Pest Management
Edited by
Opender Koul
Insect Biopesticide Research Centre Jalandhar, India
and
Gerrit W. Cuperus
1008 E. Franklin, Stillwater, OK 74074, USA
CABI Head Office CABI North American Office
Nosworthy Way 875 Massachusetts Avenue
Wallingford 7th Floor
Oxfordshire OX10 8DE Cambridge, MA 02139 UK USA
Tel: +44 (0)1491 832111 Tel: +1 617 395 4056 Fax: +44 (0)1491 833508 Fax: +1 617 354 6875 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.cabi.org
©CAB International 2007. All rights reserved. No part of this publica- tion may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronically, mechanically, by photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owners.
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library, London, UK.
A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Con- gress, Washington, DC, USA
ISBN-10: 1 84593 064 9 ISBN-13: 978 184593 064 6
Typeset by SPi, Pondicherry, India.
Printed and bound in the UK by Biddles Ltd, King’s Lynn
About the Editors vii
Contributors ix
Preface xi
1. Ecologically Based Integrated Pest Management: Present
Concept and New Solutions 1
Opender Koul and Gerrit W. Cuperus
2. Ecologically Based Management of Plant Diseases 18 Barry J. Jacobson
3. Ecological Management of Agricultural Weeds 37 Robert G. Hartzler and Douglas D. Buhler
4. Role of Cover Crops in the Management of Arthropod Pests in Orchards 56 Michael W. Smith and Phillip G. Mulder Jr
5. Intercropping for Pest Management: The Ecological Concept 74 Vibeke Langer, Julia Kinane and Michael Lyngkjær
6. Ecological Effects of Chemical Control Practices: The Environmental
Perspective 111 R.G. Luttrell
7. Sociology in Integrated Pest Management 154
Johann Baumgärtner, Achola O. Pala and Pasquale Trematerra
8. Economic Aspects of Ecologically Based Pest Management 180 George W. Norton
9. Economics of Host Plant Resistance in Integrated Pest Management Systems 194 Philip Kenkel
10. Integrated Pest Management with the Sterile Insect Technique 200 Donald B. Thomas
11. Ecology of Predator–prey and Parasitoid–host Systems:
Its Role in Integrated Pest Management 222
Geoff M. Gurr, Peter W. Price, Mauricio Urrutia, Mark Wade, Steve D. Wratten and Aaron T. Simmons
12. Ecological Considerations for the Use of Entomopathogens in
Integrated Pest Management 249
Leslie C. Lewis
v
13. Role of Biotechnological Advances in Shaping the Future of
Integrated Pest Management 269
A.M. Shelton and R.R. Bellinder
14. Grower Perspectives on Areawide Wheat Integrated Pest Management
in the Southern US Great Plains 289
Sean P. Keenan, Kristopher L. Giles, Norman C. Elliott, Tom A. Royer, David R. Porter, Paul A. Burgener and David A. Christian
15. Integrated Pest Management of Rice: Ecological Concepts 315 Gary C. Jahn, James A. Litsinger, Yolanda Chen and Alberto T. Barrion
16. Ecologically Based Integrated Pest Management in Cotton 367 Dale W. Spurgeon
17. Ecological Implications for Postharvest Integrated Pest Management
of Grain and Grain-based Products 406
James F. Campbell and Frank Arthur
18. Diffusion of IPM Programmes in Commercial Agriculture:
Concepts and Constraints 432
Thomas W. Fuchs
Index 445
Opender Koul, Fellow of the National Academy of Agricultural Sciences and the Indian Acad- emy of Entomology, is an insect toxicologist/physiologist/chemical ecologist and currently the Director of the Insect Biopesticide Research Centre, Jalandhar, India. After obtaining his PhD in 1975 he joined the Regional Research Laboratory (CSIR), Jammu, and then became Senior Group Leader of Entomology at Malti-Chem Research Centre, Vadodara, India (1980–1988).
He has been a visiting scientist at the University of Kanazawa, Japan (1985–1986), University of British Columbia, Canada (1988–1992) and Institute of Plant Protection, Poznan, Poland (2001). His extensive research experience concerns insect–plant interactions, spanning toxi- cological, physiological and agricultural aspects. Honoured with an Indian National Science Academy medal (INSA), the Kothari Scientific Research Institute award, KEC Science Society award and the Recognition award of National Academy of Agricultural Sciences of India for outstanding contribution in the field of Insect Toxicology/Physiology and Plant Protection, he has authored over 150 research papers and articles, and is the author/editor of the books Insecticides of Natural Origin (1997), Phytochemical Biopesticides (2001), Microbial Biopesti- cides (2002), Predators and Parasitoids (2003), Biopesticides and Pest Management, Volumes I and II (2003), Neem: Today and in the New Millennium (2004), Integrated Pest Management:
Potential, Constraints and Challenges (2004), Transgenic Crop Protection: Concepts and Strat- egies (2004), Insect Antifeedants (2005), published by leading publishers globally. Dr Koul is on the panel of experts in many committees and leading international and national journals.
He has also been an informal consultant to BOSTID, NRC of USA at ICIPE, Nairobi.
Gerrit W. Cuperus, was a Regent’s Professor and Integrated Pest Management Coordinator at Oklahoma State University for more than 20 years. Dr Cuperus obtained his PhD in 1982, joined the Department of Entomology at Oklahoma State University and has since been involved in national IPM programmes of the USA aiming at the interdisciplinary focus to solve management issues. Dr Cuperus has chaired and served in different capacities in vari- ous state and national committees on food safety and pest management. He has made specific contributions in extension/research and has won distinguished service awards from USDA.
His Research efforts focused on stored-product pest management have helped to build the Stored Product Research and Education Center (SPREC) at Oklahoma State University. He has authored more than 60 research papers and articles and is an editor of Successful Imple- mentation of IPM for Agriculture Crops (1992), Stored Product Management (1995) and Inte- grated Pest Management: Potential, Constraints and Challenges (2004).
