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@NIFA.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:
William Coli, wcoli@umext.umass.edu, UMass Extension, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA
9:00 24.1 Opening remarks, Harold Coble, harold_coble@ncsu.edu, Office of Pest Management Policy, NIFA, Washington, DC; Regina Langton, langton.regina@epa.gov, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC; William Coli, wcoli@umext.umass.edu, UMass Extension, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA
9:08 24.2 Predicting Pesticide Risks and Finding Out If Integrated Pest Management Programs Reduce Them (1.8 Mbytes), Paul Jepson, jepsonp@bcc.orst.edu, Department of Entomology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR
Our current understanding of pesticide health and environmental hazards will be summarized, and our ability to monitor and predict these using a variety of measurement and modeling tools reviewed. A model farm and cropping system employing a conventional pest control program and 'reduced risk' IPM program will be defined and the various tools for risk measurement and prediction will be evaluated in terms of their ability to discriminate differences between these programs. This will be presented as a procedure that may be used to classify and compare risk assessment and monitoring tools and to determine which are most appropriate for a given cropping system. Most of the talk will focus upon specific U.S.-based examples, to inform impact assessment within the context of the National IPM Roadmap. As a deliberate contrast however, a brief summary will be given of a current, six nation program to evaluate and reduce pesticide hazards to humans and the environment in West Africa.
9:22 24.3 Biodiversity Assessment of Arthropod Communities and Selected Bioindicators as Measurements of Ecotoxicology In Agroecosystems (2.1 Mbytes), D. Biddinger, djb134@psu.edu, Department of Entomology, T. Leslie, and J. Rohr, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA
Extrapolation of laboratory toxicology bioassays conducted to determine direct and sub-lethal mortality effects on target and non-target organisms rarely relate to the community effects seen in the field. Traditional toxicology studies are done at the individual level and a toxin’s effects are rarely determined over the life span of the individual, much less over an entire growing season. Extrapolation of toxicological data to populations, communities or guilds within an ecosystem ignores many complex interspecies interactions and density-dependent regulatory mechanisms. Subtle changes in reproduction of a population or temporal changes in development may be magnified over several generations and may be more noticeable when examining community interactions than in measuring effects on individuals or even populations for only a short period. Biodiversity assessment of an agroecosystem over an entire season and at many trophic levels often shows the resiliency or redundancy of such systems, with several species being able to serve similar ecosystem functions. Field data from biodiversity assessments of transgenic crops and reduced risk IPM programs in fruit will be used to demonstrate the concept of bioindicators.
9:36 24.4 Impacts of an Areawide Codling Moth Management Approach, Jay Brunner, jfb@wsu.edu, Tree Fruit Research Center, Washington State University, Wenatchee, WA
The codling moth, Cydia pomonella (L.), is the key pest of pome fruit in western orchards. Most insecticides applied in apple orchards (60-70%) are made to control CM and leafroller species. Pheromones were introduced as a selective management tactic in the early 1990s for CM control. A codling moth areawide management project (CAMP) demonstrated that pheromones allowed for reductions in crop loss and supplemental insecticide treatments. Use of pheromones in western pome fruit orchards has remained consistent since 2000. New technology is being evaluated that holds promise of reducing the cost of pheromone technology or increasing its efficacy.
9:50 24.5 Eco-Apples for the Teacher: Northeast Eco-Apples and IPM STAR for School Systems and Childcare Facilities, Thomas A. Green, ipmworks@ipminstitute.org, IPM Institute of North America, Inc., Madison WI
Pioneering Cornell IPM Elements and UMass IPM Guidelines have spawned a succession of point-based IPM assessments, including IPM STAR which grades participants on 40 items including pesticide hazards. A before/after assessment is completed, allowing ready evaluation of risk reduction. More than 20 school systems and childcare facilities have been evaluated nationwide, impacting nearly two million children. The new Eco-Apple protocol includes required practices, point-based options, and pesticides categorized by hazard criteria developed for the project. The collaborators documented risk reduction by comparing changes in practices and pesticides from 2004 to 2005 in six commercial apple orchards in five northeastern states.
10:04 24.6 The Long-term Measurement of the Impacts of an Integrated Pest Management in Schools Implementation Model, Marc L. Lame, mlame@indiana.edu, School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN
The Monroe IPM Model is designed to facilitate the transition from traditional pest control practices to a contemporary and verifiable IPM program in school districts. The effectiveness of this model in ten school districts, in seven states (1–10 year duration) indicated an average 71% reduction in pesticide applications and 78% reduction in pest complaints to school administrations.
Data for each school district implementation were obtained from standardized assessment tools which were developed and used by a team of entomologists, each with an average of 22 years of documented IPM experience. It was understood at the origin of this model’s development that perceptions and scientifically backed research regarding risks from pests and pesticides would change over time. Therefore, average annual pesticide applications were used, rather than AI or amount of pesticide, as an indicator of need or perceived need for control. Further, this strategy eliminated the variable of toxicity. Data collected and analyzed regarding the reduction of pesticide use were developed from pre-program (minimum of two years) and post-program (one to three years depending on the maturity of the program) invoices and work orders for pesticide applications. Though monitoring stations were used and documented during implementation, pre-program pest complaints were measured and compared to post-program complaints by surveying school occupants (administrators, faculty and staff).
Diffusion rates were developed for school districts 1995–2005. Each school district was required to document implementation of IPM tools inherent to The Monroe IPM Model – use of monitoring traps, training regarding the identification and remediation of pest conducive conditions for faculty, staff, administrators and Pest Management Professionals, remediation of pest conducive conditions, posting of the “Pest Press,” and proper use of least toxic chemical pesticides when documented as necessary.
10:18 24.7 Reducing Workers' Risks to Pesticides by Using Low-Risk Pesticides in Blueberry Production, Larry G. Olsen, olsenl@msu.edu, Department of Entomology, Agriculture, and Natural Resources, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI; B. J. Hughes, Michigan Department of Agriculture, Chris Vandervoort; Plant Pathology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI; Carlos Garcia-Salazar, Ottawa County Extension, Michigan State University, Grand Haven, MI; Thomas Garavaglia, Plant Pathology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI
Occupational risks were compared in blueberry production systems to demonstrate that using reduced risk pesticides significantly decreases worker risk during hand harvesting. The insecticides, phosmet and imidacloprid, were used on conventional and IPM plots, respectively. Plant dislodgeable residues dissipated after one day in the imidacloprid plot. Phosmet plot residues decreased steadily for 7 days. Pesticide residues were the highest on the blueberry harvester's hands. The penetration of phosmet and imidacloprid from outer to inner dosimeter was 10.9% and 12.3%, respectively. Total exposure resulted in safety factors of 12,463 for imidacloprid and 220 for phosmet, exceeding the EPA benchmark of 100X."
10:32 24.8 The Department of Defense's Pest Management Measures of Merit, Lt. Col. Sharon Spradling, Sharon.spradling@osd.mil, United States Air Force, representing the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), Armed Forces Pest Management Board, Silver Spring, MD
The Department of Defense (DoD) oversees a large, global pest management program that includes over 545 separate installations with over 1800 certified pesticide applicators. Initiating a change to IPM-focused programs in such an organization requires top-down pressure in the form of very general, measurable goals, which over time force the required attitude shift to better IPM programs. In 1993, the DoD developed three pest management goals called the "DoD Pest Management Measures of Merit (MoMs)" alongside an entire set of other environmental goals. The goals were generated from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, which exerted considerable pressure on every Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force installation to comply. This talk will focus on DoD's progress at meeting these goals, and on how these goals became the tipping point in DoD's shift to IPM.
10:46 24.9 Environmental Improvement on Golf Courses, Joellen Zeh, jzeh@auduboninternational.org, Audubon International, Selkirk, NY
The Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Programs (ACSP) promote ecologically-sound land management and the conservation of natural resources through education and certification programs that are tailored to a diversity of land uses within communities. Participation helps people plan, organize, implement, and document a comprehensive environmental management program and receive recognition for their efforts. Audubon International conducted an environmental survey to assess the impact of participation in the ACSP for Golf Courses on a number of key environmental priority areas including integrated pest management and water quality. Results showed a high level of environmental quality improvement among program participants. New data management will also allow more in-depth analysis of environmental improvements in coming years.
25. Urban Integrated Pest Management in and Around Structures
Integrated Pest Management is often discussed in structural pest management seminars in the context of schools. However, IPM techniques are commonly used in a variety of facilities by structural pest management professionals. This session will focus on a variety of IPM techniques used to control the structural pest management industries most common pest groups. Presenters will discuss current IPM strategies for ants, cockroaches, birds, bed bugs, filth and small flies, stinging insects and stored product pests.
Moderator and Organizer:
Patricia Hottel, mcteknical@aol.com, McCloud Services, Hoffman Estates, IL
9:00 25.1 Urban Integrated Pest Management: A Historical Perspective of Urban Pest Management, Mark D. Sheperdigian, Sheperdigian@earthlink.net, Rose Pest Solutions, A Copesan Partner, Troy, MI
The practice of urban pest management is near 150 years old and in that time has seen some radical changes in the way it is approached. This presentation will discuss how materials used, techniques employed, and the concomitant skill set have changed in some aspects, yet in others have changed not at all. Modernity and its technology present a force of change on one side of urban pest management, but the pests give no quarter and pull hard the other way. Urban IPM is both the new answer and the old answer to the standing challenge from the pests.
9:10 25.2 Urban Integrated Pest Management for Commensal Rodents, Jeff Weier, jweier@spraguepest.com, Sprague Pest Solutions, A Copesan Partner, Tacoma, WA
Commensal rodents continue to be one of the top pests in urban environments. This presentation will discuss the biology of the top three commensal rodents and the various exclusion and trapping methods available for managing these pests.
9:25 25.3 Urban Integrated Pest Management “Ant”swers, James Sargent, sarge@copesan.com, Copesan, Specialists in Pest Solutions, Menominee Falls, WI
Ants are the largest, most complex group of pests that are “managed” by IPM practitioners. The diversity of species, the biological differences, unpredictable degrees of health and economic importance, and non-scientific thresholds makes ant IPM a challenge, especially in urban environments. IPM tactics for ants will be reviewed generally and then specifically applied/discussed for six major pest ant species – carpenter ants, Pharaoh ants, Argentine ants, red-imported fire ants, odorous house ants, and pavement ants. Labor-intensive IPM is often the best strategy for the control of pestiferous ants in structures. Education is an important component.
9:40 25.4 Cockroaches: The Ever Changing Face of Cockroach Management, Chris Arne, Christopher.arne@jcehrlich.com, J.C. Ehrlich & Co., A Copesan Partner, Reading, PA
Cockroaches are survivors. They’ve roamed the planet for millions of years and despite our best efforts, they continue to live in our homes and places of business. Throughout time humans have employed creative ideas to remove this pest from the structures they inhabit. More than once we thought we had the upper hand, but, despite our efforts, cockroach populations resurge. Gradually, we are realizing that no single tactic can provide long-term control and this is leading to a reevaluation of pest control. How this will affect cockroaches and the humans they live with will be the topic of discussion.
9:55 25.5 Integrated Pest Management Solutions to Maggot Mayhem, Patricia Hottel, mcteknical@aol.com, McCloud Services, A Copesan Partner, Hoffman Estates, IL
Professional pest managers face a diverse group of flies in the urban environment. In recent years, two groups of flies have become increasingly important pests in the commercial urban environment. This presentation will focus on two main groups of urban pest flies: filth flies and “small flies.” Examples of the small fly pest group include: the small fruit fly, phorid fly and drain fly. Economics, medical importance, and control strategies for the two groups will be discussed.
10:10 25.6 Pest Bird Integrated Pest Management, Earl Hallberg, REHS, earlh@prestox.com, Presto-X-Company, A Copesan Partner, Omaha, NE
Birds for the majority of people are looked upon as beautiful and unobtrusive creatures that should be left alone and in some cases protected from harm. However, when birds roost, nest or feed in and around human facilities, they become a source of not only contamination, but also a potential health risk to the human population living and working around and within the structures. Three species for birds in particular, the European starling, English or house sparrow and the feral pigeon can become a major pest in urban environments, and therefore, control of these birds becomes necessary.
10:25 25.7 They’re Back: Integrated Pest Management and Bed Bugs, Anil Menon, amenon@wil-kil.com, Wil-Kil Pest Control, A Copesan Partner, Sun Prairie, WI
Bed bugs have undergone a dramatic resurgence in the United States. For more than 40 years these bugs have been a rare occurrence in this country. This has resulted in an overall lack of knowledge on the biology, behavior and treatment of this pest. Many effective chemicals have been phased out from our arsenal. There are also anecdotal reports of resistance to pyrethroids. In this presentation, we will look at some of the challenges facing the pest control industry and possible solutions to overcome these problems.
10:40 25.8 Pesticides Used: I Love the Smell, Keith Willingham, kwillingham@west-ext.com, Western Exterminating Company, A Copesan Partner, Anaheim, CA
Nationwide, pest management companies have moved to IPM programs by training employees to inspect and look at alternative control approaches including the localized and directed treatment of insecticides. Although the chemicals used have changed, it is only recently that manufacturers have made available a wide variety of non-traditional products. Many of these products are plant-based and registered with EPA under FIFRA (25B) to encourage the use of minimum-risk pesticides. Beginning in 2006, Western Exterminating Company switched 2,400 accounts to these non-traditional pesticides. The objectives of the project, account types, and the data collected to date will be presented.
10:55 25.9 Summary: Where Do We Go From Here, Mark D. Sheperdigian, Sheperdigian@earthlink.net, Rose Pest Solutions, A Copesan Partner, Troy, MI
26. Technology Enables Integrated Pest Management - and Delivers on the Promise
The role of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in modern society has grown and evolved over the last decade. Once perceived as a narrowly-focused approach to control pests through alternative means, IPM now encompasses the enhancement of both the environment and society while delivering cost-effective control of pests below pre-determined thresholds. The ideas that first seemed revolutionary a few years ago are now widely accepted and incorporated across a broad range of industries. Technology development that is driven by government, universities, and private industry has helped deliver this promise of a better, safer environment, and more economic food and fiber production. The focus of this mini-symposium will be to examine and highlight major advances in IPM, across many disciplines, driven by technological advances. The symposium will begin with a review of change from the early use of highly toxic pest control methods to the modern emphasis on focused pest removal without disruption of non-targets in the environment. It will conclude with newest chemical controls and their spectrum/benefits. The symposium will then highlight more established technologies such as formulations delivery systems, methyl bromide alternatives, and traits. We will then provide examples of newer IPM approaches that are currently at the forefront. This will include private area-wide management programs, public IPM programs, attractants, prediction modeling, and baiting. In each presentation, speakers will show how the technology was developed and implemented in the real-world environment. Emphasis will be on U.S. development and use, although several examples from developing economies will also be provided.
