Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
the passage of the FQPA created a sense of crisis that stimulated grow-
ers and their organizations to recognize the value of organophosphate
alternatives, much as Earl Decker's network did in 1978. Reducing or
removing organophosphates from farming systems allows formerly sup-
pressed ecological organisms to express their potency, their life. Growers
and PCAs prescribed softer, pest species-specific pesticides, relied on
pheromones to reduce pest populations so that they relied on drastically
fewer organophosphate applications, used non-hazardous materials like
soaps and mineral oils, or discovered that much of the benefits they had
received from organophosphates mixed with oils could be garnered from
oils alone.
Newer, biologically derived, pest-specific pheromones and insecticides
have helped a great deal, and the passage of the FQPA accelerated their
development. UC IPM Advisor Walt Bentley observes:
. . . not everybody wants to hear this, but there have been pesticides that have
allowed growers to move away from what we would consider more harmful
materials. There are things like Spinosad [a pesticide product derived from a soil
micro organism that selectively kills plant eating insects]. We've found better uses
for Bt. We found [insect] growth regulators. These have all helped to be inte-
grated into the program, so those growers that don't have the confidence of
growing without a spray can still rely on that, maybe a little bit of their old pro-
gram and not have the destructive effects. And that was a key part of both the
almond and the stone fruit program. These programs came together when there
were materials that could fit the needs.
But many new, less hazardous pesticides cannot be used with the same
ease as the broad spectrum organophosphates; they are not interchange-
able, and they require support from a social learning network to be
successful.
Several general scenarios unfold as growers remove organophosphates
from their farming systems
19
:
New “softer” products provided some control of primary pests, but not
enough to justify their expense (many are quite costly the first few years
they are on the market).
Participants discovered that the organophosphate was controlling more
than the primary pest, and they had to develop strategies to cope with
the secondary pest(s), often turning to additional soft pesticides.
Some growers applied organophosphates every year (especially in dor-
mant sprays) but discovered they were economically justified only every
2, 3, or 4 years.
