Grower’s Guide to Codling Moth Control with Sterile Insect Release

About This Guide

This guide is intended for growers, pest control advisors (PCAs), and consultants evaluating whether Sterile Insect Release (SIR) belongs in their codling moth management program — and, if so, how to implement it effectively. It covers the biology underlying SIR, a structured framework for assessing program fit, a realistic year-by-year implementation timeline, operational guidance, monitoring protocols, and program economics. The guide is organized to serve three distinct audiences:

Growers new to the Sterile Insect Technique (SIT) — Start at the beginning. Section 2 explains the science in plain terms.
Growers evaluating M3 SIR — Jump to Section 3 for the decision framework, Section 4 for the timeline, and Section 7 for the economics.
PCAs and consultants — Section 5 covers monitoring protocols and threshold guidance. Section 6 has troubleshooting scenarios.

Table of content

The Codling Moth Problem
How Sterile Insect Release Works
Is SIR Right for Your Operation?
What to Expect — Year by Year
Implementation: What M3 Handles and What You Handle
Monitoring, Troubleshooting, and Knowing When to Adjust
The Economics
Getting Started with M3

1 · The Codling Moth Problem

The Codling moth has long been among the most economically damaging pests in tree fruit production. Modern growing practices have encouraged IPM adoption while over the past 30 years regulators have transitioned away from environmentally damaging chemistries. Methods available to control codling moths have declined while resistance to these tools has increased and will continue to increase.

A Pest That Doesn’t Stop Adapting

Codling moth (Cydia pomonella) is one of the most economically significant insect pests in North American apple, pear, and walnut production. In orchards without pest management, infestation rates can reach 80% for apples and 60% for pears (Wan et al., 2019 as cited in Zhang et al., 2021). The pest is persistent, multi-generational, and, increasingly, resistant to the tools we use against it.

In the Pacific Northwest and elsewhere, a specific challenge has emerged: codling moth populations exhibiting resistance to Cydia pomonella granulovirus (CpGV), commonly referred to as “virus-resistant” codling moth. CpGV-based products have long served as a cornerstone of organic and IPM programs. While resistance does not render these products ineffective overnight, it reduces efficacy, and resistance is spreading (Asser-Kaiser et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2021).

At the same time, regulatory pressure has reduced the number of chemical options available, particularly for organic operations. Resistance will continue to increase with the tools that remain. Growers who spray the same active ingredients season after season without rotation are selecting for exactly the populations that will survive those sprays.

Why No Single Tool Is Enough

Codling moth management has always been an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) challenge. The pest is difficult to control for several biological reasons:

Multiple generations per season — In the Pacific Northwest, two to three generations per year means continuous pressure from late spring through harvest.
Forbidden damage — Larvae bite and enter fruit shortly after hatching and these “stings” cause fruit loss. By the time you observe frass, the population pressure that caused them is already history.
Edge and neighbor pressure — Codling moth populations don’t respect block boundaries. Isolated management in a sea of untreated or poorly managed orchards faces constant reinfestation pressure.
Resistance development — With insecticides, resistance follows use. High selection pressure accelerates the process.

Effective codling moth management requires a variety of tools and SIR is one tool in that toolkit. It works alongside spray programs and other IPM practices, not instead of them. We’ll come back to that point throughout this guide.

Field Note

Virus-resistant codling moth populations have been documented in Washington, Oregon, British Columbia, and parts of California (Asser-Kaiser et al., 2022). If you’ve noticed declining efficacy from your CpGV spray program over the past two to three seasons, resistance may already be a factor in your blocks. Damage assessment data from the previous year is the most reliable indicator. Consider testing your blocks for CpGV resistance.

Where SIR Fits In

SIR addresses a specific gap in the conventional IPM toolkit: it suppresses codling moth populations in ways that chemicals cannot, and it doesn’t create resistance pressure. Instead of targeting adults or larvae after they’ve already found your fruit, SIR disrupts the pest’s reproductive biology at the population level through a new mode of action: mating.

The rest of this guide covers how that works, when it makes sense, and what it takes to do it well.