Moderator and Organizer:
Bill Hendrix, wmhendrix@dow.com, Technical Expert, Dow AgroSciences LLC, Indianapolis, IN
9:00 26.1 The Benefits and Limitations of Technology for Insect Management in Corn and Soybeans, Kevin Steffey, ksteffey@uiuc.edu, Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL
Insect control technology for corn and soybeans has changed dramatically (e.g., the advent of transgenic crops and modern seed-applied insecticides) and will continue to evolve to address the problems of greatest concern to producers. However, as we have learned repeatedly for decades, insect control technology is not and shouldn’t be the sole solution for insect control problems. Each “improvement” in insect control technology has limitations, which must be considered as the technology is being developed, especially if widespread use is anticipated. Discussion will focus on changes in insect control technologies and their associated “costs.”
9:15 26.2 Management of Subterranean Termite Populations Made Possible with Advances in Technology: A Case Study, Frank S. Guillot, fguillot@srrc.ars.usda.gov, USDA-ARS Southern Regional Research Center, New Orleans, LA
Management of termite populations has become technologically feasible with the introduction of non-repellent termiticides and bait technology. Previously, treatments with liquid termiticides may have provided some protection from termites and limited the damage cause by termite feeding. Unfortunately, these treatments failed to prevent the growth of populations of such invasive species as the formosan subterranean termite, Coptotermes formosanus Shiraki, which is now established extensively throughout the southern United States. Bait technology and the non-repellent termiticides may help limit the population expansion and even reduce the size of the populations as exemplified in the New Orleans French Quarter project.
9:30 26.3 Management of Melon Fly Using Pest Behavior and Environmentally Benign Attract and Kill Technologies, Ronald F.L. Mau, maur@ctahr.hawaii.edu, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI; Eric Jang and Grant McQuate, USDA-ARS Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center, Hilo HI
Melon fly, Bactrocera cucurbitae (Coquilette) (Diptera: Tephritidae) management was highly effective on farms on the islands of Hawaii, Maui, and Oahu. Crops included zucchini, kabocha squash, watermelon, honeydew melon, cantaloupe, and pumpkin. Control practices included field sanitation, male annihilation traps baited with cuelure, and GF-120 spinosad bait. Male annihilation retrievable traps were used at a rate of about 1 trap per 1.5 ha. The spinosad bait (GF-120®, Dow AgroSciences) was applied as weekly spot-treatments to melon fly aggregation hosts that were situated adjacent to cucurbit and melon plantings. The combination of practices consistently held damage to less than five percent compared with pre-program losses of 30-100 percent.
9:45 26.4 Adapting Integrated Pest Management Strategies to the Evolving Needs in Biotech Cotton and Field Corn, B. Rogers Leonard, rleonard@agcenter.lsu.edu, and F. Huang, Department of Entomology, Louisiana State University AgCenter, Baton Rouge, LA
Field crops such as cotton and corn have consistently relied on chemical control strategies to manage arthropod pests. The commercialization of transgenic technologies with specific activity against Lepidopteran targets has reduced the economic impacts of the target pests and the overall frequency of insecticide use in those crops. Subsequently, the status of other arthropod pests has shifted with the integration of transgenic cultivars into IPM systems. The initial response to manage a different hierarchy of arthropod pests was a return to pesticide applications. However, integrated pest management (IPM) strategies are evolving in response to these changes in crop pest complexes. A holistic approach should consider the impact of commodity production practices on IPM strategies and focus on multiple tactics to reduce reliance on chemical control measures.
10:00 26.5 Formulation and Delivery of Actives: Technology Promises Delivered and Renewed, Scott Hutchins, shhutchins@dow.com, and Ray Boucher, Dow AgroSciences LLC, Indianapolis , IN
Technology has been the central polarizing component of IPM since its conception, serving to either enable or disable its very validity as a management practice. Indeed, although the inherent toxicology and environmental fate of some active ingredients frequently is the focus of concern in IPM, we believe that novel formulation and delivery of actives holds tremendous promise to find a "balance" and optimize often competing objectives in many IPM scenarios. We present an overview of technology innovations (existing and emerging) aimed at targeted delivery of actives to reduce inherently IPM-averse properties of active ingredients without compromising management objectives.
10:15 26.6 Electrostatic Powder Approaches to Lure and Kill of Medfly, Ian Baxter, ian.baxter@exosect.com, Lucy Barton, Clare Armsworth, and Christian Nansen, Exosect Limited, Southampton, UK
Using a patented electrostatic insecticide delivery system, Exosect Ltd, a UK based pest management R&D company, is examining the potential of a bait-station lure and kill programme for the control of Medfly Ceratitis capitata (Weidemann) (Diptera: Tephritidae). The stations, comprising of a lure and electrostatic powder combined with an insecticide, entice medfly into contact with the powder where they pick up a lethal dose of insecticide. Research is ongoing to: 1) determine initial powder uptakes and how long contaminated flies retain the powder, 2) the level of secondary transfer of powder to conspecifics, and 3) to what extent contamination with a slow-acting or sterility inducing pesticide affects medfly populations within an IPM programme.
10:30 26.7 New Integrated Pest Management Control Agents: The Shape of Things to Come, Thomas C. Sparks, tcsparks@dow.com, Dow AgroSciences, Discovery Research, Insect Management Group, Indianapolis, IN
Insecticide resistance, increasing restrictions on older materials, food chain and residue concerns require the discovery and development of new inputs for the IPM tool box, which will provide enhanced levels of efficacy while reducing the impact on the environment. Despite consolidation in the agrochemical industry, a variety of new IPM agents, many exploiting new target sites and/or delivery mechanisms, have been developed or are in development, providing new options for pest insect control. This presentation will review many of the new chemistries, modes of action and trends.27. A Roadmap to Risk-Reduction: Mapping and Measuring Integrated Pest Management with the Pesticide Hazard and Exposure Reduction (PHAER) Zone System
This session is for city and school personnel interested in implementing IPM programs in a simple, practical, objective way. It will describe the PHAER (Pesticide Hazard And Exposure Reduction) Zone system of mapping sites based upon sensitivity – playgrounds are Green, back parking lots are Yellow. This new and innovative system, developed with leading California environmental, school and municipal partners, allows for clearly defined, measurable risk-reduction targets for time and resource budgeting. The session will help you to implement the system, and will provide case studies of the school, park, and citywide successes from Santa Barbara City, Ventura Unified, and others.
Moderator and Organizer:
Phil Boise, pboise.ipm@earthlink.net, Urban-Ag Ecology, Gaviota, CA
9:00 27.1 The Why and How of PHAER Zones, IPM Trials and Tricks, Phil Boise, pboise.ipm@earthlink.net, Urban-Ag Ecology/PHAER Zone Author, Gaviota, CA
10:00 27.2 The City of Santa Barbara: A Model IPM Program, Santos Escobar, SESCOBAR@SantaBarbaraCA.gov, and Ken Brown, KBROWN@SantaBarbaraCA.gov, City of Santa Barbara Parks, Santa Barbara, CA
28. Messaging and Integrated Pest Management: Reaching the Gatekeepers
Protected Harvest is a non-profit organization that certifies farms that meet measurable and verifiable environmental production standards based on Biointensive-IPM practices. The Protected Harvest eco-label makes it easier for consumers to identify and support farmers and food companies that are committed to IPM.
Our panel will present the results of two market research projects that were coordinated by Protected Harvest, geared towards framing the IPM message for consumers, retailers, and for those people responsible for selling a product with environmental attributes. Over 500 consumers were surveyed in supermarkets about their interest in purchasing potatoes grown in Wisconsin’s Healthy Grown program, and six focus groups were held to research consumer perceptions about wines made from grapes grown in the “Lodi Rules!” program of the Lodi-Woodbridge Winegrape Commission. A cross section of industry members were also interviewed for each project.
Results were both exciting and surprising. Consumers divulged their general willingness to purchase products with an environmental message but they also told us how they want the message presented to them and how much extra they would be willing to pay. Growers and packers and others in the food industry also shared insights as to the tools they need to be able to sell foods grown in an IPM program.
In order for IPM to be widely adopted by growers, the marketplace must widely support and endorse a new mainstream category of foods grown with certifiable environmental benefits. Learning how to reach the “gatekeepers” will be critical to anyone involved with promoting IPM in the marketplace.
Moderator and Organizer:
Rochelle Kelvin, Rochelle@protectedharvest.org, Protected Harvest, Arnold, MD
9:00–11:00 AM Interactive Panel Discussion
Rochelle Kelvin, Rochelle@protectedharvest.org, Protected Harvest, Arnold, MD
Angela Hemauer, ahemauer@wisconsinpotatoes.com, Wisconsin Potato and Vegetable Growers Association, Antigo, WI
Cliff Ohmart, cliff@lodiwine.com, Lodi-Woodbridge Winegrape Commission, Lodi, CA
29. Integrated Pest Management in the National Park Service and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
The National Park Service (NPS) and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) implement integrated pest management (IPM) programs to reduce risks to people, resources, and the environment from pests and pest management related management strategies. As part of “Delivering the Promising,” the NPS and USFWS has partnered on many aspects of IPM. In 1979 under Executive Order all federal agencies were directed by President Carter to implement IPM practices when managing pests on federal lands. Current Department of Interior policy states that all bureaus will implement an IPM approach when managing pests. The NPS has a dual mission: to preserve and protect natural and cultural resources and to provide for the enjoyment of the same for future generations. NPS provides for extensive front and back country services, luxury lodging, restaurants, camp grounds, agricultural leases, and recreational opportunities. Pest management occurs on natural areas, developed zones, ornamental plantings, turf, concessions operations, museums, historic landscapes, recreational areas, and public health concerns under IPM policy. The USFWS’s mission is working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. USFWS IPM efforts are focused on preservation and promotion of wildlife habitat including managing agricultural fields and wetlands for wildlife. The NPS and USFWS has partnered on many aspects of IPM. We now offer annual 32-hour training on IPM Principles. Additionally, we work closely on presentations, meetings, and materials regarding IPM. We have even developed an 11-step IPM approach.
Moderators and Organizers:
Tiffany Parson, Tiffany_Parson@fws.gov, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Arlington, VA, and Carol DiSalvo, Carol_DiSalvo@nps.gov, National Park Service, Washington, DC
9:00–11:00 AM Interactive Workshop
30. Facilitating Implementation of Residential Turf Integrated Pest Management: Working towards Consensus
Despite years of educational activity aimed at minimizing chemical inputs to residential lawns, sales of lawn fertilizers, herbicides, and insecticides continue to rise. This workshop will look at the constraints to implementation of residential turf IPM from the perspective of various stakeholders in the lawn care field. The workshop will begin with a short overview of the social, economic, and environmental impacts of turf in residential landscapes including acreage, cultural and economic value, resources used (water, fertilizer, pesticides, fuel and labor), and potential environmental impacts. We will present the basic, widely agreed upon recommendations for IPM turfgrass management (e.g. test your soil, apply fertilizer based on soil test recommendations, identify weeds and insects before treatment, etc . . .) along with data regarding the extent to which these recommendations are being translated into consumer behavior. Speakers from the lawn care industry, from academia, and from environmental organizations will address the following questions from the perspective of their respective organizations: what are the significant problems they perceive with current turf management practices; what are the challenges faced from an organizational and societal perspective; what solutions can their organization offer. Our goal will be to identify areas of agreement and disagreement. We will also attempt to identify consumer marketing messages that may be adopted by academia, environmental organizations, and industry alike to more effectively influence consumer behavior. The workshop will conclude with an assessment of how we can make IPM education programs more effective through better regional or national collaboration. This discussion will be continued in the companion Roundtable Session “Where Do We Go with Residential IPM.”
Moderators and Organizers:
Marion S. Gold, mgold@uri.edu, Cooperative Extension Education Center, College of the Environment & Life Sciences, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI; Rick Johnson, rhj3@psu.edu, Pesticide Education Program, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA
9:00 30.1 Introduction-An Overview of the Social, Economic, and Environmental Impacts of Turf, Marion S. Gold, mgold@uri.edu, Cooperative Extension Education Center, College of the Environment & Life Sciences, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI; Rick Johnson, rhj3@psu.edu, Pesticide Education Program, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA
9:10 30.2 Consumer Behavior and Turfgrass Management, Bruce Augustin, bruce.augustin@scotts.com, The Scotts Company, Marysville, OH
9:40 30.3 Alternatives to Conventional Lawn Management: Impediments to Implementation, Jay Feldman, jfeldman@beyondpesticides.org, Beyond Pesticides, Washington DC
10:10 30.4 What Turfgrass Science Tells Us, Frank Rossi, fsr3@cornell.edu, Turfgrass Science and Extension Turfgrass, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY
10:40 30.5 Panel Discussion: What Steps Can We Take as a Team (Industry, Academia, Government, and Non-Profit Groups) to Promote Residential Turf IPM?
31. U.S. Benefits from Integrated Pest Management Collaboration in Developing Countries
Among domestic stakeholders and colleagues with whom we work, it can be challenging to convey the benefits that accrue on the U.S. side of international agricultural research partnerships. American foreign aid policy assumes there are strategic benefits to such partnerships. Shorter-term benefits to the U.S. were part of the Title XII legislation that gave responsibility to U.S. universities to help reduce food insecurity around the world. This workshop considers IPM for examples of how U.S. university researchers, the private sector, and the U.S. economy benefit from international collaboration and how these benefits can be communicated to domestic stakeholders.
