SIR GROWER & INDUSTRY ADVISORY COMMITTEE

MINUTES of the Grower & Industry Advisory Committee meeting of the OKANAGAN-KOOTENAY STERILE INSECT RELEASE (SIR) PROGRAM held at held at the Ramada Inn (Penticton) at the Lobby Board Room on

December 14th, 2004

 

Committee Members:

Denis Larose                            Grower ~ Chair

Pierre Calissi                            BC Fruit Growers’ Association

Tarsem Dhoot                          Grower

Charlotte Leaming                    Sun Fresh Coop

Joseph Lucich                           Grower

Hugh Philip                               BCMAFF Regional Entomologist

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

Dave Mitchell                           Grower

Paul Jeffares                             BC Fruit Packer’s Coop – Fieldman

Lindsay Hainstock                    Okanagan Similkameen Coop - Fieldman

Tom Ouchi                               Grower

Tim Watson                              South Valley Sales

Peter Waterman                       Grower / Consultant

 

SIR Staff:      

            Mike Kowaluk             N.O.R.D. Director/ SIR Board Member-Chair

            Bob Fugger                              General Manager         

Gavin Young                            Grower / SIR Field Manager   

Adrian McCluskey                   Public Relations Officer

 

Committee Members Absent:

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

Peter Simonsen             Grower

 

Guest:

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

 

 

Call to Order -

 

TOPIC #1:

 

Approval of Minutes

 

The following motion was put forward:

 

Moved by   Joseph Lucich                   Seconded by  Tim Watson

 

“Adopted minutes for the meeting dated November 18th, 2004.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TOPIC #2:

Codling Moth Control Options:

  • Cost figures are for 2006 Budget.
  • Information meetings will be held regarding document. A summary of this document will be presented on Power Point outlining the main points.
  • Wording in the document was reviewed & revised (see attached document of revised document “Considerations for Management of Codling Moth Post-2005.
  • Points made:
    • Revision to point #1. Point made that Regional Districts will not enforce Codling Moth enforcement. This point was revised.
    • Revision to point #3. Revised that the current buffer zone is 200 meters.
    • Revision to point #4. Revised that “willingness” be changed to “voluntary participation”.
    • Revision to point #4, part B, “without access”.
    • Revision to point #4, part C, “Currently each Regional District has a noxious insect by-law that lists insect pests that threaten commercial fruit production”.
    • Revision to point #4, part D, point needs to state that the information is useful for the grower. Also, regarding the conventional control program, information needs to be in greater detail.  Should points be added “How does SIT compare to Mating Disruption?” Could there be a Pro/Con Chart to outline comparisons? Any technology that you use, an area-wide program has to be in effect. Outline cost & effectiveness? Outline +/- comparisons. Hugh Philip will make these points and send out a new draft for all Committee members to review.
    • Revision to point #5 on wording.
    • Point #6, budget costs are only a “guideline”. Points listed were changed in a different order. Point added that under “A” that these budget figures are after 2005.
    • What do you think it costs you for your time to spray your orchard to clarify the cost of production? Committee felt that Hugh’s costs were close. Cost left as is but noted that these figures were “estimated”. Wording re-arranged throughout document.
    • Point #7 discussion. Charlotte felt that it was a little unfocused. Show benefits of area-wide program. Hugh wanted to present document as being unbiased. Maybe add in Point #7, what are the added benefits with SIT? Hugh wanted to outline the specifics to various controls. Gavin felt that there needs to be an assessment/conclusion from the analysis of the different costs of production. Joe Cardoso asked who this document is from? Hugh stated that this is his document (being that the Ministry is unbiased), not SIR’s document. Charlotte felt that possible benefits of control methods should be added. Hugh noted that these points are general intangible benefits of being “area-wide”. Hugh will clean-up and add a few of these points from #7 into the pro/con list.
    • Point #8, point “C” added: “Area-wide without urban control, incentives, or public relations”.

·        Decision from this group needs to be made as to when this document needs to be presented to growers. Presentation will be short and effective. Not many growers would be able to understand this whole document. Only 1 presentation will be made, in which the main points will be made. Growers will not get this “entire” document. Main points will be made, but explained to them how certain figures were made”.

·        Mike noted that the Board would review this document carefully to see what will come about of it after presented to growers. Presentation to Board of Directors of packinghouses first, then forward to Field staff to forward information to growers. Hugh noted that he will be stating his support to “area-wide management”.

·        Joe Cardoso questioned why the Board of Directors of packinghouses are not attending these meetings? Workshop these presentations. Information becomes more effective and are taken more seriously.

·        Hugh noted that he hasn’t added in this document what the total cost/investment of this program has been up to this point. 

·        Sub-heading added to document title. Other small revisions made to document.

·        This document is first going to the growers. Wayne felt that this document should not be forwarded to the Federal/Provincial Government. They may not review this document as being that there needs to be financial support. Feedback from other Committee members is that this document needs to be forwarded to both sides of Government to state what financial support is actually needed.   

·        Tom Ouchi asked Bob if Zone 3 will get to Zone 1’s phase. Bob stated that problems Zone 2 clean-up was not urban, it is mainly orchard clean-up. Dramatic clean-up shift in Zone 3 this past year. Gavin spent more time this past season, isolating blocks, working with staff on these problem areas, notifying/working with growers on these problems, and treating these areas to work with growers to clean-up these problem sites. 

·        Mike added Bob is right, that grower cooperation is needed. The fact is that we know who these growers are, and we need to show who these growers are for pressure on those growers. If maps were put up at packinghouses, growers would be able to know where these problems sites are. Charlotte added that this adds One on One communication, and putting the onus onto the growers.

·        Wayne questioned that if there was no program, is this presentation stating that there would be 3-6 sprays? Committee members said yes.

·        $247.00 is with only 2 sprays included, with the benefits of SIR.

·        Need to educate growers what the actual costs are with everything factored in.  

·        Should this document be presented during the Production Guide Meetings (in which 400 growers attend), BCFGA meeting in January, and a meeting to all packinghouse Board of Directors? 

·        Hugh added that all groups/stakeholders are capable of using the document.

 

Consensus:

 

“The SIR Grower & Industry Advisory Committee advises that Hugh Philip presents this Ministry Of Agriculture document to all the field service to assist in delivery to growers at appropriate meetings.”

 

 

TOPIC #3:

Codling Moth Control 2005:

  • Gavin would like to meet with the field service to go over the mapping done. Smaller maps could be made to go to growers. Group context could be established. A letter to each grower will go out showing risk rating, what there risk rating is, and show comparison to neighbors.
  • In reference to the charts (Example: Zone 1 chart), there is a low risk, high risk (any place that 1 moth has been caught), and very high risk chart (greater then 10 moths captured in 2004 and greater then 5% damage).  
  • List of sprays are included.
  • Hugh & Charlotte also helped with these charts.
  • Action Threshold definition reviewed
  • Presence of mating disruption holds the effect of threshold. These points are noted in the criteria charts.
  • 2 changes could be made.

o       Threshold change in definition proposed.

o       Mandatory cover sprays on first brood.

·        Charlotte noted that this should have been discussed more thoroughly on the Technical committee as to when to spray. Bob noted that traps would be up in 2005.

·        Charlotte question if wording could be revised for clarification in Codling Moth Action Threshold for clarity to growers.

·        Peter Waterman questioned #3.

·        Need to have growers on the side of caution for 2005.

·        Can we hold a threshold for low risk sites? Growers may not spray on a 1 moth capture. SIR advised growers to spray last season at 1 moth per trap, but some growers didn’t it.

·        Do we deal with 1 per trap at two consecutive weeks, and go with that threshold and assess as time permits?

·        Clarity for growers is needed.

·        Maps/Risk Assessment based on trap captures & damage, thresholds are established. Displays what is shown on the maps. High risk sites with high risk population.

 

 

Meeting Adjourned at 1:00PM.

     

 __________________                                                           __________________

            Chairman                                                                                  Secretary