Opening Reception Educational Program
Zoo IPM: Unique Challenges, Creative Solutions. Frank Meek, fmeek@rollinscorp.com, Orkin, Atlanta, GA, Travis Kemper and Les Doyle, Orkin, St. Louis Commercial Branch, St. Louis, MO
Opening Plenary Session
8:30 Welcome from the Organizing Committee, Thomas Green, ipmworks@ipminstitute.org, IPM Institute of North America, Inc., Madison WI, and Margaret Appleby, margaret.appleby@omafra.gov.on.ca, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, Brighton, Ontario, Canada
8:40 Opening Remarks, Mike Fitzner, MFitzner@CSREES.USDA.GOV, National IPM Program Leader and Director of Plant and Animal Systems, Cooperative State Research, Education, & Extension Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC
8:45
Historical Overview of IPM: Are We Repeating the Mistakes of the Past?, Michael E. Gray, megray@uiuc.edu, Professor, Crop Sciences Extension Coordinator and Co-Director, North Central Region IPM Center, Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL
A review of the history of IPM reflects many successes and frustrations. An important goal of historical reflection is the belief that we can learn by looking through the prism of the past and avoid making the same mistakes in the future. As we view the current IPM landscape of escalating adoption of transgenic crops, increasing prophylactic use of some pesticides, and intensifying interest and concern regarding invasive pest species, are we positioned as an IPM community to address these challenges? Have we implemented the recommendations of our IPM predecessors or largely ignored them? Are new or renewed partnerships required to ultimately achieve greater IPM implementation?
9:15
The Future of IPM Implementation: Where is it?, Ed Rajotte, egrajotte@psu.edu, Professor of Entomology and Pennsylvania IPM Coordinator, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA
Since its inception in the early 1970s, Integrated Pest Management has evolved to accommodate shifting national priorities. IPM was born during the environmental movement, adopted through economics and expanded by regulation. What does the future hold? What socioeconomic forces will further shape IPM? The answer lies in globalization, food traceability, and the continuing need to transfer wealth to agriculture to keep it a strong underpinning of American society. Instead of the technology “push” presenting ideas for adoption we are in an era of societal and market “pull” demanding IPM approaches from government, industry, and academia.
9:30 Real Results with Collaboration, Amy Farrell, farrell.amy@epa.gov, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is making important strides at reducing potential pesticide risk. Collaboration and voluntary initiatives play a vital role with agriculture and urban settings to promote best management practices and adoption of integrated pest management. Partnerships, market-based approaches, and enhanced information access will help us achieve our environmental gains. EPA will discuss the collaborative projects between the private and public sector where environmental challenges are effectively dealt with through innovation, information sharing, and outreach.
9:45 Break
10:00 Consumer Insights on Pesticides, Jenny Zenner, jenny@hartman-group.com, Client Services Manager, The Hartman Group, Bellevue, WA
The Hartman Group, Inc., founded 1989, is a full-service consulting and market research firm offering a wide range of services and products focusing on the health and wellness markets. Based on our extensive research in wellness and organic consumers, we will provide insights on perceptions of and purchasing behaviors of wellness consumers including pathways of adoption and category analysis.
10:20 The Sustainable Journey at SYSCO, Craig Watson, watson.craig@corp.sysco.com, Vice President, Quality Assurance and Agricultural Sustainability, SYSCO Corporation, Houston TX
This presentation will provide an overview to the significance placed on sustainable initiatives that support the corporate social responsibility platform. These initiatives place a high level of importance on processes, systems, and value added products that support agricultural sustainability.
Discussion will focus on the development and implementation of our corporate Integrated Pest Management program. Insight will be provided regarding the objectives and desired outputs of the process. Additional comments will suggest additional resources and organized support which could be provided by other stakeholders within the supply chain.
10:40 A Successful Integrated Pest Management Program for Asparagus and Artichokes in Peru, Jorge Fernandini, jfernandini@iqfperu.com, General Manager, IQF del Peru, Lima, Peru
For our company the Integrated Pest Management program that we have applied on our asparagus and artichoke plantations has the primary goal of reducing our production cost and increasing our yields. By protecting the ecological balance and the environment we have greatly reduced the use of expensive chemical products and have developed an important competitive advantage for our products in the international market.
11:00 Precautionary Pest Management: The San Francisco Experience, Debbie Raphael, Debbie.raphael@sfgov.org, Toxics Reduction/Green Building Manager, City/County of San Francisco, San Francisco, CA
Starting in 1996 when the San Francisco Board of Supervisors set out to ban the use of all pesticides on City property and through 2003 when those same elected bodies adopted as law the Precautionary Principle, City staff have labored hard to create one of the most far-reaching urban IPM programs in the nation. Amid a backdrop of political zeal, pesticide watch-dogs, budget cuts, and wary gardeners, the IPM team formed a partnership with stakeholders to develop a methodology for an “approved list” of pesticides, and created an accountability system to track pesticide use by individual departments, reward innovators, and dissuade others from using higher risk products. Training, clear and transparent decision-making, as well as honoring the problem-solving capacity of all the players have been key factors in our success.
11:30 Adjourn for Luncheon and Integrated Pest Management Achievement Awards Presentation (St. Louis Ballroom, 4th floor)
Tuesday, April 4, 2006
1:00–3:00 PM
1. Pathogen, Insect, and Weed Pests of Soybeans: Integrated Management of Multiple Pests into a Single Crop
Recently, soybean production has been threatened by invasive pests that can reduce yield and seed quality in soybeans as well as other production systems. The increase in pest variety and pressure is challenging soybean production across North America, with regional conditions varying the potential impact of each pest. During this mini-symposium, key researchers from weed science, entomology, and plant pathology will discuss recent advances in soybean IPM with a focus on incorporating multiple pests. In addition, extension experts from regions of the United States that vary in soybean production practices will discuss the unique characteristics that may define or constrain soybean IPM for their region.
Moderators and Organizers:
Matt O'Neal, oneal@iastate.edu, Department of Entomology, Iowa State University, Ames, IA; Alison Robertson, alisonr@iastate.edu, Department of Plant Pathology, Iowa State University, Ames, IA; and Palle Pedersen, palle@iastate.edu, Department of Agronomy, Iowa State University, Ames, IA
1:00 1.1 Soybean Integrated Pest Management: A Wisconsin Plant Pathologist’s Perspective, Craig Grau, cg6@plantpath.wisc.edu, Department of Plant Pathology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI
IPM principles are being tested in Wisconsin because of the potential of soybean rust and the annual threat of soybean aphids. Add the expanding infestation of soils by soybean cyst nematode, and soybean growers and their consultants are faced with greater challenges to achieve profitable soybean yield. The presentation will present examples of how best-management practices for one pest or pathogen may lead to changes in the incidence and severity of other pests and pathogens.
1:15 1.2 The Role of Host Resistance in IPM in Soybeans, Anne E. Dorrance, dorrance.1@osu.edu, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center (OARDC)-Plant Pathology, The Ohio State University, Wooster, OH
The pathogens that impact soybean yields in Ohio and parts of southern Michigan, northern Indiana, and northern Illinois are comprised primarily of Phytophthora sojae and SCN but also many seedling pathogens. IPM for these pathogens since the mid-60’s has been the widespread deployment of soybean varieties with resistance to P. sojae, followed by SCN resistance in the mid-90’s. Cultural practices, like fungicide treatments influence expression of host resistance, and population changes of certain pathogens. In addition, the stacking of multiple disease resistance genes may be the primary limitations for exploiting host resistance as a key management tool for the future.
1:30 1.3 Soybean Aphid and the Challenge of Integrating Recommendations within an Integrated Pest Management System, David W. Ragsdale, ragsd001@tc.umn.edu, Erin W. Hodgson, Brian P. McCornack, and Karrie A. Koch, Department of Entomology, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN; Robert C. Venette, United States Forest Service, St. Paul, MN; and Bruce D. Potter, University of Minnesota, Southwest Research & Outreach Center, Lamberton, MN
Two exotic pests, soybean aphid and soybean rust, have permanently changed soybean production in North America. Soybean aphid has become a major pest in the five short years since it was first discovered. IPM must take advantage of all the biotic and abiotic factors that reduce pest populations and only use pesticides when natural control fails. In the short term, insecticides may be necessary to avoid catastrophic losses caused by soybean aphids, insecticides use is only justified when pest density exceed threshold. To do otherwise only increases production costs and disrupts natural enemies that could carry over into subsequent years.
