Pest Control Survey in Lima Beans in Delaware and
Eastern Shore Maryland - 2004
A survey was conducted in the fall of 2004 on the use of pesticides and alternative control measures in lima beans in Delaware and Eastern Shore Maryland. The survey instrument was the standard form used by the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) for vegetable production in 2004. This instrument was developed in the summer of 2004 by NASS scientists. Subject matter Extension Specialists in Delaware and Maryland reviewed the form and added additional questions as appropriate.
The lima bean survey was administered through face-to-face interviews conducted by enumerators supervised by the USDA/NASS Statistician, Chris Cadwallader. Enumerators were trained in lima bean pest control techniques by Susan Whitney King in a one-day workshop held in Frederick, Maryland. Enumerators were given a list of herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides commonly used in lima beans and their target pests. Pesticide common names and trade names were cross listed. Slides were shown of the major pests and a list of common names was provided. Typical alternative control measures used in lima beans were identified.
Almost 100 growers were asked to participate in the survey. Growers were identified by Cadwallader using the Agricultural Census of 1997 and information supplied by County Agricultural Extension Agents. Completed survey forms were analyzed by NASS. Data were averaged in such a way as to not identify individual growers. NASS transmitted the results to Cadwallader who prepared a summary report for King. Extension Specialists reviewed the summary report for accuracy.
The primary objective of this study was to (1) establish a base line for use of pesticides and alternative control measures in lima bean in Delaware and Eastern Shore Maryland and (2) Compare this base line to information given in the 2003 report, ALima Beans in Delaware, New Jersey, and Maryland Eastern Shore Pest Management Strategic Plan@ ( http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/pmsp/pdf/MidAtlLimabeans.pdf ).
There are several reasons for undertaking this study. The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 requires the US-EPA to take aggregate exposure and mode of action into consideration when registering and re-registering pesticides. Many organophosphate, carbamate, and B1/B2 products commonly used in lima beans are in jeopardy of being cancelled or severely restricted, if they have not already been. Lima beans are a major commodity in Delaware and Eastern Shore Maryland. In 1999, 18,000 acres of lima beans were planted and harvested in Delaware. In Maryland 320 acres were planted for fresh market and 310 acres were harvested. Additional processing acreage was produced. Lima beans are considered the cornerstone crop of the vegetable processing industry in Delaware and are an important component of the industry in Maryland.
RESULTS
More than 80% of lima bean growers in Delaware and Eastern Shore Maryland participated in the survey. NASS concluded that the number of growers participating was adequate to obtain statistically significant results.
Diseases
Both the survey and the Lima Bean Pest Management Strategic Plan (PMSP) identified White Mold and Downy Mildew as the primary diseases in limas. Thiophanate-methyl was identified in the PMSP as the major chemical control for White Mold. The survey found that this fungicide is applied to 52% of the acreage in Maryland and 27% of the acreage in Delaware. The PMSP identified Copper as the only fungicide for Downy Mildew and the survey showed that more than 90% of the acreage in both states is treated with this fungicide. Other fungicides listed in the PMSP as being registered, but rarely used were: iprodione and Coniothyrium minitans. The survey showed that these fungicides are not used in this part of the country. The PMSP stated that use of iprodione is cost-prohibitive and lack of efficacy information on C. minitans has limited its adoption. This survey supports these assumptions.
Non-chemical methods to control these primary diseases given in the PMSP were: crop rotation, deep plowing, burying old crop debris and planting resistant varieties (for Downy Mildew). The survey showed that crop rotation is practiced on 100% of the acreage in both states. In Maryland and Delaware, crop residue is plowed down on 96% and 85% of the acreage, respectively. Resistant varieties are grown on 91% of the acreage in Delaware and 85% of the acreage in Maryland.
Both the survey and the PMSP listed the following as secondary pests: Lima Bean Pod Blight, Root Rots, Anthracnose, and Bacterial Brown Spot. Additional secondary pests given in the PMSP that were not identified by growers in the survey were: nematodes and Rizoctonia Pod Rot.