Moderator and Organizer:
Larry Vaughan, larryjv@vt.edu, Office of International Research, Education, and Development, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA
9:00 31.1 Delivering on the Promises of Title XII, Famine Prevention and Freedom from Hunger: United States Benefits from University Leadership in International Agricultural Development, Larry Vaughan, larryjv@vt.edu, Office of International Research, Education, and Development, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA
9:20 31.2 Justifying International Research to Domestic Stakeholders, Merle Shepard, mshprd@clemson.edu, Coastal Research and Education Center, Clemson University, Charleston, SC
9:40 31.3 Cocoa Pests and Diseases: Public/Private Partnership and the Role of the United States Cocoa Industry to Develop and Transfer Integrated Pest Management Technology, Prakash Hebbar, prakash.hebbar@effem.com, Mars Incorporated, USDA/ARS, Beltsville, MD
10:00 31.4 Bringing International Research Experiences Back to the Classroom, Greg Welbaum, welbaum@vt.edu, Department of Horticulture, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA
10:20 31.5 Lessons from the Peanut CRSP Project in Ghana, Rick Brandenburg, rick_brandenburg@ncsu.edu, Department of Entomology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC
10:40 31.6 The Mutual Benefits of Collaborative Integrated Pest Management Data-sharing Among International Agricultural Trade Partners, Ron Stinner, rstinner@cipm.info, Center for IPM, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC
32. Insecticides with Novel Modes of Action and their Role in Integrated Pest Management Programs: Part II
Our workshop includes recent developments of novel insecticides with selective properties that 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
9:00 32.1 Introduction, Isaac Ishaaya, vpisha@volcani.agri.gov.il, and A. Rami Horowitz, hrami@volcani.agri.gov.il, Agricultural Research Organization, Israel
9:05 32.2 Novel Insecticide Modes of Action and the Role of Residue Profiles in Tree Fruit Integrated Pest Management, Mark Whalon, whalon@msu.edu, and John Wise, Department of Entomology and Center for Integrated Plant Systems, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI
9:30 32.2 Integrated Pest Management in Cotton Using Novel Insecticides, Peter C. Ellsworth, peterell@ag.arizona.edu,and Virginia M. Barkley, vbarkley@cals.arizona.edu, Department of Entomology, Arizona Pest Management Center, Maricopa Agricultural Center, Maricopa, AZ
9:55 32.3 Insect Resistance Management Strategy of Bemisia tabaci as Part of Integrated Pest Management Programs, A. Rami Horowitz, hrami@volcani.agri.gov.il, Svetlana Kontsidalov, Vadim Khasdan, and Isaac Ishaaya, Agricultural Research Organization, Israel
10:20 32.4 Bt Events and Novel Seed Treatments: Their Role in Corn Integrated Pest Management, Roger R. Youngman, Youngman@vt.edu, and Siddharth Tiwari, Department of Entomology, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA
10:45 32.5 Fitness Cost and Behavioral Effect Associated with Pyriproxyfen (Juvenile Hormone Mimic) Resistance in Bemisia tabaci Q Biotype – Possible Field Implication, Shai Morin, morin@agri.huji.ac.il, Maggie Wilson, and Pnina Moshitsky, The Hebrew University, Rehovot, Israel; Murad Ghanim, Agricultural Research Organization, Israel
11:10 32.6 Concluding Remarks, Isaac Ishaaya, vpisha@volcani.agri.gov.il, and A. Rami Horowitz, hrami@volcani.agri.gov.il, Agricultural Research Organization, Israel
33. Demonstration Models for the Successful Implementation of School Integrated Pest Management at the State Level
Organizer:
Faith Oi, foi@ufl.edu, Entomology and Nematology Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
Moderator:
Norm Leppla, NCLeppla@ifas.ufl.edu, Entomology and Nematology Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
9:00 33.1 Introduction, Faith Oi, foi@ufl.edu, Entomology and Nematology Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
9:05 33.2 Demonstration Model, Marc Lame, mlame@indiana.edu, School of Environmental and Public Affairs, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN
9:15 33.3 Florida Model: The Brevard Pilot, Outsourcing Transitioning to In-House Pest Management, Rebecca Baldwin, baldwinr@ufl.edu, and Faith Oi, foi@ufl.edu, Entomology and Nematology Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
9:25 33.4 Alabama Model: Auburn City Schools and IPM Star, Lawrence Fudd Graham, fgraham@acesag.auburn.edu, Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, Auburn University, Auburn University, AL
9:35 33.5 Arizona Model: Experiences with Both In-House and Outsourced Pest Management, Dawn Gouge, dhgouge@Ag.Arizona.edu, and Jennifer Snyder, jsnyder@ag.arizona.edu, Maricopa Agricultural Center, University of Arizona, Maricopa, AZ
9:45 33.6 Summary, Norm Leppla, NCLeppla@ifas.ufl.edu, Entomology and Nematology Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
9:50 Additional discussion for the following questions:
· What are the merits of the demonstration tool?
· What are the advantages of in-house pest management versus outsourced pest management?
· Which model best functions for the various sized school districts?
· What is the role of Extension in maintaining school IPM programs?
· Are there ways to translate school IPM so that staff and children in schools can use it in other aspects of their lives?
· What about recognition and certification—IPM star model?
· What opportunities exist for funding and implementing demonstration?
34. Potential Mechanisms of Organic Matter Mediated Pest Suppression
Most soilborne pests are difficult to manage with synthetic pesticides. When they can be managed, the suppression is usually short-lived and expensive. Before pesticides were widely available, these pests were managed with varying degrees of success through crop rotation and organic amendments such as animal manures and green manures. Recently, researchers and farmers have renewed efforts to use organic matter mediated pest suppression. In this workshop, we will bring together researchers to discuss suppression mechanisms with a goal of broadening participants’ knowledge of current research and spurring further collaboration among people working in this area.
Moderator and Organizer:
Andy McGuire, amcguire@wsu.edu, Grant-Adams Area, Washington State University Extension, Ephrata, WA
9:00 34.1 Organic Matter Mediated General Suppression, Alex Stone, stonea@science.oregonstate.edu, Extension Vegetable Crops Specialist, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR
9:30 34.2 Functional Role of Soil Microorganisms in Brassica Amendment-induced Pest Control, Mark Mazzola, mazzola@tfrl.ars.usda.gov, USDA-ARS Tree Fruit Research Lab, Wenatchee, WA
10:00 34.3 Waste and Waste Not: Utilization of Organic Byproducts for Managing Soil Agro-ecosystems for Environmental and Plant Health, Kenneth L. Conn, connk@agr.gc.ca, Southern Crop Protection and Food Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, London, Ontario, Canada
10:30 34.4 Mechanisms of Broccoli-Mediated Soilborne Pathogen and Disease Suppression in Vegetable Cropping Systems, Krishna V. Subbarao, kvsubbarao@ucdavis.edu, Plant Pathology Extension, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA
1:00–3:00 PM
35. Grower View of Integrated Pest Management: The Canadian Experience
IPM programs, promoted to be the answer to pest management in an economical and environmental sustainability way for growers, have been developed and delivered for many crops, though primarily horticultural, in Canada since the 1980’s. This session growers, consultants and government evaluators will give the challenges, benefits and experiences on whether IPM has delivered on this promise.
Moderator and Organizer:
Margaret Appleby, margaret.appleby@omafra.gov.on.ca, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, Brighton, Ontario, Canada
1:00 35.1 Developing, Extending and Practicing Integrated Pest Management: The Wild Blueberry Story, Angus Ells, aells@bragglumber.com, Field Manager, Hillaton Foods, Bragg Lumber, Nova Scotia, Canada
Wild blueberries are a relatively new crop to be managed and farmed in the Maritimes and Maine. Hillaton Foods have a total of 35,000 acres of wild blueberries under an IPM program in this region. Over the course of 25 years an IPM program has been developed and refined for wild blueberries and now adopted by growers of Hillaton Foods in five distinct farming regions. Ells will share the success of IPM to this enterprise and outline his work with the farm managers to adopt and practice IPM in this wild but managed crop.
1:30 35.2 Doctor Farmer: Integrated Pest Management a Key Component of the Practice of Farming, Charles Stevens, berries@netrover.com, Wilmot Orchards, Newcastle, Ontario, Canada
With 25 years of experience growing apples and blueberries, Stevens will outline his thoughts on how IPM has worked and hasn’t worked for his operation. What is his vision as a grower for the future of IPM and how the practice of farming compares to the practice of medicine. Stevens has taken a leadership role in the province in encouraging growers to use IPM and he will share lessons learned on the development of a provincial grower-led IPM delivery service and the successes in a regional grower study group.
2:00 35.3 Consultant’s View: Why Growers Say Yes to Integrated Pest Management, Charlotte Leaming, cleaming@bctree.com, BC Tree Fruit Company, Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada
Consultants play a large role in the adoption of IPM in the field. In the field working with growers on a daily basis, they often determine what level of IPM is used and the practicality of the developed programs. With her experience as consultant for a number of years and now a packing house field person in the fruit growing region of British Columbia, Leaming will share her views and experiences on how and why growers use IPM on their farms.
2:30 35.4 Reducing Risks and Measuring the Success of Integrated Pest Management Adoption in Canada, Tim MacDonald, macdonaldt@agr.gc.ca, Pest Management Centre, AAFC, Ottawa, Canada
Canadian growers are working with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to reduce the risks of pesticide use by developing commodity-specific strategies aimed at improving both environmental sustainability and competitiveness. Growers identify priority pest management issues and, along with experts in the field of IPM, identify solutions and develop action plans. Funding and regulatory support are provided to assist growers in achieving the goals set in the strategy; for example, accelerating access to new products and implementing beneficial practices. To measure grower achievements, a crop protection survey has been created. The survey will collect information on pesticide use and IPM adoption across the country. Growers will benefit from participation in the survey by allowing funding to be focused on identified problems and by publicly showing the success achieved in reducing pesticide risk.
36. Management of Pesticide Resistance
The effective deployment of pesticides for insects, plant pathogens, and weeds within pest management programs should include strategies for delaying the development of pest resistance. This workshop will include the following topics: the mechanisms conferring resistance; how resistance evolves; what stimulates pesticide resistance; how effective are pesticide mixtures and rotations in delaying resistance; transgenic plants--are they more prone to pest resistance than conventional pesticides?; popular myths in resistance management; how do we avoid pesticide resistance and maintain environmental quality?,etc.
Moderators and Organizers:1:00 36.1 An Overview of Pesticide Resistance in the Last Fifty Years, Ian Denholm, ian.denholm@bbsrc.ac.uk, Department of Biological and Ecological Chemistry, IACR-Rothamsted, Harpenden, UK
Despite universal acceptance of the need to conduct insecticide resistance management within the framework of IPM, our ability to anticipate resistance problems and implement sustainable counter-measures remains challenged on several counts. New compounds are proving as vulnerable to resistance as those used widely in the past, and the accumulation of resistance mechanisms by key pests can lead to unexpected patterns of cross-resistance. In addition, the globalisation of agricultural trade is in some cases accelerating the spread of resistance genes between cropping systems. Simultaneously, however, there has been exciting progress with understanding resistance dynamics in the context of population ecology and genetics, and with forging partnerships between researchers, legislators, and agrochemical companies to manage resistance in a co-ordinated manner.
1:17 36.2 Current Progress on the Biochemistry and Molecular Biology of Insecticide Resistance, Frank Byrne, frank.byrne@ucr.edu, Department of Entomology, University of California, Riverside, CA
Resistance is measured in laboratory bioassays where the response of a test population is compared with that of a standard susceptible strain. This type of information is essential for assessing the cross-resistance potential between insecticides of the same and different classes. Biochemical and molecular techniques can generate more definitive data on whether the resistance is due to a metabolic mechanism or target site modification. They are also highly effective tools in field studies, where they can be used to detect low frequencies of resistance genes that might otherwise go undetected in conventional bioassays. In this presentation, Byrne will give a general overview of resistance mechanisms in the major insecticide classes, before dealing more specifically with recent progress on the elucidation of resistance mechanisms in the newer classes of insecticides.
1:34 36.3 Resistance to Novel Insecticides in B and Q Biotypes of Bemisia tabaci, A. Rami Horowitz, hrami@volcani.agri.gov.il, Department of Entomology, Agricultural Research Organization, M.P. Negev, Israel; Svetlana Kontsedalov, Department of Entomology, Agricultural Research Organization, Bet Dagan, Israel; Vadim Khasdan, Department of Entomology, Agricultural Research Organization, M.P. Negev, Israel; and Isaac Ishaaya, Department of Entomology, Agricultural Research Organization, Bet Dagan, Israel
Resistance monitoring for Bemisia tabaci field populations (mostly Q biotype) to the IGR, pyriproxyfen, was conducted from 1996 to 2005 in cotton fields in two areas of Israel. Although the use of pyriproxyfen ceased (because of the resistance) in these areas in 1996, resistance to pyriproxyfen declined to some extent but remained quite stable, and the susceptibility has not been totally restored. Under controlled conditions, selection with neonicotinoids on various B. tabaci strains resulted in continued pyriproxyfen resistance, predominantly of Q biotype. Based on our data, applications of either pyriproxyfen or neonicotinoids may select for biotype Q, which would survive to a greater degree where these insecticides are applied.
1:51 36.4 A Decade of Intensive Management of Arthropod Resistance to Biorational Insecticides in Arizona Cotton, Timothy J. Dennehy, tdennehy@ag.arizona.edu, Department of Entomology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ
Simultaneous deployment in 1996 of highly selective, biorational controls for whiteflies (Bemisia tabaci) and pink bollworm (Pectinophora gossypiella), within the framework of a comprehensive extension education program, resulted in a textbook success in IPM in Arizona cotton. Pesticide use has dropped to unprecedented low levels and survival of natural enemies has been sustained at equally unusual high levels. Sustaining this success hinges foremost on maintaining the efficacy of Bt cotton against pink bollworm, and the growth-regulating and neonicotinoid insecticides against whiteflies. Dennehy will summarize statewide resistance management activities addressing these objectives and highlight the central role that the Extension Arthropod Resistance Management Laboratory serves in responding to resistance problems that threaten to undermine this success in cotton IPM.
2:08 36.5 Impact of Herbicide-Resistant Crops on Resistant Weeds in Western Canada, Linda M. Hall, linda.hall@gov.ab.ca, Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development/University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada; Hugh J. Beckie, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
Western Canadian cropping systems are dominated by spring annual cereals with canola and pulses in rotation. Over 30 years, herbicide effectiveness has increased and weed densities and diversity declined. This system selected many resistant weeds, primarily annual grass weeds resistant to Group 1 and 2 herbicides and annual broadleaf weeds resistant to Group 2’s. Herbicide-resistant canola, by increasing cropping system diversity, may reduce selection and increase control options for resistant weeds. However, herbicide-resistant and multiple-resistant canola volunteers present additional control requirements. However, if resistant canola is used to simplify cropping systems, we predict the selection of additional resistant weeds, including glyphosate-resistant weeds.
It’s widely believed that pesticide mixtures help manage resistance, but many if not most pesticides are initially applied in the field as mosaics, with some users preferring one pesticide and their neighbors using another at any given time. Unfortunately, mosaics are the worst way to deploy pesticides for resistance management. Further, there is little data to support the claim that mixtures delay resistance. Models and lab experiments show that mixtures can significantly delay resistance only if a number of conditions are met, the most difficult being high efficacy of each of the mixing partners. Well-managed seasonal rotations are usually the best way to delay resistance.
2:42 36.7 Management of Pesticide Resistance: The Industry Perspective, David Rogers, david.rogers@bayercropscience.com, Bayer CropScience, Research Triangle Park, NC
IRAC, the Insecticide Resistance Action Committee is a consortium of crop protection industry scientists whose mission is to work with customers and stakeholders at each level to keep all classes of insecticides and acaricides as viable control options. IRAC is associated with CropLife as a technical advisory group and is involved at an International and Local Country levels. Discussions will include mission and objectives as well as recent activities of the Education and Neonicotinoid sub-committees, recently revised mode of action table, mode of action labeling on products and plans for future activities.
37. The State of Integrated Pest Management for Corn and Soybean? Modern Crop Protection Technologies under Scrutiny
IPM should be a significant contributor to the efficient, economic, and safe production field crops. Fortunately, numerous cost-effective inputs are available in corn and soybean for pest management. However, it seems as though several technologies, genetic traits, and inputs are being promoted and used in manners that challenge the core principles of IPM. The demise of IPM in these crops may leave a vast acreage where pesticides are inappropriately used and may threaten the long-term viability of these valuable technologies. This symposium will scrutinize the state of IPM for insect, disease, and weed management in corn and soybean.
