The goat moth, Cossus cossus: the pest that costs trees rather than a crop
Savvas Pastopoulos, Agronomist MSc, Pastopoulos Agronomics, Neos Mylotopos, Pella, Greece
The goat moth does not turn up every year in every orchard. It is, however, one of the few pests that, when it does turn up, costs whole trees rather than a crop. The larva eats the inside of the trunk for two and three years, and the tree fades slowly, with stunting, chlorosis and small leaves, that is, with exactly the picture produced by Phytophthora, by Armillaria and by nutrient deficiencies. At the same time, the active substance on which its control rested for decades no longer exists in the European Union.
The text was rewritten on the basis of the 2025 review by Choochuen and Foit covering the whole family Cossidae [1] and the primary work it cites. Two points were substantively corrected:
- Why the goat moth resembles no other pest
- Identity, name and hosts
- Identification: adult, larva, egg
- The cycle: years inside the wood
- How it establishes, and why always on the same trees
- The symptoms
- Goat moth or leopard moth?
- What the gallery actually does to the tree
- Pheromone traps as monitoring
- Mass trapping, and how many traps really
- Nematodes: what the data actually show
- Chemical control after chlorpyrifos
- The protocol
- The risk that is growing
- Sources
1. Why the goat moth resembles no other pest
Most orchard pests attack leaves, flowers or fruit. The damage is annual, visible and reversible. The goat moth belongs to another category, and three features make it a case of its own.
The three that change everything
- The larva lives inside the wood. In the Cossidae the greater part of the cycle is spent in the larval stage, inside the trunk [1]. No spray liquid reaches there, and that is not a weakness of the product, it is geometry.
- The cycle lasts years. So larvae of different generations occupy the same tree at once. There is no moment in the season when the tree is "empty".
- The picture in the canopy is false. Stunting, chlorosis, small leaves and finally dieback, precisely what Phytophthora, Armillaria, bacterial cankers and nutrient deficiencies also produce.
2. Identity, name and hosts
This is one of the largest moths in the region, the species Cossus cossus (L.), family Cossidae. Across the Cossidae, adult wingspan ranges from 9 to 250 mm depending on the species, and females are significantly larger than males [1]. The damaging stage is the larva alone.
In the field this counts: when a suspect gallery is opened, the smell is a diagnostic feature that no other borer of our fruit trees provides.
The hosts
The list is among the widest held by any pest of tree crops. In the Cossidae review the goat moth is recorded on twenty-six host genera, among them Malus, Pyrus, Prunus, Cerasus, Armeniaca, Juglans regia, Olea europaea, Castanea sativa, Diospyros, Cydonia, Morus and Vitis vinifera, as well as Populus, Salix, Quercus, Ulmus, Fraxinus and Tilia [1]. Its range covers Europe, North Africa, West and Central Asia, Russia, Mongolia and China.
3. Identification: adult, larva, egg
The adult
- Greyish, the forewings carrying dark lace-like markings and hair.
- Wingspan about 9.5 cm, among the heaviest moths in Europe [11].
- Females are larger than males and carry a long ovipositor.
- At rest the wings are held roof-like over the body.
The camouflage is the point. The colouring matches bark so closely that a resting adult looks like a piece of branch. In practice it is not found in the orchard but only in the trap.
The larva
- Red on the dorsal side, slightly yellow underneath, with a black head.
- Reaches up to 10 cm, among the largest larvae that appear in an orchard [11] [12].
- In the Cossidae the number of larval instars ranges from 5 to 8, depending on the species [1].
- The same tree holds larvae of different ages and sizes at once.
The egg
Small, brown with dark markings. In the Cossidae the eggs are laid singly or in small clusters, in wounds, cracks and crevices of the bark on the trunk and scaffolds. Rough bark is preferred, because it gives the female a better grip and the egg better adhesion [1].
4. The cycle: years inside the wood
In the Cossidae the life cycle runs from one to three years, most of it in the larval stage [1]. In the goat moth, under colder climates, the larva may overwinter three or four times before pupating [11].
