General purpose insecticide?

Page 3 of 3  
wrote:

Not quite correct. There is not enough data to justify "a general use category in a residential setting." I stated in one of the earlier postings that Imidan is a restricted use insecticide and that is one, but only one, of the reasons I obtained my pesticide applicator's license.
As I stated earlier, a control for plum curculio used to be in general fruit tree insecticides and fungicides that are available to unlicensed applicators. However that control was removed from those products two years ago.
This leaves the homeowner unprotected except, as paghat pointed out, for products like Surround-WP.
I do not want to deal with the Surround baggage and am licensed so I will stick with Imidan as an effective, easy to use and safe control for plum curculio.
John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You still have not addressed the fact that with perhaps one or two tiny exceptions (which some people spend all day searching for, and then use to refute what I'm saying), chemicals are not tested on the target population we're concerned with, namely, people. Therefore, nobody can truly predict toxicity unless they have solid information from events such as accidental exposure to manufacturing personnel, followed by illnesses which can only be attributed to that exposure.
I don't know how old you are, so you may or may not be familiar with the little dance that the chem industry has done over the past 30-40 years. It's fun to watch. They'll test chemicals on mice or rates, find no problems, and proclaim a product is, or seems safe. A non-industry researcher will test another chemical on rodents and find that they develop cancer or other problems. The chem companies will then say that we cannot extrapolate from results obtained using animals because they respond differently than we do to chemical exposure. So, it's a matter of convenience. Both sides can pick and choose the results they like.
But, you cannot dispute two things:
- As I mentioned before, legislation dating back to the early 1970s exempts a long list of so-called "inert" ingredients from testing. Unfortunately, this list includes things which are KNOWN to cause health problems in humans, such as toluene. The chem industry loves this legislation. They bought it. You should be concerned about it.
- The U of Rochester does drug research. They run radio & newspaper ads asking for people who may want to participate in drug tests for all sorts of stuff. Maybe some organization near you runs similar ads. Please let me know right away if you EVER see an ad asking for people to be used as test subjects for agricultural chemicals. I won't hold my breath. This is the ONLY valid method for determining the relative safety or toxicity of these products, according to the chem companies.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Oops - that was left incomplete. Fixed:
Note: Somewhere on the web, there *is* mention of one round of tests in which an agricultural chemical was tested on humans. Maybe it happened twice, even 3 times. Irrelevant, statistically. There are hundreds of products being sold now.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
of the

with organic

The best method of apple maggot control is the use visual traps for the adult flies before they lay their eggs, ADDING a natural host odor with the trap [Rull et al, Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, January 2005 -- note the date, it is very recent research that has shown the effectiveness of non-sparying techniques].
While it has become a cliche that no organic spray is half as effective as highly toxic organophosphate type pesticides, it is now well established that methods other than spraying can be completely effective. Because crop value is higher for organic crops, there is no net gain by using potent toxins [Reissig, Journal of Economic Entomology, Oct 2003].
Once a grower realizes spraying is not the best or primary method (organic or otherwise) comparisons of organic vs non-organic spraying becomes moot. But fact is, the 2001-2002 Cornell study headed by Terence Robinson of organic apple techniques (tested in New York & Ontario) discovered control of apple maggot with organically approved Surround was completely effective. So the popular cliche that only harmful organophosphate insecticides work is now conclusively known to be false.
Comparative analysis in Quebec conducted over a ten year period found that completely unsprayed apple orchards had infestation rates ranging from 0 to 4.1% [Vincent & Mailloux, Annales de la Societe Entomolique de France, 1988; Vincent & Roy, Acta Entomologica et Phytopathologica Hungarica, 1992]. Unless losses exceed 5% it is counterproductive & unnecessary to even consider chemical spraying. Any gains from using toxins are more than offset by the extra costs of chemicals plus the lowered value of non-organic crops.
If apples were not permitted to rot on the ground, the orchard would not have any apple maggot pupae overwintering in the soil, & the only threat of infestation is from adult flies coming from outside the orchard. Often removal of elderly apple trees & hawthorns from surrounding properties is the only control required. In all cases, by the time eggs are laid, the maggots are impervious to toxins; so stopping the adult flies at the periphery becomes the goal. Even growers who do use pesticides often use them exclusively OFF the periphery of the orchards & NOT on the trees themselves [Thimble & Solmae in Crop Protection, 1997] since a clean orchard has no emerging flies inside the periphery. Others who use insecticides do so only in the scent-baited sticky-traps again to keep poisons off the crop.
The milestone research of the late Ron Prokopy (who died last year) with even just unscented traps triggered a revolution in organic apple growing that left the chemical-dependent growers in the pesticidal dust. Chemical dependency bred chemical dependency, & here in Washington as the chemical-dependent growers went bankrupt one after another, organic growers flourish. The more recent (even just within the last four years) scent-baiting of the Prokopy traps has has made trap strategies so extremely effective that organic apple growers have either fewer or no more losses than lazier less knowledgeable growers who spray & thus produce a less valuable harvest. Effectiveness of Prokopy sticky traps PLUS host scent is today the preferred method of apple maggot control, preserving the added value of organic crops.
The big reason some orchards would still spray today is because they are producing pig-feed apples & it is too labor intensive both to maintain bait-scented traps & to clean up fallen apples, when in any case the crop will remain poorly valued.
In Washington state the primary threat to fully organic apple orchards are infestations bleeding over from trees grown in the back yards of homeowners who do not know to control apple maggot with scented stickytraps, & who let fallen apples remain on the ground so that the next year's infestation developes. Sponsored programs to involve morons, I mean backyard amateurs, in the use of scented traps, even providing the traps for free, & educating the amateurs on the necessity of immediately cleaning apples off the ground before the worms crawl into the ground to pupate, is far more effective than trundling out increasing numbers of increasingly toxic chemicals & pretending there is no way around them -- though certainly the chemical industry's propoganda encourages that misguided belief. Only the chemical companies themselves continue promulgate the so-called "integrated" system of traps plus toxic spraying.
-paghat the ratgirl

