Jump to main content.

Fresh Pear Committee's PESP Strategy

Introduction

IPM adoption in Pacific Northwest Pear Orchards

The United States is the third largest pear-producing country in the world, behind China and Argentina. The Pacific Northwest (PNW) states of Oregon and Washington produce 66% of the national pear crop. In this region, pears are produced in arid interior valleys from the Oregon-California border to the Canadian border in Washington. Pears are grown on almost 45,000 acres by nearly 1,600 growers, with the average orchard size just under 20 acres. The four major pear growing regions are: the Wenatchee-Okanagan district in north-central Washington, the Yakima district in south-central Washington, the Mid-Columbia district (Hood River) on the Columbia River and the Rogue River valley (Medford) in Southern Oregon. Table 1 lists the acreage of Bartlett and winter pears ('d’Anjou’, ‘Bosc’, ‘Comice’, ‘Red Anjou’ and ‘Seckel’) in Oregon and Washington.

Table 1. Pear Acreage in the Pacific Northwest 2006.
District
Variety
Acres
Wenatchee-Okanogan
Bartlett
4,383
Winter Pears
9,997
Yakima
Bartlett
6,282
Winter Pears
2,388
Columbia Basin
Bartlett
628
Winter Pears
419
Washington Total
Bartlett
11,700
Winter Pears
13,500
Willamette Valley
Bartlett
220
Winter Pears
170
Hood River
Bartlett
3,200
Winter Pears
7,500
Medford
Bartlett
800
Winter Pears
4,960
Oregon Total
Bartlett
4,350
Winter Pears
12,880
Pacific Northwest Total
Bartlett
16,050
Winter Pears
26,380

Sources: Messer, Chris; 2006 Washington Fruit Survey Highlights; USDA NASS 2pp Mertz, Christopher, et al. 2006; Oregon Fruit Tree Inventory Survey; USDA, NASS 16 pp.

Between 12.8 and 16.4 million boxes of pears are shipped annually. Table 2 lists the volume of pears by variety and Table 3 lists the volume of pears by growing district. Both the 2006-2007 crop year and 5-year averages are given.

Table 2. Pear volume by variety shipped from the Pacific Northwest, 2006-2007 and 5-year averages. Figures are in standard box equivalents (44-lb).
Variety
 2006-2007 5-Year Average
Green Bartlett
3,430,623
3,215,814
Red Bartlett
122,721
149,467
Other
270,841
206,243
Total Bartlett
3,824,185
3,571,524
Anjou
8,702,097
10,050,737
Bosc
2,980,133
2,696,330
Comice
220,862
200,806
Seckel
54,301
48,894
Red Anjou
750,783
719,451
Red Winter Pears
27,325
26,103
Other
170,383
122,970
Total Winter Pears
12,905,884
13,865,291
Source: Fresh Pear Committee

 

Table 3. Pear volume by district in the Pacific Northwest, 2006-2007, 5-year and 10-year averages. Figures are in standard box equivalents (44-lb).
Crop Year
Medford
Mid- Columbia
Wenatchee-
Okanogan
Yakima
TOTAL
(Std. Box)
1997-98
1,239,199
6,053,029
6,640,116
2,467,870
16,400,214
1998-99
970,392
5,626,862
5,956,922
1,758,507
14,312,683
1999-00
1,242,083
4,578,184
5,607,244
2,204,054
13,631,565
2000-01
936,175
5,302,331
6,232,941
1,923,362
14,394,809
2001-02
1,142,442
5,503,912
6,541,309
2,169,325
15,356,988
2002-03
734,618
5,034,641
6,439,062
1,940,391
14,148,712
2003-04
769,399
5,289,663
6,557,775
2,024,404
14,641,241
2004-05
1,006,926
5,194,868
5,428,900
1,669,784
13,300,478
2005-06
735,052
5,025,601
6,974,320
1,598,916
14,333,889
2006-07
1,063,832
4,983,952
5,033,425
1,729,869
12,811,078
10-yr Avg.
984,012
5,259,304
6,141,201
1,948,648
14,333,166
5-yr Avg.
861,965
5,105,745
6,086,696
1,792,673
13,847,080