What that means in the field: an infested tree holds larvae of more than one generation at the same time. There is no "clean" moment. There is no single treatment that ends the problem. Control is a matter of years, not of a season, and any assessment of the result before the third or fourth year is premature.
The calendar in Greece
- Overwintering: as a larva inside the wood. In the final winter as a fully grown larva.
- Spring: pupation.
- Late May: the first adults appear in lowland districts.
- Until late August: the flight continues.
The calendar corresponds to the lowlands of Macedonia. The classical description of the species' bionomy dates from the 1960s [25] and local deviations are the rule rather than the exception, which is why the calendar does not replace the trap.
The flight period is therefore about three months. It is one more feature that makes control by one or two sprays impossible: there is no narrow oviposition window, there is a summer.
Before pupating, the larva excavates a chamber in the bark and the outer sapwood, drills small holes for ejecting frass and one large exit hole for the moth. It is precisely then that the attack is most easily seen, because the quantity of frass and sawdust coming out reaches its peak [1].
5. How it establishes, and why always on the same trees
Damaged trees are preferred, because the wound offers a site of penetration and favourable conditions for larval development [1]. The adult does not feed at all, its mouthparts are vestigial, but the female orients towards the smell of sap, which is precisely the sign that a tree is wounded or stressed.
The conclusion for the orchard: every wound at the base of the trunk is an active invitation. Knocks from strimmer and brushcutter, damage from the tractor, injuries from rodents, sunburn, frost cracks, cankers from disease, all of them act as a signal. Protecting the trunk is a crop protection measure, not tidiness.
Female Cossidae are weak fliers with low dispersal ability, because the body is heavy and full of eggs. The result is that the eggs are laid close to the female's own emergence site [1] [26].
Hence the attack appears in clusters: a few heavily infested trees, side by side, and the rest of the orchard clean. The low dispersal is at the same time the good news, it is the reason mass trapping makes sense against a goat moth when it would not against an insect that travels.
The young larvae work as a group: together they open an entry gallery and begin feeding at once. The galleries start at ground level or a little below it and usually run up to 20 to 30 centimetres.
A vigorous tree, which responds with abundant flow, defends itself. A stressed one does not. Irrigation and nutrition are not "general measures" here, they are the first line of defence against this particular pest.
6. The symptoms
On the trunk, the certain sign
The larva pushes its dark frass out of the gallery, mixed with wood shavings. That pile at the base of the trunk, together with the liquid outflow and the smell of fermentation, is the most reliable diagnostic feature and is visible all year round.
In the canopy, the signs that mislead
The attack interrupts the flow of sap and shows as stunting, chlorosis, small leaves and finally dieback. It is exactly the picture given by Phytophthora, Armillaria, bacterial cankers and nutrient deficiencies. The canopy yields no diagnosis.
7. Goat moth or leopard moth?
Two wood-boring moths of the same family occur in our fruit trees and are often confused. They can in fact occupy the same tree, and their catches in traps have been compared simultaneously in Italian orchards [5].
| Feature | Goat moth, Cossus cossus | Leopard moth, Zeuzera pyrina |
|---|---|---|
| Where it attacks | The trunk, from ground level to about 30 cm. Prefers large trunks of mature trees | Branches, shoots and the thin trunks of young trees |
| Larva | Red on the back, yellow beneath, black head. Up to 10 cm | Yellowish with black spots in rows |
| Adult | Greyish, with lace-like markings, resembles bark | White with black or bluish spots, like a leopard skin |
| Smell | A strong goat smell from the larva, a vinegar smell from the wood | No characteristic smell |
| Pheromone | (Z)-5-dodecenyl acetate [2] | A different blend, identified separately [6] |
| Nematodes | Very little published data specific to the species | Up to 80% mortality with S. carpocapsae after two years [1] |
8. What the gallery actually does to the tree
The gallery is not simply a hole. It has a characteristic shape and characteristic consequences, and understanding them explains why small trees die and large ones merely decline.