vii
Frank Arthur, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Grain Marketing and Production Research Center, 1515 College Avenue, Manhattan, KS 66502, USA, E-mail: [email protected]
Alberto T. Barrion, International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), DAPO Box 7777, Metro Manila, Philippines
Johann Baumgärtner, International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE), Nairobi, Kenya; and Center for Analysis of Sustainable Agricultural Systems (CASAS), Kensington, USA, E-mail: [email protected]
R.R. Bellinder, Department of Horticulture, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14850, USA Douglas D. Buhler, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 286 Plant and Soil
Science, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA
Paul A. Burgener, The University of Nebraska Panhandle Research & Extension Center, Scottsbluff, NE 69361, USA
James F. Campbell, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Grain Marketing and Production Research Center, 1515 College Avenue, Manhattan, KS 66502, USA, E-mail: [email protected]
Yolanda Chen, International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), DAPO Box 7777, Metro Manila, Philippines
David A. Christian, The University of Nebraska Panhandle Research & Extension Center, Scottsbluff, NE 69361, USA
Gerrit W. Cuperus, 1008 E. Franklin, Stillwater, OK 74074, USA, E-mail: [email protected] Norman C. Elliott, USDA–ARS, Plant Science and Water Conservation Laboratory, Stillwa-
ter, OK 74075, USA, E-mail: [email protected]
Thomas W. Fuchs, Extension IPM Coordinator, Texas Cooperative Extension Center, San Angelo, TX 76901, USA, E-mail: [email protected]
Kristopher L. Giles, Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078, USA, E-mail: [email protected]
Geoff M. Gurr, Pest Biology and Management Group, Faculty of Rural Management, The University of Sydney, PO Box 833, Orange, New South Wales, 2800, Australia, E-mail:
Robert G. Hartzler, College of Agriculture, Department of Agronomy, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA, E-mail: [email protected]
ix
Barry J. Jacobson, Department of Plant Sciences and Plant Pathology, 119 AgBiosciences Facility, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana, USA, E-mail: [email protected] Gary C. Jahn, International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), DAPO Box 7777, Metro Manila,
Philippines,E-mail: [email protected]
Sean P. Keenan, Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078, USA, E-mail: [email protected]
Philip Kenkel, Department of Agricultural Economics, Oklahoma State University, Stillwa- ter, OK 74075, USA, E-mail: [email protected]
Julia Kinane, Risø National Laboratory, Plant Research Department, PO Box 49, 4000 Roskilde, Denmark, E-mail: [email protected]
Opender Koul, Insect Biopesticide Research Centre, 30 Parkash Nagar, Jalandhar 144 003, India,E-mail: [email protected]
Vibeke Langer, Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Hojbakkegaards Alle 13, DK 2630 Taastrup, Denmark, E-mail: [email protected]
Leslie C. Lewis, USDA–ARS Corn Insects and Crop Genetics Research Unit, Iowa State University, Genetics Laboratory, Ames, IA 50011, USA, E-mail: [email protected] James A. Litsinger, 1365 Jacobs Place, Dixon, CA 95620, USA, E-mail: jameslitsinger@yahoo.
com
R.G. Luttrell, Department of Entomology, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA,E-mail: [email protected]
Michael Lyngkjær, Risø National Laboratory, Plant Research Department, PO Box 49, 4000 Roskilde, Denmark
Phillip G. Mulder Jr, Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078, USA, E-mail: [email protected]
George W. Norton, Department of Economics, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA, E-mail: [email protected]
Achola O. Pala, International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE), Nairobi, Kenya David R. Porter, USDA–ARS, Plant Science and Water Conservation Laboratory, Stillwater,
OK 74075, USA
Peter W. Price, Department of Biological Sciences, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ 86011-5640, USA, E-mail: [email protected]
Tom A. Royer, Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, Oklahoma State Univer- sity, Stillwater, OK 74078, USA, E-mail: [email protected]
A.M. Shelton, Department of Entomology, Cornell University, New York State Agricultural Experiment Station, Geneva, NY 14456, USA, E-mail: [email protected]
Aaron T. Simmons, Pest Biology and Management Group, Faculty of Rural Management, The University of Sydney, PO Box 833, Orange, New South Wales, 2800, Australia, E-mail: [email protected]
Michael W. Smith, Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078, USA, E-mail: [email protected]
Dale W. Spurgeon, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Ser- vice, Areawide Pest Management Research Unit, 2771 F and B Road, College Station, TX 77845, USA, E-mail: [email protected]
Donald B. Thomas, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Kika de la Garza Subtropical Agricultural Research Center, 2413 E. Hwy 83, Weslaco, TX 78596, USA, E-mail: [email protected]
Pasquale Trematerra, Università degli Studi del Molise, Campobasso, Italy, E-mail:
Mauricio Urrutia, National Centre for Advanced Bio-protection Technologies, PO Box 84, Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand, E-mail: [email protected]
Mark Wade, National Centre for Advanced Bio-protection Technologies, PO Box 84, Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand, E-mail: [email protected]
Steve D. Wratten, National Centre for Advanced Bio-protection Technologies, PO Box 84, Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand, E-mail: [email protected]
Much has been learned over the past decade about implementing effective IPM programmes in both developed and developing countries. While many pests (insects, weeds, diseases, etc.) are global, factors such as agroecological, cultural, economic and institutional differ- ences dictate location-specific, participatory IPM research. However, in recent past more emphasis has been on ecologically based approaches and there is earnest need to imple- ment them. IPM programmes that include use of natural, host-specific microbial agents have been found effective, for instance, in Indonesia, India, and elsewhere in substituting for chemical pesticides when means for their multiplication and dissemination are appro- priately developed. A critical issue with many biocontrol tools is reducing barriers to their commercialization. Similarly, host plant resistance is a fundamental component in most IPM programmes. Fortunately, many breeding programmes in various research institutions and, in some cases, the private sector are producing material that can be integrated into IPM programmes. The possibility of materials being developed through genetic engineering enhances the potential for having host plant resistance as a key IPM strategy.
What is required in an ecologically based IPM (EBIPM) today is to look into the eco- logical concepts in relation to the incorporation of biotechnology wherever appropriate and analyse the policy, regulatory and socio-cultural factors influencing IPM adoption and impacts. Use of systems modelling along with a major effort to design and implement a technology transfer plan to achieve broad adoption of IPM practices and strategies is nec- essary. Standardized targets, indicators and benchmarks, especially those related to wide- spread adoption and impact of ecologically based IPM technologies and systems; need to be used as measures of programme accomplishments. For reaching the conclusive goals it is important to know what has been achieved in terms of EBIPM systems, so far and what needs to be done in the future. We have tried to compile the major aspects of EBIPM in this volume through 18 chapters emphasizing on the ecology/ecological theory, objec- tives of IPM programmes, economic aspects, tactics and examples of programme delivery.
Although we have tried to concentrate on the issues due to limited resources available for IPM, the prospects are bright as discussed in Chapter 1. Examples of emerging tech- nologies and issues include biotechnology, precision agriculture and agroecology. The rap- idly increasing computer capacity globally should facilitate the use of systems approach deployment of improved IPM strategies and tactics with ecological concepts in continuous crop management systems. Before going into the details of systems it is imperative to know
xi
about the ecology of different pests and Chapters 2 and 3 have comprehensively dealt with these aspects using agriculture weeds and plant pathogens as the base examples. Chapters 4 and 5 discuss the concept of ecological theory emphasizing on the role of cover crops and intercropping using the ecological concepts. As the environment is one of the major com- ponents of EBIPM, Chapter 6 deals with the ecological effects of chemical control with an environmental perspective and subsequently social impacts have been comprehensively discussed in Chapter 7. Economics plays a major role in the success of ecologically based pest management programmes. A wide variety of economic analyses of pest management practices and policies have been conducted since the first assessment of economic thresh- olds more than 40 years ago. Many of the analyses have involved projections of profitabil- ity, risk, health and environmental effects, returns to research and implications for public policies affecting pest management decisions. Especially prevalent have been simple per acre budget analyses of IPM practices and analyses of factors influencing IPM adoption.