Pest Management Needs

Commercially-grown pears are attacked by a range of insects and diseases. Table 4 lists those of major importance in the Pacific Northwest along with the type of damage caused by each species. Some of these are chronic pests which are managed annually using integrated pest management (IPM) programs. Some are more sporadic and are addressed in management programs after orchard scouting reveals the presence pests in damaging life stages. The relative importance of each of these pests varies from district to district, depending on a complex interaction between individual orchard sites, other crops grown in the district, and the varieties grown in each area and the ultimate use of each variety.

Table 4. Pear Insect and Disease Problems in the Pacific Northwest.
Pests Type of Damage Loss w/o pesticides
Insects:
Codling moth Larval (worm) stage feeds directly on the fruit. Severe
Pear psylla Immature (nymphs) stages feed on leaves and drip a sticky substance (honeydew) on the fruit resulting in losses to the fresh market. Severe
European red mite, two spotted mite, McDaniel mite, yellow mite and pear rust mite All life stages feed on leaves causing damage ranging from partial loss of leaf function through complete defoliation. Pear rust mites feed directly on the fruit surface resulting in losses to the fresh market. Moderate to severe depending on variety
Leafrollers Larval stage feeds on leaves and fruit Minor to moderate
Box elder bugs, lygus bugs and stink bugs All life stages feed on fruit Minor to moderate
San Jose scale All life stages feed on branches, leaves and fruit. Presence of pest on fruit will prevent sale to export markets. Minor to severe
Grape mealybug All life stages feed on leaves and branches dripping a sticky substance (honeydew) on the fruit resulting in losses to the fresh market. Minor to severe depending on region
Pre-harvest diseases:
Fire blight A bacterial disease which attacks and kills all or portions of the tree Severe
Pear scab Fungal disease which attacks leaves, shoots and fruit Severe where enabling environmental conditions occur
Powdery mildew Fungal disease which attacks leaves, shoots and fruit Severe on clear-skinned varieties
Bull’s-eye rot Fungal disease attacking fruit and branches Minor to moderate
Phytophthora fruit rot Fungal disease attacking fruit and branches Minor to moderate
Post-harvest diseases:
Gray mold, blue mold, Phacidiopycnis rot, Mucor rot, Sphaeropsis rot, and Alternaria rot Fungal diseases which cause fruit to rot in cold storage after harvest Minor to severe depending on disease

Key Pear Pests

Codling moth, pear psylla, and spider mites have traditionally been the key pests of pear in the PNW. Theses pests are responsible for physiological and cosmetic damage to pear trees and fruit and lack an effective natural enemy complex. Control of this pest triumvirate is currently dependent on the availability and continuing effectiveness of suitable pesticide tools. Particularly in the cases of pear psylla and spider mites, the use of pesticide tools is closely managed to avoid the rapid development of resistance in pest populations. Resistance to pesticides has occurred repeatedly in both spider mites and pear psylla in past decades. While a number of newer miticides are currently available, management of pear psylla remains a challenge.

Codling moth is generally managed using one to four applications of organophosphates, neonicotinoids, and other insecticides, often in combination with codling moth mating disruption, depending on codling moth densities in each district. Insecticide resistance in codling moth remains a concern and evidence of cross-resistance between groups of insecticides is growing. Because there are no effective natural enemies of codling moth, pesticides of some type are necessary to keep the population below an economic threshold. Codling moth mating disruption is used on a significant portion of the pear acreage but supplemental controls are generally required. The codling moth granulosis virus is being used extensively in organic pear production and is increasingly being used in conventional pear pest management as well.

Pear psylla is currently being managed during the prebloom period with one or two applications of insect growth regulators (IGRs) or insecticides. Additionally, a non-toxic clay compound, kaolin, is widely used during this period to reduce egg-laying by adult pear psylla. Postbloom and summer control of pear psylla is maintained by applications of avermectin, IGRs and/or neonicotinoids. A complex of generalist predators has been shown to provide biological control of pear psylla in certain situations but the presence of this complex is dependent on the availability of ecological refugia, alternate prey for the predators, and finding alternatives for currently used broad spectrum insecticides which are toxic to natural enemies but necessary for use against other pests. These conditions are not commonly met in most orchards in the growing regions therefore reliance on biological control is developing slowly. Foreign explorations for natural enemies to psylla continue, but the current supporting role for classic biological control of pear psylla should continue into the near future.

Spidermites (two-spotted spider mite, McDaniel spider mite, yellow mite, and European red mite) are controlled by the applications of avermectin used against pear psylla, as well as other specific miticides. Biological control of spidermites is possible although the economic damage threshold is very low on some pear varieties, such as d’Anjou. Pear rust mite can occur at damaging levels and is managed through careful monitoring and application of pesticides when necessary.

Additional Pear Pests

Other arthropods are also targeted in current pear IPM programs. San Jose scale, grape mealybug, a complex of leafrollers and sucking bugs are pests of a sporadic nature and/or regional significance.

San Jose scale is managed with prophylactic applications of horticultural mineral oil and insecticides during the prebloom period, and insecticides alone when control is necessary during the postbloom period. Significant research would be required to identify the conditions under which biological control could operate in conjunction with a commercially acceptable management program.

Grape mealybug is a serious pest of pear in the Wenatchee-Okanagan district and is the key pest in some orchards. Although these aphid-like insects primarily feed on foliage, sugary exudates produced during feeding can drip onto the fruit making it commercially worthless. It is not clearly understood why grape mealybug is such a serious regional pest, but, where it is a problem, growers must rely on conventional pesticides to maintain control. In these orchards, two or more organophosphate applications may be necessary. Research is currently being conducted to address the grape mealybug problem using a two-pronged approach. The role of naturally occurring biological control agents is being studied to determine if these play a role in grape mealybug control and “soft” pesticides are being evaluated to conserve any potential natural enemy complex.

Pandemis and oblique-banded leafrollers are causing increasing amounts of fruit damage in regional orchards, leading to additional pesticide applications specifically directed at these pests. Pear growers have increasingly turned to applications of IGRs and spinosad insecticides, with occasional use of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) for leafroller control.

Sucking bugs, including stink bugs, box elder bugs and lygus bugs, are a regionally sporadic but serious problem particularly in the Wenatchee Valley and as well as in other districts where mating disruption for codling moth is being used. Currently, growers rely on broad spectrum insecticides to provide control when populations reach damaging levels. Research is being conducted to develop sampling methods to better predict the development of these populations.

Diseases

Preharvest

Perhaps the single most important preharvest disease of pears in the PNW is fire blight. It is perennially present in the primary pear production areas and occasionally devastating when unseasonably warm temperatures coincide with the primary bloom period of pears. In “normal” years, ‘Bartlett’ is the variety most often damaged by fire blight in the cooler districts of the PNW because of its tendency to produce waves of secondary bloom that extend into the warmer months after the primary bloom period ends. Later blooming and highly susceptible cultivars such as ‘Bosc’ and ‘Comice’ pose greater risks than the earlier blooming ‘d’Anjou’. Control of fire blight in PNW pear orchards is accomplished through both cultural and chemical tactics. Fire blight strikes are removed as they become visible during the growing season and/or in the dormant period. Prevention of blossom infection is carried out using copper and the antibiotics oxytetracycline and streptomycin. Special formulations of beneficial bacteria have been shown to provide partial biological control of fire blight but must be used with bactericides under conditions of high disease pressure. Applications of these bactericides are currently made based on the grower’s own assessment of risk which consists of the orchard’s history of fire blight infection, current weather conditions and the relative susceptibility of the cultivar. Current research is focused on finding more effective biological controls and continual improvement in the accuracy of weather-driven fire blight prediction systems to help growers anticipate the occurrence of high fire blight risk conditions in their own orchards. This will reduce fire blight damage and prevent unnecessary applications of antibiotics.

