1) Participants
3) Reseach and Extension Directors
5) EPA Update
6) In Field Minidisk for Apple Growers
7) USDA IPM
9) Stakeholder Involvement in IPM Programs
10) How IPM Programs Gain Support of Stakeholders
11) Northeast IPM
12) Northeastern Pest Management Center
13) Reports on Northeast IPM Funded Projects
| R. Ashley - U Conn NEREAP-IPM Chair |
S. Sardanelli -
U Maryland Chair elect |
|
| J. Ayers - PSU Grants manager |
A. Alyokhin - U Maine | D. Aylor - CAES |
| L. Berkett - U Vermont | R. Casagrande - U Rhode Island | R. Chandran - WVU |
| W. Coli - UMass | P. Curtis - Cornell | J. Dill - U Maine |
| A. Eaton - U New Hampshire | M. Fitzner - USDA/CSREES | D. Handley - U Maine |
| Z. Helsel - Rutgers | W. Hoffman - USDA/CSREES | M. Hoffmann - Cornell |
| R. Koethe - EPA Reg I | F. Magdoff - SARE |
B. Marose - U Maryland |
| A. Moore - EPA Reg II | E. Rajotte - PSU |
R. Seem - Cornell NYSAES |
|
A. Sylvian - EPA Reg I |
M. VanGessel - U Delaware | J. Whalen U. Del. |
| J. VanKirk - Northeast IPM, NE PMC |
L. Myers - Writer/Editor Northeast IPM, NE PMC |
L. Thomas - Information
Spec. Northeast IPM, NE PMC |
These notes are solely from the NEREAP-IPM annual meeting and do not constitute a comprehensive report of each state's program.
A. Connecticut (Richard Ashley) CT home page
New IPM efforts:
- A grant to initiate school IPM was funded for a 5-year period. Curriculum writers were hired from schools and the University of Connecticut will do training. The state IPM coordinator has interviewed building and grounds managers and others to find out what school districts do regarding IPM. This program has helped establish new, nontraditional contacts for the IPM program and links with other agencies such as the Department of Health which is interested in the connection between asthma and pests such as roaches, rodents, and dust mites. Information on school IPM is available on the web.
- An IPM turf manual is now available as a result of a joint effort with the University of Connecticut, the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, EPA, the CT State Grounds Keepers Association, and the CT Department of Environmental Protection. The manual can be ordered on line http://www.hort.uconn.edu/ipm/turf/htms/turfman.htm for $20.00.
Programs:
- Connecticut continues to pursue installing IPM information in home and garden centers although this has been difficult so far.
- A Junior IPM program for kids has been established.
- Vegetable and fruit IPM efforts are ongoing.
Personnel:
- Budget problems have resulted in terminating the IPM corn and forage team position in December 2002.
- The nursery position is now being filled
B. Delaware (Joanne Whalen and Mark VanGessel) DE home page
Programs:
- A Crop Management School was held for 3 days in November having over 200 attendees in an interactive, classroom type school, with some sessions having on-line abilities. In addition to pest management it also covered crop management, nutrient management and soil and water conservation-- the areas identified as performance areas for Certified Crop Advisors.
- For the sixth year, a crop diagnostic field day was held with specialists from multiple disciplines. The event was held in the summer and is focused on one crop (this year was field corn; in the past small grains, soybeans and some
vegetable crops were covered). Problem scenarios were set up and attendees were asked to sample and choose management options which provided ample hands on experience.
- DE researchers are looking at controlling watermelon spider mite with reduced miticides through the use of weed management techniques.
- Weather forecasting continues using Skybit.
- Dairy fly management biocontrol did not work this year in spite of its success last season. Bedding management could be the key issue.
New IPM efforts:
- Delaware is involved in two NEREAP-IPM grants: Impact of Weed Management Approaches on Population Shifts and Identifying Field-Specific Characteristics that Lead to Successful Postemergence Weed Management in Corn (in conjunction with NJ, ME, and VA).
- DE is looking to the farm bill for disaster relief with a focus on research money for lima beans. Delaware is the 2nd biggest producer in country. Money is also being sought for spinach and other processing vegetables to look at downy mildew, seedling diseases, white mold forecasting, and biocontrol measures.
- The Southeast IPM working group on ornamentals is including Delaware in its collection of data for an extensive database of information including degree day collection.
Personnel and Budget:
- State money still coming for 2002.
- An internal search continues for a new dean and new director of extension.