Fewer analyses have addressed aggregate income and environmental/health impacts, and early dynamic modelling of crop–pest–predator interactions have been slow to develop into routine analyses. Dynamic analyses are especially important for assessing pesticide resistance implications of public policies. All these aspects have been discussed compre- hensively in Chapters 8 and 9. Various tactics used in IPM programmes are very important vis-à-vis the ecological considerations and Chapters 10–13 discuss the concept in detail.
It is critical to understand that the adoption process is not a discrete, dichotomous event by which one moves from a non-adopter to an adopter by a single decision, but rather involves a process by which adoption occurs. One of the most basic reasons clientele adopt new technology is need, i.e. the grower recognizes a problem or need with which the new technology has potential to provide help. Therefore, programme delivery and dis- semination studies have important role to play in the transfer of EBIPM-based technology and require in-depth study based on various crops (both preharvest and postharvest) with specific suggestions for dissemination and delivery. Chapters 14–18 contribute to these aspects. Although the candidate subject is vast, we have tried our best to bring forth state- of-the-art information available on EBIPM strategies through this comprehensive volume.
We received tremendous response and support from all the authors for preparing their chapters in tune with the theme of the book, for which we express our gratitude to them.
We are also thankful to Tim Hardwick, CABI, for his patience and cooperation and help at various stages of preparation of this volume.
We hope the book will prove useful to all those interested in promoting the cause of IPM in formal and informal applications in both the developed and developing countries so that sustainability in agriculture system and the environmental protection for future generations is achieved.
Opender Koul Gerrit W. Cuperus
Pest Management: Present Concept and New Solutions
Opender Koul
1and Gerrit W. Cuperus
21Insect Biopesticide Research Centre, 30 Parkash Nagar, Jalandhar 144 003, India; 21008 E. Franklin, Stillwater, OK 74074, USA
Introduction
Our basic premise that integrated pest man- agement (IPM) is essential to sustainability stems from our contention that insect pests, pathogenic microorganisms and weeds pose substantial threats to the yields and quality of agricultural commodities. Development of effective means for managing pests is essential to productivity and profitability of agricul- ture. Production systems that do not include effective pest regulation cannot sustain long- term profitability. We also have concern that the increasing difficulties in controlling these pests experienced over the last 50 years is a result of reliance on single control agents, particularly chemical pesticides. One of the first to voice these concerns was Rachel Car- son, in her classic commentary on pesticides entitledSilent Spring (Carson, 1962). Since 1962, it has become increasingly apparent that employing chemical controls unilaterally will not provide safe and effective regulation of pests over the long term (Cuperus et al., 1990; Zettler and Cuperus, 1990; Reed et al., 1993). Problems ranging from pesticide resist- ance in target species (resulting in control failures) to environmental degradation and contamination of food products by pesticide residues have proven that reliance on single tactics seriously detracts from sustainability.
Given the situation, we need to implement a management system to deal with these pests.
It is an established fact that IPM has its own potential, constraints and challenges (Koul et al., 2004); however, IPM practices preventing damage to the environment is an essential component of sustainable agriculture. There- fore, one of the goals would be the deploy- ment of ecologically based integrated pest management (EBIPM) practices (Kennedy and Sutton, 2000), the call for which was made in 1996 (Overton, 1996), along with the bio-intensive IPM (Benbrook et al., 1996).
The idea was to shift the IPM paradigm from focusing on pest management strategies relying on pesticide management to a system approach relying primarily on biological knowledge of pests and on their interaction with the crops. This suggests that EBIPM programmes should represent ‘a sustainable approach to manage pests combining biolog- ical, chemical, physical and cultural tools to ensure favorable economic, ecological and sociological consequences’ (Kennedy and Sutton, 2000), i.e. a system based on the underlying knowledge of the managed ecosystem, including natural processes that suppress pest populations. These practices are integrated with biological control organ- isms and products, resistant host plants, cultural practices and narrow-spectrum
©CAB International 2007. Ecologically Based Integrated Pest
Management (eds O. Koul and G.W. Cuperus) 1
pesticides. Our intention is not to influence the reader on a correct IPM definition but to bring clarity on the difference and simi- larity in definitions that were proposed by Overton (1996) and Benbrooket al. (1996).
In fact, Royer et al. (1999) argued that the conceptual framework that defines IPM, as it was originally conceived, is ecologically based and flexible enough to accommodate any prevailing technologies and economic or social axioms required. Furthermore, it is the responsibility of IPM practitio- ners to shift their thinking and to design IPM programmes that reflect these impor- tant ecological and economic foundations.
Emphasis on deployment of EBIPM systems has indeed increased greatly in recent years (Altieri, 1994; Barnett et al., 1996; Boland and Kuykendall, 1998; Kennedy and Sut- ton, 2000; Altieri and Nicholls, 2003). It has been shown that IPM and integrated crop- ping systems can control pests effectively, which can contribute to the build-up of beneficial organisms and to the subsequent decrease in soil-borne pests. However, some key issues that need to be highlighted are as follows:
1. In EBIPM, programmes should empha- size an understanding of the ecological relationships between the host plant and the management practices like cultural control, biological control and host plant resistance.
2. Integration of management practices involves biological (e.g. parasites, predators and fungi), chemical (e.g. selective pesti- cides and pheromones), cultural (e.g. crop rotation, planting date and soil fertility) and physical aspects (e.g. tillage and aera- tion). These ecological factors regulate the system.
3. Sustainability implies durability over time. This is the true test for a management system.
4. EBIPM programmes should minimize economic, environmental and health risks (National Research Council, 1996).
Whether it is EBIPM or the classical approach of IPM, economics, environment and sociology are the basic forces that give shape to the system. Economic consider-
ations represent the cornerstone of a rational approach focusing on balancing inputs with returns to maximizing profits (see Chapter 8 for more details). It is obvious from the pres- ent scenario that comprehensive economic thresholds will integrate dynamic marketing strategies and economic values with vari- able control costs to make better choices for long-term economic returns (Cuperus et al., 2000). The promotion of IPM must empha- size management of the surrounding ecolog- ical system at a cost that does not adversely affect quality. Farmers need to be persuaded to adopt IPM through economic analysis of the options, and then regulatory or environ- mental constraints may ultimately dictate their management levels.
Environment emphasizes the protec- tion of land, water and other ecological components in an IPM system. In fact, environmental risks associated with pest management include detrimental effects to beneficial and non-target organisms, aquatic toxicity, avian toxicity, and have direct links with the ecological concerns through resource allocations (Benbrook et al., 1996;
Cuperus et al., 1997). Therefore, any IPM strategy requires a balance between the eco- nomics of production and the environmen- tal stewardship. To establish this balance, it is necessary to integrate long-term planning and implementation on both micro- and macroscales and more from an ecological perspective (Riha et al., 1996).
Social issues present an equally impor- tant force (see Chapter 7) because they affect the acceptability of pesticides as a manage- ment tool and of new tools like biotechnol- ogy (see Chapter 13 for details). These issues encompass endangered species, safety of farm workers and food quality protection.
Overall, IPM has to be a socially acceptable approach that would help in developing more sustainable, environmentally sound and economically viable systems (Buttel et al., 1990). Looking at the basic forces vis- à-vis the development of IPM strategies, it is important to consider the consumer con- cerns before any IPM strategy with effective tools are finalized for any system. Lucerne and stored grains with interesting ecology, where pesticide load is reduced, worker
safety has improved and the system is sus- tainable over time, are dealt with later in the discussion of two model systems.
Consumer Concerns
Health and well-being are highly valued in today’s society, and safety of the food supply is of critical concern to consumers. The food system is consumer-driven with the pur- chaser significantly dictating which foods are produced and how food is produced, processed and distributed. Con sumers want a safe, wholesome food supply that is pro- duced without harming the environment, with no danger from contamination by microorganisms, naturally occurring toxins or other potentially hazardous chemicals that may be deliberately or inadvertently added into the food supply. Although sci- entists generally agree that microorganisms represent the biggest threat to food safety, the general public feels that pesticides, pesticide residues and biotech plants are the most crit- ical issues facing consumers regarding food safety. At present, the European Union is not accepting biotechnology (IFIC, 2003).
National surveys show that more than 75% of consumers are very concerned with the safety of examining food supply because of pesticide residues. Consumers are also con- cerned about the genetic origin of the crop, though recent surveys indicate consumers are increasingly comfortable with biotechnology (IFIC, 2002; Hallman et al., 2003).
Research shows that the public is concerned about the environment and the
overall stewardship and safety of the food system (Collins et al., 1992; Henneberry et al., 1999; IFIC, 2003). Consumer concerns are partially aggravated by:
1. Greatly increased use of biotech varieties;
2. Significantly increased pesticide use and other chemical inputs in the food system (Benbrooket al., 1996);
3. Perceptions that pesticide use will result in increased cancer rates;
4. Uncertainty about the impact of biotech plants on human health;
5. Increased analytical capability to detect minute agricultural chemical levels in food;
6. Public lack of exposure to and under- standing of agricultural systems;
7. Lack of control over consumption of bio- tech plants and pesticide residues;
8. Lack of confidence in the food produc- tion system;
9. Great amount of publicity about health issues and agriculture.
Increasing the utilization of agricultural chemicals and biotech varieties has signifi- cantly improved the productivity, but with consumer concerns (Table 1.1). Lusk and Sullivan (2002) examined the public con- cern about biotechnology and found they were similar to their concerns over pesti- cides. Risk communication is critical for people working with agriculture (Benbrook et al., 1996).
A major concern deals with concerns regarding consumption of biotech plants in the food production, processing and distri- bution system. There is no control over con- sumption of biotech plants, and tremendous
Table 1.1. Percentage of public response to perceived risk of impact of pesti- cides on farm workers, wildlife, producers and the general public.a (From Shelton et al., 1997.)
Perceived risk (percentage of response) Affected group Great deal Some Little No hazard
Farm workers 36 46 11 2
Wildlife 44 46 4 4
Farmer/rancher 31 46 16 2
General public 24 46 21 1
aSurvey was conducted in Oklahoma City and two rural communities (n = 400).
growth of biotech crops has occurred during the past several years (Hallman et al., 2003;
PEW Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, 2003). This is, however, true for pesticide residue consumption as well as due to the high worker or farmer exposure (Cuperus et al., 1990; Kenkel et al., 1994a). Therefore, concerns exist with pesticide use, pesti- cide residues and food safety (Collins et al., 1992; IFIC, 2003) and disappearance of traditional pests due to biotechnology (Jahn et al., 2001). Pesticide resistance in pests has increased (Pedigo, 1999) along with the increase in control costs (Benbrook et al., 1996), which has affected the profit margins.
Increased vulnerability may now exist due to widespread planting of a single variety or single gene resistance, and environmental concerns continue to be important, along with food safety issues from pesticides and biotech plants (Cuperus et al., 1991, 2004;
Henneberryet al., 1999; IFIC, 2003).
This public perception implies that there is overall bias in views of both pesti- cide usage and biotechnology. There is clear evidence from studies that while the Euro- pean Union does not accept biotechnology (IFIC, 2003), others embrace biotech crops as the foundation for IPM (Fitt, 2000). These conflicting views exacerbate the consum- ers’ concerns about the treatments applied to the crops. It is apparent that communica- tion skills will be critical between the layers of production, processing, grocery and the consumer. Cuperus et al. (1996) examined how the levels interact and trust each other (Table 1.2). Clearly, a Hazard Analysis Criti- cal Control Point (HACCP) approach seems appropriate (Cuperus et al., 1991) where the food system is examined as a whole focus- ing on food safety. This approach is critical, especially if the genetic origin of crops with biotech varieties is important for domestic and international consumers.
Table 1.2. Food industry segments rating each other about the existing level of concerns about pesticide residues. (From Cuperus et al., 1996.)
Percentage of responsea
Very Moderately Somewhat Average
Queried audience concerned concerned concerned No concern rating Grocersb
Consumers 42.6 35.7 9.9 11.0 1.91
Grocers 53.4 25.4 10.4 10.7 1.78
Processors 46.7 28.7 12.4 12.1 1.90
Producers 43.2 31.7 13.7 11.3 1.93
Processorsc
Consumers 33.3 50.0 16.7 0 1.88
Grocers 11.1 50.0 38.8 0 2.28
Processors 44.4 44.4 11.1 0 1.67
Producers 33.3 44.4 22.2 0 1.83
Producersd
Consumers 35.8 12.8 28.2 23.2 2.40
Grocers 17.8 10.2 28.2 43.6 2.97
Processors 7.6 12.8 28.2 51.4 3.24
Producers 30.7 17.9 25.6 25.6 2.43
Government
Agencies 53.8 12.8 7.6 25.6 2.04
Consumerse 37.1 35.3 15.1 13.2 2.04
aRating: very concerned = 1, no concern = 4.
bn = 400.
cn = 35.
dn = 38, en = 957.
In contrast, scientific evidence sug- gests that there is little scientific evidence of any health problems that are due directly to biotechnology or agricultural chemi- cal use (Fernandez-Cornejo and McBride, 2003a). Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reports indicate that no detectable residues were found in more than 65% of all samples and less than 1% of all samples contain illegal pesticide residues (Food and Drug Administration, 2001). Risk percep- tion research indicates that the consumer concerns arise from factors other than sci- entific risks (Sandman, 1986; Cuperus et al., 1991) like:
● Control – consumers have no control on treatments applied to the produc- tion of food or whether the crops are biotechnology varieties.
● Scientific uncertainty about health effects.
● Risks unfairly distributed – producers ben- efit, consumers are at risk.
● Environmental concerns by the public – present production practices may threaten the environment.
● Political situations are seen as risky or safe.
● Value of chemical inputs is often misun- derstood and benefits are poorly deliv- ered to the public.
● Regulatory system is often misunder- stood and not trusted by the public.