Moderator and Organizer:
Chris Boerboom, boerboom@wisc.edu, Department of Agronomy, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI
Co-Organizers:
Kevin Steffey, ksteffey@uiuc.edu, Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL; Don Hershman, dhershma@uky.edu, Department of Plant Pathology, University of Kentucky, Princeton, KY
1:00 37.1 Integrated Pest Management Redux: The Costs of Managing Insects in Corn and Soybeans, Kevin Steffey, ksteffey@uiuc.edu, Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL
Within the past few years, the pursuit of higher yields and profits (neither inherently bad pursuits) and competition among agricultural input suppliers (also not a bad thing) have resulted in insect control practices that do not always abide the original principles of IPM. This discussion will focus on the economics and ecological costs of managing insects in corn and soybeans, with emphasis on current and emerging issues and concerns about some pest control practices. The discussion is not intended to renounce all of the examples provided, but rather to direct attention to the possible consequences of unbridled insect control activities.
1:40 37.2 Plant Health Applications of Fungicide in Soybean: A Paradox to the Integrated Pest Management Paradigm?, Don Hershman, dhershma@uky.edu, Department of Plant Pathology, University of Kentucky, Princeton, KY
Approximately 10% of the U.S. soybean acres were treated with a fungicide, primarily a strobilurin, in 2005. Applications were made to optimize general plant health, not to manage specific disease threats. This use philosophy contradicts historic IPM–based pesticide use where applications are made in response to a specific pest threat. When reproductive soybean are treated with a strobilurin, they have yielded either less than or up to 20 bu/A more than non-treated soybean in numerous trials throughout the soybean belt. Generally, the trend is towards higher yields in treated soybean, even without apparent disease pressure, but economic return is often not achieved. “Plant health” applications are also being made as “insurance” against soybean rust, even when the risk is extremely low. The impasse between current fungicide use strategies in soybean and IPM will be discussed.
2:20 37.3 Can Integrated Weed Management Technologies Match the Competition?, Chris Boerboom, boerboom@wisc.edu, Department of Agronomy, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI
The merits of integrated weed management (IWM) are simple and compelling. IWM should combine our knowledge of weed biology and weed-crop interactions and our use of multiple management practices to achieve profitable and sustainable cropping systems. Despite our abilities to employ many elements of IWM, current trends suggest that corn and soybean growers prefer the simple systems that crop protection technologies provide, as illustrated by the adoption of glyphosate-resistant soybean and corn. However, these simple systems may not be sustainable because of glyphosate-resistant weeds, and their profitability is often compromised by poor application timing. Advances in IWM technologies may be required to provide sufficient benefits for IWM to compete with herbicide technologies.
2:50 Panel and Audience Discussion
38. Successes in On-Line Integrated Pest Management Delivery
As our clientele increasingly uses internet resources, many IPM programs have developed or adapted resources for the internet. The proposed mini-symposium will highlight some of these resources, how they have evolved, and attributes that have made them particularly attractive to both the designers and clients. The symposium will be divided into three areas: written resource materials, images, and collaborations in on-line delivery. Collaborations that have strengthened IPM on-line delivery include the IPM Centers and the national Diagnostic Network system. The IPM Centers have helped to develop and strengthen collaborations among regions, and the Diagnostic Network system has been instrumental in supporting diagnostic activities, many of which are internet-based and pest alert systems.
Moderators and Organizers:
Sue Blodgett, blodgett@montana.edu, Department of Animal and Range Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT; Frank Peairs, fbpeairs@colostate.edu, Department of Bioagricultural Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO
1:00 Introduction
1:05 38.1 Evolution of the High Plains Integrated Pest Management Guide and Workgroup, Gary Hein, ghein1@unl.edu, Department of Entomology, Scott’s Bluff Research and Extension Center, University of Nebraska, Scotts Bluff, NE; Frank Peairs, Colorado State University; Jack Campbell, University of Nebraska; Mike Brewer, Michigan State University; Sue Blodgett, Montana State University; Will Lanier, Montana State University; Whitney Cranshaw, Colorado State University; Howard Schwartz, Colorado State University
Extension and Agricultural Experiment station entomologists and plant pathologists from Montana State University, Colorado State University, University of Wyoming, and University of Nebraska (western districts) have cooperatively developed and produced The High Plains Integrated Pest Management Guide for Colorado-Western Nebraska-Wyoming-Montana (Guide). Conversion of the print edition, first published in 1998, to an online edition “HighPlainsIPM.org” eliminated printing and distribution expenses, incorporated pest illustrations and a search engine. This guide provides current effective management options for insect and other arthropod pests, and for plant pathogens affecting all major field crops grown in Colorado, Montana, Wyoming, and Western Nebraska. Chemical and non-chemical control practices, when available, are described in detail for individual pests and pathogens.
1:30 38.2 The Oregon State University Integrated Plant Protection Center Program, Paul Jepson, jepsonp@bcc.orst.edu, Department of Entomology, and Leonard Coop, coopl@science.oregonstate.edu, Department of Botany and Plant Pathology and Integrated Plant Protection Center (IPPC), Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR
Operating within the education/research matrix of Oregon State University, the Integrated Plant Protection Center (IPPC), IPPC’s goals are to: actively promote interdisciplinary interaction and a team approach to IPM research, training and extension, contribute to the advancement of IPM theory and practice, serve Oregon citizens by improving crop protection through education in the safe and efficient use of pesticides by disseminating timely information on pests and pesticide related issues and by promoting a wide-range of pest management techniques, assist agriculturists in developing countries to increase food and fiber production through application of sound IPM principles and to avoid pesticide-related problems to humans, animals, and the environment.
1:50 38.3 Montana’s Integrated Pest Management Program: Developing a Museum IPM Program and a Regional Cutworm Forecast, Sue Blodgett, blodgett@montana.edu, Department of Animal and Range Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT; Will Lanier, Montana State University; Leonard Coop, Oregon State University; Chris Ford, Grant-Kohrs Ranch, Deer Lodge, MT
The Museum IPM Program was developed by a cooperative agreement between MSU-ES-IPM Program, Rocky Mountains Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit (RM-CESU), and the Grant-Kohrs Ranch. Museum professionals need accurate and current information about monitoring and managing pests that can cause damage to irreplaceable artifacts. This pest management program is designed for the specialized needs of museum collections and offers a Museum IPM Starter Kit, video training units, and power point slides, all available on the web at http://scarab.msu.montana.edu/IPMMuseum/.
2:15 38.4 Partnerships with the Homeland Security Program: The Plant Diagnostics Information System (PDIS) Role in Integrated Pest Management Delivery, Jim Stack, jstack@ksu.edu, Department of Plant Pathology, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS
The Great Plains Diagnostic Network (GPDN) is one of five regional networks established in 2002 as a joint effort of USDA and the Department of Homeland Security. The GPDN supports a secure agricultural system by rapid diction of outbreaks, accurate diagnoses of problems, and early response to minimize pest impacts through a coordinated secure communications, and training of first detectors. The Great Plains Diagnostic Network (GPDN) is a consortium of nine states: Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Nebraska, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas, and represents one region of the National Plant Diagnostic Network.
2:40 38.5 The Western Regional IPM Center Delivers IPM, Rick Melnicoe, rsmelnicoe@ucdavis.edu, Western Region IPM Center, University of California, Davis, CA, and Tom Holtzer, tholtzer@lamar.colostate.edu, Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO
The Western Integrated Pest Management Center is one of four centers in a national network established to strengthen USDA's connection with production agriculture, research and extension programs, and agricultural stakeholders throughout the United States. The Center's most basic function is to develop and maintain a pest management information network that will contribute to environmentally and economically sound pest management decisions. The network serves two major purposes: to facilitate communication among pest management stakeholders, and to provide these stakeholders with broad access to pest management information. The Western IPM Center includes Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii and other Pacific Islands, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
As the name implies, cycad aulacaspis scale (CAS), Aulacaspis yasumatsui Takagi (Hemiptera: Diaspididae), is a pest of cycads, primarily the genus Cycas (which comprises nearly 1/3 of all known extant cycad taxa). It is native to regions with wild Cycas populations, from the Andaman Islands across to Vietnam, Thailand, and most likely Cambodia, Laos, peninsular Malaysia, Myanmar, and southernmost China. In areas that lack natural enemies to keep it in check, it is an extremely aggressive pest. In recent years, it has spread through human activity and commerce to the point where two species of cycads face imminent extinction in the wild. This mini-symposium, dedicated solely to CAS, will begin with a general overview of the pest, its global distribution and background on invasions, and the status of the natural populations of the two cycad species recently affected by CAS. The second presenter will discuss identification and diagnostic issues with respect to CAS. The third presenter will discuss CAS natural enemies and biocontrol. The fourth presenter will discuss collaborative work on CAS between a botanical garden in Florida and researchers from the USDA and the University of Florida and the development of a CAS IPM program at the garden. The final presenter will discuss two relatively new insecticides that have been labeled for CAS, their modes of action, and their integration into a CAS management program.
Moderator and Organizer:
Jody L. Haynes, jhay@montgomerybotanical.org, Collections Development Department, Montgomery Botanical Center, Miami, FL
1:00 39.1 Cycad Aulacaspis Scale: Invasive Pest with Extinction Potential!, Jody L. Haynes, jhay@montgomerybotanical.org, Collections Development Department, Montgomery Botanical Center, Miami, FL
1:22 39.2 Field and Taxonomic Identification of Cycad Aulacaspis Scale, Aulacaspis yasumatsui Takagi, Amanda C. Hodges, achodges@ufl.edu, Department of Entomology & Nematology, University of Florida–Institute of Food & Agricultural Sciences, Gainesville, FL
1:44 39.3 Natural Enemies of the Cycad Aulacaspis Scale, Ronald D. Cave, rdcave@ifas.ufl.edu, Indian River Research & Education Center, University of Florida – Institute of Food & Agricultural Sciences, Ft. Pierce, FL
2:06 39.4 Development of an Integrated Pest Management Solution for Aulacaspis yasumatsui Takagi (Cycad Aulacaspis Scale) and its Impact on Future Scale Control, Christine L. Wiese, cwie@montgomerybotanical.org, Horticulture & Facilities Department, Montgomery Botanical Center, Miami, FL
2:28 39.5 Integration of Safari® and Distance® IGR into a Management Program for Cycad Aulacaspis Scale, Joseph R. Chamberlin, joe.chamberlin@valent.com, Professional Products Group, Valent USA Corporation, Snellville, GA
2:50 Panel Discussion/Summary
40. Providing Decision Making Analytical Tools to Integrated Pest Management Managers: Pesticide Use Reporting System (SCC-PUR) (2.4 Mbytes)
Sustainable pest management requires an integrated approach. Pesticides are one of many tools used in IPM. Majority of non-agriculture and structural pest management focuses on pesticide applications for right of way, turf and landscape, rangelands and indoors. Pesticides are initially distributed in the environment at application, with the intent of maximizing efficacy while minimizing off-site movement and adverse impacts on human and environmental health. A better understanding of initial distribution and redistribution via processes such as airborne loss, run-off and leaching is necessary to characterize both human occupational and non-occupational exposure, and assess risks to biota in surrounding ecosystems. Understanding the initial distribution in the environment at the landscape scale requires information on pesticide use practices.
Timely spatial data such as the identity of pesticide, amount, target pest and site GIS can be enormously useful both in the protection of human and environmental health. Accurate information can help provide better risk assessments and illuminate pest management practices that are particularly problematic so they can be targeted for development of alternatives. In situations where more toxic chemicals must be used, the data will help managers to employ training & technologies specifically designed to protect applicators, workers, and the environment. It is also useful in making short and long-term policy and budgeting decisions related to IPM and best management practice.
SCC-PUR discusses framework, user data entry process, provides analytical tools for IPM decision making processes, cost-economics, worker safety, environmental data, compliance to signage posting and regulatory reports, and public access to data for structural and non-agriculture pest management.
Organizer and Presenter:
Naresh Duggal, Naresh.Duggal@ceo.sccgov.org, Integrated Pest Management, County of Santa Clara, San Jose, CA
1:00–3:00 PM Interactive Workshop
The United States Farm Bill recognizes the environmental value of IPM by authorizing financial assistance to growers through two USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) programs: Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and Conservation Security Program (CSP). From 2003-2005, Michigan State University, agricultural consultants, and commodity groups worked with their NRCS program and county colleagues to recommend financial incentive rates for IPM implementation and to help growers apply to the programs. Members of this team will share their experiences that resulted in increased grower participation in EQIP and CSP and increased program funds devoted to grower adoption of IPM ranging from scouting to reduced-risk and non-pesticide management methods.
Moderator and Organizer:
Mike Brewer, brewerm@msu.edu, Department of Entomology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI
1:00–3:00 PM Interactive Panel Discussion
Mike Brewer, brewerm@msu.edu, Department of Entomology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI
Mark Whalon, whalon@msu.edu, Department of Entomology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI
Norm Myers, myersn@msu.edu, Oceana County Extension, Michigan State University, Hart MI
Nikki Rothwell, rothwel3@msu.edu, NW Michigan Horticultural Station, Michigan State University, Traverse City, MI
Jim Laubach, jlaubach@centurytel.net, Hort Systems, Inc, Honor, MI
John Bakker, maabhart@core.com, Michigan Asparagus Advisory Board, DeWitt, MI
Larry Elworth, lelworth@agcenter.org, Center for Agricultural Partnerships, Asheville NC
Benjamin Smallwood, Benjamin.Smallwood@usda.gov, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DC
42. Implementing Ecologically-Based Participatory Integrated Pest Management in a Global Context: The New IPM CRSP
The purpose of this workshop is to report on the status of the development of the program of the new IPM CRSP and to inform interested individuals of the opportunities to be a part of the program. The need for IPM in a global context and a brief history of the old IPM CRSP (1992–2004) will be presented. The vision of the new IPM CRSP will be presented by the new IPM CRSP partners. In November, 2004 the IPM CRSP began implementation of an Ecologically-Based, Participatory Integrated Pest Management (EP-IPM) program built around competitively designed Regional IPM Centers and critical cross-cutting themes. Technical, social/cultural, policy/legal, economic, educational, and logistical constraints are being addressed within these regional and thematic programs. The programs are based on strong partnerships among U.S. universities, host country institutions, International Agricultural Research Centers (IARCs), USAID Missions, private sector entities, and others. Regional centers are being established in seven regions of the world with emphasis on host country capacity building, developing post-program sustainability and scaling up of local successes for national, regional, and global application. IPM issues that can more effectively be addressed globally because they involve a problem that is similar around the world are included in the Global Theme program. Five critical issues selected for funding as Global Themes are: (1) invasive species, (2) insect-transmitted viruses, (3) regional diagnostic laboratories, (4) IPM information technologies and databases, and (5) impact assessment.
