Community Education > Report for FY 1999 Objectives

The objectives of the Massachusetts IPM Education and Certification Project are to:

• implement a state-wide education program for integrated pest management which promotes an understanding of IPM principles by growers and others, and promotes an understanding of IPM concepts by the general public.
• develop and update guidelines which define IPM practices for commodities supported by UMASS IPM research.
• collaborate with the Massachusetts Department of Food and Agriculture (MDFA) and the USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA) in the development, implementation and promotion of programs recognizing growers who practice IPM.

IPM Education

On Farm IPM Education: Displays and Self-Guided Tours

The Apple IPM display project, initiated in FY97 and implemented in FY97 to FY99, was evaluated. Previous reports describe the apple IPM self-guided tour installed at 10 sites, and the self-standing apple IPM display distributed to 10 orchards.

In FY98, we reported the results of a survey in which 7 of the 10 growers participating in the self-guided tour project returned questionnaires. Growers reported that between 1% and 40% of their customers took the "tour". Two growers (with participation of 1% and 40%) rated this as "unsatisfactory." All growers reported that the message and information presented, presentation and workmanship were good to excellent. The over-all success of the project was rated good to excellent on six farms and poor on one farm.

This year, both educational projects were also evaluated by a brief customer survey. Twenty-nine customers at two stands with self-guided tours were surveyed, 30 customers were interviewed at a stand with a IPM display, and 40 customers were interviewed at two stands with neither educational program.

Twenty-four percent of all customers professed to having heard of IPM before coming to any of the orchards. Where a self-guided tour was located, 14% of customers interviewed had taken the tour, and at display farms 60% of customers looked at the IPM display. When asked to describe what they learned from the display, the most frequent response (37%) was that IPM uses less pesticide. Ninety-five percent (20 of 21 responses) of the respondents agreed that seeing this information affected their attitude about farming. Of these, 85% said that their attitude became more positive. Three individuals traveling together said that their attitude was more negative after viewing the display.

We also evaluated the program by visiting farms where the tours and displays were used. It was apparent tours were less successful where customers were not adequately informed that the tours existed, or where the start of the tour was too far from the farmstand.

Conclusions:

These educational products were successful for some growers, but not for others. As with most educational or marketing products, they are tools and must be used in an appropriate manner to produce the best results. Self-guided tours are best placed in a convenient, conspicuous location and promoted by the grower through welcoming signage, talking to customers and other methods. Tours can become another reason for customers to come a particular farm, as in this project, press releases attracted a number of customers. Static displays are much simpler for the grower to use, and while they did not have the novelty or recreational value of the tours, it was clear that the message from simple signs reached a greater percentage of customers.

Additional displays describing IPM for vegetables, small fruit and floriculture are under development. These will be 3’ x 4’ laminated posters, illustrating IPM components, including monitoring, biocontrol, cultural practices and pesticides specific for these commodities. The design phase and approximately 30% of the construction has been completed.

Introduction to IPM, a course taught at the Stockbridge School, UMass Amherst.

Introduction to Integrated Pest Management, ENT 181 (2 credits) is designed to teach the history, ecological perspective and principles of IPM to second year students in the Stockbridge School of Agriculture majoring in Floriculture, Turf, Fruit & Vegetable Crops, Arboculture, and Parks Management, as well as other undergraduates interested in IPM. An important component of the course is the requirement to develop an IPM program for a system related to the student’s academic major . This year, the course syllabus (APPENDIX A) and a course text consisting of articles defining and illustrating the principles of IPM were revised..

Results and Impacts:

• Thirty-eight Stockbridge School of Agriculture and UMass students (future agricultural practitioners) demonstrated an increased knowledge of the principles and implementation of IPM

Structural IPM.

Structural IPM Working Group

The Structural Working Group of the Massachusetts IPM Council made significant progress in developing IPM guidelines for structural pests. IPM guidelines for carpenter ants, cockroaches, fabric pests, flies, occasional household pests, rodents, stinging insects, stored products pests and termites have been completed. C. Hollingsworth is editing the document which expected to be published in FY00.

Structural IPM at UMass.