● Pesticide issues are unfamiliar to the public. Consumers perceive that pesti- cides are not effectively regulated.
Concerns pertaining to food safety, water quality, pesticide residues, farm worker safety and other perceived issues stem from the basic core of concern with environmen- tal and human risk (Sandman, 1986). Sur- veys also indicated that consumer concerns about these complex issues stemmed from the above-mentioned issues and from other secondary issues (Table 1.2). Several authors indicate the manner the questions are asked can bias consumer surveys (Fernandez- Cornejo and McBride, 2003b; Hallman et al., 2003). Many consumer concerns were not about their personal safety but about the environment, wildlife, groundwater, and lack of confidence in the production and
regulatory systems. The regulatory system is a label-driven system through which the consumer receives the information about the product. Ecologically produced food is sold with ecolabel, which is the topic of discus- sion among the international organizations concerned with trade (Barham, 1997). Gen- erally, a consumer looks at these labels for life cycle assessments and processing and production methods, and it is the basis for government regulation. Such regulation for environmental safety and health purposes is permitted under multilateral trade rules and does not cause problems for domestic use. As per General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the right of individual countries to set their standards within their boundar- ies has been established. From the consumer point of view, this has created non-tariff bar- riers in terms of competitiveness. Thus, at the consumer level, the issues are complex and emotional and must be addressed from scientific and educational aspects. Issues of risk are addressed from the same perspective regarding: food safety, environmental risks and ecological risk (Cuperus et al., 1991;
Benbrook et al., 1996; Henneberry et al., 1999); therefore, such situations do influence the implementation of the EBIPM system.
Implementation
The above discussion implies that, although there are many issues, farmers are gaining faith in IPM and try to adopt IPM tactics and techniques; they are going to be the leaders in calling for new research and technology transfer programmes. In terms of implement- ing IPM, we have some potential examples of IPM with apple, potato and cotton grow- ers. Various tactics used in EBIPM are crop- specific (Coble and Pedigo, 2003). However, to achieve IPM that is ecologically grounded, these tactics need to be seen as elements in an IPM continuum that farmers should imple- ment based on information from a multitude of disciplines. The requirement is to focus on the implementation needs of the farmer, and that should be the goal of research and extension education. To be successful
in implementing IPM, thinking only of pest control is not the answer. Implementation requires the partnership of economists, soci- ologists, ecologists, horticulturists, agrono- mists, agricultural engineers, geographic information specialists, soil scientists, food processors, crop consultants, pesticide applicators, regulatory agencies, computer scientists, consumers, public policy interest groups and again, most importantly, farmers (Coble and Pedigo, 2003).
Thus, from an implementation point of view, EBIPM should have the basic objec- tives of safety to humans and the environ- ment, assured profitability for the farmers and long-term sustainability with a focus on host plant resistance, biological control and cultural IPM. By setting clear objec- tives, research and education programmes have a clear mission. The programmes can then deliver ecologically based approaches that include proper use of aeration, tillage, variety selection, biological control and planting dates (National Research Council, 1996). To implement and evaluate progress of EBIPM (Stark et al., 1990; Frisbie, 1994), agencies like Cooperative Extension are needed to help deliver programmes to the producers and agricultural industry (Stark et al., 1990; Frisbie, 1994; Coble and Pedigo, 2003). Although it is preferable to have one agency that develops and delivers informa- tion, it is critical to have the grower input (Lipke et al., 1987; Cuperus and Berberet, 1994; Cuperus et al., 2004).
How should IPM information be deliv- ered? The source from where producers get IPM information is interesting, with the significant changes occurring from univer- sities with focused cropping system efforts like stored grain (http://ipm.okstate.edu/
ipm/stored_products/index.html), soybeans (http://www.ipm.uiuc.edu/fieldcrops/
insects/soybean_aphids/index.html), cotton (ipmwww.ncsu.edu/cottonpickin), maize (http://www.ipm.iastate.edu/ipm/) and lucerne (Caddel et al., 2001; www.agr.okstate.edu/
alfalfa) to private sector sources (Probst and Smolen, 2003; Cuperus et al., 2004) like the Certified Crop Advisors (CCA) could be sig- nificant delivery sources. According to Stark et al. (1990), newsletters (hard copy), email
(electronic), fax, etc. are key IPM information sources for growers. Also crop management associations, consultants, field tours, spe- cific publications and videos and Internet- based computer delivery can substantially help the cause of EBIPM. In a small survey of IPM producers in several regions, com- puters were used by 40% in developed countries; 12.7% used decision-making software for pest control; and 31.1% used the Internet (Sorensen et al., 2000).
Constraints to implementation
● Lack of agency like the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Extension can be a limitation. It is apparent that one agency needs to feel that it is their responsibil- ity to develop and deliver IPM technol- ogy (Coble and Pedigo, 2003).
● Lack of research is clearly a constraint to IPM implementation (Cuperus and Berberet, 1994; Cuperus et al., 2004).
Knowing what works and what does not and the consequence of action are critical in programme development.
● Ensuring that growers have a sound understanding of IPM is a critical first step (Cuperus et al., 1990, 2004).
● Lack of interdisciplinary programmes in a given commodity is a constraint that is often not discussed (Lipke et al., 1987).
● Perceived risks and real risks of IPM programme implementation are often constraints that are not addressed (Stark et al., 1990; Cuperus et al., 2004).
● Programme evaluation is commonly not addressed and needs to help focus and improve programmes (Rajotte et al., 1987; Stark et al., 1990).
EBIPM implementation and sustainable agriculture
Two of the most common phrases used over the last 20 years in relation to systems designed for production of food and fibre are ‘sustainable agriculture’ and ‘inte-
grated pest management’. These phrases appear almost invariably in publications that stress efficiency and profitability of production systems and, more emphati- cally, the necessity of protecting soil, water and the human food supply from contamination by agrochemicals. Our goal in this chapter is to support the con- cept that improving sustainability of pro- duction systems and implementation of EBIPM must be linked. Our basic premise is that employment of principles of IPM is essential to optimizing sustainability of agricultural systems, with a focus on all ecological aspects. We believe that future development and success of IPM are quite important to sustainability of agriculture for the coming centuries.
Many definitions have been proposed to describe sustainable agriculture and IPM, and we realize the necessity of presenting those that we intend to use in assessing the merits of our basic premise. We consider sustainable agriculture to be ‘an agriculture that can evolve indefinitely towards greater human utility, greater efficiency of resource use and a balance with the environment that is favorable both to humans and to most other species’ (Harwood, 1990). The follow- ing conditions (modified from Benbrook, 1990) must be satisfied for agricultural sys- tems to be sustainable:
1. Soil resources must not be degraded through erosion, salination or contamin- ation with toxic compounds (e.g. pesti- cides).
2. Water resources must be managed to meet the needs for irrigation and to prevent degradation with silt and toxic compounds.
3. The biological and ecological integrity of systems must be preserved through careful management of genetic resources (for both crops and livestock), nutrient cycles and pest species.