Insects
The PMSP listed five arthropods as primary pests of limas: Corn Earworms, Lygus Bugs, Stink Bugs, Potato Leafhoppers, and Spider Mites. The survey agreed with the first four of these pests, but relegated Spider Mites to secondary pest status. In discussing Corn Earworm, the PMSP stated that Orthene (Acephate) is not used because it is not reliable and Lannate (methomyl) is not used on a high percentage of the acreage. The survey agreed with both of these assumptions. The PMSP listed Mustang (Zeta-Cypermethrin) as the major chemical control for Corn Earworm, Stinkbugs, Lygus Bugs, and Potato Leafhoppers. The survey showed that 61% of the acreage in Maryland and 53% of the acreage in Delaware is treated with this insecticide. Lannate (methomyl) is used on only 13% of the acreage for these pests. Other insecticides listed in the PMSP for primary insect pests in limas were found to not be used in this part of the country: Capture (Bifenthrin), Spinosad, Dimethoate, Sevin (Carbaryl), and Kelthane (Dicofol) [for spider mites]. Warrior (Lambda-cyhalothrin) which is registered for insect pests of lima beans (such as Corn Earworm), was not listed in the PMSP; however, Delaware growers report treating 65% of acres with this insecticide and Maryland growers treated 62% of acreage. The PMSP states that no cultural control methods are effective in controlling these insect pests.
Secondary arthropod pests in limas discussed in the PMSP are: Seed Corn Maggot, Mexican Bean Beetle, and Bean Aphid. The survey shows that growers agreed. They identified Spider Mites, Seed Corn Maggot, Aphids, and Mexican Bean Beetles as secondary pests. Occasional insect pests given in the PMSP, but not listed by growers were: Thrips, Green Cloverworm, Cabbage Looper and Beet Armyworm. Other than Zeta-cypermethrin and Lannate (Methomyl), insecticides listed in the PMSP are not used for these secondary/ occasional pests in this part of the country: Disyston (Disulfoton), Thimet (Phorate), Orthene (Acephate), Sevin (Carbaryl), Dimethoate, Capture (Bifenthrin), Provado (Imidacloprid), B.t’s, Spintor (Spinosad).
The PMSP discusses the use of plow down/ bury crop residue to control the Seed Corn Maggot. In Maryland and Delaware, crop residue is plowed down on 96% and 85% of the acreage, respectively. According to the PMSP, planting an early trap crop for overwintered beetles may be effective for controlling Mexican Bean Beetles in later plantings of limas. Growers use this strategy on only 13% of Delaware acreage.
Weeds
The PMSP lists several primary weeds of lima beans:
Lambsquarters
Pigweed
Jimsonweed
Common cocklebur
Morning glory species
Common ragweed
Crabgrass
Barnyard grass
Foxtails
Horsenettle
Fall panicum
According to the survey, growers in Delaware and Maryland agreed that these are primary pests, with the exception of Fall panicum which they rated as a secondary pest.
The PMSP listed several secondary weeds of lima beans:
Velvetleaf
Nightshades
Johnsongrass
Common milkweed
Canada thistle
Yellow nutsedge
Pokeweed
Bermuda grass
Ground cherry
Bindweed
According to the survey, growers in Delaware and Maryland agreed that these are secondary pests, with the exception of Velvetleaf which they rated as a primary pest. In addition, growers found three weeds to be such a minor post-emergence problem that they did not treat for them: Bindweed, Common milkweed, and Yellow nutsedge.
Eight herbicides were listed in the PMSP as being registered for use on lima beans:
Treflan (trifluralin) [75% of acreage]
Dual Magnum (S-metolachlor) [90 -100% of acreage]
Pursuit (imazethapyr) [90% of acreage]
Sandea (halosulfuron) [recently labeled – no historical data]
Prowl (pendimethalin) [25-40% of acreage]
Command (clomazone) [10% of acreage or less]
Basagran (betazon) [20-25% of acreage]
Poast (sethoxydim) [5-10% of acreage]
The survey agreed with these assumptions. It reported that four herbicides are used in Delaware and Maryland:
Treflan (69% of acreage)
Dual Magnum (48% of acreage)
Pursuit (79% of acreage)
Basagran (18% of acreage).
The PMSP recommended that two herbicides not be used in limas: Command due to lack of experience and Prowl due to injury concerns. The survey showed that these herbicides are not used.
Cultivation is recommended in the PMSP as an important non-chemical method for weed control in limas. The survey showed that 100% of the acreage in both states is cultivated for weed control.
Lima Beans, Proc.: Active Ingredients and
Publication Status
By Program States, 2004 |
Active Ingredient |
Program States |
ALL |
DE |
MD |
|
Herbicides
Alachlor
Bentazon
Halosulfuron
Imazethapyr
Paraquat
Pendimethalin
S-Metolachlor
Sethoxydim
Trifluralin
Insecticides
Bifenthrin
Dimethoate
Lambda-cyhalothrin
Methomyl
Zeta-cypermethrin
Fungicides
Boscalid
Copper hydroxide
Mefenoxam
Metalaxyl
Thiophanate-methyl |
*
P
*
P
*
*
P
*
P
*
*
P
P
P
*
P
*
*
P |
*
*
P
*
P
*
*
*
*
P
*
P
*
P
*
*
P |
*
*
P
*
P
*
*
P
*
P
P
P |
P - Usage data are published for this active ingredient.
|
* - Usage data are not published for this active ingredient.
|
Lima Beans, Proc.: Pesticide, Planted Acreage,
Percent of Area Receiving Applications and Total Applied
Program States and Total, 2004 |
State |
Planted
Acreage |
Area Receiving and Total Applied |
|
Herbicide |
Insecticide |
Fungicide |
Other |
|
|
1,000 Acres |
% |
1,000 lbs |
% |
1,000 lbs |
% |
1,000 lbs |
% |
1,000 lbs |
|
|
DE
MD
Total |
16,300
500
16,800 |
91
99
91 |
18.0
0.7
18.7 |
88
91
88 |
2.7
0.2
2.9 |
94
95
94 |
30.6
1.4
32.0 |
|
|
|
Lima Beans, Proc.: Agricultural Chemical Applications,
Program States, 2004 1 |
Active
Ingredient |
Area
Applied |
Appli-
cations |
Rate per
Application |
Rate per
Crop Year |
Total
Applied |
|
Percent |
Number |
Pounds per Acre |
Pounds per Acre |
1,000 lbs |
Herbicides
Bentazon
Imazethapyr
S-Metolachlor
Trifluralin
Insecticides
Lambda-cyhalothrin
Methomyl
Zeta-cypermethrin
Fungicides
Copper hydroxide
Thiophanate-methyl |
18
79
48
69
65
13
53
92
28 |
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.1
1.5
2.1
1.1 |
0.99
0.04
0.84
0.57
0.03
0.65
0.04
0.71
1.41 |
1.00
0.04
0.84
0.57
0.03
0.69
0.06
1.52
1.56 |
3.1
0.5
6.8
6.5
0.3
1.5
0.5
23.5
7.4 |
1 Planted acreage in 2004 for the 2 Program States was 16,800 acres.
States included are DE and MD.
|
Lima Beans, Proc.: Agricultural Chemical Applications,
Delaware, 2004 1 |
Active
Ingredient |
Area
Applied |
Appli-
cations |
Rate per
Application |
Rate per
Crop Year |
Total
Applied |
|
Percent |
Number |
Pounds per Acre |
Pounds per Acre |
1,000 lbs |
Herbicides
Imazethapyr
S-Metolachlor
Insecticides
Lambda-cyhalothrin
Zeta-cypermethrin
Fungicides
Copper hydroxide
Thiophanate-methyl |
80
47
65
53
92
27 |
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.4
2.1
1.1 |
0.04
0.84
0.03
0.04
0.71
1.41 |
0.04
0.84
0.03
0.06
1.50
1.57 |
0.5
6.5
0.3
0.5
22.5
7.0 |
1 Planted acreage in 2004 for Delaware was 16,300 acres.
|
Lima Beans, Proc.: Agricultural Chemical Applications,
Maryland, 2004 1 |
Active
Ingredient |
Area
Applied |
Appli-
cations |
Rate per
Application |
Rate per
Crop Year |
Total
Applied |
|
Percent |
Number |
Pounds per Acre |
Pounds per Acre |
1,000 lbs |
Herbicides
Imazethapyr
S-Metolachlor
Insecticides
Lambda-cyhalothrin
Zeta-cypermethrin
Fungicides
Copper hydroxide
Thiophanate-methyl |
45
70
62
61
95
52 |
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.5
2.5
1.0 |
0.03
0.78
0.03
0.03
0.84
1.40 |
0.03
0.80
0.03
0.04
2.12
1.40 |
( 2 )
0.3
( 2 )
( 2 )
1.0
0.4 |
1 Planted acreage in 2004 for Maryland was 500 acres.
2 Total applied is less than 50 lbs.
|
Pest Management Practices,
Percent of Farms Utilizing Practice, All Vegetables, 2004
columns for DE and MD are lima bean growers’ responses |
Practice |
States |
AZ |
CA |
DE |
FL |
GA |
IL |
MD |
|
% of Farms |
% of Farms |
% of Farms |
% of Farms |
% of Farms |
% of Farms |
% of Farms |
Prevention Practices:
No-till/minimum till used manage pests
Remove or plow down crop residue
Clean implements after fieldwork
Field cultivated for weed control
Field edges/etc, chopped, mowed/etc.
