IPM
Assessment Tool Survey: Summary
and Results
May 22, 2000
Summary and Results compiled by :
John Vickery, Environment and Agriculture Program
IATP, Minneapolis, MN
Stephanie Lundeen, Environment and Agriculture Program
IATP, Minneapolis, MN
Thanks to all of you that replied to our survey.
Below is some background information and a summary of the results.
Cordially,
Stephanie Lundeen and John Vickery
IATP
_________
IPM Survey Results
PURPOSE
To identify the Integrated Pest Management assessment instruments or tools available in each state. These include: survey instruments, farmer self-assessment tools, and criteria for environmental marketing. Sometimes the terms IPM "guidelines," "protocol," "elements," are used.
Whenever any of us needs an IPM self-assessment tool or survey instrument, we will want to customize them to meet specific needs, but it is a great help to be able to start with a tool or survey instrument that has already been developed. For example, with Tom Green (IPM Works and IPM Institute), IATP is developing an IPM assessment tool for field corn. We previously knew about efforts in Ohio and New York, but now know that we need to contact folks in Illinois, Oregon, and Wyoming so that we can learn from their efforts.
METHODOLOGY
The IPM assessment tool survey instrument was sent via email from IATP to every state IPM coordinator (or similar individual) on April 28, 2000. John Vickery, Tom Green, and Mike Fitzner (IPM Program, USDA-CSREES) were identified as the senders�or surveyors! A deadline was given and a reminder email was sent prior to the deadline. The results of this first attempt resulted in 20 completed surveys. In an attempt to gather surveys from the states that did not respond, the IPM survey was sent a second time to a different contact person in each of those states. As a result, another 14 states responded. The total number of states that responded to the survey was 34. Below is a brief summary of the results
RESPONDING STATES WITH EXTENSION ASSESSMENT TOOLS
state:
respondent ��������������� 23 total
AK:
Fred Sorensen **
CT:
Richard A. Ashley
GA:
Paul Guillebeau
HI:
Ronald F.L. Mau
FL:
Russ Mizell
IA:
Jerald DeWitt
ID:
Edward John Bechinski
IL: Michael
Gray
KY:
Doug Johnson
LA:
Clayton A. Hollier
MA:
Bill Coli ***
ME:
Jim Dill
NJ:
George Hamilton
NM:
Carol A. Sutherland **
NY:
Curt Petzoldt ***
OH:
Joe Kovach
OK:
Gerrit W. Cuperus
OR:
Leonard Coop
TN:
Karen M. Vail
UT:
Diane G. Alston
VT:
Lorraine P. Berkett
WI:
Bryan Jensen
WY:
Tom Whitson
**Based
on available information, the materials from these states do not appear to be
assessment tools, per se.
***More
information for MA & NY is provided in the conference proceedings
"Adding Value Through Environmental Marketing". NY -presentation
summary and MA - appendix IV. A.
RESPONDING STATES LACKING
ASSESSMENT TOOLS
state:
respondent ��������������� 14 total
AS:
Fred Brooks (American Samoa)
AZ:
John C. Palumbo
CA:
Peter Goodell
CO:
Bill Brown
CNMI:
A. Lee Eavy (Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands)
DE:
Joanne Whalen
KS:
Douglas J. Jardine
MN:
Kenneth Ostlie
ND:
Marcia McMullen
NE:
Robert J. Wright
RI:
Richard Casagrande
SD:
Darrell Deneke
VA:
Ames Herbert
VI:
Jozef Keularts (Virgin Islands)
NONRESPONDING STATES AND
TERRITORIES���������
18
total
AL,
AR, DC, GU, IN, MD, MI, MS, MO, MT, NV, NH, NC, PA, SC, TX, WA, WV
STATES THAT HAVE IPM ASSESSMENT
TOOLS: a listing by crop
(Agricultural Crops &
Other):
Agricultural Crops:
agronomic crops: CT
alfalfa: IA, OH, OK, NY, WY
apples: ME, MA, NJ, OR, VT
asparagus: NY
banana: HI
beans: NY, OR
beets: NY
blueberries: MA, NJ, NY
broccoli: OR
cabbage: OH, NY
carrot: OH, NY
cauliflower: NY, OR
chile: NM
cole crops: MA
field corn: IA, IL, OH, OR, NY, WY
cotton: GA, LA, NM, OK
cranberry: MA
cucumber: OH, NY
fruit: KY
lettuce: OH, NY
macadamia: HI
melons: NY
onions: ID
peaches: NJ
peanuts: OK
pear: OR
peas: NY, WI
pecans: NM, OK
peppermint: OR
peppers: FL, MA, NY, OH
pineapple: HI
potato: AK, ID, ME, MA, OH
radish: OH
raspberry: MA, NY
rice: LA
small grains: WY
snap beans: OH, WI
soybean: IA, IL, LA, OH
squash/pumpkin: MA, OH, NY
stored grain: OK
strawberries: ME, MA
sugarbeets: ID, WY
sugarcane: LA
sweet corn: ME, MA, OH, WI, NY
tomato: FL, MA, OH, NY
vegetables: CT
wheat: ID, KY, OH, OK
wine grapes: CA, MA
Other:
beekeeping: TN
greenhouse: CT, OK
landscape: TN
livestock: FL
ornamentals: FL, GA
poincettia: MA
poultry houses: CA
schools: GA, TN
urban: OK
Summary of question #6. Purpose: those who ranked "incentives"
as an important purpose and identified the type/s of incentive.
CT and OK: EQIP (USDA Environmental Quality Incentives Program)
MA: - not identified [environmental marketing; formerly, federal cost sharing, state public recognition program--editors]
NY:
IPM Labeling
BLANK SURVEY RESPONSE FORM
|
Contact
info. for respondent SAMPLE�for
format Primary
responsibility: 1.
Crop(s) with assessment tools A. B. C. etc. 2.
Status |
3.
Format A.
multiple choice OR dichotomous/yes vs. no/checklist B.
point system/quantitative OR qualitative ratings Includes
sections or criteria on: (Assumed:
sections or criteria on management of insects, weeds, diseases and/or
nematodes) 4.
Organizations involved, other than Extension |
5.
Who is the audience-the intended user-for the tool? ("*"
denotes the primary audience) 6.
Purpose (Rank
order, starting with "1" for the most important purpose) -
educational and/or motivational tool for farmers -
identify crop production system weaknesses -
characterize adoption of IPM practices -
evaluate Extension programs -
determine eligibility for incentive * -
identify research needs -
federal or state reporting requirements -
other, specify |
7.
Primarily a survey instrument? 8.
Primary contact person for the assessment tool (if
different from respondent): 9.
Website URL for info Assessment
tools available on line?
|
10.
Publications, reports 11.
Project description�narrative or other explanation
|
SURVEY RESULTS
|
ALASKA Fred
Sorensen IPM
Coordinator University
of Alaska�Fairbanks 2221
E. Northern Lights Blvd #118 Anchorage,
AK 99508 907
786-6300 Fax 786-6312��������������� dffes@uaa.alaska.edu 1.
Crops A.
potato |
2.
Status A
final version completed 3.
Format A. B.������������ Includes
sections or criteria on: - education |
4.
Other organizations involved 5.
Audience -
farmers -
publics sector ag. professionals -
other specify: general public 6.
Purpose (rank order) - 1
educational and/or motivational tool for farmers -2 characterize
adoption of IPM practices -3
identify crop production system weaknesses |
7.
Primarily a survey instrument? No The
guide deals with Potato Late Blight and prevention. It is a guide and
information pamphlet directed to producers and the general public about the
disease and information on how to identify, prevent, and eradicate. 8.
Primary contact person for the assessment tool (if
different from respondent): 9.
Website URL for info None Assessment
tools available on line? No |
10.
Publications, reports 11.
Project description--narrative Alaska has a disease-free seed potato market internationally and the threat of Potato Late Blight has the potential of causing major damage to that market. We have had a seasonal scouting program in the potato fields and have published a pamphlet on IPM for the disease for use by the producers and homeowners. The latter, we feel, need the information as well, since the introduction of the disease may be from seed potatoes brought in by the general public. Knowledge of the potential problems may prevent it occurring in the future. |
|
CALIFORNIA Peter
B. Goodell, PhD IPM
Extension Coordinator UC
Statewide IPM Project Kearney
Ag Center, 9240 So Riverbend, Parlier Ca 93648 559/646-6515
Fax:
559/646-6593 1.
Crops A.
Grapes Lodi
Woodbrodge Central
Coast Sun
Maid Raisin (?) B.
IPM in Poultry Houses��������������� |
2.
Status Unanswered 3.
Format Unanswered Includes
sections or criteria on:
|
4.
Other organizations involved Woodbridge/Lodi
- Cliff Omart Central
Coast Vineyard Alliance - Mary
Bianchi Sun
Maid Raisins - Joe Kretsch Poultry
House IPM - Lesley Hinkle See notes for contact info on the above organizations. |
5.
Audience Unanswered 6.
Purpose (rank order) Unanswered 7.
Primarily a survey instrument? Unanswered 8.
Primary contact person for the assessment tool (if
different from respondent): 9.
Website URL for info Unanswered Assessment
tools available on line? Unanswered |
10.
Publications, reports Unanswered 11.
Project description--narrative See notes/clarification/comments section. |
|
CONNECTICUT Richard
A. Ashley IPM
Coordinator University
of Connecticut Dept.
of Plant Science, U-67 Storrs,
CT 06269-4067 860-486-3438, FAX
486-0682 1.
Crops A.
vegetables������������� B.
agronomic crops C.
greenhouse������������ |
2.
Status C
draft version available A,B
final version completed 3.
Format A. B,C dichotomous/yes vs. no/checklist B. A point system��������������� Includes
sections or criteria on: A,B,C
soil conservation or management A,B,C
nutrient and/or soil quality management C water conservation or irrigation management |
4.
Other organizations involved None 5.
Audience -
farmers���� -
*** other specify: IPM Coordinator 6.
Purpose - 1
evaluate Extension programs - 2
federal or state reporting requirements - 3
characterize adoption of IPM practices - 4
educational and/or motivational tool for farmers - 5
identify crop production system weaknesses - 6
identify research needs - 7
determine eligibility for incentive * *EQIP |
7.
Primarily a survey instrument? No 8.
Primary contact person for the assessment tool (if
different from respondent): 9.
Website URL for info No Assessment
tools available on line? No |
10.
Publications, reports None 11.
Project description--narrative Program
leaders use pre- and post- training surveys to determine impacts on participating growers. IPM coordinator uses evaluation forms developed by program leaders to assess the level of adoption and use of IPM practices by a ramdom sample of growers. |
|
FLORIDA Russ
Mizell Professor
and IPM coordinator U
of Florida Rt.
4, Box 4092 Monticello,
FL 32344 850-342-0990 rfm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu 50%
research/extension, 50 administration- IPM coordinator 1.
Crops A.
Tomato B.
Ornamentals C.
Livestock D.
Peppers and other vegetables |
2.
Status A-D
Final version completed 3.
Format unanswered Includes
sections or criteria on: |
4.
Other organizations involved 5.
Audience -
regulators 6.
Purpose (rank order) - 1
characterize adoption of IPM practices - 2
federal or state reporting requirements
|
7.
Primarily a survey instrument? Yes 8.
Primary contact person for the assessment tool (if
different from respondent): O.
Norman Nesheim, Pesticide Information Coordinator 9.
Website URL for info Unanswered Assessment
tools available on line?
|
10.
Publications, reports Contact
N. Nesheim 11.
Project description--narrative PIAP assessment and impact surveys with IPM questions; no other IPM tools |
|
GEORGIA Paul
Guillebeau IPM/Pesticide
Coordinator University
of Georgia. Department
of Entomology Athens
GA 30602 706-542-9031
FAX
542-3872 pguillebeau@bugs.ent.uga.edu Coordinate/facilitate
IPM and pesticide programs 1.
Crops A.
cotton������������������ B.
ornamentals C.
schools |
2.
Status A
final version completed B,
C draft version available 3.
Format A. A-C, multiple choice B. A-C point system Includes
sections or criteria on: A -
soil conservation or management��������������� A -
nutrient and/or soil quality management A-C
- education |
4.
Other organizations involved 5.
Audience -
farmers���� -other,
specify: school personnel, PCOs, and school administration 6.
Purpose (rank order) - 1
educational and/or motivational tool for farmers - 2
identify research needs - 2
characterize adoption of IPM practices - 2
evaluate Extension programs - 3
identify crop production system weaknesses - 3
federal or state reporting requirements - 4
determine eligibility for incentive * *Not identified |
7.
Primarily a survey instrument? No 8.
Primary contact person for the assessment tool (if
different from respondent): 9.
Website URL for info No Assessment
tools available on line? No |
10.
Publications, reports Guillebeau,
Paul, Gretchen Van De Mark. 1999. Cotton IPM. Georgia Farm*A*Syst/ Cotton*A*Syst.
University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service, Bulletin 1152-19 11.
Project description--narrative
|
|
HAWAII Ronald
F.L. Mau Assoc.
Dean/ Assoc. Director for
Cooperative Extension Univ
of Hawaii College
of Tropical Agriculture and
Human Resources 3050
Maile Way, Room 203B Honolulu,
Hawaii 96822-2271 808-956-8397
Fax:
956-9105 Mobile
808-265-4554 Former
Extension IPM Coordinator. 1.
Crops A.
Pineapple B.
Banana C.
Macadamia |
2.
Status A,B,C
final version completed 3.
Format A.
unanswered B.
point system Includes
sections or criteria
on: - nutrient
and/or soil quality management
|
4.
Other organizations involved All
protocols were developed by Univ of Hawaii and industry field men. The
pineapple protocol involved the Maui Pineapple Company. The banana and
macadamia protocols were approved by state industry organizations and
recommended for use by the organizations. 5.
Audience -
farmers* -
regulators 6.
Purpose (rank order) - 1
educational and/or - -motivational tool for farmers - 1
characterize adoption of IPM practices - 1
federal or state reporting requirements |
7.
Primarily a survey instrument? Yes.
The instrument is used to verify level of adoption of IPM Practices 8.
Primary contact person for the assessment tool (if
different from respondent): Dr.
Arnold Hara, Extension IPM Coordinator arnold@hawaii.edu 9.
Website URL for info http://www.extento.hawaii.edu/IPM/ Assessment tools available on line? Yes |
10.
Publications, reports 11.
Project description--narrative The
pineapple IPM protocol were patterned after the New York and Mass. elements/
guidelines. The macadamia and banana guidelines were modeled after the
national potato IPM program. If
further information is needed it might be available in our plan of work at
the USDA IPM Website. |
|
IDAHO Edward
John Bechinski Extension
IPM Coordinator University
of Idaho 236
Ag. Sci. Bldg Moscow,
ID 83844 208.885.5972
FAX .885.7760 l
ed_bechinski@uidaho 1.
Crops A.
potatoes B.
sugarbeets C.
wheat D.
onions |
2.
Status A
-D final version completed 3.
Format A.
A-D_multiple choice B. Unanswered Includes
sections or criteria on: |
4.
Other organizations involved Financially
co-sponsored by state commodity commissions 5.
Audience -
farmers���� -
private sector ag. professionals -
publics sector ag. professionals 6.
Purpose - 1
characterize adoption of IPM practices - 2
evaluate Extension programs - 3
identify research needs - 4
educational and/or motivational tool for farmers
|
7.
Primarily a survey instrument? Yes 8.
Primary contact person for the assessment tool (if
different from respondent): 9.
Website URL for info agweb.ag.uidaho.edu/ipm Assessment
tools available on line? Yes |
10.
Publications, reports 11.
Project description--narrative
|
|
ILLINOIS Michael
E. Gray Professor
& Extension IPM Coordinator Institution
University of Illinois Department
of Crop Sciences Address
2 S-320 Turner Hall, 1102 S. Goodwin Avenue Urbana,
IL 61801 217-333-6652;
FAX
333-5245 m-gray4@uiuc.edu 1.
Crops A.
corn B.
soybean |
2.
Status A
-D final version completed 3.
Format A.
A-D multiple choice B. Unanswered Includes
sections or criteria on: -education (attends training, receives newsletters, etc.) |
4.
Other organizations involved Not
aware of any others. 5.
Audience -
farmers -
private sector ag. professionals (summaries
in preparation) 6.
Purpose (rank order) - 1
characterize adoption of IPM practices - 2
educational and/or motivational tool for farmers -3
identify research needs - 4
identify crop production system weaknesses -5
evaluate Extension programs - 6
determine eligibility for incentive * -7
federal or state reporting requirements *
No incentive programs have been created.
|
7.
Primarily a survey instrument? Yes 8.
Primary contact person for the assessment tool (if
different from respondent): 9.
Website URL for info www.aces.uiuc.edu/ipm/field/com/imr/wcrscout/wcrscout.html Assessment
tools available on line? Yes
|
10.
Publications, reports In
1995 the following paper concerning the adoption of IPM practices on central
Illinois farms was published. Czapar,
G.F., M.P. Curry, and M.E. Gray. 1995. Survey of integrated pest management
practices in central Illinois. Journal of Production Agriculture, Volume 8,
no. 4: 483-486. 11.
Project description�narrative See notes/clarification/comments section for more information. |
|
IOWA Jerald
DeWitt, Professor Pest
Management and the Environment Program Coordinator Iowa
State University Department
of Entomology Room
8 Insectary Ames,
IA 50011-3140 515-294-1101 FAX
515-294-8027 jdewitt@iastate.edu Your
primary responsibility: Coordinator
of the Pest Management and the Environment Program. This program includes
Integrated Pest Management for field crops and urban settings; also pesticide
applicator training and educational programs for private and commercial
pesticide applicators. 1.
Crops A.
corn B.
soybean C.
alfalfa |
2.
Status A,B
draft version available A-C
final version completed We have
just mailed the final version of the IPM survey to growers in Iowa for corn
and soybean. The alfalfa survey is as separate survey instrument for alfalfa
growers that was used earlier this year. In addition, we ask questions of
producers for our pesticide applicator training programs. 3.
Format A.
A-C multiple choice and A,B
dichotomous/yes vs. no/checklist Includes
sections or criteria on: -
nutrient and/or soil quality management - education |
4.
Other organizations involved Iowa
Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, Natural Resources and
Conservation Service, Certified Crop Advisors, Agribusiness Association of
Iowa, National Foundation for IPM Education, Texas A&M University, Texas
Pest Management Association 5.
Audience -
farmers���� -
private sector ag. professionals -
publics sector ag. professionals 6.
Purpose - 3
educational and/or motivational tool for farmers (and/or other audience) - 1
identify crop production system weaknesses - 1
characterize adoption of IPM practices - 4
evaluate Extension programs - 7
determine eligibility for incentive * - 6
identify research needs - 5
federal or state reporting requirements
|
7.
Primarily a survey instrument? Yes 8.
Primary contact person for the assessment tool (if
different from respondent): Carol
Pilcher 325
N Union St Good
Hope, IL 61438 phone
309-456-3513 email
csimmons@iastate.edu 9.
Website URL for info No Assessment
tools available on line? No |
10.
Publications, reports Contact
Carol Pilcher Reports
will be generated when IPM survey is completed. 11.
Project description--narrative The
primary objective of the IPM survey was to take an important step towards
developing a standardized measurement tool for the adoption of IPM that can
be utilized by multiple agencies across different commodities. This research
evaluated existing measurement devices to develop an appropriate tool with
field level applicability. We are currently in the process of demonstrating
the use of this tool across state lines with corn, cotton, and soybean
production. The
alfalfa survey was designed to reveal specific management techniques that are
used in alfalfa production in Iowa. From these data, we can better estimate
client needs and develop educational materials that answer producer needs.
|
|
KENTUCKY Doug
Johnson Extension
Entomologist University
of Kentucky Research
and Education Center P.O.
Box 469 (1205 Hopkinsville St.) Princeton,
KY 42445-0469 270.365.7541
x214; FAX
365.2667 djohnson@ca.uky.edu IPM:
http://www.uky.edu/Agriculture/IPM/ipm.htm ENTOMOLOGY:
http://www.uky.edu/Agriculture/Entomology/enthp.htm Extension
Entomologist 1.
Crops A.
Wheat�� B. Fruit |
2.
Status A,
B revised/updated version will be available (date/year?) 3.
Format A. Unanswered B. A, B Point system� Include(s)
sections or criteria on: A,
B soil conservation or management A,
B nutrient and/or soil quality management B
organic amendments A, B education |
4.
Other organizations involved See
11. 5.
Audience farmers������ private
sector ag. professionals publics
sector ag. professionals 6.
Purpose (rank order) - 1
educational and/or motivational tool for farmers -2
identify crop production system weaknesses - 2
characterize adoption of IPM practices - 2
evaluate Extension programs - 2
identify research needs - 3
federal or state reporting requirements - NA determine eligibility for incentive * |
7.
Primarily a survey instrument? Yes 8.
Primary contact person for the assessment tool (if different
from respondent): 9.
Website URL for info Not
yet available. Assessment
tools available on line? No,
but will be as time and support permits
|
10.
Publications, reports Annual
reports available on USDA IPM site. 11.
Project description--narrative IPM
programs utilize expertise and participation from: Entomology,
Plant Pathology, Agronomy, Horticulture, Agricultural Engineering,
Agricultural Weather, and Agricultural Communications. Additionally, IPM will
share personnel teaching materials, programs, and ideas with efforts in
Pesticide Applicator Training (KYPAT), Pesticide Impact Assessment, and Food
Safety, Water
Quality, and Sustainable Agriculture Working Groups. See notes/clarification/comments section for more information. |
|
LOUISIANA Clayton
A. Hollier Division
Leader (Plant Science) & Specialist (Plant Pathology) Louisiana
Cooperative Extension Service P.
O. Box 25100 Baton
Rouge, LA 70894-5100 225-388-2186
FAX
388-2478 chollier@agctr.lsu.edu 1.
Crops A.
Sugarcane B.
Rice C.
Cotton D.
Soybeans
|
2.
Status A �
D final version completed 3.
Format A. A �D dichotomous/yes vs. no/checklist B. Quantitative/Population Density/Unit Area Include(s)
sections or criteria on: A
soil conservation or management A
nutrient and/or soil quality management A
organic amendments A �
D water conservation or irrigation management A �
D education |
4.
Other organizations involved Consultants
associations Commodity associations NRCS Farm
Bureau 5.
Audience farmers
private
sector ag. professionals publics
sector ag. professionals regulators
other,
specify: Agricultural Extension Agents 6.
Purpose (rank order) - 1
educational and/or motivational tool for farmers - 1
evaluate Extension programs - 1
identify research needs - 2
identify crop production system weaknesses - 2
characterize adoption of IPM practices - 3 federal or state reporting requirements |
7.
Primarily a survey instrument? No 8.
Primary contact person for the assessment tool (if different
from respondent): 9.
Website URL for info Yes
www.agctr.lsu.edu/wwwac
(then
go to Commodity Pages) Assessment
tools available on line? (No, not yet, still in planning stage) |
10.
Publications, reports LCES
Publication no. 1083, 1118, 1261, 1565, 1606, 1802, 1838, 1982, 2211, 2241,
2284, 2067, 2147, 2307, 2321, 2341, 2377, 2314, 2496, 2513, 2521, 2554, 2620,
2746 Annual
reports available on USDA IPM site. 11.
Project description--narrative |
|
MAINE Jim
Dill Pest
Management Specialist University
of Maine UMCE
PMO 491
College Ave. Orono,
ME 04473-1295 207-581-3870
FAX
581-3881 jdill@umext.maine.edu 1.
Crops A.
Potatoes B.
Sweet corn C.
Apples D. Strawberries |
2.
Status A,B,C,D:
final version completed (for
program evaluation only)* 3.
Format unanswered Includes
sections or criteria on: |
4.
Other organizations involved 5.
Audience farmers 6.
Purpose (rank order) - 1
characterize adoption of IPM practices - 1
evaluate Extension programs - 2
educational and/or motivational tool for farmers - 3
identify crop production system weaknesses - 3
identify research needs - 4
federal or state reporting requirements
|
7.
Primarily a survey instrument? Yes 8.
Primary contact person for the assessment tool (if
different from respondent): 9.
Website URL for info No Assessment
tools available on line? No
|
10.
Publications, reports 11.
Project description--narrative *These are strictly program evaluation surveys� not a point system like National Potato Council's IPM Protocol |
|
MASSACHUSETTS William
M. Coli Extension
Educator Department
of Entomology Agricultural
Engineering Bldg. University
of Massachusetts Amherst
MA 01003 413-545-1051
Fax
545-5858 wcoli@umext.umass.edu 1.
Crops A. Apple B.
Cranberry C.
Cole crops D.
Field tomato E
Greenhouse tomato F.
Highbush blueberry G.
Peppers H.
Poinsettia I.
Potato J.
Pumpkin and winter squash K.
Raspberry L.
Strawberry M.
Sweet Corn N.
Wine grapes |
2.
Status ALL
CROPS final version completed 3.
Format A. Unanswered B.
ALL point system�� Include(s)
sections or criteria on: ALL
soil conservation or management ALL
nutrient and/or soil quality management B
water conservation or irrigation management ALL education |
4.
Other organizations involved Various
grower associations Private IPM Consultants Dept.
of Food and Agriculture 5.
Audience -farmers����� -private
sector ag. professionals -publics
sector ag. professionals -auditors,
certifiers -regulators
-other,
specify: environmental advocacy groups & consumers 6.
Purpose (rank order) - 1
educational and/or motivational tool for farmers - 1
characterize adoption of IPM practices - 2
identify research needs - 2
federal or state reporting requirements - 3
evaluate Extension programs - 4
determine eligibility for incentive * *not
identified [environmental marketing; formerly, federal cost sharing--editor]
|
7.
Primarily a survey instrument? No 8.
Primary contact person for the assessment tool (if
different from respondent): 9.
Website URL for info http://www.umass.edu/umext/programs/agro/ipm/IPM_guidelines/ Assessment
tools available on line? Yes |
10.
Publications, reports ~
Hollingsworth, Craig and the University of Massachusetts Extension IPM
Program. Amherst, ��������������� MA,
USA for Integrated Pest Management, Massachusetts Guidelines: Commodity
Specific Definitions for sweet corn and potatoes ~
Hollingsworth, C.S. 1994. Integrated Pest Management certification: a sign by
the road. American Entomologist. 40(Summer):74�75.) ~
Coli, W.M., and C.S. Hollingsworth. 1996. IPM: defining the ambiguous. The
Grower. (April):48,49,58 11.
Project description--narrative See
notes/clarification/comments section for more information. |
|
NEW JERSEY Dr. George Hamilton Associate
Specialist in Pest Management Dept.
of Entomology Rutgers
University 93
Lipman Drive New
Brunswick, NJ 08901-8525 732-932-9801
FAX 932- hamilton@aesop.rutgers.edu IPM,
PAT, PIA 1.
Crops
|
2.
Status Many
more veggies: in planning ALL:
final version completed -
Apples, peaches and blueberries: revised/updated version will be available:
7/00 3.
Format A. Unanswered B.
point system AND qualitative ratings������� Includes
sections or criteria on: -
soil conservation or management nutrient
and/or soil quality management -
organic amendments -
water conservation or irrigation management -
education |
4.
Other organizations involved Wegman's New
Jersey Department of Agriculture 5.
Audience -
farmers 6.
Purpose (rank order) - 1
determine eligibility for incentive * - 2
characterize adoption of IPM practices - 3
educational and/or motivational tool for farmers - 4
identify crop production system weaknesses - 5
evaluate Extension programs - 6
identify research needs - 7
federal or state reporting requirements * New marketing opportunity |
7.
Primarily a survey instrument? No 8.
Primary contact person for the assessment tool (if
different from respondent): 9.
Website URL for info http://aesop.rutgers.edu/~hamilton/IPM.htm Assessment
tools available on line? Yes |
10.
Publications, reports See
website 11.
Project description--narrative |
|
NEW
MEXICO Carol
A. Sutherland Extension
Entomologist, State Entomologist New
Mexico State University Extension
Plant Sciences Dept. Box
30003, MSC 3AE Las
Cruces, NM 88003-8003 505-646-1132
FAX
646-8085 csutherl@nmda-bubba.nmsu.edu 1.
Crops A.
chile (in binder) B.
pecans (in binder) C. cotton (components are not assembled into a 3-ring binder, however) |
2.
Status A,B,C
final version completed 3.
Format A. Unanswered B. Unanswered Comment:
compendia of available publications on a crop��������������� Include(s)
sections or criteria on: -
soil conservation or management -
nutrient and/or soil quality management -
organic amendments (manures
only) -
water conservation or irrigation management -
education |
4.
Other organizations involved None 5.
Audience -
farmers* -
private sector ag. professionals* -
publics sector ag. professionals 6.
Purpose (rank order) - 1
educational and/or motivational tool for farmers (and/or other audience) - 2
identify crop production system weaknesses - 3
characterize adoption of IPM practices |
7.
Primarily a survey instrument? No 8.
Primary contact person for the assessment tool (if
different from respondent): Chile:
Dr. Natalie Goldberg, same address as above Pecans:
Dr. Esteban Herrera, ditto Cotton:
-no real spokesman for that since the collection of publications is not
assembled into one unit 9.
Website URL for info No Assessment
tools available on line? No |
10.
Publications, reports 11.
Project description--narrative See notes/clarification/comments section for more information. |
|
NEW
YORK Curt
Petzoldt, Director IPM Cornell
University, NYSAES Geneva,
NY 14456 Phone,Fax
315787-2206 cp13@cornell.edu Your
primary responsibility: IPM Programs 1.
Crops A.Market
Sweet corn B.Cabbage C.Beets D.Carrots E.
Asparagus F.
Blueberriees G.
Cauliflower H.
Cucumbers, melons, squash I.
Wintersquash, pumpkin J.
Dry beans K.
Lettuce L.
Peas M.
Raspberries N.
Snap beans O.
Strawberries P.
Processing sweet corn Q.
Market tomatoes R.
Greenhouse tomatoe S.
Alfalfa & field corn T.
peppers
|
2.
Status S,T
draft version available A -
R final version completed 3.
Format A. Unanswered B. A - T point system ��������������� Include(s)
sections or criteria on: -all
soil conservation or management ��������������� -all
nutrient and/or soil quality management -organic
amendments ��������������� ��������������� -water
conservation or irrigation management *education is required if the elements are used for IPM labeling. Not required as an element |
4.
Other organizations involved -growers -Agrilink
Foods -Wegmans 5.
Audience -farmers����� -private
sector ag. professionals -publics
sector ag. professionals -auditors,
certifiers -other
specify: consumers
6.
Purpose (rank order) - 1
educational and/or motivational tool for farmers (and/or other audience) - 1
identify crop production system weaknesses - 1
characterize adoption of IPM practices - 1
evaluate Extension programs - 1
determine eligibility for incentive * IPM labeling - 1
identify research needs -2
federal or state reporting r equirements
|
7.
Primarily a survey instrument? no 8.
Primary contact person for the assessment tool (if
different from respondent): 9.
Website URL for info http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/ipmnet/ny/elements/index.html Assessment
tools available on line? Yes |
10.
Publications, reports Petzoldt,
Curtis, Joseph Kovach, Abby Seaman. 2000. Integrated Pest Managment Elements
for New York Crops. New York IPM Publication 124 11.
Project description--narrative See
notes/clarification/comments section. |
|
OHIO Joe
Kovach IPM
Coordinator Ohio
State University Selby
Hall OARDC/OSU Wooster,
OH, 44691 330-263-3846 FAX
263-3841 kovach.49@osu.edu 1.
Crops A.
Alfalfa B.
Field Corn C.
Soybean D.
Wheat E.
Cabbage F.
Carrot G.
Cucumber (Pickles) H.
Lettuce I.
Pepper J.
Potato K.
Proc. Tomato L.
Radish M.
Snap beans N.
Squash & Pumpkin O.
Sweet corn
|
2.
Status A-
D draft version available (need to assign points) E -
O final version completed 3.
Format A.
Unanswered B.
Point system All
will be point system. Veggies already have point totals. For survey work we
may go use binomial system Includes
sections or criteria on: -
soil conservation or management -
nutrient and/or soil quality management -
water conservation or irrigation management - education |
4.
Other organizations involved So
far, we only have had OSU internal input (by design.) 5.
Audience - *
farmers� -
* public sector ag. professionals -
private sector ag. professionals 6.
Purpose (rank order) -
1educational and/or motivational tool for farmers - 1
characterize adoption of IPM practices - 1
determine eligibility for incentives * public recognition - 2
identify research needs - 2
identify crop production system weaknesses - 3
evaluate Extension programs - 4 federal or state reporting requirements |
7.
Primarily a survey instrument? yes 8.
Primary contact person for the assessment tool (if
different from respondent): 9.
Website URL for info http://www.ag.ohio-state.edu/~ipm/element/index.htm Assessment
tools available on line? Yes |
10.
Publications, reports 11.
Project description--narrative
|
|
OKLAHOMA Gerrit
W. Cuperus IPM
Coordinator Oklahoma
State University 1
127 NRC Stillwatrer,
OK 74078 405-744-9419 bugs1@okstate.edu 1.
Crops A.
alfalfa B.
stored grain C.
urban D.
cotton E.
pecans F.
wheat G.
peanuts H.
nursery
|
2.
Status A-G
final version completed H ? 3.
Format A. multiple choice B. qualitative������������� Includes
sections or criteria on: A �G
soil conservation or management A �
G nutrient and/or soil quality management A �
G water conservation or irrigation management A -
G education 4.
Other organizations involved Ag Experiment Station, growers, independent groups |
5.
Audience tool?
GENERAL PUBLIC -
farmers -
private sector ag. professionals -other,
specify: public housing authority residents & general public 6.
Purpose - 1
educational and/or motivational tool for farmers - 1
characterize adoption of IPM practices - 1
evaluate Extension programs - 2
identify crop production system weaknesses - 2
Identify research needs - 3
determine eligibility for incentive *EQIP - 4 federal or state reporting requirements |
7.
Primarily a survey instrument? Yes 8.
Primary contact person for the assessment tool (if
different from respondent): Christine
Johnson, Gerrit Cuperus 9.
Website URL for info Assessment
tools available on line? Some
are
|
10.
Publications, reports -
stored grain mangment, E-912 -
cotton evaluaton (see evaluation stuff), E-930 11. Project description--narrative |
|
OREGON Leonard
Coop Research
Associate Oregon
State Univ. Dept.
IPPC Cordley
2040 Corvallis,
OR 97331 541-737-5523,
FAX 737-3080 coopl@bcc.orst.edu 1.
Crops A. Pear
and Apple - 1996 survey B.
Vegetables: Beans, Corn, Broccoli, and Cauliflower - 1996 survey C. Peppermint - 1994 survey |
2.
Status A,
B draft version available C
final version completed 3.
Format Unanswered Includes
sections or criteria on: B -
soil conservation or management B -
nutrient and/or soil quality management A,
B - water conservation or irrigation management A,
B - education |
4.
Other organizations involved A,B
- IPPC, OSU Stats Survey Center C -
Mint Industry Research Council, OSU Stats Survey Center 5.
Audience *
other specify: general use is to indicate IPM status, especially for research
prioritization 6.
Purpose (rank order) -
1characterize adoption of IPM practices - 2
identify crop production system weaknesses - 3
identify research needs - 4 federal or state reporting requirements |
- 4
federal or state reporting requirements 7.
Primarily a survey instrument? Yes 8.
Primary contact person for the assessment tool (if
different from respondent): A -
Len Coop, coopl@bcc.orst.edu B -
Dan McGrath, Daniel.McGrath@orst.edu C -
? Ralph Berry, berryr@bcc.orst.edu 9.
Website URL for info http://ippc.orst.edu/IPMsurvey/cfgph/pearsurvey.cfm Assessment tools available on line? Unanswered |
10.
Publications, reports A -
none other than website B,C
- contact persons listed above 11.
Project description--narrative |
|
TENNESSEE Karen
M. Vail Assistant
Professor Entomology
and Plant Pathology P.O.
Box 1071 University
of Tennessee Knoxville,
TN 37901-1071 865
974-7135 FAX
974-8868 kvail@utk.edu 1.
Crops A.
Beekeeping B.
School IPM C.
Landscape IPM
|
2.
Status A �
C final version completed 3.
Format A.
A - C multiple choice B.
A - C qualitative ratings Includes
sections or criteria on: C -
nutrient and/or soil quality management C -
organic amendments C -
water conservation or irrigation management A -
C education
|
4.
Other organizations involved 5.
Audience other,
specify: A
Beekeepers B
School Personnel C
Homeowners 6.
Purpose (rank order) A1,
B1, C1 characterize adoption of IPM practices A4,
B2, C2 educational and/or motivational tool for farmers A3
evaluate Extension programs A2,
B3, C3 identify research needs
|
7.
Primarily a survey instrument? A �
C Yes 8.
Primary contact person for the assessment tool (if
different from respondent): A.
John Skinner/Pat Parkman B&C.
Karen Vail 9.
Website URL for info No,
but soon will be for B Assessment
tools available on line? No,
but B will be soon
|
10.
Publications, reprots 11.
Project description--narrative See notes section for more info. on B and C. |
|
VERMONT Lorraine
P. Berkett, Ph.D. Plant
Pathologist & IPM Specialist Department
of Plant & Soil Science Hills
Building University
of Vermont Burlington,
VT 05405 802-656-0972
FAX:
656-4656 lorraine.berkett@uvm.edu http://orchard.uvm.edu/ 1.
Crops A.
Apple
|
2.
Status 3.
Format A. B.
Include(s)
sections or criteria on: |
4.
Other organizations involved 5.
Audience 6.
Purpose |
7.
Primarily a survey instrument? 8.
Primary contact person for the assessment tool (if
different from respondent): 9.
Website URL for info http://orchard.uvm.edu/uvmapple/pest/ Assessment
tools available on line? Yes http://orchard.uvm.edu/uvmapple/pest/2000IPMChecklist.html
|
10.
Publications, reports 11.
Project description--narrative
|
|
WISCONSIN Bryan
Jensen Outreach
Program Manager Univ
of Wisconsin Dept.
of Entomology 1630
Linden Dr. Madison,
WI 53706 608-263-4073 FAX:
262-3322 bmjense1@facstaff.wisc.edu 1.
Crops A.
Sweet corn B.
Peas C.
Snap beans
|
2.
Status A �
C in development/on hold 3.
Format A. Unanswered B.
Unanswered����������� Includes
sections or criteria on: -
soil conservation or management -
nutrient and/or soil quality management - water
conservation or irrigation management -
education |
4.
Other organizations involved 5.
Audience -farmers
-private
sector ag. professionals 6.
Purpose (rank order) 1 other, specify: labeling program |
7.
Primarily a survey instrument? No 8.
Primary contact person for the assessment tool (if
different from respondent): 9.
Website URL for info No Assessment
tools available on line? |
10.
Publications, reports None 11.
Project description--narrative We began
development of IPM Elements for Sweet Corn, Peas and Snap Beans. However,
industry wanted to put it's development and their involvement on hold until
there was more demand. It may not take a lot of work to finish this project. |
|
WYOMING Tom
Whitson����������� State
IPM Coordinator and Extension Weed Specialist University
of Wyoming PO
Box 3354 Laramie,
WY 82071 307-766-3113 twhitson@uwyo.edu 1.
Crops A.
Corn B.
Sugarbeets C.
Alfalfa D.
small grains
|
2.
Status A -
D in planning A -
D in development � � A -
D final version completed 3.
Format A. Unanswered B.
Point system Include(s)
sections or criteria on: A,
B, C, D -education -Ours was a pesticide use survey |
4.
Other organizations involved -
Commercial applicators -
Farmers 5.
Audience -
farmers���� -
private sector ag. professionals -
publics sector ag. professionals -
auditors, certifiers -
regulators 6.
Purpose (rank order) - 1
educational and/or motivational tool for farmers - 2
identify crop production system weaknesses - 3
characterize adoption of IPM practices - 4
identify research needs - 5
evaluate Extension programs |
7.
Primarily a survey instrument? Yes 8.
Primary contact person for the assessment tool (if
different from respondent): Mark
Ferrell 9.
Website URL for info Yes Assessment
tools available on line? Yes |
10.
Publications, reports ~
Wyoming Agriculture Extension Service: Pesticide Use in Wyoming, RJ
126, 1986 updated in 1993 ~
CAST IPM Report: IPM on Rangeland in the Western US, 2000 (in progress) ~
CAST IPM Report: Applications of Pesticides, 2000 (in progress) 11.
Project description--narrative We
began development of IPM Elements for Sweet Corn, Peas and Snap Beans.
However, industry wanted to put it's development and their involvement on
hold until there was more demand. It may not take a lot of work to finish this
project. See notes/clarification/comments section for more information. |
NOTES/CLARIFICATION/COMMENTS NOT INCLUDED
IN SUMMARY TABLES
From states and territories with assessment tools
ILLINOIS
Over the last several years, Dr. Susan
Ratcliffe, Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois, has created and
coordinated the collection of data via a website that producers can directly
report the results of their scouting efforts for western corn rootworms in
soybeans. Since 1995, western corn rootworms have adapted to crop rotation
across east-central Illinois and northern Indiana and now routinely lay eggs in
the soil of soybean fields. By monitoring western corn rootworm adult densities
in soybeans with yellow sticky traps (Pherocon AM traps) producers can make
more informed management decisions regarding the need for a soil insecticide
when planting corn the following spring. Since Dr. Ratcliffe established this
web site, hundreds of producers directly report the results of their scouting
efforts. The information is summarized and reported back to all producers in
Illinois via the Pest Management and Crop Development Bulletin.
OHIO
In 1999, the Ohio State Integrated Pest
Management Program initiated an effort to define and consolidate current crop
specific Ohio information on integrated approaches to pest management. Working
with Ohio State faculty and Extension personnel, the IPM elements for 15
commodities (4 field crops and 11 vegetables) have been defined and placed on
the Ohio State IPM Program web site. Apple and strawberry elements are near
completion. These IPM elements were modeled after similar efforts done in New
York and Massachusetts and included insect, disease, and weed management techniques,
and soil, nutrient and water management methods. Intended outcomes of this
effort are: 1) to form crop specific working definitions (practices) of IPM in
Ohio; 2) to develop a system of assessing how far along the IPM continuum
growers are; and 3) and to provide
guidelines to help them determine if their
operations have adopted enough core practices to quality them as IPM
practitioners.
NEW MEXICO
NOTE: These tools don't rank one IPM practice
over another and they don't promote "environmental marketing." They
present information or give directions on how to do something. They are not
associated with additional surveys and they don't administer any surveys or
keys to direct a grower's reading to a particular chapter. They were assembled
because of grower interest.
There is no "environmental
marketing" angle to our publications. There is a New Mexico Organic
Commodities Commission, separate from the University and the NM Dept of
Agriculture that has set some standards and limits and specifies needed
documentation (for growers anticipating an organic marketing label)
TENNESSEE
B. School IPM
Pest management programs in schools need to
balance the risk of unnecessary exposure to pest control products with the
health risk associated with the pests. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) can
help accomplish this goal. IPM emphasizes regular inspecting and monitoring of
pests in order to detect them at low population levels which is a better
alternative than the scheduled spraying of pesticides. Information about the
life cycle of the pest and its interactions with the environment are used to
make a control decision. Most pests need access to food, water and shelter. By
removing the basic survival elements or by blocking access into a structure, pest
populations can be lowered or prevented from establishing. Pesticides may be
necessary in an IPM program, but they should be used in a manner to minimize
the risk of exposure to the occupants.
In 1997, a mail survey was distributed to the
149 public school systems to determine the baseline adoption of IPM. Surveys
were returned from 74% of the school systems. Sixty_five percent of the school
systems surveyed indicated they were concerned about pesticide exposure, yet
only 30% of the school systems indicated they used IPM. Many of the school
systems indicated on the survey that they had adopted IPM. Our estimates of IPM
adoption were lower. If, according to the survey, schools indicated they used
IPM, but also sprayed pesticides on a monthly basis, then they were classified
as NOT using IPM. This lowered the percentage of schools using IPM to 11.7%.
Based on the Department of Education's 1995/1996 annual statistical report on
enrollment, schools using IPM account for about 34% of the children in
Tennessee's school system. We can assume a reduced risk of pesticide exposure
to these.
C. Landscape IPM
The public is concerned about exposure to
pesticides. Integrated pest management (IPM) can reduce reliance on pesticides
and protect the balance that exists between the pest, its natural enemies and
the environment. An urban IPM program was developed to address this need. In
urban landscapes, the IPM program promotes preventing pests problems by
choosing proper plant and site selection, and optimizing growing conditions.
Pests are identified before intervention by regular monitoring and inspecting
for pests, pest damage, indicator species and other problems. Action thresholds
are used where feasible. Intervention, when necessary, is based on a
combination of feasible techniques such as cultural, mechanical, biological and
chemical control. If pesticides are deemed necessary, those that reduce the
risk of unnecessary exposure to people, property and the environment are
chosen.
Results from the Homeowner Landscape Management
Survey conducted at the state fair by Davidson County Master Gardeners in 1996
established a benchmark to measure future impacts. Twelve questions were
selected to
represent the use of IPM in the landscape.
These 12 questions referred to using cultural practices to prevent a pest
outbreak; planting flowers for beneficials; planting resistant varieties;
inspecting for pest problems; identifying pests before control practices are
used; inspecting for beneficials; purchasing beneficials; changing cultural
practices that affect the problem; tolerating slight damage; choosing a product
with least impact on ground water; using biorationals (soaps, oils, microbials,
etc.); and spot-treating infested areas. To be classified as using IPM a
respondent would have used 8 out of 12 (67%) of these practices. Only 11.8% of
the respondents could be classified as using IPM. Although the audience was
biased and may not represent the average homeowner in the state, results of the
survey indicate that more education is needed to increase the adoption of
landscape IPM.
WYOMING
The project was an assessment of pesticides
use in Wyoming conducted in cooperation with the Applicator Training Program.
Ten percent of the farm and ranch population of Wyoming were surveyed with a 60
percent response rate. The survey was conducted on various crops to determine
the pounds of pesticide that are used. Use rate declined from 1986 to 1993
indicating that pesticides are being used more judiciously. The purpose of the
IPM portion of the survey was to determine if pesticide use was changing. It
was determined that the decline in pesticides was due to crop rotations,
pesticide rotations, and changes in pesticide formulations that resulted in
lower amounts of chemical needed per acre.
From states and territories lacking assessment tools
AMERICAN SAMOA
To my limited knowledge, the only survey
mechanism we have is the field visit. Though we had a big agricultural census
last year, the scope of the questioning was limited and only superficially address
crop management strategies.
Traditionally a verbal society, growers in
American Samoa do not, as a rule, keep records. If you ask if they use anything
against a particular pest, they may show you a container, the label of which
they cannot or do not read. If you ask how much they apply, they may answer,
"One tuna can per plant." or "One corned beef can (for all
plants)." Produce is not weighed at harvest or before sale. Baseline
measurements and projected outcomes are a challenge, as are effects of (IPM)
interventions.
Fred Brooks, plant pathologist
IPM Coordinator, American Samoa
CALIFORNIA
Before I fill in the survey, your real
question isn't about IPM programs but about activities in which the growers
assess their progress or seek additional value to their produce. As such, the
Statewide IPM Project does not have any specific activities in this area but
does maintain a large library of IPM information from which such
self-assessment tools could be developed. Such information is available in
written, video, and web-based formats.
The Statewide IPM is engaged in an extensive
IPM assessment program whose goals are to:
*
develop generalized characteristics of IPM systems capable of contrasting
different cropping systems
*
formalize the IPM continuum concept
*
establish benchmarks to measure IPM adoption and progress.
Again, these activities are not designed to
measure individual growers but to establish the current state of IPM in some
commodity, identify constraints in preventing implementation of increasingly
biological reliant practices, and measure changes in practices.
We want to make the assessments
'grower-driven' - e.g., if the growers want such assessments we can help them
to formulate the guidelines. If they do not see a value in this for them, we
are not going to force the issue. I am providing contacts for several
organizations that have developed the assessment tools who might be contacted
directed if this suits your needs. I cannot speak for them, thus I have not
answered any of the survey questions.
Respondent
contact info:
Peter
B. Goodell, PhD
IPM
Extension Coordinator
University
of California Statewide IPM Project
Kearney
Ag Center,
9240
So Riverbend
Parlier,
CA 93648
559
646-6515; FAX 559/646-6593
Some
IPM assessment tools have been produced in my state
but
not by Statewide IPM Project
Crop/s
- with assessment tools (organizations involved)
A.
Grapes
(Lodi
Woodbrodge)
(Central
Coast)
(Sun
Maid Raisin) (?)
B.
IPM in Poultry Houses (?)
Organizations
involved, contact info.
Woodbridge/Lodi
- Cliff Omart
Central
Coast Vineyard
Mary
Bianchi, Farm Advisor
Cooperative
Extension San Luis Obispo County, 2156 Sierra Way, Suite C
San
Luis Obispo, CA 93401
mlbianchi@ucdavis.edu
805 781-5949;
FAX: 805 781-4316
Specialty:
Viticulture, pomology, nutrition, irrigation.
Grapes
in Santa Barbara County
Sun
Maid Raisins - Joe Kretsch
13525
S Bethel Ave
Selma,
CA
559
896-8000
Poultry
House IPM - Lesley Hinkle
COLORADO
I was on the original GPRA Task Force for
impact assessment as an IPM rep from Colorado. Unless we can actually quantify
things like improved profit margin (IPM), pesticide use down, or % low risk to
traditional, I do not know what to do. All our assessments are qualitative and
not very good.
We just completed an external 5-year review
of Colorado IPM last summer and the major criticism was lack of effective
impact assessment tools.� Sorry, I do
not have anything to add that is really attainable.
Bill Brown
Colorado
COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANAS
ISLANDS
I am not aware of any IPM tools in my state.
Since there is no IPM program here yet, it is hard to imagine an impact
assessment tool existing. I have only recently taken this job, and am faced
with creating this whole program from the ground up. I would much appreciate
receiving copies of any pre-existing protocols which would help us design our
IPM implementation program with an eye to being able to assess our successes in
the future. We are assuming that we can document improved water quality through
reduced use of insecticides and we plan to document residue levels on fresh
produce arriving at the markets.
We have conducted a wide-ranging set of
interviews with farmers on our three islands, to ascertain their Knowledge,
Attitudes, and Practices (KAP). These results will set the stage for technician
training programs, which will then transfer information and IPM skills out to
our client farmers. That is our IPM program in a nutshell. I will also attempt
to answer subsequent questions, but this is the caveat under which I am
working.
Dr.
A. Lee Eavy
IPM
and Crop Protection Team Leader
CNMI/CREES
Northern
Marianas College
P.O.
Box 501250
Saipan,
MP 96950
Ph.:
670 234 5498 Fax: 670 234 0054
Design,
develop, and deliver an IPM program for vegetable producers in
the
CNMI (Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands)
NORTH DAKOTA
We have explored the possibility for wheat
but have not gone beyond the planning stage. We use NASS survey instruments to
assess adoption of IPM practices, but we don't have guidelines with points or
quantitative values.
Marcia
McMullen
Extension
Plant Pathologist/IPM Coordinator
North
Dakota State University
Dept.
of Plant Pathology
Walster
Hall
Fargo,
ND 58105
701-231-7627;
Fax: 701-231-7851
mmcmulle@ndsuext.nodak.edu
primary
responsibility: Plant Pathologist for cereals, IPM Coordinator
VIRGINIA
I can make this very simple. In Virginia, the
only way we can assess the IPM effort is via the VCE IPM Educational Program
annual report. All Extension agents and faculty that 'buy-in' to the IPM
Educational Program must report activities, annually. That pool of information
is summarized and used to complete both state and federal (3d) reports. We have
no other assessment process EXEPT: a pilot project that is being tested in one
Extension District that is a adoption/satisfaction/impact survey that can be
conducted by individual agents and passed to a central location for summary,
etc. It is only a pilot at this time, but if successful, could become standard
throughout the system.
Ames
Herbert
Extension
Entomologist
Tidewater
AREC
6321
Holland Road
Suffolk,
VA 23437
757-657-6450
ext 122
FAX:
757-657-9333
ACTUAL LETTER AND SURVEY THAT WAS SENT OUT
TO STATE IPM COORDINATORS VIA EMAIL
To:
State Extension IPM Coordinators and other Extension IPM leaders
Fr:
Mike Fitzner, IPM Program, USDA-CSREES, Wash., DC,
John Vickery, Institute
for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Minneapolis, MN, and Tom Green, IPM
Institute, Madison, WI
Re:
crop specific IPM assessment instruments--surveys, guidelines
Enclosure:
survey
Greetings
We request your assistance in helping us to
identify the Integrated Pest Management assessment instruments or tools
available in your state. These include: survey instruments, farmer
self-assessment tools, and criteria for environmental marketing. Sometimes the
terms IPM "guidelines," "protocol, "elements," are
used.
Perhaps the best known are the Cornell
University IPM "Elements," the Umass Extension IPM Guidelines , and
the National Potato Council's IPM Protocol. Both Cornell and UMass have
assessments for a number of crops.
After reading this cover letter, kindly hit
the "reply" button, fill out the survey below and send it to us in
the body of the email messge. We will compile the information and make it
available at a website. The survey summary will appear in the appendix of a
conference proceedings. The conference,
��������������� Adding Value through Environmental Marketing:
��������������� Opportunities for Food
Producers, Processors and Retailers
took place in Madison,
Wisconsin last December. Some of you were there with us. Tom and John were
co-organizers. The conference website is
http://www.iatp.org/labels/envcommodities/index.htm
We
hope to have the proceedings finished in May and the hard copy version the
following month.
Please
send your completed surveys to Stephanie Lundeen at slundeen@iatp.org. If you
have questions contact Stephanie at 612-870-3471 or John at 612-870-3430.
We
would appreciate a response even if you are not aware of any IPM assessment
tools--or plans for them--in your state.
Note: you are welcome to submit a narrative
description of your IPM assessment program or tool for the proceedings. We
will, for example, include information on the Massachusetts "IPM
Guidelines" in the appendix. The Cornell University/Wegmans Food Markets
"Elements" will be in the main body of the proceedings under
presentations.
Finally, the survey is primarily designed for
you to provide info. on Extension products/activities. If you are aware of any
industry/grower efforts, kindly let us know!
Thank you
Cordially,
Mike������ ��������������� John������ ��������������� Tom
********
Dr. Michael Fitzner - IPM Program,
USDA-CSREES
Ag Box 2220
1400 Independence Ave., SW
Washington DC 20250-2220
202-401-4939; FAX -401-5077 (pause) 0021
Email mfitzner@reeusda.gov
Thomas A. Green - IPM Institute of North
America
1914 Rowley Ave
Madison WI 53705
608-232-1528; FAX -232-1530
Email tagreen@compuserve.com
John Vickery - Environment and Agriculture
Program
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
2105 First Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55404-2505
612-870-3430; FAX �870-4846
Email jvickery@iatp.org
SURVEY
State Extension IPM guidelines/assessment tools
Respondent contact info
(fill
in or paste your email signature file below)
name
title
institution
address
1
address
2
city,
state, zip
phone,
fax
email
Your primary responsibility:
Place an "X" in one of the
following blanks:
______ I am not aware of any IPM tools
in my state.
>>>STOP HERE and return survey
_____ Some IPM assessment tools have been
produced in
my state
>>>PROCEED and complete
questionnaire
1. Crops and Status
crop/s with assessment tools (Insert additional letters if needed)�
A.��������������������������� ��������������� B.
C.��������������������������� ��������������� D.
2. Status If you have an IPM assessment tool for more than one
crop, then just use a letter code from above (A,B, C, D) and insert that letter
in the appropriate blank. >> approx. date or year it is expected to be
available
(again, use code, e.g., A-fall, 2000):
_____
in planning��������������� _____ in
development �������
_____
draft version available��������������� _____
final version completed
_____
revised/updated version will be available date/year ______
3. Format place
"X" in the blank for all that apply
_____
multiple choice��� OR��������������� _____ dichotomous/yes vs.
no/checklist
_____
point system�� OR��������������� _____ qualitative ratings
Comment or clarification re. format:
Includes sections or criteria on: (place an
"X" in blanks for all that apply*)
_____
soil conservation or management��������� ���������������
_____
nutrient and/or soil quality management
_____
organic amendments��������� �������������������������������
_____
water conservation or irrigation management
_____
education (attends training, receives newsletters, etc.)
* We
assume that there sections or criteria on management of insects, weeds,
diseases and/or nematodes.
Comments or clarification (con't from
question 3.):
4. Organizations involved, other than
Extension:
5. Who is the audience�the intended
user�for the tool?
(Check all that apply, but circle the group
or groups that are the primary audience)
_____
farmers����� ������������������������������� ���������������
_____
private sector ag. professionals
_____
publics sector ag. professionals ������
_____
auditors, certifiers, or regulators
_____
other specify:
6. Purpose
Rank order the following, starting with
"1" for the most important purpose.
Give the same rank order number for two or
more that are of equal importance.
_____
educational and/or motivational tool for farmers (and/or other audience)
_____
identify crop production system weaknesses
_____
characterize adoption of IPM practices
_____
evaluate Extension programs
_____
determine eligibility for incentive *
_____
identify research needs
_____
federal or state reporting requirements
_____
other 1 specify:
_____
other 2 specify:
*Please identify type of incentive (e.g.,
public recognition program, EQIP or other incentive program, state or federal
cost-sharing program, environmental marketing, etc.)
7.
Is this primarily a survey instrument? _____ yes��������������� _____ no
8.
Primary contact person for the assessment tool (if different from respondent):
9.
Website
Is
information about the IPM assessment tool available at a website? _____ yes �������� _____ no
If
yes, URL:
Are
the assessment tools themselves available on line?
_____
yes��������������� _____ no
10.
Publications, reports (kindly
provide citations below)
11. Project description - narrative�
We would appreciate it if you could provide a
short overview, description, etc., of the project or program and IPM assessment
instrument (one paragraph, half-page--perhaps longer if this is of interest or
you already have something suitable). You can send this separately or attach
the description with your reply. Kindly contact Stephanie Lundeen at
slundeen@iatp.org for more details and deadline for longer contributions. The
project description is optional and you are welcome to write a brief
description here if time does not permit you
to submit a short summary:
THANKS - appreciate your help!
_____ Place an
"X" in this blank if you would like to receive the results to this
survey.