2 · How Sterile Insect Release Works

The Core Mechanism

SIT works by releasing sterilized codling moths into the field in numbers large enough to overwhelm the wild population, a strategy called overflooding. When wild females mate with sterile males instead of wild males, they produce eggs that don’t develop into viable offspring. The wild population declines generation over generation.

SIT doesn’t kill insects directly: it disrupts reproduction. Because of that, it doesn’t create the selection pressure that drives chemical resistance. Wild females cannot develop a heritable preference for wild males over sterile ones. There is no known mechanism by which a population can evolve resistance to the sterile insect technique itself.

Where the Moths Come From

M3 sources its sterile codling moths from the Okanagan-Kootenay Sterile Insect Release Program (OKSIR) in British Columbia — the same program that has supported area-wide SIT across nearly 7,000 acres of BC apple production for over two decades (Thistlewood & Judd, 2019). OKSIR handles mass rearing, quality control, sterilization, and dye marking (the dye is added to the moth food, which makes the marked moths identifiable in field traps). M3 handles cold chain logistics, release operations, program design, and technical support on the grower side.

Moth quality matters: a sterile insect that can’t compete for mating with a wild one provides no benefit. OKSIR’s quality control process tests flight performance, emergence rates, and mating competitiveness before moths are shipped. Moths that don’t meet quality thresholds don’t reach your orchard.

SIR and Mating Disruption: Complementary Tools

Mating disruption and SIR target the same biological vulnerability, the codling moth’s dependence on chemical communication for mate-finding, but through different mechanisms. Mating disruption works by flooding the orchard environment with synthetic pheromone, disorienting wild males and reducing their ability to locate wild females. SIR works by flooding the wild population with sterile moths that compete directly for mating opportunities with wild ones. Because the two approaches operate through distinct pathways, they are complementary rather than redundant. Mating disruption reduces the efficiency of wild male mate-finding; SIR reduces the reproductive outcome of any mating that does occur. Used together, they create overlapping layers of reproductive disruption. Research in New Zealand using moths from OKSIR demonstrated that combined SIT and mating disruption programs reduced wild moth captures by 67–99% over six years of releases (Horner et al., 2020).

The Overflooding Ratio: A Planning Tool, Not a Threshold

You will hear the number 40:1 used in discussions of SIR for codling moth. This refers to the overflooding ratio: the number of sterile males released relative to wild males present in the field. A 40:1 ratio means 40 sterile males for every 1 wild male.

The 40:1 figure was derived experimentally and represents a minimum effective guideline under specific conditions. In practice:

The ratio varies by species. For codling moth, 40:1 is a widely used baseline; other species require different ratios.
The ratio is inferred from trap data and not directly measured in the field. Therefore, it will vary depending on local conditions: temperature, block size, edge pressure, population density, and timing.
The ratio is a planning input, not a pass/fail test. If your trap monitoring isn’t showing 40:1, it doesn’t necessarily mean the program isn’t working, and if it is showing 40:1, that doesn’t guarantee success without supporting practices.

The Real Metric

Your most reliable indicator that SIR is working is your damage assessment at harvest: the percentage of fruit with codling moth entries. Trap counts are a useful population indicator, but they’re influenced by temperature, wind, lure age, trap placement, and sterile-to-wild ratio in ways that make them an imperfect signal.

3 · Is SIR Right for Your Operation?

The Most Important Question: What Is Your Pressure Level?

SIR is a population suppression tool. It pushes an existing population down over multiple generations, which means it works best when you start with a manageable population. It will not rescue you from a crisis situation on its own.

If you ended last season with damage levels above 10–15%, SIR as a standalone intervention is not your answer but can be part of the solution. In high-pressure situations, SIR can still play a role, but only as part of an intensive combined approach that includes additional spray support, and possibly intensive trapping to knock down the population first. We will cover that in Section 6.