A one-day training program on cockroach baiting was organized for UMass employees, with instruction by Joe Barile of Clorox Corporation. Instruction included discussion of bait materials and effective placement. Three hours were spent evaluating a site at UMass and applying insecticidal bait.

Cockroach Management

An informal pilot IPM program was initiated at Hatch Lab and Fernald Hall, UMass Amherst, focusing on monitoring and baiting for cockroaches. Baited sticky traps were placed throughout the buildings and were checked for cockroaches after one week. Where trap catches were positive, baited-pesticide stations (MaxforceTM stations with hydromethylnon) were deployed. Conditions of sanitation and building maintenance were also noted. Cockroach populations were reevaluated with sticky traps after five months (Fernald Hall) and seven months (Hatch Lab).

Two species of cockroaches were found in sticky traps: German cockroach, Blatella germanica, at Hatch Lab, and brown-banded cockroach, Supella longipalpis, at Fernald Hall. American roach, Periplaneta americana, was observed incidentally at both sites but not captured in traps. Monitoring was not completed in all rooms due to access problems. Positive capture rates varied from 21% to 63% (Table 1). Insect counts were generally low. The highest count in Fernald Hall was 4 nymphs and 2 adults and, in Hatch Lab, 11 nymphs and 1 adult.

Table 1. Cockroach pre-treatment trapping results, UMass Amherst, 1999

1 accounting for missing or inaccessible traps

Not all areas where cockroaches were found in Fernald Hall were treated, as there were concerns expressed by faculty about the impact of insecticide of baits near insect cultures. In one area of primary concern, building repair and old air ducts fostered cockroach harborages which were further exacerbated by open access to food used for insect cultures. In a number of cases, faculty in Fernald Hall expressed their disinterest in controlling cockroaches, especially if it had any effect on the management of their research practices.

During post-treatment evaluation, we examined whether treated rooms became uninfested and whether uninfested rooms remained so (Table 2). Uninfested rooms did not remain uninfested nor did treated rooms become uninfested.

Table 2. Cockroach infestation in two buildings at UMass Amherst

UNINFESTED ROOMS INFESTED ROOMS

Several possible reasons may be proposed for our results.

• initial evaluation was conducted in early Spring and cooler buildings may have smaller cockroach populations than they do in Summer.
• cockroach captures, in some cases, could be from early in the trapping period, before the baits had affected the populations. In Hatch Lab, 3-day post trapping for cockroaches yielded no cockroaches in sites that were previously infested. Building users noted that cockroaches were less apparent, especially in areas that were heavily infested.
• In some areas, other food sources may compete with the attractant in the insecticide.
• Untreated infested areas may provide a source of cockroaches for reintroduction of treated areas.

Conclusions

If a pest management program is to succeed in these buildings there must be strong support by the building users and these users must be willing to adjust their cultural and sanitary practices to reduce pest populations. The cockroach populations at present do not appear to be sufficiently bothersome to encourage human behavioral changes which could further reduce pest numbers.

Results and Impacts of Structural IPM Sub-project:

• The process of developing urban IPM guidelines has lead to a better understanding of IPM by ten leading members of the Massachusetts pest control industry.
• IPM Guidelines for nine structural pests were developed. Significant progress in developing an educational IPM publication for structural pests was made.
• Two UMass employees were trained in cockroach baiting procedures which could potentially lead to better pest management implementation at UMass.
• Cockroach populations were reduced with a minimum of insecticide use in one UMass building.

IPM Certification

Development of IPM Guidelines

IPM Guidelines for all crops were revised, and new guidelines were developed for wine grape, raspberry and poinsettia. The IPM Guidelines for 15 crops were published as UMass Extension Bulletin IP-IPMA (Figure. 1).

Partners with Nature, the IPM certification program, a collaboration of MDFA, USDA-FSA, and UMass Extension

IPM guidelines and checklists were sent to all growers and consultants associated with the program. A newsletter about Partners with Nature and eco-labelling, Farming with Vision,was distributed   .