Water management practices
Avoidance Practices:
Adjust planting/harvesting dates
Rotate crops to control pests
Planting locations planned to avoid pests
Grow trap crop to control insects
Crop variety chosen for pest resistance
Monitoring Practices:
Scouting by general observation
Deliberate scouting activities
Field was not scouted
Established scouting process/insect trap used
Scouting due to pest advisory warning
Scouting due to pest development model
Scouted for weeds
Scouting for weeds was done by:
Operator, partner, or family member
An employee
Farm supply or chemical dealer
Indep. crop consultant or comm. scout
Scouted for insects and mites
Scouting for insects/mites was done by:
Operator, partner, or family member
An employee
Farm supply or chemical dealer
Indep. crop consultant or comm. scout
Scouted for diseases
Scouting for diseases was done by:
Operator, partner, or family member
An employee
Farm supply or chemical dealer
Indep. crop consultant or comm. scout
Records kept to track pests
Field mapping of weed problem
Soil/plant tissue analysis to detect pests
Weather monitoring
Biological pest controls
Suppression Practices:
Biological pesticides
Beneficial organisms
Scouting used to make decisions
Maintain ground cover or physical barriers
Adjusted planting methods
Alternate pesticides with different MOA |
29
81
61
92
83
47
37
89
53
8
51
78
18
4
61
15
18
95
41
10
25
24
100
26
3
42
30
92
26
4
40
30
60
14
44
54
7
40
12
41
46
26
61 |
23
73
62
83
78
45
24
70
37
16
39
72
26
2
50
23
21
89
45
12
15
28
95
31
10
23
36
92
33
10
21
37
51
16
47
61
22
29
21
37
49
27
52 |
19
86
95
100
100
76
65
100
67
15
86
100
76
60
73
100
14
86
100
4
96
100
4
96
100
44
83
100
29
100
41
78
87 |
22
81
84
51
78
65
27
59
28
4
45
68
25
7
36
11
13
88
79
3
1
18
93
73
3
1
23
92
73
3
1
23
41
16
50
80
10
35
13
25
64
31
53 |
11
77
62
75
79
23
25
84
37
3
40
72
25
4
28
9
11
86
83
7
1
9
96
77
6
1
16
95
77
6
1
16
30
6
20
62
4
16
2
26
36
23
37 |
17
49
40
88
83
15
22
86
40
4
36
84
14
3
40
19
20
97
64
1
35
98
57
1
42
98
55
1
44
41
18
14
65
8
8
2
32
27
23
31 |
15
94
85
100
50
71
65
100
94
86
100
100
20
19
100
66
15
19
100
15
85
100
15
85
85
85
28
100
35
85
15
100
85 |
Pest Management Practices,
Percent of Farms Utilizing Practice, All Vegetables, 2004
columns for DE and MD are lima bean growers’ responses |
Practice |
States |
AZ |
CA |
DE |
FL |
GA |
IL |
MD |
|
% of Acres |
% of Acres |
% of Acres |
% of Acres |
% of Acres |
% of Acres |
% of Acres |
Prevention Practices:
No-till/minimum till used manage pests
Remove or plow down crop residue
Clean implements after fieldwork
Field cultivated for weed control
Field edges/etc, chopped, mowed/etc.
Water management practices
Avoidance Practices:
Adjust planting/harvesting dates
Rotate crops to control pests
Planting locations planned to avoid pests
Grow trap crop to control insects
Crop variety chosen for pest resistance
Monitoring Practices:
Scouting by general observation
Deliberate scouting activities
Field was not scouted
Established scouting process/insect trap used
Scouting due to pest advisory warning
Scouting due to pest development model
Scouted for weeds
Scouting for weeds was done by:
Operator, partner, or family member
An employee
Farm supply or chemical dealer
Indep. crop consultant or comm. scout
Scouted for insects and mites
Scouting for insects/mites was done by:
Operator, partner, or family member
An employee
Farm supply or chemical dealer
Indep. crop consultant or comm. scout
Scouted for diseases
Scouting for diseases was done by:
Operator, partner, or family member
An employee
Farm supply or chemical dealer
Indep. crop consultant or comm. scout
Records kept to track pests
Field mapping of weed problem
Soil/plant tissue analysis to detect pests
Weather monitoring
Biological pest controls
Suppression Practices:
Biological pesticides
Beneficial organisms
Scouting used to make decisions
Maintain ground cover or physical barriers
Adjusted planting methods
Alternate pesticides with different MOA |
23
79
65
94
90
53
49
86
65
4
68
89
7
4
89
24
23
97
18
10
35
37
100
7
1
48
44
99
5
1
50
45
85
16
68
73
10
83
12
49
64
34
94 |
24
83
67
92
90
44
26
84
37
7
48
86
13
*
71
30
26
91
24
21
21
34
100
14
16
27
43
98
14
15
27
43
63
19
55
77
29
43
13
44
41
28
67 |
15
85
95
100
100
79
30
100
84
13
91
100
83
39
89
100
9
91
100
2
98
100
2
98
100
67
39
100
55
100
68
34
93 |
20
80
94
47
89
83
39
58
37
4
49
83
14
3
67
20
36
92
49
2
3
46
99
39
2
3
56
99
39
2
3
56
71
24
73
93
17
50
14
52
67
29
74 |
14
87
62
86
71
41
42
79
47
2
46
88
12
*
61
12
38
80
38
17
6
39
99
33
14
5
49
100
33
13
5
49
67
8
52
82
8
32
3
59
60
24
72 |
14
40
33
94
91
38
15
81
23
2
25
88
8
4
59
43
40
99
45
*
55
99
41
*
59
100
41
*
59
62
19
8
75
6
6
1
50
17
15
48 |
20
96
80
100
63
71
61
100
96
85
100
100
19
35
100
46
20
35
100
20
80
100
20
80
80
80
39
100
51
80
20
100
80 |
* / Less than 0.5 percent
|
2004 PEST INFESTATION LEVELS ON
LIMA BEANS IN DELAWARE AND
EASTERN SHORE MARYLAND
Lima bean growers were asked about the severity of pest infestation they experienced for the 2004 growing season. For insects and diseases, growers were asked to rate the severity of specific pest infestation by using the following scale:
1 – No pest presence
2 – Light infestation
3 – Medium infestation
4 – Heavy infestation
5 – Severe infestation
For each pest, the number of reports, the mean of the reported pest infestation, the standard deviation, and the minimum and maximum pest infestation level reported is provided.
INSECTS
Pest # Rpts. Mean Std. Dev. Min. Max.
Corn earworms 29 3.62 1.2 1 5
Lygus bug species 28 2.75 1.1 1 4
Stink bugs 27 2.48 .9 1 4
Leafhoppers 29 2.38 .9 1 4
Spider mites 27 1.63 .7 1 3
Seed corn maggot 28 1.54 .7 1 3
Aphids 29 1.52 .8 1 4
Mexican bean beetles 27 1.04 .2 1 2
DISEASES
Pest # Rpts. Mean Std. Dev. Min. Max.
White mold 28 3.57 1.3 1 5
Downy mildew 29 3.14 1.1 1 5
Lima bean pod blight 28 2.21 1.3 1 5
Root rots 27 1.93 1.0 1 3
Anthracnose 27 1.56 .9 1 3
Bacterial brown spot 28 1.36 .5 1 2
For weeds, growers were asked if they made any post-emergence herbicide applications in 2004. If they responded “yes,” they were asked to identify weeds the herbicide application was targeted for. Of the 29 producers filling out the pest infestation survey supplement, there were 11 producers who reported a post-emergent herbicide application. From those 11 producers, here are the frequency counts reported for each weed targeted:
Lambsquarters 9 Nightshades 5
Pigweed 9 Canada thistle 5
Jimsonweed 9 Johnsongrass 4
Common cocklebur 8 Fall panicum 3
Morning glory species 8 Pokeweed 3
Common ragweed 8 Bermuda grass 2
Crabgrass 8 Ground cherry 1
Barnyard grass 6 Bindweed 0
Foxtails 6 Common milkweed 0
Velvetleaf 6 Yellow nutsedge 0
Horsenettle 6
Report compiled by Susan Whitney King, April 24, 2006 |