SIR Works Best When:

Starting damage is low to moderate (under 5–8%)
You can commit to a 3-season minimum program
You can maintain spray support for the first 1–2 seasons
Block size is 50+ acres, or you have neighboring growers in the same program
Edge pressure from adjacent untreated orchards is manageable

SIR Is a Poor Fit When:

You’re in a crisis situation (15%+ damage) without a recovery plan
You need single-season results
Conventional spray economics are your primary constraint
Your blocks are highly isolated with heavy surrounding pressure
You’re unwilling to maintain any spray support in year one

A Note for Growers Already Using Mating Disruption

Existing mating disruption use is generally a positive indicator for SIR program fit rather than a reason for concern. Growers already running mating disruption programs have demonstrated a commitment to reproductive disruption as a management strategy and typically have the monitoring infrastructure that SIR requires. In most cases, mating disruption can and should be maintained when SIR is introduced. The primary operational consideration is ensuring that pheromone trap data is interpreted in the context of both programs running simultaneously, as mating disruption can influence trap catch rates independently of wild population density. This is addressed in more detail in Section 5.

The Organic Economics Factor

The economics of SIR differ substantially depending on whether the operation is managed under organic certification. During an M3 AgTech expert panel, Jeff Allen of GS Long Company noted that many organic growers have already exhausted codling moth spray budgets of $1,000 to $2,000 per acre, often without achieving adequate control. For organic operations, three factors shift the SIR calculation significantly:

Fewer chemical alternatives — CpGV resistance is eroding one of organic’s best tools. The available alternatives are more expensive, less effective, or carry their own resistance risks.
Organic premium pricing — The return on investment (ROI) calculation for SIR includes the value of maintaining organic certification over a multi-year horizon. Even with higher program costs, staying organic at premium pricing typically beats a conversion to conventional that also requires SIR-level investment.
Spray reduction over time — As the SIR program suppresses the wild population, many growers are able to reduce or eliminate some spray passes. That cost reduction compounds over years three, four, and five.

For conventional operations, SIR can still make sense, particularly on high-value blocks facing documented resistance, but the economics require a more block-specific analysis. If you are in that situation, let’s run the numbers for your operation specifically before you commit.

The Commitment Question

SIR requires something that sprays don’t: multi-season patience. Population dynamics play out over generations, not days. Most growers see real damage reduction starting in year two or three. High-pressure blocks may take longer.

Growers who discontinue SIR after a single season due to the absence of visible results frequently conclude that the program is ineffective. In most cases, however, the program was performing as expected, population suppression had simply not yet accumulated to the point of measurable damage reduction. Premature discontinuation is the most common cause of poor outcomes in SIR programs.

Decision Checklist

Question	SIR-Favorable Answer	Your Answer
What was your codling moth damage last season?	Under 8%
Is your operation organic or do you have organic goals?	Yes
Can you commit to a 3-year minimum program?	Yes
Can you maintain spray support during year one?	Yes
Do you have access to damage assessment data at harvest?	Yes

Operations with five favorable responses are likely strong candidates for M3 SIR. Three or four favorable responses indicate a plausible case for the program, though a more detailed assessment of the specific operation would be warranted before enrollment. Fewer than three favorable responses suggests that other management priorities should be addressed before SIR is considered.

4 · What to Expect — Year by Year

Year 0 — Pre-Program

Establish Your Baseline

The work you do before the program starts sets up your ability to evaluate it: thorough harvest damage assessment in your target blocks, detailed trap count records from the previous season, and a clear picture of where your population pressure is coming from (internal to the block, or edge-driven from neighboring orchards).

Work with M3 to map your blocks, identify boundary conditions, and design a spray support plan for year one. Decide which spray passes you’ll maintain and which you’ll reduce.

Year 1 — The Intensive Year

Suppress, Support, and Stay the Course

Year one is the most resource-intensive year of the program. You’ll maintain your spray program, possibly at full intensity on first generation, while SIR releases begin to push down the wild population. Don’t expect dramatic damage reduction this season. Population suppression is accumulating, but it hasn’t compounded to the point where you’ll see it in your fruit.

Keep your damage assessment records. Pay attention to where trap counts are elevated and whether those areas correlate with edge blocks or historically high-pressure zones. This data will be essential for adjusting your release strategy in year two.

