1 / 34

The Future of State IPM Programs

The Future of State IPM Programs. University of Florida, IFAS. Norman C. Leppla. Leppla’s Career. University of Arizona- Insect Behavior & Rearing Research (2 yr) USDA, ARS- Pest Management & Biological Control, FL & TX (17 yr)

max
Download Presentation

The Future of State IPM Programs

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Future of State IPM Programs University of Florida, IFAS Norman C. Leppla

  2. Leppla’s Career • University of Arizona- Insect Behavior & Rearing Research (2 yr) • USDA, ARS- Pest Management & Biological Control, FL & TX (17 yr) • USDA, APHIS- Methods Development, Washington DC & International (7 yr) • University of Florida- Administration & Integrated Pest Management (12 yr)

  3. Current Situation in Agriculture • Agricultural goals • Threats to food production • Reactions to threats • IPM options • Sustainability • Generic IPM program

  4. Shared Goal:for on-farm production, post-harvest handling and processing, distribution, retail and food-service operations-- to provide the safest possible fresh fruits and vegetables to consumers-- through wise, consistent, scientific and industry-wide best practices

  5. Potential Threats to Food Crop Production • Food borne illnesses • Land availability and use • Labor and immigration • Water quality and quantity • Higher operating costs (fuel) • New plant pests and diseases

  6. Potential Threats to Food Crop Production • Loss of pesticides • Offshore competition • Damaging weather • Population growth • Environmentalism • Government “assistance”

  7. Grower’s Reaction to Threats

  8. Reaction to a New Pest Alien Invasive Pest • Resistant Crop • Competitors • Natural enemies • Resistant varieties Vulnerable Crop • Pesticide program: • Application methods • Resistance management • New pesticides • Integrated pest management program: • Cultural practices • Scouting, Identification of pests and NE • Conservation of natural enemies • Augmentation of natural enemies • Reduced-risk insecticides • Resistance management

  9. What is IPM? • IPM is the coordinated use of pest and environmentalinformationandavailablepest controlmethods…. • toprevent unacceptablelevels of pest damage by the mosteconomical means…. • with theleast possible hazardtopeople, property and the environment.

  10. Agricultural Sustainability Through IPM Sustainability Cultural Methods Biological Control Chemical Control Physical Methods

  11. Sustainability of Agriculture • Economic profitability • Environmental health • Social and economic well-being

  12. IPM System • REDUCE RISK… • Pest outbreaks & disease epidemics • Environmental contamination • Human health hazards • Pest mgmt. costs INCREASE… • Reliability • Sustainability Chem Biological Control Cultural & Physical Methods

  13. Generic IPM Program • Biological knowledge • Monitoring and inspection • Act to control pests when necessary • Choose least-risk options • Long-term, preventative practices • Evaluation and records • Pesticide management • Continual improvement

  14. State Extension IPM Programs • Origin of state IPM programs • Structure and function of state IPM programs • Future of state IPM programs 1972-"Huffaker Project" $12.5 million (NSF, USDA, EPA) 1975-CES extension IPM, every state $0.5-$1.5 m (total) 1979- “Adkisson Project” $3.5 million

  15. The USDA, CSREES (NIFA) Extension IPM Program USDA, CSREES Funding Cooperative Extension Directors State IPM Coordinators Cooperators • Previous program: formula-funded 1862 land grant system (56 states, ca $8.2 million) • Current program: competitively-funded 1862 and 1890 land grant eligible (75 institutions, ca $8.4 m)

  16. Florida Statewide IPM Program • Coordination Programs (ca $168,000) • A. IPM Coordination ($25,000) • B. IPM Collaboration (Req., unfunded) • C. Areas of Emphasis (Defined EIPM-CS) • Agronomic Crops (Not req.) • High Value Crops ($100,000) • Conservation Partnerships ($25,559) • Pest Diagnostics (Req., unf.) • School IPM ($18,000) • Housing IPM (Req., unfunded) • Recreational Lands (Req., unf.) • Consumer/Urban (Not req.) • Human Pests and Diseases (Not req.) • Wide-Area Monitoring (Not requested) • Critical Support • Impact Evaluation (Not requested) • Critical Issues (Not requested) Past New • Coordination Programs (ca $168,000) • A. IPM Coordination ($25,000) • B. IPM Collaboration(Unfunded) • C. Areas of Emphasis (Selected by State) • People and Communities • Ornamentals and Turf • Vegetables • Watersheds and River Basins • Pasture and Forage Crops • Citrus • Deciduous and Small Fruit

  17. PROGRAM MANAGEMENT • Designated Coordinator……………………..18 • Manage the Smith-Lever 3(d) Funds………26 • Obtain Extramural Funding……………….…41 • Adequate Technical Support…………….….24 • Adequate Facilities and Equipment……...…41 • Program Management Structure…………...53 • Planning/Priority Setting Process…………..45 • Assure IPM Program Recognition………….53 • Professional Development Opportunities….45

  18. PROGRAM DELIVERY • Communication System (e.g., website)…..51 • Grants Program..……………………………22 • Produce Extension Materials.……………..49 • Provide IPM Consultation ………………..34 • Seek Funding for Cooperators…………….28 • Conduct Education & Training Activities….52 • Means of Measuring Benefits……..……….53

  19. PROGRAM INVOLVEMENT • Cooperative Extension Collaboration…….....53 • Research Collaboration …………………….52 • Clientele Collaboration…………………….….51 • Interdisciplinary Scope………………………..53 • Inter-Institutional Collaboration…………….. 52 • Statewide Involvement………………………..52 • Regional, National & International Liaison….43

  20. PROGRAM SUPPORT • USDA, CSREES …………………………...54 • Regional IPM Center ………………………54 • University Administration…………………....30 • Unit Leader……………………………….......30 • Clientele……………………………………….20

  21. Smith-Lever 3(d) Funds

  22. EIPM-CS Program Stakeholder lnput • Funded network of state IPM programs is a great value (coordination and infrastructure) (33) • Leverage additional external funding (20) • Increase stakeholder involvement (17) • Fund base functions (12) • Multi-year funding for continuity (29) • Improve the review panels and process (22) • Mini-grants (sub-awards) (5) • Increase program flexibility (17) • One application per institution (5)

  23. Forestry Entomology Agronomy Horticulture Pathology Soil Science The Future of IPM • Multi-disciplinary • Partnerships • Resources- internet • Knowledge intensive Plant Medicine

  24. Partnerships

  25. Resource Intensive

  26. IPM Education and Training • Identifying key pest and beneficial organisms • Understanding the ecology and adaptability of the organisms • Mastering scouting and other monitoring techniques • Applying economic and other action thresholds • Preventing pest outbreaks through habitat manipulation • Designing systems of mitigation that minimize environmental impact • Experience with the habitat, e.g., crops or buildings • Understanding laws and regulations pertinent to pest management • Familiarity with the safe and appropriate use of pesticides • Exposure to pest management information and organizations

  27. IPM Competencies • Education & experience. An interdisciplinaryeducation in the traditional scientific disciplines plus hands-on, practical experience are essential. • Synthesis & integration. Education and training prepare pest managers to synthesize knowledge from across disciplines because plant health problems often are not limited to a single cause. • Problem solving & critical thinking. Experience is gained in accurately diagnosing and rapidly solving plant health problems while minimizing environmental impacts and economic losses. • Speaking & writing effectively. Superior communication skills, both written and verbal, are required to effectively communicate IPM principles and practices.

  28. IPM3 Training Consortium University of Minnesota WebVista (Blackboard Learning System) Core Concepts- $375 for 15 contact hours http:/www.umn.edu/ipm3 IPM Core Concepts Module • Unit 1. Introduction to IPM • Unit 2. IPM Economic Concepts • Unit 3. Host Plant Resistance • Unit 4. IPM Tactics • Unit 5. IPM Tactics―Chemical Control • Unit 6. IPM Tactics―Physical Control • Unit 7. IPM Tactics―Cultural Control • Unit 8. IPM Tactics―Regulatory Control • Unit 9. Introduction to Invasive Species . Pest Biology Modules Specialty Modules

  29. Opportunities for Sustainable Food Crop Production • Research innovations • Technology implementation • Rapid information exchange • Education and training • Biosecurity and trade • Food safety- supply chain • Environmental stewardship

  30. The Functions, Evolution and Benefits of State Integrated Pest Management Programs N. C. Leppla, D. A. Herbert, Jr. and D. D. Thomas American Entomologist, Winter 2009 “A comprehensive and at least stable state IPM program would benefit every land grant university, as agriculture, communities and natural areas are increasingly difficult to protect from pests and diseases without unacceptable risks to human health and the environment.”

  31. IPM Florida: The UF, IFAS Statewide IPM Program http://ipm.ifas.ufl.edu

More Related