SIR GROWER & INDUSTRY ADVISORY COMMITTEE

MINUTES of the Grower & Industry Advisory Committee meeting of the OKANAGAN-KOOTENAY STERILE INSECT RELEASE (SIR) PROGRAM held at the SIR Kelowna Office on November 12th, 2003

Committee Members:

Gavin Young - Chair Grower / Consultant

Joe Cardoso R.D.O.S. Director / SIR Board Member

Tarsem Dhoot Grower

Lindsay Hainstock Okanagan Similkameen Coop - Fieldman

Denis Larose Grower

Charlotte Leaming Sun Fresh Coop

Joseph Lucich Grower

Wayne Matthews C.S.R.D. Director / SIR Board Member

Hugh Philip BCMAFF Regional Entomologist

Committee Members Absent:

Pierre Calissi BC Fruit Growers’ Association

Suey Koga Grower

Brian Mennell Organic Grower

Dave Mitchell Grower

Tom Ouchi Grower

Gerry Shaw BC Tree Fruits

Stan Swales Okanagan North Growers Coop

Manuel Torres Jr. BC Fruit Growers’ Association (Oliver)

Peter Waterman Grower / Consultant

Tim Watson South Valley Sales

SIR Staff:

Bob Fugger General Manager

Adrian McCluskey Public Relations Officer

Karen Nelson Recording Secretary

Call to Order - 1:15 PM.

TOPIC #1:

Approval of Minutes

The following motion was put forward:

Moved by Charlotte Leaming Seconded by Joseph Lucich

“Adopted minutes for the meeting dated July 17th, 2003.”

CARRIED

TOPIC #2:

Field Report for 2003

Bob Fugger made the following points regarding “Summary of Codling Moth Damage at Harvest 2001, 2002 & 2003” (handout):

Harvest Sampling:

Harvest Sampling was done differently for 2003. For Zones 2 & 3 we focused on areas that we were having problems; High Risk sites. Unable to compare this data with previous years. Technical Committee feels that we should have a chart that we can compare year to year.

Trapping Densities:

§ Zone 1 done differently from previous years. Focused on high risk sites.

§ Zone 2 & 3 done similar to the previous couple of years. Departure from the norm of a trap every hectare that the program started with.

Overall Year:

§ Zone 1 had a slight improvement. Some spots had significant damage that needs to be addressed.

§ The Supervisors in Zones 2 & 3 stated that there seems to be more spraying going on, resulting in better control in orchards. More activity out there & better cooperation.

§ Creston continues to be a struggle. We are taking legal steps for access on about 100 acres. During the last two weeks of August, after letters went out from the SIR lawyer, one person did give access. We need to deal with about 7 growers in Spring 2004. 3 or 4 of them may require court action. The lawyer was going to this in 2003 Fall, but we only had 2 weeks left of releases and we didn’t see much point for this year. We will set it up so that all the court action has taken place before next release season. Some growers think that they can control Codling Moth without SIR. In some cases they are spraying and we know the orchards are clean but we don’t have any assessments of it, we don’t have any trap information. In one case we suspect that most moths caught in an orchard came from one of the orchards that we don’t have access to. We need to get onto the properties to assess them so that it is an area-wide program.

§ Risk Rating legend explains how we do our Risk Rating, based on in-season assessment, harvest assessment, and what the grower does. We have done it for 3 years. These are the sites that we continually put more energy & focus to because they are the ones causing us problems. You can see that we have a fair ways to go.

§ This is the first year that we have generated graphs based on this information. We will continue to do so to analyze data year to year. Need to improve statistics by shifting the 2-3% damage levels to less than .5%.

Gavin Young made the following points:

§ Harvest Sampling focused on hotspots, it distorts the picture of the program. Lots of discussion about that matter at the Technical Committee meeting. At this point, we are not certain on how to handle that matter.