Years 2–3 — Where It Shows

Measurable Damage Reduction Begins

This is where most growers in low-to-moderate pressure situations start to see real results. Damage rates that were at 3–5% in year zero are often at 1–2% or below by year three. Some growers in well-managed, lower-pressure blocks see reductions earlier.

As the wild population drops, many growers begin reducing spray passes, typically on second or third generation first. The timing depends on your trap data and damage assessment.

Economic ROI typically becomes visible for organic growers in this window, either through reduced spray costs or through maintained premium pricing that would have been at risk without a viable organic codling moth program.

Year 4+ — Maintenance

Transition to a Maintenance Rate

Once the wild population is contained and damage is consistently low, many growers transition to a maintenance release rate, the half rate has a lower volume of sterile moths designed to hold the population down rather than actively suppress it. This is where the long-term economics of SIR pay off: lower release rates, fewer spray passes, and sustained low damage.

The timing of this transition depends on your monitoring data, not the calendar. Some growers in low-pressure situations reach maintenance by year three. Others dealing with higher starting pressure or significant edge effects may take longer. M3 will help you evaluate whether the data supports stepping down.

High Pressure — 5+ Years

High-Pressure Blocks Require a Different Plan

If you’re starting from 10%+ damage, or dealing with large unmanaged adjacent acreage, plan for a longer timeline. Five or more years is realistic for blocks coming out of very high pressure.

High-pressure blocks typically require a combination approach in years one and two: intensive pheromone trapping to pull adults out of the population, higher SIR release rates, full spray support on all generations, and sometimes barrier netting in the worst areas. The SIR program is a component of a recovery plan, not the plan itself.

Know which of your blocks are candidates for a recovery approach and which are manageable within a standard program. Starting SIR in a crisis block without additional support is a setup for disappointment.

“I believe that you always get a return on investment, but sometimes it’s hard to see.” — Jeff Allen, GS Long Company

“If you’re organic it will pay off within like three years. You can stay in organic. It’s just going to be hard for a couple years.” — Teah Smith, Zirkle Fruit, Washington Tree Fruit Research Commission

5 · Implementation: What M3 Handles and What You Handle

M3 SIR is a turnkey service: you don’t add equipment, you don’t need to learn to rear insects, and you don’t manage release logistics. But the program does require real work from your side.

What M3 Handles

Sterile moth sourcing — M3 sources quality-controlled sterile codling moths from OKSIR in British Columbia, the largest and longest-running SIT program for codling moth in North America
Cold chain and logistics — Transport from OKSIR to your blocks with temperature integrity maintained throughout
Aerial release operations — Coordinating release flights by drone to apply aerially over our 20 week program.
Program design — Release rates and block prioritization based on your pressure profile and goals
Technical support — Interpreting monitoring data, adjusting program design, troubleshooting

What Growers Are Responsible For

Responsibility	Why It Matters
Pheromone trap monitoring	Primary population data for program adjustment
Trap maintenance (lure replacement, sticky inserts)	Stale lures undercount wild moths; inaccurate counts lead to wrong program decisions
Harvest damage assessment	Your primary success metric; requires systematic sampling across the block, not spot checks
Spray program coordination	SIR timing needs to be coordinated with spray passes; some insecticides are toxic to sterile moths
Record keeping	Trap counts, damage data, spray records — this data is what allows the program to improve year over year
Access for release flights	Release crews need clear access and advance coordination for flight schedules

Release Operations and Coordination

M3 releases sterile moths throughout the day across the season. Release schedules are driven by degree-day accumulation and codling moth phenology. Our standard program begins in late April and delivers 800 moths per acre per week for 20 weeks.

If your spray program involves organophosphates or other broad-spectrum insecticides, discuss the timing with your M3 program advisor: some products have residual activity that affects sterile moth survival in the field. Coordinating spray and release schedules is part of the program design process.

Monitoring Protocol: Traps and Damage Assessment

Pheromone Trap Placement

Standard placement: 1 trap per 5–10 acres for routine monitoring; 1 per acre in problem blocks
Place traps at mid-canopy height, oriented so the opening faces the prevailing wind
Replace lures every 2–3 weeks; replace sticky inserts when more than 30% of the surface is covered

Identifying Sterile vs. Wild Moths

Sterile moths are dye-marked (the dye is added to their food during rearing), which allows you to distinguish them from wild moths in your traps. A high ratio of marked (sterile) to unmarked (wild) moths in your traps is a positive program indicator, it means your overflooding is working at the level of trap competition. However, trap competition and actual female mating are not identical. Damage assessment remains the authoritative measure.

Harvest Damage Assessment

At harvest, conduct a systematic damage assessment across each block. Sample at minimum 25 fruit per tree from 10 trees per block location (interior and edge separately). Record the number of fruits with codling moth entries, including stings (early entries) and deep damage. Track this data year over year to measure program success objectively.

Coordinating Mating Disruption and SIR

Mating disruption and SIR are complementary and do not require direct timing coordination. Growers running both programs should be aware of two operational considerations.

Trap catch interpretation — Mating disruption reduces raw trap catch numbers independent of actual population density. In these blocks, the marked-to-unmarked ratio is a more reliable program indicator than total catch volume, and low trap catches should always be cross-referenced with harvest damage assessment data before drawing conclusions.

Long-term program design — As wild populations decline, decisions about reducing or discontinuing mating disruption should be based on monitoring data and made in consultation with your M3 advisor and PCA, not in response to low trap catches alone.

Field Note: The Monitoring Trap Limitation

Pheromone traps are influenced by temperature, wind speed and direction, lure age, trap placement, canopy density, and the ratio of sterile to wild moths in the area. Always cross-reference trap counts with damage assessment before drawing conclusions.

6 · Monitoring, Troubleshooting, and Knowing When to Adjust

How to Know If the Program Is Working

Harvest damage assessment (primary) — Percentage of fruit with stings declining year over year.
Trap count trends (secondary) — Increase in the ratio of marked (sterile) to unmarked (wild) moths over the season.
Wild population estimate (planning) — Based on trap counts corrected for sterile-to-wild ratio, estimated wild population declining over seasons.

A program can be working even when year-over-year damage comparisons look flat, if starting population pressure was very high. The question is whether the trend line is moving in the right direction.

High-Pressure Recovery: A Combined Approach

If you’re entering the program from a high-pressure situation, or if a block deteriorates despite the program, experienced growers have used the following combination approach to recover:

Intensive trapping — Increase trap density sharply, up to 25 traps per acre in crisis blocks, to pull adults out of the population and reduce mating before SIR release activity begins.
Full spray support on all generations — Maintain spray coverage at all generation timings.
High-volume application — Ensure thorough coverage (true 200 gallons per acre in high canopy density situations).
Sanitation — Remove cull fruit, manage drop fruit promptly, eliminate off-season harborage.
Barrier netting — In blocks with extreme edge pressure, physical exclusion netting has reduced wild adult immigration by 98–99% in documented cases (Marshall & Beers, 2021; Sauphanor et al., 2012). It’s a real capital investment, but it may be the difference between a workable and an unworkable block.
SIR as part of the stack — Continue SIR releases at standard or elevated rates. SIR in a crisis block isn’t the whole strategy; it’s a component of a layered recovery approach.

“The mistake we’ve made in making suggestions is to focus on too small of an area. When we start looking at how to be most effective, we need to also look outside the hot spot and see how the population tapers off across the orchard.” — Jeff Allen, GS Long Company

Area-wide thinking is one of the most consistent lessons from experienced SIR growers. Treating just your worst block while ignoring the surrounding pressure is a recipe for slow progress.

When to Call M3

You should contact M3 if:

Unmarked (wild) trap catches are well above what you’d expect, and you’ve ruled out lure and trap issues
Harvest damage is increasing rather than declining after year two
You’re seeing damage patterns inconsistent with prior years (new blocks affected, unusual timing)
You’re considering reducing spray support and want a second opinion on the data
You’re having difficulty interpreting the sterile-to-wild ratio in your trap data

Normal variation and year-over-year fluctuations in trap counts should be expected and does not necessitate program changes.