A PWN recruitment packet was sent to potential participants in the state, with significant effort by FSA and MDFA. Project personnel, with FSA and MDFA, developed, assembled and distributed Partners with Nature enrollment information and brochures to interested growers. We met with participants and conducted on-site verification reviews. Robert Rondeau of MDFA assisted in the certification process by making farm visits, assisting growers in developing IPM programs, and verifying IPM practices. Certification and educational materials were sent to qualified growers through FSA.

Participating growers were provided with a poster attesting to their practice of IPM, an IPM education poster, IPM brochures, leaflets to alert their customers about IPM, and a PWN t-shirt. Two press releases highlighting the activities of farmers enrolled in the Partners with Nature program, were released through the UMass News Office to 325 newspaper contacts statewide. Examples of resulting press are given in APPENDIX C.

Results and Impacts:

• IPM certification resulted in improved farming practices and record keeping on 1600 acres of small fruits and vegetables and 40,600 square feet of greenhouse crops (156 separate crops on 53 farms - see Table 3). A list of growers and a summary of Partners with Nature participation and acreage enrolled are provided in AppENDix D. Enrollment in the Partners with Nature program increased in the following categories from 1998 levels
• number of farms enrolled increased by 8%,
• number of crops eligible for enrollment increased by 44%
• number of crops enrolled increased by 22%
• total acreage in the program increased by 6%
• Project income of $1359 was collected as grower contributions to the project.
• Two press releases were sent from UMass to over 324 Massachusetts newspapers regarding Partners with Nature, resulting in radio and newspaper coverage of IPM on farms throughout the state.

Present Status of Partners with Nature in Massachusetts

On Oct 5, 1999, the Massachusetts Department of Food and Agriculture announced that Partners with Nature would be phased out for FY00. MDFA cited the following problems with the program:

• confusing message (i.e. PWN vs. IPM vs. Organic)
• limited appeal to growers, retailers and customers
• backlash from other growers
• too much paperwork
• growers not receiving more dollars for the product

MDFA announced plans to replace PWN with a program that will:

• have connotation of ecologically friendly.
• have a strong on-farm educational component
• use farm self -certification, based on the UMass IPM guidelines
• be easily marketed and understood by the public
• lend itself to inclusion in MDFA marketing initiatives (e,g, locally grown, open space,

Massachusetts farming heritage)

Table 3. Number of crops certified by Massachusetts' Partners with Nature program.

Development of IPM Certification for the Urban Pest Control Industry

The New England Pest Control Association initiated the development of a program to certify pest control operators (PCO’s) who practice IPM. Project personnel serve on the committee to develop criteria, policy and administration for IPM certification and appropriate training for participating PCO’s.

Assessment of Integrated Pest Management Adoption using Massachusetts IPM Guidelines

Survey data from sweet corn, strawberry, apple and potato growers in nine northeastern states were used to assess relative levels of adoption of integrated pest management. Grower adoption of an IPM system was measured by assigning numerical values from the Massachusetts IPM Guidelines to specific management practices completed by growers, then summing the number of practice points. Numerical scores were used to describe IPM adoption as a continuum (Figure 3) with growers classified as low, moderate or high adopters based on their completion of practices (Table 4). Considerable variation among commodities and states was noted.

Factors determining IPM adoption are complex. In this study, state support for IPM education was shown to be correlated with IPM adoption. Available technology and cost of adopting the technology are also important factors. The findings of this study have been submitted to the Journal of Alternative Agriculture for publication.

Table 4. IPM adoption by Northeast growers. Percent of growers scoring in the lower third, middle third and upper third of possible IPM practice points.

Figure 3. IPM adoption by Northeast growers demonstrating a continuum of adoption.

Presentations and Publications

Presentations

IPM in sustainable agriculture. UMass. Amherst. October 14, 1998. 20 students. C.S. Hollingsworth.

Reducing the effects of chemicals on our environment. October 29, 1998. Atlantic Agricultural Science and Technology Workshop. Nova Scotia Agricultural College. Truro, NS, Canada. 30 agricultural professionals 10 students. C.S. Hollingsworth.

Pesticide alternatives and IPM. Hampshire College. Amherst. November 19, 1998. 25 students. C.S. Hollingsworth.