The J shape
In the Cossidae the gallery begins horizontally and then turns upwards, giving a J shape. The most likely explanation is that this avoids flooding of the gallery [1]. The gallery is steadily enlarged as the larva grows; descriptions give 15 mm in width and up to 100 cm in length, with dark walls [12].
Cossid borers feed on both phloem and xylem, so the damage is localised and dispersed rather than girdling. For that reason an infested tree declines more slowly than it would under a phloem-feeding insect, and frequently tolerates the infestation for years [1].
The other side of it: the galleries make large branches, and the trunks of small trees, prone to breaking in wind. The risk of death is therefore greater on young and small trees and smaller on large, mature ones [1], exactly the opposite of what one assumes on seeing an enormous gallery in an old trunk.
Two further factors make the picture worse. First, the direct damage is enlarged by birds digging into the bark in search of the larvae. Second, cossid larvae move within the same host, and some species move even to a new host in later instars, once the tree no longer suffices [1].
9. Pheromone traps as monitoring
Monitoring the flight with pheromone traps, together with systematic inspection of the trunks, is the single most important procedure and the first thing to go into an orchard with a history. In the Cossidae, flight orientation is governed by semiochemicals, and males respond to the female sex pheromone [1].
The goat moth pheromone, with numbers
Capizzi and co-workers identified seven compounds in the female gland washings [2]:
| Compound | Share of the gland washings |
|---|---|
| (Z)-5-dodecenyl acetate | 66%, essential for the attraction of males |
| (Z)-5-tetradecenyl acetate | 14% |
| Dodecyl acetate | 12% |
| Tetradecyl acetate | 4% |
| Decyl acetate | 1.5% |
| Hexadecyl acetate | 1.5% |
| (Z)-5-dodecenol | 1% |
The finding with the greatest practical value is none of these. It is that adding (Z)-3-decenyl acetate, a compound not detected in the female gland at all, but which gave an electroantennogram response, improves the attractiveness of the blend [2].
- Placed around mid-May, shortly before the expected emergence of the first adults.
- A separate pheromone for each species. The leopard moth pheromone was identified in separate work and is different [6].
- The height of placement matters. Pheromone trap efficiency depends on the blend, the trap type, the height at which it is hung and the number of traps per unit area [1].
What the trap gives: the start and the peak of the flight in that particular orchard, and therefore when oviposition occurs, the only moment at which the insect is exposed outside the wood.
The method is not new: monitoring the goat moth with synthetic attractants in poplar plantations was already being tried in the 1980s [7], while catches of goat moth and leopard moth in simultaneous traps have been systematically compared [5].
10. Mass trapping, and how many traps really
Mass trapping aims to catch enough males to reduce the mating of females. In the goat moth it is logical precisely because the insect does not travel: with low dispersal ability and eggs laid close to the emergence site [1], a population reduced locally is not easily replaced from outside.
Faccioli, Pasqualini and Baronio ran two trials of five years each in apple and pear orchards of Emilia-Romagna, specifically to establish the optimum trap density [3]:
| Trial | Densities tested | What doubling the traps gave |
|---|---|---|
| First | 2, 10 and 20 traps per hectare | An increase in catches of 50% |
| Second | 10, 20 and 40 traps per hectare | An increase of only 10 to 20% |
The authors' conclusion: a density greater than 10 traps per hectare is unnecessary, except in severely infested orchards.
For the related leopard moth, where more field data have been published, pheromone traps reduced infestation in an olive orchard in Egypt by 58.8% after the first year and 87.5% after the second [1] [8]. That is the effect size one can realistically expect from the method against a cossid borer, not eradication, but serious reduction over years.