7 · The Economics

Program Costs

M3 offers three coverage tiers, priced per acre for a 20-week release season (5-acre minimum):

Coverage Level	Sterile Moths / Week	Cost Per Acre	Best Fit
Half Rate	400 per acre	$340 (5–100 ac) / $320 (100–1,000 ac) / $300 (1,000+ ac)	Low pressure, maintenance, expanding coverage area
Full Rate	800 per acre	$425 (5–100 ac) / $405 (100–1,000 ac) / $385 (1,000+ ac)	Low to medium pressure; supplement with other IPM tools
Double Rate	1,600 per acre	$595 (5–100 ac) / $575 (100–1,000 ac) / $555 (1,000+ ac)	Medium to high pressure, hotspot blocks, recovery situations

Pricing scales with acreage — larger operations receive lower per-acre rates. For current pricing and enrollment details, visit m3agtech.com.

To put these numbers in context: some organic growers are already spending $1,000 to $2,000 an acre on codling moth spray programs alone. For those operations, SIR at $300–$595/acre isn’t an added cost on top of an otherwise cheap program — it’s a tool that can help bring total per-acre codling moth costs down over time as spray passes decrease. In addition, with CpGV sprays averaging $100/acre with tractor time, what are you better off with? Four CpGV sprays or CM SIT for 20 weeks?

In year one, you add SIR cost on top of your existing spray program, because you maintain spray support. Total integrated program costs in year one are higher than either SIR or sprays alone. That’s the real starting point for any ROI calculation.

ROI Timeline

Operation Type	Typical ROI Timeline	Key Driver
Organic, low-to-moderate pressure	2–3 years	Premium pricing preserved + spray reduction
Organic, high pressure	3–5 years	Longer suppression timeline before spray reduction
Conventional, documented resistance	3–5 years	Depends on avoided costs and yield protection value
Conventional, standard pressure	Variable; block-specific analysis required	Full cost-benefit analysis needed

The Factors That Drive the Math

For organic growers, the most important number is the value of your organic premium per bin. If you’re receiving $10–15 per bin premium over conventional for your organic fruit, and your blocks produce 40–60 bins per acre, a program that costs $300–$595/acre and protects your certification has a very different ROI than a program evaluated on spray cost alone.

Population suppression over time reduces program costs. Most growers in years three through five have reduced spray inputs relative to year one. As wild populations decline, the release rates and spray passes required to maintain control decrease.

As Teah Smith of Zirkle Fruit and the Washington Tree Fruit Research Commission puts it: “In three to five years SIT is paying for itself.” That timeline tracks with what most organic growers in low-to-moderate pressure situations experience.

The cost of a bad season is part of the calculation. A season where codling moth damage exceeds packing house tolerances can result in bin rejections, downgrading, or certification challenges. The cost of a 5% damage season versus a 1% damage season across 100 acres of organic fruit adds up fast. SIR program costs need to be weighed against that risk, not just against spray costs.

A Simple Example

100 acres, organic apples, currently spending $1,200/acre on an intensive spray program and managing at 3% damage.

Year 1 with SIR: $1,200 spray + $405 SIR (Full Rate, 100–1,000 ac tier) = $1,605/acre (higher cost, maintain spray support)
Year 2: $1,000 spray + $405 SIR = $1,405/acre (begin reducing some spray passes as data supports it)
Year 3: $700 spray + $405 SIR = $1,105/acre (clear damage reduction, spray savings accelerate)
Year 4+: $500 spray + $320 SIR (Half Rate, 100–1,000 ac tier) = $820/acre (well below original spray-only cost, sustained low damage)

These numbers are illustrative. Your actual timeline and costs depend on starting pressure, block size, and adjacent conditions. Use this as a framework, not a guarantee.

8 · Getting Started with M3

M3 SIR is available direct-to-grower across Washington and parts of Oregon. You don’t need to go through a distributor or PCA to access the program, though we’re happy to work with your advisor if that’s how you prefer to operate.

