Login | Member benefits | Join us
Researchers PDFs
AIFST Fresh Produce Food Safety Summit
Aphids & Viruses
Broccoli Export Seminar
Carabid beetles as sustainability indicators
Clubroot - Nursery Access
Clubroot - Nursery Cleaning
Clubroot - Nursery Contamination
Clubroot - Nursery Design
Clubroot - Nursery Monitoring
Clubroot - Nursery Response
Clubroot - Nursery Sources
Hangzhou Foods
IPM - approach to Potato crops
IPM - approach to practice change
IPM - Potato/Tomato Psyllid
Lettuce Anthracnose Management
Native Plants - Food Safety
Native Plants - Food Standards
NY9406 Downy Mildew on seedlings - factsheet
NY9406 Downy Mildew on seedlings - report
NY9406 Downy Mildew on seedlings - review
NY97011 Downy Mildew on seedlings - extension
NY97011 Downy Mildew on seedlings - notes
Parsley Disease Handbook
Parsnip Variety Trials
Phytochemical composition of food
Phytochemicals and Healthy Foods
Reclaimed water - risk model
Reclaimed water use in Victoria
Recycled Water Quality - Lettuce
Sclerotina - Lettuce Conference 2002
Strategies for Control of Root Rot in Apiaceae Crops
Summer Root Rot in Parsley
Thrips & Viruses
Vegetable Disease Program
Vegetable Diseases in Australia
Vegetables Viruses
VG00013 Leek Diseases
VG00016 Environmental Performance
VG00026 IPM Eggplant & Cucumber
VG00031 Peas - downy mildew & collar rot
VG00031 Peas - Downy Mildew - metalaxyl resistance
VG00034 Capsicum & Chillies - weed control
VG00044 Clubroot - Applicator design
VG00044 Clubroot - Chemical control
VG00044 Clubroot - Implementing a control strategy
VG00044 Clubroot - Managing outbreaks
VG00044 Clubroot - Nutritional amendments
VG00044 Clubroot - Strategic application
VG00044 Clubroot – Introduction
VG00044 Clubroot – Limes and liming
VG00044 Clubroot – Prevention & Hygiene
VG00044 Clubroot – Understanding Risk
VG00044 Total Clubroot Management
VG00048 Alternate fungicides for sclerotinia control
VG00048 Brassica green manure conference paper 2004
VG00048 Brassica Green Manure Update 16
VG00048 Brassica Green Manure Update 18
VG00048 Diallyl Disulphide - DADS - trials
VG00048 Lettuce - Sclerotinia biocontrol
VG00048 Lettuce Sclerotina - Biocontrols
VG00058 Pea - Collar Rot
VG00069 Cucumber & Capsicum diseases
VG00084 Beetroot for Processing
VG01045 Bunching Vegetables - disease control
VG01049 Compost - Benefits
VG01049 Compost - Choosing a Supplier
VG01049 Compost - Getting Started
VG01049 Compost - Introduction
VG01049 Compost - Safe Use
VG01049 Safe Use of Poultry Litter
VG01082 Broccoli Adjuvant Poster
VG01082 Broccoli Head Rot
VG01096 Article - White Rot research
VG01096 Integrated Control of Onion White Rot
VG01096 Poster - Alternative fungicides
VG01096 Poster - Diallyl Disulphide - DADS
VG01096 Poster - Trichoderma biocontrol
VG01096 Poster - Trichoderma optimisation
VG01096 White Rot - Spring Onions
VG02020 Capsicum - Sudden Wilt
VG02035 Capsicum - virus resistance
VG02105 Vegetable Seed Dressing Review
VG02118 White Blister
VG03003 Lettuce - Varnish Spot
VG03092 Lettuce - Shelf Life
VG03100 Retailing Vegetables - Broccolini®
VG04010 Maximising returns from water
VG04012 Hydroponic lettuce - root rot
VG04013 Brassica White Blister
VG04013 White Blister - Control Strategies
VG04013 White Blister - Race ID
VG04013 White Blister - Risk Forecasting
VG04013 White Blister - Symptoms
VG04013 White Blister - Workshop Notes