Aerial Release Trial:

The following points were made by Bob Fugger:

· Trials were done on five sites in Osoyoos.

· Refer to 2003 Aerial Release Trial (handout).

· Significant difference between air and ground for first four days of first release.

· Ground had much more recaptures in the first few days of the first release and then it was pretty close in the second release all the way through.

· SIR would like to GPS the ground release routes & trap locations. We have the GPS route that the airplane flew. Would like to see if we could find out if we need to fly a different pattern. SIR just had the plane fly in the centre of the sites for the moth releases that were required for the trials. California releases are done every 400 meters.

· After being GPS'd, all the data can be put together.

· Trap locations will tell what the dispersals were like. Traps were set out randomly at 1 per ha.

· GPS units will be licensed between January – April to reduce license expenses.

· Capture numbers only dealt with at this time.

· First release: temperature was warm. Second release: temperature was cool. Still had good numbers.

· Cost is a factor. Preliminary estimate is air release is about half the cost of ground release.

· Would be able to give multiple deliveries. Moths 7 days a week. Could do 3x a week in Zone 1, 3x a week in Zone 2 & 3, and once a week in Creston. So many variables to consider.

· Quality Assessment trial was done where 1 meter sticky boards were put out in front of the Facility placed 10 meters apart. We had a ground release vehicle drive along side the boards. The airplane flew over that path & release as well. We didn’t catch anything from the air, but even with the ground release we only caught 16. One moth died after 15 minutes, the remainder survived for an hour.

· Hugh Philip noted that the #’s for the air release on the graph actually stayed uniform for 5-6 days. They didn’t appear to have crashed. They dropped off just as the ground did. Quality is not an issue. Dispersion is.

· Public hearing process would need to go through before aerial release is done for seasonal release.

· Hugh Philip noted that SIR should diagram each of the sites, and put the trap captures or put red as the aircraft, put a red arrow/line through as to where the aircraft went, and green as the ground. It gives a visual indication of the variability of trap capture.

· Listing the captures in the traps for each site, by week, would also be helpful (especially for the first four days).

· $265/hour for rental of the plane.

· $2,100.00 GST to borrow the machine (release device). Able to recover $900.00 back from the government. Overall cost for trial was $13,000.00, which includes SIR employee’s hours that were involved in the trial.

· Release device has been sent back to California.

· The Commercial Company that flew the plane for SIR believe that they could build the same release device for $2,000.00, but it will likely cost more than that. Likely $10,000 investment but worth while to look at. Plans were drafted so that one can be built & costs would be cheaper than buying from U.S. source.

· More trials need to be done prior to 2006.

The following motion was put forward by the Grower & Industry Advisory Committee:

Moved by Charlotte Leaming Seconded by Joseph Lucich

“The Grower & Industry Advisory Committee has an expression of interest on the aerial release, and recommends that it be thoroughly evaluated before making any decisions, and that the Technical Committee advise the SIR Program on the aerial release results.”

CARRIED

TOPIC #3:

SIR Program 2005

Gavin Young made the following points:

Ÿ SIR Technical Advisory Committee got together for a meeting in the morning, and had more questions than answers.

Ÿ Post 2005, regarding the Dendy Report, the Technical Committee is focusing in on Scenario 3 with some changes in each component. These included the Monitoring section. Clarification was given to some of the methods. Changes were also made for certain definitions given under Assessments (Pre-Harvest Assessment & Post-Harvest Assessment). No significant changes were made.

Ÿ Scenario 3 points out what is needed: high monitoring, SIR in risk areas, and full urban compliance. The assumption being that moth levels would be low enough so that we could focus on using SIT in hot spots or high risk areas and rely on monitoring to point out any changes in the bulk of the areas of Zones 1, 2, & 3.

Ÿ Another part to this is that Zones 2 & 3 will not be at the same levels as Zone 1 by 2006. Discussion among the Technical Committee concluded than that there is a necessity to ensure that there is enough moths for Zones 2 & 3, and also to satisfy Zone 1.

Ÿ The Technical Committee expressed concerns that Zone 1 needed to have a very consistent release throughout the whole Zone 1. Not targeted release.

Ÿ Plan is that by 2008 or sometime beyond, all Zones are treated the same way.

Ÿ The Technical Committee discussed Scenario 3, but they were not complete on resolution changes.

Bob Fugger added:

Ÿ Hot spots are based on the previous year by being categorized, and we’re able to catch the hot spots throughout the season. They receive the appropriate tools, whether it is releasing twice a week, excess moths if required, banding, and a spray program. A strategy has been built to deal with hot spots.

Ÿ Because the Harvest Sample was so different in 2003 from previous years, it is hard to say if the other Zones will be cleaned up by 2005. The field staff & growers do think it is better. Growers also need to spray, be on time, and use proper equipment. Growers are putting in an effort, but there are areas where we can’t pin damage down. There are sites where we have several years of history and we will post for some tree removals.

Hugh Philip stated that it would be useful to get previous years damage assessments and graph it to show what occurred in Zone 1. Graph Zone 2 & 3 and compare them to see what time frame may be required to get to Zone 1 levels.

Joe Cardoso asked what would happen if the Director from the SIR Board stated that SIR has to have the cleanup finished by 2005? How would that change SIR’s plans? What things would you have to recommend in order to get to that target?

Bob Fugger stated that SIR would have to spend a high amount on legal costs for access. For the growers that are not doing a good job spraying, SIR would have to go in and spray for them. That may mean buying tractors & sprayers because it is hard to get a neighbor to spray for someone else. They just won‘t do it. Orchard removals may be the other way of doing it. Anything above such a percent, no matter what, we are going to go in there and bulldoze them. Anything below the economic threshold of .5% is fine. Above that would have to be dealt with. One grower has gone from 20% to less than .5% in one year. It takes babysitting those types of growers all the time.

Joe Cardoso noted that it sounds like “Peer Pressure” would be a very important. If the balance was that there was no Program in 2006 or you clean-up by 2005, and growers talk to their neighbors and do what is needed to make that happen, that would be something that the growing community would have to consider.

There is not a lot of time left for people to really demonstrate some definite decisions that show the public (growers/urban people) that we are serious about this program at this level. Not sure if the Grower & Industry Committee is right to make that type of decision.

Gavin Young added that another question to add to that is that with the experience that we’ve had with a couple of years of 1/2 rate Mating Disruption, we can see that some growers did do their required sprays, others simply depended on the Mating Disruption to provide them protection. You can track areas that there had been a population that flourished because of that practice. In 2003, because of the efforts made by SIR & Field Staff in Zone 2 & 3, there have been significant improvements in the attack of Codling Moth. Back to the old regime of calendar spraying together with release. In two more years, if we follow that pattern again, even with the inefficiency with certain growers not complying, that we might be very close. Closer than what we are willing to guess at this stage.

Adrian McCluskey added that economics makes a huge difference. That it is a big variable.

Hugh Philip asked Joe Cardoso that if SIR did a trend analysis, and tracked the what had happened in Zone 1, and now tracked Zone 2 & 3, that if we are on the same path but a couple of years indifferent, would the SIR Board put that into consideration or would they want to cut out the Program?

Joe Cardoso was unable to answer that question but noted that the industry is interested in taking over the Program. One way to test the waters is agreeing to that, but having them fix it before we give it up. If they are interested, they’ll fix it.

Joseph Lucich added that by showing the results of Zone 1, we need to convince Zone 2 & 3 growers that the Program works. Biggest problem is that some growers have chosen to not have the Program. Should we all suffer because a ½ dozen growers don’t want to participate in the Program?

Joe Cardoso stated that the people not responsible should suffer.

Gavin Young noted that perhaps some of the additional costs that go towards hot spots should be charged to those specific growers. These growers that was perhaps unwilling to make an effort for the Program to succeed.