11. Nematodes: what the data actually show
The table below shows which species each number actually belongs to, as compiled by the 2025 review [1].
| Target species | Organism | Result | Duration |
|---|---|---|---|
| Zeuzera pyrina leopard moth | Steinernema carpocapsae | Up to 80% larval mortality [9] | 2 years |
| Prionoxystus robiniae | S. feltiae and S. bibionis | 70 to 100% mortality [10] | 2 years |
| Zeuzera multistrigata | S. carpocapsae | Up to 93% mortality [13] | 3 years |
| Streltzoviella insularis | Heterorhabditis bacteriophora | Up to 90% mortality [14] | 3 years |
| Cossus cossus goat moth | Neoaplectana carpocapsae | An old trial, with no modern quantitative field figure [1] | not reported |
Every value in the table is reported by the 2025 review [1]; the originals of references [9], [10], [13] and [14] were not read and are given as the review compiles them.
- Moisture. Without it they die. The application is accompanied by enough water.
- Temperature. Mild values; extreme heat kills them.
- No sunlight. Application in the late afternoon or evening.
- They do not store. Used fresh, within the manufacturer's limits.
- Targeted injection into the gallery, not a general trunk spray.
Entomopathogenic fungi, Beauveria bassiana, Metarhizium, have been tried on the same species and are consistently reported as less effective than nematodes [1].
12. Chemical control after chlorpyrifos
For decades the chemical control of the goat moth rested on chlorpyrifos. By Commission Implementing Regulations (EU) 2020/18 and 2020/17 of 10 January 2020, the approvals of chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos-methyl respectively were not renewed [15] [16].
The decision rested on the EFSA assessment of August 2019, which identified concerns over genotoxic potential and developmental neurotoxicity, with epidemiological data supporting effects in children, and concluded that no safe exposure level or toxicological reference value could be set [17].
In the field, any older goat moth control programme that names chlorpyrifos is obsolete. Whatever is applied today must be approved for that crop and use in the national database [18].
Why spraying fails, and what replaces it
Spraying is often ineffective against cossid borers, particularly on large or old trees, precisely because the larvae spend most of their lives inside the trunk and branches [1]. Spray liquid is worth something only at the moment of oviposition and of the newly hatched larvae, before they enter the wood, and that moment is set by the traps, not by the calendar.
Injection into the trunk or directly into the gallery is reported to reduce damage more effectively and more safely than spraying. In the leopard moth, trunk injection reduced damage by 40 to 85% after two years, depending on the product and the concentration [19]. Injection directly into the gallery gave, in another species, up to 100% larval mortality after three years [13].
The limitation is economic, not technical: the method is applied tree by tree. Over thousands of hectares it is not viable [1]. In an orchard with a few dozen marked trees, however, that is exactly the scale at which it works.
Mechanical intervention remains useful at small scale: inserting a wire into the gallery to kill the larva is feasible on isolated trees, and maintaining tree vigour is described as the best strategy currently available [20].
Sources: 1 13 15 16 17 18 19 20
13. The protocol
No single measure is enough on its own. Because most of the cycle is spent in the larval stage inside the tree, relying on one method alone, even pheromone trapping, is unlikely to contain the damage [1]. The steps work together and over years.
Step 0, No wounds
Because females prefer weak or damaged trees, avoiding mechanical injury is the necessary first step [1]. It is also the cheapest part of the whole programme: a clear strip around the trunk so the strimmer never comes close, care with the tractor passes, whitewashing against sunburn, protection from rodents.
Step 1, Monitoring and marking
Pheromone traps from mid-May, to establish the start and peak of the flight in that particular orchard. Alongside them, inspection of the base of every trunk and marking of infested trees. Without a map of the infestation there is no programme, only reaction.
Step 2, Targeted treatment at oviposition
Application to the trunks only with what is approved for the crop [18], timed to the oviposition period, so that the eggs and newly hatched larvae are hit before they enter the wood. That moment is set by the traps, it is the only reason they went up.
Step 3, Injection into the galleries
This is the only measure that targets the larvae already inside the wood: entomopathogenic nematodes injected directly into the holes, in the late afternoon or evening, with enough moisture. On isolated trees, mechanical killing with a wire [20], carefully and without extensive damage to the bark.
Step 4, Mass trapping
Ten traps per hectare, and no more, except in heavily infested blocks [3]. This density was measured in apple and pear orchards of Emilia-Romagna and is a starting point, not a rule for every crop: under a different training system and planting density it is verified against the catches themselves. The catches are counted every year: their decline over the years is the result.
Step 5, Sanitation cutting where nothing can be saved
On heavily infested trees, cutting is often necessary to stop the infestation spreading [1]. The cut wood is removed and destroyed; it does not stay stacked at the edge of the orchard, because inside it the cycle continues perfectly well.
14. The risk that is growing
There is reason to think the problem will not stay where it is. Higher summer temperatures and shorter winters accelerate the reproduction and growth of insects, while at the same time water stress increases the susceptibility of the hosts [24].
For an orchard this means one thing: irrigation stops being only a question of yield. A tree that goes into water stress every summer gives off exactly the signal the female is looking for, and at the same time loses the ability to defend itself with an outflow of sap.
15. Sources
The numbers in the text refer to the list below. Each source states explicitly whether the full text was used, only the abstract, or whether it is cited via the review [1]. Works cited via the review were not read in the original.
- [1] Choochuen T. and Foit J. (2025). Cossid moths (Lepidoptera: Cossidae) as pests of woody plants, A review. Agricultural and Forest Entomology. doi:10.1111/afe.12689. Full text. The principal source of this article: cycle length of one to three years, 5 to 8 larval instars, host list and distribution of the goat moth, preference for damaged trees and rough bark, low dispersal ability of females, feeding on callus tissue, honey-combed appearance, J-shaped gallery, pupation also in the soil, intra- and inter-host larval movement, greater risk of death on small trees, ineffectiveness of spraying, compiled results for entomopathogenic nematodes and fungi, dependence of trapping on trap type, height and density, the need for integrated control, 26 cossid species as pests, and the climate dimension.
- [2] Capizzi A., Tonini C., Arsura E., Guglielmetti G., Massardo P. and Piccardi P. (1983). Sex pheromone components of the European goat moth, Cossus cossus. Journal of Chemical Ecology 9(2):191–200. Abstract. Source for the seven components of the gland washings and their proportions, for (Z)-5-dodecenyl acetate accounting for 66% and being essential for attraction, and for (Z)-3-decenyl acetate improving attractiveness without being detected in the gland.
- [3] Faccioli G., Pasqualini E. and Baronio P. (1993). Optimal trap density in Cossus cossus (Lepidoptera: Cossidae) mass-trapping. Journal of Economic Entomology 86(3):850–853. Abstract. Source for the two five-year trials in apple and pear orchards of Emilia-Romagna, for the densities of 2, 10, 20 and 40 traps per hectare, for the conclusion that more than 10 traps per hectare is unnecessary except in severely infested orchards, for the 50% and 10 to 20% increases in catch on doubling, and for the considerable decline in catches over the years.
- [4] Pasqualini E., Gavioli F., Baronio P., Malavolta C., Campadelli G. and Maini S. (1985). Study on the possibility of implementing the mass-trapping method for Cossus cossus L. Bollettino dell'Istituto di Entomologia «Guido Grandi» dell'Università di Bologna 39:187–199. Cited via the review [1]. The original feasibility study of mass trapping in the goat moth.
- [5] Maini S., Ferrari R., Pozzati M. and Rama F. (2000). Zeuzera pyrina (L.) and Cossus cossus (L.): comparison between sex pheromone traps to simultaneous male catches. Bollettino dell'Istituto di Entomologia «Guido Grandi» dell'Università di Bologna 54:165–173. Cited via the review [1]. Source for the simultaneous comparison of goat moth and leopard moth catches in pheromone traps.
- [6] Tonini C., Cassani G., Massardo P., Guglielmetti G. and Castellari P.L. (1986). Study of female sex pheromone of leopard moth, Zeuzera pyrina L.: isolation and identification of three components. Journal of Chemical Ecology 12(6):1545–1558. Cited via the review [1]. Source for the leopard moth pheromone having been identified separately and being different from that of the goat moth.
- [7] Lapietra G. and Allegro G. (1986). Monitoring the European goat moth (Cossus cossus L.) in poplar plantations by synthetic sex attractants. Proceedings of the meeting of the working parties entomology and technology of the International Poplar Commission, Casale Monferrato, Italy. Cited via the review [1]. Source for the early use of synthetic attractants in monitoring the goat moth in poplar plantations.
- [8] Hegazi E. et al. (2015). Population dynamics and economic losses caused by Zeuzera pyrina, a cryptic wood-borer moth, in an olive orchard in Egypt. Agricultural and Forest Entomology. Cited via the review [1]. Source for the reduction of leopard moth infestation in olive orchards by 58.8% and 87.5% after one and two years of pheromone trapping.
- [9] Salari E. et al. (2021). Work on the use of Steinernema carpocapsae against larvae of Zeuzera pyrina. Cited via the review [1]. Source for mortality of up to 80% after two years.
- [10] Forschler B.T. and Nordin G.L. (1988). Work on the use of Steinernema feltiae and Steinernema bibionis against larvae of Prionoxystus robiniae in oak. Cited via the review [1]. Source for mortality of 70 to 100% after two years, and for the dependence of nematode action on the depth, structure, temperature and moisture inside the gallery.
- [11] Goat Moth Cossus cossus, species factsheet. Butterfly Conservation. Full text. Source for larval development of up to four years with three or four overwinterings, larval length of up to 10 cm, wingspan of about 9.5 cm, pupation in a cocoon after the exit hole is opened, and for the origin of the name in the smell of the larva.
- [12] Cossus cossus, Goat moth. Atlas of Forest Pests. Full text. Source for the strong vinegar smell of infested wood and the fermenting sap at the base of the trunk, for the dimensions of the gallery, about 15 mm wide and up to 100 cm long, and for wood chips mixed with frass being expelled through a lower opening.
- [13] Chandel et al. (2024). Work on gallery injection against Zeuzera multistrigata. Cited via the review [1]. Source for up to 100% larval mortality after three years with gallery injection, and for 93% mortality with S. carpocapsae.
- [14] Yang et al. (1993). Work on the use of Heterorhabditis bacteriophora against Streltzoviella insularis. Cited via the review [1]. Source for mortality of up to 90% after three years, the figure that has at times been wrongly attributed to the goat moth.
- [15] Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/18 of 10 January 2020 concerning the non-renewal of approval of the active substance chlorpyrifos. Source for the non-renewal of chlorpyrifos.
- [16] Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/17 of 10 January 2020 concerning the non-renewal of approval of the active substance chlorpyrifos-methyl. Source for the non-renewal of chlorpyrifos-methyl.
- [17] Chlorpyrifos: assessment identifies human health effects. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), 2 August 2019. Full text. Source for the concerns over genotoxic potential and developmental neurotoxicity, for the epidemiological data concerning children, and for the conclusion that no safe exposure level or toxicological reference value could be established.
- [18] Greek Ministry of Rural Development and Food, database of approved plant protection products. In Greek. The only authoritative source for what is permitted on each crop in Greece, at what rate and with what pre-harvest interval. It does not apply outside Greece.
- [19] Mokhtaryan et al. (2021). Work on trunk injection of plant protection products against Zeuzera pyrina. Cited via the review [1]. Source for a reduction in damage of 40 to 85% after two years, depending on the product and concentration.
- [20] Carpenterworm. WSU Tree Fruit, Washington State University. Full text. This concerns the related species Prionoxystus robiniae and not the goat moth. Source for mechanical killing of the larva with a wire inside the gallery, for injection of nematodes directly into the galleries, and for maintaining tree vigour being the best strategy currently available.