1:45 1.4 Soybean IPM: An Aerobiologist’s Perspective, Scott Isard, sai10@psu.edu, Department of Aerobiology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA
Dr. Isard’s research interest includes the biological and meteorological factors that govern the aerial movement of biota, forecasting aerial transport of pathogens, insects, and weeds, aerobiology, and IPM. He is a member of the Computational Epidemiology and Aerobiology Laboratory, whose goal is to understand the spatial and temporal dynamics of plant pathogens and pests that reduce productivity of agricultural systems. Isard will talk about the 2005 USDA Soybean Rust Information System and the plans for its expansion into the Pest Information Platform for Extension and Education for 2006.
2:00 1.5 Soybean IPM: A Nematologist’s Perspective, Greg Tylka, gltylka@iastate.edu, Department of Plant Pathology, Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Dr. Tylka’s research program is investigating effects of soybean production practices and resistant varieties on soybean cyst nematode, Heterodera glycines, population densities and soybean yields. Additionally, his research group is collaborating with other scientists to study interactions of H. glycines with the soybean brown stem rot pathogen, Phialophora gregata, and with the soybean aphid, Aphis glycines.
2:15 1.6 Soybean IPM: A Weed Scientist’s Perspective, Frank Forcella, forcella@morris.ars.usda.gov, USDA-ARS Soils Lab, Morris, MN
Dr. Forcella's research involves ecology, modeling, and management of weeds in crops. Specific topics include microclimate effects on dynamics of weed dormancy, germination and emergence, early seedling growth, and seed production. Integration of these topics with conventional and modern weed management tools is emphasized, as is the transfer of this technology to appropriate users through web-based software (WeedCast) that operates in real-time using site-specific input variables. Model predictions for weed development can be matched to projections for development of other pests to determine possibilities for simultaneous management as well as the consequences of the timing and frequency of management interventions.
2:30 1.7 Soybean IPM: A New York Agronomist’s Perspective, Keith Waldron, jkw5@cornell.edu, New York State Integrated Pest Management Program, Cornell University, Geneva, NY
Keith Waldron is responsible for statewide facilitation, development, coordination, and implementation of livestock and field crops IPM extension programs. As a member of a multidisciplinary team, he collaborates with Cornell University research and cooperative extension personnel to conduct applied pest management research and develop IPM educational programs. Soybean production in New York has increased nearly 5-fold since 1989 with an estimated 200,000 acres planted to soybeans in 2005. Waldron will discuss this trend in acreage expansion, and concerns over potential impacts of soybean aphid, soybean rust, and other pests that have provided research and new extension outreach opportunities.
2:45 1.8 Soybean IPM: An Iowan Agronomist’s Perspective, Palle Pedersen, palle@iastate.edu, Department of Agronomy, Iowa State University, Ames, IA
The objective of Dr. Pedersen’s extension program is to develop information to address the needs of soybean farmers in Iowa that is economically and environmentally sustainable. The overall goal of the research program is to identify and solve soybean production problems to improve farmer’s economic well-being. Emphasis’s on soybean response to management systems and new technologies; genotype by management system interactions; crop rotation effects; and the effect of agronomic practices on soybean pathogens and pests.
2. Ecologically-Based IPM in Cotton: Research, Outreach, and Grower Adoption
This symposium is designed to generate a national dialogue on the past experience, current knowledgebase, and future direction of the ecologically-based integrated pest management in cotton. Symposium speakers representing several cotton producing regions are selected to review research, extension, and outreach activities across the U.S. cotton belt. Discussion will focus on bridging the gap between research and clientele and the delivery of IPM technologies to the end-users. We hope to engage the audience in a lively discussion of how we can improve the communication among researchers, extension specialists, and producers to increase the adoption of IPM.
Moderator and Organizer:
Megha N. Parajulee, m-parajulee@tamu.edu, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Texas A&M University, Lubbock, TX
1:00 2.1 Cotton Integrated Pest Management Research in Texas: Generating Ecologically-Based IPM Information, Megha N. Parajulee, m-parajulee@tamu.edu, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Texas A & M University, Lubbock, TX
During the last five years, several research projects have been conducted in the Texas High Plains to generate comprehensive biological and ecological information on arthropod pests and natural enemies, with the view of advancing the use of ecologically intensive pest management in cotton, thereby expanding our ability to move away from an insecticide-based management approach. Major research projects that resulted in significant information for grower adoption will be discussed, including Lygus ecology and behavior (host-plant sequencing and damage potential, host preference, insecticide termination for late-season management), site-specific management of cotton arthropods, and the role of natural enemies in cotton aphid suppression.
1:20 2.2 Taking Cotton Integrated Pest Management to a New Level: Cross-Commodity Management and Areawide Benefits, Peter C. Ellsworth, peterell@cals.arizona.edu, and John C. Palumbo, Maricopa Agricultural Center, University of Arizona, Maricopa, AZ
The desert Southwest is vulnerable to the destabilizing impact of mobile polyphagous pests that attack winter vegetables, melons, and cotton, most notably, Bemisia tabaci. Year-round growing conditions and chronic pest incidence elevate the importance of area-wide practices. IPM programs for these crops emphasize selective, reduced-risk technologies, including insect growth regulators and neonicotinoids. To preserve these IPM tactics by protecting them from resistance, we have developed IPM guidelines for cross-commodity management of whiteflies that transcend field or grower borders and depend on group adoption over large areas to be effective in area-wide source reduction as well as in proactive resistance management.
1:40 2.3 Refined Management of Cotton Aphids and Silverleaf Whiteflies in California Cotton to Protect Lint Quality, Larry D. Godfrey, ldgodfrey@ucdavis.edu, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA
Cotton aphid, Aphis gossypii, and silverleaf whitefly, Bemisia argentifolii, populations are significant annual threats to cotton production in the San Joaquin Valley. Both pests can reduce cotton yields; however, the potential to contaminate cotton lint, creating a condition called sticky cotton, has been the primary concern in recent years. Ten years of successful research and timely delivery for these results by research and extension personnel created a sound management program in the late 1990’s. However, the high level of scrutiny placed on sticky cotton by the cotton industry after the 2001 season, and the magnified importance of late-season cotton aphid infestations, have “strained” this program.
2:00 2.4 Transfer of Integrated Pest Management Technology to Texas Cotton Producers, Thomas W. Fuchs, t-fuchs@tamu.edu, Texas Cooperative Extension, Texas A & M University, San Angelo, TX
Transfer of IPM technology to end-users is the primary goal of the Texas IPM Program. A network of IPM Agents within Texas Cooperative Extension, in cooperation with researchers, Extension specialists and County Extension Agents and consultants, work directly with cotton growers on their farms to adapt technology to local production regions and to demonstrate economic viability of new technology at the farm level. Their educational methods include meetings, regional conferences, monitoring programs, field meetings, newsletters and applied research/demonstration programs. This system has resulted in successful adoption of IPM technology by Texas cotton producers.
2:20 2.5 Cotton Integrated Pest Management—A Mid-South Perspective on Adoption and Acceptance, Ralph D. Bagwell, rbagwell@agcenter.lsu.edu, Louisiana State University Agriculture Center, Winnsboro, LA
Cotton IPM in the mid-southern United States has a long and distinguished history. The thoughts, ideas, and philosophies of many distinguished entomologist are not only the basis for cotton IPM but in many ways shape production practices today. All cotton produced in the Mid-South uses IPM techniques such as scouting and treatment thresholds. New and exciting IPM techniques are now being developed and utilized. Techniques such as aphid treatment thresholds with definitive beneficial insect counts, dynamic treatment thresholds, landscape management, and yield-based pest management help reduce the need for chemical inputs and increase producer profitability.
2:40 2.6 Managing Cotton Insects in the Regional Landscape: Lessons Learned and Future Challenges, Peter B. Goodell, IPMPBG@uckac.edu, Kearney Ag Center, University of California Statewide IPM Program, Parlier, CA
Areawide management of cotton insects in the San Joaquin Valley of California has been discussed for 40 years. Like many row and field crops, the key cotton arthropod pests do not generally survive in a particular field but must reinvade each growing season. The concept of the landscape as a source and sink of pests and natural enemies resonates with the farming community. Recently, our IPM program has emphasized the landscape as the unit of management rather than the field. Whole-farm planning is encouraged in which the farmer and pest control advisor seek to develop cropping assemblages that minimize pest buildup while considering spatial arrangements to mitigate movement. On a larger scale, landowners have cooperatively developed community plans which address large scale, areawide approaches to the management of specific insects. These topics will be reviewed and constraints to wider adoption discussed.
