Annual/Termination Reports:

[04/28/2005] [08/15/2006] [03/21/2007] [07/28/2008] [03/23/2009] [03/23/2011]

Report Information

Participants

Ames Herbert, herbert@vt.edu, VA Tech;
Norm Leppla, ncleppla@ifas.ufl.edu, UF/IFAS;
Mike Linker, mike_linker@ncsu.edu, NCSU;
Clayton Hollier,chollier@agcenter,LSU.edu LSU Ag Ctr;
Janet McLeod Scott,jscott@clemson.edu, Clemson;
Pat Parkman, jparkman@utk.edu, Univ. TN;
Jonathan Edelson, edelson@okstate.edu, OSU;
Henry Fadamiro, fadamhy@auburn.edu, Auburn;
Jim VanKirk, jim_vankirk@ncsu.edu, SRIPMC;
Mike Fitzner, mfitzner@CSREES.usda.gov CSREES;
Jim Shrefler, jshrefl@okstate.edu, OSU;
Doug Johnson,doug.johnson@uky.edu, KY;
Carlos Bogran,c-bogran@tamu.edu TAMU;
Pat Bolin, bolinp@okstate.edu, OSU;
Clarence Collison,ccollison@msstate.edu, MS;
Tom Fuchs, t-fuchs@tamu.edu, TAMU;


Ted Holmes,ted@cdms.net, CDMS;
Daniel Sonke,dsonke@ufl.edu, UF, IFAS;
Kris Giles,kgiles@okstate.edu, OSU;
Bill Coli,wcoli@omext.umass.edu, UMASS;

Brief Summary of Minutes

Minutes of SERA003 Meeting
Sheraton Downtown Hotel
Oklahoma City, OK
April 5-7, 2005

Chair-Elect Jonathan Edelson called the meeting to order at 2:15 pm on April 5, 2005. The first order of business was a research report given by Kris Giles reporting for Tom Royer on the Glance and Go expert system and decision support tool for greenbugs on wheat.

Ames Herbert reported on the Virginia Ag Pest Advisory, which is electronic news alert for growers, agents and consultants in which multiple numbers of specialists can enter advisories by commodity or pest group. The Southern Region IPM Center offered to help others in developing a similar e-newsletter.

Ted Holmes, Southern Region Sales Manager for CDMS and Dan Sonke from the University of Florida demonstrated the ChemSearch program, which is being piloted in each state in the Southern Region. CDMS has contracts with about 104 chemical manufacturers for current labels information on pesticide products. It is updated daily.

Bill Coli presented a program assessment talk entitled How to Answer the So What? Question related to program outcomes. A productive and lively discussion ensued but did not result in an action item for the group.

The first day session was adjourned at 6:00 pm.

April 6, 2005
Pat Bolin called the meeting to order at 8:10 am. Jonathan Edelson presented the minutes. Tom Fuchs moved that the minutes be approved as read and Clayton Hollier seconded the motion. Motion passed.

Dr. Edelson presented on the ECOP/ESCOP meeting held in Washington, DC on September 15-16, 2004. The purpose of this meeting was to plan for pest management research and education program collaborations among states, USDA/CSREES and other federal agencies.

Jonathan Edelson also gave the administrative report for Dr. David Boethel was unable to attend the SERA003 meeting. Several items in the SERA003 renewal forms were to be addressed and resubmitted for approval. A discussion of possible outputs from SERA003 that could be used in the renewal ensued. Possible outputs included:
1) Ideas are taken back to the states from the meeting
2) Priorities for the SR IPM Center
3) Offer of help from IPM Center for state websites
4) Minutes from SERA003 meetings

ACTION ITEM: Dr. Tom Fuchs agreed to provide minutes, SERA003 membership list and meeting participant list to NIMMS website within 60 days of meeting.

ACTION ITEM: Dr. Jonathan Edelson will work with Dr. David Boethel to update the website and to confer about what kinds of outputs and outcomes result from SERA03 that should be listed in the renewal.

Dr. Jim VanKirk gave an update on the Southern Region IPM Center. He indicated that the Center serves as an information network to connect regulators with stakeholders, to provide data for better decision making, to develop a state contact network and to help coordinate pest management activities and information delivery. One goal is for the Center to become the clearinghouse for all IPM-related information.

Dr. VanKirk briefly addressed e-Extension and also offered the Centers help in developing/updating state IPM websites. Members of SERA 003 indicated that this help would be greatly appreciated.

The Southern IPM Center runs 3 grant programs:
IPM Enhancement Grants- 50% of the budget
RIPM- $835,000 for research and Extension, land grants only
PMAP- this is still a national competition but 30% of score for grants relates to how the proposal addresses regional priorities

Some members of SERA003 expressed concerns about the relevancy panel which now is a part of the grant review process.

Dr. Jim Criswell addressed the group regarding state contacts and the Southern Region IPM Center. He suggested that it might be helpful if state contacts met with SERA003 so that they were better informed about what it going on in IPM. He also suggested that the Center continue to improve communication with stakeholders and try to keep RFAs as consistent as possible from year to year. No action was taken on the suggestions.

Dr. Mike Fitzner gave a CSREES update and handed out a Plant Science Update and a list of Projects Funded in Fiscal 2004 by CSREES Plant Systems Section. The number of awards funded was 432 totaling $89,318,727. Mike also shared a copy of the Presidents proposed CSREES budget with SERA003 members and briefly discussed the budget.

Dr. Carlos Bogran announced the availability of an Assistant Professor and Extension Entomology position with Texas A&M which will be headquartered at the Research and
Extension Center at Weslaco. He asked for help in soliciting candidates.

Janet McLeod Scott, Associate IPM Coordinator at Clemson reported for Dr. Geoff Zehnder on suggestions for the Southern Region RIPM grant program. She outlined several suggestions to encourage a greater number of submissions, especially in the Extension category. These included the following: 1) provide more specific information to help applicants better determine if a specific project fits into SRIPM priorities, 2) provide a listing of previously funded Extension projects (brief titles) to give potential applicants ideas and examples of appropriate projects, 3) encourage submissions for Extension Agents to do on farm demonstrations with growers similar to SARE On-Farm Research Grants Program and 4) establish a train-the-trainer category for training Extension agents and other professionals similar to the SARE Professional Development Program (see http://www.griffin.uga.edu/sare.callpage.htm.)

These suggestions were discussed. The SERA003 group did recommend the following to the SR IPM Center:
1) Allow 60 days between RIPM grant announcement and the proposal due date
2) Include more information in RFA to help potential submitters to determine if potential projects fit within SRIPM priorities
3) Provide a listing of previously funded Extension projects
4) Develop and/or enforce reporting requirements

ACTION ITEM: SERA003 participants also recommended funding priorities for the SR IPM Center. The following priorities were selected as the top priorities from a list of 12 suggested priorities but are listed in no certain order:
IPM evaluations/assessments (economic, environmental etc)
Community IPM including school/landscape/structural IPM
Invasive species
Biologically based IPM
Emerging pest problems in agricultural systems

A discussion regarding the time and location of next years SERA003 meeting followed. Doug Johnson moved that the 2006 SERA003 meeting be held no later than the Friday of the first week of March and that we ask the SRIPM Center to move their advisory and steering committee meetings to meet with SERA003. Clarence Collison seconded. The motion was defeated.

ACTION ITEM: Mike Linker moved that SERA003 in 2006 met with the National IPM Symposium on April 3, 2006. Norm Leppla seconded. Motion passed.

ACTION ITEM: Norm Leppla was nominated for secretary-elect of SERA003 and was unanimously elected.

The 2005 SERA003 meeting was adjourned at 5:00 pm.


A Southern Region IPM Coordinator Meeting was held on April 7, 2005.

Chairman Pat Bolin called the meeting to order at 8:08 am. Chairman Bolin turned to meeting over to Mike Fitzner who talked about reporting requirements for IPM Coordinators. He indicated that IPM Coordinators would be asked to prepare a 3-year Plan of Work this fall to cover 2006-2008. Reporting for FY2005 will be done using the current PPARS system.

The new plan of work will require more budget planning indicating how 3d dollars coming to states are used. This will be done using rather broad categories. CSREES is considering the use of areas of emphasis similar to the CRIS system. Reporting will place more emphasis on success stories.

Jim VanKirk visited with the group about the SR IPM Center and how terms to the committees are established. The term for the advisory committee is January 1-December 31. The Center will try to rotate 1/3 of members each year. There are currently 7 members on the Advisory Committee that are IPM Coordinators. The Chair and Vice Chair of the Advisory Committee are automatically on the Steering Committee.

ACTION ITEM: Doug Johnson made a motion, seconded by Clayton Hollier that the chair, chair-elect and secretary of SERA003 at the time the Advisory Committee meets in the spring will automatically be members of the Advisory Council of the SR IPM Center. Motion passed.

The SERA003 group will elect 4 other members each year at the SERA003 meeting. Ames Herbert, Pat Parkman, Clayton Hollier and Henry Fadamiro will volunteer to serve this year.
ACTION ITEM: Since Gus Lorenz is currently serving on the Advisory Council, Jonathan Edelson will as ask Gus if he wants to serve during 2005 and if so, Henry Fadamiro will step out for 2005.


ACTION ITEM: Doug Johnson moved that SERA003 recommend to SR IPM Center that there be a minimum of 2 permanent positions on the Steering Committee from SERA003. Mike Linker seconded. Motion passed.

State reports from IPM Coordinators present followed. The meeting was adjourned at 12:37 pm.


Respectfully submitted,


Tom Fuchs
Secretary SERA003

Accomplishments

20 research and Extension scientists and administrators with common interests in IPM were brought together to discuss issues facing IPM and to exchange information relative to IPM<br /> <br /> Results from 2 Southern Region IPM funded projects including the Glance and Go system for monitoring greenbugs in wheat and the Virginia Tech Pest Advisory information delivery system were shared by investigators<br /> <br /> Southern Region IPM Center personnel shared ongoing programs, goals and directions for the Southern Region IPM Center with the group. A number of suggestions from the group will strengthen both the Center and the relationship of SERA003 and the Southern Region IPM Center<br /> <br /> Suggestions to the Southern Region IPM Center advisory and steering committee relative to SERA003 representation on each committee and a prioritized list of suggested IPM priorities for Southern Region grant programs was developed for use by the Center. <br /> <br /> Budget lines from the Presidents proposed budget were shared with SERA003 members<br /> <br /> Revisions to the renewal application for SERA003 were discussed<br /> <br /> Training on evaluation of IPM programs was conducted<br /> <br /> IPM Coordinators in each state shared results of high impact programs with other states<br />

Publications

Impact Statements

1. Suggestions from SERA003 had significant impact on Southern Region IPM Center priorities for grant programs
2. Suggestions from SERA003 stimulated the Southern Region IPM Center to reevaluate its representation on the advisory and steering committees
3. A request for Southern Region IPM Center help with state IPM websites and electronic newsletters resulted in an offer by the Center to help with both
4. Results of the Glance and Go monitoring system for greenbugs in wheat stimulated several IPM Coordinators to consider implementing the program in their states
5. Interest from IPM Coordinators in the Crop Data Management Systems program piloted by Florida last year resulted in a similar pilot program being implemented across the Southern Region at no cost to participating states. In this pilot effort 12 research or Extension faculty in each participating state were offered a no-cost, one year subscription to the ChemSearch searchable database for chemical products

Back to top

Report Information

Participants

Pat Bolin, pat.bolin@okstate.edu;
Clarence Collison, ccollison@entomology.msstate.edu;
Jonathan Edelson, jonathan.edelson@okstate.edu;
Henry Fadamiro, fadamhy@auburn.edu;
Mike Fitzner, mfitzner@csrees.usda.gov;
Tom Fuchs, tfuchs@tamu.edu;
Ames Herbert, herbert@vt.edu;
Clayton Hollier, chollier@agcenter.lsu.edu;
Doug Johnson, doug.johnson@uky.edu;
Norm Leppla, ncleppla@ifas.ufl.edu;
Mike Linker, mike_linker@ncsu.edu;
Gus Lorenz, glorenz@uaex.edu;
Pat Parkman, jparkman@utk.edu;
Lora Lee Schroeder, Schroeder.Lora@epa.gov;
Ples Spradley, pspradley@uaex.edu;
Ron Stinner, rstinner@cipm.info;
Jim VanKirk, jim@sripmc.org;
Geoff Zehnder, Zhender@clemson.edu

Brief Summary of Minutes

Minutes of SERA003 Meeting Adam's Mark Hotel St. Louis, MO April 3, 2006

Chairman Jonathan Edelson called the meeting to order at 10:30 am on April 3, 2006. This meeting followed a CSREES welcome reception on April 2 and IPM Coordinators National Session from 8:00 am to 10:00 am on April 3 at Adam's Mark. The first order of business was to introduce Jonathan Edelson (Chairman), Tom Fuchs (Chairman-elect) and Norm Leppla (Secretary).

Mike Fitzner next presented a CSREES, Performance Planning and Reporting System (PPRS) update. Mike noted that the recent review of the regional IPM centers will be posted on the CSREES website soon. He said that there was a need for more high profile projects: success stories, action items and promotional materials (eg. fact sheets) to showcase the state partnerships for university administrators. It is essential to demonstrate the benefits of cooperative state and regional IPM programs. The review seemed too positive; more criticism and planning are warranted, e.g., some state coordinators have felt disenfranchised. It appears that each of the four regional centers will have a unique IPM program. The Northeastern Region conducted a facilitated planning session and the Western Region is having a retreat but the Southern Region may take a different approach to planning. In any event, standardized indicators of IPM success are needed to show the value of the IPM centers, especially for the Government Accounting Office (GAO). To help, PPRS now has two National Program Leaders for plant pathology to replace Dennis Kopp.

A recent success is the soybean rust program led by Jim VanKirk with national coordination by Amanda Hodges of the Southern Plant Diagnostic Network (SPDN). This program is determining when soybean fields should be sprayed with fungicides and serves to support crop insurance claims to the Risk Management Agency (RMA). Growers can access information on the PIPE website (USDA, Legume Pest Information Platform for Education and Extension, http://www.usda.gov/soybeanrust). An IPM program is also in place for soybean aphid.

Jonathan Edelson attended the ECOP/ESCOP Joint National IPM Committee and IPM Center Director's Meeting in Washington, DC on October 21, 2005. Updates were provided by Rob Hedberg, CSREES Science Policy and Legislative Affairs Advisor (Farm Bill), Eldon Ortman, CSREES Advisor (Restructuring the CSREES IPM Grant Portfolio), Carol Pilchner, Iowa State University Entomology Department (Evaluating IPM), and so forth (see attached minutes).

Jonathan Edelson is following guidance from David Boethel, Administrative Advisor to SERA003, to re-write the project renewal (see attachment).

Jim VanKirk presented an update of key SRIPM Center activities highlighting a grant writing workshop being planned with Eric Young and an 1890s/1862s workshop to be held sometime in June. Jimo Abraham has indicated that we need to establish cooperative projects to increase collaboration.

The actual business meeting began with a review of the minutes of the last meeting in Oklahoma City, especially the Action Items (minutes posted on the NIMMS website, http://cipm.ncsu.edu/ent/Southern_Region/SERAIEG/). Tom Fuchs moved that the minutes be approved as read, Clayton Hollier seconded the motion and it passed. Considerable discussion followed on the advantages and disadvantages of meeting as SERA003 or just informally. Jonathan will seek guidance from David Boethel.

ACTION ITEM: Henry Fadamiro was nominated as SERA003 Secretary by Clayton Hollier, the nomination was seconded by Gus Lorenz, and Henry was elected unanimously.

ACTION ITEM: Doug Johnson proposed that the next meeting of SERA003 be in San Antonio, Texas at the end of March 2007. The motion was made by Tom Fuchs, seconded by Gus Lorenz and approved unanimously.


State Reports:

Florida (Norm Leppla)- A new IPM video was distributed and described, along with promotional materials for the state IPM program. IPM Florida is increasing educational activities and expanding several successful county projects, e.g., school IPM, biological control brain bowl, landscape IPM (http://ipm.ifas.ufl.edu).

South Carolina (Geoff Zehnder)- Elementary school IPM is expanding but grades 4-5 are incomplete (http://wwwclemson.edu/scg/ipm). SARE supported development of curriculum for Extension agents at UC Davis. There is a module for IPM in organic crops (minus pesticide recommendations). Julie Sexton and Brian McCan (MS State) have developed 3-4 modules at dodea.ext.msstate.edu/regional_SARE/. The modules will be completed and available on the Texas A&M system by the end of 2006.

Virginia (Ames Herbert)- An entomology and plant pathology photo guide to soybean, wheat and corn pests is available ($1.40, 10,000 produced) and will be updated on the website (see attached report). A cost analysis for maintaining the website was performed.

Oklahoma (Pat Bolin)- Glance and Go Greenbug sampling guides were distributed and discussed, along with a Greenbug Expert System DVD. The IPM system will be adapted for other aphids in wheat, e.g., Russian wheat aphid.

Alabama (Henry Fadamiro)- The IPM grants program averaged $3,500 per grant with 10 funded. Control is needed for yellow margined leaf beetle. Jonathan advised that control could be achieved by combining neem and pyrethrins. Henry has a project on Satsuma citrus and peaches funded by EPA. Organic vegetable production is increasing rapidly. A handout was provided on cotton, school and fire ant IPM (attached).

North Carolina (Mike Linker)- Organic growers are asking for help in determining the efficacy of pest management options for insects & weeds. ARS has a laboratory at Weslaco, Texas devoted to this kind of research. IPM in schools may become law in North Carolina this year (see Greg Williams, Colby Schall et al. JEE paper last year on economic analysis).

Louisiana (Clayton Hollier)- He is determining how to rate soybean rust in the field based on work in Brazil and assessing software that measures leaf area. He is also evaluating fungicides.

Tennessee (Patrick Parkman)- The IPM Coordinator position in Tennessee is unfunded. The 3d funds are spent on salaries, e.g., urban, school and daycare IPM (25% increase in the past 3 years). Agricultural priorities include tarnished plant bug in cotton, soybean aphid, beet armyworm, phorid flies released to control imported fire ants, and grape root borer cultural control and pheromone traps to evaluate emergence through mulch.

Texas (Tom Fuchs)- He has two IPM Extension positions available, a growing home pest management program, flash cards to identify household pests, and a training program for delivering the information (http://ipm.tamu.edu). The urban program is "Better Living in Texas" (BLT).

Mississippi (Clarence Collison)- A success story is "Smart Soybean Management by Application of Research and Technology. Yield increases have been 10-15 bushels per acre on 34 farms. Visits to farms are made weekly by entomologists, plant pathologists, agronomists and irrigation specialists. A farm can be in the program for three years and one third rotate off every year. Sentinel plots are being maintained to intercept soybean rust. Soybean check off and 3d funds support the program.

Arkansas (Gus Lorenz)- Major IPM programs are in place for soybeans, cotton, rice, catfish, and bait fish. Water quality is a major emphasis. Cotton aphid thresholds are being determined by monitoring ladybeetles (Tim Kring). Extension agents receive 3d funds through a competitive grants program ($1,500-8,000 per year with an average of $3,000-4,000 and a total of about $150,000 per year). An aphid fungus is monitored that kills aphids in 12-24 hours.

Kentucky (Doug Johnson)- Kentucky has an aphid trapping system but needs more efficacy data on pesticides for soybean aphid.

The meeting was adjourned at about 5:00 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Norm Leppla Secretary SERA003

Accomplishments

Eighteen research and Extension scientists and administrators with common interests in IPM discussed ways to advance the field. Of particular interest was the need for more high profile projects to demonstrate the benefits of IPM for university administrators and legislators.<br /> <br /> <br /> IPM Coordinators from each state in the Southern Region shared results of high impact programs with each other and others in attendance (see state reports above). Reports were received by Florida, South Carolina, Virginia, Oklahoma, Alabama, North Carolina, Louisiana, Tennessee, Texas, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Kentucky.<br /> <br /> State IPM programs emphasized new IPM video; a module for IPM in organic crops; an entomology and plant pathology photo guide to soybean, wheat and corn pests; adaptation of the "Glance and Go Greenbug" sampling method for other aphids in wheat; handouts on cotton, school and fire ant IPM; an initiative for organic growers; a rating system for soybean rust; fungicide evaluations; IPM for tarnished plant bug in cotton, soybean aphid, beet armyworm, imported fire ants, and grape root borer; a home pest management program (flash cards to identify household pests); a training program for delivering IPM information; a success story in "Smart Soybean Management;" and major IPM programs for soybeans, cotton, rice, catfish, and bait fish.<br /> <br /> Advances in IPM for the year are available in detail on the individual state websites and are described in the USDA, CSREES, IPM annual reports. The annual reports now emphasize success stories for Areas of Activity.<br />

Publications

Impact Statements

1. An 1890-1862 IPM Forum is being planned by SRIPMC for September 11-12 in Indianapolis, IN. The Forum will be held in conjunction with the IR-4 Food Use Workshop <http://www.ir4.rutgers. edu/NewsItems/ FUW06announcement.pdf> . The benefit is to significantly increased collaboration in IPM programs among 1890 and 1862 Land Grant Institutions and the Regional IPM Centers (Jim VanKirk).
2. An IPM for organic agriculture initiative is being developed by North Carolina. The organic growers will benefit by having more pest management options available for reducing the damage caused by insects and diseases (Mike Linker).
3. Continued expansion in the use of ChemSearch to provide up-to-date pesticide recommendations has benefited agricultural and some urban clientele. ChemSearch is a commercial database from CDMS Inc. that allows users to search for pesticide label information from 90+ manufacturers by crop, pest, active ingredient, and brand name. Helpful label summaries provide quick access to key information and data is updated daily (Norm Leppla).
4. The 90-minute DVD of successful IPM projects covers agriculture, community and natural areas that describe scouting and biological, chemical, cultural and mechanical control methods. The DVD enables IPM specialists to provide education and training to a wide range of clientele. It is already being used in Florida, South Carolina and Louisiana (Jennifer Gillett, Gillett@ufl.edu).

Back to top

Report Information

Participants

Carlos Bogran c-bogran@tamu.edu;
Bill Coli wcoli@umext.umass.edu;
Clarence Collison, ccollison@entomology.msstate.edu;
Martin Draper mdraper@csrees.usda.gov;
Tom Fuchs tfuchs@tamu.edu;
Rosemary Hallberg rhallberg@sripmc.org;
Clayton Hollier chollier@agcenter.lsu.edu;
Doug Johnson doug.johnson@uky.edu;
Norm Leppla ncleppla@ifas.ufl.edu;
Bob McPherson pherson@uga.edu;
Don S. Murray don.murray@okstate.edu;
Pat Parkman jparkman@utk.edu;
Francis Reay-Jones freayjo@clemson.edu;
Tom A. Royer tom.royer@okstate.edu;
Ron Stinner rstinner@cipm.info;
Steve Toth stevetoth@ncsu.edu;
Jim Van Kirk jim@sripmc.org

Brief Summary of Minutes

Minutes of SERA003 Meeting, Drury Inn Riverwalk Hotel, San Antonio, TX, March 19-21, 2007.

Chairman Tom Fuchs called the meeting to order at 1:15 pm on March 19, 2007. The first order of business was to introduce Tom Fuchs (Chairman), Norm Leppla (Chairman-elect) and Pat Parkman (substituting as Secretary for Henry Fadamiro who could not attend the meeting).

The meeting began with reports from two SRIPMC grant recipients from Texas A&M University. Pete Teel spoke on analyzing cattle feces using near infrared reflection spectroscopy to determine effects on cattle by ticks; and on identifying and using tick pheromones for pest management. Allen Knutsen gave a presentation on a network for predicting pest activity in pecans, specifically using pheromone trapping and economic thresholds for the pecan nut casebearer.

The actual business meeting began with a review of the minutes of the last meeting in St. Louis, especially the Action Items (minutes posted on the NIMMS website, http://cipm.ncsu.edu/ent/Southern_Region/SERAIEG/). Bob McPherson moved that the minutes be approved as read, Clayton Hollier seconded the motion and it passed.

ACTION ITEM: Pat Parkman was nominated as SERA003 Secretary by Norm Leppla, the nomination was seconded by Clayton Hollier. Clarence Collison moved that nominations be closed and Pat was elected unanimously.

ACTION ITEM: Tom Fuchs proposed that Ames Herbert be reappointed to the SRIPMC Steering Committee. The motion was made by Norm Leppla and seconded by Clayton Hollier, and was approved unanimously.

ACTION ITEM: Jim Van Kirk suggested that a researcher should be added to the SRIPMC Advisory Committee. Tom Fuchs proposed that Carlos Bogran be appointed to the Advisory Committee. Norm Leppla nominated Carlos and was seconded by Clayton Hollier. Doug Johnson moved that nominations be closed and was seconded by Clarence Collison. Carlos was appointed unanimously

Tom Fuchs presented highlights of the ECOP/ESCOP Joint National IPM Committee and IPM Center Director's Meeting in Crystal City, VA on October 3 and 4, 2006. Updates were provided by Jim Jones, EPA Office of Pesticide Policy (OPP priorities), Mike Fitzner, CSREES (hiring of Marty Draper, eXtension); Kitty Cardwell, CSREES (IPM PIPE) and others. (See attached file for meeting summary.)

Doug Johnson spoke on collecting data from human subjects in research. He found that, if in the course of a project, humans are asked questions, such as in a survey, this is considered using human subjects and must be reported to USDA as such. Exempt from this are 1) normal educational practices; 2) research involving survey procedures, interviews or observations; and 3) collection of existing data. But exemptions must be determined by the institution, such as a universitys Internal Review Board, and not the researcher.

Norm Leppla distributed to IPM Coordinators a survey on the keys to a successful state IPM program to determine the status of the regions programs, and for use by IPM Coordinators to assess their respective programs (attached). Norm described his successful program at the University of Florida. Doug Johnson noted that many universities focus on commodities and IPM does not get the recognition it deserves because it is not a commodity.


The meeting re-convened on March 20 at 8:20 am and began with a Southern Region IPM priorities development session led by Chris Boleman (Extension Program Development Specialist) and Kyle Merten of Texas A&M University. Thirty five research priorities and 30 extension priorities were initially identified by meeting participants. Priorities then were ranked by each participant. Top priorities were validated by participants in the form of a survey using an agreement-type Likert Scale. A final report was provided to Tom Fuchs for distribution to IPM Coordinators after the meeting (via email on April 5). After input and approval from Coordinators, Fuchs issued a final version of the priorities. See http://neipmc.org/ipm_news_popover.cfm?id=2320 for list of priorities.

Jim Van Kirk gave an update on the SRIPM Center. The SRIPMC received 35 proposals for the Regional IPM grants program (RIPM); eight were fully funded, two were partially funded. A reporting system for the Enhancement grants program is being developed. The first annual report for the SRIPMC was developed containing a success story from each state. Ron Stinner will begin a phased retirement in July 2007. An assistant director for the SRIPMC has been hired. North Carolina State University will submit a proposal to USDA to continue to house the SRIPMC. Jim currently allocates 50% of his time to the PIPE. The PIPE (Pest Information Platform for Education and Extension) is being expanded to include commodities other than soybeans, e.g., pulses (beans and peas). Jim presented Walmarts and SYSCO Corporations efforts to promote the use of IPM as an example of IPM becoming more prevalent in the marketplace. Development of a national School IPM strategic plan has been facilitated by SRIPMC. The 2008 RIPM grants program should be funded at 2007 levels, but Enhancement grants may offer less funding for applicants.

Bill Coli of the University of Massachusetts gave a presentation on the process of developing IPM priorities and implementing programs based on the priorities. Emphasis was placed on measuring impacts of programs: knowledge changes of the target audience in the near-term, behavioral changes in the medium term and long-term, or condition change (e.g., profitability of production is improved through adoption of IPM). Logic models can be used to develop priorities, follow progress and measure impacts.

Marty Draper was introduced as the new contact at CSREES for the Smith-Lever 3(d) program. He gave an update on CSREES, including personnel changes the National Resources Conservation Services interest in IPM, and the federal budget. In the proposed Farm Bill, there is a significant increase in funding for conservation programs, e.g. EQIP. Because NRCS has an interest in using and promoting IPM to increase adoption of conservation practices, Extension should build alliances with NRCS. Federal funding increases also are expected for organic and specialty crops. Draper doubted that the proposed merger of CSREES and ARS would result in significant changes. In the proposed FY08 budget, additional funding was provided to the national IPM initiative (e.g., CAR and RAMP programs and the IPM Centers) and a small increase (8%) is proposed for the S-L 3(d) program. Draper spoke about the expanded PIPE program. Jim Van Kirk added that IPM Coordinators could get access to the private PIPE website through their SRIPMC state contact.

Pat Parkman gave a presentation on the SRIPMC-hosted 1890-1862 Collaboration Forum held in Indianapolis in September 2006. In the following discussion, Tom Royer said that he developed a new collaboration with his 1890 counterpart because of the Forum. Norm Leppla mentioned his close collaboration with his counterpart at Florida A&M Univ. Rosemary Hallberg added that more details on the Forum could be found in the fall 2006 SRIPMC newsletter (Southern Exposure) http://www.sripmc.org/NewsAlerts/newsletter/Fall06.pdf .

Steve Toth provided highlights from the SRIPMCs state contact meeting. This year it was combined with the Southern Plant Diagnostic Network meeting. At the meeting a grant-writing seminar was held. Mike Linker, State IPM Coordinator for North Carolina retired and Ed Jones is handling his duties until a permanent replacement is recruited next January. Mike was a member of the Crop Science Department but the new coordinator may be from another department.

Pat Parkman spoke on strengthening IPM programs emphasizing the acquisition of extramural funding. He noted that at the University of Tennessee, where he serves as the IPM Coordinator, this is imperative as the IPM Coordinator position is not supported financially by the administration. There was much discussion on school IPM programs, especially their acceptance in several states.

The days meeting wrapped up with discussion on next years meeting place, posting of priorities we developed earlier that day and how many priorities should be posted. Norm Leppla, the next chairman of SERA003, will investigate hosting our next annual meeting in the Caribbean, e.g., U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico or Florida. This will give the IPM Coordinators from St. Croix and Puerto Rico an opportunity to participate and be more involved in the Information Exchange Group.

The meeting re-convened on March 21 at 8:08 am with further discussion on the priorities, especially the inclusion of livestock pests.

State Reports:
Tennessee (Pat Parkman)- S-L3(d)-funded programs included cotton and soybeans, household and structural, child-serving facilities and imported fire ant management. Of growers surveyed, 35% said the cotton IPM information supplied by UT saved them $50/acre. A total of 111 pest management professionals were trained in household and structural IPM. Additionally, 150 IPM workshops were presented to child care workers and school pest management decision-makers. Other information was provided on the fire ant management program and IPM Coordinator activities. (See attached handout.)

Florida (Norm Leppla)- Norm distributed his IPM programs 5-year report and mentioned that branding and recognition is important to give administrators recognition and to let the public know whom to contact within the IPM program. His program distributes about $100,000 annually in minigrants, but Norm mentioned that he is not satisfied with current methods of measuring impact and benefits. The students in the Universitys Doctor of Plant Medicine program have proven invaluable to his IPM program. (http://ipm.ifas.ufl.edu, http://dpm.ifas.ufl.edu).

Louisiana (Clayton Hollier)- Clayton is developing a pocket guide to soybean diseases and has launched an IPM website, IPM Louisiana http://www.lsuagcenter.com/en/crops_livestock/crops/Integrated_Pest_Management/ . He is considering ways to increase recognition of IPM in Louisiana, including developing an IPM Center of Excellence System such as those in Oregon and California.

Mississippi (Clarence Collison)- There are 4 basic IPM programs at Mississippi State: greenhouse tomato, cotton, soybean and sweet potato. At least 8 cotton scouting schools are held each spring; stink bugs and spider mites are becoming important cotton pests. Except for 2 or 3 hotspots, the boll weevil has been eradicated from Mississippi. The Soybean Management by Application of Research and Technology (SMART) program involves 21 growers who have increased production by >17 bushels/acre using university recommendations. Soybean rust is monitored in 17 sentinel plots, 26 producer plots and at the 21 SMART sites. The sweet potato program is in its 4th year; flea beetles and cucumber beetles are most important pests.

Oklahoma (Tom Royer)- The Glance and Go Greenbug sampling program has been linked to the areawide cereal aphid management program. A training manual for the sampling program was developed for county Extension agents. An IPM team is one of the Initiative teams formed at OSU to bring Extension and research personnel together. An initial priority of the IPM team is to determine stakeholder priorities based on grower surveys. Other SL 3(d)-supported programs include grapes and pecan IPM, rotational grazing, integrated brush control, school IPM, and the state imported fire ant coordinator. Don Murray, OSU weed scientist, provided information on the Pesticidal and Economic Environmental Tradeoffs (PEET) system which, among other things, provides estimates on pest control costs. It is operational for weed management in peanuts and cotton, but will be expanded to include arthropod pests and plant pathogens.

Texas (Tom Fuchs)- S-L 3(d) funds support 21 Extension agent/IPM positions dealing mainly with row crops. Ca. 300 research/demonstration projects were conducted. Ninety-four percent of row-crop growers surveyed indicated that IPM increased profits by an average of >$34/acre. A statewide real time prediction map for pecan nut casebearer was developed. One-half of IPM Coordinators in 1036 School districts were trained in school IPM. The IPM internship program has, to date, trained 59 interns from 9 universities. (See attached handout.)

South Carolina (Francis Reay-Jones)- The IPM program awarded a total of $52,409 for research/extension projects during 2006/07. Copies of a new publication, Identification and management of Common Boll-Feeding Bugs in Cotton, were provided. Highlights were presented for the following areas/commodities: urban, peaches, cotton, honey bees, school IPM, organic systems, and switchgrass. Of particular note: the identification of fungicide-resistant populations of M. fructicola and resulting amended treatment recommendations for peaches has saved growers millions of dollars; treatment thresholds were developed for stink bugs in cotton; IPM curriculum was developed for 4th and 5th grades and is available for schools to implement; 12 county Extension agents completed organic certification and inspection training and can now assist growers in transitioning to organic production; and research was begun on identification and management of insect and nematode pests of switchgrass.

Kentucky (Doug Johnson)- All S-L 3(d) funds for Kentucky are used by the IPM Coordinator and some of the funds are used to support an assistant. The funding has not increased for many years, so it is declining due to inflation. Working groups of as many as 25 members have been formed around IPM grants, some lasting 3 years. The crops involved are corn, soybeans, small grains, and vegetables. Kentucky has a very strong ornamental IPM program and also has IPM in its Master Gardner program. There are problems with IPM evaluation, branding of the IPM contributions, and obtaining information for reports.

Georgia (Bob McPherson)- One of the most important IPM programs is on beekeeping, including efforts to control the Varroa mite by breeding for resistance. As in the report last year, IPM for field crops is continuing.


The meeting was adjourned at about 12:00 pm.

Respectfully submitted,
Pat Parkman, for Henry Fadamiro Secretary SERA003

Accomplishments

Publications

Impact Statements

Back to top

Report Information

Participants

Wanda Almodóvar -walmodovar@uprm.edu;
Bill Coli - wcoli@umext.umass.edu;
Clarence Collison - ccollison@entomology.msstate.edu;
Henry Fadamiro - fadamhy@auburn.edu;
Tom Fuchs - t-fuchs@tamu.edu;
Jennifer Gillett - gillett@ufl.edu;
Rosemary Hallberg- rhallberg@sripmc.org;
Ames Herbert - herbert@vt.edu;
Clayton Hollier - chollier@agcenter.lsu.edu;
Doug Johnson - doug.johnson@uky.edu;
Jozef Keularts - jkeular@uvi.edu;
Norm Leppla - ncleppla@ifas.ufl.edu;
David Monks - david_monks@ncsu.edu;
Pat Parkman - jparkman@utk.edu;
Tom A. Royer - tom.royer@okstate.edu;
Ron Stinner - rstinner@cipm.info;
Steve Toth - steve.toth@ncsu.edu;
Jim Van Kirk - jim@sripmc.org;

Brief Summary of Minutes

Minutes of SERA3-IPM Meeting, Cooperative Extension office, University of the Virgin Islands, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, March 17-18, 2008.

Chairman Norm Leppla called the meeting to order at 8:15 am on March 17, 2008. The first order of business was to introduce Norm Leppla (Chairman), Henry Fadamiro (Chairman-elect) and Pat Parkman (Secretary). We were welcomed by Kwami Garcia, Director of Cooperative Extension in the USVI. Jennifer Gilletts efforts in arranging the meeting and activities were acknowledged, as were Kofi Boatengs efforts in local arrangements.

As a prelude to the presentation of state reports and the first item of business (Action Item below), Norm Leppla began a discussion on the reporting requirements of state IPM Coordinators, noting that many Coordinators are now required to submit a CRIS report.

ACTION ITEM: The three objectives of SERA3-IPM were discussed, with special emphasis on our relationship with the Southern Region IPM Center (SRIPMC). It was decided to amend one of the objectives, the third, and add a fourth. The third objective originally read: To provide recommendations on the coordination and operation of the Southern Region IPM Grants Program. This was amended to read To provide recommendations and advice to the Southern Region IPM Center. The new (fourth) objective is To identify IPM priorities for the Southern Region IPM Center. Tom Fuchs made the motion to accept these changes to the SERA3-IPM objectives. Clarence Collison seconded the motion and it passed.

State reports were then presented by the IPM Coordinators. Summaries of verbal presentations, in order of presentation, follow. More detailed written reports for most states are attached.

Tom Fuchs (Texas): Twenty-one IPM Extensions agents conducted ca. 250 demonstration/ research projects. Cottton growers estimated the value of the IPM program at $34.43/acre. Use of Glance n Go greenbug sampling is increasing. IPM PIPE is funding pecan nut casebearer monitoring. Fifty percent of clientele are requesting organic treatments for imported fire ants (IFA). A new major project is management of IFA in and around nursing homes. New owners of Habitat for Humanity houses are trained in IPM.

Gus Lorenz (Arkansas): Twenty-one county Extension agents are involved in the soybean IPM program. Fifty-three soybean IPM workshops (1700 attendees) were held, as well as 134 meetings (2500 attendees). IPM is being implemented on up to 85% of soybean acreage. Seventeen cotton-producing counties and 24 rice-producing counties are participating in the IPM program. Between $140,000 and $150,000 in S-L 3(d) funds are distributed in IPM minigrants.

Paul Guillebeau (Georgia): Public libraries in Georgia were provided with IPM educational materials (see Impact statement for details). New and emerging pests include stinkbugs in cotton and pecan scorch mite. Georgia and Florida are conducting cooperative research on controlling peachtree borer with entomopathogenic nematodes.

Clayton Hollier (Louisiana): He is able to devote only 5% of his time to being IPM Coordinator; and has no control over the S-L 3(d) money. A statewide IPM advisory committee exists but is fairly informal. The IPM Louisiana website was launched. An Extension publication on rice disease management is almost complete.

Wanda Almodóvar (Puerto Rico): The IPM Coordinator has control of S-L 3(d) funds, with less than 50% going to salaries. Much effort was put into plantain, banana and coffee IPM because of recent pest introductions: black sigotoka and coffee berry borer. Several new IPM publications were placed on the Crop Protection Specialist websites including those of IPM for black sigotoka, hydroponic tomato IPM, and poinsettia IPM. Several pest guides were also published.

Henry Fadamiro (Alabama): About $50,000 was awarded in IPM minigrants in 2007. The IPM Coordinator gets little direct support from the Extension administration; and virtually no support from commodity groups who are more interested in marketing rather than IPM. IPM programs with significant accomplishments during 2007 include soybean, school, and fire ant. A new research and extension project was begun to develop organic control tactics for
yellowmargined leaf beetle.

Doug Johnson (Kentucky): All of the S-L 3(d) funds are administered by the IPM Coordinator. Most funds are used to support IPM working groups such as those for corn/soybean, wheat science, commercial ornamental production, pest diagnostics and vegetables. A minigrants program is also administered using S-L 3(d) funds. UK-IPM participates in the regional aphid suction trap network and supports and participates in the Soybean Rust/Aphid PIPE.

Ames Herbert (Virginia): A total of 854 (a 13% increase) IPM-related workshops, short courses, media pieces (radio/television), demonstrations or presentations were presented; 100 new media offerings were developed including VCE publications, manuals and guides. Web hits for the Virginia Ag Pest Advisory increased by 49%. Use of plant pest diagnostic clinics has increased. Two additional school districts adopted IPM making for a total of 18. Soybean scouting and pest forecasting improved profits by $650,000. Soybean rust was detected but fungicide applications were not necessary. Peanut growers saved $1.1 million from reduced fungicide sprays. Rapid response by Extension prevented damage to wheat by a new pest. Research indicated that a parasitic wasp could reduce pest damage to peppers and potatoes by 60-70%.

Steve Toth (North Carolina): Steve was appointed the new IPM Coordinator, but will continue to spend most of his time working as the Associate Director of the SRIPMC. He plans on reviving the IPM minigrants program, but is not sure of the funds available for it.

Tom Royer (Oklahoma): Two new area IPM Extension Specialists were hired. Projects funded by the IPM program included integrated grape disease management, a web-based portal for turf grass management, development of a weather and forecast decision support tool to reduce pesticide drift, and two grad student stipends. Two federal grants were obtained to strengthen and implement school IPM and the Glance n Go sampling method. The musk thistle control program has reduced the weeds numbers by 80 to 95%.

Jozef Keularts (Virgin Islands): The IPM Coordinator dedicates 50% of his time to the IPM program which provides assistance to crop farmers, vegetable and fruit crops in particular, ornamental production, urban pest management and youth programs. Assistance consists mostly of pest identification and control recommendations. School IPM will be started in two public St. Croix elementary schools this year in collaboration with the Virgin Islands Dept. of Planning and Natural Resources. Urban IPM was the most time consuming part of the IPM program due to the large number of site visits. All IPM efforts were supported through publications available on-line, especially those from the Univ. of Florida and Florida Dept. of Agriculture Division of Plant Industry.

Clarence Collison (Mississippi): All S-L 3(d) funds are used for IPM, but 95% goes to salaries. The sucking bug complex, especially tarnished plant bug (TPB), is the biggest problem in cotton. A new program will demonstrate IPM tactics to growers for TPB. Increased use of OMRI-approved pesticides has improved yield of greenhouse tomatoes. A web-based pictorial ID key for tomato diseases was made available. A 3-year study of sweet potato pest management practices identified key pests, their status, sampling strategies and management tactics.

Norm Leppla (Florida): Approximately $85,000 in minigrants was awarded to 16 recipients. Extramural funding was obtained for seven project to support cooperators. Nine IPM Florida Group meetings were held to plan and set priorities. IPM Floridas associate director received one of the first Southern Region Friends of IPM awards. A Growers IPM Guide for Florida Tomato and Pepper Production, including a Tomato and Pepper Insect ID Deck, was completed and placed on the IPM Florida website. A Good Lawn Bug ID Deck was produced and is being sold by UF/IFAS Extension. A novel Extension/research project has been initiated on IPM in graduate housing at UF. About 4000 consultations re. IPM were made, primarily via email.

Pat Parkman (Tennessee): UT Extensions IPM Newsletter was sent directly to about 350 people on a weekly basis during the growing season; and to 1400 others through county extension offices. The total value of IPM to Tennessee cotton was estimated at $40-50 million annually; 78% of producers changed their IPM practices based on Extension information. More than 105 pest management professionals were trained in IPM during pesticide applicator training sessions. A school IPM pilot online survey revealed 83 of 99 schools (84%) are using high levels of IPM in their buildings. Parkman developed an online Extension publication on identification and management of the grape root borer. The vast majority of IPM Coordinators time is spent serving as director of UTs Lindsay Young Beneficial Insects Laboratory.


Interspersed in the reports were discussions of the use of Smith-Lever 3(d) funds, reporting of impacts of our activities, and improved marketing of IPM to better advertise its return on investments.

Marty Draper, CSREES National Program Leader for IPM, gave an update on CSREES, with emphasis on the federal budget and implications for IPM. He said that S-L 3(d) funds appear safe (but flat-funded) for a few years, and there has been no discussion of shifting to a competitive model for Extension funds. Federal support appears strong for eXtension as well as Ag security. For the first time, S-L 3(d) funds will be requested with applications through grants.gov. Requests for 3-year plan of action for the PPRS will go out in August.

ACTION ITEM: A motion was made by Ron Stinner to hold the 2009 SERA3-IPM meeting at the next National IPM Symposium to be held in Portland, OR in March 2009. The motion was seconded by Jennifer Gillett and passed unanimously.

ACTION ITEM: Wanda Almodóvar was nominated as SERA3-IPM Secretary by Tom Fuchs. Doug Johnson moved that nominations be closed, Jennifer Gillett seconded, and Wanda was elected unanimously.

Jim Van Kirk gave an update on the SRIPM Center. A new bookkeeper was hired, as was a new programmer. Steve Toth was appointed NCs IPM Coordinator. An assistant director level position is being developed to replace Ron Stinner. IPM PIPE: most money still devoted to soybean rust, with much smaller funding devoted to soybean aphid and other legume pests. Two new PIPE components were funded: diseases of cucurbits and pecan pests. Ron Stinner has developed

Tom Fuchs, who is retiring later this year, was acknowledged for his 14 years of service as Texas IPM Coordinator. Tom was presented a plaque and given a hearty round of applause.

Bill Coli, University of Massachusetts, wrapped up the first day with a presentation on measuring impacts of IPM programs and the development of IPM Planning and Evaluation Tools for all focus areas of the IPM roadmap.

The meeting adjourned at 5:25 pm.



The meeting re-convened on March 18 at 8:00 am when we travelled to the University of the Virgin Islands and were given tours and an overview of agricultural research by faculty: Tom Zimmerman (tomato and papaya production) and Jim Rakocy (aquaculture). Jozef Keulartz, USVI Cooperative Extension, led us on a tour of two farms where IPM is being used. The day concluded with a visit to the St. George Botanical Garden.

Respectfully submitted,
Pat Parkman, Secretary SERA3


Accomplishments:
Eighteen research and Extension scientists and administrators with common interests in IPM discussed ways to advance the field. By holding the meeting at the US Virgin Islands Cooperative Extension offices in St. Croix we were able to interact with our counterparts from Puerto Rico and the USVI.

IPM Coordinators from each state in the Southern Region shared results of high impact programs with each other and others in attendance (see attached state reports). Reports were received from Alabama, Arkansas (verbal only), Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, US Virgin Islands, and Virginia.

SERA3-IPM objectives were amended to better define our relationship with the Southern Region IPM Center, particularly identifying IPM priorities in the Southern Region for the Center.

Tom Fuchs, Texas IPM Coordinator for 14 years, was acknowledged with a plaque for his service to SERA3-IPM.

Meeting attendees gained a better understanding of tropical agriculture production and research by touring on-campus research facilities for aquaculture and tomato and papaya production at the University of the Virgin Islands, and by visiting two local farms.

Impact Statements:
The Univ. of Georgia completed a project to educate public library patrons on IPM by supplying 200 libraries across the state with posters, bulletins and promotional items. Ninety percent of patrons responding to a survey indicated increased support for IPM.

At least $347,000 was dispersed in minigrants in six states (Arkansas, Alabama, Florida,
Kentucky, Oklahoma, South Carolina) to promote and expedite adoption of IPM.

Some examples of the economic/environmental impacts of IPM programs were documented in Texas where 94% of cotton growers indicated IPM increased their net profits by an average of $34.24/acre; in Tennessee where the total value of IPM in cotton was estimated at over $40-50 million annually; and in Virginia where 18 school districts adopting IPM have reduced their pesticide use by 79%.


See attached wriiten state reports

Accomplishments

Publications

Impact Statements

Back to top

Report Information

Participants

Charles Allen CTAllen@ag.tamu.edu;
Wanda Almodóvar wanda.almodovar@upr.edu;
Carlos Bogran c-bogran@tamu.edu;
Clarence Collison ccollison@entomology.msstate.edu;
Henry Fadamiro fadamhy@auburn.edu;
Rosemary Hallberg rhallberg@sripmc.org;
Ames Herbert herbert@vt.edu;
Clayton Hollier chollier@agcenter.lsu.edu;
Doug Johnson doug.johnson@uky.edu;
Norm Leppla ncleppla@ifas.ufl.edu;
Gus Lorenz glorenz@uaex.edu;
Pat Parkman jparkman@utk.edu;
Tom A. Royer tom.royer@okstate.edu;
Ron Stinner rstinner@cipm.info;
Steve Toth steve_toth@ncsu.edu;
Jim Van Kirk jim@sripmc.org;
Geoff Zehnder zehnder@clemson.edu;

Brief Summary of Minutes

Minutes of SERA3-IPM Meeting, Doubletree Hotel, Portland, Oregon, March 23, 2009. The meeting was held in conjunction with the 6th International IPM Symposium.

Chairman Henry Fadamiro called the meeting to order at 8:30 am on March 23, 2009, introducing himself and asking everyone in attendance to introduce themselves. Charles Allen was introduced as the new IPM Coordinator from Texas.

Jim Van Kirk gave an update on the SRIPM Center. There were no new staffing changes in at the Center in 2008. Grant programs managed by the Center were mentioned including Enhancement grants, state contacts, IPM documents, working groups, and RIPM. The drastic reduction in funding for the IPM PIPE project (from $4.5M to $500K) was noted as was the new Sustainable Homescapes project to which the SRIPMC will provide $25,000 for each of two years for the formation and activities of a steering committee. Tom Melton was appointed the new director of the NSF Center for IPM at NC State.

Marty Draper of CSREES headquarters and Norm Leppla, University of Florida, provided information on and led a discussion of the new EIPM-CS program. Common concerns of the Southern Region IPM Coordinators about the new program were the loss of states mini-grant programs, the lack of flexibility state Coordinators have in using the Smith-Lever 3(d) funds, and increased responsibilities of Coordinators without increased financial support. It was noted that annual reporting for IPM Extension activities will be through the USDAS CRIS and not PPRS, which has been discontinued. All agreed that at this meeting SERA3 should produce a statement containing recommendations for improving the EIPM-CS Request for Applications and, thus, the EIPM-CS program. The statement could be presented at the listening session CSREES was holding on this matter later in the week at the IPM Symposium, and also would be submitted to CSREES during the comment period when the agency seeks stakeholder input. This particular discussion led to the following Action Item:

ACTION ITEM: A motion was made by Clayton Hollier to forego the oral state IPM reports so that ample time could be spent developing a statement from SERA3 on how the EIPM-CS program could be improved. Doug Johnson seconded. Steve Toth called the question whether written reports could be distributed in lieu of oral reports. Carlos Bogran amended the original motion to include forgoing oral state IPM reports for written reports to allow time for the development of a statement on the EIPM-CS program. The motion passed unanimously.

Except for the closing business meeting, the remainder of our annual meeting was spent developing the list of recommendations. The final version of the recommendations is appended to the end of these minutes. The state reports are contained in a pdf document accompanying the minutes.

SERA3 Business Meeting:

ACTION ITEM: Henry Fadamiro motioned to accept the 2008 SERA3 annual meeting minutes. Gus Lorenz seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.

ACTION ITEM: Doug Johnson nominated Carlos Bogran to be the new secretary of SERA3. Clayton Hollier seconded and Carlos was elected unanimously.

Knoxville, TN was chosen as the 2010 meeting site for the SERA3 annual meeting. The business meeting ended with a discussion on which members of SERA3 should serve on the Advisory Committee for the Southern Region IPM Center.

ACTION ITEM: Henry Fadamiro motioned to adjourn the meeting. Ames Herbert moved the meeting be adjourned and Tom Royer seconded. The motion passed unanimously and the meeting adjourned at 5 pm.

Respectfully submitted,
Pat Parkman, Chair-elect SERA3-IPM


See attachment for recommendations for improving the EIPM-CS request for applications

Accomplishments

Seventeen research and Extension scientists and administrators with common interests in IPM discussed ways to advance the field. By holding the meeting at the International IPM Symposium SERA3 members could network with IPM Coordinators and professionals from other Regions, and display impacts of their programs at poster sessions and other Symposium venues.<br /> <br /> SERA3 developed a list of recommendations to help CSREES improve the FY2010 EIPM-CS Request for Applications and the EIPM-CS program. <br /> <br /> <br /> Recommendations for improving the EIPM-CS Request for Applications<br /> <br /> Submitted to USDA CSREES by SERA03, the Southern Region Information Exchange Group for IPM (Southern Region State IPM Coordinators)<br /> April 2009<br /> <br /> 1) The new EIPM-CS program is to fund Extension IPM programs and not projects. The emphasis is completely different between these goals and efforts to maintain a working and continual, stable infrastructure are extremely important for the good of IPM now and in the future.<br /> <br /> 2) Proposed IPM programs should be based on two complimentary levels of funding:<br /> <br /> a) A base level for coordination that provides multi-year funding for the activities of the IPM Coordinator and/or support personnel. Enable every eligible institution to compete annually for base funding against the standard for an institutional IPM program and, if successful, provide funding for the remainder of the 5-year EIPM-CS funding cycle. The competitive standard is the list of activities for the former state IPM programs. Base level funding should be at least $50,000 per year ($75,000 recommended by some regions). Base level funding may be approved alone or in conjunction with enhanced funding (Areas of Emphasis, including collaboration and special projects). Base funding provides continuity to continuously develop institutional IPM programs.<br /> <br /> b) An enhanced level for selected Areas of Emphasis and CS that is funded for 1-3 years. Only institutions that receive competitive base funding are eligible to compete for enhanced funding. Enhanced funding is available annually and the duration of grants will be 1-3 years, depending on the projects. Funding in year 2 and remaining years is contingent on continued S-L 3(d) funding. Enhanced funding is available through a typical competitive grant process.<br /> <br /> 3) There should be no funding request cap for any specific Area of Emphasis and PIs should be able to determine their Areas of Emphasis based on state needs, and not on a predetermined list provided in the RFP. Similarly, special projects should be funded at appropriate levels. <br /> <br /> 4) Provision should be made for a mini-grants category that supports IPM projects of Extension specialists, county agents and other stakeholders. IPM mini-grants programs have been highly successful and often address emerging and timely issues. Further, mini-grant funding can be used to leverage additional funds for larger projects. Mini-grants constitute a Stakeholder-generated IPM Program that has two important purposes: (1) to provide a means of involving stakeholders and county educators at a local level, and (2) to test new projects on a small scale and with lower investment to determine if they work.<br /> <br /> 5) Collaboration should be encouraged to meet objectives for selected Areas of Emphasis but should not be a separate category. Administrative costs associated with collaboration should be supported by additional funding, $5K or less per Area of Emphasis or special project.<br /> <br /> 6) Total requested funding, both base and enhanced levels, should be limited to a single maximum for every eligible institution. <br /> <br /> 7) Improve the RFA, e.g., clarify and add a checklist of proposal requirements.<br /> <br /> 8) Provide clear instructions to review panel members. <br /> <br /> 9) The RFA for 2010 funding should be released in mid-July 2009 with applications accepted for eight weeks after release. <br /> <br /> 10) A determined effort should be made to justify and obtain significantly more S-L 3(d) funding. A reasonable target is about $20 million. <br /> <br />

Publications

Impact Statements

1. See the attached annual reports for impacts of state IPM programs in the Southern Region under the Summary of Minutes section.

Back to top

Report Information

Participants

see attached file

Brief Summary of Minutes

See attached

Accomplishments

Publications

Impact Statements

Back to top