Brief Summary of Minutes of Annual Meeting

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

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.

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.

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.

Delaware:

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

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.

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.

Rhode Island:

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%.

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.)

Mexican Bean Beetle Biocontrol

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. 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) Biological control program for swallow-worts in North America.

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)

Evaluate herbivores released against mile-a-minute weed. 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.

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.) Natural enemies of the winter moth.

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.

Cyzenis albicans was found to be established in 5 sites from previous releases. (J. Elkinton & D. Mausel  U.Mass)

Evaluate biological control agents for garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata). 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)

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.

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)

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. A. Sheldon  Cornell)

New York

IPM research in Agriculture:

- Documenting statewide incidence and severity of western bean cutworm, a new invasive pest of corn and dry beans.

- 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.

- 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.

- 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.

IPM extension in Agriculture:

- 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.

- 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.

- 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.

- 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.

- 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.

- 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.

- 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.

- 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.

- 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.

- 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.

- 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.

- 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.

IPM research in Community:

- 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.

- Systems-based golf course research demonstrated that IPM and biologically-based reduced risk strategies had significantly less environmental impact than conventional management practices.

- 200 golfers rated putting greens and determined that the quality of IPM greens were equal to conventional.

IPM extension in Community:

- 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.

- 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.

- 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.

- 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.

- 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.

- 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.

- 500 people learned about organic lawn care practices and programs.

- 235 people were trained in reduced chemical golf course management.

- A manual on reduced chemical practices for golf courses was made available in both English and Spanish.

Maryland

Fruit, vegetables, and Ornamental IPM

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.

Urban IPM

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.

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.

Field Crops

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.

Abbreviated impacts:

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%.

2. New IPM programs on UMD Vegetable website have had over 10,000 hits and 6,000 download since its activation.

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.

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.

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.

6. More than 940 Master Gardeners received advanced training at 10 training sessions.

7. Pest diagnosis training delivered to 950 professionals in a variety of venues and the value of training was ranked high.

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.

9. Diagnostic and IPM information on dozens of native and exotic pests reached millions of viewers and listeners worldwide during this reporting period.

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.

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.

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.

Vermont

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.

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.

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.

Vermont Wine Grape IPM Program

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.

Vermont Master Gardener IPM Program

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.

Vermont Vegetable and Berry IPM Program

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.

Vermont Field Corn and Soybean IPM Program

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.

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. Vermont Bedding/Garden Plants and Potted Plants IPM Program 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. 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.