3. Are Alternative Integrated Pest Management Approaches for Greenhouse and Nursery Pests Feasible?
Despite a growing interest in biological control and other non-pesticide alternatives, rates of adoption in commercial greenhouse and nursery IPM programs in the United States has remained low. Of greater concern is the fact that many commercial producers are still not using IPM in any sense of the definition. Part of the problem lies in the replacement of traditional pesticides with newer ones that avoid previous environmental safety issues and restrictions for worker entry and pesticides use. Thus, incentives for developing alternative pest-management approaches for ornamental crops has declined. However, pesticide resistance and the continued need for resistance management provide strong justification for using IPM, and for developing and incorporating biological control into management programs. To do so will require finding ways to: (1) allow natural enemies to be effective and practical in multi-pest, multi-crop environments; (2) make biological control convenient and economically competitive; and (3) demonstrate net benefits from using biological control along with compelling evidence that crop risks associated with biological control are no greater than when using chemical management. Ultimately, the goal of substantially increasing adoption of biological control, along with other non-chemical alternatives, may require the creation of incentives similar to those that exist in Europe.
Moderator and Organizer:
James R. Nechols, jnechols@ksu.edu, Department of Entomology, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS
1:00 3.1 Introduction, James R. Nechols, jnechols@ksu.edu, Department of Entomology, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS
1:05 3.2 A European Perspective of Integrated Pest Management and Biocontrol in Glasshouses, with Emphasis on Floriculture and Temperate Climate, Irene Vänninen, Irene.Vanninen@mtt.fi, Agrifood Research Finland, Plant Production Research, Jokioinen, Finland
The relative importance of the five major interfaces determining the level of adoption of IPM and biocontrol in greenhouse floriculture and, consequently, the area under IPM and biocontrol varies considerably between European countries. The Netherlands, Germany and Scandinavia are presented as countries in which IPM in floriculture is practiced to varying degrees, and the explanatory role of the (1) the crop and the pest problems, (2) the grower, (3) the support, (4) the market and (5) the legislation interfaces as determinants of IPM adoption in these countries is analyzed. Cost comparisons between conventional and IPM ornamental production are becoming available for some countries, and crops, and special cases in which even higher costs of IPM as compared to chemical control are not considered prohibitive are presented.
1:35 3.3 Integrated Pest Management in Greenhouses and Nurseries: The USA Perspective, Raymond A. Cloyd, rcloyd@uiuc.edu, Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL
Integrated pest management (IPM) is an important strategy in reducing pest problems in greenhouses and nurseries. One component of IPM is biological control or the use of natural enemies. In general, biological control is not widely used, in fact, according to a survey, <10% of the producers within the Midwest use biological control. The reasons for this include the availability of effective pest control materials for many arthropod pests, costs associated with purchasing natural enemies from suppliers, and issues related to quality control of natural enemies. Despite these constraints, there are a number of successful programs using biological control in greenhouses and nurseries, these include the use of parasitoids such as Encarsia formosa and Eretmocerus eremicus for control of whiteflies on poinsettia, Euphorbia pulcherrima, and the use of entomopathogenic nematodes (Steinernema spp. and Heterorhabditis spp.) for control of fungus gnats, Bradysia spp., and black vine weevil, Otiorhynchus sulcatus. In order for biological control to be fully-accepted as a component of IPM by producers, it will be important to focus on education associated with hands-on training and demonstration research in commercial facilities to access cost and efficacy.
2:05 3.4 Developing an Adoptable Biological Control-based Integrated Pest Management Program for Greenhouse Floricultural Crops: A Case Study, David C. Margolies, dmargoli@ksu.edu, and James R. Nechols, jnechols@ksu.edu, Department of Entomology, Kimberly A. Williams, kwilliam@oznet.ksu.edu, Department of Horticulture, Forestry and Recreation Resources, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS; George P. Opit, george.opit@gmprc.ksu.edu, USDA ARS Grain Marketing Production and Research Center, Manhattan, KS
Commonly-cited impediments to the adoption of biological control into IPM programs include inconvenience, cost, perceived or actual crop risk, unavailability of effective natural enemies, and incompatibility with pesticides or production practices. In addition, for floricultural bedding plants the perception has been that biological control is not feasible because of the high aesthetic standards required. However, data to validate these claims are few. Therefore, for the past eight years we have been conducting research, part of it in cooperation with a commercial producer, to answer two questions: (1) Are these “problem areas” real? (2) If so, can they be avoided or overcome? Our long-term goal is to provide solutions for growers and a solid educational base on which recommendations can be made. Ultimately, we hope to offer growers realistic alternatives or supplements to their pest management programs. Our specific research has focused on twospotted mites and, more recently, western flower thrips on ivy geraniums and impatiens. Aspects covered in this presentation are pest sampling and scouting, the development of effective predator:prey release ratios, sampling-based action thresholds for biological control, devices to efficiently and conveniently distribute predators in greenhouses, and economic comparisons with conventional chemical control. We will conclude by discussing other areas that need to be addressed to make biological control more practical and more adoptable to growers.
2:35 Panel and Audience Discussion
4. Is Integrated Pest Management Delivering? Economic Evidence from the United States and Abroad
This symposium summarizes the accumulated evidence of the economic impacts of IPM in the United States and abroad. It contains a summarized review of the results of past impact studies, and briefly highlights the evolution of approaches to IPM impact assessment that have been used to generate those results. It summarizes the economic benefits of IPM, the value of environmental benefits, and the cost effectiveness of alternative IPM diffusion methods. The session should be of interest to IPM scientists and coordinators as well as practitioners of IPM impact assessment.
Moderators and Organizers:
George Norton, gnorton@vt.edu, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA; Jorge Fernandez-Cornejo, jorgef@ers.usda.gov, Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.; Scott Swinton, swintons@msu.edu, Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI; Jeffrey Alwang, alwangj@vt.edu, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA
1:00 4.1 Introduction, George Norton, gnorton@vt.edu, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA
Many methods have been applied to IPM impact assessment over the past two decades. The resulting studies have generated numerous estimates of the economic value of IPM in a variety of settings, both in the United States and abroad. The introductory presentation briefly highlights the diversity and evolution of approaches utilized for impact assessment and for assessing the cost-effectiveness of methods for IPM diffusion. It introduces the speakers and topics to follow during the mini-symposium.
1:20 4.2 Economic Impacts of Integrated Pest Management: Review of Empirical Evidence, Jorge Fernandez-Cornejo, jorgef@ers.usda.gov, Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC; and Atanu Rakshit, Department of Agricultural & Applied Economics, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA
This presentation provides an up-to-date review of evidence on the economic value of IPM, especially in the United States, but also some of the recent evidence from abroad. A large body of work has demonstrated that IPM is profitable and that it has significant value to society beyond the benefits to producers. Recent work abroad has also demonstrated benefits of IPM for poverty reduction.
1:45 4.3 Economic Impacts of Farmer Field Schools, Evidence from Latin America, Ricardo A. Labarta, labartar@msu.edu, and Scott Swinton, swintons@msu.edu, Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI
Farmer Field Schools (FFS) were introduced in Nicaragua to accelerate IPM adoption, using participatory extension methods. Based on a 2004 survey of 436 bean growers, FFS had no significant impact on IPM adoption, net crop income, or pesticide use, when the regression analysis was corrected for nonrandom selection of participants. Although on average, FFS had no impact, certain FFS-implementing institutions achieved the goals of increased IPM adoption and reduced pesticide risk. Effective IPM-FFS training depended upon the institution’s field experience, IPM-dedicated resources, and the relative internal importance accorded to IPM.
2:10 4.4 Cost-effectiveness of Alternative Integrated Pest Management Technology Transfer Methods, Jeffrey Alwang, alwangj@vt.edu, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA
This presentation compares results from two studies using household survey data to examine the impacts of IPM dissemination methods. In Ecuador, farmer field schools (FFS), field days (FD), and written methods of dissemination had positive significant impacts on adoption of IPM and farmer-knowledge scores. FFS had the largest impacts, but the results were statistically weak, and the FFS does not appear cost effective unless it is used in conjunction with other dissemination methods. Results from Bangladesh, where FFS and FD were compared with mass media and extension agent-based outreach, were similar. The combined findings indicate that cost-effective alternatives to FFS are needed.
