IPM practices and pesticides by Florida strawberry growers.

This type of information on farm pest management practices is needed for consideration in regulatory evaluation of pesticides and is also useful for IPM program development and evaluation.

Methods: 190 potential respondents were contacted. Fifty-seven growers representing approximately one-third of 5,800 available strawberry acres in Florida responded to the survey.

The survey consisted of twenty-nine questions on topics including: the importance of specific pests, scouting practices, use of specific types of IPM practices, the effects of IPM practices on net return, and pesticide use.

Some of the results reported were:

Mites were listed as the most important insect/mite pest by nearly 88% of respondents and Botrytis (gray mold) was identified as the most serious disease problem (42%). More than 50% of respondents listed grasses as their most important weed problem. Other important pests reported included worms and loopers, powdery mildew, anthracnose, and sedges.

Almost all respondents (more than 96%) indicated that they regularly scout for insect, mite, disease, and weed pests. Commercial scouting, chemical dealers, or employee scouts were used by 21%, 18%, and 12% of the growers respectively. Most respondents indicated that control treatments were administrated based on visual detection of the pest or following achievement of a pest/damage threshold.

IPM practices used by more than 90% of respondents included:

  • use of alternate pesticides to reduce pest resistance,
  • mechanical cultivation, hoeing, and/or hand weeding,
  • use of appropriate irrigation practices to reduce the incidence of diseases and other pests, and
  • use of pest-resistant varieties.

    • About 19% of growers indicated that they purchase and release beneficial mites in their fields.

    Most growers that released beneficial mites (80%) believed that release of the beneficial mites reduced the number of required miticide applications.

    Mite-releasing growers saved an average of 4.25 miticide applications per growing season.

    Most respondents (56%) believe their net returns were increased through participating in IPM programs. (The remainder were unsure of the exact influences IPM practices had on their net return.)

    More than 77% of growers believed that incorporating IPM practices into overall pest control strategies resulted in fewer pesticide applications being necessary. These growers found that they required almost 30% fewer pesticide sprays when using IPM.