2025 Listening Sessions for Eastern Tree Fruit Farms

Click below to download the PDF file of this listening session summary.

Seven listening sessions representing 12 states were held across various U.S. regions with 96 participants in early 2025 as part of a four-year USDA-funded project called, Cultivating Tomorrow’s Orchard: Evolving and Enhancing IPM in Eastern Tree Fruit Systems. Each session focused on gathering the experiences, challenges, and needs of orchard owners and managers regarding pest management, Integrated Pest Management (IPM) adoption, regulatory constraints, economic pressures, and climate change impacts.  

Session Topics

Participants in the listening sessions underscored the following:

• Regulatory challenges: Frequent pesticide bans or restrictions leave growers without economical replacements.

• Economic factors: IPM can be more expensive and requires more labor/time, but growers balance that with consumer demand for “clean” fruit and environmental stewardship.

• Weather patterns: Unpredictable weather, warmer winters, and extended pest seasons complicate traditional degree-day models and require more sprays.

• Consumer and neighbor perceptions: Growers must deal with criticism and audits, while also responding to contradictory consumer demands for perfect fruit with minimal pesticide use.

• Communication and extension: Growers rely heavily on university extension updates, peer networks, and “real-time” information about pest pressure and recommended strategies.

Key Themes

Common themes were identified across all sessions as producers mentioned their struggles with the following:

Major Pests Across Regions

• San Jose scale (SJS) frequently mentioned as a top concern (particularly in Georgia, Mid-Atlantic, and the Carolinas).

• Plum curculio, codling moth, brown marmorated stink bug, borers, and aphids

  also arise in multiple sessions.

  
  

Regulatory Constraints

• Removal of effective pesticides (e.g., chlorpyrifos/Lorsban) has increased pest pressures.

• Growers’ expressed frustration over strict audits, labeling changes, and region-

  specific requirements (certain states have more labor and pesticide regulations than others).

Economic and Social Pressures

• Concerns about IPM’s higher up-front costs impact adoption (e.g., mating disruption vs. broad-spectrum sprays).

• Labor and input costs have skyrocketed; pesticide costs often represent the second-largest expense after labor.

• Public/consumer perception is also a concern (e.g., neighbors object to spraying, consumers want “perfect” produce but fear chemicals).

  
  

Weather Variability Impacts

• Weather variability has resulted in longer and more intense pest seasons; some

  pests have multiple generations per year now.

• Fluctuating or extreme weather patterns (late frosts, heavy rains, heat waves) hampers

  predictable spray schedules.

IPM and Alternative Strategies being Considered

• Mating disruption and pheromone trapping for key pests (codling moth, oriental fruit moth, borers).

• Biological controls (e.g., entomopathogenic fungi, parasitoids for stink bugs) remain promising but need more research.

• Growers increasingly interested in non-chemical strategies, though cost and proof-of effectiveness are barriers.

Communication and Extension Needs

• Desire timely, localized data (weather, pest traps, phenology models).

• Growers appreciate weekly bulletins, email blasts, podcasts, Zoom “coffee chats,” and in-person extension visits.

• Growers want a standardized “one-stop” platform for pest management information.

Similarities and Differences Across Sessions

Similarities:

• San Jose scale and plum curculio appear repeatedly.

• Extreme and erratic weather patterns, regulatory challenges, and IPM cost barriers are universal.

• Growers seek better traps, decision-support tools, and simpler compliance.

Differences:

• Southeastern region (AL, GA, SC, NC) emphasize peach pests (borers, scale) more than cooler-climate states.

• Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states talk more about apple pests (scab, codling moth, aphids).

• Some areas (Georgia, Mid-Atlantic) have heavier audits/regulatory burdens than others.

Individual Listening Session Recaps

Recaps of the individual state focus groups can be downloaded in PDF format using the links below.