2:35 4.5 Environmental Benefits of Integrated Pest Management: Evidence at Home and Abroad, George Norton, gnorton@vt.edu, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA
This presentation discusses and compares approaches to evaluating the environmental benefits of IPM, especially those that attempt to place economic value on those benefits. It summarizes empirical results that have accumulated from several studies at home and abroad. It will present what is known about effects of IPM on pesticide reduction and the economic value of those reductions, and will highlight recent efforts to value health and environmental benefits of IPM, using experimental economics.
This workshop will focus on ways to better communicate with your target audience. Learn how to prepare news releases, how to develop newsletter designs, and ways to get your programs noticed by the media. The Web is rapidly becoming overpopulated with informational sites. This session will help you identify the questions you need to ask before you create a Web site, the impact of incorporating new Web tools such as Flash and other video programs on your site, and copyright issues pertaining to the use of images and information in media presentations.
Moderator and Organizer:
Kristie Auman-Bauer, kma147@psu.edu, Pennsylvania Integrated Pest Management Program, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA
1:00–3:00 PM Interactive Workshop
Faye E. Cragin, faye.cragin@unh.edu, University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension, Durham, NH
Kristie Auman-Bauer, kma147@psu.edu, Pennsylvania Integrated Pest Management Program, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA
6. Training Hispanic Workers and Growers in Integrated Pest Management: Case Studies from the Field
The last decades have seen increasing numbers of Hispanic/Latino workers entering agricultural, horticultural, and landscaping industries. Many workers in these areas have also transitioned into ownership and management of farms and orchards. While it is encouraging to see an increase in technical materials related to pest management produced in Spanish to reach this population, hands-on classroom and field training is perhaps a more appropriate way to reach this worker/owner group. In this session, case studies from successful IPM outreach and training programs for Hispanic workers and growers in North Carolina and Washington will be presented to highlight methodologies, challenges, successes, and feedback from participants.
Moderator and Organizer:
Jim Hamilton, jhamilton@haywood.edu, Division of Natural Resources, Haywood Community College, Clyde, NC
1:00–3:00 PM Interactive Workshop
Jim Hamilton, jhamilton@haywood.edu, Division of Natural Resources, Haywood Community College, Clyde, NC
Nana Simone, nanas@nwinternet.com, Simone Integrated Pest Management Consulting, Wenatchee, WA
7. Interaction between Invasive Species and Plant Stress: Mexican Rice Borer and Soybean Aphid
This workshop addresses two invasive species whose population dynamics are strongly enhanced under plant stress conditions. The Mexican rice borer, Eoreuma loftini, was discovered in South Texas in 1980, and has continued to expand its range causing severe injury to sugarcane and rice, requiring a complex approach to management. The Soybean aphid, Aphis glycines, was discovered in North America in 2000. It has since become the most important insect pest of soybean in the Midwest, requiring insecticidal treatment of millions of acres during aphid outbreaks. Populations can increase exponentially under favorable conditions, emphasizing the need for timely monitoring to aid in management.
Moderators and Organizers:
Thomas E. Reagan, treagan@agcenter.lsu.edu, Agricultural Center, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA; Chris Difonzo, difonzo@msu.edu, Department of Entomology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI; M.O. Way, moway@aesrg.tamu.edu, Beaumont Center, Texas A&M University, Beaumont, TX
1:00 7.1 Introduction and Concept of the Workshop, Thomas E. Reagan, treagan@agcenter.lsu.edu, Agricultural Center, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA
1:05 7.2 The Role of Free Amino Acids and Plant Phonological Conditions in the Population Dynamics of Eoreuma loftini on Sugarcane and Rice, Francis Reay-Jones, freayjones@aesrg.tamu.edu, Beaumont Center, Texas A&M University, TX
1:20 7.3 The Impact of Cultivar, Planting Date and Other Cultural Practices as Affecting Stem Borer Populations and Management, M.O. Way, moway@aesrg.tamu.edu, Beaumont Center, Texas A&M University, Beaumont, TX
1:35 7.4 Role of County Agents and Stakeholders Involvement in Combating an Invasive Species B.L. Legendre, blegendre@agcenter.lsu.edu, Agricultural Center, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA
1:50 7.5 Regulatory Actions and Monitoring of the Mexican Rice Borer in Louisiana and Texas, Tad Hardy, tad.hardy@ldaf.state.la.us, Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry, Baton Rouge, LA
2:05 7.6 The Role of Potassium Stress and Free Amino Acids on the Population Dynamics of Aphis glycines, Chris Difonzo, difonzo@msu.edu, Department of Entomology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI
2:20 7.7 Managing the Soybean Aphid in Light of Multiple Sources of Plant Stress, Matt O’Neal, oneal@iastate.edu, Department of Entomology, Iowa State University, Ames, IA
2:35 7.8 Panel and Audience Discussion, Thomas E. Reagan, treagan@agcenter.lsu.edu, Agricultural Center, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA
8. Global Public/Private Partnerships to Deliver Integrated Pest Management and Safe-Use Programs to Farmers and Distributors in Africa, Latin America, and Asia
From the crop protection industry perspective, IPM is essential to farmers in the developing world to ensure they are able to realize optimal benefits from crop protection technologies with minimal risks to health, safety, and the environment. Increasingly, they are also required to assure their produce meets standards set by government and private certification schemes being implemented by grocery retailers. The private sector can play an important role ensuring farmers have ongoing access to quality IPM education and training. The experience of CropLife member companies and affiliated national organizations has shown the most successful and sustainable IPM and Safe Use programs are planned and initiated as public and private partnerships. The purpose of the workshop is to demonstrate through case studies the lessons learned from partnerships in Latin America, Africa, and Asia, while exploring opportunities for further success.
Moderator and Organizer:
Thomas Hall, THall@croplifeamerica.org, CropLife America, Washington, DC
1:00 8.1 CropLife International Partnerships: Global Update and Keys to Building a Partnership, Keith Jones, keith@croplife.org, CropLife International, Brussels, Belgium, and Thomas Hall, THall@croplifeamerica.org, CropLife America, Washington, DC
1:30 8.2 Designing and Delivering Safe Use and Integrated Pest Management Train-the-Trainer Training in Honduras, Anarco Garcia, croplife-gua@terra.com.gt, CropLife Latin America, Guatemala City, Guatemala
2:00 8.3 Proposed Partnership with the World Vegetable Center to Introduce Integrated Pest Management Principles into High Pesticide-Use Regions, Martin Gibson, martin@croplifeasia.org, CropLife Asia, Bangkok, Thailand
2:30 8.4 Improving Information Access to Egyptian Farmers by the Training and Certification of Pesticide Distributors, Syed Abdellah, eurochem2000@hotmail.com, CropLife Egypt, Cairo, Egypt
9. Wild World of Pest Management: Integrated Pest Management for Youth
Hissing Madagascar cockroaches, a live corn snake, and a stuffed mouse generate excitement and emphasize key points during a highly interactive approach between instructor and students. "Wild World of Pest Management" is designed to introduce youth, primarily fourth to sixth grade students, to Integrated Pest Management. Without hearing the actual words “Integrated Pest Management” during the presentation, the IPM concept is introduced by defining what a pest is, identifying pest types in our world, how nature controls pests, and how people manage pests. The presentation, usually 20 to 25 minutes in length, also serves as an objective means to introduce pesticides as one of several tools within Integrated Pest Management. The “Wild World of Pest Management” presentation is easily incorporated into a wide venue of educational programming such as earth festivals, school presentations, 4-H learning modules, and farm safety days. The program introduces discussions on natural science, geography, and history. Lesson plans are distributed to teachers at each presentation so the program can supplement existing curriculum in subsequent class periods. Beginning in 1992, this program has been delivered primarily via earth festivals, day camps, and farm safety days sponsored by UNL Cooperative Extension. Nearly 17,000 youth and more than 1,100 adult sponsors have participated in this program. Pre- and-post tests of youth participants have shown an enhanced awareness of pests and increased knowledge of pest management options. Additional information is available about the Wild World of Pest Management at http://pested.unl.edu/wildwor.htm.
Organizer and Presenter:
Larry D. Schulze, LSchulze1@unl.edu, University of Nebraska, Lincoln Extension, Lincoln, NE
1:00–3:00 Interactive Discussion
10. Delivering on the Promise: Vegetables Served Multiple Times Daily by a Team of Vegetable Entomologists
A group of 32 vegetable entomologists (and 1 plant pathologist) from academia and industry collaborated to produce the second edition of the book, Vegetable Insect Management. This collaboration exemplifies the combined effort of experts from academia, industry, and government that has spurred the development of modern, effective pest management systems for vegetable crops grown in the US. This workshop will highlight several of the crops covered in the book, with illustrations of the importance of effective use of new technologies, information delivery systems, pesticides, and management methods to meet the challenges of changing regulations, pest problems, and consumer expectations, as well as staff reductions in both industry and academia.