The Onboarding Process

Initial conversation — We’ll talk through your operation, your pressure history, your spray program, and whether SIR is a good fit. If it isn’t, we’ll tell you. This is a fit assessment, not a sales call.
Block mapping and assessment — We’ll review your block layout, adjacent acreage, and historical monitoring data to design a program that makes sense for your specific situation.
Program design — Release rates, timing, spray coordination, and monitoring protocols are set before the season starts. You’ll know exactly what’s expected from both sides.
Pre-season baseline — If you don’t have detailed damage assessment records from the prior season, we’ll help you establish a baseline so you can evaluate the program objectively.
Season start — Releases begin based on degree-day accumulation and codling moth phenology in your area. M3 coordinates the timing — you don’t need to manage the release schedule.

What to Bring to the First Conversation

Last season’s harvest damage data (% entries by block, if available)
Prior-season trap count records
A rough map or acreage breakdown of your blocks
Your current spray program (products and timing)
Any specific problem areas or blocks of concern

If you don’t have all of this, don’t let that stop you from reaching out. We can often reconstruct a useful picture from partial information.

A Note on Timing

Program enrollment works best when we have time to do the design work before your season starts. Reaching out in fall or early winter gives us the most flexibility. Spring enrollments are possible but may limit program design options for the first season.

Not Sure If SIR Is Right for You?

That’s exactly the conversation we want to have. If you worked through the decision framework in Section 3 and aren’t sure, reach out anyway. We’d rather spend 30 minutes helping you think through the specifics than have you spend a season on a program that doesn’t fit. And if SIR isn’t right for you right now, we’ll say so and talk about what might work better.

Contact M3 AgTech

M3 AgTech · Sterile Insect Release, Direct-to-Grower

Web: m3agtech.com · Email: info@m3agtech.com

This guide is for informational purposes. Program performance depends on local conditions, starting population pressure, and grower management practices. All performance references reflect outcomes reported by growers in active M3 SIR programs. Individual results may vary.

References

Asser-Kaiser, S., Radtke, P., El-Salamouny, S., Winstanley, D., & Jehle, J. A. (2022). First evidence of CpGV resistance of codling moth in the USA. Insects, 13(6), 533. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects13060533
Horner, R. M., Lo, P. L., Rogers, D. J., Walker, J. T. S., & Suckling, D. M. (2020). Combined effects of mating disruption, insecticides, and the sterile insect technique on Cydia pomonella in New Zealand. Insects, 11(12), 837. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects11120837
Marshall, A. T., & Beers, E. H. (2021). Efficacy and nontarget effects of net exclusion enclosures on apple pest management. Journal of Economic Entomology, 114(4), 1681–1689. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/toab090
Marshall, A. T., & Beers, E. H. (2023). Net enclosures disrupt codling moth dispersal not establishment. Agricultural and Forest Entomology, 25(2), 284–291. https://doi.org/10.1111/afe.12537
Pacific Northwest Pest Management Handbooks. (2025). Apple–codling moth. Oregon State University Extension Service. https://pnwhandbooks.org/insect/tree-fruit/apple/apple-codling-moth
Sauphanor, B., Berling, M., Maugin, S., Toubon, J. F., & Capowiez, Y. (2012). Exclusion netting may alter reproduction of the codling moth (Cydia pomonella) and prevent associated fruit damage to apple orchards. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 145(2), 134–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1570-7458.2012.01320.x
Thistlewood, H. M. A., & Judd, G. J. R. (2019). Twenty-five years of research experience with the sterile insect technique and area-wide management of codling moth, Cydia pomonella (L.), in Canada. Insects, 10(9), 292. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects10090292
Washington State University Tree Fruit. (n.d.). Codling moth. WSU Tree Fruit Research & Extension Center. https://treefruit.wsu.edu/crop-protection/opm/codling-moth-1/
Zhang, X., Zhang, Y., Tian, X., Liu, P., Zhao, H., & Xie, W. (2021). Insecticide resistance in Cydia pomonella (L.): Global status, mechanisms, and research directions. Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology, 178, 104925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pestbp.2021.104925