4. Production systems must be economi- cally viable, returning an acceptable profit to farmers.
5. Social expectations must be satisfied, and food and fibre needs must be met in terms of quality and quantity of commodities avail- able at reasonable prices to consumers.
These attributes give clear emphasis on two primary goals of sustainable systems: (i) these systems must be economically viable;
and (ii) they must contribute to desirable environmental qualities over the long term.
The basic approach for pest regulation that we envision is consistent with these primary goals for sustainability as is evi- dent in a recent accepted definition for IPM.
This definition implies that IPM employs ecologically based management processes developed with an understanding of natural cycles and natural regulators of those species that compete with humans for resources in agricultural production systems (Cate and Hinkle, 1994). Successful IPM programmes, by this definition, are those that enhance profitability of agricultural enterprises and protect the environment for the indefinite future. Whether it involves pesticides, food safety or biotechnology, communication is critical for the producer, processor or con- sumer (Caldwell et al., 2000).
Emphasis on deployment of sys- tems relatively committed to EBIPMs has increased greatly in recent years (Altieri, 1994; National Research Council, 1996;
Boland and Kuykendall, 1998; Kennedy and Sutton, 2000) because of continued reli- ance on crop pesticides. Various studies in the USA and Europe have shown that IPM or integrated cropping systems can control pests effectively and can contribute to the build-up of beneficial organisms and sup- pression of soil-borne pests. This has helped in developing sustainable cropping sys- tems. Furthermore, deployment of EBIPM can contribute to long-term restoration ecology by facilitating recovery of degraded lands (Dobson et al., 1997). To achieve the ecological goals of sustainable agriculture, crop and pest management practices need to be directed at: (i) suppressing incidence and intensity of a wide range of crop pests;
(ii) increasing soil organic matter; and (iii) enhancing soil and crop health. In fact, biodiversity of soil microflora and micro- fauna is related to the rotation of primary crops with cover crops and green manure crops. Therefore, specific cropping systems as well as cover crops must mesh with the requirements of the primary crops and the
farmer in a fully developed EBIPM system and will contribute significantly to the sus- tainability.
EBIPM implementation and food safety With the concern of the European Union about genetically modified organisms (GMOs), identity preservation is important in our food system. Consumer concerns about genetic origin and pesticide residues are critical marketing issues. Communica- tion among the different segments of the food system is critical (Cuperus et al., 1991;
Henneberryet al., 1999; Phillips et al., 1999;
IFIC, 2003). Communication regarding GMOs shows that public reaction responds very much to the way the topic is presented (Hallmanet al., 2003). With any risk issue, the public response emphasizes the impor- tance of risk communication and the bias that can occur with improper communica- tion. Although food safety risks are often shown for horticultural crops, concerns are equally pronounced for field crops that are fed to dairy cattle (Ward et al., 1995). Stud- ies also emphasize that all these concerns are related (Cuperus et al., 1991, 2004).
Table 1.2 looks at the different levels of the food system and the perception of their con- cern about food safety. This may be critical if genetic characteristics are important.
Influence of Markets
Pest management is a critical part of the sys- tem. Losses from pests from just insects are 13%. Losses in postharvest often exceed 50%
in developing countries (PEW Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, 2003; Tabashink et al., 2003; Wolt et al., 2003). Clearly, manage- ment of pests must be ecologically addressed to be economically sustainable.
Markets worldwide enable consumers (buyers) to register their preferences with the appropriate currency. Certainly, it is impor- tant to register the concerns of producers, processors and others along the marketing channel, and ultimately con sumers regard- ing many aspects of food safety, worker safety
and environmental safety. Their interaction within the marketing system is highlighted in Table 1.2. Concerns and issues need to translate into sustainable production prac- tices to respond to market demand.
EBIPM products can be more expen- sive to produce or can result in smaller yields. If they prove to be more expensive, consumers must consent to pay a premium price for them. However, consumer willing- ness to pay higher prices may not necessar- ily match their level of concern.
Biotechnology might result in lower costs of production and higher yields.
Transgenic cultivars were first developed in the 1980s and they became available in the mid-1990s (PEW Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, 2003). They now dominate some systems like cotton, soybeans, and maize in the USA and worldwide. Con- sumers are very concerned over consuming these biotech varieties (Henneberry et al., 1999; IFIC, 2003; Cuperus et al., 2004) and this issue has not yet adequately addressed.
Clearly, it would appear something would have to change when the majority of area is produced in varieties with consumers’ con- cerns. With high losses in crop production and storage, a consumer educational pro- gramme is needed. With any concern, there is also an opportunity. However, again, if consumers are concerned about the biotech- nology process or some aspects of safety regarding the end product, they may not be willing to purchase them, even if offered at a lower price. Consumer concerns may off- set their apparent pocketbook savings. The issue of marketing EBIPM products is often discussed. Consumers have demonstrated a concern with management systems in pro- duction. That is particularly true in fresh produce but also with field crops (Collins et al., 1992; Ward et al., 1995; Heneberry et al., 1999). Consumers desire a pesticide residue – free food produced in an ecologi- cally sound fashion (Cuperus et al., 1996).
Numerous studies have documented the opportunities for marketing ecologically based management approaches (Henneberry et al., 1999). If the appropriate approach is made, a market premium may be available for ecologically based management systems.
Clearly, marketing will be the critical factor in acceptance of EBIPM.
Keys in Examples Related to Programme Delivery Information
Source
A major application of weather data is key in decision making for current or future pest control activities. By coupling current weather data with the predictions based on models, ‘forecasts’ for crop development or pest activity are prepared. These forecasts often have great value in allowing farmers to conduct pest control activities in a more timely manner, as is often critical with applications of fungistatic compounds for limiting infections by pathogens. Weather parameters such as degree-day accumula- tions for insect development or relative humidity conditions will be increasingly important to improve decision making for pest control activities.
Major improvements in data collection for IPM programmes have occurred with the establishment of weather networks such as the Oklahoma Mesonet system. This sys- tem collects weather data from 117 sites in Oklahoma, which are used to develop com- prehensive summaries of current and past conditions. A number of programmes that make important contributions to the IPM in the state are integrated with this sys- tem, e.g. calculations of degree-day accu- mulations for development of the alfalfa weevil,Hypera postica (Gyllenhal). These calculations are used in conjunction with current field-sampling data for decision making rela tive to the need for insecticide applications (Mulder and Berberet, 1993;
Brocket al., 1994). Increasingly, ‘site-spe- cific’ weather data systems are being devel- oped that will enhance decision making on farm-by-farm or field-by-field bases in the future.
Producers access numerous sources of IPM information (Cuperus et al., 1990;
Cuperus and Berberet, 1994). Most pro- ducers prefer traditional delivery methods (Certified Crop Advisor, 2003; Probst and
Smolen, 2003). Many times the local con- tact for fertilizers, pesticides and crop man- agement are the critical information sources (http://www.agronomy.org/cca/). IPM can be the nucleus for interdisciplinary efforts (Lipkeet al., 1987; Stark et al., 1990; Bolin, 2003). Research shows that to be an effect- ive interdisciplinary effort, you need a core coordinating effort (Lipke et al., 1987; Stark et al., 1990; Cuperus et al., 1991). This is the challenge of delivery of IPM throughout the world (Lipke et al., 1987; Stark et al., 1990; Jahn et al., 2001; Bolin, 2003). IPM programmes can be the key coordinating focus in programmes.
Producers get most of their IPM infor- mation on this subject from their local fertil- izer dealer (Table 1.3). About 17% indicated they get advice from the extension agent and the cooperative elevator, and about 11% go exclusively to the extension agent for this type of advice. This emphasizes that this is the source of information where they get the product.
Model Systems
We will use two IPM systems as examples for programme development and delivery:
lucerne and stored grain. These systems are fairly perennial, and long-term manage- ment is required with short-term actions.
These two systems were selected because
Table 1.3. Oklahoma producers’ response to where they get advice on insects, weeds and dis- eases. (From Probst and Smolen, 2003.)
Information source Number Percentage Cooperative elevator 41 47.1 Coop and extension 15 17.2
Extension 10 11.5
Local communication 7 8.1 Coop and commercial 4 4.6 Commercial applicator 1 1.2
Extension and 2 2.3
commercial
Publications 1 1.2
Others 4 4.6
Survey of 87 producers.
they represent two contrasting systems seen in IPM delivery: (i) a well-known, well-researched system with an excellent extension programme (lucerne); and (ii) a relatively little-known system with the applied research and very little extension done after the programme started (stored grain). We will talk about how the social, economic and environmental goals were achieved. The ecology of both of these IPM systems was ignored and pesticides were used to try to overcome the lack of under- standing. The systems represented two contrasting situations with the research and education fairly high in one system and very low in the other.
Case study of lucerne IPM
Lucerne is produced on 240,000 ha in Oklahoma and is sold for dairy, beef and horse consumption primarily in Oklahoma and Texas (Ward et al., 1995). Lucerne is a perennial crop that can live 5–6 years in Oklahoma. Several insects including alfalfa weevil and spotted alfalfa aphid, severe disease problems including the root rot diseases and severe weed problems are all annual problems of this crop. Eco- nomic analysis reveals that potential profit is directly related to stand life. The profit- able years are after the costs of establish- ment are recovered (Caddel et al., 2001).
In the 1980s, farmers were not adopting resistant varieties and were not effectively monitoring for weeds and insects, and often had difficulty making a profit because of input costs and impacts on yield (Miller, 1984; Cuperus et al., 2000). Producers often applied herbicides as stands age to maintain a full stand (Caddel et al., 2001). Herbicides were used on nearly 100% of acres of estab- lished stands and insecticides were applied 1.8 times/year (Stark et al., 1990). This is an interesting crop sold as a cash crop to dairy- men in Texas and Oklahoma (Ward et al., 1995; Caddel et al., 2001). With this market, there also is the emphasis on being weed free. There was also a concern over pesti- cide residues because the hay is fed to dairy cattle (Ward et al., 1995).
Alfalfa weevil is a severe insect pest of lucerne in Oklahoma. Producers often have to spray more than once on first cut- ting depending on the product used. The estimates of damage and timing of spray applications are mostly based on visible damage (Table 1.4) and can greatly mis- lead growers on damage potential. In the early years of alfalfa weevil introduction, fields were white from severe alfalfa wee- vil defoliation. Producers often mistimed insecticide applications because they did not understand what was occurring in the field. Then they started making multiple applications to prevent damage, but profit was reduced. A more predictive system was desired for timely insecticide applica- tions. A multivariate approach for pesticide spray is presently used, which effectively captures the large ecological variability of this key pest (Stark et al., 1992; Mulder and Berberet, 1993). Weevil damage potential is based on egg numbers, severity of winter, and degree-days in the spring. Significant progress has been made with the growers educated on the increasing importance of the degree-day method and the reduction in treatments based on visible damage (Table 1.5). The ecologically based approach has been shown to increase over time (Cuperus et al., 2000). This approach is based on the winter severity, egg numbers and spring heat units, and is made available every spring on
Table 1.4. Lucerne producers’ ranking of factors used by producers to reduce alfalfa weevil. Okla- homa 1988 and 1997. (From Stark et al., 1990a; Mulderet al., 2003b.)
1988 1997
Control strategy N % n %
Grazing 206 32.6 351 42.4
Early harvest 146 23.1 305 36.9 Fall harvest 92 14.6 140 16.9
Variety 89 14.1 195 23.5
Parasites 46 7.3 133 6.8
Predators 41 6.5 184 22.2
Fungal pathogens 12 1.9 17 2.05
Insecticides – – 633 75.3
an = 520.
bn = 827.
the website http://alfalfa.okstate.edu/ (Stark et al., 1993). This has improved with the availability of the data from the Oklahoma Mesonet system (http://agweather.mesonet.
org/). Since the growers are involved with the development of this system, they readily understood and accepted the predictions.
In 1983, an interdisciplinary effort was started at Oklahoma State University called the Alfalfa Integrated Management (AIM) effort that worked closely with farmers and applicators focusing on the ecologically based approach (Stark et al., 1990; Cuperus et al., 2000). This comprised local and state exten- sion and research staff that worked closely with local county lucerne growers associa- tions (Miller, 1984; Stark et al., 1990). When asked their needs for lucerne information, producers indicated the ecologically based information on host plant resistance, cultural management and weed and insect control (Table 1.6). This local ownership has been an important aspect of programme delivery.
The AIM team has successfully inte- grated diverse topics and has always tried to consider input costs and benefits. Example products of this include the Oklahoma Alfalfa Production Calendar (http://alfalfa.okstate.
edu/alfa-cal.htm) on the World Wide Web, a project undertaken by the AIM group. The AIM team has written the Alfalfa Production Handbook and published it as a hard copy extension circular and as a web page: http://
alfalfa.okstate.edu (Caddel et al., 2001).
Growers focused on grazing the lucerne to reduce weeds and insects (Stark et al., 1990) (Table 1.3). When asked factors other
than pesticides that reduced pest number, grazing and early harvest stood out because these were standard practices. Growers reported using several ecologically based, research-proven technologies (Caddel et al., 2001). Table 1.6 demonstrates the prog- ress lucerne growers made due to an inten- sive educational programme. Growers now receive alerts based on degree-days, weevil numbers and severity of winter instead of treatments based on visible damage.
Producer response to information sources of lucerne IPM information on insect management, weed management and variety selection (Table 1.7) and also pro- ducer response to sources of information on weed management (Table 1.8) were inter- esting including the comfort level that the producers felt with the subject matter and showed how critical neighbours can be in implementing EBIPM such as variety selec- tion. Various accomplishments were:
● Producers have responded to the AIM programme very well. Insecticides are applied 1.2 times now (Mulder et al., 2003) compared with 1.8 in 1988 (Stark et al., 1990). The AIM team now has an early warning system in place that predicts the severity and timing of populations based on egg samples taken at key locations, temperature accumulations and winter severity (http://alfalfa.okstate.edu/).
● Producers have adopted recommen- ded varieties, with nearly 50% using Table 1.5. Producer ranking of factors when to
spray for alfalfa weevil: 1988 compared with 1997.
(From Stark et al., 1990; Mulder et al., 2003.) Total in Total in
Method 1988 (%) 1997 (%)
Visible damage 56 37
Degree-day method 36 39
Time of year 4 18
Applicator suggestions 2 4 Other producers’ treatment 2 2 Day-degree method is the Oklahoma recommended method (Mulder and Berberet, 1993).
Table 1.6. Number of producers who indicated topics of information received and desired from OSU Cooperative Extension, 1988. (From Stark et al., 1990.)
Information Information
Topic received desired
Seedbed preparation 24 60
Insect control 162 253
Weed control 122 220
Storage 6 40
Marketing 11 98
Variety selection 108 198
Fertilizer 80 202
Harvest management 10 70
Feeding 8 –
recommended varieties and probably only 5% using common or unknown varieties. Before the AIM effort, the majority of producers were using unknown or common varieties (Cuperus et al., 2004; Mulder, 2004, unpublished data). Growers using IPM reported a 50% insecticide reduction due to more precise timing (Mulder et al., 2003).
This satisfied the economic, social and environmental goals of EBIPM.
● The social and economic accomplish- ments are met through involvement of growers throughout the programme.
● Producers now look for research-based, ecologically based technology (Stark et al., 1990).
Case study of stored product IPM The stored product system was character- ized by high losses from insects, diseases,
high pesticide inputs, high worker exposure to pesticides and grain dust and high pest resistance to pesticides, and clearly was not sustainable. When this system was first addressed in the early 1980s there were no research or extension personnel focused on stored product IPM in Oklahoma. It was not known what species of insects and mould to look for or have any idea on pest population dynamics.
Worker exposure to pesticides is high in the stored wheat postharvest system (Cuperuset al., 1990; Kenkel et al., 1994b;
Plattet al., 1998). In the Southern US high plains area, the majority of grain is stored in commercial elevators due primarily to losses in on-farm storage (Cuperus et al., 1990; Kenkel et al., 1994a,b). Losses have been high due to pests including insects and moulds. Oklahoma grain elevator operators’
and Oklahoma farmers’ responses to where they get advice on stored grain management (Cuperuset al., 1990; Kenkel et al., 1994b) show that large differences occur where people get information depending upon their situation and perspective. Elevator operators primarily get IPM and pesticide information from industry representatives and industry literature. Producers primar- ily get their information from cooperative extension, industry and industry literature.
In the early years, few elevator operators looked to Oklahoma State University (OSU) for stored grain technology, while grow- ers did so readily (Table 1.9). Both eleva- tor operators and producers store grain but their systems were very different (Cuperus et al., 1990; Kenkel et al., 1994b). In 1989, an Table 1.7. Producer response to information sources of lucerne IPM information on insect management, weed management and variety selection. (From Stark et al., 1990.)
Source Insect management Weed management Variety selection
Extension newsletter 29.6 24.4 32.1
Extension agents 18.2 21.3 13.7
Agricultural sales 15.4 30.2 15.5
representatives
Neighbours 13.6 13.9 29.6
Farm magazines 12.7 13.0 –
Agricultural lenders 0.6 0.5 –
Others 9.8 3.4 5.8
Table 1.8. Oklahoma producer response to sourc- es of information on weed management. (From Mul- deret al., 2003.)
Producer response (%) Sources of information 1988 1997 Cooperative extension 43 46 Agriculture sales 42 13 representative
Farm publications 8 24
Local farmers 3 16
Others 4 1
industry-sponsored stored grain IPM effort was started. An advisory committee of ele- vator operators was formed that stimulated good industry ownership. At the time, the industry interest was due to Oklahoma regu- lations that required continuing education units (CEUs), the desire for new information in IPM, grain management and equipment and numerous elevator manager suggestions like closed loop fumigation (CLF). There were many pesticide failures due to high pesticide resistance and poor application, and there were safety concerns. We started an industry advisory committee composed of 15 eleva- tor operators, their executive director and the OSU staff involved. The committee still operates. Because of these items, they came and continued to come to the workshops.
The group continually addressed issues they were asked to address and the group put items in front of them like preserved iden- tity, CLF and respiratory protection. This, coupled with the change of fumigants from liquids to phosphine in the early 1980s, led to many fumigation failures from poor appli- cation and worker exposure.
The industry response from farmers and elevator operators has been the high usage of insecticides as protectants and fumigants (Cuperus et al., 1990). With this high pesticide usage, high pesticide resis- tance developed to malathion, diclorvos, phosphine and chlorpyrifos methyl (Zettler
and Cuperus, 1990). In some studies, insect numbers are found to be higher in the mala- thion-treated system than in the control bins (Reed et al., 1993). When the systems are ecologically examined, the population dynamics of insects and moulds, careful utilization of aeration to reduce pest risk and careful utilization of a one-time appli- cation of the grain fumigant phosphine allowed the system to operate efficiently and effectively with very limited pest losses (Cuperus and Krischik, 1995; Cuperus et al., 2004). A focus on the ecology, reduced costs, pest resistance and worker exposure allow this system to operate effectively (Pest Management Strategic Plan, 2004). This has resulted in annual elevator IPM and fumi- gation workshops with nearly 100% of the elevators in attendance.
Individual rankings were also inter- esting where they ranked the reliability of information sources (Table 1.10). Industry representatives and commercial fumiga- tors were looked on as reliable, whereas the extension personnel were not regarded as reliable for this group.
The accomplishments of this effort were:
1. Every year, attendance at workshops represented nearly 100% of commercial elevators.
2. Fumigant use was reduced substantially comparing the level of 2.6/year in 1990 (Cupe- ruset al., 1990) with the present usage level of 1.3/year (Kenkel et al., 1994a). This was through proper use of sanitation and aeration focusing on the ecology of the system.
3. Many growers and elevator operators were encouraged not to use malathion (Reed et al., 1993). Usage of malathion has greatly reduced, thus reducing the inputs and con- sumer concerns. OSU produced a flier that was specifically targetted at producers that might use malathion (Cuperus et al., 2000).
4. The economic, social and environmental goals of EBIPM were met by the 50% reduc- tion of fumigant use and the elimination of malathion use.
Professionals developed and published a national user manual for stored grain IPM (Cuperus and Krischik, 1995), which was made available online (http://pearl.
Table 1.9. Elevator operators’ response to rank- ing of reliability of information from sources (Okla- homa, 1991).
Information source Rankinga
FGIS personnel 1.2
Newspapers 3.3
Chemical fi eld man 1.9
Fumigation manual 1.9
Commercial fumigator 2.3
Commodity Credit Corporation/USDA 2.8
Trade magazine 2.6
Extension personnel 3.4
Chemical supplier 2.6
Other farmers/elevator operators 3.5
aData are from surveys of 112 elevator operators. Rank- ing: 1 = most reliable, 7 = least reliable.