Moderators and Organizers:
Rick E. Foster, rfoster@purdue.edu, Department of Entomology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, and Brian R. Flood, Brian.R.Flood@delmonte.com, Del Monte Foods, Rochelle, IL
1:00 10.1 Vegetable Insect Management: How Teamwork Helped Move Vegetable Integrated Pest Management Forward, Rick E. Foster, rfoster@purdue.edu, Department of Entomology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN; Brian R. Flood, Brian.r.flood@delmonte.com, Del Monte Foods, Rochelle, IL
1:10 10.2 The Promise Made Less Expensive, More Effective and Focused on FIFRA’s Goals: The Del Monte Green Bean Story, Brian R. Flood, Brian.r.flood@delmonte.com, Del Monte Foods, Rochelle, IL
1:30 10.3 The Promise Delivered in Well-Marked Bags of Potatoes: The Wisconsin Healthy Grown Potato Story, Jeffrey A. Wyman, wyman@entomology.wisc.edu, Department of Entomology, University of Wisconsin, Madison WI; Deana Sexson, dlsexson@wisc.edu, NPM Program, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI
1:50 10.4 The Promise Sent in Bits and Bites Linked to a Network of Cooperation: The VegEdge Story, William D. Hutchison, hutch002@umn.edu, Department of Entomology, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN
2:10 10.5 The Novel Approach of Pulp Non-fiction: The Tomato Story, Jerry Brust, jbrust@umd.edu, Lower Eastern Shore Research and Education Center, University of Maryland, Salisbury, MD; Frank Zalom, fgzalom@ucdavis.edu, Department of Entomology, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA
2:30 10.6 The Promise of Fresh, Healthy Salads Delivered: The Leafy Green Story, William Chaney, wechaney@ucdavis.edu, Monterey County Cooperative Extension, Salinas, CA
2:50 10.7 Summary, Questions and Challenges, Rick E. Foster, rfoster@purdue.edu, Department of Entomology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN; Brian R. Flood, Brian.r.flood@delmonte.com, Del Monte Foods, Rochelle, IL
11. Reducing Pesticide Risk in High Value Crops
12. Prescribed Grazing: A Tool for Weed Management
Leading experts in prescribed grazing will discuss the incorporation of this approach in an IPM weed management system. Each speaker will provide a presentation followed by discussion.
Moderator and Organizer:
Karen Launchbaugh, Klaunchb@uidaho.edu, Rangeland Ecology and Management, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID
1:00 12.1 Managed Herbivory An Emerging Weed Management Technology, Wolfgang Pittroff, Wpittroff@ucdavis.edu, Ruminant Systems Laboratory, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA
1:30 12.2 Engaging Livestock in Weed Management: A Western Perspective, Karen Launchbaugh, Klaunchb@uidaho.edu, Rangeland Ecology and Management, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID
2:00 12.3 Solving Vegetation Management Problems with Livestock: An Eastern Perspective, Jean-Marie Luginbuhl, jean-marie_luginbuhl@ncsu.edu, Goats and Forage Systems Extension Specialist, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC
2:30 12.4 Integrating Prescribed Grazing with Other Weed Management Strategies, Linda Wilson, lwilson@uidaho.edu, Plant, Soil, and Entomological Sciences, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID
13. Integrated Pest Management Research on Certified Organic Land: Challenges and Opportunities
Driven by public demand, organically-produced food is now the fastest growing segment of U.S. agriculture. The National Organic Program was established in 2002 to create national standards for organic production, including procedures for pest management. Between 2001 and 2003, the total number of organic research acres in the U.S. land grant system more than doubled, and certified organic research acreage has more than trebled. Currently, 18 state land grant universities have taken the step of certifying their organic research acreage (Sooby 2003). The workshop will feature speakers who will discuss their experiences conducting IPM research on certified organic land. Speakers will also discuss and answer questions related to the challenges and opportunities involved with establishing certified organic research facilities.
Moderator and Organizer:
Geoff Zehnder, zehnder@clemson.edu, Sustainable Agriculture Program, Clemson University, Clemson, SC
3:30 13.1 Introduction, Geoff Zehnder, zehnder@clemson.edu, Clemson University Sustainable Agriculture Program, Clemson, SC
3:35 13.2 Dispatches from the Organic Front: Status of Organic Research and Extension in the United States Land Grant System, Jane Sooby, jane@ofrf.org, Organic Farming Research Foundation, Santa Cruz, CA
A combination of factorsincluding final implementation of the federal organic standards in 2002, significant organic research funding initiatives in the 2002 Farm Bill, and the increasing demand for organic products by consumersis manifesting in more organic research being conducted by scientists and extension personnel in the U.S. land grant system. OFRF has been documenting this growth in a series of "State of the State" reports on all publicly-funded organic research, extension, and education in the U.S. Jane Sooby will present the most recent data on this organic activity and comment on its significance.
3:55 13.3 Organic Integrated Pest Management: Establishing On-Farm Research, Jerry DeWitt, jdewitt@iastate.edu, Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Iowa State University, Ames, IA
On-farm IPM research provides unique and critical contributions to organic systems. Conducting on-farm research requires strong partnerships, connections, and understanding of new roles and responsibilities of all partners. A variety of priority needs exist for IPM research in organic systems as described by farmer groups, NGOs, and university studies. Examples of important IPM research priorities transverse crop and livestock systems. Funding sources within the traditional land grant system and non traditional avenues exist to support on-farm research. On-farm national research activities in IPM will be highlighted and discussed.
4:15 13.4 Our Top Ten Pest Management Challenges at the West Virginia University Organic Research Farm, James B. Kotcon, jkotcon@wvu.edu, Division of Plant and Soil Sciences, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV
West Virginia University initiated organic farming research in 1999 by transitioning one 60-acre experiment farm. Farming systems research compared 4- and 7-year crop rotations, with versus without compost and with versus without livestock in field crop and vegetable systems. Numerous pest management trials evaluated weed, insect, disease, and livestock-parasite management options for organic growers. Over the last six years, the most significant pest management issues include: vertebrate pests; seed and root rots such as Pythium, Fusarium, and Rhizoctonia; weeds; apple insects and diseases; sheep intestinal parasites; Coccidia in poultry; Colorado potato beetle, leafhoppers, and flea beetles in potato; Cucumber beetle/Bacterial wilt complex in cucurbits; tomato early blight; and Mexican bean beetles. No significant populations of plant parasitic nematodes were observed, although several species were present and susceptible crops were grown every year. Successful pest management involved integrating physical, cultural, and biological controls. Differences in pest impacts among cropping systems have generally not been statistically significant; however, soil quality differences continue to build. The diversity in crops has increased the number of potential pest problems, but has reduced the impact of those present in most cases. While we have successfully managed most pests, weed management remains labor intensive, and better solutions are needed for seed and root rot diseases, apple insects and diseases, and vertebrate pests.
4:35 13.5 Organic Pest Management Research at the Center for Environmental Farming Systems, Mike Linker, Mike_Linker@ncsu.edu, Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC
North Carolina State University’s Center for Environmental Farming Systems (CEFS) is a 2,000 acre farm (1000 acres cleared) dedicated to teaching, research, and Extension of sustainable agriculture. CEFS has an animal unit (dairy, beef, hogs), an organic production based student farm, an organic research unit, and a long-term, large-scale farming systems research unit that includes an organic treatment. Part of the research focus has centered on growing flowering habitat to increase beneficial insect habitat with the intent of improving biological control of pest insects. Investigations of commercial beneficial habitats and the use of traditional cover crops as habitat for beneficial insects in cotton and tomatoes will be discussed.
4:55 13.6 A Radical Development for a Traditional Campus: Organic Farming in the Clemson Calhoun Fields, Geoff Zehnder, zehnder@clemson.edu, Sustainable Agriculture Program, Clemson University, Clemson, SC
The Clemson University Calhoun Fields Laboratory (CFL) was established in 2000 at a location with a rich heritage of agricultural research going back to the days of John C. Calhoun. Today the CFL occupies approximately 15 acres of certified organic land dedicated to the production of high value seasonal vegetables, herbs and cut flowers. The CFL relies heavily on student involvement in all aspects of farm management, production and marketing, and provides facilities for undergraduate and graduate student research. The processes involved with CFL planning and development, including challenges and unanticipated opportunities to expand programs beyond agriculture will be discussed.
