Progress 09/01/10 to 08/31/14
Outputs
Target Audience: The primary target audiences for this project were the small-scale farmers and growers in the six participating states. These audiences are composed of a broad range of cultural, ethnic and educational backgrounds, with differing ethnic groups in each state. Many of the target growers come from non-traditional farming backgrounds, and a significant proportion have off-farm jobs. Changes/Problems:
Nothing Reported
What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided? As detailed above, in addition to the direct help and advice provided to farmers particpating in the pilot projects, working group members in all states carried out a variety of IPM training activities for small-scale producers, with several including county extension agents (from their own and neighboring states) in their activities. In addition, working group members were encouraged to present the interim results from their pilot projects at three national fora: the 7th International IPM Symposium in Memphis, TN (March, 2012), the 6th National Small Farm conference in Memphis, TN (September, 2012), and a member symposium entitled 'IPM for small-scale farmers: research and extension needs and experiences' held at the national meeting of the Entomological Society of America in Austin, TX (November, 2013). The real opportunities for training and professional development, however, came from implementing and participating in the on-farm IPM pilot projects. Members that did so agreed that they benefitted greatly from the regular interactions with small-scale farmers that these engendered: real and lasting insights into the attitudes and constraints of these clients, together with new ideas on how to better serve them, were gained as a result. Small-scale producers are often highly innovative, very observant, and have an intimate knowledge of their crops and farms, all of which can provide a wealth of information of great value to IPM professionals seeking to develop programs to meet the needs of these clients. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest? Results have been disseminated by poster and oral presentations at the three professional fora listed above. In addition, a summary of the main conclusions and best-practice recommendations for meeting the IPM-related needs of US small-scale farmers will be posted on the projects’ web-site (http://aces.nmsu.edu/ipm/western-small-farm-ipm-w.html) by the end of 2014. An article highlighting the main outcomes and impacts of the working group will also be submitted to the Western IPM Center for consideration for inclusion in their quarterly newsletter. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?
Nothing Reported
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
Summary Many states have small-farm research and extension teams, but the degree to which their programs include integrated pest management (IPM) is variable. IPM research and extension activities are often focused on large-scale agriculture, leaving small-scale producers under-served. The aim of this working group was to better serve this clientele by developing a regional network of effective small farm-IPM teams that, in turn, would help a diverse body of small-scale producers with their IPM-related needs. The project plan included conducting initial needs assessment exercises with clientele in each state, followed by implementation of an on-farm IPM pilot project to gain a deeper understanding of, and insight into, the needs of these producers. The extent to which these goals were attained varied with state. Members that successfully implemented pilot projects agreed that the regular interactions with small-farm clientele that resulted were of great benefit: valuable insights were gained into the attitudes and constraints of small-scale producers, together with better ideas of how to meet their needs. An unexpected outcome was the discovery of several new exotic pests and diseases on pilot-project farms, including several new state records. Since many small farms are located close to urban centers (and hence to major transportation hubs through which exotic pests may spread), and also host a highly diversified (and often non-traditional) range of crops, they could form an invaluable component of the national pest-detection network. Other key outcomes included identifying constraints to (i) disseminating IPM information to small-scale producers and (ii) increasing their adoption of IPM practices. These constraints ranged from the difficulty in reaching this diverse audience, to the fact that many useful pest management inputs are not available in pack sizes appropriate for small-scale producers. The consensus amongst working group members was that the most effective way to deliver IPM information to this audience is via one-on-one interactions, interactive, ‘hands-on’ demonstrations, and other field-based, participatory learning activities. However, given the financial and time constraints under which state Cooperative Extension Services are currently operating, the IPM-related needs of the nation’s small-scale producers will continue to go largely unrecognized and unmet unless concerted action is undertaken and/or an alternative paradigm is adopted to improve services to this group. Key outcomes, impacts and recommendations Group members in each state conducted an extensive array of IPM-related training activities, reaching hundreds of potential small-farm clients. Funding from this project also enabled them to develop and enhance programs to address state-specific pest management needs. However, the real value and impact of the group’s activities was only fully realized in states that successfully implemented on-farm IPM pilot projects. Although the reach of these projects was constrained by the limited funds available to each state, their value lay not so much in the number of producers involved, but in the lasting benefit to group members from having close and regular contact with representative small-scale farmers. This greatly increased their knowledge and understanding of the IPM-related needs of this group, and the constraints under which they operate. As a result, valuable insights were gained that have much broader applicability: (i) Producers valued the regular feed-back on their pest and disease issues provided by the pilot projects. In many cases, these problems were not noticed or identified by the growers themselves, indicating both the value of this service and the need for improved client training on basic pest identification. (ii) In states that implemented on-farm pilot projects, regular visits by trained observers to participating farms resulted in the detection of a variety of new pests and diseases, including several new records for the states concerned. These included new diseases in Utah and California (of vegetables and dragon fruit, respectively) and new insect pests (of soft fruit and cereal crops) in New Mexico. These detections allowed timely alerts to be issued to local growers, and have stimulated new research and extension efforts to address these concerns. Working group activities thus allowed several states to respond very rapidly to emerging pest issues and to leverage additional funding to support their work. (iii) In a broader context, the nation’s network of small farms includes a significant proportion located in urban centers, i.e., at the heart of trade and transport hubs by which exotic pests may spread. Furthermore, many such farms produce a highly diverse array of crops, including, in some cases, exotic species grown for local ethnic markets. Since such crops may be preferred hosts of invasive foreign pests, these highly diverse urban or peri-urban farms may constitute a potentially invaluable resource for expanding the nation’s pest-detection network. (iv) Working group members who regularly interacted with small-scale producers in the course of their pilot projects were impressed by the high degree of innovation that many of them show in developing pest management solutions appropriate to their needs and constraints. There is a need to develop a mechanism for facilitating the outward diffusion of such innovations to benefit a wider audience. (v) Group members who implemented successful pilot projects felt that the best and most effective way to address the IPM-related needs of small-scale farmers was to conduct local, participatory, field-based activities that specifically address farmer-identified needs (very similar to the ‘Farmer Field Schools’ that have long been used for IPM training in international development programs). For maximum impact, farmers should be included in planning, developing and implementing these programs. (vi) As a corollary to the above, one working group member felt that mandatory IPM training should be provided for all county extension agents, including instruction in how to develop participatory programs that create relevant roles for all participants (especially farmers). (vii) Given the financial and time constraints under which state Cooperative Extension Services are currently operating, the IPM-related needs of the nation’s small-scale producers will continue to go largely unrecognized and unmet unless concerted action is undertaken and/or an alternative paradigm is adopted to improve services to this group. Given that IPM research and extension activities in many states are focused almost exclusively on large-scale agriculture (particularly in states in which much of the IPM-related research is funded by commodity groups), this outcome may only be achieved if funding can be secured that is specifically targeted at the needs of small-scale farmers. (viii) One working group member suggested that the creation in each state of a small-acreage farm organization would greatly enhance the ability of researchers and extension workers to meet the needs of this clientele. Such organizations could act as conduits for feedback on research and education needs and priorities, as well as enhancing communication and information exchange in general. (ix) All states that implemented on-farm pilot projects felt that adoption of IPM for at least one key pest was hindered by the lack of a critical input in pack sizes appropriate for small-scale producers. Such inputs included pheromone dispensers for insect mating disruption programs, organically-acceptable pH buffers and other spray adjuvants, as well as various pesticides. There is a need for research into the total aggregate market formed by US small-scale farmers so as to better inform the packaging and marketing decisions of agricultural input manufacturers and distributors.
Publications
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2014
Citation:
Grasswitz, T. R. 2014. A new pest for New Mexico fruit growers: spotted wing drosophila. In: Co-Op Connections: La Montanita Co-Op Newsletter, Albuquerque, NM. July, 2014. p.14
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2014
Citation:
Grasswitz, T. R. 2013. New pest alert for New Mexico fruit growers: spotted wing drosophila. Fertile Ground: Newsletter of the NMDA Organic Program 13(3): 5
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2013
Citation:
Grasswitz, T. R. 2013. The power of pH: The difference between life and death (for insects!). Fertile Ground: Newsletter of the NMDA Organic Program 13(3): 4
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2014
Citation:
Nischwitz, C. 2014. Bacterial spot shows up on peppers in Utah. Utah Pests News 8 (Fall): 3, USU Extension Service, Logan, UT (http://utahpests.usu.edu/files/uploads/UtahPests-Newsletter-fall14.pdf).
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Other
Year Published:
2014
Citation:
Grasswitz, T.R. 2013. The western small-farm IPM working group and the New Mexico small farm IPM pilot project. Oral presentation at a member symposium entitled IPM for small-scale farmers: research and extension needs and experiences, held at the annual meeting of the Entomological Society of America, November 13, 2013, Memphis, TN.
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2014
Citation:
Nischwitz, C. 2014. Brown rot of peach and nectarine. Utah Pests News 8 (Winter): 7. USU Extension Service, Logan, UT (http://utahpests.usu.edu/files/uploads/UtahPests-Newsletter-winter14.pdf).
- Type:
Books
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2014
Citation:
Utah vegetable production and pest management guide (131 pp.). 2014. B. Bunn (Ed.), Utah State University Extension, Logan, UT (http://utahpests.usu.edu/IPM/files/uploads/Publications/UT-veg-guide-2014.pdf).
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Other
Year Published:
2014
Citation:
Alston, D., Drost, D., Nischwitz, C. and Petrizzo, E.. 2013. IPM outreach to an underserved audience: Utah's small farm vegetable producers. Oral presentation at a member symposium entitled IPM for small-scale farmers: research and extension needs and experiences, held at the annual meeting of the Entomological Society of America, November 13, 2013, Memphis, TN.
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Other
Year Published:
2014
Citation:
Wilen, C. A. 2013. The 'other' pests: progress in managing weeds, mollusks, and vertebrates for small farms. Oral presentation at a member symposium entitled IPM for small-scale farmers: research and extension needs and experiences, held at the annual meeting of the Entomological Society of America, November 13, 2013, Memphis, TN.
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2014
Citation:
Lobo, R., de Soto, J. F., Mathews, D., Agular, J. and Tanizaki, G. 2014. Cactus virus X (CVX): a new threat to pitahaya/dragon fruit (Hylocereus spp.) production in California. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Horticultural Science, July 31, 2014. Orlando, Fl.
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2014
Citation:
Alston, D. 2014. Systems-based onion pest management in Utah. Utah Pests News 8 (Winter): 1-2. USU Extension Service, Logan, UT (http://utahpests.usu.edu/files/uploads/UtahPests-Newsletter-winter14.pdf).
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2013
Citation:
Alston, D. and M. Murray. 2013. Apple maggot [Rhagoletis pomonella (Walsh)]. Utah Pests Fact Sheet ENT-06-87 (6 pp.), USU Extension Service, Logan, UT (http://extension.usu.edu/ files/publication/factsheet/apple-maggot.pdf).
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2014
Citation:
Alston, D. 2014. Apple maggot in Utah. Utah Pests News 8 (Spring): 4 and 6. USU Extension Service, Logan, UT (http://utahpests.usu.edu/files/uploads/UtahPests-Newsletter-spring14.pdf).
|
Progress 08/31/12 to 08/30/13
Outputs
Target Audience: The primary target audiences for this project are the small-scale and urban farmers and growers in the six participating states. These audiences are composed of a broad range of cultural, ethnic and educational backgrounds, with differing ethnic groups in each state. Many of the target growers come from non-traditional farming backgrounds, and a significant proportion have off-farm jobs. Changes/Problems: Working group teams in different member states are at different stages of their pilot projects, mainly due to delays in conducting the initial needs assessment exercises. However, all are now entering the final year of their pilot projects. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided? The California group held various training and outreach events for their target producers, including three production seminars and fruit tastings in Orange, Ventura and Riverside counties as well as a pitahaya festival and field day in Irvine, CA. In New Mexico, outreach efforts have included various training events for small-scale growers, including a fruit workshop and presentations at the NM organic farming conference. In Utah, presentations on pest management for small farm vegetable and fruit production, and a summary of the findings and outcomes of the 2011-12 pilot project were delivered to over 100 small fruit and vegetable producers at the Utah Urban Small Farm Conference held in February, 2013. In Idaho, project out-reach efforts to small-scale producers were conducted in seven counties (mainly in the northern part of the state) which focused on (1) identification, biology and management of key insect pests of vegetable crops and tree fruits, and (2) practical strategies for conserving and enhancing natural enemies. In Oregon, field days and on-site classes have been held to develop farmers’ skills in choosing native plants for on-farm insectary plantings, and in propagating, sowing, transplanting and establishing such plantings. A symposium entitled ‘IPM for small-scale farmers: research and extension needs and experiences’ will be held as part of the 2013 Annual Meeting of the Entomological Society of America, at which working group members will present key findings of their work to a wider audience. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest? Our target audiences have been reached by a variety of means, including on-farm and indoor workshops and similar training events, newsletter articles, training manuals, and web-based information dissemination. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals? In the coming year, we will continue working with our pilot producers, and plan to synthesize the lessons learned from these projects to develop best-practice guidelines for helping small-scale farmers implement IPM. In this way, the efforts of the group should help our IPM counterparts in other regions in working with small-scale producers. In addition, one common finding arising from our work is that potentially valuable pest management inputs (e.g. pheromone dispensers, pesticides and buffering agents) are often hard to obtain and/or are packaged only in quantities too large for small-scale producers. We plan to work with the manufacturers of some of these products to try to address this issue.
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
Based on the results of the needs assessment exercises carried out in each state, working group members have been conducting small, intensive, on-farm IPM demonstration projects with collaborating farmers. These producers have received direct help and advice, while the opportunity to work intensively with individual farmers over the course of the growing season has given the state IPM teams a chance to work in partnership with them to develop and implement practical solutions to pest problems as they have arisen. This interactive, two-way learning process has provided valuable insights into the problems and constraints faced by small-scale producers, which in turn should help working group members better serve this sector of our clientele. It has become apparent during the pilot projects that even experienced and successful growers often have significant information and knowledge gaps that can be relatively easily addressed, and a variety of training activities have been conducted to address those needs in each state. These events (workshops, field days, farm walks, conference presentations, etc.) have extended our outreach to hundreds of small-scale producers across the western US, and evaluation data indicates that they have been both effective and well-received. Short-term gains in knowledge have been as high as 60-80% (depending on audience), and attendees’ intention to implement at least some of the demonstrated techniques is generally in excess of 90%. Participants at one event in Idaho estimated that, by putting their new IPM knowledge into practice on their farms, they would accrue $3500 in economic benefits: a not insignificant amount for most small-scale producers. In addition, in several states, work conducted during this project has identified previously unrecognized issues of concern to target producers, and two states have already leveraged additional funding to help address these issues. Our pilot projects reflect the diversity typical of small farms in the western US. For example, the Californian team has been working with small-scale and limited resource growers of pitahaya (dragon fruit). This team has leveraged working group funding to obtain additional support for investigating new diseases of this crop, including Cactus Virus X (found in samples from San Diego County). In New Mexico, the initial IPM survey revealed considerable interest among small-scale producers in reducing inputs for pest management, both for economic reasons and because of a preference for non-chemical means of control. Since the majority of survey respondents were either certified organic producers or considered all or part of their production to be ‘uncertified organic’, the state’s pilot project has been focusing on implementing IPM in small-scale organic vegetable and fruit systems. The New Mexico team has been working closely with an Albuquerque vegetable farmer to address various pest issues, including brassica flea beetles, harlequin bugs, squash bugs, leafminers, corn earworm, and the new invasive stink bug, Bagrada hilaris; their work with fruit producers has been emphasizing risks to berry crops, including initiating a monitoring program for spotted wing drosophila (Drosophila suzukii) that resulted in the first detection of this pest in NM. The Utah team has been focusing on implementing IPM on small-scale vegetable farms. Insect-vectored diseases (e.g. curly top, tomato spotted wilt, alfalfa mosaic, squash mosaic, and pepper mottle virus), were identified as the most economically important problems on their pilot-project sites, although aphids, leafhoppers, corn earworm, flea beetles, squash bug, leafminers, spider mites, thrips, diamond back moth and cabbage looper were also significant issues. Based on feedback from the producers’ survey, the Utah State University Extension Vegetable Team has started work on a new Commercial Vegetable Production Guide for their growers, and two new fact sheets on aphid pests of vegetables and associated virus diseases are in progress. Working group members from Washington State continued to address the management of fly pests that affect cattle on small beef operations and dairies. Newsletter articles were published on fly control products that were evaluated during the project, and outreach to dairy producers was strengthened by partnering with the WA Dairy Federation, who hosted extension publications on their website and included research updates and other announcements in their weekly e-newsletter. In Idaho, the project team has been working on insect pests of vegetable crops and tree fruits, and on helping growers implement strategies for conserving and enhancing natural enemies. Customized handouts which ranged from short (2-3 page) illustrated bulletins to comprehensive (80-page) workshop manuals (depending on the venue and target audience), were prepared and distributed at these events. In Oregon, project efforts have concentrated on establishing demonstration ‘farmscaping’ sites which have been used for training events. An illustrated guide to farmscaping practices to accompany these activities is in preparation.
Publications
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2013
Citation:
Suverly, N., Kerr, S., Ferguson, H., Fouts, J., Hudson, T. (2013). Beef Management Calendar. WSU Extension Publication MISC0396. 48 pp.
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2012
Citation:
Alston, D., C. Nischwitz, and E. Petrizzo. 2012. Insect vectors of vegetable virus diseases. Utah Pests News Vol. 6 (Fall): 8-9. Utah State University Extension Service, Logan, UT. http://utahpests.usu.edu/files/uploads/UtahPestsNewsletter-fall12.pdf
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2012
Citation:
Alston, D. 2012. Grasshopper alert. Utah Pests News Vol. 6 (Summer): 1-2. Utah State University Extension Service, Logan, UT, Available on-line at: http://utahpests.usu.edu/files/ uploads/UtahPests-Newsletter-summer12-2.pdf
|
Progress 09/01/11 to 08/30/12
Outputs
OUTPUTS: The first year's work has been focused on conducting needs assessment exercises in order to better define the small farm clientele in the various member states and to prioritize their IPM-related needs. Some states already have active small farm IPM programs, and hence are further advanced in their progress. California has identified growers of pitahaya (dragon fruit) as their pilot producer group, and they have completed a written survey regarding their IPM needs. The Idaho team conducted needs assessment exercises at various meetings in the winter and spring (including one at a Western SARE workshop on flea beetles) and through feedback from their Small Farm Extension Educators. New Mexico conducted needs assessment exercises with several focus group meetings with small-scale producers. They have also developed a questionnaire to obtain greater coverage of the state's small-scale farmers; this will be distributed during the winter to increase the likely rate of return and to help them finalize their choice of pilot project. Oregon conducted needs assessment exercises at a number of events tailored to small-farm clientele, including a small farm IPM extension event in southern Oregon for underserved growers, a field day held at the Oregon NRCS Plant Materials Center and a mid-season farm walk. A new needs assessment tool was created with a focus on conservation biological control for use at these events. Feedback from the Oregon growers indicates that their main need is for more technical guidance in implementing IPM. The Utah team leveraged the working group funding to obtain additional funding from a Western IPM Center grant. This allowed them to conduct a survey of 189 vegetable growers across the state (in conjunction with NASS). This survey included growers of all sizes, but the data can be separated by farm size. Further needs assessment exercises were conducted at their state Diversified Agriculture Conference and at an onion growers' event. Based on feedback obtained from these exercises, Utah has already initiated a pilot project on implementing IPM on six 'urban-fringe' vegetable farms. A project technician conducted weekly assessments of plant growth stage, plant health and pest (weed, insect, and disease) status. This employee also helped the growers to implement IPM practices, including row covers, monitoring traps for corn earworm, etc. The Washington team contacted the management boards of nine Farmer's Markets to gain access to small-scale growers. They conducted several workshops for these growers, with an emphasis on educating them on the risks posed by Spotted Wing Drosophila and Brown Marmorated Stink Bug. It was initially anticipated that these growers would be the focus of Washington's pilot project, but since Spotted Wing Drosophila has become a less important issue, they are likely to shift the focus of their small farm IPM project to pest issues of concern to small-scale cattle producers. They are currently translating their fly control guide into Spanish to address the needs of this group. PARTICIPANTS: Dr. Cheryl Wilen, Area IPM Advisor, University of California Cooperative Extension, Statewide IPM Program, 5555 Overland Ave., Bldg. 4 Suite 4101, San Diego, CA 92123. Dr. Ramiro Lobo, Small Farms Advisor, University of California Cooperative Extension, San Diego County, 151 E. Carmel Street, San Marcos, CA 92078. Dr. Ed Bechinski, IPM Coordinator, University of Idaho, Division of Entomology, Moscow, ID 83843. Dr. Cinda Williams, Small Farm Coordinator, University of Idaho, Latah County Extension, Box 8068, Moscow, Idaho 83843 Dr. Tessa R. Grasswitz, IPM Coordinator, New Mexico State University, Los Lunas Agricultural Science Center, 1036 Miller St., Los Lunas, NM. 8703. Dr. Edmund Gomez, Small Farm Coordinator, New Mexico State University, Sustainable Agriculture Science Center at Alcalde, 371 County Road 40, P.O. Box 159, Alcalde, NM. 87511. Dr. Gwendolyn Ellen, Oregon State University, 2034 Cordley Hall, Corvallis OR 97331-2915 Dr. Diane Alston, IPM Coordinator, Utah State University Department of Biology, 5305 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT 84322. Dr. Dan Drost, Small Farm Coordinator, Utah State University, Department of Plants, Soils and Climate, 4820 University Hill, Logan, Utah 84322. Dr. Doug Walsh, IPM Coordinator, Washington State University, Irrigated Agriculture Research and Extension Center, 24106 N. Bunn Rd., Prosser, WA 99350. Dr. Marcy Ostrom, Small Farm Coordinator, Washington State University, Tree Fruit Research and Extension Center, 1100 N. Western Ave., Wenatchee, WA 98801 TARGET AUDIENCES: The target audiences for this project are comprised of diverse small-scale farmers and growers in the six participating states. These audiences are composed of a broad range of cultural, ethnic and educational backgrounds, with differing ethnic groups in each state. Many of the target growers come from non-traditional farming backgrounds, and a significant proportion have off-farm jobs. Many have been farming for ten years or less. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: Nothing significant to report during this reporting period.
Impacts
The needs assessment exercises have helped to clarify and define the IPM-related needs of small-scale growers in each participating state, and to identify some of the barriers that these farmers face in trying to adopt IPM. Some of these are more easily and readily addressed than others. In California, for example, the dragon-fruit growers expressed concern over the lack of registered products that can be used and are effective (both for organic and conventional systems), the lack of identification guides for diseases and arthropod pests commonly found on their crop, and the need to develop action thresholds to help the growers make better-informed control decisions. In Utah, although weed and insect control was seen as one of the major challenges facing the state's vegetable producers, the perceived higher cost of IPM practices was identified as a major barrier to the adoption of IPM. Similar issues were identified in other states. Although addressing all of these concerns is outside the scope of the working group, identification and documentation of small-scale grower needs will give each state a solid basis for applying for additional funding to help ensure that more of these needs are met. In the short-term, implementation of each state's pilot projects will help increase awareness amongst small-scale growers of IPM strategies, how to implement them, and their potential benefits; showcasing these projects at field days and in farm walks will further extend the outreach of the projects through farmer-to-farmer information exchange.
Publications
- No publications reported this period
|
Progress 09/01/10 to 08/31/11
Outputs
OUTPUTS: 1. School IPM: An initial stakeholder meeting was followed by 5 presentations to school facilities management groups/custodial personnel, and a 1-day workshop that included an on-site school inspection (total of approx. 160 attendees). In addition, one school district was assisted with the preparation of an IPM plan, and training materials (Powerpoint presentations and handouts) were disseminated to the facilities managers at all NM public schools. 2. Needs assessment and development of research and extension program for small-scale and beginning farmers: a prioritized list of pest-related concerns was compiled from attendees at grower meetings and focus groups. This has guided the development of a research and extension program to address their most critical needs. 3. IPM in agronomic crops: (i) Biological control of alfalfa weevil demonstration project: Parasitoids collected from established populations were released at 3 other target sites. Fact sheets on this project were developed and disseminated at the NMSU-Artesia Field Day, the NM Farm Bureau State Meeting and the NM Hay Association Meeting. Presentations on the program were also made at the NM Farm Bureau State Meeting and 2 grower meetings. (ii) Herbicide resistance in weeds: Four presentations were made to approx. 100 growers from 10 NM counties on the development, detection, prevention, and management of herbicide resistance and to inform them of the current status of resistance in the state. Attendees were also invited to submit weed samples for testing. 4. IPM in high value/intensively managed crops: (i) Pistachio pest & disease survey: This survey covered 200+ acres in the pistachio-growing areas of NM. The results were publicized in the farming press and at 2 workshops (total of approx. 70 growers). (ii) Grapevine leafroll disease survey: Samples were collected from 19 vineyards in 11 counties and tested for 2 of the 9 leafroll-associated viruses (GLRaV-1 and GLRaV-3). None tested positive for either virus. The results were presented at the 2011 annual meeting of NM wine grape growers. (iii) Pest management in organic vegetable production: Physical exclusion methods for beet leafhopper/curly top virus were tested, as were several techniques for squash bug management, including variations in planting date, use of insectary plants, and organically-approved insecticides. The results were disseminated to more than 600 people via presentations at field days, the NM organic farming conference and 7 other events. (iv) IPM training for organic growers: Seven IPM farm walks (covering fruit, vegetables, cotton, pecans and forage crops) were conducted in 2009. More than 130 people attended, with 36% travelling 100+ miles to participate. 5. Consumer/urban IPM: A team of volunteers was established to monitor codling moth in the greater Albuquerque area. Training materials (Powerpoint presentations and handouts) were developed and used at 4 training sessions. Data from the network was used to assess the feasibility of developing a pest-alerting system for codling moth control in this area. Two feedback sessions were conducted after the field season to help further develop the approach. PARTICIPANTS: Nothing significant to report during this reporting period. TARGET AUDIENCES: The target audiences for this project included the following: Small-scale and urban farmers and growers of New Mexico, including home gardeners, organic farmers and others; those responsible for pest management services in NM schools (including janitorial staff, facilities managers, school administrators, pest control companies, etc.). These audiences are composed of a broad range of cultural, ethnic and educational backgrounds, with white and Hispanic being the dominant ethnic groups. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: Nothing significant to report during this reporting period.
Impacts
1. School IPM: This program succeeded in raising awareness of school IPM to the point where 3 NM school districts and 2 independent schools started to implement IPM during the project period. In excess of 20,000 students and staff have thereby been impacted by this program. It is further anticipated that these pilot schools will serve as role models to help increase interest in, and adoption of, IPM by other NM school districts. 2. IPM in agronomic crops (i) Biological control of alfalfa weevil demonstration project Oomyzus incertus was recovered >30 miles from the demonstration site in Artesia, as well as from samples taken in Las Cruces. A further 23 releases were made elsewhere in NM. If it becomes established, O. incertus could save growers 1 to 4 insecticide applications per year and make growing organic alfalfa a more viable proposition. (ii) Herbicide resistance: 100% of the stakeholders attending the presentations on this topic reported increased understanding of resistance management as a result. Furthermore, 73% indicated that they were introduced to new concepts/ideas and all felt that the training was worthwhile. In addition, as a result of samples submitted after the presentations, resistance has now been confirmed in NM populations of both kochia (Kochia scoparia) and Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri), underlining the importance of this issue to NM growers. 3. IPM in high value/intensively managed crops: (i) Pistachio pest & disease survey: Prior to this work, New Mexico growers typically viewed pistachios as a pest-free crop and were unaware that Navel orange worm is present in the state; the survey indicated that even the better managed orchards are sustaining damage levels of approx. 5% from this pest. As a result, approx. 10-15 pistachio producers are likely to begin monitoring for, and actively managing, this pest. Growers were also alerted to risks from two new pests: leaf-footed plant bugs (Leptoglossus clypealis) and Conchuela stink bugs (Chlorochroa ligata), that were detected during the survey. (ii) Grapevine leafroll disease survey: The main impact from this work has been to raise awareness of the issue and of the need to use certified virus-free stock when planting new vineyards. (iii) Pest management in organic vegetable production: Informal feedback indicates that the recommendations resulting from this work have been widely adopted by small-scale organic growers and home gardeners, although accurate figures are unavailable at this time. (iv) IPM training for organic growers: In 2009, more than 130 people attended the series of 7 IPM farm walks held across NM. 80% of attendees subsequently reported an increase in their knowledge of organic IPM and 89% reported an increase in their understanding of organic IPM. 4. Consumer/urban IPM: Post-season evaluation in 2009 indicated that most of the volunteers felt that they had benefitted from the program, and most continued to participate in 2010. However, late season frosts that eliminated the fruit from many backyard trees impacted the utility of the program to individual volunteers and their willingness to continue as part of the network.
Publications
- Ashigh, J., and E.E. Marquez. 2010 Integrated weed management in pecan orchards. New Mexico State University Extension Guide H-656.
- Pierce, J. 2010. Biological control of alfalfa weevil. New Mexico Hay Association Newsletter: 8(1)
|
|