C. Maine (Jim Dill) ME home page
New IPM Efforts:
- Maine's new regulations for school IPM require that all schools need an IPM coordinator for grounds and curriculum.
- An IPM council is now part of the department of agriculture advising on the implementation of IPM in the state of Maine. No money from the general funds can be allotted to this; only outside funds are allowed.
- Potato IPM is now covered in a newly released CD. Also available is a pocket guide, colored fact sheets, and even a potato IPM game.
- Farms now scouting their sweet corn have doubled.
- Maine is hooking up with Penn State to follow the migration of some pests up the coast. Results of this tracking will be on the web site.
Programs:
- Maine IPM continues to work with strawberry clipper and tarnished plant bug research.
Budgets and Personnel:
- New faculty may need to be funded through soft money.
- Andrei Alyokhin is the new potato research specialist working in particular on imidochloprid resistance.
- Graduate student Tory Jackson is working with IPM in sweet corn.
D. Maryland (Sandra Sardanelli) MD Home Page
New IPM Efforts:
- A 2001 MD IPM directory and progress report (PDF) for the state is now complete. This was a cooperative initiative between the University of MD and MD Department of Agriculture.
- MD is compiling a list of invasive species (PDF) and using it as topic-of-the-year for envirothons at schools. The university is providing materials and training for the schools to help kids learn about invasive species. Over 1500 students were involved.
- Betty Marose and Galen Dively are collaborating on work addressing controversial issues such as GMOs. The work will be published on the web when complete.
Personnel and Budget:
- Extension is running in deficit and some ag programs have been cut, but the IPM program is doing well due to grant funding.
E. Massachusetts (Bill Coli) MA Home Page
New IPM Efforts:
- A grant through EPA will run the school IPM project with from 24 to 30 training sessions across the state.
- Publication through NRAES of the MA school IPM manual is imminent.
- A SARE funded video called Farmers and their Sweet Corn Production Practices is now available. The video costs $15.00 and can be ordered is on line.
- The report titled IPM Adoption in Northeastern U.S.: An Examination of the IPM Continuum was pubished in the American Jounal of Alternative Agriculture (vol 16, number 4, 2001). Survey data from sweet corn, strawberry, apple, and potato growers in nine northeastern U.S. states were used to assess relative levels of adoption of IPM.
Budget and Personnel:
- Huge cuts (from $375K to $121K) were made in the budget last year affecting the school, fruit and vegetable salary line. A 35% cut in Dept. of Food and Ag. will result in not filling regulatory positions like inspectors. The state is looking at a deficit across the board.
- Ron Prokopy will soon be retiring.
F. New Hampshire (Alan Eaton) NH Home Page
Budget and Personnel:
- Bill MacHardy has retired but will continue with his apple scab research. The administration has not yet approved the refilling of this position.
- Extension program leader position was just filled by Bruce Clement leaving leaving a second county extension vacancy.
- A new bill creates some new funding for IPM by allocating a portion of the state pesticide registration fees to the NH Dept. of Ag. which in turn grants this money out. Most accepted grants are for seminars and training session. Two grants awarded will study 1) corn rootworm survey and fact sheet and 2) a tri-state greenhouse IPM guide.
Programs:
- Greenhouse IPM includes 1) IPM workshops each January, 2) poinsettia evaluations from every NH producer, 3) Poinsettia "breakfast" series, research on physical barriers for fungus gnat.
- A NH strawberry grower survey was completed on black vine weevil.
- Apple IPM efforts continue through the IPM newsletter, Fruit Pest Update Telephone, annual fruit evaluations, twilight meetings, and mite management with Typhlodromus pyri.
G. New Jersey (Zane Helsel for George Hamilton) NJ Home Page
Budget and Personnel:
- NJ is managing a 7% cut to the budget resulting in a hiring freeze. New funding is mostly going to greenhouse IPM.
- Personnel changes in deans and heads of agriculture are occurring.
- Debbie Smith Fiola is no longer at Rutgers.
Programs:
- School IPM continues to be a big concentration.
- Other programs include wrapping up of the pepper program, line item money going to Oriental Beetle research, and work on purple loosestrife.
H. New York (Mike Hoffmann) NY Home Page
New IPM Efforts:
- Two new publications, Grubs in your Lawn? A Guide for Lawn Care Professionals and Homeowners (PDF) and Weeds and your Garden (PDF) meant mostly for the urban sector and can be ordered on-line.