Bob discussed the SIR tree removal & posting procedures. If removals are done with assistance from SIR, no replanting is allowed. Many growers try to keep these orchards due to Agricultural Status for tax purposes.

The following points where then made by the Grower & Industry Committee members:

Ÿ Growers would be willing to pay $100.00/acre + advolerum, but the message to the industry has to explain possibilities that it may increase.

Ÿ Possibly growers would pay only 1/3, 2/3 advolerum if parcel tax is increased.

Ÿ Believes that the government is supportive to the Program, and will do as many non-monetary activities & facilitate the industry as much as possible in terms of maintaining the achievements it has, and in terms of where it wants to go in marketing. All they can do is try to help to promote that. They are under constraints as well and can only do so much.

Ÿ In terms of labeling, that has always been a controversial issue. The industry is going through IFP (Integrated Fruit Production). It is building off of the success of the SIR Program that they are going to be able to achieve a lot of significant pesticide reduction and shift in the types of tools used in production that will be more acceptable in the market place. It’s not a matter of premium, it’s a matter of maintaining market access. Certified traceable production. It’s not whether or not you get a premium, it’s whether or not you sell your crop.

Ÿ Don’t need a public hearing.

Ÿ As noted by the Technical Committee, Scenario 3 is not realistic post 2005.

Ÿ How does the technical aspect look in the way it is implemented? The Technical Committee was moving in the direction of maintaining the status quo as far as the implementation was. But the financial part is if the formula be structured differently, yielding adequate funds, is that the type of shift that the SIR Board is looking for?

Ÿ The Technical Committee needs to come forward with advice that is technically sound. They need to stick with what is the best approach.

Ÿ Lack of confidence in other technologies. SIT seems to be the strongest tool that we have & one that can be delivered in an area-wide program.

Ÿ At this time, there are no areas around the world that is after an area-wide program based on Mating Disruption.

Joe Cardoso noted that we need to find a different way of raising funds for the SIR Program or find some way that it is packaged differently because there doesn’t seem to be much support of the Program. It needs to be justified from the urban persons point of view. If there were something that transitioned up to 2005 ~ that may be sellable for the RDOS. Otherwise, they might say that they are out of the SIR Program. Second point is that you have credible people writing “not so good things” about the SIR Program in the media which creates problems.

Hugh Philip asked what about Green Tax? This is where the public pays & maintains a green area. It sounds as if the RDOS doesn’t recognize the benefit to try to sustain their agriculture community, because that is what the SIR Program & IFP is trying to do. They are trying to take it that one step further to incorporate marketing. If you are going to go after the Provincial & Federal Governments, which suggests to me that this is a good public program. Why can’t the local governments be for it when it’s for the local public good? People in Victoria would have a hard time supporting a program when its own local governments are unable to support it. Local government needs to put it in proper perspective and look at the broad context of it.

Gavin Young noted that the Technical Committee decided to recommend someone from the SIR Board to organize a Workshop dealing with Codling Moth, inviting research & technical people from the Pacific Northwest to discuss what the current state is in the Pacific Northwest. The discussion came from the idea that there had been a rise in background levels in the population, and there are different reasons for that. One is abandonment of orchards; the other is maybe climatic change. This is maybe the first level where we could invite Regional District staff to come and listen and hear what the current state of affairs really is so that they get some background knowledge on where we are. Second thing is that maybe we, as a Committee, could send the invitation out to BCFGA and other organizations.

The following motion was then put forward by the Grower & Industry Advisory Committee:

Moved by Charlotte Leaming Seconded by Joseph Lucich

“The Grower & Industry Advisory Committee recommends that the SIR Finance Committee look at the SIR Programs finance options.”

CARRIED

TOPIC #5:

New Business

New business was adjourned until next meeting.

Adjournment

Meeting Adjourned at 4:00 PM