Pest control in organic production of berries, potatoes and vegetables usually employs spreading technique of registered phytopharmaceutical agents. This technique may be supported or even replaced by pneumatic pest control. Pneumatic pest control means suction of pest using a vacuum device similar to a home vacuum cleaner. Up to now there is no evaluation of pneumatic pest control available from an agricultural engineering point of view. This paper concerns the following questions: Which techniques of pneumatic pest control are available and how may these techniques be improved in terms of technical and physical parameters? Based on the answers a new device design is presented

Schäfer, Winfried

English

Jukuri

Technique of pneumatic pest control : analyses and a new device

Organic Eprints

24FORSKNINGSNYTT • Nr 1 • 2005Technique of pneumatic pest control– analyses and a new devicePest control in organic production of berries, potatoes and vegetables usuallyemploys spreading technique of registered phytopharmaceutical agents. Thistechnique may be supported or even replaced by pneumatic pest control. Pneumaticpest control means suction of pest using a vacuum device similar to a homevacuum cleaner. Up to now there is no evaluation of pneumatic pest controlavailable from an agricultural engineering point of view. This paper concerns thefollowing questions: Which techniques of pneumatic pest control are available andhow may these techniques be improved in terms of technical and physical para-meters? Based on the answers a new device design is presented.Customers demandThe target customers for the new deviceare organic farmers who grow fruits andvegetables in rows, either outside or ingreenhouses. Some companies have madepneumatic pest control devices in the past,and customers have praised their effec-tiveness. The overall size and dynamicsof the target market in Europe have beenconsidered by looking both at organicfarming and the market for organic food.5.1 million hectares are used for organicfarming in Europe, and total organic foodsales are approximately 12 billion euro.After years of rapid growth this hasrecently started to stagnate.The device has applications in two mainfields: organic farming, and herb andherb seed production. In organic farmingthe device can be used for low-growingcrops grown in rows (strawberry, cab-bage, salads etc.). In seed farming thedevice can be used to help collecting theseeds when ripe.Available techniquesBased on literature review, process ana-lysis, and evaluation in respect of agricul-tural engineering parameters (airflowrate, air speed, working hours, energyinput, process costs) I found followingresults:1. Success of pneumatic pest controlvaries in a wide range, and the tech-nique does not always grant satisfyingresults.2. Collection of eggs and larvae is moredifficult than collection of adult insects.Usually weekly treatment is necessary.3. Frequent treatments may cause soilcompaction.4. Pneumatic pest control may distributefungal infection.5. Beneficial organisms may suffer frompneumatic techniques.6. Investment costs of pneumatic imple-ments are high (ca. 5000-12000 euro/row).7. Simultaneously blowing and suckinghoods work better than common suc-tion hoods.8. Neither the interrelationship, nor thecontrol of physical parameters arehardly subjects of research.An analysis of physical parameters andtheir interrelationships reveals that air-flow rate, working width, and travelspeed can be comprised within the termair requirement, as shown in table 1.The air requirement correlates with thesuccess of the treatment and is an objec-tive evaluation criterion for the imple-ment and its pneumatic efficiency. TheTable 1.air requirements working effective maximum airflow rate travel     Price, euro, and number of rowswidth+ working airflow speedtime velocityAuthor unit m3/ha m h/ha m/s m3/h km/h 3* 2* 1*Hellqvist, 1992/1995 15833 – 20353 1 6,67 21–27 2375–3053 1,5 xVincent & Lachance, 1993 6800 3 0,48 14,7 14280 7 xPicket et al, 1994 1950–3900 1 1,25–2,5 