Transcript Slide 1

The Future of State
IPM Programs
Norman C. Leppla
University of Florida, IFAS
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)
Current Situation in Agriculture
Agricultural goals
Threats to food production
Reactions to threats
IPM options
Sustainability
Generic IPM program
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
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
Potential Threats to Food
Crop Production
 Loss of pesticides
 Offshore competition
 Damaging weather
 Population growth
 Environmentalism
 Government “assistance”
Grower’s Reaction
to Threats
Alien Invasive Pest
Reaction to a New Pest
Resistant Crop
Vulnerable Crop
• Competitors
• Natural enemies
• Resistant varieties
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
What is IPM?
 IPM is the coordinated use of pest
and environmental information and
available pest control methods….
 to prevent unacceptable levels of
pest damage by the most
economical means….
 with the least possible hazard to
people, property and the
environment.
Agricultural Sustainability
Through IPM
Sustainability
Cultural Methods
Biological Control
Chemical Control
Physical Methods
Sustainability of
Agriculture
 Economic profitability
 Environmental health
 Social and economic well-being
IPM System
REDUCE RISK…
INCREASE…
• Pest outbreaks &
disease epidemics
• Reliability
• Sustainability
• Environmental
contamination
Chem
• Human health
hazards
Biological Control
• Pest mgmt.
costs
Cultural & Physical Methods
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
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
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: competitivelyfunded 1862 and 1890 land grant
eligible (75 institutions, ca $8.4 m)
Florida Statewide IPM Program
1.Coordination Programs (ca $168,000)
Past
New
1.Coordination Programs (ca
$168,000)
• A. IPM Coordination ($25,000)
• B. IPM Collaboration (Req., unfunded)
• C. Areas of Emphasis (Defined EIPM-CS)
• A. IPM Coordination ($25,000)
Agronomic Crops (Not req.)
• B. IPM Collaboration (Unfunded)
High Value Crops ($100,000)
• C. Areas of Emphasis (Selected
by State)
Conservation Partnerships ($25,559)
Pest Diagnostics (Req., unf.)
People and Communities
School IPM ($18,000)
Ornamentals and Turf
Housing IPM (Req., unfunded)
Vegetables
Recreational Lands (Req., unf.)
Watersheds and River Basins
Consumer/Urban (Not req.)
Pasture and Forage Crops
Human Pests and Diseases (Not req.)
Citrus
Wide-Area Monitoring (Not requested)
Deciduous and Small Fruit
2.Critical Support
Impact Evaluation (Not requested)
Critical Issues (Not requested)
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
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
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
PROGRAM SUPPORT
USDA, CSREES …………………………...54
Regional IPM Center ………………………54
University Administration…………………....30
Unit Leader……………………………….......30
Clientele……………………………………….20
Smith-Lever 3(d) Funds
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)
The Future of IPM
Multi-disciplinary
Partnerships
Resources- internet
Knowledge intensive
Forestry
Agronomy
Pathology
Entomology
Plant
Medicine
Horticulture
Soil Science
Partnerships
Resource Intensive
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
IPM Competencies
Education & experience. An interdisciplinary education
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.
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
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
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.”
IPM Florida: The UF, IFAS
Statewide IPM Program
http://ipm.ifas.ufl.edu