- [21] Kutinkova H., Andreev R. and Arnaoudov V. (2006). The leopard moth borer, Zeuzera pyrina L. (Lepidoptera: Cossidae), important pest in Bulgaria. Journal of Plant Protection Research 46(2):111–115. Cited via the review [1]. Source for the importance of the leopard moth as a pest in Bulgaria.
- [22] Kaplan M. and Turanlı F. (2018). Work on wood-boring Cossidae in orchards of Turkey. Cited via the review [1]. Source for the record of the goat moth as an orchard pest in Turkey and for the ineffectiveness of spraying on large trees.
- [23] Fekrat L. and Farashi A. (2022). Work modelling the effect of climate change on the worldwide potential distribution of Zeuzera pyrina. Cited via the review [1]. Source for the northward shift of the distribution under future climate scenarios.
- [24] Ma C.S., Ma G. and Pincebourde S. (2021). Survive a warming climate: insect responses to extreme high temperatures. Annual Review of Entomology 66(1):163–184. Cited via the review [1]. Source for the acceleration of insect reproduction and growth under higher summer temperatures and shorter winters.
- [25] Nasonova L.I. (1960). The bionomics of Cossus cossus. Trudy Vsesoyuznogo Nauchno-Issledovatel'skogo Instituta Zashchity Rastenii 15:215–224. Cited via the review [1]. The classical description of the bionomy of the species.
- [26] Solomon J.D. (1995). Guide to insect borers of North American broadleaf trees and shrubs. USDA Forest Service, Agriculture Handbook 706. Cited via the review [1]. Source for eggs being laid close to the female's emergence site because of low dispersal ability, and for natural enemies being insufficient under monoculture conditions.
- [27] Phytophthora and collar rots in fruit trees, plantprotect.gr. The differential diagnosis with a spade and a knife, for the cases where the picture in the canopy is not caused by a borer.
- [28] Walnut pests and diseases, plantprotect.gr. A diagnostic tool covering twenty causes, in which the goat moth and the leopard moth appear as one of them and are compared against the other causes of branch and trunk dieback.
Plant protection products are used solely in accordance with the approvals in force and the instructions on the label. The active substances, methods and percentages given here come from foreign published work, on other species and under other soil and climate conditions, are indicative, and do not constitute a list of approved products nor a recommendation for application. Entomopathogenic nematodes and trunk injection are subject to the same approval regime. The plant protection approvals referred to on this site are issued by the Greek Ministry of Rural Development and Food and are valid in Greece only; they do not apply in other countries.
For every spray on trees carrying fruit: there is a risk of staining of the fruit and scorching of the foliage. A prior test on a limited number of trees is required, with the same product and the same rate, and a wait of 5 to 7 days before the general application. The spray is applied in the late afternoon or early in the morning, never in extreme heat, never on foliage under water stress.
On the mortality figures specifically: as set out in section 11, the published numbers belong for the most part to other species of the family Cossidae and not to Cossus cossus. They should not be carried over as expected performance against the goat moth.
Every intervention is made at the user's own responsibility and following an on-site assessment by a licensed agronomist. Pastopoulos Agronomics accepts no liability whatsoever for damage or loss of crop arising from the application of the information above.
Related articles
Nutrient antagonisms and synergies, with a per-element tool
The arrow diagram in every fertiliser leaflet does not stand up scientifically. The antagonisms are real, but they act on two separate levels, in the soil and inside the plant, and the same element can be antagonistic on one and synergistic on the other. With a tool showing the documented relationships of each element.
Zeolite in agriculture: what is documented and what is not
It is a cation exchanger, it holds ammonium and potassium, not nitrate. The rates that work are tens of tonnes per hectare, not hundreds of kilos. And erionite is a Group 1 carcinogen.
Leonardite in agriculture: properties, rates and what the law says
Leonardite is oxidised lignite with up to 85% humic acids, but pH below 3, up to 6% sulphur and almost no phosphorus. What the analyses and meta-analyses show, where it delivers and where it does not, and what Regulation (EU) 2019/1009 and the organic farming rules require.