5:15 Panel and Audience Discussion
14. Integrated Pest Management in Support of Environmental Issues: Delivering to Improve Water and Air Quality
Environmental issues are driving many IPM and agricultural production research and extension programs. This session will explore western issues, review research that addresses those issues, how coalition-building helps to frame policy, and the importance outreach to deliver the results.
3:30
14.1 Introduction, Peter B. Goodell, ipmpbg@uckac.edu, Kearney Ag Center, University of California Statewide IPM Program, Parlier, CA
3:35
14.2 WaterTox: Linking WIN PST to Pest Management Guidelines, Joyce Strand, jfstrand@ucdavis.edu, Statewide Integrated Pest Management Program, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA Until recently, if a farmer decided to apply a pesticide treatment to control a pest, University of California's pest management guidelines had limited information to help assess possible impacts on water quality. To fill that gap UC IPM has added a new online database and decision tool, WaterTox. Using information from USDA–NRCS, WaterTox evaluates potential for pesticides to move with water and eroded soil or organic matter, and to affect nontarget organisms. Its purpose is to help farmers consider risks of leaching and runoff in making pest management decisions. 4:00
14.3 Protecting Water Quality in the Hood River Basin of Oregon with Best Management Practices for Orchard Pest Management,Jeffrey Jenkins, jenkinsj@ace.orst.edu, Department of Environmental and Molecular Toxicology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR; Steven Castagnoli, Helmut Riedl, Mid-Columbia Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Oregon State University, Hood River, OR
Moderator and Organizer:
Peter B. Goodell,
ipmpbg@uckac.edu, University of California Statewide IPM Program, Kearney Ag Center, Parlier, CA
The Hood River basin is a major tree fruit production region of Oregon. As a result of detections of the organophosphate insecticides chlorpyrifos and azinphos-methyl in tributaries of the Hood River at concentrations that exceed water quality standards, a four year monitoring program was initiated in conjunction with efforts to encourage the adoption of pesticide best management practices (BMPs) designed to reduce stream loading. This community-based effort included the Oregon State University Mid-Columbia Agricultural Research and Extension Center, the Hood River Grower-Shipper Association, the Hood River Soil and Water Conservation District, the Hood River Watershed Group, the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. A survey of growers conducted in 2004 indicated increased knowledge and adoption of BMPs. Over the course of the study monitoring results show generally reduced frequency and concentration for chlorpyrifos detections, but increased incidence of azinphos-methyl detections exceeding water quality standards. These findings suggest the need for continued monitoring and further refinement of BMPs.
4:25 14.4 Management Practices at the Farm Level to Mitigate Off-site Movement of Pesticide, Frank Zalom, fgzalom@ucdavis.edu, Department of Entomology, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA
In 1998, the state of California placed the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers on the Clean Water Act 303(d) list of impaired waterways due in part to elevated levels of diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Sources of these insecticides include agricultural runoff from winter rains, urban sources, irrigation tail water runoff, and poor pesticide application and disposal practices. A major source of the organophosphate insecticides are dormant season sprays for controlling several economically important pests of California orchard crops that have been commonly used since the 1970s. University of California water quality research, ongoing since the early 1990s, focuses on identification of alternative site, pest and pesticide management practices that can be used by orchard growers. The relative effectiveness of specific site management practices on pesticide concentration and toxicity in storm water runoff that are presented include orchard floor management, alternative dormant season treatment timings, vegetated buffers, and post application sprinkling. Alternative pest management practices include monitoring for abundance of pest species and application of reduced-risk approaches if needed. Organophosphate use reduction by orchard crop growers during the dormant season is documented.
Volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions and nitrogen oxides react with sunlight to create ozone. VOCs include some inert ingredients in emulsifiable concentrate (EC) pesticide formulations and most fumigants. The Clean Air Act requires California to reduce ozone in non-attainment areas, including the San Joaquin Valley, that do not meet federal EPA ozone standards. The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) is under an obligation to reduce VOCs from pesticides. DPR is exploring requiring reformulation of hundreds of pesticides, which may affect their formulation across the United States. UC IPM is investigating other approaches to reduction, including alternatives to fumigation.
5:15 Panel and Audience Discussion
15. Integrated Pest Management and Eco-Labels: A Billion Dollar Enterprise
Eco-labels are seals or logos indicating that a product, service or program has met a set of environmental or other standards. Standards that include IPM have been implemented in a wide variety of settings including forestry, fruit and vegetable production, structural pest control, school systems and sustainable communities. Some programs focus on IPM performance, while others also incorporate a broad suite of practices such as energy conservation, fair treatment of farm workers, recycling, etc. Standards vary widely in focus, format, content and implementation. How are IPM practices represented in these programs? How is participant performance verified? How are impacts on economics, health and environment measured? What potential do IPM standards and assessment have for application to government incentive and cost-share programs? Organic sales volume and growth rates are regularly reported; forest product eco-certification is reported at over $1 billion a year; what’s the size of the overall IPM eco-label community? This session will address these and other key questions.
Moderators and Organizers:
Thomas Green, ipmworks@ipminstitute.org, IPM Institute of North America, Inc., Madison WI, and Curtis Petzoldt, cp13@cornell.edu, IPM Program, New York State Agricultural Experiment Station, Cornell University, Geneva, NY
3:30 15.1 Introduction, Thomas Green, ipmworks@ipminstitute.org, IPM Institute of North America, Inc., Madison WI, and Curtis Petzoldt, cp13@cornell.edu, IPM Program, New York State Agricultural Experiment Station, Cornell University, Geneva, NY
3:45 15.2 The Evolving Meaning of Eco-Labels from Environment to Health: Understanding the Difference between Meaningful and Marketing Hype, Urvashi Rangan, RangUr@consumer.org, Consumers Union, Yonkers, NY
Consumers are even more diverse than the types of eco-labels currently found on the market. Some consumers look to eco-labels for environmental reasons while others buy for health and sometimes even safety. Some consumers are concerned about worker welfare while others are concerned about the treatment of animals. Emerging science over the last decade has now begun to draw parallels between environmental or agricultural production practices and personal or public health. Learn how Consumers Union, non-profit publisher of Consumer Reports, has been educating consumers about environmental production practices that can directly and indirectly impact personal health and specific eco-labels that are worth the extra money and those that are not. This talk will also discuss areas that are not currently addressed by eco-label programs but that could be meaningful to consumers.
4:05 15.3 Rainforest Alliance, Andres Villalobos, andres@cims-la.com, Centro De Inteligencia Sobre Mercados Sostenibles (CIMS), Alajuela, Costa Rica
The Sustainable Agriculture Network is a coalition of non-profit, independent conservationist organizations that promotes the social and environmental sustainability of agricultural activities by developing a standard, and certifying farms that comply with that standard. Rainforest Alliance is the Sustainable Agricultural Network Secretariat and administers the certification systems. The objective of the standard is to provide a measure of each farm’s social and environmental performance and best management practices. Compliance is evaluated by audits that measure the degree of the farm’s conformity to environmental and social practices indicated in the standard criteria. The certification standards guide farmers toward true sustainable agriculture and give independent auditors concrete and measurable indicators by which to measure social and environmental improvements. Farms that meet the standards are awarded the Rainforest Alliance Certified seal of approval, a prestigious badge that can be used to market farm products. To date, Rainforest Alliance has certified more than 448,000 acres in the production of bananas, oranges, cut flowers and ferns, coffee and cocoa. There are currently 552 Rainforest Alliance certificates for 4554 operations. In response to consumer demand, market leaders, such as Kraft, Procter & Gamble, Drie Mollen Holding and Lavazza in Europe, and UCC Ueshima Coffee Co. and Key Coffee in Japan; have launched products in partnership with the Rainforest Alliance. Today, consumers can find Rainforest Alliance Certified coffee in more than 20,000 supermarkets, mass market, convenience stores, cafes, restaurants, hotels and corporate offices — in North America, Europe and Japan.
Rainforest Alliance and The Sustainable Agriculture Network encourage the elimination of chemical products known for their negative impacts on human health and natural resources. Certified farms contribute to the elimination of these products through integrated crop management to reduce the risk of pest infestations. They also record the use of agrochemicals to register the amounts consumed, and work to reduce and eliminate these products, especially the most toxic ones. To minimize the excessive application and waste of agrochemicals, certified farms have the procedures and equipment for mixing these products and for maintaining and calibrating application equipment. Certified farms do not use products that are not registered for use in their country, nor do they use transgenic organisms or other products prohibited by different entities or national and international agreements.
