Jump to main content.

Integrated Pest Management and Soil Pest Control Technologies In California Vineyards

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) practices which do not utilize methyl bromide have begun to replace the use of this fumigant for the control of soilborne pests in a number of California vineyards. Currently, only about half of California's vineyard acreage are fumigated with methyl bromide as a preplant treatment. In fact, large-scale California grape producers, including Fetzer Vineyards, Savage Island Farms, Soghomonian Farms, Steven Pavich, and many other vineyards in the Lodi-Woodbridge region are succesfully using IPM practices to grow grapes profitably without methyl bromide. Furthermore, it is likely that the use of IPM practices will continue to expand as the research base increases, the market for environmentally friendly products increases, and on-farm demonstrations facilitate technology transfer.

Currently, field research, on-farm efficacy studies, and economic analyses of various alternatives are helping to accelerate the transition from methyl bromide soil fumigation to IPM practices. For example, the Lodi-Woodbridge Winegrape Commission (LWWC), working under grants from the California Energy Commission, the Kellogg Foundation, and California's Department of Environmental Protection, are studying the energy costs associated with conventional and sustainable farming systems, the implementation of IPM strategies region-wide, and the education and promotion of existing IPM techniques to growers in California (Lanchester 1996). Further, scientists at the Kearney Agricultural Station are studying metam sodium to improve its efficacy for nematode control (Peacock 1995, Westerdahl 1995). These and other research and implementation efforts will help to reduce the use of methyl bromide in California's vineyards.

Top of page

Overview of Methyl Bromide Use in California Vineyards

Approximately 10,000 California farms produced 89 percent of the 11 billion pounds of grapes harvested in the U.S. in 1992 (U.S. Department of Commerce 1994). While the number of acres devoted to grape production in California has declined slightly over the past decade, production has nearly doubled (CAS 1993), and in 1992 the California grape crop was valued at $1.7 billion (Liebman and Daar 1995).

Although grape vines are perennial crops and typically remain in production for many years, vines grown for commercial production are periodically replanted to maintain high productivity and uniform fruit quality. In conventional grape production, soil pest control technologies are used primarily to prepare soils for replanting (NRC 1989, Peacock 1995). Three to five years after the new rootstock is planted, grape vines begin to reach their productive potential; on average, vines remain in peak production for approximately 20-25 years although some produce for up to 40 years (NRC 1989, CAN, et al. undated, Peacock 1995).

Grape production is the third largest use of methyl bromide for soil fumigation in California (Liebman and Daar 1995). In 1992, approximately 5,600 acres of vineyard land, or 45 percent of the area planted with wine, raisin or table grape crops, were fumigated with approximately 900 metric tons of methyl bromide (Liebman and Daar 1995, EPA 1994). California vineyards account for about 4 percent of the total U.S. methyl bromide consumption, 10 percent of all California soil fumigant application, and 1.3 percent of world wide use (EPA 1994).

Methyl bromide (combined with chloropicrin) is applied prior to planting vineyards in order to control a variety of soilborne pathogens, nematodes, insects, and weeds (SCEPA 1993, NRC 1989). Primary target pests are nematodes; however, phylloxera and oak root fungus are also a concern in many vineyards (Westerdahl 1995). Fumigation primarily occurs on soils that previously supported grape-vines, orchard trees, or native oaks and are scheduled to be replanted into vineyards. Because these soils may contain insects and pathogens harbored by the remains of the previous crop, fumigation is often performed to control soilborne pathogens prior to re-planting. Methyl bromide is usually distributed to depths of four feet by tractors through hollow tubes driven into the soil. Application rates are typically 300 to 500 pounds per acre. Although tarps are often used to maintain fumigant concentrations, sometimes the use of tarps is omitted to reduce costs by up to $600 per acre. In some instances, fumigation is not practiced prior to replanting, especially if pests are absent or are present in low numbers (e.g., in some coastal areas or in parts of the San Joaquin Valley) (Liebman and Daar 1995).

In addition to its impact on stratospheric ozone, there are several reasons to find alternatives to methyl bromide use in vineyards. First, material and application costs for methyl bromide can range anywhere from $600-$1,500 per acre. Second, methyl bromide, as well as other chemical fumigants, are restricted use pesticides that can not be applied near urban areas, on unsuitable terrain, or in areas where soils are damp. Third, grower aversion to methyl bromide and availability of alternatives has tended to decrease use over the past few years (Liebman 1994, DPR 1994a, DPR 1994b). For example, methyl bromide applications are often ineffective in controlling vineyard soil pests due to an inability to penetrate deep into soils which are heavy, coarse, or poorly prepared. Lastly, growers are concerned that methyl bromide fumigation will stunt plant growth by destroying beneficial mycorrhizal fungi (Liebman and Daar 1995).

Top of page

IPM as a Replacement for Methyl Bromide

Research indicates that grapes can be produced in the absence of methyl bromide without jeopardizing quality or profitability (Liebman 1994). A majority of the grape industry in California has turned to integrated pest management (IPM) practices as a long-term approach for managing pests. IPM techniques rely on combining biological, cultural, and chemical tools in a way that minimizes economic, health, and environmental risks (Lanchester 1996). Pesticides are used only when needed and the least toxic formulations and lowest dosages required for effective pest suppression are encouraged (Liebman and Daar 1995).

