Progress 09/01/10 to 08/31/13
Outputs
Target Audience: 1. IPM Coordination All county-based extension audiences for IPM were impacted by this program in Oregon via the extension agents that we support. Specific examples are given below. There were more then 22,000 uses of our on-line climate and weather-based decision support tools in Oregon in 2013. 2. Specialty Crops We worked most intensively with crop consultants and farmers in the Mid-Colunbia, Walla Walla, Umatilla, Yamhill and Pudding Basins, in Oregon. Impacts of our program are reported in a diferent section. 3. School IPM Our program reached IPM Coordinators in 183 of the 197 school districts in Oregon, and 14 of Oregon's 37 Head Start programs.Impacts of our program are reported in a diferent section. Changes/Problems:
Nothing Reported
What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?
Nothing Reported
How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?
Nothing Reported
What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?
Nothing Reported
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
Outcomes statements from our work: · Short-term – after IPM education - o 1,019 farmers and consultants (representing >350,000 acres) reported significantly (p<0.05) increased knowledge skills in IPM planning, risk assessment, conservation biological control and IPM decision making o 31% of consultants covering 146,590 acres adopted more intensive monitoring o 62% of consultants implemented new pest prevention or avoidance tactics o 69% of consultants improved pesticide application efficiency by using decision support tools and drift reduction technologies o 79% of consultants used PAMS IPM guidelines to support certification o 90% of 183 School IPM Coordinators showed increased knowledge o 75% of Oregon schools in 197 school districts are using IPM plans o 94% of school districts use non-chemical methods compared with 66.14% in 2010 o 68.8% of school districts have a monitoring schedule and action thresholds compared with 34.39% in 2010 o 79.66% of school districts have a low impact pesticides list, compared with 37.04% in 2010 · Medium-long term – after IPM education o There have been no chlorpyrifos detections in the Hood River for the past four years, despite a long prior history of high and toxic detections o Median malathion detections dropped 82% in the Wasco watershed between 2010 and 2012 despite higher use rates against spotted wing Drosophila o Chlorpyrifos concentrations in the Walla Walla River are 90% lower in 2012 compared with 2006 when monitoring began, and are now below the chronic water quality benchmark. o In Zollner Creek (Pudding watershed), no chlorpyrifos has been detected since 2008, despite high rates of use and high prior pesticide loadings o Use of on-line weather based decision support tools increased in Oregon from <4,000 a year in 2009 to >18,000 a year in 2012 (model uses outside Oregon are ~60,000 a year) o The weed, insect and disease IPM handbooks on line now receive >600,000 significant (multi-page) uses each year. o Active and sustained partnerships have been developed in the State IPM Program, watershed-scale IPM, Farmscaping for Beneficials and School IPM programs (evidence from letters of support and proposals in this grant application)
Publications
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2013
Citation:
Model Integrated Pest Management Plan for Small Oregon School Districts: http://ipmnet.org/Tim/IPM_in_Schools/IPM%20Materials/Small_OSU_School_IPM_Model_Plan.pdf
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2013
Citation:
Model Integrated Pest Management Plan for Large School Districts: http://ipmnet.org/Tim/IPM_in_Schools/IPM%20Materials/LARGE_OSU_School_IPM_Model_Plan.pdf
- Type:
Websites
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2012
Citation:
OSU School IPM Program Website: http://ipmnet.org/Tim/IPM_in_Schools/IPM_in_Schools-Main_Page.html
- Type:
Websites
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2010
Citation:
IPM Pest and Disease Models and Forecasting: http://uspest.org/wea/
- Type:
Websites
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2013
Citation:
Pesticide Risk Assessment and Integrated Pest Management: https://ipmprime.org/pesticides/Home
|
Progress 09/01/11 to 08/31/12
Outputs
OUTPUTS: The specialty crop and agronomic crop extension elements of this award were integrated to enable joint outreach and training events for farmers that grow commodities falling within both of these classifications. In the 2011 to 2012 award period, we conducted three types of education event: pesticide risk assessment and mitigation events, IPM planning events and school IPM events. Risk assessment education employed the new web-based tool PRiME, and was conducted jointly with 3rd party certification organizations Food Alliance and Salmon Safe and the processor, NORPAC. Growers submitted spray records that were anonymized prior to reporting. The sessions consisted of a review of risk assessment procedures and then a live display of PRiME analysis and results, including risks to birds, fish, aquatic invertebrates, mammals, earthworms and bystanders. Alternatives to high-risk pesticides and risk mitigation practices were tuned the relevant crop context. Five grower events focused separately upon pesticide risks in vegetables (green beans, sweet corn), small grains (teff, barley, spelt), apples, hops and wine grapes, the results of which were reported at the International IPM Symposium. New IPM guidelines were developed or revised for hazelnuts, Christmas tree, onions, blueberries, cole crops, sweet corn, and to address slugs and weed management in field crops. These were reviewed and presented to growers and advisors for 603 farms including fruit and nuts (11,000 acres), grains (31,000 acres), field crops (80,000 acres), vegetables (18,000 acres), hops (2,000 acres), blueberries (240 acres) and Christmas trees (200 acres). The IPM in Schools program conducted 14 events to school district IPM coordinators and to local IPM coalitions training 67 coordinators in school districts that educate 195,000 students. PARTICIPANTS: The E-IPM program is attracting very significant support from key stakeholders in Oregon. Our goal is to implement widespread use of the PAMS model for IPM, a key element of the National Roadmap for IPM. This includes use of an IPPC-developed template for IPM planning by extension faculty, consultants, farmers and certification organizations. Key adopters of this system in 2011 and 2012 are the 3rd party certifiers Food Alliance and Salmon Safe, and the vegetable processor NORPAC. We have also initiated a PAMS IPM education program with WILCO, a major supply cooperative in Oregon. Participation by school districts in School IPM in Oregon is mandated by a state law, based upon a white paper originally developed by IPPC. Food Alliance is one of the most respected agriculture certification programs in the United States. It is headquartered in Oregon and has almost 30 years experience serving farmers throughout the Pacific Northwest. Food Alliance currently has 124 certified farmer partners in Oregon raising fruit, vegetable and grain crops (representing 143,937 total acres). Nationally, Food Alliance represents close to 400 certified farmers and ranchers managing 6.5 million acres. Salmon-Safe was founded by the Pacific Rivers Council in 1995, and became an independent nonprofit organization in 2001. Salmon-Safe standards focus on key areas of habitat vulnerability most critical to protection of water quality and the survival of native fish. Salmon Safe has certified more than 350 land managers representing about 65,000 acres in Oregon, Washington, and California. NORPAC is a nationally recognized farmer cooperative and processor of fruits and vegetables, with 240 farmer members that farm 45,000 acres and produce in excess of 600 million pounds of product annually. Wilco has 17 agronomists that provide IPM advice to more than 500 farmer clients and Peerbolt is a highly respected crop consultant specializing in small fruit, who also produces the main small fruit industry crop management newsletter. WILCO, as a major supply cooperative has to date provided educational access to 18 field staff who conduct scouting and make pesticide sales recommendations. TARGET AUDIENCES: We report above, our new engagement with Food Alliance, Salmon Safe, NORPAC and Wilco. and their participating growers have dominated our farmer events in 2011 and 2012. We conduct a large number (~20) short (~1h) IPM presentations as part of fall and winter pesticide applicator recertification and IPM education events, but we have reported here outputs and outcomes associated with the core events associated with our E-IPM program. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: Nothing significant to report during this reporting period.
Impacts
High-risk pesticide applications were identified in all of the PRiME analyses of submitted grower data and in each event, acceptable, lower-risk alternatives were identified. Using retrospective post- then pre- testing, on a 1-7 self-assessment scale of knowledge, the positive change reported by attendees was 3.4 for vegetable producers, 3.99 for apple producers and 2.99 for grape growers. These were among the highest reported changes in any of our recent IPM extension efforts. The response from growers to these events was extremely positive, and the risk assessment tool PRiME is now being required for use by Food Alliance and Salmon Safe certified farmers as a part of the initial application and re-submission process. This includes all vegetable producers that are part of the NORPAC processing cooperative that spans the whole Willamette Valley in Oregon. The mean positive change in reported knowledge within IPM planning workshops was 2.0, which is again high for this form of assessment tool. The pests, diseases and weeds of greatest focus and concern that emerged from the workshops were thrips in onions, Phytophthora in blueberries, wireworms in corn, cabbage maggot in cole crops, Italian ryegrass in corn and slugs and yellow nutsedge in field crops. We revealed significant gaps in IPM knowledge and cooperatively designed IPM programs with farmers and advisors that will be evaluated in terms of rates of adoption in the late summer of 2012 at a series of repeat events. The School IPM program developed three school district IPM plans, in Beaverton, Bethel and Salem-Keizer, and attendees of training events reported significant increases in knowledge.
Publications
- PRiME (2012) and associated white papers is published on line at ipmprime.org. The database development, programming and delivery were all developed at OSU.
- The new IPM guidelines (2012) that have been developed by IPPC have been through two years of review by farmers and advisors and are being submitted to press before the end of the current E-IPM program funding in July and August, 2012.
- School IPM model plans (2012) for large and small schools are published on the Internet at: http://www.ipmnet.org/tim/IPM_in_Schools/Model_School_IPM_Plan_Main_P age.html
- Pest Press article (2012) on wasp management has been drafted and distributed to all School IPM trainees.
|
Progress 09/01/10 to 08/31/11
Outputs
OUTPUTS: We focused our program in two agricultural watersheds within the Willamette Valley: the Pudding and Yamhill watersheds. The project offered two sets of paired workshops to provide locally-relevant IPM education opportunities in both watersheds. One purpose of having the two events by crop groupings is that it allows for more a more interactive approach for pest management planning efforts among farmers, extension faculty, and agency personnel The two crop groups were 1) berries, vegetables (corn, beans and cole crops) and hops, and 2) hazelnuts, grass seed and wheat. The outcomes for these Maximizing Biological Pest Suppression and Minimizing Pesticides Risks as Components of Your IPM Plan events were: 1) learning how to develop and implement management plans for natural enemies on your farm, 2) staying in touch with water quality and pesticide regulatory issues that affect your watershed and your IPM options for specific crops and 3) knowing the latest updates on the key pests, diseases and weeds that affect your production. The berries, vegetables and hops focused programs included a session on the Spotted Wing Drosophila update by one the SCRI project principal investigators; the hazelnuts, grass seed and wheat sessions had a Pesticide Risk Mitigation Engine (PRiME) demonstration. The workshop was promoted thought emails to the WSSIPM email list (100 contacts) and the IPPC listserve. For the Pudding Watershed workshop postcards were direct mailed to 1,500 selected Marion County pesticide applicator licensee holders and Zollner Creek residents. Over 400 Willamette Valley hazelnut growers were sent postcards as were 366 field crop growers in Yamhill, Polk and Washington counties. Total attendance at these four October and November 2010 workshops was 117. The first pair of workshops addressed berries, hops and vegetable crops with 11 attendees at the Yamhill location and 24 at the Pudding. The latter two workshops focused on hazelnuts, wheat and grass seed had 42 participants at the Yamhill location and 40 at the Pudding. These events offered Oregon Department of Agriculture pesticide applicator recertification credits. The program has been able to attract a wide array of participants, however we have been unable to get consistent attendance from individuals. In February 2011, a new type of event was held to provide advanced level education to ten private consultants and field reps (sell inputs to those they advise). Our hope with this approach is to create a group of high leverage, "super users" for the IPM decision-making tools the IPPC offers. The topics covered in this three-hour session included the use and set up for virtual weather stations and grass seed stem rust model analysis. This group of ten consultants and input suppliers reported that they and their staff provide advice for over 200,000 acres and they themselves directly work with over 200 growers. We plan to expand the group of invited consultants and fields reps this year. We also established a comprehensive state-wide school IPM program, and have pilot projects ongoing in two school districts and a model IPM plan in draft. PARTICIPANTS: Nothing significant to report during this reporting period. TARGET AUDIENCES: Nothing significant to report during this reporting period. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: Nothing significant to report during this reporting period.
Impacts
At the four Maximizing Biological Pest Suppression and Minimizing Pesticides Risks as Components of Your IPM Plan workshops a retrospective pretest was used to assess changes in eleven skill areas; the rating scale going from 1, being no skill or ability, to 7 being very able or skilled. The evaluation submission rates ranged from 68 to 100 percent at the four workshops. The two Yamhill workshops had a similar starting knowledge at both events (3.0 and 3.15, respectively); whereas the Pudding had a higher starting level at the first workshop (3.7) and an unusually low starting score for this watershed at the second event (2.8). The average change for the seven questions related to the three and a half hours of presentations in the morning was similar for three of the four workshops (+1.6 to +1.7) but the second Pudding workshop had a higher average change of +2.4. For the first pair of events, the highest level of change (+2.8) was seen for the Yamhill attendees for their skill in using online pest models. The afternoon sessions at the second pair of workshops were on the Pesticide Risk Mitigation Engine (PRiME). Since this is a new tool the level of change was higher than the average change seen in the morning sessions, the level of change in ability related to PRiME ranged from +1.9 to +3.3 at the two workshops. A challenge with the evaluation for the first workshop pair was the afternoon spotted wind drosophila presentations differed at the two locations. At the Pudding the information presented did not directly address the four evaluation questions and this difference is clearly reflected in the data with range of gain in Yamhill of +1.9 to +2.7 compared to the Pudding +0.9 to +1.6. At the Virtual Weather Stations and Model Analysis small group session a retrospective pretest was used to assess changes in skills for nine areas. The mean change in skills ranged from 1.6 to 3.6 (Table 13), showing that significant learning had occurred. The largest gains came from the knowing the potential of virtual weather stations and how to create and use virtual weather data. The interquartile ranges the before and after response indicate that there were larger differences in starting knowledge but that this gap narrowed as a result of the program (Table 13). In this group there was low use of the online pest and phenology models (Table 14). In the future, we plan to share actual past model prediction data to demonstrate the power of these tools for pest management decision. The most commonly used model was the grass seed stem rust model and given the knowledge of the model by some of the group there was still a good level of learning about more advanced aspects of use and interpretation. This evaluation was approved by the Oregon State University Institutional Review Board for ethical treatment of human subjects.
Publications
- Stock T (2011) School IPM master guideline for Oregon
|