Significant losses in PNW pear production are also caused by preharvest and postharvest fungal diseases. The most important preharvest fungal diseases are pear scab and powdery mildew. Pear scab, which attacks fruit and foliage, is most severe in the higher rainfall areas of Oregon where it is controlled by timing applications of fungicides using predictive models driven by observations of precipitation, leaf wetness and air temperature in the orchard. Powdery mildew is most troublesome to ‘d’Anjou’ and ‘Comice’ varieties, primarily affecting the fruit. A wide variety of fungicides are generally used to control both of these diseases until the period of susceptibility passes. Other less widespread diseases such as bull’s eye rot and phytophthora fruit rot are more sporadic in nature. They are controlled by preventative sprays and/or sanitation, and by reducing the use of over-tree sprinkler irrigation. Research is currently underway to more clearly understand the environmental and host conditions necessary for infection by these diseases.

Postharvest

While they are often ignored in other IPM programs, postharvest losses caused by fungal infections are often the most costly pest problem to pear growers. In a survey covering the 1990 to 1993 crop years, PNW pear packinghouse managers reported losses ranging from $1.5 to $2.5 million due to postharvest diseases and disorders. Postharvest diseases affecting PNW pears include gray mold, blue mold, Phacidiopycnis rot, bull’s eye rot, Mucor rot, Sphaeropsis rot, Phialophora side rot, Alternaria rot, and others. These diseases differ in the origin of infections. Blue mold and gray mold originate primarily from infections of wounds such as punctures and bruises on the fruit created at harvest and during postharvest handling, whereas Phacidiopycnis rot, bull’s eye rot, and Sphaeropsis rot originate from latent infections of fruit in the orchard.

Although stored pears are held under stringent temperature and controlled atmosphere regimes and treated with a limited arsenal of fungicides, current crop size necessitates that some portion of the crop be stored up to nine months or longer, which increases the risk of loss due to decay. Postharvest diseases in stored boxes of packed fruit may result in costly repacking in addition to direct fruit losses. The withdrawal of benomyl registration for postharvest use on pears coincided with a perception of greater postharvest decay losses in recent years. The recently registered reduced-risk fungicides Scholar and Penbotec for postharvest application in pear show promise as useful tools, but must be applied soon after harvest to have maximum effect.

The long-used fungicides SOPP, TBZ, and Captan remain available. The industry is financially supporting the re-registration of SOPP to maintain its use. Captan, when used in combination with TBZ, is the most effective treatment for postharvest storage decay but Captan residues on the fruit are not permitted in some major export markets, which limits its usefulness. TBZ is the most widely used fungicide but control of the major decay organisms with this product appears to be breaking down.

Research into biological controls for these diseases has resulted in registration of some products. While these do not unilaterally offer the necessary level of control, the biological control approach is promising. Currently the pear industry’s ability to effectively manage postharvest decay is limited to the use of fungicides SOPP, Captan, TBZ, Penbotec, and Scholar. The first three fungicides have been used for many years. Continuous use of benzimidazole fungicides such as TBZ over many years has led to benzimidazole resistance in postharvest pathogens. Resistance to TBZ in Penicillium expansum often results in the failure of blue mold control. Penbotec and Scholar were registered in 2004 for postharvest use on apples and pears. These two new fungicides are effective in controlling major postharvest diseases of pears and can also be used as tools for controlling blue mold caused by TBZ-resistant strains of P. expansum.

In the past, management of these diseases was primarily focused in the packinghouse. Decay control research is underway to study the basic biology of how and when these diseases actually infect fruit from orchard to storage, to better target control applications and to explore new options. Recent innovative IPM research has led to a greater understanding of the preharvest causes of postharvest losses, and in some cases, management options in the orchard that can reduce the likelihood of infection.

Future IPM programs will incorporate more of these management options as they become commercially available. Superficial scald, a postharvest physiological disorder of ‘d’Anjou’ fruit, can also be a major cause of stored fruit losses. The antioxidant ethoxyquin is currently the only effective registered chemical to manage this disorder. The pear industry is supporting re-registration of ethoxyquin to maintain its use. Research, funded by the industry, continues to look for a way to interrupt the physiological mechanisms of scald as a way to improve its management. Management of superficial scald with 1-methylcyclopropene (1-MCP) or ultra-low oxygen storage continues to be studied for application to pears.

The pear industry of the Washington and Oregon is currently dependent on very few tools for the control of postharvest diseases and disorders. There are no equally effective non-chemical alternatives available to manage postharvest diseases. Loss of virtually any of the current fungicides or antioxidants without adequate replacements would mean serious losses to the fruit industry and likely a loss of ability to continue to market large crops.

Industry Commitment to IPM Research

Pears are a unique crop with unique pest management requirements. Because pears are grown in many geographically and ecologically diverse locations throughout the PNW, pest problems are not uniform across the districts. Differences in pest complexes and varietal selection by growers, coupled with differences in industry infrastructure have resulted in differing approaches to IPM in each district. Because of its status as minor crop as well as the biological ability of key pear pests to rapidly develop resistance to pesticides, pear IPM programs are often precarious and tactics may change rapidly. Because of the complexity of current management programs most growers employ trained pest management consultants who monitor pest populations and are alert to changing environmental conditions. These consultants aid the grower in determining a response to each pest management challenge.

The PNW pear industry invests over $250,000 in pear pest management research each year at land grant universities in Oregon and Washington and at USDA ARS facilities. These research facilities are developing the current and future IPM tactics described in the previous sections. The goal is to reduce the industry’s future reliance on the most toxic control tools. This development process conducted in partnership with the above agencies is critical to the long-term success of the pear industry.

Current industry-supported research projects are listed below. The industry feels that this research is the cornerstone of future IPM programs. In most cases the research is limited by the numbers of available scientists. The commitment to providing research personnel has declined on both the state and federal levels in recent years.

In addition to the pest-specific research outlined, other broader research is also being done through this partnership, in cooperation with national research organizations around the world. This work focuses on finding size-controlling rootstocks and creates the potential for truly dwarf pear orchards. Unlike apples, dwarfing rootstocks are not currently available for pears, forcing growers to produce fruit on large trees which are more difficult to manage. Smaller trees would allow improved spray coverage using smaller equipment, easier management and greater potential to manipulate the trees for pest management purposes. However, this is long-term research and the day when these rootstocks are commercially available is not yet in sight.

What do you envision doing (broadly) to try to resolve your major issues?

Industry Goals For Pear IPM

The PNW pear industry seeks to develop and use effective and economical pest management tactics while delivering a high quality product to its customers. To reach this objective the industry has identified a series of goals for its IPM programs:

Implementing Pear IPM Goals

Specific IPM demonstration and educational projects have been initiated as a way of incorporating these goals into model IPM projects. The largest and most visible of those are included here as examples of the pear industry’s commitment to stewardship. All of these projects arose as the result of local interest in new approaches to pear IPM. Each of these projects seeks to enhance IPM use in regional pear orchards.

Goal 1 and Tactics

Wenatchee Valley Areawide Organic Insect Pest Management

In 2002, an Areawide Organic Insect Pest Management Program was established on 310 acres of contiguous pear, surrounded by native vegetation in a small valley near Peshastin. Organic pest management practices were implemented as the primary control strategies for insect and mite control throughout the project. However, other organic practices were not required (e.g., nutrient, rodent, and weed management were often by conventional practices), and approximately 50% of the acreage was Certified Organic. Comparisons have been made among 41 orchard management units, designated Soft or Organic, with Conventional comparison blocks located nearby.

The cooperating growers initiated this areawide organic program over their own concerns for the environmental impacts of their farming, and their desire to proactively improve their agroecosystem. A salmon and steelhead spawning habitat, Peshastin Creek, runs through the middle of the valley, and has been protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act. In 2000, the growers initiated improvements in their irrigation system to reduce their water usage, to better protect the waterway. They wanted to further reduce their impact by eliminating organophosphate insecticides, which then led to the next step of using organic IPM and selective, environmentally benign pesticides such as insect growth regulators.

Over five years, no differences have been found among the programs in levels of insect control or insecticide program costs. However, there have been no correlated increases in overall natural enemy densities, as was expected when removing the ‘disruptive’ broad-spectrum conventional insecticides. Fruit yield and quality have largely been maintained, although some reduction in yield may be occurring. Alternative marketing programs have been attempted and were successful in garnering increased box prices through 2004. While the program might be more information-intensive, it has thus far demonstrated that there are great benefits to areawide management. Further, perceived barriers to implementing very soft programs, such as cost, numbers of insecticide applications, etc., are not significant within an areawide program.

Goal 2 and Tactics

Southern Oregon’s (Medford) Commitment to IPM

The OSU-Southern Oregon Research & Extension Center (SOREC), along with similar and cooperative efforts at the Mid-Columbia Agricultural Research and Extension Center, has long sought to minimize adverse effects of synthetic pesticides in tree fruit production, maximize the beneficial effects of natural control agents and other environmentally friendly pest control methods, while maintaining acceptable levels of productivity, fruit quality, and grower profitability. The information below summarizes SOREC’s work since 1995 with an emphasis on the most recent period.

A five-year project beginning in 1995 focused on primary pests in commercial orchards, including codling moth, San Jose scale, pear rust mite, pear psylla and spider mite. A selective program for this pear pest complex was implemented, including pheromone dispensers for mating disruption of the codling moth; the acaricides, Savey and Apollo; and the psyllicide fenoxycarb. However, a problem remained: with newer, more selective controls, formerly minor pests could be free to take over and inflict significant damage. Thus, the challenges remained and the program continues with further assessment and research.

Building on this area-wide program, which reduced in-season organophosphate use in apples and pears by 75%, work continued in the early 2000s to further reduce broad-spectrum pesticide use, expand the use of mating disruption in pome fruits and new cropping systems, and improve biological control of secondary pests in orchards.

Large-scale sites were established to: (1) determine the differences and advantages of replacing organophosphate and carbamate insecticides with new selective (target-specific) products; (2) evaluate and develop new pheromone dispensing technologies; (3) develop multi-species management programs focusing on semiochemicals; (4) evaluate and improve non-pheromone monitoring systems to reduce risk; (5) lower insecticide use rates through feeding stimulants and baits; and (6) extend pheromone-based management principles to new acreage, pests, and crops.

Also, in the early 2000s, an extension program trained growers to reduce their use of synthetic pesticides, in part by making use of available technologies, such as weather information, degree-day models, and other pest control information. Another aspect of this program was to identify and map abandoned orchards and rogue pome fruit trees and make landowners aware of the fact that such neglected areas tend to host pests that then threaten current crops.

More that 140 acres of demonstration orchards were established along with comparison orchards using standard practices. No organophosphates were applied in the demonstration plots. Information about pest damage at harvest, sprays used other than organophosphates, and spray program costs were analyzed and widely disseminated.

In the mid-2000s (from 2003 to the present), on-farm demonstration plots are being closely monitored for pests and appropriate alternative pest control measures are being applied, without need for organophosphate or carbamate insecticides. Codling moth granulosis virus, a highly specific biological control has been tested and found effective. In some situations, this control is less costly than mating disruption.

Three types of mating disruption have been compared: standard hand applied pheromone dispensers; a novel product, Ecotape; and an ultra low volume application of microencapsulated pheromone sprayed from an applicator mounted on an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) at a volume of 1.5 gallons per acre. All methods appear to be equivalent; 95 to 99% of the fruit is free from codling moth injury.

Studies on trapping codling moth using a kairomone (pear ester) that attracts both male and female moths demonstrated that this new technology can be used effectively in pears. This ester may be used to time sprays with greater precision so that materials, such as the granulosis virus, which are limited by their lack of residual activity, can be applied when egg-laying is at peak levels.

Trials were conducted to evaluate new materials from chemical companies against the European earwig. However, this earwig can be a beneficial insect in pome fruit. Information from the trials was combined with results on other natural enemies from collaborating researchers. A matrix was developed to inform growers about the potential negative impacts of these newer pesticides on biological control agents. This risk-rating system is being used in developing IPM programs that encourage the conservation of natural enemies.

Largely because of the work of this long-term project, around 40% of local tree fruit acreage is successfully using mating disruption, based on IPM principles, with very limited use of problem insecticides (e.g., organophosphates, carbamates, pyrethroids). Half of the acreage employs careful monitoring and uses weather data and phenology models (found on the pest alert web site) to predict pest development, thereby, avoid unnecessary pesticide treatments. Surveys show that over 75% of the tree fruit acreage in southern Oregon uses mating disruption, careful monitoring, weather data, phenology models, or a combination thereof. In addition, over 60 acres are transitioning to, or are now certified for, organic production, with another 80 acres added in 2007.

As a result of this long-term research and education effort, most southern Oregon tree fruit producers have significantly reduced their use of environmentally harmful pesticides (e.g., organophosphates, carbamates, pyrethroids) that kill broadly and persist for a long time in the environment. Instead, many or most pear growers now use mating disruption or new target-specific materials with minimal residual effects. Pest monitoring and use of weather data and phenology models to predict pest development has increased and has helped growers to optimize their pest management and avoid unnecessary pesticide treatments. As urbanization continues, conflicts regarding pesticide use have intensified in the rural-urban interface; adoption of an IPM approach has the added benefit of limiting these conflicts.

Goal 3 and Tactics

Hood River District Integrated Fruit Production

The Hood River fruit growing district is nestled along the Columbia River in northern Oregon/southern Washington. It consists of 15,000 acres of irrigated orchards farmed by 350 independent family operators. In the early 1990s, based on growing concerns with the environmental and economic viability of pear and apple production in the Hood River district, discussion began about new directions in the production and marketing of pears and apples. In 1994, the Hood River Grower-Shipper Association (HRGSA) assembled an industry task force including growers, packinghouse and agricultural chemical company field representatives, independent consultants, and university personnel. This group decided to implement a local adaptation of an internationally recognized production system, Integrated Fruit Production (IFP). Through consensus, this group directed the development of Hood River District IFP program. The goal of the IFP program is an economical production of high quality pear and apple fruit which gives priority to ecologically sound growing practices. Pesticides, fertilizers, and water are used judiciously to minimize impacts on the environmental and human health to sustain the viability of the agroecosystem. The key components of the Hood River District IFP program are:

Assessing IPM Adoption

All of the above programs are specific examples of the broad-based stewardship strategies being pursued by the pear industry of Washington and Oregon. Progress towards biologically sound, environmentally friendly, and cost effective pear IPM systems will be measured by adoption of new practices within each project as evaluated by project participants. Further, reductions in the use of the most disruptive pesticides along with changes in IPM practices will continue be monitored through the use of NASS pear pesticide use survey data. It is expected that with continued improvement in pear IPM programs there will be continued reductions in the use of broad-spectrum pesticides in the pear agroecosystem.

Acknowledgements

This stewardship strategy has been initiated at the request of the Fresh Pear Committee (formerly the Winter Pear Control Committee (WPCC)) representing pear growers in Oregon and Washington. The strategy was prepared under the direction of the Fresh Pear Committee. They were advised by the ad hoc Fresh Pear EPA Stewardship Technical Advisory Subcommittee consisting of: Dr. Gene Kupferman, Fruit Quality Specialist, Dr. John Dunley, Entomologist, Dr. Chang-Lin Xiao, Plant Pathologist at Washington State University Tree Fruit Research and Extension Center, Wenatchee; Dr. David Sugar, Plant Pathologist, Phil VanBuskirk at Oregon State University Southern Oregon Research and Extension Center, Medford; Dr. Helmut Riedl, Entomologist, Dr. Robert Spotts, Oregon State University Mid-Columbia Research and Extension Center, Hood River. The Fresh Pear Committee is grateful for the efforts of each of these individuals.

Partial funding for the initial project in the 1990’s came from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Grant Program administered by the National Foundation for IPM Education (NFIPME ID#: 52). The PESP Strategy Plan has since been updated by the Northwest pear industry several times, the latest being concluded in May 2008.

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.