Growers practicing IPM rely on a variety of pest control methods, including the use of chemical alternatives, resistant rootstocks, crop rotations, cover crops, biological controls (e.g., manures, compost or mineral adjustments). Other farmers produce grapes using organic farming practices. Some growers forgo preplant fumigation and rely instead on post-plant pesticides such as carbofuran (Furadan™), fenamiphos (Nemacur™), and sodium tetrathiocarbonate (Enzone™), or other chemical alternatives such as dazomet (Basamid™), 1,3-dichloropropene (Telone™) and metam sodium (Vapam™), which may be used in combination with non-chemical techniques to increase their effectiveness in controlling soil pests. The use of these methods vary, depending on the pest species present, soil type, topography, grape varieties grown, market conditions, land values and ownership, access to capital, regulatory restrictions, and personal philosophy. In general, these activities reduce the population size and impact of pests and improve the plant vigor and ability to tolerate pest damage (Liebman and Daar 1995). Examples of growers that have successfully used non-chemical and least toxic chemical IPM techniques to produce grapes profitably with out the use of methyl bromide include:

The most promising alternatives include a variety of chemical and non-chemical alternative technologies including alternate fumigants, pasteurizing soil with hot water, soil solarization, resistant rootstocks, soil amendments, biological control, and disease suppressive cover crops (Liebman and Daar 1995):

Chemical Alternatives.
The most promising chemical alternative technologies include fumigation with Telone™ (1,3-D) and metam sodium. These compounds have been shown to effectively manage a variety of the soil pests currently controlled with methyl bromide. Additional research will help to enable growers to implement application techniques with increased effectiveness in managing soil pests (Peacock 1995, Westerdahl 1995, University of California 1992).
Pasteurizing with Hot Water.
This technique involves applying hot water into the soil at a depth of 12 inches and using a rotovator to distribute the heat through the top foot of soil. This procedure not only manages pests but also irrigates the fields. This has yet to be fully tested on the deep rooted pests found in vineyards.
Resistant Rootstocks.
The use of grape rootstocks that show tolerance or resistance to pest species (Flaherty et al. 1992) and have acceptable vigor and viticultural properties can be used to help replace the use of methyl bromide. Resistant rootstocks are a promising alternative to methyl bromide (Peacock 1995) and there has been remarkable effort in California to develop grape rootstocks that are tolerant to nematode infestation in a variety of climates, soils, and pest pressures (University of California 1992, Peacock 1995).
Soil Management.
Cultural controls and the addition of soil amendments (e.g., minerals, compost, manure, and green matter) that improve and strengthen root growth and help grape vines become established more quickly are also effective pest management techniques. Efforts to enhance natural biological controls in the absence of fumigation can also be an effective approach to managing soil pests (e.g., oak root rot is controlled by naturally occurring soilborne fungi in the Trichoderma genus in many California vineyards).
Cover Crops and Crop Rotation.
Cover crops are used to reduce soil pathogens (mainly nematodes) and to provide organic matter that will lead to improved yields (Peacock 1995). Crop rotation can also be an effective method of suppressing damage caused by soilborne pests, but there are costs associated in terms of keeping land out of perennial crops for a period of time.
Solarization.
Solarization is a method in which clear plastic is laid on the soil surface to trap solar radiation and heat the soil. Although the method is particularly effective in hot areas such as the Central Valley (Katan and DeVay 1991, Chellemi et al. 1994), to date, this technique has not been widely studied or utilized for grape production.

Top of page

Costs of IPM Treatments

Development of cost estimates for IPM treatments is limited by the diversity of possible techniques to managing soil pests using an integrated approach. In general, an IPM approach could include using an alternative fumigant, increasing the use of soil amendments and cover crops, paying increased attention to soil conditions (i.e., pest populations), managing cultivation and irrigation schedules more effectively, and using rootstocks with resistance to soil pests. In addition, the selected approach and the resulting treatment cost will be affected by the local site conditions. Given these limitations, Table 1 presents a cost comparison of two methods that could be used to manage soilborne pests when establishing a vineyard. As shown, the up-front costs of the IPM treatment are estimated to be approximately $300 less than the methyl bromide treatment, suggesting that IPM would be an viable alternative to methyl bromide. In addition, future treatments, including periodic scouting, soil testing, spot nematicide treatments, additional soil amendments, and the use of cover crop may be used to maintain or increase the effectiveness of the IPM approach. Although not all of these activities may be required on an annual basis, they could increase future per acre treatment costs by about $50 to $200 annually.

Top of page

Comparison of Soil Treatment Costs for Establishing a Vineyard

Treatment/Estimated Cost($/acre)
Methyl Bromide/1,110 to $2,010
Cost Components: Fumigation with methyl bromide: $600 - $1,500, Soil Amendments: $400, Cover Crops, Cultivation, Mowing, and Herbicides: $110
IPM/ $1,670
Cost Components: Fumigation with metam sodium: $ 1,000, Soil Amendments: $ 500, Cover Crops, Cultivation, Mowing, and Herbicides: $ 170
Sources: Howe 1994, Klonsky 1992a, Klonsky 1992b, McKenry 1995, Smith 1992, Verdegall 1994.