Moderator and Organizer:
Karim Maredia, kmaredia@msu.edu, Institute of International Agriculture, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI
1:00 42.1 Need for IPM in a Global Context, Donald Plucknett, ipm-dir@vt.edu, IPM CRSP, Virginia Tech, and Larry Vaughan, larryjv@vt.edu, IPM CRSP, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA
1:15 42.2 Networking: IPM CRSP Partners and Collaborating Institutions, E. A. Heinrichs, eheinric@vt.edu, International Association for the Plant Protection Sciences (IAPPS), Blacksburg, VA
1:30 42.3 Regional IPM Centers, Karim Maredia, kmaredia@msu.edu, Institute of International Agriculture, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI
1:45 42.4 Invasive Species, Wondi Mersie, wmersie@vsu.edu, Agriculture Research Station, Virginia State University, Petersburg, VA
2:00 42.5 Insect Transmitted Viruses, Sue Tolin, stolin@vt.edu, Department of Plant Pathology, Physiology, & Weed Science, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA
2:15 42.6 Regional Diagnostic Laboratories, Sally Miller, miller.769@osu.edu, Department of Plant Pathology, The Ohio State University, Wooster, OH
2:30 42.7 Information Technologies and Databases, Yulu Xia, yulu_xia@ncsu.edu, National Science Foundation Center for Integrated Pest Management (NSF Center for IPM), North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC
2:45 42.8 Impact Assessment, George Norton, gnorton@vt.edu, Department of Agricultural & Applied Economics, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA
43. Web-Based Residential Integrated Pest Management Education
The goal of this workshop is to share ideas, strategies, and web-based techniques to teach residential audiences about IPM. A selection of highly successful programs from Cornell University, Texas A&M University, University of California, and the University of Maryland will be presented. The participants of the workshop will learn creative ways to transfer IPM information from land grant universities and government to the public to help them adopt IPM principles and make informed decisions on pest management problems. There will be an opportunity for participants to interact with the presenters and share ideas.
Moderators and Organizers:
Mary Kay Malinoski, mkmal@umd.edu, and David L. Clement, clement@umd.edu, Home and Garden Information Center, University of Maryland, Ellicott City, MD
1:00 43.1 A New Look for Maryland's Online Residential Resources, Mary Kay Malinoski, mkmal@umd.edu, and David L. Clement, clement@umd.edu, Home and Garden Information Center, University of Maryland, Ellicott City, MD
1:30 43.2 Engaging Citizen Scientists in Invasive Species Research, Lori Bushway, ljb7@cornell.edu, Garden-based Learning Program, Department of Horticulture, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY
2:00 43.3 Web-Based Integrated Pest Management Resources for Urban Audiences in California, Mary Louise Flint, mlflint@ucdavis.edu, University of California Statewide Integrated Pest Management Program, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA
2:30 43.4 Internet Integrated Pest Management Resources for Texans, Michael Merchant, m-merchant@tamu.edu, Texas Cooperative Extension, Texas A & M University, Dallas, TX
44. Emerging Urban Integrated Pest Management Certification Opportunities
Representatives from four urban IPM certification programs in the United States and Canada will provide an overview of their programs, discuss the difficulties they overcame, and provide practical tips on how to begin a certification program in your area and market an IPM service for your company.
Moderators and Organizers:
Tanya Drlik, tdrlik@earthlink.net, Bio-Integral Research Center, Berkeley, CA, and Thomas Green, ipmworks@ipminstitute.org, IPM Institute of North America, Madison, WI
1:00–3:00 PM Interactive Panel Discussion
Tanya Drlik [presentation], tdrlik@earthlink.net, Bio-Integral Research Center, Berkeley, CA
Thomas Green [presentation], ipmworks@ipminstitute.org, IPM Institute of North America, Madison, WI
Ken Pavely[presentation], kpavely@sympatico.ca, IPM/PHC Council of Canada, Milton, Ontario, Canada
Carrie Foss [presentation], cfoss@wsu.edu, Puyallup Research and Extension Center, Washington State University, Puyallup, WA
44A. Integrated Control of Tsetse and Ticks
Tsetse and tick-borne diseases (TBDs) cost Africa about $5 billion per year in livestock
production associated losses. About 50 million cattle and tens of millions of small ruminants are at risk of trypanosomiasis. In addition, 24 million cattle are at risk of a tick transmitted parasite, Theileria parva, found on the eastern coast of Africa. Control of the two vectors, tsetse and ticks, in Kenya and other African countries has relied largely on the governmental sponsored insecticide programs. Privatization of many veterinary services has resulted in novel bait technologies for tsetse control and pyrethroid-treated cattle to control ticks. However, widespread adoption of these technologies is hampered due to costs of the technology, environmental impact, acaricide resistance and enzootic stability. Sustainability strategies for tsetse and tick management, including selective treatment of animals and sites, will be presented during this session.
Moderator and Organizer: Phoebe Mukiria, phoebemukiria@yahoo.com, Trypanosomiasis Research Centre, Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, Kikuyu, Kenya
Interactive Discussion 1:00–3:00 PM
Phoebe Mukiria, phoebemukiria@yahoo.com, James Mutuku, Sylvance Okoth, and Grace Murilla, Trypanosomiasis Research Centre, Agricultural Research Institute, Kikuyu, Kenya
Wednesday, April 5, 2006
Afternoon: 3:30-5:30 PM
45. Phytophthora ramorum (Sudden Oak Death) in Wildlands and Nurseries
The introduction of Phytophthora ramorum, cause of Sudden Oak Death and other diseases, to western forests has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of oak and tanoak trees since the mid 1990s. The discovery of this same pathogen on popular nursery plants, and the inadvertent shipment of potentially infested stock to nurseries across the country, has led to increasing concerns in the nursery industry, as well as for the safety of forests and landscapes. Extensive media coverage has fueled public worries and local agencies and officials may find themselves forced to answer questions and make regulatory decisions regarding this pathogen with limited scientific information.
This session will provide important material regarding early P. ramorum detection and emergency response when a confirmation is made in a nursery or landscape setting. Background information on the pathogen and the risks it presents to our forests and gardens will also be provided. In addition, symptoms, look-alike diseases, and diagnosis on host plants will be covered, as will quarantine regulations, inspection procedures, response protocols, treatment options, and best management practices. Ongoing research efforts will also be discussed. Session speakers include leading researchers and extension specialists on Sudden Oak Death/Phytophthora ramorum primarily from California and Oregon.
Moderator and Organizer:
Janice Alexander, jalexander@ucdavis.edu, California Oak Mortality Task Force, University of California Cooperative Extension, Davis, CA
3:30 45.1 History and description of Phytophthora ramorum, Janice Alexander, jalexander@ucdavis.edu, California Oak Mortality Task Force, University of California Cooperative Extension, Davis, CA
3:40 45.2 Phytophthora ramorum in Forests and Wildlands, Janice Alexander, jalexander@ucdavis.edu, California Oak Mortality Task Force, University of California Cooperative Extension, Davis, CA
3:50 45.3 Phytophthora ramorum in Nurseries and Landscaping, Jennifer L. Parke, Jennifer.parke@oregonstate.edu, Department of Crop and Soil Science, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR
4:10 45.4 RegulationsFederal, State and International, Jonathan M. Jones, jmjones@aphis.usda.gov, USDA-APHIS-PPQ Invasive Species and Pest Management, Riverdale, MD
4:35 45.5 Best Management Practices: Integrated Pest Management for Prevention of Establishment, Jennifer L. Parke, Jennifer.parke@oregonstate.edu, Department of Crop and Soil Science, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR
4:50 45.6 Research Update, Jennifer L. Parke, Jennifer.parke@oregonstate.edu, Department of Crop and Soil Science, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR
5:05 45.7 Communications: Emergency Response and Education, Janice Alexander, jalexander@ucdavis.edu, California Oak Mortality Task Force, University of California Cooperative Extension, Davis, CA
5:20 Discussion
46. Glyphosate Stewardship: Impacts across the United States Landscape
Glyphosate stewardship is the number one topic currently discussed among university weed scientists. Glyphosate resistance, shifts in weed populations, the loss of older herbicides (due to lack of use or lack of financial support from basic manufacturers to maintain registration), drift management, and the proper use of glyphosate to preserve crop yields are all important aspects of glyphosate stewardship. The loss of glyphosate as a weed management option not only impacts weed control, it would likely have a negative impact on the success and utilization of no-till practices for corn, soybean, and cotton production and all of the positive environmental and economic benefits that are associated with no-till practices. Agriculture is not the only industry that would be affected with the loss of the utility of glyphosate; golf courses, rights-of-way, and home lawns are all other aspects of the landscape that will be influenced. Wide-spread use of glyphosate and release of Roundup Ready alfalfa, turf, and sugar beets will not doubt create management challenges across both rural and urban landscapes. Symposium goals include: (1) Inform attendees about information on the current status and the issues around glyphosate-resistant weeds and glyphosate stewardship across several different use scenarios or cropping systems in the U.S. landscape, (2) Communicate to other integrated pest management practitioners the current educational materials and initiatives that weed scientists in the North Central and North East Region have initiated regarding glyphosate stewardship.
Moderators and Organizers:
Christy Sprague, sprague1@msu.edu, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI; William G. Johnson, wgj@purdue.edu, Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN; Micheal Owen, mdowen@iastate.edu, Department of Agronomy, Iowa State University, Ames, IA
3:30 46.1 Current Status of Glyphosate-resistant Weeds in the U.S., Micheal D. K. Owen, mdowen@iastate.edu, Department of Agronomy, Iowa State University, Ames, IA
The unprecedented adoption of glyphosate-based cropping systems and the concomitant use of glyphosate has resulted in dramatically increased selection pressure on weed communities in the United States. Despite claims that glyphosate has been used for over 30 years and thus the evolution of glyphosate-resistant weeds has occurred slowly, evidence indicates that there are strong correlations with the glyphosate-based cropping systems within the last 10 years with the recent reports of weeds that are resistant to glyphosate. Currently six weeds in the US are reported to have glyphosate-resistant biotypes. Two, horseweed and Palmer amaranth, represent pervasive problems for agriculture. Several other weeds are suspected to have evolved glyphosate-resistant populations.
3:50 46.2 Perspectives on Glyphosate Technologies in Turf and Ornamentals, Shawn D. Askew, saskew@vt.edu, Department of Plant Pathology, Physiology, and Weed Science, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA
Glyphosate is one of the only herbicides whose trade name (Roundup™) is a household name and is routinely used by homeowners. In turfgrass and ornamentals, glyphosate is used as a directed spray, wick, or cut-stump treatment to control a variety of weeds. Glyphosate is often the product of choice to renovate turfgrass on athletic facilities, residential areas, and production farms. The general public is so familiar with glyphosate, it is often not placed in the same class with other “pesticides,” even by anti-pesticide activists. Glyphosate has been approved by many metropolitan and conservatory groups to control invasive weeds, while other pesticides continue to meet strong opposition. Glyphosate was even approved for use on the Galapagos Islands. Glyphosate-resistant creeping bentgrass is the most recent advancement in glyphosate technology for turfgrass markets. The strongest opposition to deregulation of glyphosate-resistant creeping bentgrass is the potential release of a weed that is resistant to the familiar herbicide glyphosate in residential and natural areas.
4:05 46.3 Perspectives on Glyphosate Technologies within the North Central Cropping Systems, Chris Boerboom, boerboom@wisc.edu, Department of Agronomy, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI
Glyphosate technologies in the north central region consist primarily of glyphosate use as a burndown herbicide and use in concert with glyphosate-resistant crops. Glyphosate is an important element in the success of no-till systems in many states, and the soil saving benefits are indisputable. Glyphosate technologies are the principle management system in soybean, and adoption is increasing in corn and other crops. The efficacy, cost, application simplicity, and environmental profile are key benefits of glyphosate technologies, but unrealistic expectations diminish potential profits for many growers. In addition, glyphosate systems are vulnerable to weeds with evolved resistance or species shifts. Education is warranted to improve the current management of glyphosate technologies and make them more robust for the future.
span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>4:20 46.4 Impact and Management of Glyphosate-Resistant Weeds in the Southern Region, Lawrence E. Steckel, lsteckel@utk.edu, Department of Plant Sciences, University of Tennessee, Jackson, TN; A. Stanley Culpepper, stanley@uga.edu, Crop and Soil Sciences-CES, University of Georgia, Athens, GA4:35 46.5 The Importance of Glyphosate to Great Plains Cropping Systems, Dallas E. Peterson, dpeterso@k-state.edu, Extension Weed Management, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS
The use of glyphosate for weed control in eco-fallow and prior to planting helped facilitate the shift to no-till crop production in the Great Plains region, resulting in better water and soil conservation, crops yields, and profitability. Glyphosate-use has intensified tremendously in recent years due to the rapid adoption of glyphosate- resistant crops and the reduction in glyphosate price. Intensive reliance on glyphosate weed control programs has resulted in weed shifts and increases the risk of developing glyphosate-resistant weeds. The development of glyphosate resistant weeds could threaten the sustainability of current cropping systems in the Great Plains region.
4:50 46.6 Impacts of Glyphosate Stewardship on the Landscape in their Region, Panel Discussion, Micheal Owen, Shawn Askew, Lawrence Steckel, Dallas Peterson
5:10 46.7 Glyphosate Resistant Weeds: Current Educational Efforts and Future Needs, William G. Johnson, wgj@purdue.edu, Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN
This presentation will describe the efforts of Extension Weed Scientists in the Midwest and Eastern U.S. to improve growers’ ability to control weeds in cropping systems that rely heavily on glyphosate. New extension publications which focus on proper management of glyphosate, the economic impacts of glyphosate-resistant weeds, and the biology and management of specific weeds which escape control measures were developed. Financial support to develop the publications was obtained from the USDA NIFA NCIPM program, and donations from BASF, Bayer Crop Sciences, Dow AgroSciences, Dupont, Syngenta, and Valent USA.
47. The Agricultural Chemical Industry-A Leader in Implementing Integrated Pest Management
This symposium will provide a quick survey of the many ways that the Ag Chemical Industry is in the forefront; pushing the implementation of IPM at the grower level. Speakers will discuss the activities of the RACs in establishing resistance management guidelines on the local and global level, resistance-management education efforts, our cooperation with commodity groups, government regulators, and in developing strategies for resistance-management of new chemistry. The training and education efforts for safe and targeted pesticide applications as provided at the dealer level with focus on the interaction with crop consultants, Certified Crop Advisor programs, USDA and Extension Service, and the balance between IPM, profitable farming, and chemical sales will be reviewed. Speakers will discuss the strategies implemented for protecting our genetic resources, the regulatory environment, and grower compliance when growing GMO crops. We will present an overview of Industry financial support for the principles of IPM including container recycling programs, grower education, resistance monitoring, water monitoring, and basic research. The success story of restoring the balance in white fly sensitivity to the neo-nicatonoid insecticides will conclude the discussion.
Moderator and Organizer:
Roger P. Kaiser, roger.kaiser@bayercropscience.com, Bayer CropScience, Research Triangle Park, NC
3:30 47.1 Introduction, Roger P. Kaiser, roger.kaiser@bayercropscience.com, Bayer CropScience, Research Triangle Park, NC
This symposium will provide a quick survey of the many ways that the Ag Chemical Industry is in the forefront; pushing the implementation of IPM at the grower level.