- Curt Petzoldt, assistant director of the New York State IPM program has received a three-year grant for $500,000 to develop reduced risk pest management strategies for cucurbits. The grant, which is funded by the USDA's Risk Avoidance and Mitigation Program (RAMP), is a three-state cooperative project among New York, Ohio and Massachusetts.
- Paul Curtis spoke about deer control options such as sprayable fibers, deer control in crops, resistance of bulbs to deer and rodents, low cost fencing, dogs and invisible fencing for orchards. Some funding is available from outside sources. USDA, DEC, and Ag. and Markets all have regional initiatives to help control vertebrate pests since many urban land owners are complaining about damage . Deer control bulletins are available on-line. For growers there is a series (14) fact sheets about all kinds of vertebrate pests. These are not yet on the web but it will be soon as part of a NE regional initiative. A manual on beavers is now available on the web.
Budget and Personnel:
- Juliet Carroll is the new Fruit IPM Coordinator.
- Funding is uncertain especially for community IPM. Cornell is trying to have IPM recognized across campus as part of a total look at the environmental impacts of the institution.
- Mike Fitzner chaired a panel for CSREES to review the NY IPM program. With that review came a strategic plan.
- Twelve private foundations have been identified for potential funding sources to focus on specific IPM problems.
I. Pennsylvania (Ed Rajotte) PA Home Page
New IPM Efforts:
- PA schools are required to have an IPM plan. They can now refer to the school IPM manual in hard copy or on the web.
- In a multi-state effort, a curriculum for teachers has been written incorporating IPM concepts using the pest management of school grounds as one example.
- An activity book for kids, originally created in Minnesota, has been adapted to PA and targets children in the fourth grade.
- Also developed is a 10th grade textbook which supports environment and ecology.
- A Masters Degree in entomology and ecology is now being offered that can be converted into a degree in public education.
- The mushroom IPM manual is at press. This is a project done in conjunction with Delaware.
- Information on IPM is in the process of being written targeting place-of-purchase such as Walmart and garden centers.
Programs:
- The Bug Mobile is a VW bug that converses with people about IPM and related issues at places such as state fairs.
Budget and Personnel:
- Lee Bentz has retired. Ken Long is temporarily taking on his position responsibilities for now.
- Faculty changes include the areas of weed ecologist, soil ecologist, urban IPM research and animal IPM
J. Rhode Island - (Richard Casagrande) RI Home Page
New IPM Efforts:
- 40 to 50 thousand people attended a recent plant show where the IPM Program had an exhibit about their efforts.
- The weekly television program, GreenShare hosted by Marion Gold, reaches an audience of 200,000 each week with an aim of reducing pesticide use in ornamental horticulture.
- Continuing IPM programs include: work on sustainable trees and shrubs, the tick lab, and apple IPM
- One of the most successful RI IPM programs is the biological control lab where insects are evaluated for control of purple loosestrife, Cyprus spurge, birch leafminer, hemlock woolly adelgid, and European red mites.
Budget and Personnel:
- The turf and ornamental fields have a new nematologist, Nathaniel Mitkowski, from Cornell University. This is a new position.
- The budget has been cut again on an amount that was not big to begin with.
K. Vermont (Lorraine Berkett)
VT Home Page
Programs:
- Vermont IPM is separated into 4 programs: field corn, ornamentals, fruit, and berries & vegetables each with their own individual web sites and newsletters.
- The AIM (Apple Information Manager) provides comprehensive IPM coverage for apples.
- The Longhorned beetle web site offers a list of recent news articles about this pest as well as its biology, identification, management and other information.
L. West Virginia (Rakesh Chandran) WV Home Page
New IPM Efforts:
- Research in 5 West Virginia counties assessed that deer feeding resulted in approximately $3 million of damage in urban landscapes.
- IPM has purchased weather stations to help predict pest outbreaks at remote grower locations.
- Work continues evaluating plastic bubble wrap mulches for control weeds and bruise control in apples.
- A mini-grant supported the use of GPS as a means to reduce herbicide inputs in field corn.
- Specialists from the University of WV are serving on an advisory committee of the NE PMC Information Network coordinated by John Baniecki.
Programs:
- Pheromone traps and lures were distributed to 20 growers for insect monitoring. Alan Biggs is also looking at the role of Phytophthora in the decline of apple trees. He continues to collect data for the improvement of Maryblyt through a NE-IPM grant received last year.
- Demonstrations and research are planned in: 1) managing bacterial wilt in sweet corn, 2) mating disruption and soft chemistries for pest management in apples, 3) control measures for problem pasture weeds, 4) biocontrol of aquatic weeds by grass carp, 5) organic methods for control of weeds in peppers, and 6) an evaluation of application timings for herbicides in apples.
- A senior level course called "Principles of Weed Science" was offered in the Fall of 2001.
Zane Helsel and Bob Seem
- There is ongoing discussion with the NRCS (Natural Resource Conservation Service) regarding the varying state interpretations of the EQIP (Environmental Quality Incentives Program). Growers receive a large portion of the $10 million total, but some can go to education or administration. It was emphasized that the relationship between IPM and NRCS liaisons is important.
- The meeting this spring of the Research and Extension Directors will stress a formalization of collaboration between research and extension.
- Food Science NEREAP will be terminated due to lack of new funding, unless an alternative source is found.
- Formula funding is staying level resulting in little money being left for research after salaries are paid. IPM is in need of alternative funding sources.
- Urban wildlife management is an area that has the attention of the legislature and is a potential legislative add-on.
Fred Magdoff
- SARE is in its 15th funding cycle since its inception with the 2002 funds up by 25%. $3 million in grants were distributed after administrative costs were removed of which 2.2 went to research and education. $800,000 went to professional development for entities such as state departments of agriculture, NRCS, etc. and also some went to farmer grants.
- SARE is now 2 years into outcome funding using actions as a basis of success in achieving goals. Many issues are unresolved around portfolio management. The RFPs are designed to target an issue but still keep the grant process competitive. The RFPs reflect areas that have been identified as priorities.
- Every 10 years, SARE holds a national conference, but it was decided that a regional conference is more productive and will be held in 2004. Planning of this meeting is minimal so far.
- A new publication, Innovations, is now in publication.
- Outreach for SARE is accomplished through new positions, called Sustainable Farmer Educators. Steve Groff, Lawrence Shearer and Elizabeth Henderson will speak to groups and gather feedback for the program. SARE pays for all travel expenses with an $8,000 budget.
- Extension educators or crop advisors can apply for up to $7,000 in funding for small research projects. An informational meeting is being held in July 2002 and will become part of a regular grant cycle for people who need small amounts of money without the time commitment of writing an extensive grant.
- New publications:
Hog production - Profitable Pork - Strategies for Hog Producers. (www.sare.org/bulletin/hogs.)
Profitable Poultry: Raising Birds on Pasture (www.sare.org/bulletin/poultry/)
How to Manage the Blue Orchard Bee as an Orchard Pollinator (www.sare.org/htdocs/bobflyer.htm) $9.95/copy
The New American Farmer - profiles 55 farms can be viewed at www.sare.org/newfarmer or it is available in hard copy for $10
Rob Koethe - EPA Region I
- Suzie Chun is the new coordinator for region III representing the Mid-Atlantic states and specializing in FQPA issues.
- In the nonagricultural sector the focus is on IPM in public housing, urban programs, and homeowner education. Web sites and brochures are available on these topics.
- Agricultural initiatives include:
- FQPA - Congress has provided resources for 10 new employees across the nation to help with compliance.
- The National Agricultural Compliance Assistance Center (es.epa.gov/oeca/ag/about.html) is a site designed to help understand EPA regulations on issues such as Confined Animal Feeding Operations, wetlands, FQPA, etc.
- Due to a concern that the dialog between EPA and state regulatory agencies needs to be strong, meetings are now required with state departments of environmental protection/conservation, and Commissioners of Agriculture to identify topics of concern. Region III priorities are:
- The EPA PESP (Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program) has grant money available annually. Individual grants can be up to $40,000 with an estimated $266,000 available this year.
- The timeline for FQPA grants varies from year-to-year. A total of $127,000 is available with a maximum of $40,000-$50,000 per grant. This money is not restricted to research institutions, but could go to nonprofit groups, regulatory offices, or others. Contact your regional EPA representative for more information.
Audrey Moore-Region II (NY, NJ, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands)
- In an IPM outreach for schools, four EPA employees have been designated to present a basic IPM program tailored to different grade levels.
- Last year's FQPA budget of $135K was cut to $119K this year. The RFP should be out in mid-March 2002 and will try to reach a broader audience.
- The "PESP landscape IPM in schools" project is projected to finish this year.
- EPA's Food Monitoring project, tests for pesticide residues in foods found in roadside stands in NJ.
- EPA is developing a stronger tie with NRCS. In the past a NRCS rep attended NEREAP meetings and perhaps this should be considered now.
- An Extension liaison is housed at EPA to better connect the agricultural industry to EPA.
- The federal register notice will soon be out for the Pollution Prevention Program. Contact Audrey Moore for information (moore.audrey@epa.gov)
School Environmental Protection Act amendment did not make into the Farm Bill. It called for states to come up with a pest management plan amending FIFRA which required states to have a plan and enforce it.
Bill Coli
Apple Pest Management Guide mini CD-ROM Supplement is an interactive program incorporating the apple IPM guide into a user-friendly media. View a demonstration at www.instantmedia.com/orchard/. The program is a panoramic photo of an apple orchard with embedded hot spots making it possible to search by images rather than text alone.
Mike Fitzner and Bill Hoffman
Mike Fitzner brought attention to the IPM in Schools national web site (http://schoolipm.ifas.ufl.edu/) which is a clearinghouse for state information on school IPM.
Federal funding is moving away from strictly formula funding to more of a 50/50 split with competitive funding.
There are 3 important focal points in the National effort:
- The National Roadmap effort responds to the GAO report (GAO-01-815) in outlining a plan for IPM funds.
- Development of Pest Management Centers.
- Continue work on PPRS (Performance Planning and Reporting System)
GAO Report
The GAO report, sponsored by Senator Leahy, titled Management Improvements Needed to Further Promote Integrated Pest Management gives a perceptive description of implementation of IPM practices nationwide. This 31 page report explains the past, present and suggests a future for the improving adoption of IPM practices across the nation. While not always positive, this report suggests steps to advance IPM programs. This document provided the impetus to create the National IPM Roadmap being lead by Harold Coble and Eldon Ortman.
National IPM Roadmap
When completed in a yearlong process culminating with the National IPM meeting in Indianapolis in April 2002, this document should be an overall strategic plan to set the direction for IPM programs nationwide written by people in a wide array of agencies and institutions. It should be viewed as an enabling rather than a restrictive document. Presently this is only a rough draft for input reasons and does not address leadership issues due to lack of time. Comments and suggestions are encouraged.
Eldon has 2 specific questions for NEREAP members:
1) does the Roadmap identify the critical elements of IPM in a broad brush way.
2) The Roadmap indicates that "action items" will be established on a
regional basis. What are some specifics for the NE for each "impact area",
"research priority", "implementation priority", & "measurement goal".Discussion of IPM Roadmap and related issues:
- Leadership issues were cited as a problem by the GAO report, but leadership cannot be developed without proper funding. The feeling is that this topic should not be left out of the development of the Roadmap.
- Gather stakeholder input at the beginning of the process of creating the Roadmap. Stakeholders will be invited to the National IPM Symposium, but there is no funding for reimbursement of meeting expenses.
- Make evaluation of impacts a high priority.
- The Pest Management Centers can serve as a communication vehicle for Roadmap discussion.
- DO NOT OMIT "INTEGRATED" FROM THE TITLE. This subject is still under discussion at the federal level due to its perceived exclusionary nature for entities such as IR-4 and PIAP. IPM has finally gained some name recognition; it is on grocery labels, in the Farm Bill, and has a legal definition in FQPA.
- In a unanimous decision, all present at the NEREAP meeting agreed the the Roadmap title should include IPM not just PM.
- Make sure to comment on the rough draft.
- Interagency communication is difficult. Some institutions are better than others (i.e. the Dept. of Ag in PA is good). There are problems within some states, even within universities with communication. Some NEPMC information network projects are not disseminating information within their region, therefore some IPM coordinators are missing information on NEPMC activity. It is suggested that the NEPMC leadership contact Information Network leaders to make sure IPM coordinators are included in communications.
- Funding of IPM programs is a major concern of IPM coordinators in the NE. Grant overhead is an impediment in projects that involve more than one state because of multiple overhead reductions. Information Network money can be charged overhead 3 times, once for the NEPMC, again for the primary institution managing the subgrant and more for each state working under the subgrant. Deans and directors need to be asked to forego some on this overhead on multiple state grants. A request is made to bring this up at the next directors meeting of Northeastern Regional Association of State Agricultural Experiment Station Directors (NERA).
- Concern continues over IPM line item funds in the federal budget being rolled into NEPMC funding resulting in potential future reductions in IPM funds for each state.
- Some states are leveraging federal money to gain additional state money.
- It is hoped that the PM Centers can help take some of the bureaucratic burden off states.
- State IPM coordinators strongly request that NEPMC Information Network projects maintain tight communication with as wide of a range of stakeholders as possible. State IPM coordinators should maintain a position on Information Network advisory committees.
- The Roadmap needs to consider the Northeast's urban concerns such as the rural/urban interface, greenhouse ornamentals, structural IPM, high land values, and smaller diversified farms. If tailored to typical agriculture in Iowa or Texas, the NE issues will not be met.
- Research priorities need to include area on risk.
PPRS
Bill Hoffman made a powerpoint presentation on PPRS (Performance Planning and Reporting System) reminding states of how important it is to submit reports so that legislators can see impacts from each state in the region.
Periodically IPM programs from across the nation meet all together. The next meeting is planned for Indianapolis, Indiana in early April 2002 and is now in the planning stages. The intention is to have broad representation of stakeholders from across the country including scientists (social, biological, and environmental), agricultural producers, and representatives of agribusiness and nonprofit organizations. Funds for this meeting are raised from regional IPM programs and the 4 Pest Management Centers. Now is the time to suggest topics of interest for the agenda which will be a mix of workshops, speakers, and poster sessions. Send ideas to Mike Hoffmann (Mph3@cornell.edu)
Panel members:
Eileen Gunn - University of Massachusetts (Lowell) - Toxics Use Reduction Program (TUR).
The Toxics Use Reduction is an environmental concept that involves preventing pollution at the source rather than controlling it once it has been generated. It encourages alternatives to toxic chemical use including pesticides. In 1997 a model community-wide pesticide awareness IPM campaign was initiated into town policy. In 2001 a regional pesticide awareness and strategic policy and land management plan was created.
Paul Larsen - retail greenhouse and nursery owner (formerly worked in large commercial wholesale operation)
Three objectives influence this IPM user: 1) reduce pesticide use, 2) consider worker safety, 3) keep costs in check. Ideally his operation would like to achieve all these goals, but it is not always possible. The tolerance for damage in nursery and ornamentals is low therefore the thresholds are also low. Paul gives credit to Tim Abbey for teaching the basics of IPM in a weekly season-long training covering scouting techniques, record keeping, pest identification, trapping and other monitoring. Paul's suggests that IPM principles will be furthered by more one-on-one training of growers and scouts.
Randy Blackmer - Connecticut Farm Bureau and owner of a pesticide and fertilizer application service.
In Randy's view scouting is a prerequisite for instituting IPM on the farm. He cites Jude Boucher's success at implementing IPM in corn through weekly visits providing one-on-one training to evaluate fields. As a chemical applicator, Blackmer wants to use what works best once, rather than a "softer" alternative that will need reapplication. He feels chemicals have been carefully scrutinized through FQPA and the remaining chemicals have very low toxicity. Consumers complain more about pest damage than spray residue. Blackmer feels that excess and improper use of pesticides is not with commercial applicators, but rather with home applications.
Discussion points:
- Organic growing should not be thought of as separate from IPM. IPM is a part of an organic operation with different means of control from a non-organic farm.
- Does the public understand IPM? Gunn thinks IPM is understood as Intelligent Pest Management. She sees abuse of pesticides with lawn care companies and encourages urban IPM users to choose the least toxic method.
- Larsen provides plant diagnosis as a service to his customers and as a means of competing with larger retailers.
- Asked whether Larsen would associate his operation with a "green label", he says that certification would help. His customers do not understand the IPM term, so he takes time to explain.
- When asked about the use of crop consultants, Blackmer says there are none available in his area because the agricultural industry is not concentrated enough to attract a consultant. Consulting comes with the chemical supplier. Larsen has been approached by consultants but feels that the university would offer a better service by training growers. In NY, there are not enough extension personnel to do on-farm visits. These are very time consuming, but Blackmer feels that there is a reduction in pesticide use and an increase in product quality with the intensive, one-year, grower training programs.
- How can NEREAP help growers to have ownership in the IPM programs? Blackmer thinks more on-farm visits and training sessions would help. Sandy Sardanelli feels that growers are the grassroots of IPM implementation.
- The problem in Massachusetts is that agriculture is not a big enough or united business and as a result is bypassed on legislation and state funding. For states where agriculture is small, stakeholders need to help put agriculture on the top priority list of legislators. Clean water initiative, NCAP (National Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides), NRCS, NIH (National Institute of Health), schools and other programs need to be enlisted to bring the IPM word to legislators. Urban IPM issues are receiving attention, but there is a concern that they may cut money from agricultural programs so it's important to work these two together for maximum funding potential.
Take home points:
- CT has many stakeholders but none willing to take the message to the legislature. CT was hurt when IPM funding changed from a line item in the state budget to a block grant for the university, which then decreased IPM funding. Approximately 1/3 of their funding comes from the Dept. of Environmental Protection.
- PA - Try to align IPM program with other agencies such as DEP, NRCS, Dept. of Ag, environmental groups, Dept. of Health etc. These groups often have more clout in the legislature.
- NY - IPM is a separate line item from Cornell so it does not show up in the university budget. In NY, IPM has been legislated into the law. Find a representative who finds IPM issues relevant. Hire a lobbyist to bring the message to the capitol. Associate IPM projects with voting districts and make sure representatives know about these projects by taking them on tours (at schools, on golf courses, in places where legislators can make a connection to the public). Make finding money a priority as IPM coordinator.
- MA - In this state, IPM is a line item through Dept of Ag and Markets which was easily identified and cut when the budget was short last year. Since the IPM department itself cannot lobby legislators in MA, it is important to have other stakeholders bring the message of the importance of IPM and its impacts to their representatives.
- NH - Major cuts to extension were prevented by being part of the IPM program.
- Since most NE states are facing budget cuts, methods of obtaining funds is a top priority for most coordinators. Discussions were about how dollars are leveraged and how to use this leveraging as a lobbying tool. A standardized reporting procedure needs to be developed when comparing funding from different states.
Jim VanKirk and Liz Myers
The regional IPM staff now consists of the facilitator at .30 FTE, an information specialist at .25FTE and a writer editor at .22FTE (all three have additional FTE's on the NE PMC budget).
Web pages are still being moved to the new NE-IPM web site at NortheastIPM.org from its old location. All state sites are linked from this home page.
Coordinators would like to know who is on the NEIPM-L listserv and how to submit emails using this method.
NEIPM-L consists essentially of all NEREAP-IPM members, plus a few others. That's with a dash, not an underline, and the letter L as in list, not the digit 1. This is not case-sensitive.
For a complete list of subscribers, send a message to listproc@cornell.edu, in the body of the message type review neipm-lTo send a message to the list, just address your message to neipm-l@cornell.edu
As list owner, Jim VanKirk sees all error messages for this list. So if your email address changes slightly (for instance, Jim's changed a few years ago from @cce.cornell.edu to @cornell.edu) and a message is refused, he will (a) see the problem very soon (b) be sure your message is posted (c) update the subscription and (d) let you know it's been taken care of.
Liz Myers is providing another source of current state IPM news on line through an interactive database. Monthly telephone interviews with 2 IPM coordinators are input into a database that can be searched by state or date. This a more proactive approach to obtaining state news than used in the past. This will be a password protected site to enable more sensitive subjects to be presented especially dealing with how different states fund programs and facts about leveraging of funds.
The newsletter Northeast IPM News published every few months has replaced the less frequent regional reports. This method creates an avenue for information to be disseminated in a more timely way. Each newsletter is put on line in both html and pdf formats and NEREAP members are encouraged to inform others in their state of its availability.
NEREAP members are encouraged to recommend articles or topics for the newsletter as well as suggest changes in focus, audience, or format. Please contact Liz Myers (ebm24@cornell.edu) with suggestions.
A discussion of the newsletter audience and tone revealed:
- The newsletter is reaching a broad range of people with the primary audience being legislators but including media, regulatory agencies, grower organizations, environmental groups, producers, consumer groups, consultants, university researchers, extension personnel, and other groups.
- Distribution to some states is extremely low. IPM coordinators should refer to the printout of who is receiving the NE-IPM newsletter included with the packet of newsletters to identify gaps in distribution.
- Use an e-mail listserv notification with a "hook" or "teaser" to encourage linking to the electronic version of the newsletter. Legislators continue to need a hard copy, as do IPM coordinators to include in packages that are taken to legislators. EPA likes hard and soft copies.
- Most NEREAP members suggested making better use of electronic transmission of the newsletter incorporating links within stories. Broader on line distribution is important. IPM coordinators will spread the information within the university.
- Add a counter to the electronic version so we can determine reader numbers.
- Pass along information from each state to Liz Myers including what is happening in related departments within the state e.g.. Ag and Natural Resource news. Highlight all pertinent state projects.
- Stakeholders outside the university are the key audience therefore incorporate an article in each newsletter which will appeal to differing stakeholders. Focus especially on legislators, grower organizations, consumer and environmental groups.
- Include articles that concentrate on state programs on a rotating basis to encourage continued interest from all state stakeholders. People are interested in what is happening in THEIR state.
- Articles should concentrate on what will make the biggest impact with readers. Include an IPM tactic in each newsletter.
- Multi state efforts should be emphasized.
- IPM coordinators should not be the only ones submitting news. Other groups with IPM related topics should be featured.
- Are we ready for non-Ag consultants to go on the mailing list. There are thousands that fall into this category.
- Does the tone of the letter always need to be positive or can state budget problems be mentioned.
Jim VanKirk and John Ayers
The NE PMC job is to communicate reliable information to IPM stakeholders. Commodity Working Groups (CWG) consist of stakeholders from across the NE region with a concentration on a particular commodity. CWGs are broken down into 6 groups (fruit, vegetables, greenhouse and ornamentals, livestock and field crops, community and public health) and will prioritize research and extension needs as well as identify available IPM protocols for their commodity. There are 7 Information Networks projects covering all NE states with the New England group including 6 states. Their task is to fill the function of the PIAP (Pesticide Impact Assessment Program) program communicate IPM information throughout the state and to help in completing chemical use surveys, crop profiles (CP), and pest management strategic plans (PMSP).
The Information Network projects are funded through the Center and the CWGs each have a small amount of money to cover expenses to meet annually. There is also a pool of money, 20K presently, that the CWGs can access through a simple grant process for special projects.
Out of the 4 centers across the nation, the NE PMC is the only one with CWGs and is more inclusive of IPM.
IPM coordinators would like more information about the centers to understand their function and have the knowledge to spread the word to others. NEPMC staff are planning on visiting states to speak with faculty and administration about the Centers. Information Network projects are all completing at least one PMSP that will help to determine priorities for research which in turn helps to leverage state IPM dollars.
It has been suggested that the Centers could become managers of regional grants such as CAR and RAMP.
Four presentations on NE-IPM Grant projects were worked into the agenda at various times. These included:
Evaluating Parasitoids of the Lily Leaf Beetle - Richard Casagrande
Improving Integrated Management of Apple Scab by Quantifying the Probability of Infection Through Airborne Ascospores - Donald Aylor
Bad Beetles and Wonderful Wasps - Improving IPM in Curcurbits and Corn in the Northeastern US - Mike Hoffmann
Impact of Weed Management Approaches on Population Shifts - Mark VanGessel
RFP Revision Discussion:
- Due to the larger amounts of funding requested, fewer grants were awarded for the 2002 cycle. Initially only 4 projects could be funded, however through reducing the budgets on these four, a fifth project was funded. In past years at least 6 to 10 projects were funded annually and the trend towards fewer projects is of general concern. Many proposals are submitted, so the grant process does not need to be more inclusive.
- The higher limits were set originally to result in bigger impacts, but the result also is to reduce the number of funded projects.
- In spite of awarding extra points to projects involving weeds or vertebrates, none of these proposals were funded although they were the next in rank.
- Multi-state projects receive extra points but require more money primarily due to travel and overhead contributing to the reduction in funded projects. Projects can qualify as multi-state even if all the field work is done in one state which reduces some of the travel costs.
- There is also some concern that the same states and principal investigators are repeatedly funded leaving others out. But restricting certain PIs will cut out some of the best researchers.
- It is critical for IPM priorities to be set for crops and other IPM arenas so that researchers can focus on the problems identified by stakeholders. These priorities when established should be linked to the funding page of the website.
- An expert in vertebrates would be helpful on the technical panel, but travel funds for panel members are limited. The relevancy panel should continue to have a person specializing in vertebrates.
- Increases in federal funding are not expected for the 2003 cycle.
After discussion the group agreed on the following resolutions:
- Drop extra points for projects focusing on weeds and vertebrates but mention in the RFP that these proposals in these areas are strongly encouraged.
- Multi-state projects capped at $180,000, single state projects capped at $60,000. Eight states voted to in favor, no states opposed this resolution.
- 2 CARET member seats on the relevancy panel should go first to CARET members, however in the absence of available members, a non-CARET representative can serve.
Officers:
Ed Rajotte succeeds Richard Ashley as chair at the end of this meeting. Sandra Sardanelli is chair elect following Ed Rajotte's term.
Next year's meeting will be in conjunction with the National IPM Symposium in Indianapolis, Indiana April 8-10, 2002. We will definitely meet on April 7, and may consider starting the afternoon or evening of the 6th.
.
.