4:25 15.4 Food Alliance: The Growing Business of Integrated Pest Management in the Conservation Marketplace, Ray Kirsch, ray@foodalliance.org, Midwest Certification Coordinator, Food Alliance, White Bear Lake, MN
Food Alliance’s certification and market development program has resulted in annual sales of over $100 million dollars of Food Alliance certified foods. Food Alliance certification places IPM in a holistic, natural resources conservation setting that facilitates broad marketplace support. This setting produces environmental benefits that also facilitate public sector support, including the Conservation Security Program and allied efforts. With multiple rewards for certified producers, Food Alliance certification is a profitable and sustainable business model for IPM practitioners and their communities.
4:45 Panel and Audience Discussion
16. Whole Farm Management: An Ecological Approach
A whole farm ecological approach calls for rethinking management practices to design an improved system that integrates ecological pest management into other aspects of crop and soil management. Controlling pests should be linked to soil organic matter management, soil nutrient management, tillage and efforts to lessen compaction, as well as creating field boundaries, borders and buffers designed to protect waterways. Presentations by scientists, extension and farmers will provide insights into the research, educational programming and on-site application of whole farm pest management strategies.Moderator and Organizer:
Kim Kroll, kkroll@asrr.arsusda.gov, Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE), University of Maryland, College Park, MD
3:30–5:30 PM Interactive Panel Discussion
17. Information to Action: Teaching Ecological IPM for Invasive Plants in Natural Areas
Effective integrated pest management programs are site-specific and dependent on invasive plant biology, site ecology, land-use goals, and appropriate and available control methods. Teaching resource managers to design successful, ecologically-based IPM programs is a great need. During this interactive workshop, we will discuss methods of teaching ecologically-based IPM and adaptive management. The workshop will yield clear suggestions on how to improve teaching methodology and increase resource managers’ understanding of ecological IPM for invasive plant management.
Moderator and Organizer:
Janet Clark, cipm@montana.edu, Center for Invasive Plant Management, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT
3:30–5:30 PM Interactive Panel Discussion
Bruce Erickson, ericksonagro@yahoo.com, Beck Ag Com, Inc., Clarks Hill, IN
Nicholas Jordan, jorda020@umn.edu, Department of Agronomy and Plant Genetics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN
Richard Lee, richard_lee@blm.gov, Bureau of Land Management, Denver, CO
Steve Radosevich, steve.radosevich@oregonstate.edu, Forestry Science Department, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR
Scott Steinmaus, ssteinma@calpoly.edu, Biological Sciences Department, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA
18. Globalizing Integrated Pest Management: Participatory Research and Technology Transfer
The past 20 years have witnessed a growth in IPM programs in selected developing countries, but this growth has not kept pace with burgeoning and nonsustainable pesticide use. Relatively slow IPM adoption rates reflect complex technical, institutional, social, cultural, economic, educational, informational and policy constraints. The workshop will highlight an approach that has alleviated some of these constraints. The Participatory IPM (PIPM) approach encompasses: incorporation of broadly-based stakeholders in planning; maintaining scientific rigor while incorporating indigenous models, technology-transfer specialists, and farmers in the research process; investigating economic, environmental, and social constraints to adoption and impacts of IPM; and the elimination of gender barriers to IPM technology development and adoption.
Moderators and Organizers:
Sarah Hamilton, shamilto@du.edu, Graduate School of International Studies, University of Denver, Denver, CO; Mark Erbaugh, erbaugh.1@osu.edu, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; E. A. Heinrichs, eheinric@vt.edu, International Association for the Plant Protection Sciences (IAPPS), Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA; George Norton, gnorton@vt.edu, Department of Agricultural & Applied Economics, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA
3:30 18.1 Global Need for IPM: Institutional Perspectives, Donald Plucknett, ipm-dir@vt.edu, IPM CRSP, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA
3:45 18.2 Bridging from Integrated Pest Management Research to Technology Transfer, E. A. Heinrichs, eheinric@vt.edu, International Association for the Plant Protection Sciences (IAPPS), Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA
4:00 18.3 Developing Integrated Pest Management Packages, Mark Erbaugh, erbaugh.1@osu.edu, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH
4:15 18.4 Integrated Pest Management Technology Transfer and Adoption, Greg Luther, gcluther@netra.avrdc.org.tw, Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center (AVRDC)The World Vegetable Center, Tainan, Taiwan
4:30 18.5 Networking Integrated Pest Management, Keith Moore, keithm@vt.edu, SANREM CRSP, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA
4:45 18.6 Evaluating the Health, Environmental, and Socio-economic Impacts of Integrated Pest Management, George Norton, gnorton@vt.edu, Department of Agricultural & Applied Economics, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA
5:00 18.7 Linking Participatory Integrated Pest Management Research and Technology Transfer: A Gender Analysis Platform, Sarah Hamilton, shamilto@du.edu, Graduate School of International Studies, University of Denver, Denver, CO
5:15 Audience and Panel Discussion
19. North Central Ornamental Pest Working Group
A Working Group (WG) entitled "Implementing IPM for Insect Pests on Ornamental Crops Under Commercial Greenhouse and Nursery Production" has been developed with the overall goals of prioritizing arthropod pests affecting ornamental crops in the North Central Region of the United States, and to coordinate and disseminate information about ornamental pests within and beyond the North Central Region so that it is more accessible for use by stakeholders. Specific objectives include (1) facilitating correct diagnosis of arthropod problems, (2) defining action thresholds for ornamental pests and making threshold and scouting information available, especially for alternative management options, and (3) identify critical information "gaps" about ornamental pests and establish research priorities for the future. The workshop will serve two purposes. First, it will provide an opportunity for WG participants to report on progress and coordinate future activities. Second, it will allow other stakeholders including disciplines (e.g., plant pathologists) not formally represented by our WG to share ideas, contribute information, and/or become active participants.
Moderators and Organizers:
James R. Nechols, jnechols@ksu.edu, and David C. Margolies, dmargoli@ksu.edu, Department of Entomology, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS
3:30–5:30 PM Interactive Panel Discussion
20. Stored Product Integrated Pest Management
Stored-product insects cause significant damage to the multi-billion dollar grain and food industries each year by infesting raw grain in storage, milled products, or packaged and processed finished goods. They survive on dry, stored cereals and legumes in raw or processed form, and they are maintained year after year in storage systems by residual grain remaining in bins, poor sanitation of storages, food-processing facilities and warehouses, and immigration from infested sites. Insect pest management in stored products is a continuum through specific components that can be identified and assessed as key points for integrated pest management. These individual components include farm and commercial grain storage facilities, and processing plants that convert those commodities to raw milled products, food manufacturing facilities, warehouse and retail storage of finished products, and the home market as unique stored-product ecosystem. A vast distributional system is involved in transferring products among and between these various components. Comprehensive management plans should be developed through this array of interconnected components from the farm to the consumer’s table. In this workshop, our speakers will address integrated management of stored product pests through the perspective of a commercial pest management professional, integrated control in large scale storage in grain elevators, and using pheromone traps to monitor insect populations and evaluate control technologies. We will identify opportunities to improve the integrity and safety of our food supply through use of integrated pest management (IPM) tactics that rely on reduced-risk methods, non-chemical alternatives, and effective use of preventive and responsive management.
Moderator and Organizer: Frank Arthur, frank.arthur@gmprc.ksu.edu, USDA-ARS, Grain Marketing and Production Research Center, Manhattan, KS
3:30 20.1 IPM in Stored Product Entomology, Frank Arthur, frank.arthur@gmprc.ksu.edu, USDA-ARS, Grain Marketing and Production Research Center, Manhattan, KS
3:40 20.2 Applications of Pheromones for Controlling Stored-Product Insect Pests, Thomas Phillips, tomp@okstate.edu, Department of Entomology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK
4:05 20.3 Areawide IPM for Insects in Commercial Grain Elevators, Paul Flinn, frank.arthur@gmprc.ksu.edu, USDA-ARS, Grain Marketing and Production Research Center, Manhattan, KS; Carl Reed, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS; Tom Phillips, Oklahoma State University; David Hagstrum, USDA-ARS, Grain Marketing and Production Research Center, Manhattan, KS
4:30 20.4 Insect Growth Regulators in Pest Management Programs, Frank Arthur, frank.arthur@gmprc.ksu.edu, USDA-ARS, Grain Marketing and Production Research Center, Manhattan, KS
4:55 20.5 Mechanisms Underlying the Effectiveness of Food Processing IPM Programs, Michael Toews, michael.toews@gmprc.ksu.edu; Jim Campbell; Frank Arthur, USDA-ARS, Grain Marketing and Production Research Center, Manhattan, KS
5:25 20.6 Summary and Closing Remarks, Frank Arthur, frank.arthur@gmprc.ksu.edu, USDA-ARS, Grain Marketing and Production Research Center, Manhattan, KS
21. Asian Soybean Rust in the U.S., Prepping for Year 2
This workshop will focus on updates of issues related to Asian soybean rust (SBR) this season. Short presentations will provide an organizational framework for open discussion. Planned discussion areas include: SBR finds and model predictions so far in 2006; distribution of sentinel plots and related efforts funded through the USDA grant project; distribution of sentinel plots and related efforts funded by the North Central Soybean Research Program and the United Soybean Board; continued development of the information management tool at http://www.sbrusa.net/ ; and update on expansion of the PIPE to other pests and crops.
Moderator and Organizer:
Jim VanKirk, jim@sripmc.org, Southern Region IPM Center, Raleigh, NC
3:30–5:30 PM Interactive Panel Discussion
21.1 Agenda, distribution of sentinel plots for 2006. Jim VanKirk
21.2 News from points south. Clayton Hollier
21.3 Current status SBR in the field.(lots of pictures, almost 5-megabyte download) Don Hershman
21.4 North American Protocol for Soybean Rust and Soybean Aphid Monitoring in Sentinel Plots. Julie Golod
21.5 Soybean Rust Aerobiology Model. Scott Isard
21.6 Changes to the SBR/USDA website. Scott Isard
21.7 Resistance to Asian Soybean Rust. Brian Deirs
21.8 Section 18 Fungicides for Soybean Rust Control. Martin Draper
22. Insecticides with Novel Modes of Action and their Role in Integrated Pest Management Programs
Our workshop includes recent developments of novel insecticides with selective properties which can serve as components in IPM programs such as benzoylphenyl ureas, juvenile hormone mimics, ecdysone agonists, neonicotinoids, avermectins, transgenic crops, natural products and others. Biochemical and biological modes of action of the above compounds will be discussed along with their optimized use in integrated pest management programs in orchard, field and protected crops.
Moderators and Organizers:
Isaac Ishaaya, vpisha@volcani.agri.gov.il, and A. Rami Horowitz, hrami@volcani.agri.gov.il, Agricultural Research Organization, Israel
3:30 22.1 Introduction
3:35 22.2 Contribution of Transgenic Crops to Integrated Pest Management Programs, Rick Roush, rtroush@ucdavis.edu, Integrated Pest Management, University of California, Davis, CA; Tony Shelton, and Joe Zhao, Department of Entomology, Cornell University, New York State Agricultural Experiment Station, Geneva, NY
4:00 22.3 Insecticides with Selective Properties Compatible with Integrated Pest Management Programs, Isaac Ishaaya, vpisha@volcani.agri.gov.il, Svetlana Kontsedalov, and A. R. Horowitz, hrami@volcani.agri.gov.il, Agricultural Research Organization, Israel
4:25 22.4 Physiological Bases of Using Insect Hormone Analogs for Pest Management, Arthur Retnakaran, aretnak@nrcan.gc.ca, Daniel Doucet, and Basil Arif, Canadian Forest Service, Great Lakes Forestry Centre, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada
4:50 22.5 Novaluron and other Novel Insecticides for the Control of Container Breeding and Impoundment Mosquitoes, Mir S. Mulla, mir.mulla@ucr.edu, Department of Entomology, University of California, Riverside, CA
5:15 22.6 Integrated Pest Management in Protected Crops Using Insecticides with Selective Properties, Ian Denholm, ian.Denholm@bbsrc.ac.uk, Department of Biological and Ecological Chemistry, IACR-Rothamsted, Harpenden, UK
22A. eXtension: Partnership for Internet-based Education in the Future
The eXtension Initiative is an educational partnership of the Land Grant University system that is being developed to provide access to objective research-based information through the worldwide web. The goals are to enhance accessibility and quality of relevant knowledge, foster collaborative efforts across the Extension network, and enhance efficiency of information delivery. Current Communities of Practice include: Building Local Economies of the Future, Consumer Horticulture, Extension Disaster Education Network, Financial Security for All, HorseQuest, Imported Fire Ants, Just in Time Parenting, and Wildlife Damage Management. Additional calls for engagement are planned in the future. We will have an open roundtable discussion about the past, present, and future of eXtension.
Moderators and Organizers: Scott Hygnstrom, shygnstrom1@unl.edu, eXtension Initiative, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE; Ashley Griffin, ashley.griffin@eXtension.org, eXtension Initiative, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY
3:30–5:30 PM Interactive Discussion
22B. Meeting on School IPM National Implementation Led by the US EPA
Wednesday, April 5, 2006
23. Integrated Pest Management Education for Retailers
A statewide survey in Illinois found that only 34% of the retail stores that sell pesticides provided any employee training. If training was provided, the focus tended to be on pesticide selection and use, while the concepts of integrated pest management (IPM) were largely ignored. This session will address the educational needs of retail store employees who sell pesticides and are often the primary source of information for homeowners.
Moderator and Organizer:
George F. Czapar, gfc@uiuc.edu, University of Illinois Extension, University of Illinois, Springfield, IL
9:00 23.1 Introduction, George F. Czapar, gfc@uiuc.edu, University of Illinois Extension, University of Illinois, Springfield, IL
9:05 23.2 Characteristics of Retail Stores that Sell Pesticides, M. Patrick Curry, curry@uiuc.edu, University of Illinois Extension, University of Illinois, Springfield, IL
Illinois is home to over 1,000 consumer-oriented retail businesses selling pesticides. Although the products on store shelves are nearly identical, the retailing strategies and perceptions of customer needs are frequently different. In a recent survey of Illinois retailers, businesses were stratified by business type, size, and location to identify how these business characteristics influence training needs and information resources used in stores. Location and size were less important than type of business in explaining the differences in resources, training needs, and customer-service issues related to pesticide sales.
9:30 23.4 Integrated Pest Management Practices of Retail Stores in Illinois, George F. Czapar, gfc@uiuc.edu, University of Illinois Extension, University of Illinois, Springfield, IL
A statewide survey conducted in 1996, found that only 34% of retail stores in Illinois provided any employee training related to pesticide use. Results of a 2003 survey of lawn and garden stores, home improvement centers, hardware stores, and general merchandise stores help explain how pest management recommendations are made and the resources that are most widely used. Survey response rate was 43%, and background information indicated that 92% of survey respondents were store owners, store managers, or managers of lawn and garden centers. The level of employee training, common questions, customer referrals, and educational materials were compared.
9:55 23.5 Consumer Pest Management Practices in Pennsylvania, Kerry M. Richards, kmh14@psu.edu, Pest Management Information Center; Sharon I. Gripp, sgripp@psu.edu, Pesticide Education Program, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA
Results of a 2003-2004 Pennsylvania consumer survey (1,486 respondents) will be presented. You may be surprised to learn what consumers know about pesticides and IPM. One interesting fact was 46% of consumers sought pest control information from Home and Garden Centers. Other areas addressed in the survey included pest tolerance, pest inspections, IPM awareness, recognizing pesticide products, defining IPM, use and purchase of pesticides within the past year, and storage and disposal of pesticides. At the end of the session, participants will discuss how to use the information presented in their own programming and potential areas of cooperation.
10:20 23.5 Registration of Pesticide Consultants in Indiana, Fred Whitford, fwhitford@purdue.edu, Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN
Indiana requires all retail stores to provide education to their employees if they provide pesticide recommendations to their customers. This regulation affects garden centers, discount stores, and hardware outlets. In addition, each retail store must register with the Office of Indiana State Chemist as a registered consultant. This presentation will focus on how effective the regulatory program has been to date, and current perspectives of retailers.
10:45 23.6 Panel and Audience Discussion, Richard H. Johnson, rhj3@psu.edu, Pesticide Education Program, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA
24. Evaluating Risk Reduction
Presenters will provide a rational from the perspectives of their agencies as to why impact assessment is needed.
Moderator and Organizer: