Annual/Termination Reports:

[06/28/2012] [01/30/2013] [10/12/2016] [04/09/2015]

Report Information

Participants

Chandran, Rakesk. Chair, WV IPM Coordinator; Legrand, Ana. CT IPM Coordinator; Whalen, Joanne. DE IPM Coordinator; Ayers, John. NE IPM Center; Koplinka-Loehr, Carrie. NE IPM Center; Myers, Elizabeth. NE IPM Center; Hoffmann, Mike. Experiment Station Dir., Cornell; Koethe, Rob. EPA Region I; Rajotte, Ed. PA IPM Coordinator; Hooks, Cerruti. MD IPM Coordinator; Grant, Jennifer. NY IPM Coordinator; Petzoldt, Curt. NY IPM Coordinator; Herbert, Steve. Extension Director, UMass; Coli, Bill. MA IPM Coordinator; Hazzard, Ruth, UMass; Hazelrigg, Ann. VT IPM Coordinator; Green, Tom. IPM Institute

Brief Summary of Minutes

IPM VOICE, Tom Greenp

At the last IPM Symposium: Vankirk asked What do we need to do to continue on together as IPMers? IPM Voice formed in 2010, incorporated as independent nonprofit in 2011. Coalesced out of 2009 symposium. Advocacy organization selected over professional society, foundation options.

" Group decided on a need for a trade group or professional society for IPM, or an organization that raises money to fund IPM projects. Founders include more than 35 professional who believe we need an ongoing advocate for IPM. Members spearheaded successful efforts to keep USDA Regional IPM Centers in the FY 2011 budget, albeit at a reduced level, and full restoration in FY 2012 budget.

" Got together with NAICC; got key congressional contact; her hand got IPM Centers back in budget (Betsy, GA).

" Assembled fact sheets to inform policy makers and others about importance of IPM and benefits to constituents.

" Visited congressional office in DC in October 2011 and March 2012 with the agenda of the following:

" IPM Voice Farm Bill Initiatives:

1.amend ag & food research initiative to include IPM (biocontrol only)

2. establish national IPM coordinator to manage regional an multiagency pest control initiatives

3.provide legislative authorization for the regional IPM Centers

4.amend NIFA statute to continue to assist producers in adapting to changes in availability of pesticides due to regulated or voluntary industry changes.

5.allow secretary to waive match requirement for applied res in AFRI if of national importance

"Broad Advocacy Initiatives and Recognition are on tap now.

"Questions:

o Jen: What are stakeholder groups doing to support IPM Voice? Were preaching to the converted.

o Tom: We all need to join; its operating on a shoestring right now.

o Rob: How reconcile ag and community agendas?

o Tom: Very important and necessary to do.

" Got IPM Voice off the ground, wrote a mission statement. Hired Jim Cubie, who is working on an IPM agenda. Puts together fact sheets and sits down with congressional personspecific to their constituents in their statesand says what we need them to do. Back in October, it was focused on IPM Centers. In March, he saw that AFRI included Biocontrol but not IPM, so he got it back in.

" Trying to get it in office of deputy secretary of USDA. Cubie is asking to amend NIFA statues to obligate secretary to continue to assist producers in adapting to changes in the availability of pesticides due to regulatory or voluntary industry changes.

" Specification in AFRI to allow for waiving match requirements.

" Want to work on broader advocacy to users and consumers, so have applied as a 501c(3)

" Policy advocacy can be up to 20% of budget, which speaks to the need to keep IPM professionals employed. We have no organization that supports that for IPM professionals.

" Also working on broader outreach to increase consumer recognition of IPM. This would help all of us if consumers recognized IPM.

NRCS AND IPM, Tom Green

" Millions of acres certified in IPM. Many names b/c IPM has low recognition in marketplace: Food Alliance; Eco Apples; etc.

" Practice standards for schools in place, and from that model came Green Shield (40 companies have met the grade; about twice that have applied)

" NRCS & IPM Working Group: Less that 2% of EQIP to IPM nationally. Goal: increase awareness and access to NRCS conservation programs. Working group funded by 3 IPM Centers. Built off Ruth Hazards model. About 30 people join the monthly conference call.

" IPM Conservation Activity Plans offered in all states (1-year plan); $1260/plan that grower gets and contracts with consultant.

" Dollars have increased from $3.4 million to $14.3 million in 2011

" 11 ERS regions were used to consolidate plans. Emphasis on PAMS approach; no $ for suppression tactics

" No formal comment period

" Changes announced late; difficult for growers to take advantage of programs

" Opportunities: Provide training to inc NRCS knowledge of IPM; Educate growers on Opportunities; Become a TSP; Participate in monthly working group calls

WinPST vs PRIME

" WinPST used to determine high or moderate risk on farm: leaching, runoff are considered. In Wisconsin, they put together a cheat sheet on common pesticides, figured out different soil types (hi, med, low risk); look up on cheat sheet and plug into plan. Tom got NRCS CIG to create Pesticide RIsk Mitigation Engine. Can log in as a guest; store your data on the site. Range of risk outputs for different concerns (inhalation, earthworms, small mammals, etc.). Range from 0 to 1 (1=killing fish for example). See session & poster on PRIME.

o Tom has made some breakthroughs in terms of data. NRCS has provided access to national DB quickly after contracts are finalized. Dave White is supportive, as is Tim Pilkowski. Potential there.

o Will PRIME replace WinPST? Open question. Joe Bagdon runs WinPST team and were not there yet. May 2-3 years for NRCS to get comfortable with PRIME before theyll replace it.

o PRIME has stimulated controversy pesticide industry; have pressured NRCS about using $ to move people away from atrazine when its registered by EPA. Grower groups wonder whether EWG will pick up the data and use it against the industry.

o Curt: All of these issues were raised with EIQ, as if all pesticides are equally safe.

o Rakesh: Can risk factors be integrated? Tom: Yes, already there.

o Mike: Regarding NRCS and relationship; could there be communication at higher levels? Tom: Yes, definitely. They have a national person for science & technology, national agronomist, and we want to go talk to them and Dave White about this tool. They might be able to pull in EPA, NRCS, regarding national IPM coordinator.

o Variation in NRCS by state. No other state has arrangement that CT or WV have.

" Work the local tech committee.

SOYBEAN IPM SURVEY UPDATE, Bill Coli

" Soybean board shared their master mailing list (5,200), selected 1,600 farms randomly drawn from master list. Developed a Dillman survey, sent it out in January 2012.

" Had a 44% response rate. Almost 50% of the people who responded dont grow soybeans. Ended up with 400 usable surveys. MD and VA had the largest # of responses. Still getting results trickling in (20-30 per week). Database is set up to receive entries. 450 usable surveys anticipated. A copy of the report may be provided for respondents.

EPA REGIONAL UPDATES, Rob Koethe

In 2000 EPA created Strategic Ag Initiative, 10 regions, one contact person in each office. Purpose was to help implement FQPA. SAI has been phased out (Audrey Moore, Andrea Szylvian, John Butler worked in that area), so they are not able to work with Centers in the same way. Coordinators still have ag but SAI no longer exists. They worked through biopesticides and pollution prevention division (less risky products; IPM). Many changes in that program. Branch chief, Tom Brennan, is now deputy director of the Science Advisory Board. Acting chief is Frank Ellis. Ed Brandt has retired.

" New initiatives: School IPM, continuing registering pesticides, and tick-borne diseases. NPDSS being implemented; container containment legislation being implemented. FY12 $ still not appropriated. Plan is to phase out discretionary $ and STAG $ is delayed. EPA bracing for 2013. Senior Env. Employees (SEE) are gone; travel cuts. BPPD people are here at Symposium.

" CDC and EPA leading tick-borne diseases group; Herb Bolton is USDA liaison. High needs in Northeast and upper Midwest. Should have better handle on this by June.
" No PESP projects funded yet this year.

" New priorities are School IPM and continuing to register Biopesticides, and Community supported tick management (this is still in flux with Ed retiring, more info to come&.)

EXTENSION DIRECTORS UPDATE  Steven Herbert

Discussion of overhead costs, old versus new buildings on campuses.

" Council on Ag Technology and Teaching (CARAT) reps in DC can get the word out to what we want.

" Many meetings lately of the Experiment directors group, but they dont talk a lot about IPM. Its important to realize that at universities there are overhead costs, and universities are not favoring agricultural sciences because they dont bring in the same money as, for example, sports.

" C. Hooks says research funds are probably more important to researchers than other facilities (e.g., new office space).

" C. Petzoldt suggests what we really need is to get Extension and Experiment Station directors to help us increase the total pot (especially if IDC increase is going to happen).

EXPERIMENT STATION DIRECTORS UPDATE  Mike Hoffmann

" If funds come into a college without IDC, the IDCs must come from elsewhere (at least 15%).

" Role of administrative advisors is to advocate for the group, read reports, provide 3rd year review.

" ESCOP Committeee  Farm Bill, Cornerstone, K Global (Social media, relationship building with targeted members of Congress); Science and Tech subcommittee (Roadmap for science); IPM Subcommittee; Communications and Marketing

" Hunt Shipman, a lobbyist with Cornerstone did presentation recently: Effective Experiment Station Advocacy in Very Challenging Times. The near term budget must address the deficit. If you look at Federal outlays, Ag Bill 7%; NIFA .004%, Exper stations .002%. Sequestration: Pay me now or pay me later. Messages: Focus on the doable, start now. Hang separately or hang together. Stay calm and carry on.

STATE REPORTS

See written reports submitted by IPM Coordinators

" DE: BMSB SCRI project; our portion focuses on lima beans and sweet corn. NE RIPM pepper project. Delaware soybean board project. Fruit monitoring. Section 18.

o Edge treatments are showing to be effective, reducing full-field spraying.

o SWD found this past fall in DE. Western bean cutworm also found.

o Developing prescriptive programs for, e.g., cover crops and biofumigants.

o Slug management, especially in no-till corn systems, and working with NRCS, which is allowing some level of tillage and still calling it no-till.

" MA: Craig Hollingsworth has a group serving PHAs in western MA service providers and has results.

" MD: Retirement of Ritter.

o Pigweed is major concern. Kudzu bug is on the way, in VA, and is similar to BMSB in many aspects: good hitchhiker; loves legumes; may show up in homes; and is from Asia.

o Natural enemies are suppressing BMSB; parasitization up to 76% (spiders feed on nymphs and eggs). Some data on high-risk areas for BMSB (fields near warehouses and barns); those surrounded by other cropping systems. Near roadways arent hit as much (not near overwintering sites). BMSB loves okra a lot! 300 host plants; perimeter treatments in soybeans, corn, are being tried. Some are spraying wheat fields to protect crops, but this is not a documented practice. Multidisciplinary research

"NY: See handout. Of note: PMEP pesticide certification course in NEWA and others; proceeds split with NYS IPM.
o Ban on school grounds went into effect this year and is big deal in NY.

" VT: Lorraine retired. Margaret Skinner doing good greenhouse IPM work. SWD worries

" WV: Mahfuz Rahman is new plant pathologist.

o See handout. Four years of data on banded applications of herbicides. More sustainable approach to weed management; improves carbon sequestration but builds up weed seed bank and can reduce yields, although no significant differences were noted. May be able to do regional project.

o BMSB breakout not as bad as expected; but Palmer amaranth is new horrible weed thats hard to control and found in WV and Delaware.

NE IPM CENTER UPDATE, Carrie Koplinka-Loehr

REGIONAL IPM GRANTS PROGRAM, John Ayers

MULTISTATE PROJECTS, Carrie Koplinka-Loehr, Joanne Whalen

" As a result of the 2011 webinar series on wide-area monitoring, there have been some grant proposals (e.g., Cooley, Koelher). This is an impact of this group.

"Overall, its important for this group to remember that addressing these linkages is part of its charge. It should be on the agenda.

" Discussion on Crop Protection Program

o Frank: Opportunity to provide feedback on proposed budget. Great to discuss it and come up with a consensus but individuals should express whats important to them. Western Region discussed earlier and had differences of opinion. Really important time. If you look at budget for IPM programs for past 30 years and esp the past 12 years, weve had 10 diff prog lines and that has been slowly eroding and rapidly eroding in the last few years. Budget is down 36% for the programs that were here 12 years ago.

o At the National IPM Meeting, Rakesh was there representing your region. It was clear from Exper Station Directors and Extension and Kathleen Merrigan, Depty Secy of Ag, the importance of consolidating budget lines. Most of losses have been in research areas (CAR, RAMP gone entirely). Cant do coordinated program on year-by-year basis. We recommended consolidation of IPM programs, including IR-4, into single budget line. Somehow that flowed through the system. Came out in budget proposal. Mike Fitzner made the point this morning that its not a done deal. IPM is at the forefront. The whole program could grow down the line.

" What sort of a program would we like to see going forward? (National? Regional? Need strong input from the states). Key elements?

o Ed: Kathleen Merrigan was very clear that USDA has to cut $. Seems like IPM is a test case. Key elements: 1) Whats APLU going to do? 2) Land grants? Where will they stand? Stakeholders. IPM Voice has done a remarkable job. You should read budget notes; they open the door for an expanded idea for what USDA is willing to accept as being part of an IPM program. Opens the door for new set of stakeholders.

o Another key element: specialty crop industry. Farm Bill coming up again and they will be strong player. They see IPM as a benefit. If this goes totally competitive, smaller states could fall through the cracks. Battle lines have been set. Of all the programs in that line, how will they balance out? Will historical funding levels shift?

o Steps: Comments from NEERA1004 to USDA-NIFA. Congress then makes a decision. USDA-NIFA writes RFA based on input from stakeholders. Will create two RFAs, one new and one for old system. They have to assume it will happen and start preparing.

o Coli: Are the programs preserved in the Crop Protection Program? Fitzner: No, 5 areas that current programs could fit into, but not specified.

o Mike: The leadership starts right here.

o Ayers: The idea behind the Crop Protection Program has been in the works for a number of years (Merrigan, Ravlin, Broussard reinforced this last fall at the National IPM Meeting.)

o Marty: In 2009, tactics and diversified IPM had been moved together.

o Frank: There are listening sessions on AFRI also; if we can think of specific needs for IPM, we need to address that also (40% of AFRI needs to be in applied research).

o Mike: take time in how its delivered. Put urban IPM at front, for example.

o Where does IR4 fit? Under tactics and tools.

o How much of our feedback should we structure to meet those five areas? Or is there flexibility?

o Fitzner: Address those key areas to be supported, but no relative scale or time frame mentioned.

" What sort of IPM needs must to be filled? Where are the overlaps?

" Next generation of scientists

o Train graduate students by getting them on proposal

o Special graduate student training line, like in AFRI

o 6-month internships instead of 2-yr fellowships

o Train crop consultants (always I.D.d as critical need); whether part of extension system or private

o Train grad students and extension specialists

o Web-based courses

o Strong need going forward; any time we ask growers: what are the barriers? They talk about that.

o If its in AFRI, why I.D. it in the CPP? Marty: would specify it for us.

o Well need to prioritize training next gen of scientists, and it may be less of a priority than employing current expertise; SO, need to retain current capacity

o Potential for real field experience working with IPM deliverers

o Train the trainer (crop consultants)

o Structure thats at state level

o Future scientist training isnt as high a priority as maintaining capacity

o Background of SCIENCE understanding nationwide

o STEM education

Accomplishments

Connecticut:<br /> <p><br /> Vicky Smith from the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station reported that they received notification on June 9, 2011 that plant material potentially infected with Phytophthora ramorum (pathogen responsible for sudden oak-death) had been shipped by a retail grower in Oregon to 10 mail-order customers in CT. After follow-up, one sample of leaf material from a small potted rhododendron was confirmed positive for P. ramorum.<br /> <p><br /> Another problem encountered by Mary Concklin from the IPM Program in organic farms was the appearance of Colletotrichun acutatum in celery - variety Tango. Beth Gugino, Penn State vegetable pathologist, identified the pathogen and she believes it is seed borne. She saw it in PA and Maryland in 2010 for the first time. It has been difficult to find information about this pathogen other than from Australian sources. <br /> <p><br /> The Connecticut legislature passed Public Act 09-56 banning lawn care pesticide applications to the grounds of day care centers and in K-8 schools. This ban went into effect on July 1, 2010. The ban also prohibits the use of pesticides on ornamental plants, woody trees, shrubs and herbaceous plants in the school landscape. Cooperative Extension Educators, IPM program staff and the CT Department of Energy and Environment Protection are working together to address pest management recommendations and concerns for school grounds affected by the ban. <br /> <p><br /> Delaware:<br /> <p><br /> Specialty Vegetable Crops  Currently we are focusing on Soil Health and how it relates to crop health and disease and nematode management in processing vegetables and for small farmers with limited land resources. The following are program highlights and results: (a)Fifteen cooperators experiencing soil health problems are participating in the program. (b) Baseline surveys including basic cropping history and rotational information; specific pest history information; soil test history information; in-field evaluations using standard visual soil health methods as well as physical measurements; in-field root health ratings; standard soil tests for extractable nutrients and pH; and laboratory tests for specific chemical, biological, and physical soil health parameters were conducted on 32 fields in 2011. (c) Worked with cooperating farms to develop a 3 year soil health improvement plan designed to address major pest management concerns along with nutrient management and water management. Plans were developed in the fall of 2011 and initial plan implementation will continue through 2012. The following have been implemented: biofumigant mustards have been planted by 4 growers; biodrilling forage radishes have been planted by 3 growers; compost applications have been made by 4 growers; mustard seed meal as a biofumigant has been used by 2 growers; contans biofungicide has been used by 1 grower; and general cover crops for organic matter increase have been used by 15 growers<br /> <p><br /> Agronomic Crops  Programs included the demonstrations on the use of perimeter sprays for stink bug and foliar disease management in field corn, demonstrations on the use of a combination of cultural management strategies to reduce losses from Dectes in soybeans and demonstrations on the effectiveness of scouting methods, treatment thresholds and cultural practices for slug management including in field corn. In addition, a demonstration looking at the soil health aspects of reduced tillage and slug management were evaluated on five farms. In general, the use of vertical tillage resulted in improved soil health benefits and improved slug management in all locations. <br /> <p><br /> Consumer/Urban - The ornamental entomology extension program established ornamental education gardens in each county in 2009 and 2010. In 2011, these gardens were for used for Advanced Pest Identification workshops for commercial landscapers, Master Gardener training, and Plant Pest Walks to educate on the correlation of pest activity with plant phenological indicators. Posters and signs describing the value of native plants, natural enemies (arthropods) and insectivorous birds are being used at MG conducted workshops, professional development workshops and field days. Outcomes indicate that 10% of workshop are now able to identify the differences in planting techniques and would try to properly install plants. Fifty percent of the attendees at the Advanced Pest ID workshop indicated that they feel they are able to better recognize pests on plants they manage. These professionals also felt these techniques would help them evaluate product efficacy when used on plants they manage.<br /> <p><br /> Rhode Island:<br /> <p><br /> In a 2011 cooperative survey of 25 states/provinces to determine the status of this new parasitoid on a large spatial scale we found that C. rubecula now extends in distributional belt north of 38 degrees latitude from New Brunswick to North Dakota. South of 38 degrees, C. glomerata (the old, less efficient parasitoid) remains common; north of this line it has nearly been replaced by C. rubecula. A cohort experiment was conducted in MA to quantify survival of the pest butterfly (Pieris rapae) in both the presence and absence of the parasitoid C. rubecula in the field. We found that survival of groups of larvae of P. rapae was low (<10%) in the presence of natural populations of C. rubecula and other natural enemies, and high (52-77%) when protected by sleeve cages from attack. Parasitism and other natural enemies reduced densities of 5th instars of P. rapae (the principal damaging stage) by 79-86%.<br /> <p> <br /> The benefits to organic cole crop farms from C. rubecula are now substantial due to high levels of suppression of Pieris rapae and widespread, with the parasitoid now dominant over a very large area in the northeast and north central United States and eastern Canada. This reduces imported cabbageworm pest pressure in cabbage and other cole crops, reducing the need for pesticides by conventional producers and increasing product quality for organic farmers. (Reported by R. Van Driesche (U. Mass.) <br /> <p><br /> Mexican Bean Beetle Biocontrol<br /> <p><br /> A total of 98,000 adult Pediobus foveolatus, an average of 4,644 per plot, were released into 26 nurse plots monitored during the 2011 soybean growing season. Additional soybean field releases totaling 408,000 parasites were made to keep pressure on the Mexican bean beetle population. <br /> There were no reported insecticide treatments for Mexican bean beetle in soybeans in 2011 and there have been none for this pest in NJ since 1987. (Mark Mayer NJ Department of Agriculture Phillip Alampi Beneficial Insect Laboratory)<br /> Biological control program for swallow-worts in North America.<br /> <p><br /> Foreign exploration for biocontrol agents continues through USDA-ARS along with plant demographic modeling. Host range studies are complete for Hypena opulenta and nearing completion for Abrostola clarissa and A. asclepiadis. A petition has been submitted to USDA for field release of H. opulenta in 2012. (URI, Milbrath USDA-ARS, and CABI-Europe)<br /> <p><br /> Evaluate herbivores released against mile-a-minute weed.<br /> In a collaborative regional effort, 76,000 Rhinoncomimus latipes weevils were released in CT, DE, MA, MD, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VA, and WV. Spread is over 4 Km/yr from release sites. Since 2004, the Phillip Alampi Beneficial Insect Laboratory has released 160,538 R. latipes adults into 13 New Jersey counties including six new sites in 2011. In NJ weevils have been recovered at 100% of the release sites as well as at 113 dispersal/non-release sites. PABIL staff is working to increase storage and production of R. latipes. <br /> <p><br /> Overall, it appears that the weevil will be extremely successful in controlling P. perfoliata in some conditions, and will contribute to an integrated management program under others. Sunny, warm, dry conditions foster success as does the presence of competitive native plants available to recolonize as the target plant is suppressed. An integrated program that includes restoration planting along with the weevil can help restore a mostly native ecosystem and avoid the invasive species treadmill. Pre-emergent herbicide is sometimes needed to suppress both mile-a-minute weed and other aggressive annual invasive plants such as Japanese stiltgrass. (Program directed by J. Hough-Goldstein - U. Del. working with cooperators in 10 states.)<br /> Natural enemies of the winter moth.<br /> <p><br /> Monitoring of winter moths populations continues in southern New England. The tachinid parasitoid Cyzenis albicans was released in 6 sites in Massachusetts and one site in Rhode Island in 2011. <br /> <p><br /> Cyzenis albicans was found to be established in 5 sites from previous releases. (J. Elkinton & D. Mausel  U.Mass)<br /> <p><br /> Evaluate biological control agents for garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata). <br /> Monitoring of long-term plots in many states has shown garlic mustard populations to decline dramatically in less than a decade. Research continues on the nature of this decline and whether biocontrol of garlic mustard is actually needed. (B. Blossey - Cornell) <br /> <p><br /> To investigate potential new biological control projects for the northeast, quarantine studies were conducted to assess potential risk of importing Eucryptorrhynchus brandti as a biological control agent for the tree of heaven, Ailanthus altissima. Studies focused on biology and host range testing and investigated the potential for this same weevil to carry a naturally occurring pathogenic fungus to uninfested trees. Research results on the weevil and its potential with the fungus as biological control agents were presented at several regional and national meetings and written for a VA Dept. of Forestry Forest Health Newsletter. <br /> <p><br /> Very promising test results resulted in submission of a release petition for Eucryptorrhynchus brandti to USDA, APHIS in May 2011. (Va. Tech. working in cooperation with Penn. State University)<br /> <p><br /> On the website, Biological Control: A Guide to Natural Enemies in North America, (http://www.biocontrol.entomology.cornell.edu/index.php), we added 8 units on specific biological control agents as well as a new section for students that contains hands-on learning games and other exercises to increase the understanding of biological control.<br /> A. Sheldon  Cornell) <br /> <p><br /> New York<br /> <p><br /> IPM research in Agriculture:<br /> <p><br /> - Documenting statewide incidence and severity of western bean cutworm, a new invasive pest of corn and dry beans.<br /> <p><br /> - Results from trials of insecticides and fungicides allowed for organic production will improve organic vegetable farmers success managing pests and reduce applications of ineffective materials.<br /> <p><br /> - Research into the management of bacterial canker of sweet cherry has identified a pruning technique to limit canker development thus eliminating the recommendation and use of two copper sprays.<br /> <p><br /> - The implementation of a grape berry moth phenology model for juice and wine grapes has fostered the use of IPM weather-based models. Over 20 growers have installed weather stations on their farms and are now able to utilize IPM forecasts for berry moth as well as powdery mildew, black rot, Phomopsis and downy mildew.<br /> <p><br /> IPM extension in Agriculture:<br /> <p><br /> - Dairy IPM outreach was enhanced by a national eOrganic Webinar broadcast to growers, extension, private and public sector agricultural personnel in 17 states. It is archived on eOrganic and YouTube.<br /> <p><br /> - Twenty issues of the Weekly Field Crop Pest Report reached up to 15K people via on-line publication, and articles shared in CCE newsletters and other media. <br /> <p><br /> - The weekly Field Crop Extension Conference Call enabled seasonal exchange with CCE personnel, statewide updates, timely topic discussions, increased pest awareness, enhanced IPM knowledge & skills, enhanced team building, and provided a multiplier effect to growers and other stakeholders.<br /> <p><br /> - Online courses that qualify for DEC pesticide applicator recertification credit, developed in collaboration with the Pesticide Management and Education Program, were used by 230 certified pesticide applicators who improved their knowledge of course subject matter by an average of 38% for category courses and 15% for core courses.<br /> <p><br /> - Of 45 farmers who had contact with an outreach project to promote the use of the parasitic wasp Trichogramma ostriniae and purchased wasps on their own in 2010, 71% reported improved quality at harvest, 55% reported improved customer satisfaction, 58% reported having more crop to market, and 49% reported fewer insecticide applications in sweet corn or pepper fields where wasps were released for European corn borer control.<br /> <p><br /> - Grape growers in the Lake Erie grape belt improved their IPM knowledge at weekly coffee pot meetings held at farms throughout the region with the Extension team.<br /> <p><br /> - The Cornell Fruit Resources website, www.fruit.cornell.edu, has catalogued fruit information available from Cornell University and made it available to fruit growers and home gardeners; the IPM pages provide people with comprehensive information to manage fruit with minimal inputs.<br /> <p><br /> - Trac Software was licensed through the Cornell Center for Technology and Enterprise Commercialization and enables users to easily produce crucial record-keeping and reporting of pesticide applicationsNYS DEC, US EPA, and processors, packers, shippersto support their farm businesses, IPM practice and traceability.<br /> <p><br /> - The Network for Environment and Weather Applications (NEWA) expanded its reach into Massachusetts, New Jersey and Vermont to deliver IPM forecasts via 20 insect and disease models for apples, grapes, potatoes, onions and other crops utilizing weather stations supported by farmers.<br /> <p><br /> - Of the 12 growers participating in the Christmas Tree IPM grant funded by the NYS Dept. of Agriculture and Markets, 11 implemented some aspect of increased IPM  6 had soil tests done, 4 increased scouting and 3 implemented improved weed control practices.<br /> <p><br /> - Of the 94 growers who attended the IPM In-depth hands-on ornamental workshops, 80 learned information that they planned to incorporate into their businesses and 84% of those who had attended previous IPM programs had incorporated what they had learned into their production practices.<br /> <p><br /> - IPM for Ornamental Crops communication efforts (utilizing an email newsletter, a blog and twitter feed) in 2011 resulted in distribution of timely pest control information to 690 professionals responsible for the production and maintenance of ornamental crops. <br /> <p><br /> IPM research in Community:<br /> <p><br /> - The increase and patterns of bed bug introduction into a large city school district was evaluated to determine where best to use resources, by tracking bed bug samples and the schools in which they were found.<br /> <p><br /> - Systems-based golf course research demonstrated that IPM and biologically-based reduced risk strategies had significantly less environmental impact than conventional management practices.<br /> <p><br /> - 200 golfers rated putting greens and determined that the quality of IPM greens were equal to conventional.<br /> <p><br /> IPM extension in Community:<br /> <p><br /> - More than 550 nurses and health aides from schools, hospitals and visiting nurse services from throughout NYS were equipped with information and protocols to address one of the "front lines" in the expanding bedbug epidemic.<br /> <p><br /> - Ninety-five school and municipal facilities managers from counties from throughout NYS were assisted in making their properties safer from both pests and pesticide overuse.<br /> <p><br /> - Education and outreach was provided through the Nassau County Bed Bug Task Force to the public, including landlords and property managers, social services providers and individuals through two workshops totaling over 350 participants.<br /> <p><br /> - A book was published titled Wasp and Bee Management  A Common Sense Approach, that details the use of IPM and biological facts to determine the best course of action when deciding whether and how to control wasps and bees.<br /> <p><br /> - Sixty-five school and municipal facilities managers from five counties from throughout NYS were assisted in making their properties safer from both pests and pesticide overuse.<br /> <p><br /> - 286 people learned how to manage school grounds without pesticides and comply with NYs Child Safe Playing Fields Act through educational presentations. Many more have learned via a broadly distributed article on the subject and an archived webinar.<br /> <p><br /> - 500 people learned about organic lawn care practices and programs.<br /> <p><br /> - 235 people were trained in reduced chemical golf course management.<br /> <p><br /> - A manual on reduced chemical practices for golf courses was made available in both English and Spanish.<br /> <p><br /> Maryland<br /> <p><br /> Fruit, vegetables, and Ornamental IPM<br /> <p><br /> 1) IPM training sessions were held at winter vegetable meetings in Central, Southern, and Eastern MD. Growers learned how to use new reduced risk insecticides in their pest management programs, 2) new IPM programs in tomato, pepper, watermelon and pumpkin were placed on UMD Vegetable website: http://mdvegetables.umd.edu/, 3) training sessions on all aspects of pest management, marketing, soils, and etc. held for new organic or sustainable vegetable growers in northern Maryland, 4) watermelon trials conducted to develop IPM tactics for weeds, 5) beginning and intermediate grape growers received IPM training, 6) Melon Disease ForCASTer (MELCAST) and Tomato Disease ForeCASTer (TOMCAST) are being disseminated electronically to watermelon, muskmelon and tomato growers in MD and the neighboring state of DE, 7) demonstration/training plots established in Southern MD and used for educating stakeholders on the incorporation of minimum till and cover crops in vegetable and fruit production, and using crop husbandry practices to improve soil health/biodiversity 8) demonstration plot of beneficial insectary plants and cover crops was set up at a MD nursery to demonstrate cover crop benefits at a MD Nursery and Landscape Field Day, 9) presentations at organic conferences on how to use cover crops to increase soil quality and health, 10) U-tube video on floating row covers developed.<br /> <p> <br /> Urban IPM<br /> <p><br /> 1) Power point presentations (PPP) developed to train 1st year master gardener on pest biology, identification, diagnosis and damage assessment, 2) training manual developed for advanced master gardeners, master naturalists, outdoor educators on ecological IPM. The manual and PPP provides fundamental concepts of population biology, community ecology, ecosystem functions and services as they relate to urban ecosystems, 3) advanced diagnostic training developed on IPM for common garden insect pests, plant diseases, fruit culture, youth gardening, and landscape horticulture. These were presented in several counties and at the Annual Master Gardener Training Conference, 4) PPP and accompanying handouts on diagnostics and IPM were delivered to professional audiences at 4 regional meetings in TX, MA, CT, PA, SC, and FL, 5) information on exotic and invasive species delivered to local, regional, and national audiences in MD, DE, MI, PA, and MA. A national webinar on stink bugs was presented. Several sections on invasive species added to the Advanced Landscape IPM course, 6) presentation on IPM and problems from pesticide use at the National Capital Region Watershed Stewards Academy (WSA), 7) potential use of spiders as BC agents presented at the Mid-Atlantic Crop Management School, 8) invasive species workshop held to inform green industry professionals and extension personnel on current and likely insect and disease species in the Northeast region, and 9) audience response system questions on project impact being developed.<br /> <p><br /> University of MD IPM (http://www.mdipm.umd.edu/) and Plant Diagnostic Laboratory websites (http://www.plantclinic.umd.edu/) which serves all MD stakeholders, and Extension IPMNET website (http://ipmnet.umd.edu/) which serves the Green Industries continued to be updated and expanded. <br /> <p><br /> Field Crops<br /> <p><br /> Much of the field crops IPM in 2011 focused on developing economic and ecological feasible methods to manage the newest stink bug pest, Brown marmorated stink bug. Soybean farmers have learned to restrict their sprays to borders of soybean fields as opposed to spraying entire fields. This has resulted in 1000s of acres of soybean not being treated that otherwise would have receive insecticide intervention. Farmers are being trained also to recognize high risk fields so as to maximize their scouting efforts and know which fields and which fields perimeters are at greatest risk of stink bug infestation. Efforts are on-going to train farmers how to identify parasitized stink bug eggs in both field and vegetable crops so that they can incorporate this knowledge into a complete ecological stink bug management program. Presentations on BMSB management were given to conventional and organic growers throughout the state of MD.<br /> <p><br /> Abbreviated impacts: <br /> <p><br /> 1. Surveys of growers before training sessions found that 37% used any reduced risk pesticides and that 77% used high risk pesticides more than 75% of the time. After training sessions, 72% of growers said they would use reduced risk pesticides as part of their regular spray programs. Most said they would reduce the use of high risk pesticides by 50%.<br /> <p><br /> 2. New IPM programs on UMD Vegetable website have had over 10,000 hits and 6,000 download since its activation.<br /> <p><br /> 3. High % of the new sustainable growers (53 out of 68) said they probably would not have tried the sustainable production route without the help and support of the training sessions and future training sessions. <br /> <p><br /> 4. Training for beginning Master Gardener Volunteers (PESTS and Good Guys in the Garden). Approximately 420 Master Gardeners received training in these programs. Training was a success according to the number of interns that passed their qualifying examinations. <br /> <p><br /> 5. Approximately 206 master gardeners and outdoor educators received training in ecological IPM in six county and regional training sessions. 78% of attendees rated the training as outstanding. <br /> <p><br /> 6. More than 940 Master Gardeners received advanced training at 10 training sessions. <br /> <p><br /> 7. Pest diagnosis training delivered to 950 professionals in a variety of venues and the value of training was ranked high. <br /> <p><br /> 8. Information on exotic species was provided to approximately 2310 professionals at meetings. A single evaluation conducted in Maryland ranked the exotic presentation as the best presentation in the program. <br /> <p><br /> 9. Diagnostic and IPM information on dozens of native and exotic pests reached millions of viewers and listeners worldwide during this reporting period. <br /> <p><br /> 10. Approximately 1,800 green industry professionals from MD and several other states were better informed and likely able to identify and manage their pest problems, and implement sustainable pest management practices following the above listed outputs. <br /> <p><br /> 11. Surveys of stakeholders that access the Greenhouse IPM Pest Alert and the Nursery and Landscape IPM Pest Alert showed the IPM Pest Alerts greatly improved their abilities to identify, monitor, and control pest problems. For example, in 2010 the Nursery and Landscape IPM Pest Alert survey indicated that the following percentage of respondents (of ~242) selected the highest ranking for the following questions: Usefulness (86%); help identify pests (91%); help to monitor and control pests (80%); reduce pesticide applications (42%); select less toxic pesticides (34%); select alternatives to conventional pesticides (51%); recognize beneficial insects (80%); save money in their business (17% yes). In 2010 the Nursery and Landscape IPM Pest Alert was emailed to a list serve of 1,723 stakeholders. In the survey 85% of them stated they share the report with others. <br /> <p><br /> 12. Since the newly designed IPMNET website was developed 27,430 people have accessed the site over a 12 month period (January - December 2010). The information posted on this site is being used by stakeholders from MD and other states in the region as a source for IPM information.<br /> <p><br /> Vermont<br /> <p><br /> Vermont Apple IPM Program - Apples are an important agricultural commodity in Vermont's rural communities and working landscape. In Vermont, apples comprise approximately 92% of total acreage planted to fruit. The apple industry generates jobs and supports communities and businesses across the state. <br /> <p><br /> Apple orchards are complex ecosystems that require intensive management to produce high quality fruit. Tree growth and fruit production are intricately affected annually by the diverse biotic and abiotic factors within the environment which include numerous insects, mites, plant pathogens, weeds, and vertebrates. Effective pest management is critical in profitable and sustainable apple production. Vermont apple growers want up-to-date information on effective IPM practices and tools so that they can incorporate them into their pest management programs to reduce economic, health, and environmental risks.<br /> <p><br /> The Vermont Apple IPM Program is committed to maintaining and increasing IPM implementation in commercial orchards across the state by continuing to deliver an integrated extension and research program that addresses the IPM priorities identified by growers, their advisors (i.e., IPM consultants) and other industry service providers. Various means of education and information transfer are used such as an Apple IPM website, newsletter, presentations, demonstrations, one-to-one education, etc. Through addressing the educational priorities expressed by stakeholders, the goal are to (i) increase knowledge of how to use IPM strategies and techniques effectively; (ii) increase knowledge on how to prevent pest management problems; (iii) provide education that allows growers to determine if pesticides are needed in orchards; and (iv) if pesticides are warranted, provide education which will allow growers to make informed pesticide decisions which will reduce economic, health and environmental risks.<br /> <p><br /> Vermont Wine Grape IPM Program <br /> <p><br /> Wine grapes are a new crop in the diversification of agriculture in Vermont which has exciting value-added and agri-tourism economic opportunities for farms and rural communities. Wine grapes are being planted on newly created farms or on established farms, such as dairy farms, as an alternative crop to increase profitability. Since Vermonts grape growers are either totally new to agriculture or are farmers with limited or no experience in growing grapes, grape IPM knowledge is limited or lacking. Growers are not aware of grape IPM principles and monitoring techniques or practices. It is a critical time in the development of this emerging agricultural industry to provide IPM education and information, including basic information on identification and disease/life cycles of the major grape diseases and arthropod pests. The primary goal is to continue to develop and implement an IPM program through stakeholder input and collaboration which addresses the educational needs of the emerging wine grape industry in the state. Various means of education and information transfer are being developed such as a cold climate wine grape production website, newsletter, presentations, one-to-one education, etc. Through addressing the educational priorities expressed by stakeholders, the goals are to (i) increase knowledge of how to use IPM strategies and techniques; (ii) increase knowledge on how to prevent pest management problems; (iii) provide education that allows growers to determine if pesticides are needed in vineyards; and (iv) if pesticides are warranted, provide education which will allow growers to make informed pesticide decisions which will reduce economic, health and environmental risks.<br /> <p><br /> Vermont Master Gardener IPM Program<br /> <p><br /> The Vermont IPM program reaches several hundred gardeners each year through the training of Master Gardener volunteers in IPM methods who in turn work throughout the state with their communities. This training is done through specific classes and advanced workshops. These volunteers field thousands of calls, emails and participate in on-site consultations where pertinent IPM information is discussed. The main priority over the next 3 years is to try to increase Master Gardener Helpline volunteers IPM education and abilities in plant disease and insect identification through advanced workshops, training and email list serves.<br /> <p><br /> Vermont Vegetable and Berry IPM Program<br /> <p><br /> Vermonts commercial small fruit and vegetable farms are small and diversified with many crops, markets and pest management needs. Vermonts IPM program strives to meet the educational needs of commercial growers by diversified programming and delivery methods. The first step in a successful IPM program is identifying the pest or disease problem. Vermont vegetable and berry growers have access to pest management strategies based on IPM principles through the statewide program. IPM information is also available through the Plant Diagnostic Clinic website, the Pesticide Education and Safety Program website and by IPM contributions to a bi-weekly grower email list serve. IPM information is also presented at annual commodity meetings, on site farm visits, telephone and email consultations, twilight meetings, a bi-annual Pesticide Education newsletter and in-depth workshops. The main priority over the next 3 years is to increase IPM educational tools/information for growers for identifying vegetable and small fruit diseases in the field.<br /> <p><br /> Vermont Field Corn and Soybean IPM Program <br /> <p><br /> Annual and perennial weeds are considered the primary pest problem in producing silage corn in Vermont. According to the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, corn herbicides consisted of over 95 % of the total amount of pesticide active ingredient applied to all crops in the state. Northern and western corn rootworm is considered the most damaging insect to field corn in Vermont. Integrating cropping practices such as crop rotations and the incorporation of cover crops can greatly improve the management of these pests in corn and possibly reduce the reliance on high herbicide usage. A recent concern to soybean producers in Vermont is the introduction of the soybean aphid. Due to a lack of experience with this pest and its sudden appearance within the past two years, many soybean growers have applied pesticides without really monitoring its presence or populations. Scouting procedures and the use of action thresholds clearly need to be demonstrated before growers feel comfortable in reducing pesticide use in both corn and soybeans. <br /> <p><br /> The field crop IPM program in Vermont is emphasizing the importance of sound management practices such as plant populations, timely planting, crop rotations, cover crops, weed and insect monitoring, and herbicide and insecticide selection based on need, efficacy and environmental risk. Information is provided through a series of farm field meetings and winter workshops as well as through articles produced in local agricultural publications and posted on the Vermont Crops and Soils Homepage (http://pss.uvm.edu/vtcrops/). This program is integrated with other University of Vermont extension programs that involve crop management such as the use of integrated cropping systems to improve soil quality and reduce environmental impact on water quality. <br /> Vermont Bedding/Garden Plants and Potted Plants IPM Program<br /> Production of greenhouse-grown ornamentals and bedding plants is one of the fastest growing agricultural sectors in Vermont, ranking second in state agricultural revenues. Chemical pesticides are commonly relied upon to control insects and diseases to produce high quality unblemished ornamentals that meet customer demands for pest-free plants. Hence more ai of pesticides per acre are applied on this crop than most others. For example, multiple pesticide applications are often required weekly to control persistent thrips populations. By the very nature of the crop, customers come in direct contact with ornamentals and bedding plants, either by maintaining them as house plants, or handling them during replanting. Efforts to encourage IPM implementation during the early production stage are critical to reduce pesticide exposure by the customer and the applicator. In addition, pesticide contamination from run-off has obvious negative environment impacts, and prolonged pesticide usage results in resistant pest populations that further reduce crop revenues. Because of competition from western agribusinesses, it is difficult for Vermont farmers to compete in todays dairy or vegetable industry. Many use greenhouse ornamentals to diversify production and thus better support the small family farm model. Greenhouse production therefore contributes significantly to the long-term economic sustainability of agriculture in this rural state. Growers admit that a lack of knowledge remains one of the major obstacles to more fully using IPM. The VT IPM Program offers hands-on workshops that increase growers base of knowledge and confidence to use biological control and other non-chemical IPM practices. State-of-the-art IPM techniques that specifically apply to production operations in this region are presented in an interactive small-group format that growers prefer.<br /> Growers recognize that consumer awareness is essential to increase the value of IPM-grown crops. If customers demand plants grown according to IPM principles, growers would be more inclined to implement them. A public-private partnership between growers and the VT IPM Program is underway to disseminate information to the public. Through a coordinated program of practical research, grower education and public awareness, the VT IPM Program will ensure that IPM is implemented more extensively and cost effectively in this agricultural sector which has traditionally been highly pesticide-dependent. By increasing awareness among customers on the benefits of IPM to them and the environment, this program will also increase the intrinsic value IPM-grown crops, enabling growers to demand premium prices for their specialty products.

Publications

Impact Statements

Back to top

Report Information

Participants

Chandran, Rakesh -WV IPM Coordinator; Legrand, Ana- CT IPM Coordinator; Elmer, Wade - Conn. Ag. Exp. Station; Whalen, Joanne- DE IPM Coordinator; Madeo, Linda - NE IPM Center; Koplinka-Loehr, Carrie- NE IPM Center; Hoffmann, Mike- Experiment Station Dir., Cornell Univ; Lerman, Dion sub for Rajotte, Ed- PA IPM Coordinator, Hamilton, George- NJ IPM Coordinator; Eaton, Alan - NH IPM Coordinator; Hooks, Cerruti- MD IPM Coordinator, Seaman, Abby sub for Grant, Jennifer and Petzoldt, Curt - NY IPM Co-Coordinators; Herbert, Steve - Extension Director, UMass; Coli, Bill - MA IPM Coordinator; Cooley, Daniel  UMass; Hazelrigg, Ann - VT IPM Coordinator; Casagrande, Richard  RI IPM Coordinator; Draper, Martin - USDA NIFA; Green, Tom - IPM Institute; Grubinger, Vern  SARE Northeast Region.

Brief Summary of Minutes

Brief Summary of Minutes of Annual Meeting:

The following topics were discussed at the meeting:

1) IPM Professional Community Building Training, Errol Mazursky  ELP. Half day training session on leadership and IPM professional community interactions.

2) State IPM Programs Reports, IPM Program Coordinators - See summaries in this report. EPA Regions 1 & 2 Updates were distributed as handouts. See summaries in this report.

3) National IPM Update, Marty Draper

FY Continuing Resolution until March 27 2013 based on flat funding from previous fiscal year. Final 6 months of 2013 not funded yet. Sequester funding level of 3/1/13 likely not to be reversed (will become the base for next FY).

Farm Bill: Authorizes all NIFA spending and appropriates funding for mandatory programs. The 2008 bill expired September 30, 2012 but on January 1 the Farm Bill was extended for 9 months until Sept. 30, 2013.

Update on Extension IPM - Coordination and Support Program RFA

The RFA asks for submission of a notice of intent to apply which needs to include proposal title, names of PD and Co-PDs, application type, and suggestions for 3 reviewers who do not have a conflict of interest with the applicant. The proposal deadlines is April 16th 2013.

Funding available totals $8.5 million to be split into coordination program ($8.2 million) and $300,000 for the support program. Indirect costs are not allowed and projects are capped at $300,000. Budgets need to cover a 3 year project plan with possible no-cost extension.

Two PCAST reports were recommended: Transformation and Opportunity: The Future of the U.S. Research Enterprise, Nov 30, 2012; and Agricultural Preparedness & the United States Agricultural Research Enterprise, Dec. 7, 2012. This last report emphasized IPM.

Changes to CRIS: Information on old projects to be found in the CRIS database. New project information will use REEport which was deployed April 1, 2013. PDs need an account thru NIFA reporting portal: leadership management dashboard
http://www.nifa.usda.gov/business/pdfs/reeport_web_train_reg.pdf

4) Northeast Experiment Station Directors Update, Mike Hoffman

An update was given on the response by the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities (APLU) Budget and Advocacy Committee (BAC) response to the Integrated Crop Protection Program proposal. A copy of the working groups discussion paper (Jan. 29th, 2013) was handed out. The BAC recommended the use of Pest Management Program for the title of the new proposed program.

5) Northeast Extension Directors Update, Stephen Herbert

Steven Herbert travelled with the congressional CARET delegations

6) NE IPM Center Update & NE IPM Center Grant Programs, Carrie Koplinka-Loehr and Linda Madeo

The NE IPM Center obtained the following grants in 2012: Administration of the NE Region IPM Competitive Grants Program ($20,000), Northeastern IPM Center ($951,380 for 2012-2013) and Promoting IPM in Affordable Housing (HUD IAA, $318,182 for 2012-2013). Summaries of each grant were distributed.

The NE IPM Center conducted its Partnership Grants Program and awarded a total of $178,022 in FY 2013 to 11 projects (5 working group projects, 6 issues in IPM projects and 1 communications project). A report was given on web traffic related to 3 websites hosted by the NE IPM Center (Northeastipm.org, StopPests.org and StopBMSB.org). In other outreach efforts, the Center is working on videos regarding the brown marmorated stink bug and distributed 800 printed copies of the IPM Guide for Affordable Housing.

The NE IPM Center is hiring a program evaluation specialist who will help with evaluation of the center efforts as well as provided assistance to project applicants. The Center also presented an update on funding diversification efforts.

7) NRCS funding for IPM activities, Tom Green, Rakesh Chandran

Tom Green addressed the group and provided an update on the IPM Institute and the NRCS and IPM Working Group efforts to promote IPM through NRCS funding. A presentation was given on how NRCS Conservation Programs can help with IPM implementation, on how Extension can collaborate with NRCS and how interested persons can be trained to become a Technical Service Provider.

8) Organic & IPM Summit Update & Discussion, Carrie Koplinka-Loehr

A Roundtable Meeting on Organic and IPM was held on Nov. 7-8, 2012 at the National 4H Center. Twenty five persons attended, leaders from IPM and organic areas of work, and discussed areas of mutual interest and how best to work together. A proposal to establish a national working group on organic and IPM. Deputy Secretary of Agriculture (Kathleen Merrigan) also spoke with the group.

9) Coordination of NE Extension Fact Sheet Development, Richard Casagrande

Information for web-based fact sheets from many states is taken from other states and the fact sheets do not contain the most up-to-date information. The regions can use more fact sheet coordination  perhaps by the NE IPM Center. The brown marmorated stink bug website from the NE IPM center is an example. Fact sheets for important NE pests should have authorship, reviewers, and date indicated. This is most needed for homeowners fact sheets. IPM Coordinators could work with NE IPM Center on this but also need to have buy-in from AES directors and Extension directors. Group members (Ann, Ana, Dick, Alan) interested on this work will continue with further conversation on developing a proposal to meet this need. The following points were made: finite number of fact sheets needed - about 100; wouldnt it be nice if there were a regional fact sheet?; make list of 50 most needed fact sheet, decide by teleconference; give author $500 honorarium; IPM in and around the home; resources database; prepare set of NE fact sheets; go to deans and ask them to pull down old stuff; each state would work with Master Gardener program; branding of IPM for homeowner; duplication of effort for each state to have its own fact sheet; promote IPM if we go through effort of making the fact sheets.

10) SARE Update & RFA Question, Vern Grubinger

NE SARE currently is managing 7 grant programs. Many proposals address pest issues but single pest project proposals with a single approach are often reviewed negatively as they are not comprehensive enough. The question to the NEERA group was for feedback on how SARE and IPM grants can / should differ. SARE emphasizes that 'holistic' approaches to IPM are more compelling to SARE reviewers (multiple strategies for managing a pest, farmscape-level approaches, and inclusion of economic/environmental issues not just production). IPM Coordinators were asked for ideas on how best to describe this to applicants. Some comments included consideration of IPM levels (basic vs. advanced, IPM Continuum).

11) Region-wide vs. state-specific IPM program coordination, Rakesh Chandran

Rakesh Chandran suggested a discussion on region wide coordination based on some personal observations after writing a book chapter related to IPM Implementation in the NE (this book is edited by Pimentel and Peshin published by Springer). Background information for the book chapter was gathered from CRIS and PPRS reports submitted by IPM coordinators in the region over the past 12 yrs. or so. Some of the key points from this review that Rakesh shared were:

a) NE states have carried out effective IPM programs and have documented significant impacts/outcomes over the past two decades. A good and proven structure exists to continue to do so.

b) There were IPM issues based on commodities/program areas common to most/all states (eg. tree fruits, row crops, school, housing, turf, animal husbandry, greenhouse etc.) where region-wide programming may be more effective and may result in efficient use of resources. Especially the larger states such as NY, PA, NJ etc may want to play a lead role based on infrastructure and personnel.

c) However, most states have specific IPM programming needs and capacity to carry out programs and to capitalize the specialized resourcefulness of IPM specialists in each state would be considered useful.

d) When it comes to IPM adoption/implementation, the bottom line is economics for the grower. Unless cost-share programs are available to offset the higher costs associated with IPM approach as opposed to conventional methods, the average grower will choose the conventional approach.

12) Review and update of NEERA IPM research and extension priorities, NEERA Group

The following were listed as priority pests/issues:
Emerging insect pests: spotted wing drosophila, brown marmorated stink bug (BMSB)

Others: winter moth, Western bean cutworm, Swede midge,

Ticks & Lyme disease: regional education on Lyme disease, mosquitos management

Diseases: late blight of tomato, Summer Rots, boxwood blight, impatiens downy mildew.

Other priorities:

Weed management in orchards (mentioned by Eco Apple), weed management in general (both agric. and community), fungicide resistance (stimulating use of old bad pesticides).

Streptomycin resistance and fire blight in apples, resist cultural and alternative practices for management of emerging pests, how to differentiate advanced IPM from basic levels, coordination or extension work regarding pesticide bans (learn from others who have already dealt with it), Garlic mustard (may be controlled by a couple of weevils, but dont need to pull it), secondary effects on other pests (scales, mites, etc.) of current controls being used for BMSB, thresholds for BMSB, pest management in high tunnels (NRCS is cost-sharing the tunnels with growers.), homeowner use of pesticides & homeowner IPM, white grub management, guidelines for use of biocontrol; more emphasis on bio-based pest management, and region-wide weather-based decision support - making sure NEWA stays in business (states may not be able to pay the fee required).

13) NEERA Working Group proposal:

¬Group discussed the idea of forming a working group to obtain funding. Funding or WG could cover help to handle all the administrative tasks and shepherd projects along.¬ It could also fund professional development programs for the group and/or educational efforts on IPM success stories such as DVD about the Northeast IPM work.

Another idea discussed was a Speakers Bureau. It can reach new audiences, who would do this and how much it will cost? Who will be the audience?

14) Next annual meeting, Chair-elect, Ann Hazelrigg

Ann Hazelrigg is the new Chair for NEERA and will coordinate next meeting (possibly in VT) in 2014.

15) EPA Updates Summaries from handouts distributed at meeting

EPA Region 1 Contact: Andrea Szylvian Email: Szylvian.andrea@epa.gov

EPA Region 1 Agricultural IPM Grants. The following Regional Ag IPM grant (formally the Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program) was awarded in 2012: IPM for Dodder Control in Cranberry Production, University of Massachusetts Cranberry Station.

Strategic Agricultural Initiative (SAI) Project Updates

The SAI grant to the Massachusetts Fruit Growers Association evaluates orchard architecture (tree size, age, canopy shape, and tree/row spacing) as well as sprayers; and develops data to make informed decisions on which units could most benefit from automated controls that will improve pesticide application accuracy and efficiency. The SAI grant to the New England Vegetable and Berry Growers Association had 2 focus areas. The first area was to provide support for editing/distributing the: New England Vegetable and Fruit Management Guide. The second project area focused on sprayer calibration in vegetable and small fruit production.

The SAI grant to the Cape Cod Cranberry Growers Association was to address residue gaps for chlorothalonil on cranberries. The project is conducting field trials on chlorothalonil, creating research protocol, coordinating with field researchers, while ensuring Good Laboratory Practices (GLPs) throughout the field trail portion of the project.

EPA Region 1 School IPM (SIPM). EPA Region 1s SIPM program supports and builds on the strong SIPM programs currently in place in most New England states. Educational and outreach efforts include basic SIPM information and support as well as targeted information on the biology and control of specific pests that pose special risks in New England states (bed bugs, rodents and black-legged ticks).

EPA Region 2 Contact: Audrey Moore Email: moore.audrey@epa.gov

EPA Region 2 Agricultural IPM Grant. The following Regional Ag IPM grant was awarded in 2012: A webinar series and interactive grower outreach for pesticide resistance management in greenhouses, Cornell University.

Strategic Agricultural Initiative (SAI) Project Updates. The SAI grant to Cornell University for the drift reduction technology project continues work under a no-cost time extension until July 2013. The other SAI grant to Cornell University for developing resources for increasing use of biocontrol in NY greenhouses is also continuing their work under a no-cost time extension until July 2013.

IPM in Schools. NJ School IPM Projects: Although NJ has regulations regarding IPM in schools, Region 2 performed an assessment of IPM practices in 26 schools in the District of Newark, NJ as part of the EPA FY2012 National Initiative for School IPM. Pesticide application practices as well as the status of IPM implementation were discussed and documented at all schools. New York City School IPM Assessments: During recent discussions with the New York City Department of Education (DOE) concerning the status of IPM implementation in the NYC schools, the NYCDOE invited our office to visit randomly selected schools in several boroughs. The purpose of the school visits is to conduct pesticide use/IPM implementation assessments. School IPM Webinars: Webinars were held last year and this year on the following topics: Integrated Pest Management in Schools: Protecting Children From Pests and Pesticides; Bed Bugs Go To School, and Integrated Pest Management in Schools: Outdoor and Turf. The webinars explained the relationship between the special vulnerability of young children and pesticides use in schools.

Accomplishments

Accomplishments<br /> <p><br /> State Reports (shortened to fit word limits):<br /> <p><br /> New York State IPM Program - Abby Seaman<br /> <p><br /> Agricultural IPM Research <br /> <p><br /> A survey of tomatoes as a potential host crop for spotted wing drosophila showed that larvae infested only cracked fruit, but in a no-choice lab test, larvae could develop on intact tomato fruit.<br /> <p><br /> Spring applications of copper on pruning cuts in cherry provide little to no protection against bacterial canker of sweet cherry. Pruning after harvest and leaving pruning stubs can reduce disease severity. This knowledge should reduce copper use in cherry orchards. <br /> <p><br /> An orchard commodity survey in 2012 did not find any quarantine pests. However, three new apple orchard locations with streptomycin-resistant fire blight were identified in the state.<br /> <p><br /> Spotted wing drosophila was found in all locations surveyed in NY, with an August-September population peak. Crop loss estimates are at 80% for fall raspberries and 30% for blueberries. <br /> <p><br /> Agricultural IPM Extension <br /> <p><br /> Through the Livestock Biting and Nuisance Flies IPM meeting series, 12 meetings were held in Eastern NY reaching 110 participants. 91% of the producers surveyed said in future they would use IPM economic thresholds and 70% said they would reduce pesticide use by using IPM techniques.<br /> <p><br /> Use of a phenology based degree day model in NEWA for grape berry moth was instrumental in moving the average first insecticide application up almost 3 weeks earlier than average in accordance with the extremely early bud break and warmer than average temperatures. <br /> <p><br /> Resources for organic growers, including revisions of the Organic Production Guides and organic efficacy trials for arthropod and plant disease management, were completed in 2012<br /> <p><br /> To date, the 16 IPM In-depth programs held in 14 locations throughout the state have reached over 250 greenhouse growers, including an increasing number of greenhouse vegetable growers and new/potential farmers. Eighty-four percent reported their intent to change production practices at their operation based on what they had learned.<br /> <p><br /> Community IPM Research <br /> <p><br /> Research comparing golf course management systems continued for a 12th year, and reduced chemical management practices were taught intensively to 29 State Park Golf courses. Those courses reduced their environmental impact by 31% from 2001 to 2011.<br /> <p><br /> Community IPM Extension<br /> <p><br /> IPM STAR re-certification assessments and workshops, for evaluating IPM practices in schools, were held for the Ithaca, Seaford and Buffalo City School Districts. Workshops on STAR certification were held in Nassau and Suffolk counties.<br /> <p><br /> Members of the IPM Program are key components of the Nassau County Bed Bug Task Force, which addresses bed bug issues in Nassau County private and public housing and holds workshops Island-wide for a variety of audiences. People trained include nurses, social workers, school facilities managers, housing inspectors, public heath inspectors, housing managers, property owners, and those directly affected by bed bugs. <br /> <p><br /> Budget Information:<br /> <p><br /> Funding for the New York State Ag IPM Program was included in the Governors proposed state budget in 2013-2014 for $500,000, the same as the Program received the past 3 years, but approximately half of previous levels. There is a proposed legislative add-on of $400,000 for Community IPM for 2013-2014  similar to what we received last year. We were able to hire two temporary staff members in 2012, one working in vegetables, the other in community. We were unable to fill a School IPM position in Eastern NY. If these budgets pass as proposed, we hope to create regular Extension Associate positions in these three areas.<br /> <p><br /> Maryland IPM Program - Cerruti Hooks, IPM Program Coordinator<br /> <p><br /> Several field-days and presentations at annual winter meetings and workshops (20) were directed at vegetable and fruit growers, consumers and college scholars in MD and DE. Attendees (~ 2500 total) were trained on how to use new reduced risk insecticides, ecological pest control tactics and cover crops in their disease, weed, and insect IPM programs and appropriate fertilizer rate for vegetable production. All specialty crop growers were trained on how to manage new pests, brown marmorated stink bug and spotted wing drosophila at several venues within and outside of MD. Training programs and PPT presentations were used or expanded to help growers wishing to produce vegetables but lack proper training or become better organic farmers. Experiments are underway to demonstrate fungicide forecaster effectiveness with new fungicides that were not available when MelCast forecaster system was developed. Pamphlets are being produced to aid farmers in proper identification of weed seedlings. Articles were submitted to a weekly crop update (WCU) newsletter which is mailed to vegetable stakeholders and published on line (http://www.rec.udel.edu/TopLevel/Publicat.htm). WCU has 119 subscribers, and receives circa 128 internet hits/week. The most recent survey, growers reported that they used the information on over 63,000 acres in DE, MD, VA and PN. Green industry professionals were trained on the influence of native and non-native plants towards the biological control of insect pests and biological control of invasive species at various conferences. IPM information on pests and beneficials of ornamental systems was disseminated to green industry professionals, extension educators/MGs and government personnel via electronic bi-weekly and weekly pest alert documents. An educational tool (IPM Training Packet) was developed for high school teachers to assist in teaching greenhouse management in MD high schools that included lesson plans, lab exercises, and pre- and post-exams on IPM, nutrient management, and water management skills in greenhouse production. The lesson plans were presented to 46 MD teachers at their summer annual meeting and posted on line at www.IPMnet.umd.edu. MD extension personnel contributed to a multi-state research/extension project headed by USDA ARS in WV and University of Tennessee to combat the invasive BMSB and development of the 1st smart phone app (IPM Pro) for pest, disease and horticultural information for nursery managers (http://www.ipmproapp.com/), respectively. PPt presentations were developed for MGs that focused on pest biology, identification, diagnosis, and damage. These were used as advanced teaching tools in several counties and presented at MG training conferences. Presentation (PPt) and accompany handouts on diagnostics and IPM of invasive species were delivered to professional audiences at 23 national, regional, and local meetings in 9 states and DC. <br /> <p><br /> Pennsylvania IPM Program Report: <br /> <p><br /> A copy of the IPM program annual report was distributed. A copy can be obtained from Ed Rajotte (uvu@psu.edu), IPM Program Coordinator. <br /> <p><br /> Delaware Extension IPM Program - Joanne Whalen, IPM Program Coordinator<br /> <p><br /> I. Funding: Delawares Extension IPM Program is primarily funded by E-IPM Coordinator-Support and State IPM funds. Although we continue to receive state funding primarily for personnel, the 2011 reduction in IPM funding has not been restored. Additional support for program activities is received from various sources including the Delaware Soybean, United Soybean Board, State Specialty Crop Block Grants, SCRI grants, NERIPM grants and Agribusiness Grants. <br /> <p><br /> II. Key Pests: <br /> <p><br /> (a) Brown Marmorated Stink Bug  Although damage was generally less in 2012, the potential for damage in 2013 is higher due to fall population trends. Significant outcomes of Delawares research and extension efforts include documentation of the effectiveness of edge treatments for BMSB management in soybeans; participation in regional trapping trials of a promising pheromone known as odor #10; expansion of our statewide black light trapping program to detect spread of BMSB in DE; submission of Section 18s for management of BMSB in fruit; and research in sweet corn to develop and evaluate thresholds and key growth stages for damage. (b) Spotted Wing Drosophila  The trapping program was expanded and detection occurred in all three counties in 2012. Larval damage was detected for the first time in bramble plantings. (c) Western Bean Cutworm  Moth counts remain low; however, it can now be found in traps statewide. The first larvae were detected at very low levels in one commercial field corn site in New Castle County. (d) Palmer Amaranth and Texas Panicum  In the spring, the DE Noxious Weed Committee decided to add two new species to the list. This involved a concentrated extension effort to make DE farmers aware of these species, how to identify the species, and develop management strategies for agronomic and commercial vegetable crops. <br /> <p><br /> III. Staffing  We have just finished the search for an Extension Plant Pathologist. We hope to have someone in place by the summer growing season. However, this will not allow for the inclusion of a Plant Pathologist on the submission for the E-IPM Coordination and Support Grant due April 2013. <br /> <p><br /> IV. Program Highlights <br /> <p><br /> Specialty Crops - Vegetables  In 2012, our Soil Health Initiative to address soil borne diseases, nematodes and weed management on 19 processing vegetable farms moved to stage three where additional prescriptive treatments were implemented including biofumigants, biodrilling, composts, cover crops and green manures. The 2013 season will focus on assessment of prescription effectiveness including re-assessing the sites for change, identifying what limitations were alleviated, identifying any new limitations and assessing improvement of overall health of the soil. University of Delaware Specialist involved in the assessment of prescriptive treatments include Gordon Johnson, Extension Vegetable Specialist, Joanne Whalen, Extension IPM Specialist, Mark Van Gessel, Extension Weed Specialist, and Kate Everts, Extension Plant Pathologist (University of Maryland, joint University of Delaware appointment). Two watermelon native pollinator demonstrations were conducted using buckwheat and sunflowers as supplemental plantings to enhance native pollinators. Insect Trapping Systems for IPM Decision Making in Processing and Fresh Market Vegetables: Thirteen black light traps and eleven corn earworm pheromone traps were placed on vegetable farms throughout Kent and Sussex counties, Insects monitored in black light traps includes European corn borer, corn earworm and all stink bug species. Respondents indicated that the trapping program helped to prevent yield loss on over 35,000 acres of vegetables. They reported savings in terms of yield loss for fresh market and processing snaps beans and fresh market sweet corn averaging $44 per acre. <br /> <p><br /> Specialty Crops  Christmas Trees  Brian Kunkel, Extension Ornamental IPM Specialist, and Nancy Gregory, Plant Diagnostician, worked with Delaware Department of Agriculture inspectors to deliver IPM programs to Christmas tree growers in all three counties. Farm visits and winter workshops were used to educate Christmas tree producers about insect identification, scouting and alternative controls for insects and diseases. <br /> <p><br /> Agronomic Crops  Programs included demonstrations on the economic and environmental benefits of the use of perimeter sprays for stink bug management in soybeans and the use of vertical tillage and cover crops for slug management in no-till field corn. Kudzu Bug is currently causing significant economic losses to southern soybean systems with losses from this pest averaged 18% yield loss. A survey of 75 soybean fields and 10 kudzu sites conducted in 2012 was supported by the Delaware Soybean Board. Although this insect was found in 19 counties Virginia in 2012, it was not detected in Delaware by the end of the season.<br /> <p><br /> Consumer/Urban - Demonstration gardens located in each county were used as phenological indicators to assist landscape professionals and Master Gardeners with pest management decisions. Signs installed near plants in the gardens describe when to start scouting and possibly time insecticide applications according to plant phenology. Multi-lingual fact sheets have been developed to educate Spanish speaking clientele about the benefits of IPM as well as how to attract beneficial insects with companion plantings. <br /> <p><br /> Weed IPM Programs  (a) Improving Weed and Insect Management in Organic Rotational No-Till  The overall goal is to develop sustainable reduced-tillage organic feed grain production systems that integrate pest (weed and insect) and soil management practices to overcome production constraints associated with high residue, reduced-tillage environments. (b) Regional Research Project on Weed Biology and Management. Delaware is involved in looking at is how best to manage weeds to eliminate the production of viable seeds. Research involves terminating the plants at various times using herbicides or methods to simulate hand-weeding or mowing. <br /> <p><br /> New Hampshire IPM Program - Dr. Alan Eaton, coordinator and Extension IPM Specialist<br /> <p><br /> Key Personnel, 2012: Dr. Alan Eaton, coordinator and Extension IPM Specialist; George Hamilton, Field Specialist, Food and Agriculture; Rachel Maccini, Education Center Director<br /> Suzanne Hebert, Administrative Assistant; Linda Kuhnhardt, Scout. Significantly involved, but not funded via IPM funds: Dr. Cheryl Smith, Plant Health Specialist; Dr. Brian Krug, Greenhouse and Floriculture Specialist; Dr. Becky Sideman, Sustainable Horticulture Production Specialist.<br /> <p><br /> Budget and Reorganization: In early 2011, the New Hampshire legislature cut the appropriation for the university system by 48%. Simultaneously, one of our ten counties (Strafford) eliminated all support for cooperative extension, and two others made significant budget cuts. As a result, we lost many people, and went through a complete reorganization. Specialists and county-based educators had to re-apply for their jobs. Thanks to grant funding from NIFA and the NH Department of Agriculture, Markets & Food, the extension IPM work continues, but we lost significant team members. We devoted <br /> a lot of time to figuring out how to operate in the new posture.<br /> <p><br /> Major activities in 2012:<br /> <p><br /> Management of arthropod-borne diseases: NH ranks 3rd among 50 states in the incidence of Lyme Disease. Our efforts aim to inform and empower people to avoid getting one of these diseases. This year Im planning a major tick sampling effort, to refine the blacklegged tick distribution map for NH. I estimated NHs tick disease burden at nearly $4million/year.<br /> <p><br /> Tree Fruit: We continue to show lowered incidence of pest injury on apples, and reduced spraying, compared to pre-IPM levels. The incidence of pest injury in 2012 was 3.0%. This is below the 25 year average of 5.28%, and well below the pre-IPM average of 10 to 12%. New pests (for us, anyway) are challenging that situation: oblique-banded leafroller, Oriental fruit moth, possibly winter moth. <br /> <p><br /> Small Fruit: In 2011, we completed a major project on blueberry fruit fly, improving growers understanding, use of traps, and reducing un-necessary spraying. Then spotted wing drosophila arrived. Our fall 2012 grower survey revealed $1.5 million in crop loss to SWD this year, with heaviest losses in blueberries. Cherries and June crop of strawberries escaped. From mid-June through fall, we monitored 178 SWD traps, on 17 farms.<br /> <p><br /> Sweet Corn: With funding from NH Dept. of Agriculture, we were able to continue our sweet corn trapping and scouting program, which is largely focused on Hillsborough and Merrimack Counties. Growers still report that the program significantly reduces culling (throwing out caterpillar-infested ears). Typically we save them $150,000/year. 2012 savings data havent been completely analyzed yet. George Hamilton largely oversees this and the squash vine borer monitoring program.<br /> <p><br /> Grass-parasitic Weed: We surveyed 58 hay fields in 5 NH counties, for Rhinanthus crista-galli L., known as yellow rattle. This surprising weed can kill grasses in one year, and is largely unknown to NH hay producers. We found the weed in 48% of the fields. We developed a response plan, and are disseminating identification and management information now.<br /> <p><br /> IPM for Consumer/Urban Environments: Much of the IPM work directed at homes, gardens and urban settings is through the Cooperative Extension Education Center, now located in Goffstown. The toll-free info telephones, twice weekly TV spots, and Master Gardener program are run from this facility. Each year we train about 60 new Master gardeners, and handle roughly 3000 pest-related inquiries. <br /> <p><br /> Impacts & Successes<br /> <p.<br /> Because of the Extension Integrated Pest Management program, NH apple growers reduced their pesticide spraying and the incidence of pest injury, compared to pre-IPM figures. These impacts amounted to $212,000 in 2012. The overall incidence of pest injury on the crop was 3.00% this year. Before we introduced IPM, the incidence of pest injury on fruit was 10 to 12%, and growers sprayed insecticides, miticides and fungicides roughly 40% more than they do now. Because of the extension IPM program, NH sweet corn growers reduced their spraying and culling (throwing out insect-infested ears) by an estimated $150,000 in 2012. 92% of the attendees [to Jan. 2012 Tri-State Greenhouse IPM Workshops] learned new techniques they intend to use in the coming year, biological control in general and specifically aphid biocontrol, quality control evaluation of biocontrol agents they purchase, attention to careful identification of their plant diseases and insect pests, beans as an early season trap crop. 75% of the attendees [at 2012 Tri-State Greenhouse IPM Workshops] used biological control last year: ME: 84%; NH: 65%; VT: 76%. Of those who used biological control, 82% used predators; 54% nematodes, 46% parasites, 20% insect killing fungi, 25% disease killing microbes (soil treatments) and 14% insect-killing bacteria. This figure has steadily gone up over the last 12+ years we have included this training. When we started these workshops, only 5 to 10% of growers had ever tried biological controls.<br /> <p><br /> West Virginia IPM Program - Rakesh S. Chandran, IPM Coordinator<br /> <p><br /> Stakeholder Committee and Pest Issues<br /> <p><br /> West Virginia University IPM program formed a Stakeholder Committee to reach out to the citizens of West Virginia to gather inputs that would improve its outreach program in IPM. Apart from the pest management specialists at WVU, the Stakeholder Committee includes representatives of row-crops and commercial applicators (Mr. Dean Beasley, Moorefield), landscape and nurserymen (Mr. Chris Chanlett, Hinton), lawn-care industry (Mr. Dan Cheslock, Morgantown) commercial vegetable growers (Eli Cook, Slanesville), invasive species in managed woodlots (Dr. Cindy Huebner), organic producers (Dr. Clarissa Mathews, Shepherdstown), commercial fruit growers, (Mr. Garry Shanholtz, Romney), forage crops and county agents (Mr. Bruce Loyd), and the West Virginia State Dept. of Agriculture  Pesticides Regulatory Program (Dr. Peggy Powell). A conference call was held to discuss and document current issues in various areas represented by the stakeholder group. <br /> <p><br /> Recent Staff Changes<br /> <p><br /> An Extension Entomologist and Plant Pathologist and Extension were hired by West Virginia University in 2011and 2012. Their contact information are as follows: Dr. Daniel Frank, Extension Entomologist and Assistant Professor, West Virginia University. Tel.: (304) 293-8835; e-mail: dlfrank@mail.wvu.edu. Dr. Mafuz Rahman, Extension Assistant Professor & Specialist  Plant Pathology, West Virginia University. Tel.: (304) 293-8838; e-mail: mm.rahman@mail.wvu.edu.<br /> <p><br /> Tree Fruit IPM Program<br /> <p><br /> Efforts were initiated to initiate Tree Fruit IPM program with NRCS by following the new practice standards. The IPM Coordinator and the Extension Entomologist met with NRCS officials who expressed interest in continuing it as an EQIP-eligible practice. The goal was to choose IPM-oriented practices from a list of practices that would reduce any potential hazards/risks associated with pesticides used in an orchard. Practices to mitigate these risks have to be in place to be eligible for program. A survey was carried out to document grower interest. The IPM Institute of America provided a template Practice Standard Plan. We presented the plan at the NRCS State Technical committee meeting in summer of 2012 and the State Conservationist felt it would be a useful effort. He clarified that WVU would provide the technical service required to carry out the program. We also ran a model based on the WIN-PST software and developed a plan for West Virginia Growers by Fall of 2012 when sign-ups were expected to begin for 2013. We send all the necessary information to the State Resource Conservationist and State Agronomist but did not hear back. Upon further contact we were informed that the existing pool of funds for 2013 were already committed but there is a possibility that additional funds may become available. We compiled the documentation of all the efforts taken to initiate the program and requested a follow up meeting to discuss the possibility for the 2013 growing season. We assume that it was because of the continuing resolutions with the Federal budget but we have not heard back thus far.<br /> <p><br /> Agronomic Crops IPM<br /> <p><br /> Three growers were trained to carry out large-scale demonstrations to apply residual herbicides in bands to reduce the use of atrazine and other pre-emergence herbicides by 50% . Three demonstrations were carried out in 2012 at grower locations which revealed no yield differences between conventional broadcast application and banded fields. This practice also has the potential to increase floral diversity, reduce movement of nutrients and pesticide runoff, provide habitat for beneficial insects. We plan to continue this program in 2013. Dr. Frank monitored for beneficial insect population levels in 2012 and noted a few trends but results were not conclusive due to trap destruction by vertebrate pests. He expects to continue monitoring in 2013.<br /> <p><br /> IPM Chronicle<br /> <p><br /> In 2012, updates related to IPM were published as a joint effort by the three pest management specialists based in Morgantown. Due to its popularity, it was issued as a newsletter titled IPM Chronicle from 2013 onwards. This quarterly publication is expected to bring up the awareness of the general public and average end user on the importance of IPM, relevant pest management issues globally and locally in Entomology, Plant Pathology and Weed Science, and will also include other timely topics of broad interest.<br /> <p><br /> Connecticut IPM Program  Ana Legrand, IPM Coordinator<br /> <p><br /> 1) Funding:<br /> <p><br /> Extension IPM funds (Smith Lever-d) cover part of the IPM coordinator and fruit IPM educator salaries. Funding for various projects and staff comes from Smith Lever funds, USDA NRCS, USDA SARE and USDA <br /> <p><br /> 2) Important Pest Problems: The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station and the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection announced that on July 16th, 2012 the emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis) was detected in Prospect, CT. The identification was confirmed by USDA APHIS-PPQ officials. The spotted wing drosophila (SWD) Drosophila suzukii continues to be a serious problem. The infestations are statewide in commercial and home settings and so far fly larvae have been found in blueberries, raspberries, strawberries, grapes and possibly plums. While testing SWD attractants, Dr. Cowles detected Zaprionus indianus, the African fig fly, a new exotic Drosophilid that is not anticipated to be as damaging as SWD. IPM program staff have been monitoring for the presence of the brown marmorated stink bug (BMSB) in agricultural and landscape settings. Jude Boucher noted that green stink bugs were an unusual problem for some growers in 2012. New problems due to plant pathogens were also reported. Impatiens downy mildew Plasmopara obducens was a new problem in CT gardens. Reports were confirmed starting on mid July 2012 and it continues to be a serious problem in gardens, commercial landscapes and greenhouses. Boxwood blight caused by the fungus Cylindrocladium buxicola was first detected in CT in 2011 and it continued to be a problem in 2012. Other diseases of concern were Northern corn leaf blight (showing up as a new problem for some corn growers) and late blight in tomatoes and potatoes. <br /> <p><br /> 3) Other Pest Problems and Issues: The Connecticut legislature passed Public Act 09-56 banning lawn care pesticide applications to the grounds of day care centers and in K-8 schools. This ban went into effect on July 1, 2010. The ban also prohibits the use of pesticides on ornamental plants, woody trees, shrubs and herbaceous plants in the school landscape. Cooperative Extension Educators, IPM program staff and the CT Department of Energy and Environment Protection are working together to address pest management recommendations and concerns for school grounds affected by the ban. In school grounds, white grubs and weed management are the most important issues to address. Bed bug and deer tick management continue to be issues of concern. <br /> <p><br /> 4) Pest Management Project Updates:<br /> <p><br /> Fruit IPM: The IPM program welcomed Mary Concklin as our new Fruit IPM Extension Educator taking over from Lorraine Los who retired in 2012. Fruit IPM program staff collaborated in a statewide survey for the SWD which is part of a <br /> New England regional project to monitor and map this new pest. <br /> <p><br /> Invasive Species:<br /> <p><br /> Donna Ellis, Senior Extension Educator, is collaborating with the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station in a biocontrol project of mile-a-minute using Rhinoncomimus latipes weevils. Outreach education about mile-a-minute vine management is conducted statewide, with emphasis in the towns where mile-a-minute vine has been confirmed. Research led by Ana Legrand is also focusing on management options for other beetle pests such as the Japanese, oriental and Asiatic garden beetles which are pests of turfgrass and ornamentals. Moreover, a recent survey documented the presence of Tiphia vernalis and T. popilliavora (white grub parasitoids) in MA and NH. <br /> <p><br /> NRCS and IPM training:<br /> <p><br /> The IPM program continues to partner with the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service to provide IPM training to growers. A new project was started to deliver IPM workshops to NRCS staff. Workshops were offered by Jude Boucher, Mary Concklin, Leanne Pundt and Ana Legrand on general IPM concepts and IPM for vegetables, fruits, and greenhouse crops. <br /> <p><br /> New England Greenhouse Update Website:<br /> <p><br /> Six hundred growers, retailer, industry representatives in New England increased their knowledge on the use of biological controls, and best management practices through the New England Greenhouse Update website, a joint venture between University of Massachusetts and University of Connecticut. Timely, up-to-date information was posted on the website (www.negreenhouseupdate.info) with approximately 48,000 visitors per year. <br /> <p><br /> Animal Agriculture: <br /> <p><br /> Overuse of chemical de-wormers is causing worm resistance to the de-wormers, exposing small ruminants to the dangers of the Barber pole worm (internal parasite). Low rate of gain and mortality of susceptible animals may cause these farms to abandon the production of lamb, fiber, and goat meat. Joyce Meader, Extension Educator, participated in a SARE 3 year grant titled Improving Small Ruminant Parasite Control along with RI (PI), VT, and MA Extension. Farmers were instructed on scoring their animals for body condition as well as anemia to determine which animals to treat for Barber pole worm.<br /> <p><br /> Bringing Deep Zone Tillage to Connecticut & New England Vegetable Farmers<br /> <p><br /> In an effort to spread the word about deep zone tillage (DZT), reduced-tillage, soil health, cover crops, and crop rotation, J. Boucher and partnering growers/educators have made: 9 Extension presentations in 4 states (CT, ME, MA, NH) and Nova Scotia, and published 1 magazine, 3 proceedings and 3 newsletter articles (1 DZT farm case study). The main goal of this program is to increase the number of DZT vegetable growers in New England. <br /> <p><br /> Vermont IPM Program - Ann Hazelrigg, IPM Coordinator<br /> <p><br /> Pests/diseases of interest for Vermont for 2012: Late spring frosts causing problems in apples, spotted wing drosophila-major issue for small fruit and grape growers, late blight in tomatoes and potatoes, brown marmorated stink bug (numbers increasing but still not of much concern yet), green stink bug-major issue for some vegetable growers, cucumber beetles and squash bugs present in high numbers, Phytophthora fruit rot of squashes widespread due to fall rain patterns, new identification of impatiens downy mildew, Northern corn leaf blight, mycotoxins and potato leafhopper were all issues for Vermont in the past year. Contaminated compost with persistent pesticides was an important problem in the northern part of the state in home gardens.<br /> <p><br /> IPM First for Greenhouse Ornamentals<br /> <p><br /> Margaret Skinner, Extension Entomologist and Cheryl E. Frank, Technician<br /> <p><br /> Individualized educational IPM programs were developed to provide growers and their workers with practical one-on-one learning opportunities specifically designed to meet their unique interests, skill level and operation needs. Participating growers, in collaboration with Extension personnel, determined areas of interest and need relative to IPM. An Extension specialist visited each location weekly for 1-2 months, gradually reducing visit frequency as the growing seasons progressed. To evaluate program success and IPM adoption, preliminary and annual follow-up surveys were completed by participants. <br /> <p><br /> Impacts & Outreach:<br /> <p><br /> Eight commercial greenhouse operations have been assisted with the one-on-one educational program and 2 more have been added for 2013 (9 in VT and 1 in NH). Based on the needs surveys, participants received training on pest and natural enemy identification, scouting, sanitation, pesticide rotation, development or refinement of biological control programs, use of plant-mediated IPM systems, and strategies for reduction of costs associated with implementing IPM and biological control. Chemical pesticide applications have been reduced at all locations. All growers used some form of biological control within their IPM programs. Three locations switched from conventional chemical pesticide-based management to relying primarily on biological control as a direct result of this project. At the Tri-State IPM Workshops, we reached over 150 attendees and according to the exit evaluation, 92% of the attendees learned new techniques they intend to use in the coming year, including biological control in general and specifically aphid biocontrol, quality control evaluation of biocontrol agents they purchase.<br /> <p><br /> Apple IPM Program (standard apple IPM and organic apple IPM):<br /> <p><br /> Lorraine Berkett, IPM Apple and Grape Specialist, UVM Extension<br /> <p><br /> Project Highlights:<br /> <p><br /> 18 issues of the Apple IPM Alert were written and disseminated over the past year to over 100 growers who subscribed to the Apple IPM email listserve, and archived on the Apple IPM website which had an additional 650 visits. <br /> <p><br /> Apple workshop organized in collaboration with the Vermont Tree Fruit Growers Association which was attended by 65 growers. <br /> <p><br /> Updated and maintained Apple IPM website which had over 2,000 visits <br /> <p><br /> Organic Apple IPM observations were distributed in 13 organic apple newsletter issues to over 100 organic stakeholders during the past year and archived on the Organic Apple IPM website which had over 500 visits. <br /> <p><br /> Updated and maintained the Organic Apple IPM website which had over 300 visits and incorporated IPM information into a newly developed Practical Guide for Organic Apple Production which had over 400 visits by stakeholders.<br /> <p><br /> Provided one-on-one education regarding growers apple IPM questions<br /> <p><br /> Recent survey of growers revealed 88% would adopt a new IPM practice as a result of the Apple IPM program. <br /> <p><br /> Cold Climate Grape IPM program:<br /> <p><br /> 15 issues of the Grape IPM Update were written and disseminated during the reporting period to over 200 growers who subscribed to the Grape IPM email listserve, and archived on the Cold Climate Winegrape IPM website which had approximately 800 additional visits. <br /> <p><br /> Updated and maintained the Grape IPM website pages which had over 350 visits<br /> <p><br /> Conducted Field Day at the University of Vermont Cold Climate Grape Vineyard attended by 32 stakeholders (see below for grower evaluation)<br /> <p><br /> Provided one-on-one education regarding growers IPM questions<br /> <p><br /> Recent survey of growers revealed 87% would adopt a new IPM practice as a result of the Grape IPM program.<br /> <p><br /> Vermont Vegetable and Berry IPM Program<br /> <p><br /> Ann Hazelrigg, Extension Plant Pathologist, Plant Diagnostic Clinic<br /> <p><br /> Project Highlights:<br /> <p><br /> Over 300 calls and emails were fielded from vegetable and berry growers asking for help with pest and disease diagnosis and IPM management recommendations<br /> <p><br /> 100 disease and insect samples from vegetables and small fruit were sent to the Plant Diagnostic Clinic for identification of the pest or disease problem and management using IPM principles<br /> <p><br /> Two presentations at annual Vegetable and Berry grower meetings (both organic and conventional) on past pest and disease issues and new and emerging problems.<br /> <p><br /> Several twilight meetings during the growing season addressing pest and disease issues and IPM techniques <br /> <p><br /> Provided one-on-one education site visits regarding growers vegetable and berry IPM questions<br /> <p><br /> Contributed to the bi weekly newsletter going out to the Vermont Vegetable and Berry Growers Association describing new and emerging pests and diseases for the season with IPM recommendations.<br /> <p><br /> Agronomic Crops IPM. Sid Bosworth, Extension Agronomist and Heather Darby, Extension Crop Specialist<br /> <p><br /> Project Highlights:<br /> <p><br /> Armyworm and cutworms were important pests this year. <br /> <p><br /> Social media and Tweets were used to post information directing farmers to the Crops and Soils web page where over 400 growers accessed the information.<br /> <p><br /> Leafhopper on alfalfa, mixed vegetables, and hops was a significant issue this past summer. Information in regards to leafhoppers was presented at the Annual Northwest Crops and Soils Field Day with over 250 attendees.<br /> <p><br /> Northern Corn Leaf Blight is emerging quickly as a devastating disease in the Vermont. It is thought that a new race of the pathogen may be plaguing the southern part of the state as well as areas of MA and NY. Information in regards to the disease was presented at 6 winter workshops with over 300 attendees present. Factsheets were distributed and posted on the web.

Publications

Nothing to report.

Impact Statements

1. Committee participants increased their knowledge of IPM research and extension activities being carried out in the region. Participants shared pest updates and pest information from each state they represented and contributed to a list of pest and pest management priorities for the region.

Back to top

Report Information

Participants

Ellis, Donna- CT IPM Coordinator; Whalen, Joanne- DE IPM Coordinator; Hanson, Keoki - NE IPM Center; Koplinka-Loehr, Carrie- NE IPM Center; Hoffmann, Mike- Experiment Station Dir., Cornell University (remote); Rajotte, Ed- PA IPM Coordinator; Hamilton, George- NJ IPM Coordinator; Eaton, Alan - NH IPM Coordinator; Koehler, Glenn, UNH; Hooks, Cerruti- MD IPM Coordinator; Grant, Jennifer - NY IPM Coordinators; Sandler, Hilary - MA IPM Coordinator; Hazelrigg, Ann - VT IPM Coordinator; Kingsley-Richards, Sarah, UVM; Draper, Martin - USDA NIFA (remote); Green, Tom - IPM Institute; VanKirk, Jim (remote)-Southern IPM Center.

Brief Summary of Minutes

Agenda
Chair-Ann Hazelrigg
Vice-Chair-George Hamilton
Other discussions to be fit it-NEWA, eXtension as time allows

April 1
1 pm Welcome and Introductions, Agenda Overview-Ann Hazelrigg, Chair, NEERA
1:30 pm National Update-Status of last year’s E-IPM grants and monies, Criteria for
successful applications. New RFA for next round. Marty Draper, USDA NIFA
See attached pdf of Marty’s powerpoint presentation.
2:30 pm Break
3:30 pm Making the most of evaluation of programs. Keoki Hansen, NE IPM Center
Keoki Hansen, the Program Evaluation specialist at NEIPMC, will be conducting
an interactive session on evaluation. The session will cover: why evaluation is
important; setting up evaluation systems--the what, who, when, how and where;
and data collection methods. During the session you will have the opportunity to
ask your evaluation questions and apply what you have learned using the NEERA
objectives. This session was developed based on the feedback from NIFA
regarding the quality of the evaluation sections in the recent NEERA proposals.
See attached pdf of Keoki’s powerpoint presentation.
5:30 pm Dinner on your own-lots of possibilities!

April 2
7:00 am Full breakfast
8:00 am NE IPM Center Update & NE IPM Center Grant Programs. Factsheet ideas
(creation, peer-review process and vetting) and funding sources. Carrie
Koplinka-Loehr, NE IPM Center
9:00 am Northeast Experiment Station Directors Update, Mike Hoffman, Cornell
University-will be calling in. See attached pdf of Mike’s powerpoint
presentation.
9:30 am Discussion of last year’s E-IPM grants-Categories for each state’s submission,
what we did right/wrong, what can we improve? Group Work.
11:30 am iPIPE proposal, Jim VanKirk, Southern Region IPM Center-will be calling in.
See attached pdf of Jim’s powerpoint presentation.
12:00 Lunch provided
1 pm NRCS funding for IPM activities, Updates on IPM Voice, Tom Green, President
of IPM Institute of North America. See attached pdf of Jim’s powerpoint
presentation.
2 pm State IPM Programs Reports, IPM Program Coordinators – 5 min/state
2:30 pm Break
3 pm Review and update of NEERA IPM research and extension priorities, NEERA
Group-see below
5 pm Elect chair for 2016-Jennifer Grant

Priorities resulting from the meeting:
Extension
Emerging pests—use resources to increase knowledge and available tools to
address challenges created by: Spotted wing drosophila, BMSB, ticks, boxwood
blight, yellow rattle, dodder
Current diseases—use resources to increase knowledge and available tools to
address challenges created by current diseases such as: late blight of tomato,
‘Summer Rots’, boxwood blight, impatiens downy mildew
Demonstrate the viability/usefulness of the whole IPM approach such as ‘Grape
IPM,’ etc.
Increase knowledge in weed management, specifically in orchards
Increase programs and tools for young farmers,
Increase programs and tools non-English speakers
Increase the number of programs and tools focused on urban/public health IPM
(mosquitos, ticks, bedbugs, lyme disease)
Create resources that increase understanding of the effect of climate change on
pests and the role IPM can play in climate change.
Increase IPM resources created for the public, such as home gardeners and
homeowners.
Create up to date lists of reduced risk pesticides
Improve metrics of IPM adoption by creating standardized IPM performance
metrics
Increase resources focused on resistant weeds, and volatilization management
Work collaboratively to locate alternative sources of funding
Increase resources dedicated to pollinator health
Increase collaboration among regions to more effectively use resources and
better coordinate research and outreach.
Increase knowledge in cultural and alternative practices for management of
emerging pests
Communicate how to differentiate advanced IPM from basic levels
Increase coordination within extension on work regarding pesticide bans.
Increase knowledge about how to deal with garlic mustard
Increase knowledge about white grub management
Create and disseminate guidelines for use of biocontrols.
Increase emphasis on bio-based pest management
Support the region-wide weather-based decision support

Research
Dedicate more research resources to link between IPM and climate change
Increase research in understanding fungicide resistance (i.e. Streptomycin
resistance and fire blight in apples)
Dedicate more research resources to pollinator health
Increase research on secondary effects of pesticide use for BMSB and it’s impact
on crops and the ecosystem
Develop more reduced risk products (nematodes, jasmonic acid, 25 B use and
efficacy)
Develop thresholds for BMSB

Regulatory
Inform regulatory policies about how to increase pollinator health
FSMA-how does this affect IPM and where does IPM fit in?
Contribute to more effective WP standards
Inform regulatory policies in order to increase incentives for more reduced risk
products

Accomplishments

<p>See minutes...</p>

Publications

<p>None reported...</p>

Impact Statements

Back to top

Report Information

Participants

Hamilton, George (hamilton@aesop.rutgers.edu) - Rutgers University;
Whalon, Joanne (jwhalen@udel.edu) - University of Delaware;
Lehman, Dione (dll33@psu.edu) - Penn State University;
Tewksbury, Lisa (lisat@uri.edu) - University of Rhode Island;
Chandran, Rakesh (rschandran@mail.wvu.edu) - West Virginia University;
Grant, Jennifer (jag7@cornell.edu) - Cornell University;
O'Neill, Michael (mp.oneill@uconn.edu) - University of Connecticut;
Ellis, Donna (donna.ellis@uconn.edu) - University of Connecticut;

Brief Summary of Minutes

Accomplishments

Connecticut<br /> <br /> 1. Data collected from 32 weather stations distributed throughout the state were used to forecast various fruit and turf diseases and insect pest emergence and development to growersIPM scouts and consultants and green industry clientele thus allowing for the refinement of IPM tactics used against these pests.<br /> 2. Outreach on invasive plants was provided to over 73,200 business owners and citizens.<br /> 3. Research on the use of Tiphia parasitoids showed that root feeding by white grubs release volatiles that are attractive to these parasitoids.<br /> <br /> Delaware<br /> <br /> 1. Three on-farm demonstrations for control of problematic weed species were established , targeting speedwell species, jagged chickweed, and grass species.<br /> 2. The use of traps baited with commercial pheromones and merlot/ apple cider vinegar to monitoring for the first occurrence and seasonal abundance of Spotted Wing Drosophila were demonstrated.<br /> 3. Thirteen black light and eleven corn earworm pheromone traps were placed on vegetable farms throughout Kent and Sussex counties to collect data on corn borer, corn earworm and stink bug species. This information was included on the Delaware IPM website and a recorded message (“Crop Pest Hotline”) to allow users to access the information 24 hours a day and provide information on how to use the trap catch information to make management decision for peppers, snap beans and sweet corn.<br /> <br /> Massachusetts<br /> <br /> 1. Eight Mentor farms (five were both vegetables and fruit) were provided scouting and management information. <br /> 2. The Small Fruit and Tree Fruit teams worked with nine Partner Farms on various disease models and use of reduced-risk pesticides. <br /> 3. The Vegetable Team worked with five Partner farms on a variety of issues including tomato and potato late blight.<br /> <br /> New Jersey<br /> <br /> 1. Scouting programs were provided to nursery, greenhouse, fruit and vegetable growers.<br /> 2. Weekly pest incidence maps were provided to growers via pest blogs and websites.<br /> 3. Research on the brown marmorated stink bug has led to the development of short term management of this pest in fruit and vegetable crops.<br /> <br /> New York<br /> <br /> 1. Research on the economic impacts of birds in various fruit crops resulted in the publication of nine fact sheets.<br /> 2. Ag Extension IPM is now providing Trac Software for fruit and turfgrass online.<br /> 3. A greenhouse biocontrol App (GreenhouseScout) to provide biocontrol and pest information is now available.<br /> <br /> Pennsylvania<br /> <br /> 1. The increasing need by the Hispanic community for culturally appropriate IPM educational materials via the Latino Community IPM Partnership translated pest and asthma fact sheets into Spanish for distribution,<br /> 2. Thirty five Healthy Home trainings were conducted for over 560 people.<br /> 3. Three videos for IPM childcare facilities (two in English, one in Spanish) were developed distributed via the internet.<br /> <br /> Rhode Island<br /> <br /> 1. Blueberry and raspberry growers were provided advise on the management of spotted wing drosophila (SWD).<br /> 2. Collaborations with MA and VT were created to develop a pest and disease scouting calendar and alert system for fruits and vegetables.<br /> 3. Rhinoncomimus latipes weevils to control mile-a-minute weed were released in 8 sites in Rhode Island; the program collaborated with Connecticut to release the parasitoid Tetrastichus setifer to control lily leaf beetle. <br /> <br /> West Virginia<br /> <br /> 1. Three pest identification and management clinics were conducted during 2014.<br /> 2. Four issues of the IPM Chronicle newsletter were published and distributed to stakeholders.<br /> 3. State specialist contributed to the publication and distribution of two regional pest management guides.<br /> <br />

Publications

Impact Statements

1. Broader adoption of IPM practices by Connecticut stakeholders enhanced responsible pest management and reduced management and production costs; minimized adverse environmental and economic effects from pests; resulted in improved ecosystem quality and plant performance; and improved plant health, quality, yields, and aesthetics.
2. Approximately 1,285 pesticide applicators and occupational users in Connecticut were provided with training on the safe use and handling of pesticide products, including those who earned pesticide recertification credits. Approximately 4,000 non-certified people received pesticide safety training.
3. 9,670 participants in Connecticut received IPM training and increased their knowledge and awareness of managing plant pests (insects, mites, diseases, wildlife, and weeds, including invasive plants), resulting in improved decision-making regarding management options.
4. 32 weather stations installed in Connecticut in 2014 and linked to the Network for Environment and Weather Applications (NEWA) provided a new IPM decision management tool for fruit and vegetable growers and consultants, green industry professionals, and school and municipal grounds managers.
5. Based on a survey of vegetable growers in Delaware, respondents (42) indicated that trapping information was used to make insect management decisions on processing snap bean, lima bean and sweet corn; and fresh market snap beans, sweet corn and peppers. Eighty three percent (35) indicated that the trapping program helped to prevent yield loss on fresh and processing vegetables. Sixty nine percent (29) of the survey respondents indicated that the trapping program resulted in a reduction in the number of insecticide applications. Five percent (2) of the survey respondents indicated that an average of $ 15-30 per acre was saved in terms of yield loss, increased profits, and improved quality across all crops. Seventy-six percent (32) of the survey respondents indicated that the trapping program resulted in increased profits and improved crop quality across all crops.
6. By the end of a workshop held for High Tunnel growers in Delaware, 70% of the attendees increased their knowledge on awareness of principles of integrated pest management in high tunnels. 55% of the attendees indicated that they would put into practice the technologies needed to prevent and control problems with insects, weeds and plant pathogens.
7. New Jersey Growers were able to make better pest management decisions for fruit, nursery, greenhouse and vegetable crops.
8. New Jersey growers reduced the amounts of fertilizer and pesticide inputs.

Back to top