3:40 47.2 Resistance Action Committees: Successfully Implementing Product Stewardship, Roger P. Kaiser, roger.kaiser@bayercropscience.com, Bayer CropScience, Research Triangle Park, NC
The Resistance Action Committees Fungicide (FRAC) Insecticide (IRAC) and Herbicide (HRAC) are industry sponsored organizations that function as clearinghouses for information on resistance-management (RM), best management practices, and as coordinators of basic research into resistance development and management strategies. Manufacturers and growers face competing objectives when implementing RM. For both groups, short term sales and profit goals are frequently in conflict with long term stewardship of chemical tools. Government regulation, conflicting research results, and inadequate grower education make implementation of RM difficult. Examples of how industry has responded to these issues will be presented.
4:00 47.3 Educating the Grower and the Consultant: Practical On-farm Applications of Integrated Pest Management, Greg Willoughby, willoughbyg@helenachemical.com, Helena Chemical Company, Indianapolis, IN
Education of sound agronomic principles has traditionally been the responsibility of the Land Grant Colleges through their extension programs. The changing role of these Universities in the Midwest and the shift in population from production agriculture into non agricultural sectors has inherently shifted some of this education into the private realm. In many cases, we now have the extension system in a “teaching the teacher” role or it is being accomplished through pesticide applicator programs. An overview of some of these programs will be covered.
4:20 47.4 Managing Our Genetic Resources in Corn: The GMO/Bt Story, Graham Head, graham.p.head@monsanto.com, Monsanto Company, St. Louis, MO
Genetically modified corn expressing genes for pest insect control (Bt corn) has been enthusiastically received by growers since its introduction a decade ago. Stewardship of this new technology has been a priority for industry, leading to the formation of the Agricultural Biotechnology Stewardship Technical Committee (ABSTC). ABSTC is a consortium of companies and associations that addresses scientific issues central to the stewardship of Bt corn. ABSTC has been particularly active in developing and implementing practical insect-resistance management plans for Bt corn. ABSTC also has addressed issues of environmental safety and animal feed performance related to Bt corn.
4:40 47.5 Financial Support for IPM from Industry: What We Do, Thomas Hall, Thall@croplifeamerica.org, Crop Life America, Washington, DC
An overview of Industry support for the principles of IPM will be shared. Container recycling, grower education, resistance monitoring, water monitoring, and basic research will be some of the topics discussed.
5:00 47.6 Cooperative Efforts in Managing Resistance to the Neo-nicotinoid Chemistry in Florida, Dave Schuster, dschuster@ifas.ulf.edu, IFAS, Gulf Coast Research & Education Center, University of Florida, Wimauma, FL
The neo-nicotinoids are important tools in the management of the sweetpotato whitefly on tomato in Florida. Industry-sponsored resistance monitoring for imidacloprid indicated that the average RR50 value for whitefly adults increased from 3.7 in 2000 to 14.7 in 2003. A resistance management committee consisting of agrichemical and agricultural consultant representatives and University of Florida research and extension personnel formulated management recommendations consisting of insecticide program and cultural manipulation components. These recommendations, along with IRAC pesticide classifications, were extended to growers through university- and industry-sponsored meetings and in-service training, and through meeting proceedings, popular articles, newsletters, fact sheets and on-line publications. The average RR50 decreased to 2.5 by 2005.
48. Development and Implementation of Integrated Fruit Production Programs in North America
Integrated Fruit Production (IFP) is a sustainable approach to tree fruit production which incorporates best management practices that address environmental responsibility, economic viability, and societal values. The IFP concept was developed in Europe and has been implemented in European countries over the last 20 years to the point where it is considered the standard production method in countries like Germany, Switzerland, Austria and Italy. Other countries have, in the last decade, begun developing their own IFP programs, including New Zealand, South Africa, Chile, and more recently Canada and the United States. This session will provide the participant an update on the status of IFP in some of these countries, and discuss the economic, environmental, and political implications of IFP adoption. Specific topics addressed will be differences between science-based versus industry-developed IFP programs; consumer awareness and demand for IFP produce; what are economic benefits to growers; government incentive programs for implementing IFP; and future directions.
Moderator and Organizer:
Bernt Solymár, solymar@nornet.on.ca, EarthTramper Consulting Inc., Simcoe, Ontario, Canada
3:30 48.1 Introduction, Bernt Solymár, solymar@nornet.on.ca, EarthTramper Consulting Inc., Simcoe, Ontario, Canada
3:35 48.2 Integrated Fruit Production for Apples in New York State, Juliet Carroll, jec3@cornell.edu, CCE Integrated Pest Management, Cornell University, Geneva, NY
The New York apple industry and Cornell scientists developed a market-oriented apple IFP program detailing eco-friendly insect, mite, disease, vertebrate and weed pest management; orchard establishment; tree training and pruning; fertilization; fruit thinning; harvest and post-harvest practices. Since the IFP effort was begun, the NY apple industry has begun implementing EUREPGAP, a global market assurance program on Best Management Practices. The NY apple IFP protocol differs from EUREPGAP in that it delves deeply into specific apple IPM and horticultural BMPs. The availability of Cornell GAPs guidelines, IPM guidelines, and now an IFP protocol provides NY apple growers a wealth of resources to allow them to produce apples in an environmentally friendly and safe manner, and capture markets that seek “most friendly practices.”
3:55 48.3 Sustained Support for Grower Integrated Pest Management Implementation: The WI Eco-Apple Project, Michelle Miller, mmmille6@wisc.edu, Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI
There are three key activities to support growers to implement IPM. Growers must first be organized in such as way as to support a self-organizing grower networks to ensure continuous scrutiny of specific pest management choices. Once organized, growers then require information management systems that allow them to make data-based
decisions rather than calendar-based decisions. Growers usually will require coaching to apply these systems to their specific orchard. Finally, financial support to invest in this management change is critical at a time when growers are faced with narrowing profit margins and shrinking markets. In the short run, this support may be available in the form of project grants, but for sustained financial support, federal conservation programs promise to assist growers in weathering this management upgrade.
4:15 48.4 Grown in Harmony: The National Apple Integrated Fruit Production Project in Canada, Bernt Solymár, solymar@nornet.on.ca, EarthTramper Consulting Inc., Simcoe, Ontario, Canada
Integrated Fruit Production (IFP) is a systems approach to orcharding, which promotes sustainable agriculture practices to produce optimal yields of high-quality fruit while protecting the environment. The Canadian Horticultural Council has developed guidelines, standards and protocols for Canadian apple growers, as well as a brochure to increase awareness of the program in the wholesale and retail sector. In 2005, a nation-wide survey of apple growers was conducted to develop a baseline of IFP adoption. Currently, the project is in the implementation phase with on-farm demonstration trials with reduced risk and orchard re-plant strategies being emphasized.
4:35 48.5 The British Columbia Fruit Growers Association Program (BCGAP) in British Columbia, Charlotte Leaming, cleaming@bctree.com, BC Tree Fruit Company, Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada
The BCGAP program started as an initiative of the British Columbia Fruit Growers Association in 2001. Originally the goal was to produce apples and pears without using synthetic chemical insecticides or fungicides between blossom and harvest, reduce pesticide use on soft fruit, and to be Integrated Fruit Production ready by 2003 and to be using IFP by 2005. As information was gathered and local, national, and international IFP protocols developed over the five years of the program the goal evolved. By 2005, BCGAP had developed and field-tested an IFP program for BC tree fruit growers.
4:55 48.6 The Low Input Viticulture and Enology (LIVE) Program in Oregon, Stirling Fox, tsoler@liveinc.org, LIVE, Veneta, OR
Winegrape growers in Oregon created the first internationally certified sustainable farming program in the U.S. Ten years in the making and continuing to grow, the Low Input Viticulture and Enology program certifies members’ vineyard acreage farmed with environmentally friendly techniques. Vineyard owners use a self-inspection scorecard during the growing season to monitor their progress and at the end of summer, records are evaluated and the site inspected by a trained, independent auditor. Farms are inspected in each of the first two years to get through a mandatory probation period and are then inspected once every three years afterwards. The LIVE program conducts educational workshops in the local industry and has international endorsement from the IOBC in Europe. The LIVE farming guidelines have been adapted from IPM protocols to suit local regional conditions with the intent to use a best practices approach to combating disease and pest pressure throughout the growing season.
5:15 Panel and Audience Discussion
49. Global Integrated Pest Management Education and Delivery Systems
The development of strong institutions that can continue the design and transfer of IPM technologies after donor support from Global IPM projects leave the country is critical to globalizing IPM. The training of scientists is a key component in building IPM capacity in local institutions. Institution building involves a mix of training, both long- (academic degree) and short-term. Training of host country scientists may include training in their country, another country in the region, or the United States or another industrialized country. Students may participate in a “sandwich” program though which a portion of the program (courses or research) is conducted in the host country and the other portion in an industrialized country or in an institution outside the country such as an IARC. The role of “sandwich” programs and distance education in degree training will be discussed. Short-term training is used to increase the capacity to conduct specific research or technology transfer tasks. New approaches in academic training will be discussed. Farmer training in Asia ranges from complex Farmers’ Field Schools where principles of agroecology are taught to simple messages transmitted via the radio, TV, skits, or cartoons. The advantages and disadvantages of the various types of long and short training of scientists and farmer training approaches will be discussed.
Moderators and Organizers:
John Foster, jfoster1@unl.edu, Department of Entomology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE; E. A. Heinrichs, eheinric@vt.edu, International Association for the Plant Protection Sciences (IAPPS), Blacksburg, VA; Connie Reimers-Hild, creimers@unlserve.unl.edu, Cooperative Extension, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Ithaca, NE
3:30 49.1 Entrepreneurial Learners and Leaders: Their Important Role in Successful 21st Century Integrated Pest Management Organizations, Connie Reimers-Hild, creimers@unlserve.unl.edu, Cooperative Extension, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Ithaca, NE
3:45 49.2 Traditional Academic Degree Training: Concept to Development, Leon Higley, lhigley1@unl.edu, Department of Entomology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE
4:00 49.3 Distance Education: Graduate Training Opportunities and Challenges, John Foster, jfoster1@unl.edu, Department of Entomology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE
4:15 49.4 Distance Delivered Peer-reviewed Programming for Non-credit Integrated Pest Management Audiences, Deana Namuth, dnamuth@unl.edu, Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE
4:30 49.5 Degree Project: A Capstone Course, Phyllis Higley, ent-distance@unlnotes.unl.edu, Department of Entomology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE
4:45 49.6 Training Growers: Farmers’ Field Schools for Estate Crop Integrated Pest Management in Indonesia, Greg Luther, gcluther@netra.avrdc.org.tw, Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center (AVRDC)—The World Vegetable Center, Tainan, Taiwan
5:00 Discussion
50. Facilitating Implementation of Structural Integrated Pest Management in Residential Settings
Reaching homeowners and tenants concerning integrated pest management is a challenging task. In this workshop, speakers will assess the status of such outreach in structural IPM and discuss how it might be improved. Topics that will be addressed include homeowner perceptions of pest management, health connections, partnering with industry, and reaching diverse audiences. Sponsored by the NE IPM Center's Community IPM Working Group, this is a companion workshop to "Facilitating Implementation of Residential Turf IPM: Working towards Consensus" and the follow-up roundtable discussion on "Where Do We Go with Residential IPM?"
Moderator and Organizer:
Lynn Braband, LAB45@cornell.edu, New York State Integrated Pest Management Program, Cornell University, Rochester, NY
3:30 50.1 Introduction, Lynn Braband, LAB45@cornell.edu, New York State Integrated Pest Management Program, Cornell University, Rochester, NY
3:35 50.2 How Does "Jill and Joe Homeowner" Perceive Pest Management?, Cindy Mannes, cmannes@pestworld.org, National Pest Management Association, Lansdale, PA
3:55 50.3 Connecting with Health Promotion Outreach, Daniel Kass, Dkass@health.nyc.gov, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, New York, NY
4:15 50.4 Partnering with the Structural Pest Control Industry, Jack Marlowe, jackmarlowe@edenpest.com, Eden Pest Management, Olympia, WA
4:35 50.5 Effectively Reaching Diverse Residential Audiences, Larry Swain, SWAINL@michigan.gov, Michigan Department of Agriculture, Lansing, MI
4:55 50.6 Panel and Audience Discussion, Jody Gangloff-Kaufmann, JLG23@cornell.edu, New York State Integrated Pest Management Program, Cornell University, Farmingdale, NY
5:25 50.7 Concluding Remarks, Lynn Braband, LAB45@cornell.edu, New York State Integrated Pest Management Program, Cornell University, Rochester, NY
51. How do Biopesticides Fit into an Integrated Pest Management Program?
Biopesticides are reduced risk products based on biological or naturally derived chemistry. Biopesticides can have an important role in the management of insects and diseases, and are now important components of IPM programs worldwide. IPM typically emphasizes the growth of a healthy crop, and the use of biological alternatives has a significant role in promoting attributes beyond pest management. Additional benefits include resistance management through alternate modes of action, residue management, and utility in organic production. Biopesticides also can be integrated into existing agricultural production systems using conventional pesticides, as a means to reduce human health and environmental risks associated with pesticide use. This workshop will review the barriers to adoption of new biological alternatives for pest management that were discussed at the IPM Symposium two years ago. Where are we? Is there progress? What still needs to be done? This workshop will highlight success stories and will specifically demonstrate areas where they have proved to be economic alternatives for management of pests and diseases.
Moderators and Organizers:
Pam Marrone, pmarrone@agraquest.com, AgraQuest, Inc., Davis, CA; Jim Chambers, James.Chambers@valent.com, Valent Biosciences, Libertyville, IL
3:30–5:30 PM Interactive Panel Discussion
Pam Marrone [presentation], pmarrone@agraquest.com, AgraQuest, Inc., Davis, CA
Bill Foster [presentation], wjfoster@bioworksinc.com, BioWorks, Inc., Fairport, NY
Jim Chambers[presentation], James.Chambers@valent.com, Valent Biosciences, Libertyville, IL
Mike Braverman[presentation], braverman@AESOP.Rutgers.edu, IR-4, North Brunswick, NJ
Steve Bessette[presentation], sbessette@ecosmart.com, EcoSMART Technologies, Inc., Franklin, TN
52. Using Integrated Pest Management to Advance Environmental Policy
Growers need to satisfy new environmental standards imposed upon them from the state and federal government levels to improve air quality, water quality and water conservation. Additionally, there is an increasing trend for the retail or processor customers to have requirements of their own that verify that their suppliers are good environmental citizens, and the product they are offering to the public is one that is being produced sustainably.
This session will present the benefits of leading, rather than following, this emerging trend of linking integrated pest management, market visibility, and compliance with state and federal regulations. To be successful, programs that promote environmental stewardship need to be carefully designed and implemented through cross-sector partnerships to cooperatively develop solutions to the complex environmental problems that agriculture faces.