yet to find

Like any other

insecticide
any bees around.

spray when kids or

getting on the freeway

be clean,

already noticed

example). It

sprays are

situation, you

spray first, and

rec.gardens.edible, where there

--
Get your Paghat the Ratgirl T-Shirt here:
http://www.paghat.com/giftshop.html
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<snip excellent post>
I believe I have said this before, but... Paghat-- you rock!
(another one filed away for future reference)
--
Toni
South Florida USA
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I have noticed several things in paghat's replies on this topic.
For one, she talks about her experiences with Elm Trees and Roses. Does she grow apples or plums? She quotes a lot about this study and that, but what direct experience does she have herself. For every reference she quotes about organic methods, I can find an equal number of those advocating spraying with chemicals.
Paghat also fails to make a distinction between commercial orchards and home orchards. A commercial orchard cannot closely monitor the effects of hundreds of trees, and therefore takes a 'blanket' approach to control. The more sophisticated of these orchards will put out traps to determine what type of insect is attacking, and when best to treat for it. A home orchardist can be more selective and can do a better job of monitoring pest damage.
Although I concentrated on insects, fungus problems are also something which can ruin your crop, and even kill your fruit trees. I have not found any organic fungicides that work effectively, and I have tried quite a few, like Rhotenone.
Lastly, Paghat thinks she can win this argument with documentation. I have examined some of this material and have found no substantial evidence that organic methods can control the problems already mentioned. The growers in my Fruit Club who use organic methods are limited to two choices. Accepting a goodly amount of ruined fruit and/or limiting themselves to certain disease resistant varieties, which only takes care of fungus, but not insect problems. I work too hard maintaining my trees to see the fruits of my labor thrown away by insect infestation. Not to mention the trees that are lost by insects like borers. I consider the state of the art, that organic methods can be used to cut down on problems, but have not quite reached the point where they alone can do the complete job. Unfortunately, the new varieties of apples that are disease resistant, although improving, have not equaled the taste and flavor of other apples.
If Paghat can grow fruit without spraying, she is certainly a most fortunate person.
Sherwin D.
paghat wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

she
what direct

organic
chemicals.
Is it really worth it? Would you drink it? Would you put it in baby food? You are and we are...........
Pesticides in Produce http://www.foodnews.org/reportcard.php
"Eating the 12 most contaminated fruits and vegetables will expose a person to nearly 20 pesticides per day."
"Peaches and raspberries had the most pesticides detected on a single sample with nine pesticides on a single sample, followed by strawberries and apples, where eight pesticides were found on a single sample."
"Peaches had the most pesticides overall with some combination of up to 45 pesticides found on the samples tested, followed by raspberries with 39 pesticides and apples and strawberries, both with 36."
12 Most Contaminated Buy These Organic
. Apples . Bell Peppers . Celery . Cherries . Imported Grapes . Nectarines . Peaches . Pears . Potatoes . Red Raspberries . Spinach . Strawberries
<snip>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I spray and I use organic methods. It just depends on what the problem is. I lost a tree to borers. Next time I find them I'll use industrial grade insecticide. But getting rid of ants just takes habenero pepper.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Sometimes, getting rid of ants is as simple as getting rid of (or simply disrupting) aphids.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

what direct

I tend to cherries & plums in my own garden, cherries & apples on an estate where I'm the head gardener, not to mention blueberries, serviceberries, loganberries, & the like. But big deal. I was also an itinerant farmworker as a child travelling with carnies, Indians, & Mexicans (some of whom today own the very Walla Walla orchards they once worked in). So one way or another I've been in orchards since age three or four. But who grew & picked apples longest is hardly the basis for the science unless it all took place in horticultural experimental stations orchestrated for the specific purpose of comparing cultivars & methods.
Fact is, a controlled study means LOTS more than one individual's experience. Your experience being one of taking orders from the chemical companies makes you wildly UN-knowledgeable, & whether you did things wrong for one year or fifty years, your horror of horticultural science couldn't have assisted you in gaining knowledge.
That you believe your personal experience relying on toxins could ever successfully contradict controlled field studies for the USDA & at experimental horticultural stations such as at Cornell is one big clue you don't know squat, since successful commercial growers do monitor the literature to incorporate modern improvements, to correct mistakes, to improve harvests, & to improve the profitability of each harvest. If they were like you they'd still be praising DDT incapable of advancing.

chemicals.
Yet you don't bother to cite any, doubtless because they'd be years outdated or generated by the companies selling the products & quite naturally recommending everyone use their products. Someone smarter than you certainly could cite good studies that show the effectiveness of all sorts of chemicals -- that wouldn't change the fact that you posted extreme falsehoods (either from ignorance or lying, I assume the former & that you are not intentionally this dishonest) & it remains that your insisting there is no other way (whether for apple maggots or for funguses) was provably incorrect, plane & simple.

home orchards.
I addressed quite carefully in the plum curculio post about the problems backyard fruit gardeners cause commercial organic growers by not doing as good a job of it as the professionals.

attacking, and

can do a better

If only; that's unfortunately untrue, at least in practice. The average gardener is neither organic nor particularly knowledgeable. Back-yard fruit trees are frequently neglected, maltreated, & infested. Backyard fruit trees are more apt to be slathered with chemicals that in the long run perpetuate rather than reduce problems. They are the leading threat to organic growers. It is up to the commercial growers to raise the awareness of amateur growers who tend to lack the professional organic grower's knowledge & skill at maintaining healthy trees. If you knew anything at all about what you're blowharding about, you'd've known that.
But don't make the mistake of assuming professional orchardists are big agribusiness outfits. Unlike for wheat or corn, orchards are still generally small enterprises, & maximizing the value of each individual apple matters a lot to a smaller company.

pretences clipped]
Yep, that's the way to ignore the facts & promote toxins no matter what. If you make a statement that is easily shown to be untrue, just skip ahead with a brand new "yeah but" & toss out something else that doesn't substantiate your point either.
You keep admitting you have all these horrible diseases in your very few trees. Since organic gardeners do not have all these problems, perhaps you should re-evaluate your misunderstanding of cause & effect.

other apples.
Since some of the strongest disease-resistant apples were released between the 1920s & 1970s, they are themselves heirlooms by now, & have stood the test of time for public tastes. Macoun is still one of the best apples for growers in areas afflicted with fireblight, & it was released in 1923. Spartan is one of the most disease-resistant apples & in the top ten of public & grower popularity, developed by one of those Experimental Stations you disapprove of -- in 1936. I seriously doubt you could tell the difference blindfolded between a an heirloom McIntosh & a radically disease resistant Liberty, since they do taste awfully similar; but it hardly matters if you could or couldn't because what are grown today as McIntoshes are actually about thirty different strains some disease resistant others not.
Certainly any pretense on your part that chemical-slathered apples taste better is the height of nonsensical propogandizing without a lick of sense involved -- even apart from your wildly mistaken notion that only the newest cultivars are disease resistant. Fact is, some of the recent Purdue-Rutgers cultivars (1945 to present) are the best-tasting apples ever developed, having been developed over a long period for size, color, flavor, & disease-resistance. But if someone had a romantic desire for an old variety, Macoun & Spartan are disease resistant too, as are some of the modern McIntoshes which are not actually the same apples our great-grandparents grew. Mcintoshes for backyard gardeners tend to be grafted onto semi-dwarf hardy roots very different from what were grown on small farms fifty years ago.
And if anyone REALLY wants a true heirloom apple, guess who grows them -- small specialized organic growers, both because such specialists truly love the romance of the apple so are hierloom collectors, & because so many heirloom apples are vigorous strains that respond splendidly to organic techniques. One reason some of these heirlooms have been around so long is BECAUSE they are disease resistant, & growers who have bad luck it's because they killed off the soil microorganisms & beneficial insects with chemicals & their orchard or garden is overall stressed & unhealthy -- NOT because they grow an old variety that'll be all diseased unless its got five or six different poisons dumped all over it. So you're just blowing toxic smoke.
Though of course it's partly a matter of taste so anyone can say anything where flavor is concerned -- & the public taste isn't always the smartest. So far as public acceptance is concerned, the Red Delicious is the perfect apple, but that has got to be based on physical appearance; by my taste-buds it's the nastiest tasting of the top ten apples, yet it persistantly ranks #1 with the public because it's by far the prettiest & it will even stand perfectly upright on the table. I'm personally not fond of Granny Smith tartness -- but it's a top-ten apple with the public, & an heirloom, & anyone who loves Granny Smiths will love the tartest of the newest disease-resistant cultivars, some of which share with Granny Smith a bit of crab-apple in their breeding. The majority of the newest varieties have been targetted for Northeast growers who were behind the curve in learning how to grow apples properly because they had fiercer disease problems to overcome -- those growers tended to prefer McIntoshes so resistant varieties arose that look & taste like McIntoshes, & tend to have "Mac" incorporated in their registered names, but being sold as new strains of McIntosh are just sold to the public as regular McIntoshes but no longer prone to scabs & holes.
If anything, it is the chemical-dependent growers who are least concerned with flavor. You yourself admit the chemical-dependent are looking for shortcuts, not the best methods. They spray for fear the skin of the apple will become flawed, looks counting for more than flavor (forgetting that organic apples now rank #1 with the juice outfits too & even flawed apples are more valuable without toxins). The chemical-dependent pick early for easier shipment, so no one will ever know what they might have tasted like ripe. How long an apple can be stored at cool temperatures is far more important to shortcut-orchardists than is the flavor -- if it still LOOKS good shipped to market three months after it is picked, who cares if it tastes grainy & disgusting -- the grower who didn't care to protect the public from toxins certainly isn't going to make sure it tastes perfect.
Firmness for shipping & color for eye-appeal & storability for later sale & large size are all issues that effect the development of apple cultivars for traits other than flavor. Disease resistance has never been one of the negative factors for flavor. The horticultural stations developing these strains, however, have no built-in commercial reason to be compromising on flavor; they are not rushing so or not sending inferior strains to market. Often the only "change" in a new cultivar is it blooms later & so misses all the peak moments for disease susceptibility -- late-blooming varieties old or new just naturally get exposed to fewer pests, funguses, & pathogens, & the late-blooming varieties have been especially promoted since 1999 by the Mid West Apple Improvement Association.
Fact is, some of the recent super-resistant Purdue-Rutgers cultivars are the best-tasting apples available, so new or old varieties, disease-resistance & flavor go hand in hand. Some of the older tried & true varieties are just about as disease-resistant as the Rutgers varieties because Heirloom doesn't mean disease-ridden, jus as new cultivar doesn't mean bad flavor. And since it IS a matter of taste, some of the heirlooms are crappy tasting by my estimation, having been developed for physical appearance more than for flavor.

fortunate person.
More relevantly, since organic orchards are the strongest & the only expanding area of temperate fruit production today, the public is certainly most fortunate.
It sometimes looks like part of your problem, Sherwin, is that you know nothing about fruit-growing post-1995, that you somehow got set in your ways during one of the worst periods of American Agricultural chemical dependency & can't evolve. You seek magic bullets which provide harmful illusory & temporary fixes, & have no patience to do it right & achieve a healthy balance. Many of the most startling strides forward in improved agricultural techniques are less than ten years old, & that's especially true for apples that have undergone a veritable revolution just in the last decade.
-paghat the ratgirl
--
Get your Paghat the Ratgirl T-Shirt here:
http://www.paghat.com/giftshop.html
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
paghat wrote:

All other things about knowledge being equal, a home gardener can give more attention to their limited number of trees than a commercial orchard with hundreds of trees to tend. There are some amateur gardeners are not very knowledgable about spraying, but I am not including them in this discussion. Most of the people I know belong to NAFEX and other similar organizations who can hold their own with the commercial people.