VG04014 Better Brassica
VG04014 better brassica - roadshow model
VG04014 better brassica - workshop notes
VG04014 Clubroot Guidebook
VG04014 Clubroot Poster
VG04015 Benchmarking water use
VG04016 Celery leaf blight - Poster
VG04016 Celery Septoria
VG04019 Nitrate & Nitrite in Leafy Veg
VG04021 Vegetable Seed Treatment
VG04025 Parsley Root Rot
VG04059 Diagnostic test kits
VG04061 White Blister - alternative controls
VG04061 White Blister - Workshop 2007
VG04062 Beetroot Study Tour
VG04067 IPM - Lettuce Aphid
VG05007 Onion White Rot - post plant fungicides
VG05008 IPM - Cultural Controls
VG05014 IPM - Native vegetation pt1
VG05044 IPM - Consultants Survey
VG05044 IPM - Grower Survey
VG05044 IPM - Lettuce Aphid Trials
VG05044 IPM - Lettuce Disease Poster
VG05044 IPM - Predatory Mites
VG05044 IPM - Project Summary
VG05045 Parsnip Canker
VG05051 Climate Change
VG05053 Rhubarb Viruses
VG05068 Baby Leaf Salad Crops
VG05073 Mechanical Harvesting
VG05090 Green Bean - Sclerotinia
VG05090 Rhizoctonia Groups
VG06014 Revegetation for thrip control
VG06024 IPM - Native vegetation pt2
VG06046 Parsley Root Rot
VG06047 Celery - Septoria Predictive Model
VG06066 LOTE Grower Communications
VG06086 IPM - Potential & Requirements
VG06087 IPM - Lettuce Aphid
VG06087 IPM - Toxicity testing
VG06088 IPM - Lettuce Aphid trials
VG06092 Pathogens - Gap Analysis
VG06092 Pathogens of Importance - poster
VG06140 Beetroot - colour quality
VG07010 Systemic aquired resistance
VG07015 Curcubit field guide
VG07070 Conference Notes 2008
VG07070 Foliar diseases
VG07070 Nitrogen & lettuce diseases
VG07070 Predicting Downy Mildew on Lettuce
VG07070 White Blister - Chinese Cabbage
VG07070 White Blister - Cultural Controls
VG07070 Workshop Notes - 2008
VG07070 Workshop Notes - 2010
VG07125 IPM - soilborne diseases
VG07126 Biofumigation oils for white rot
VG07126 New approaches to sclerotina
VG07127 White Blister - Alternative Controls
VG08020 Optimising water & nutrient use
VG08026 Pythium - field day
VG08026 Pythium - workshop 2010
VG08026 Pythium control strategies - overview
VG08107 - Carbon Footprint - workshop
VG08107 - Carbon Footprint part 1 - definitions
VG08107 - Carbon Footprint part 2 - issues
VG08107 - Carbon Footprint part 3 - calculators
VG08107 - Carbon Footprint part 4 - estimate
VG08107 - Carbon Footprint part 5 - users
VG08107 - Carbon Footprint part 6 - options
VG08426 Parsnip - Pythium Notes 2010
VG09086 Evaluation of Vegetable Washing
VG09159 Grower Study Tour- Spring Onions & Radish
VG96015 Carrot Crown Rot
VG96015 Carrot Defects - Poster
VG97042 Export - Burdock, Daikon and Shallots
VG97051 Pea - ascochyta rot
VG97064 Greenhouse Tomato and Capsicum
VG97084 Green Bean - white rot
VG97103 Celery Mosaic Virus
VG98011 Carrot - Cavity Spot
VG98048 Lettuce - Adapting to Change
VG98083 Lettuce - rots & browning
VG98085 GM Brassicas
VG98093 Microbial hazards - review
VG98093 Safe vegetable production
VG99005 Quality wash water
VG99008 Clubroot - rapid test
VG99016 Compost and Vegetable Production
VG99030 Globe Artichokes - value adding
VG99054 Onions - Theraputic Compounds
VG99057 Soil Health Indicators
VG99070 IPM - Celery
Victorian soil health
VN05010 Folicur - alternative carriers
VN05010 Onion White Rot - Fungicides
VN05010 Onion White Rot - summary
VX00012 Metalaxyl breakdown
VX99004 Clean & Safe Fresh Vegetables
Whitefly & Viruses
Contact Details

PO Box 138
273 Camberwell Rd
Camberwell, VIC 3124

Tel: 0437037613
Fax: 03 9882 6722
Login or Sign up now!

Latest News

Bayer Vegetables Forum
Read more here...

Agricultural Trailers
Read more here...

Food Safety Proposal For Comment
Read more here...

Supermarket Cuts Veg Prices
Read more here...

Green Snail Alert
Read more here...

VG05044 IPM - Grower Survey

A telephone survey of lettuce growers was conducted in April and May of 2006.

The aim of the survey was to ascertain the pest management strategies of lettuce growers and to determine their level of uptake and understanding of Integrated Pest Management (IPM).

The survey form was very similar to the IPM survey form used by Andrew Creek in October 2005 .

Additional questions were added which included the use of fungicides and herbicides on lettuce crops, control of sclerotinia, the presence of currant-lettuce aphid (CLA) (Nasonovia ribisnigri (Mosley)) and local barriers that inhibit the uptake of IPM.

Other lettuce growers contacted from NSW and some from SA, Vic and WA were selected randomly from a list of growers compiled by NSW DPI throughout the lettuce IPM project.

Although this survey only reflects the opinions of a small cross section of growers from the Australian lettuce industry, it does however give an indication of the pest management strategies that lettuce growers are currently using.

The survey also reveals the attitude towards and the uptake of IPM.

Kathryn Bechaz
Lionel Hill
        Cathy Young

Lettuce Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Grower Survey - 2006
Download 90kb

Findings :

Of the 79 lettuce growers who choose to take part in the survey, 59 were field growers, 15 were hydroponic growers, 2 were organic growers and there was 1 seedling, transplant and non grower.

The non grower who participated had been a consultant for many years and was very knowledgeable with the pest management trends in their area.

This survey of Australian lettuce growers (predominately NSW and Victorian) has demonstrated that the growers are genuinely interested in alternative pest management strategies.

More than 60% of growers considered themselves to be IPM growers and used a range of techniques as part of their pest management strategies for lettuce.

Crop monitoring was the most popular technique followed by monitoring beneficial numbers and the use of biological insecticides.

The non IPM growers (39%) believed they were managing their pest situations traditionally by spraying weekly with older and newer generation chemistries.

Despite this, most non IPM growers are using some techniques that are considered to be IPM strategies such as crop monitoring, the use of yellow sticky traps, only spraying when necessary, chemical rotations and ploughing in crop residues.

Regular crop monitoring was a pest management strategy used by 91% of all growers surveyed. In total 74% of the growers monitored their own lettuce crops, whilst consultants and chemical resellers did 34% of the monitoring.

Monitoring protocols and frequency varied greatly amongst the growers. This depended on whether they were IPM or non IPM growers and if the lettuces were grown in the field, hydroponically or organically.

Those growers that did not monitor their crops relied on their experience, pest pressure at the time and moth activity at night to make their spray decisions.

Most growers thought that crop monitoring was cost effective in reducing the number of chemicals sprayed. The majority of growers have used newer generation insecticides, with Success® the most popular.

However, older chemistries such as Lannate®, Fastac® and Dimethoate® were still sprayed because at times growers felt that the conditions suited them better.

Dithane®, Filan®, Ridomil® and Rovral® were the fungicides of choice for growers to control downy mildew and sclerotinia. Kerb® was by far the most popular herbicide chosen by growers to manage both grass and broadleaf weeds.

Growers’ tank mixed both newer and older generation chemicals according to their compatibilities, which decreased costs somewhat. Conventional boom sprays were used by 49 of the 79 growers surveyed to apply chemicals to their lettuce crops.

Three IPM growers modified their conventional boom spray and added short droppers to improve spray coverage.

Air assist sprayers were the second most popular method of applying chemicals. Water application rates ranged from 30L/Ha up to 1000L/Ha, depending on the lettuce growers’ situation.

However, the most commonly used rates were 400L/Ha and 600L/ha. CLA was the major insect pest concern to come out of the surveys.

Most growers believed that CLA was the biggest pest threat to the ongoing success of lettuce IPM and were very happy with the available information on this pest. CLA has been found in Tasmania, the Sydney basin in NSW and the Werribee and Cranbourne (metropolitan) areas in Victoria. Just recently CLA was found in the Bathurst region of NSW and the Northern Adelaide Plains and Adelaide Hills regions of SA.

Nearly all of the growers thought that it was only a matter of time before CLA spread to most lettuce growing areas in Australia. Confidor® and Nas resistant lettuce varieties are the growers’ choice for controlling CLA.

Several benefits of adopting IPM were identified by growers.

The main benefit was related to insecticides and the reduction in use and cost. Better pest control, a greater understanding of insect pests and the ability to recognise beneficials were other important benefits.

Along with the benefits, weaknesses were also identified with the most common being a lack of confidence in IPM when the pest pressure is high. Growers indicated that with educational workshops the fear of failure may not be as great.

Coupled with CLA being a threat to lettuce IPM is the use of Confidor® to control the aphids. Growers are worried about the implications of spraying Confidor® and resistance problems. As well as CLA being an ongoing threat to the success of lettuce IPM, Rutherglen bug and thrips were other major pest concerns.

To enhance lettuce IPM the management of Rutherglen bug and thrips is considered to be important by the growers.

This is especially the case when consumers and retailers have a “zero tolerance” for any sort of insect contamination (including beneficials) on product. Many growers cannot afford to loose markets through contamination and are therefore worried about the lack of awareness of retailers and consumers.

Local barriers limiting the adoption of IPM were very similar to the threats. More specifically, Hay lettuce growers were worried that the biological insecticides lacked efficacy in their region due to hot and dry conditions. These insecticides need humidity to work successfully which is not a feature in the Hay region.

Around the Gatton region in Qld processors are not accepting IPM lettuces due to insect contamination and have banned the use of the insecticide Bt because of perceived health risks.

Other regionally based barriers included high insect pressures from neighbouring crops through to local council legislation. The growers who were surveyed had a very high opinion of the publications that have been a part of the lettuce project.

The Lettuce Leaf Newsletter, Ute/Field Guide and Lettuce IPM Information Guide were all rated good to excellent publications. The bimonthly Lettuce Leaf Newsletter was very popular because it was brief and supplied relevant and interesting information.

The Lettuce Conferences were also rated highly by those who attended. The conference proceedings were rated lower than other publications because the growers deemed them to be too technical.

Overall it would appear that the lettuce project has proven to be very useful for the growers. Most think that the lettuce industry is heading in the right direction and continued contact between growers, researchers and industry representatives is essential for a sustainable future.

Acknowledgments :

The author would like to thank the growers who willingly participated in this survey, without their support it would have been difficult to complete.

This project was funded by NSW DPI, the AUSVEG levy, Horticulture Australia Limited and a voluntary contribution from South Pacific Seeds and Convenience Foods.

A list of potential survey candidates from Tasmania and Victoria was compiled by Lionel Hill (Researcher) and Patrick Ulloa (Industry Development Officer), respectively.

John Duff an Entomologist from Qld, Sonia Broughton also an Entomologist from WA and Greg Baker a Researcher from SA, surveyed growers from their particular states.

^ Back to top    


July 2015

"I have recently attended several Conferences and asked the question: Are they worth attending? The answer is definitely yes. After attending... Read more...

Site supporters
Web design Melbourne | Web Agent AUSVEG VIC 2018