In addition, they will identify environmental requirements and opportunities that use IPM techniques and approaches to achieve environmental benefits. Key criteria for success are documentation, measurability, and independent certification. Uses of these criteria in sustainable partnerships are needed to validate the use of IPM as well as the benefits of federal and state conservation programs.
Moderator and Organizer:
Rochelle Kelvin, Rochelle@protectedharvest.org, Protected Harvest, Arnold, MD
3:30–5:30 PM Interactive Panel Discussion
Carolyn Brickey, Carolyn@protectedharvest.org, Protected Harvest, Tucson, AZ
Jason Clay, Jason.clay@wwrus.org, World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC
53. Corn and Soybean Initiative: A Partnership for IPM Delivery
During a 2003 review of Iowa State University agriculture research and extension programs, a critical priority identified was keeping Iowa's producers competitive, profitable, and good stewards of the land. Because corn and soybeans are central to producers' success in Iowa, it became clear that a more coordinated approach was needed to address corn and soybean growers' crop and pest management educational needs. The College of Agriculture and Iowa State University Extension developed a new Corn and Soybean Initiative to bring new focus to the needs of crop growers. Prior to the official start-up of the initiative, the College surveyed corn and soybean growers and agribusiness professionals to better assess key research priorities and perceptions on information and education delivery. Two findings were particularly relevant to the development of the new Corn and Soybean Initiative: (1) Both growers and CCAs rely on multiple sources for information on corn and soybean production; (2) For growers, the vast majority (more than 90 percent) identify private-sector crop advisers as a primary source of information while most of the crop advisers (more than 80 percent) identify Iowa State University as their primary source of information. Therefore, a key goal of the initiative is to strengthen the delivery of crop and pest management information to growers through a formal public-private partnership with retail agribusinesses, commodity groups, consultants, news media and others. The partnership involves a signed agreement that clearly states the responsibilities of both Iowa State and the partnering business or organization. Each initiative partner selects an Iowa State University staff member to serve as their partnership manager, the primary point of contact for the partner with the university and the initiative. Currently, the areas served by the initiative's retail partners cover much of the state and locations of partner business sites number more than 230. Numerous activities and information delivery vehicles have been developed and delivered to the partners by initiative staff. And cooperative, on-farm research is being organized for 2006 to strengthen delivery of research-based crop production and protection information to the initiative partners and the growers of the state.
Moderator and Organizer:
Wendy Wintersteen, wwinters@iastate.edu, College of Agriculture, Department of Entomology, Iowa State University, Ames, IA
3:30 53.1 Is Extension Delivering Relevant and Effective Integrated Pest Management Corn and Soybean Programs?, Wendy Wintersteen, wwinters@iastate.edu, College of Agriculture, Department of Entomology, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, and Dan Frieberg, dan@premiercrop.com, Premier Crop, Ames, IA
3:50 53.2 Corn and Soybean Initiative: What Is It? How Does It Work, Greg Tylka, gltylka@iastate.edu, Department of Plant Pathology, Iowa State University, Ames, IA
4:10 53.3 Corn and Soybean Initiative Partners: Expectations and Potential Outcomes, Dan Frieberg, dan@premiercrop.com, Premier Crop, Ames, IA
4:30 53.4 Corn and Soybean Initiative Partnership Manager: Roles and Responsibilities, Clarke McGrath, cmcgrath@iastate.edu, University Extension, Iowa State University, Lewis, IA
4:50 53.5 What Are the Challenges to Public/Private Partnerships?, Dan Frieberg, dan@premiercrop.com, Premier Crop, Ames, IA
5:10 Panel and Audience Discussion
54. Evaluation and Measurement Workshop
The Logic Model approach provides a framework to conduct an effective program evaluation. This systems level approach was first used in the 1970’s and has been advanced as an effective program evaluation tool. The Logic model approach has been successful because it allows you to systematically and visually examine your programs’ inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes and impacts. This approach allows you to determine if your program is achieving its intended results and if there are areas where you can improve your program. Currently, the National IPM Interagency Subcommittee on Evaluation is working with the IPM Roadmap, the IPM Matrix and the Logic Model approach to develop a framework to evaluate IPM. By understanding and examining each component of the model, you can begin to evaluate your IPM program.
To continue to be a successful program, Integrated Pest Management (IPM) must address the national concerns of stakeholder input, results-oriented programs, and accountability. These concerns can be addressed by integrating program evaluations into all IPM programs. A well-planned and executed evaluation allows you to summarize the program accomplishments, assess environmental, health and economic impacts the program has made on internal and external stakeholders, and ultimately determine the worth of your program. The Logic Model approach provides a framework to conduct an effective program evaluation. Currently, the National IPM Interagency Subcommittee on Evaluation is working with the IPM Roadmap, the IPM Matrix and the Logic Model approach to develop a framework to evaluate IPM. This workshop will provide you with an opportunity to: (1) learn about the Logic Model approach, (2) review Logic Models that have been developed to address IPM in production agriculture, natural resource areas, and residential environments, and (3) work in small groups to develop a Logic Model that is relevant to your work with IPM.
Moderator and Organizer:
William Coli, wcoli@umext.umass.edu, UMass Extension, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA
3:30 54.1 Evaluating Your Integrated Pest Management Program: An Interactive Workshop Using the Logic Model, Bill Coli, wcoli@umext.umass.edu, Department of Entomology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA; Linda Herbst, llherbst@ucdavis.edu, Department of Environmental Toxicology, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA; Peg Perreault, perreault.peg@epa.gov, Environmental Protection Agency Region 8, Denver, CO; Carol Pilcher, csimmons@iastate.edu, Department of Entomology, Iowa State University, Wentzville, MO; Ann Sorensen, asorensen@niu.edu, American Farmland Trust, DeKalb, IL; Barbara VanTil, vantil.barbara@epa.gov, Environmental Protection Agency Region 5, Chicago, IL
4:30–5:30 PM Breakout Sessions (Boardrooms 21 and 22)
55. Integrated Pest Management in Childcare Settings: Status and Strategies
This roundtable discussion will provide a forum for those working in childcare IPM and those considering a project to share experiences and strategies regarding IPM adoption. Although all individuals are welcome, we encourage participants/audience members to come prepared to share their own experiences and discuss different strategies. Parents of children in childcare are encouraged to attend as well.
The roundtable is organized in three sections: I. Status; II. Strategies; and III. Follow up. During Status we will summarize existing laws and projects (audience updates are encouraged) and discuss issues affecting IPM adoption in childcare settings. Strategies will include an audience-driven discussion of various implementation strategies. Experiences of panel members will be used as a jumping off point. Please come to share your ideas and learn what others are doing. We’ll determine how to put our roundtable discussion to greatest use during Follow up.
Moderator and Organizer:
Julie Wagner, jwagner@spcpweb.org, Safer Pest Control Project, Chicago, IL
3:30–5:30 PM Panel Discussion
Al Fournier, fournier@Ag.arizona.edu, Maricopa Agricultural Center, University of Arizona, Maricopa, AZ
Thomas A. Green, ipmworks@ipminstitute.org, IPM Institute of North America, Madison, WI
Marc Lame, mlame@indiana.edu, School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN
Phil Boise, pboise.ipm@earthlink.net, Urban-Ag Ecology, Gaviota CA
Dawn H. Gouge, dhgouge@ag.arizona.edu, Maricopa Agricultural Center, University of Arizona, Maricopa, AZ
Sandra Alvey, sandra.alvey@us.army.mil, United States Army Environmental Centers, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD
Julie Wagner, jwagner@spcpweb.org, Safer Pest Control Project, Chicago, IL
Thursday, April 6, 2006
8:30–10:30 AM
56. Setting the Standard for Integrated Pest Management
Protected Harvest is a non-profit organization that certifies farms that meet measurable and verifiable environmental production standards based on Biointensive-IPM practices. Dan Sonke, Technical and Scientific Coordinator for Protected Harvest, will share Protected Harvest’s methodology for developing a crop-specific standard for its certification program, including the establishment of a Crop Advisory Committee, peer review, and the development of a multi-attribute index to measure Environmental Impact Units.
Two of Protected Harvest’s partners will discuss their experiences in developing a standard for certification. Chris Storm of the Lodi-Woodbridge Winegrape Commission will present the Lodi Rules! program, based upon the pioneering Lodi Winegrower's Workbook that is currently being used by 250 growers who cultivate 56,000 acres of grapes in California.
The seminar will conclude with a presentation by Andrea Caroe, Certification Director for Protected Harvest. She will discuss the importance and process of making a standard verifiable, along with requirements for inspection, chain-of-custody, and all other procedures pertaining to the certification process.
Moderator and Organizer:
Daniel Sonke, dan@protectedharvest.org, Protected Harvest, Escalon, CA
8:30 56.1 Measurability and Verifiability: Building a Rigorous Certification Standard for Protected Harvest, Daniel Sonke, dan@protectedharvest.org, Protected Harvest, Escalon, CA
Protected Harvest is a non-profit organization that certifies farms that meet production standards based on Biointensive-IPM, soil and water quality protection, and air quality protection. Sonke, Technical and Scientific Coordinator for Protected Harvest, will introduce Protected Harvest’s methodology for developing crop-specific standards that are science-based, measurable, and verifiable by objective inspectors during the certification process. The methodology includes the establishment of a Crop Advisory Committee of growers, academics, and extension/conservation experts; peer review by external authorities; and the development of a multi-attribute index to measure Environmental Impact Units of pesticides used in the season.
9:05 56.2 The Lodi Rules for Sustainable Winegrowing: The First Regional Sustainable Farming Certification in California, Chris Storm, chris@lodiwine.com, and Cliff Ohmart, cliff@lodiwine.com, Lodi Woodbridge Winegrape Commission, Lodi, CA
The Lodi Rules for Sustainable Winegrowing are California's first sustainable winegrowing standards that have been peer reviewed by scientists, academics, and environmentalists, and being implemented on a region-wide basis. The Lodi Rules are based on the Lodi Winegrower's Workbook and are designed to lead to measurable improvements in environmental health of the surrounding ecosystem, society-at-large, and wine quality. Participating growers can get their vineyards certified as producing sustainably-grown winegrapes. The Lodi Rules program requires growers to use a wide range of sustainable practices that result in continual improvement of all aspects of their farming operations and is third-party certified by Protected Harvest. The Lodi Rules program has two components: Sustainable winegrowing standards and a Pesticide Environmental Assessment System that measures the environmental impact of all the pesticides, whether organic or synthetic, used in a vineyard during the year (PEAS). To qualify for certification, a vineyard must achieve a minimum number of sustainable farming practices points, and not exceed a maximum number of pesticide impact points calculated using PEAS. Certification is awarded to an individual vineyard on an annual basis. Protected Harvest ensures compliance and chain of custody with The Lodi Rules using an auditing process.
9:40 56.3 Transparent and Consistent: Building Credibility through Third-Party Certification, Andrea Caroe, andrea@protectedharvest.org, Protected Harvest, San Diego, CA
Protected Harvest uses a unique process of self assessment and verification to provide a transparent program that applies consistent certification decision-making, so that consumers have the benefit of a credible, value-added claim that has content. Examples will be given to illustrate how growers demonstrate compliance with the program’s IPM and sustainable agriculture practice requirements. Caroe will talk about what growers can expect from the inspector, and how this “no surprises” approach to certification benefits growers by providing a road map to sustainability.
57. BioControl: Making It Happen!
This session will look at the successes and challenges to implementing insect and weed biocontrol solutions in agriculture and natural habitats. Presentations will provide specific examples of biocontrol with an insight into how biocontrol has delivered on the IPM promise of pesticide risk reduction in an environmentally and economically sustainable way.
Moderator and Organizer:
Margaret Appleby, margaret.appleby@omafra.gov.on.ca, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, Brighton, Ontario, Canada
8:30 57.1 Biodiversity in Organic Orchards: A Means to Promote Biocontrol, Mark E. Whalon, Whalon@msu.edu, Department of Entomology, Michigan State University, Mason, MI
This presentation will summarize 6 years of experience of a joint project between researchers at Michigan State University and an organic grower executive group with the objective of building (among other objectives) biodiversity into a 2.5ha organic orchard. Replicated ~1/4ha orchard plots were set out at Clarkesville Horticulture Research and Extension Farm in 1999. Simultaneous biodiversity plots (12 x 200m) were established in a pair-wise fashion adjacent to the apple plots; running parallel to the orchard rows. Diversity plant selection was based upon experience from growers, the open literature and other researchers including Drs. Mark Brown USDA/ARS Kearneyville, WV, Max Suckling HortResearch, Lincoln, NZ, Stephen Wratten, Lincoln University, Lincoln NZ, Doug Landis and George Ayers, Michigan State University. Plant selection was aimed at providing mostly native cold-adapted pollen and nectar reward selections season-long. Plots were evaluated over the past 6 years in there ways; predator and parasite transects from the diversity plots across the orchard, pitfall traps and 3-minute visual samples by experienced tree fruit scouts. Results presented will focus in on assessments of plants species choice, orchard penetration by generalist predators and presence/absence indicator species including Tortricids and mites.
9:00 57.2 Offshore Biological Control Strategy Applied to the Pink Hibiscus Mealybug, Dale Meyerdirk , Dale.E.Meyerdirk@usda.gov, Pest Detection and Management Programs, USDA, APHIS, Riverdale, MD
The pink hibiscus mealybug (PHM), Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green), became a significant invasive pest species in the Western Hemisphere in 1994 when first found in the Caribbean on the small Island of Grenada. It quickly spread to numerous other Caribbean Islands, Central America, South America and finally North America by 1999 detected in Southern California and Northern Mexico. It continues to expand its geographical distribution in the US and was detected in Florida in 2002. Two exotic species of natural enemies have been introduced and released resulting in over 95% reduction of this mealybug’s population density throughout the Caribbean, California and Florida. The proactive role of developing the biological control program offshore bought time to develop this control strategy. It also delayed its spread throughout the Caribbean and entry into the US subsequently reducing economic losses, and allowed the developed biological control technology to be applied in the field as soon as the pest was detected. The southern 17 States are climatically suitable and most susceptible to PHM infestations. Surveys are being initiated for a rapid response implementation of a pest management program to slow the spread of this mealybug species in the US and transfer the biological control technology to all States that become infested.
9:30 57.3 Biocontrol on Weeds: Overview of Biocontrol Weed Success Stories in the United States of America, Al Cofrancesco, cofrana@wes.army.mil, Waterways Experimental Station, U.S. Department of the Army, Vicksburg, MS
Biological control of weeds has been conducted in the U.S since 1945 and has produced some outstanding successes. In 1957, reviews were implemented by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to regulate the introduction of agents. The current procedures utilize a Technical Advisory Group (TAG) that provides recommendation and advice to the USDA– Animal Plant Health Inspection Service and researchers on the introduction of biological control agents to manage noxious plant populations. From 1987 through 2005 the TAG reviewed 154 petitions and provided favorable responses to over 75%. Some particularly successful programs have utilized insects to manage populations of Alligator Weed (Alternanthera philoxeroides (Mart.) Griseb.), and Water Hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms).
10:00 57.4 Biocontrol Augmentation: Grower Uptake and Adoption, Richard B. Ward, rward@on.aibn.com, BioBest Canada/Biobest USA, Leamington, Ontario, Canada
This presentation will address the question “how as an industry do we get growers to use biological control augmentation?”. Success stores on uptake and adoption of biocontrol agents are many in the greenhouse production of flowers and vegetables, but there are challenges to finding a fit for biocontrol augmentation in the field. Examples of opportunities for the field will be outlined and will include the economics of using this technology for the grower.
Organizer and Presenter:
Mary Woodsen, mm95@cornell.edu, New York State Integrated Pest Management Program, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY
8:30–10:30 AM Interactive Workshop
59. Implementation of Integrated Pest Management through a Multidisciplinary Doctoral Program in Plant Health Management
Established in 1999, the University of Florida Plant Medicine Program trains practitioners in the prevention, diagnosis, and management of all types of plant health problems. The curriculum integrates extensive multidisciplinary coursework and internships in all relevant agricultural science disciplines including entomology, pathology, and weed science. Upon completion of their program of study (120 graduate credit hours), graduates receive the Doctor of Plant Medicine (D.P.M.) degree. In Spring, 2006 the Plant Medicine Program began offering a certificate in Plant Pest Risk Assessment and Management to assist students interested in careers in regulatory agriculture. Information will be presented in the workshop reviewing the nature of the program, how current D.P.M. students are delivering information on IPM to clientele in Florida, and how D.P.M. graduates involved in crop health management are aiding the adoption of IPM concepts.
Organizers:
Norm Leppla, ncleppla@ifas.ufl.edu, Department of Entomology and Nematology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL; Bob McGovern, rjm@ifas.ufl.edu, Plant Medicine Program, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
Moderator:
Norm Leppla, ncleppla@ifas.ufl.edu, Department of Entomology and Nematology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
8:30 59.1 Introduction, Norm Leppla, ncleppla@ifas.ufl.edu, Department of Entomology and Nematology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
8:45 59.2 Overview of University of Florida Plant Medicine Program, Bob McGovern, rjm@ifas.ufl.edu, Plant Medicine Program, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
9:10 59.3 Certificate in Plant Pest Risk Assessment and Management, Tim Durham, tdurham@ufl.edu, Plant Medicine Program, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
9:30 59.4 Doctor of Plant Medicine Students: Helping to Deliver Integrated Pest Management to Diverse Clientele, Heidi HansPetersen, heidihp@ifas.ufl.edu, Plant Medicine Program, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
9:50 59.5 Plant Doctor as Integrated Pest Management Consultant, Christian Miller, cfmiller@ufl.edu, Glades Crop Care, Jupiter, FL
10:10 Panel and Audience Discussion
60. Developing and Delivering Integrated Pest Management Technology to the World’s Small-holder Fruit and Vegetable Farmers
Many small-holder farmers in developing countries are turning to fruit and vegetable production as a means of increasing family income. Production of most of these crops is constrained by insect pests, diseases, and weeds, despite frequent use of pesticides. IPM research and technology transfer is needed at the local level to address pest problems without the overuse of pesticides. This symposium will draw together an international group of scientists who have had 12 years of experience developing and transferring vegetable IPM technology using the participatory research process through the USAID-sponsored IPM Collaborative Research Support Program (CRSP). The presentations will highlight management tactics developed and techniques used to transfer IPM technology to small-holder fruit and vegetable farmers in Bangladesh, Jamaica, Ecuador, the Philippines, Guatemala, Mali, Uganda and Albania. Crops covered will be brinjal (eggplant), hot peppers, plantain, onions, snowpeas, green beans, cowpea, and olives. The presentations will include technology developed for insect pests, mites, plant diseases, and weeds. These technologies, woven into IPM systems, include host plant resistance, biological control, cultural management, judicious use of pesticides, and biotechnology. The development of networks to ensure participation of all stakeholders in the development and delivery of IPM technology to farmers will be emphasized.
Moderators and Organizers:
Sally Miller, miller.769@osu.edu, Department of Plant Pathology, The Ohio State University, Wooster, OH; George Norton, gnorton@vt.edu, Department of Agricultural & Applied Economics, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA; E. A. Heinrichs, eheinrichs2@unl.edu, International Association for the Plant Protection Sciences (IAPPS), Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA
8:30 60.1 Introduction, Sally Miller, miller.769@osu.edu, Department of Plant Pathology, The Ohio State University, Wooster, OH
8:38 60.2 Community Approaches to Vegetable Pest Management, S. N. Alam, ipmcrsp@BDCOM.COM, Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute, Joydebpur, Gazipur, Bangladesh
8:52 60.3 Managing the Virus Complex in Hot Peppers in the Caribbean, Dionne Clarke Harris, dcharris@uwimona.edu.jm, Caribbean Agricultural Research and Development Institute, Kingston, Jamaica
9:06 60.4 Approaches to Plantain Pest Management in Andean South America, Carmen Suarez, suarezcapello@yahoo.com, Crop Protection Department, INIAP-EETPichilingue, Quevedo, Ecuador
9:20 60.5 Effective Methods for Transferring Vegetable Integrated Pest Management Technology to Farmers in SE Asia, Herminia Rapusas, hrapusas@philrice.gov.ph, Philippine Rice Research Institute, Maligaya, Muñoz, Nueva Ecija, Philippines
9:34 60.6 Institutionalizing Pre-shipment Inspection Programs to Achieve Sustainability in Non-traditional Export Crops in Latin America, Guillermo Sanchez, gsanchez1@intelnet.net.gt, Instituto Centro Americano de Desarrollo Agropecuario (ICADA), Guatemala City, Guatemala
9:48 60.7 Developing and Delivering an Integrated Pest Management Package for Green Bean and Tomato Production in West Africa, Kadiatou Toure Gamby, Kadiatou.Toure@ier.ml, IER/CRRA, Bamako, Mali
10:02 60.8 Integrated Pest Management Packages for Cowpea in East Africa, Sam Kyamanywa, skamanywa@agric.mak.ac.ug, Department of Crop Science, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda
10:16 60.9 Meeting Critical Constraints to Organic Olive Production in Eastern Europe, Josef Tedeschini, josef_tedeschini@hotmail.com, Plant Protection Institute, Durres, Albania
61. Integrated Pest Management of Subterranean Termites
Homeowners in the United States spend approximately US$2.5 billion annually to control termites. Conventional techniques for subterranean termite control are to apply liquid insecticides in soil to create a barrier that excludes soil-borne termites from a home. When used in a 0.5% solution, the soil application of termiticide could reach ca. 195 kg per hectare, which exceeds the pesticide application rate of ca. 2.17 kg per hectare in agricultural lands. Despite the use of the large quantity of termiticides, this technique does not affect the vast population of subterranean termites in soil. In recent years, monitoring-baiting systems have become available that use a small amount of an insect growth regulator with the potential to eliminate whole colonies. Despite their availability, many homeowners cannot afford the new technologies partly due to the expense of the continuous monitoring program by pest control professionals. Consequently, most homeowners in the United States continue to depend on soil insecticides for subterranean termite control. Moreover, the vast majority of soil termiticides is applied to sub-slab soil for new buildings as mandated by building codes. There is a need to promote grass-roots awareness for the availability of new reduced-risk technology. A subterranean termite IPM training manual will be developed and used in a series of seminars by extension personnel to disseminate information to consumers about IPM of subterranean termites. Property owners and managers will be provided with a decision-making guide (available free via EDIS) for selecting termite control measures for pre-construction, during construction, and post-construction.
Moderator and Organizer:
Frank S. Guillot, fguillot@srrc.ars.usda.gov, USDA-ARS Southern Regional Research Center, New Orleans, LA
8:30-10:30 AM Interactive Panel Discussion
IPM for subterranean termites. Nan-Yao Su, nysu@ufl.edu, Fort Lauderdale Research & Education Center, University of Florida, Fort Lauderdale, FL
IPM education in schools in Hawaii. J. K. Grace, & J. R. Yates. Department of Plant & Environmental Protection Sciences, College of Tropical Agriculture & Human Resources, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI
A pilot program for subterranean termite IPM in south Florida. B. Cabrera, N.-Y. Su, & W. Kern. Department of Entomology & Nematology, Ft. Lauderdale Research & Education Center, University of Florida, Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Suppression of colonies of Reticulitermes spp. using the Sentricon® termite colony elimination system: A case study in Chatsworth, CA. G. M. Getty1, C. Solek1, R. Sbragia2, M. I. Haverty3, & V. R. Lewis1. 1University of California, Berkeley, CA, 2Dow AgroSciences, Indianapolis, IN, 3Pacific Southwest Research Station-Forest Service, Albany, CA
Is IPM of subterranean termites an obtainable goal? F. Guillot. USDA-ARS, SRRC, New Orleans, LA
62. Making Urban Integrated Pest Management Work: Local Agencies Share Lessons Learned
An estimated half of all pesticides used are applied in urban areas, yet many institutions still entrust their pest management to the lowest bidder. How can we make urban IPM programs more effective? There is no secret formula, but local public agencies have experimented with a rich variety of ingredients, such as end-user groups, approved-list systems, hands-on trainings, ordinances, and contract language. This workshop will showcase IPM program elements used by successful programs in San Francisco, Southern California, and elsewhere. The participatory format will provide an energizing exchange of information, and a chance to compare and contrast experiences. If you are involved with urban IPM—from the national policy level to local implementation—please bring your expertise to this workshop.
Moderator and Organizer:
Chris Geiger, chris.geiger@sfgov.org, San Francisco Department of the Environment, San Francisco, CA
8:30–10:30 AM Panel and Audience Discussion
Chris Geiger, chris.geiger@sfgov.org, San Francisco Department of the Environment, San Francisco, CA
Deanna Simon, deanna.simon@sfgov.org, San Francisco Department of the Environment, San Francisco, CA
Sheila Daar, daargroup@speakeasy.net, DAAR/IPM Consulting Group, Berkeley, CA
Phil Boise, pboise.ipm@earthlink.net, Urban Ag Ecology, Gaviota, CA
63. Connecting Integrated Pest Management Practices, Priorities, and Strategic Directions
Connecting pests, IPM practices, priorities, and strategic directions across disciplines, farms, time, and spatial scales can be accomplished with quick diagramming tools that show function, feedback, and leverage for priority decisions. Attendees will draw a pest management system and consider its value in IPM, PMSPs, and the national IPM Roadmap. Drawings will be discussed, the method assessed, and insights summarized. Workshop measures will assess “What did you learn and how do you intend to use this skill?” along with “What was the value of this experience to you?” This workshop integrates the sciences of intentional learning, behavioral change, systems thinking and practice, and assessment as functional systems of everyday inquiry and action.
Moderators and Organizers:
Ray D. William, williamr@science.oregonstate.edu, Horticulture Extension, Paul Jepson, jepsonp@science.oregonstate.edu, Environmental and Molecular Toxicology, and Molly Engle, molly.engle@oregonstate.edu, Extension Service, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR; and Western IPM Coordinating Committee (WERA-069)
8:30-10:30 AM Interactive Workshop
64. Adaptation of Stored Product Integrated Pest Management to Organic Food Standards
Research and development of IPM methods in stored product systems has centered on many non-chemical approaches. Many approaches have not been adopted because of widespread reliance on low-cost and usually effective chemically-based methods. The advent of government-regulated organic food standards has now presented an opportunity for non-chemical methods to be adopted by various sectors of the post-harvest and food processing industries. Speakers will present the latest data and lead discussion on physical, biologically-based, and preventive methods in pest management for stored raw commodities and value-added processed products that are marketed as organic and must comply with the National Organic Policy.
Moderator and Organizer:
Thomas W. Phillips, tom.phillips@okstate.edu, Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK
8:30–10:30 AM Panel Discussion
Dirk Maier, maier@purdue.edu, Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN
Paul Flinn, paul.flinn@gmprc.ksu.edu, Grain Marketing and Production Research Center, USDA ARS Biological Research Unit, Manhattan, KS
Bhadriraju Subramanyam, sbhadrir@ksu.edu, Department of Grain Science and Industry, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS
Thomas W. Phillips, tom.phillips@okstate.edu, Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK
65. Where Do We Go with Residential Integrated Pest Management?
This roundtable discussion will pull together ideas from the “Facilitating Implementation of Structural IPM in Residential Settings” and “Achieving Consensus for Residential Turf IPM” workshops. The purpose is to develop a roadmap for action in these areas where use, misuse, and exposure to pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizer by residents is greatest. Reaching homeowners is a difficult task as many take recommendations on face value from the Internet, pest control companies, nurseries, garden centers, and landscape/lawn care companies. Only a small percentage use Extension as a source of reliable, unbiased information. The roundtable participants including, speakers from both sessions, will try to come to a consensus on how to deal with diverse ideas on recommendations and practices in structural and residential turf settings. We will develop a common language for IPM recommendations and then compile effective outreach methods to deliver them to residents, and pest control and landscape/lawn care companies. This roundtable discussion is sponsored by the Community IPM Working Group of the Northeastern IPM Center.
Moderator and Organizer:
Mary Kay Malinoski, mkmal@umd.edu, Home and Garden Information Center, University of Maryland, Ellicott City, MD
8:30–10:30 AM Interactive Discussion
Closing Plenary Session
10:45 IPM: Delivering on a Promise outside the USA, but inside the Same Globalized World, Peter Kenmore, Peter.Kenmore@fao.org, Senior IPM Officer, UN Food and Agriculture Organization in Rome, Italy
IPM is embedded in national programs in developing countries comprising the majority of the human race. IPM policies have permitted these countries to reduce annual pesticide use by tens of thousands of tons and maintain food production growth with population. IPM has been the spearhead of local empowerment and environmental education in over 100,000 communities through Farmer Field Schools. These participatory approaches to technology development help international and national researchers to form productive partnerships with farmers. Global trade and traffic are emerging challenges for IPM systems as invasive pests expand their ranges and evolve.
11:15 Delivering on a Promise . . . Then What?, Frank G. Zalom, fgzalom@ucdavis.edu, Entomologist, Department of Entomology, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA
The promise of integrated pest management is based on a systems approach to pest management, and requires an understanding of the interactions of key ‘pests’ (in the broadest possible sense) in the context of the biotic and abiotic components in which they occur. It is the considered actions taken within this ecological framework that produce the outcomes that make integrated pest management promising in concept to so many stakeholders; more predictable and economical pest control, greater use of cultural and biologically-based management approaches, less risk of damage to human health and the environment from pest controls, etc. Previous national integrated pest management conferences are reviewed with a focus on their desired outcomes, and how the considerable expansion of the integrated pest management community over the last two decades has also expanded its scope, expectations . . . and promise.
11:45 Closing Remarks from the Organizing Committee, Susan Ratcliffe, sratclif@uiuc.edu, Co-Director, North Central Region IPM Center, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL