Rotate-Paks could save money, waste

Greenhouse growers can become frustrated with having to purchase large containers of insecticides and miticides, only to use a small portion during the growing season. Since most insecticides and miticides are costly and don’t have an extended shelflife, they may be unusable after five years, depending on storage conditions. Product expiration requires more purchases of pesticides in the same large containers. This process is expensive and a waste.

{sidebar id=53}

Avoiding waste, resistance

To avoid this continuing problem, it would be beneficial if growers could purchase smaller volumes of insecticides and miticides. This concept has already been done in the cereal industry for brands such as Cheerios, Froot Loops, Raisin Bran, Corn Pops and Frosted Flakes. At one time, consumers were only able to purchase large boxes (20 ounces or more) of cereal. Companies, including Kellogg and Post, developed single-serving boxes (1.3 ounces) and packaged them in variety packs.

Do you think similar packaging for insecticides and miticides would benefit growers to develop rotation programs? For example, instead of having to purchase large containers of several products, a grower could purchase what I call a “Rotate-Pak” for each insect and mite pest. The Rotate-Pak would include four products in separate 1-pint containers, labeled for control of each designated insect or mite pest. Each Rotate-Pak package would come with a convenient plastic handle to make it easier to carry. Growers would be able to choose the Rotate-Pak(s) based on the insect or mite pests they are dealing with. These smaller containers would provide up to three applications before additional Paks would needed. Each Pak would contain products that have different modes of action, making it easier and convenient to develop a rotation program. Rotating products with different modes of action and using a systematic process are the best ways to delay resistance.

Pest management made simple

Marketing complete rotation programs, based on packaging, is a legitimate means to reduce the possibility of insect and mite pest populations developing resistance. This is equivalent to a “ Pest management for Dummies” approach, which is similar to the book titles (but not the individuals following the approach).

The empty product containers could then be triple-rinsed and properly disposed of in landfills or through recycling programs. This packaging would avoid having to maintain and store numerous large containers.

It would also be possible to have more than one Rotate-Pak for a specific insect or mite pest. For example, with all the miticides available, it would be feasible to have two to three different Paks for twospotted spider mite (Tetranychus urticae).

Examples of potential Rotate-Paks for specific insect and mite pests of greenhouse-grown crops include:

Aphid Rotate-Pak: Marathon , Aria, insecticidal soap and Orthene.

Fungus gnat Rotate-Pak: Distance, Citation, Pylon and DuraGuard.

Mealybug Rotate-Pak: TriStar, Orthene, insecticidal soap and Enstar II.

Thrips Rotate-Pak: Conserve, Avid, Mesurol and Orthene.

Twospotted spider mite Rotate-Pak I: Judo, Shuttle, Floramite and TetraSan.

Twospotted spider mite Rotate-Pak II: Avid, Sanmite, Pylon and ProMite.

Whitefly Rotate-Pak I: Safari, Endeavor, Talus and Talstar.

Whitefly Rotate-Pak II: Distance, BotaniGard, Flagship and Judo.

These smaller containers would be more appropriate for smaller greenhouse operations. Larger operations would still likely require larger containers due to the number of plants and production space to be treated. For Rotate-Paks to become a reality would require cooperation among the companies that distribute insect and mite control products. In addition, some type of container standards would be required. Distributors might attempt to bundle products from different companies if it was convenient. Product label or use rates would have to be adjusted based on container size.

There is also the issue associated with liability in marketing Rotate-Paks such as efficacy and phytotoxicity, and who would be responsible if any problems occurred. Additionally, manufacturers and distributors may be concerned about the volume of sales, but in the long term, they may actually sell just as much or more product.

Smaller packaging may result in growers paying more per ounce. However, if the products are used more effectively, then it could be less expensive since better control would be achieved with less insecticide or miticide needing to be stored. This same concept could also be applied for disease pathogen controls.

Mention of common or trade names for specific insecticides or miticides does not constitute an endorsement.

The author wishes to acknowledge Richard K. Lindquist of OHP Inc., for his valuable contributions to the article.

{sidebar id=1}

- Raymond Cloyd