Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
Chapter 5
1. Source of data: UC-IPM 2002. The so-called NOW was first found feeding on
damaged navel oranges in Arizona.
2. For specific data on regional changes in almond acreages, see Warner 2004,
pp. 256-258.
3. Scientists had observed that the new mechanical shakers left more nuts on the
trees, although uneven moisture levels in the tree also contributed. Scientists rec-
ognized harvest date could also play a role in NOW control. Nonpareil, the most
commonly planted variety, ripens early and has a soft shell that does not always
seal properly. It is however, preferred by handlers because of its mild taste and
ease of shelling. Many seasons Nonpareil are ready to harvest about the same
time the second generation of NOW are laying eggs for a third generation, which
can quickly hatch during the hot summer days and attack the vulnerable nuts. By
harvesting Nonpareil as soon as its nuts ripen, growers can spirit them away
from the NOW. Later pollinating varieties are generally less susceptible to pest
damage. Conducting two harvests—one for early and one for later varieties—
costs more, but is cheaper than an extra insecticide treatment at hullsplit. It
requires additional monitoring, a harvest strategy flexible enough to take advan-
tage of biological time, and a desire to reduce pesticides.
4. This was part of a larger IPM funding initiative the USDA launched to reha-
bilitate public perception of the agency after Congress transferred pesticide
regulatory responsibility to the USEPA. See Almond Board of California 1998.
5. See Klonsky, Zalom, and Barnett 1990.
6. Goniozus legneri
attacks only the NOW and the carob moth (
Ectomyelois
ceratoniae
). That led Legner to conclude that the NOW had originated in south-
ern South America.
7. See Legner and Gordh 1992, pp. 2158-2159.
8. Bentley et al. 2001.
9. For a discussion of adaptive management, see Röling and Wagemakers 1998.
10. For discussions of commodity systems analysis, see Friedland, Barton, and
Thomas 1981, Friedland 1984, and Friedland 2001.
11. For a more detailed programmatic analysis of these five chief strategies, see
chapter 4 of Warner 2004. A caveat is needed about the numbers organized into
categories of practices and chief strategies. Sources of information for these
tables are interviews of partnership leaders, and partnership documentation and
reports. The numbers represent at a minimum that a practice was tried by at least
one grower in the partnership. In most cases, most growers tried most practices,
and many adopted them.
12. A few California efforts that used the term “partnership” were, in fact,
essentially technology-transfer activities that found the language of “partner-
ship” useful for fund-raising purposes. They were included in this study
primarily for purposes of comparison.