4,7 1560 4–8 4000,-Picket et al, 1994 1688–2250 2 0,63–0,83 8,2 2700 4–8 5.000,-Picket et al, 1994 2125–4250 3 0,42–0,83 18,5 5100 4–8 60.000,-**Vincent & Chagnon, 2000 12780 1 2,5 30 5112 4 xTuovinen, 2000 10602–5903 1 1,67–2,5 25 6361 4–6 17.000,-+ Assumed row distance 1 m, * number of rows, ** inclusive modified tractor25FORSKNINGSNYTT • Nr 1 • 2005latter may be improved by the followingmeasures:1. High travel speed prevents pests fromescaping the suction hood.2. Pests sitting upon the plant shouldstart to fly before suction. This maybe achieved pneumatically by blowingnozzles and/or mechanically bychains, brushes or similar devices.3. A suction hood stretched in directionof travel may prolong the duration ofpneumatic treatment to ensuresuccessful control, see figure 1.To minimize the tractor power requiredthe suction airflow velocity under thesuction hood should be as low as possib-le. However, the suction airflow velocitymust always be greater than the flyingspeed of the pest. Low airflow velocitymay also contribute to go easy on usefulinsects. Figure 1 shows the relationshipbetween travel speed, length of suctionhood and duration of treatment.A new prototype designThe new device design is a result ofdiscussions with Kainuun Marjakone Oyand a literature review. This is a propo-sed improvement of an existing techno-logy, a technology  that has been success-fully tested in various applications. Thisdevice differs from a conventional oneFigure 1. Duration of treat-ment depends on travel speed(v), length of suction hood(L), and flying speed anddirection of pest (p).109876543210051 0 15 20L = 0,5 m, p= 1 m/s counter travel speedL = 4,0 m, p= 1 m/s counter travel speedL = 0,5 m, p= 0 m/s or across travel speedL = 4,0 m, p= 0 m/s or across travel speedL = 0,5 m, p= 1 m/s towards travel speedL = 4,0 m, p= 1 m/s towards travel speedDuration of treatment (s)Travel speed of suction hood (km/h)side viewside caddingchainspto shaftfanrow cropfront view top view back viewvacuum channelorificeschannel for blowing airflowin that the suction hood is significantlylonger. On conventional machines thesuction hood is similar to a home vacuumsuction nozzle (brush). The hood is widebut narrow and runs perpendicular totravel direction. The advantage of thisdevice is that the vacuum stretches overthe entire length of the tractor, permit-ting longer vacuuming times at greaterspeed. This is beneficial in two aspects:a) the insects stay inside the hood forlonger which increases the likelihoodthat they will be caught and b) theworking time is reduced. The bettercatch-rate also needs fewer runs overthe field which again reduces workingtime and costs, as well as reducing soilcompaction.With some modifications to the designthe device could also be used with gan-try-technology. This technology is main-ly used in greenhouses in which pestproblems are also severe. Devices aremounted on gantry cranes, which moveon rails over the entire field. Today gan-try-robots are used for planting, wateringand harvesting purposes. They can carryweights in excess of 1000 kg, which ismore than enough to carry this device.26FORSKNINGSNYTT • Nr 1 • 2005LiteratureChiassin, H., Vincent, C. & D. de Oliveira1997: Effect of an insect vacuum deviceon strawberry pollinators. Acta Hort.,437, pp. 373-377.Crawley, T., Schäfer, A., Lappalainen, E. &Vaskelainen, T. 2003. Market feasibilitystudy pneumatic pest control. Helsinkiuniversity of technology, department ofindustrial engineering and manage-ment, institute of strategy and interna-tional business Tu-91.122 new venturedevelopment, 32 pp.Hellqvist, S. 1992: Insektssugning i jordgub-bar. Tidskrift för frukt- och bärodling34/4, p. 48-52.Hodik, M., Rifai, M.N. &. Taborsky, V. 1999:Physical control of Colorado potatobeetle i comparison with bioinsecticide.Rostlinna Vyroba, 45/7, pp. 311-316.Misener, G.C. &. Boiteau, G. 1993: Holdingcapability of the colorado potato beetleto potato leaves and plastic surfaces.Canadian Agricultural Engineering, 35/1, pp. 27-31.Lacasse, B., Laguë, C., Khelifi, M. &. P.-M.Roy 1998: Effects of airflow velocity andtravel speed on the removal of Coloradopotato beetles from potato plants.Canadian Agricultural Engineering,40/4, p. 265-272.Pickel, C., Zalom, F.G., Walsh, D.B., & N.C.Welch 1995: Vacuums provide limitedLygus control in strawberries. CaliforniaAgriculture, 49/2, p. 19-22.Vincent, C. &. R. Chagnon 2000: Vacuumingtarnished plant bug on strawberry: abench study of operational parametersversus insect behaviour. EntomologiaExperimentatis et Applicata 97, pp.347-354.This particular device has not yet reacheda prototype and testing stage. Theestimated price of the device will be 3000– 5000 euro. The material costs per unitare estimated to be 2000 euro.Winfried SchäferTel: +358 9 2242 5220E-mail: winfried.schafer mtt.fiWinfried Schäfer researches on technique inorganic farming at MTT Agricultural Engi-neering Research.■Cedomon is a natural prepara-tion. The active ingredient is acommon soil bacteria Pseudo-monas chlororaphis. In addition rape oil isused as carrier component. Cedomon isnot risky to humans, animals or theenvironment and it is biodegradable.These are the great benefits.The seed dressing products has usuallyeffect only on seedborne or soilborneplant diseases. They cannot preventdiseases, which come through air. Themanufacturer of Cedomon claims thatthe product has effect on barley netblotch (Drechslera teres), barley leaf stripe(Drechslera graminae) and fusarium. Theplant diseases can remarkably decreaseyields of barley and wheat, but normallynot much the yields of oat and rye. Themanufacturer claims that Cedomon canincrease the yields of barley 3–5 % un-der northern European conditions.Experiments in FinlandIn 2003 there was an experiment inAgrifood Research Finland (Vihti),which compared Cedomon, Baytan®,wood smoke treatment and no-treat-ment. Barley (Saana) and oat (Roope)were chosen to the experiment. The ex-periment (4 replications) was set up in aconventionally cultivated field usingchemical fertilisation. The seed dressingtreatments were conducted in a concretemixer. Wood smoke treatment was donein a specially designed grain dryer.The seed dressing treatments did notraise the yields of oat compared to un-treated. Wood smoke treatment slightlyDoes Cedomon work?Biological seed dressing solution Cedomon® is commonly used, especially in Sweden.Cedomon is accepted in organic farming in many countries. In Sweden a big amountof conventionally cultivated cereal is also dressed with Cedomon. In Finland benefitsof Cedomon has been variable.decreased the yield. Probably the oatseed did not have seed- or soilbornediseases in 2003. In 2002 Baytan treat-ment increased the yield of oat about1000 kg/ha. In that year Cedomon wasabsent. For example oat loose smut (Usti-lago avenae) and leaf spot (Drechsleraavenae) are diseases of oat, but for-tunately they decrease yield of oat quiteseldom. Cedomon is claimed to be effec-tive against oat leaf spot, but not againstloose smut. Chemical Baytan has broa-der effect to different diseases.In 2003 Baytan had a tendency to increaseyield of barley compared to untreated(not statistically significant difference).Cedomon did not increase the barleyyield. Wood smoke treatment slightlydecreased the yield. The treatments hadvery little effect on quality of barley oroat.Probably barley seed neither had anydiseases in 2003, which could be con-trolled by Cedomon.Profitabilityof biological seed dressingAgrifood Research Finland (Jokioinen)has done experiments, where Cedomonhas controlled barley net blotch nearlyas well as chemical products. Cedomonhas increased barley yield 200–300 kg/ha, if there has been plenty of net blotch.Cedomon has decreased barley leafstripe 40 – 80 %, when chemical productshave given nearly 100 % effect. The effectof Cedomon against leaf stripe has notusually been enough to increase theyield, but the quality can become better.

Technique of pneumatic pest control – analyses and a new device

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Jukuri

Organic Eprints