Where do you get your statistics from? What does happen is when a home owner sells their place and the new owner is either disinterested in maintaining the fruit trees, or doesn't know where to turn to for help. Again, I am not including them in this discussion

There are many organizations like NAFEX and MIDFEX, where home growers can pick up all the information they need. The commercial growers could care less.

I have visited several organic orchards with plenty of spoiled fruit around.

These apples mentioned have specific resistance to certain problems due to their natural genetics, but they were not specifically bred to be disease resistant. Of course, there are no apples I know of that are naturally insect resistant.

You missed the point. The best tasting apples are not disease resistant, and thus need the protection of spraying.

Nonsense. Hierloom apples are not naturally more adaptable to organic preventative measures. Organic growers do not have a corner on that market either. The only disease resistant apple I grow is Williams Pride. It is a rather good tasting apple, but certainly not the best tasting apple in my backyard. I also picked that apple because it is an early bearer to complement my late apples.

Again, nonsense. Heirlooms are not naturally disease or insect resistant. As you mentioned some have resistant to particular pests, but not to all.

Who cares about the public taste. The reason I grow fruit myself is that I can select varieties that I can't buy in my supermarket. Ones that don't have that classic red shinny look, but taste terrific.

Are you talking about commercial growers again? Who cares what they grow.

Never said that. Spraying is no shortcut task. It takes a lot of work to do it right.

Nonsense. I don't like worms and rot inside my fruit.

Again, who cares about the commercial growers.

I don't think so. Unfortunately, breeding disease resistance into an apple does not necessarily breed better flavor, as well. It is all a comprimise. Maybe someday, they will find cultivars that have both these characteristics, but for now, these newer apples like Liberty and William's Pride are only good tasting apples, not great ones. If you can get an apple to taste as good as a Hudson's Golden Gem, for example, and still be disease resistant, I'll put in my order immediately.

Never. Almost by definition, these heirlooms were grown by people who could care less about appearance. Where are you getting your information?

I go by results. I'm not going to paint my fruit with the disgusting Surround stuff. Spray chemicals on fruit break down within weeks from the sun. I also thoroughly wash my fruit with soap before eating to insure that there is no residue. My results are not illusory and certainly not temporary. My fruit comes out clean every season, without fail. Despite all the claims by the fruit developers, they have a long long way to go before they get my attention.
Sherwin D

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I have religiously cleaned all fruit from my backyard. I tried all these traps, and still the insects have come. There are no other fruit trees in my neighborhood to account for this infestation. The traps help somewhat, but don't do a complete job.
I don't know why paghat keeps talking about commercial orchards. We are home gardeners, who grow things in our backyards, on a much smaller scale. Insect damage is more distributed in a large commercial orchard, so if a small percentage of the trees get hit, there are many others to take up the slack. That is not the case of a home orchard, where you have only a handful of trees, usually one tree per variety. If one of those trees gets hit, you have lost that variety of fruit for the season.
You should also mention that these traps are very expensive, especially the pheromones. I have not noticed any significant retardation of insect attacks using them, so I will not rely solely on their effectiveness.
paghat wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
these traps,

neighborhood
a complete job.
But you're dead wrong in your belief that a few trees in the backyard are less apt to respond to organic principles. You're dead wrong that the body of knowledge developed at experimental horticultural stations & put into practice by organic growers have no application to the backyard orchard. Since you refuse to adhere to any method that does not permit you to see everything die right before your eyes in a matter of seconds, you'll never have a clue how easy organic gardening can be. It's not something you try for a month on one tree then discard -- you have a toxified diseased property & to establish any holistic semblance of an organic balance would require more than you quickly discarding all organic techniques.

home gardeners,

damage is more

the trees get hit,

home orchard,

If one of those

That's pretty irrational stuff you've trundled out there. Organic gardens are healthier gardens; they are not more prone to insect attack, they are less prone. You have to keep using toxins because dependence breeds dependence, not because there is no better way.
Even more intriguingly however, you previously you argued the opposite:

So which irrational thought are you promoting? Only big orchards can be organic because they can afford more diseases, while back yards can't be organic because that one tree will surely be dieased? Or only back yard growers can be organic because they can focus on each plant, but big orchards MUST take a blanket approach with toxins?
You are shifting the argument back & forth so that you can continue to believe toxins are next to godliness, & you're not sounding rational.
In reality QUALIFIED commercial orchards easily monitor their trees just as will any skillful backyard orchardist. But lazy second-rate growers & backyard amateurs might not bother, & thus frequently end up with a toxic pig-apple harvest.
But yes, from the chemical-dependent grower's point of view, shortcuts are the only important thing, even if the shortcuts are illusory & based on ignorance. If you create an unhealthy environment & try to fix it with poisons instead of with improved horticultural techniques, obviously you just set yourself up for a cycle of seasonal failures -- & every time you MUST use toxins to keep things from going away, that's evidence of failure which begets failure. If it SEEMS to be a shortcut, it is indeed apt to count for much more than quality, valuation, blance, health, & safety.
This is why commercial organic growers are on the cutting edge of today's orchard industry & are not bankrupting at the same staggering rate as chemical-dependent growers. Organic apples have an expanding marketplace; the chemical-dependent have whiners & complainers wishing George Bush would bail them out the graves they dug for themselves. It's also why promoters of chemical swill have to pretend very clear findings from the same horticultural stations & USDA can't possibly be right if a hand-out from Ortho or Monsanto says otherwise.

the pheromones. I have

I will not rely

No pheramones are used to trap apple maggots, so what in the world are you doing? Everything incorrectly, obviously.
If you can afford jugs of gawdawful expensive chemicals, you can afford $3 sticky traps, as that's the cheapest on the market; really pretty ones made as much for human delight rather than just to attract pests can cost ten or twelve dollars each. And sure, you COULD pay $20 or even more if you'd rather have a really decorative one with a nice green leaf sticking out of the top -- even those are pretty cheap since you can re-used forever, recharging them with scented sticky-bait, which is cheap.
The traps are not hard to make at home for nothing, even an old christmas tree ornament will do the trick -- the total cost would be for the baited glue, which if you get screwed for the price it might cost $7 for enough of the scented sticky bait to charge three old ornaments from the attic or thrift store if you were too damned cheap to spring for a manufactured trap -- the total cost for the year could be less than many of us pay for coffee in a single day (chai in my case lately). Since the traps work pretty well even without the scented lure, you could just recharge the ornament with tanglefoot -- that'll save you on that goshawful expense of $7 for the baited equivalent.
As for pheramones, you were talking about apple maggot lures. The scented bait does NOT consist of pheramones. They are food bacteria -- they attract most of the fruit-targetting flying pests of which apple maggot is the biggest nuisance, & do it without killing fifteen kinds of beneficial insects that also protect the trees. Nowadays the lure is built right into the product's sticky component so it costs nothing extra for its first year's use. You can buy the baited glue separately to make home-made traps or revitalize an old ones you say you paid too much for. It's nonsense to say this is too expensive while you spend a far greater fortune on toxins.
And if your low level of knowledge in these matters really did cause you to put some sort of costly pheramone in an overpriced decorative trap, you've nothing to blame but your own ignorance that it didn't work & it cost too much. And this kind of insanity is how your "personal experience" taught you organic methods are no good is it? Criminy!
-paghat the ratgirl
--
Get your Paghat the Ratgirl T-Shirt here:
http://www.paghat.com/giftshop.html
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
paghat wrote:

Thats not what I said.

Again, no what I said. I have incorporated several organic methods into my backyard, some of which have had limited results. I do feel that the organic methods cannot do the complete job of protecting the fruit.

Organic growers must limit their varieties of fruit to disease resistant cultivars or they will soon be out of business. Backyard orchardists can do a better job of spraying if they are knowlegable, mainly because they don't have to monitor hundreds of trees.

Not all backyard orchardists are lazy.

Believe me, like any business, the organic commercial growers take shortcuts if it saves them time and money.

I really don't care about commercial growers and neither should you. This newsgroup is for home gardeners. If you want to wage your campaign against commercial growers, seek another newsgroup.

I meant to say Codling Moths. The pheremones attract the moths to the trap, where they get ensnarred.

That's why I have given up on pheremones, and gone over to sticky balls. However, it is no easy task to smear that stuff on, hang them up, and then take them down.

I meant to address the Codling Moths when refering to pheramones. However, I also tried the attractant sold for apple maggot flies, which was also very expensive. I now rely strictly on sticky balls.

I was going for Codling Moths, so my approach was valid.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.