Top of page

References

CAN, et al. undated. California Action Network et al. Into the Sunlight, Exposing Methyl Bromide's Threat to the Ozone Layer.
CAS. 1993 (March). California Agricultural Statistics. California Fruit & Nut Statistics, 1983-92.
DPR. 1994a (May 2). Methyl bromide suggested soil injection fumigation permit conditions. California EPA, Department of Pesticide Regulation Advisory to County Agricultural Commissioners. DPR Document No. ENF 94-019.
DPR. 1994b (June 2). Updates to the soil injection and greenhouse suggested methyl bromide permit conditions. California EPA, DPR Advisory to
County Agricultural Commissioners, DPR Document No. ENF 94-025.
Chellemi. 1994. "Integrated pest management for soilborne pests of tomato (Abstract)." D.O. Chellemi, S.M. Olson, R. McSorley, D.J. Mitchell, W.M. Stall, and J.W. Scott. In: MBAO, pp. 25-1,2.
EPA. 1994. Methyl Bromide Consumption Estimates. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Stratospheric Protection Division, Washington, D.C. May 3, 1994.
Flaherty, et al. 1992. Grape Pest Management, 2nd ed. Flaherty, D.L., L.P. Christensen, W.T., Lanini, J.J. Marois, P.A. Phillips, and L.T. Wilson (eds.). University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Oakland, California.
Howe. 1994 (October). "Lodi's Dynamic Duo Cuts Chemicals by 80%." Kenneth Howe. In Farmer to Farmer. Community Alliance with Family Farmers Foundation. Davis, California.
Katan and DeVay. 1991. Soil Solarization. J. Katan and J.E. DeVay. CRC Press. Boca Raton, Florida.
Klonsky, et al. 1992a. Sample Costs to Produce Organic Wine Grapes in the North Coast: with resident vegetation. K. Klonsky, L. Tourte, and C. Ingels. Department of Agricultural Economics, Cooperative Extension, University of California. Davis, California.
Klonsky, et al. 1992b. Sample Costs to Produce Organic Wine Grapes in the North Coast: with and annually sown cover crop. K. Klonsky, L. Tourte, and C. Ingels. Department of Agricultural Economics, Cooperative Extension, University of California. Davis, California.
Lanchester. 1996 (July 23). Personal communication. Lanette Lanchester, IPM Coordinator, Lodi-Woodbridge Winegrape Commission. Lodi, California.
Liebman. 1995 (January 18). Personal communication. Jamie Liebman, Bio-Integral Resource Center. Berkeley, CA.
Liebman. 1994 (November). James A Liebman. Integrating Research and Practice: Implementing Alternatives to Methyl Bromide Soil Fumigation in California Agriculture. 1994 Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. November 13-16. Kissimmee, Florida.
Liebman and Daar. 1995 (February). "Alternatives to Methyl Bromide in California Grape Production," The IPM Practitioner: Monitoring the Field of Pest Management, Vol. XVII, No. 2.
McKenry. 1995. "First-year evaluation of tree and vine growth and nematode development following 17 pre-plant treatments." M. McKenry, T. Buzo, and S. Kaku. In: MBAO.
NRC. 1989. National Research Council. Alternative Agriculture. National Academy Press. Washington, D.C.
Peacock. 1995 (January 18). Personal communication. William Peacock, Tulare County Farm Advisor. Visalia, CA.
SCEPA. 1993. State of California, Environmental Protection Agency. Pesticide Use Report Annual 1992 Indexed by Commodity. Department of Pesticide Regulation. Sacramento, CA.
Smith. 1992. Sample Costs to Establish a Vineyard and Produce Wine Grapes in Sonoma County-1992.. R. Smith, K. Klonsky, P. Livingstone, Department of Agricultural Economics, Cooperative Extension, University of California, Davis. California.
University of California. 1992. UC IPM Pest Management Guidelines. Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Publication 3339.
U.S. Department of Commerce. 1994 (October). 1992 Census of Agriculture. Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census.
Verdegall, et al. 1994. Sample Costs to Establish a Vineyard and Produce Wine Grapes: Cabernet Sauvignon Variety & Drip Irrigated in the Lodi Appellation of Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties. P. Verdegall, K. Klonsky, and P. Livingston. Department of Agricultural Economics, Cooperative Extension, University of California. Davis, California.
Westerdahl. 1995 (January 18). Personal communication. Becky Westerdahl, Extension specialist--Applied Nematology and IPM, University of California. Davis, California.

Please note that this publication discusses specific proprietary products and pest control methods. Some of these alternatives are now commercially available, while others are in an advanced stage of development. In all cases, the information presented does not constitute a recommendation or an endorsement of these products or methods by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or other involved parties. Neither should the absence of an item or pest control method necessarily be interpreted as EPA disapproval.

Top of page


Back to Case Studies Volume 2 | Methyl bromide home

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.