Educating the public about IPM. Graduate IPM Class. UMass. Amherst. December. 1998. 15 students. C.S. Hollingsworth.

Introduction to integrated pest management. Master Gardeners Training. January 28. 1999. Amherst. 40 Master Gardeners. C.S. Hollingsworth.

Introduction to integrated pest management. Entomology 181. UMass Amherst. 27 lectures. January to May 1999. 38 students. C.S. Hollingsworth.

Partners with Nature: an educational program. New England Vegetable and Berry Growers Association. February 6, 1999. Waltham. 60 farmers. C.S. Hollingsworth.

Partners with Nature: the Massachusetts eco-label. Southern Sustainable Agricultural Working Group. February 15, Jeckyl Island, GA. 100 farmers and agricultural professionals. W.M. Coli and C.S. Hollingsworth.

Partners with Nature. Massachusetts Association of Roadside Stands. March 4, 1999. Sturbridge. 30 farmers. C.S. Hollingsworth.

Introduction to integrated pest management. Holyoke Community College. April 21, 1999. 30 students. C.S. Hollingsworth.

IPM certification. UMass Extension Vegetable and Small Fruit Twilight Meeting. Hamilton Orchards. New Salem. July 14, 1999. 15 farmers. 2 extension personnel. C.S. Hollingsworth.

IPM in Massachusetts. Agricultural Development Conference. Mass. Department of Food and Agriculture. Montague. August 25, 1999. 50 agricultural and community development specialists. C.S. Hollingsworth.

Publications

Ferro, D.N., C.S. Hollingsworth, R.V. Hazzard, J.C. Howell, R.L. Wick and A.R. Bonnano.1999. Potato. pp.43-46. In. C.S. Hollingsworth and W.M. Coli (eds). Massachusetts integrated pest management guidelines: commodity specific definitions. Univ. Mass. Ext. Bull. IP-IPMA. 66 pp.

Hazzard, R.V., J.C. Howell, A.R. Bonanno, D.N. Ferro and C.S.Hollingsworth.1999. Sweet corn. pp.59-62. In. C.S. Hollingsworth and W.M. Coli (eds). Massachusetts integrated pest management guidelines: commodity specific definitions. Univ. Mass. Ext. Bull. IP-IPMA. 66 pp.

Hollingsworth, C.S. and W.M. Coli. 1999. Massachusetts integrated pest management guidelines: commodity specific definitions. Univ. Mass. Ext. Bull. IP-IPMA. 66 pp.

Hollingsworth, C.S. and W.M. Coli. IPM adoption in the Northeast: an examination of the IPM continuum. Amer. J. of Alt. Agric. Submitted.

Hollingsworth, C.S. J.C. Howell, R.L. Wick, R.V. Hazzard and A.R. Bonanno.1999. Pumpkin and winter squash. pp.47-50. In. C.S. Hollingsworth and W.M. Coli (eds). Massachusetts integrated pest management guidelines: commodity specific definitions. Univ. Mass. Ext. Bull. IP-IPMA. 66 pp.

Hollingsworth, C.S., L. Massad, J.C. Howell and R.L. Wick.1999. Greenhouse tomato. pp.25-27. In. C.S. Hollingsworth and W.M. Coli (eds). Massachusetts integrated pest management guidelines: commodity specific definitions. Univ. Mass. Ext. Bull. IP-IPMA. 66 pp.

Hollingsworth, C.S., W.M. Coli, R. Prokopy and K. Hauschild. 1998. On-farm IPM education: displays and self-guided tours. Fruit Notes 63(4): 17-19.

Mangan, F., R. Hazzard, J. Howell, R. Wick, R. Bonanno, C. Hollingsworth, A.K. Carter, D. Ferro, A. Miller, R. Bernatzky, and S. Herbert. 1999. Integrated pest management of peppers (Capsicum sp.) in the state of Massachusetts, USA (in Spanish). Proceedings of the InterAmerican Society for Tropical Horticulture. Vol. 41. pp. 1-6.

McDonald, J.E. and C.S. Hollingsworth. 1999. Preventing deer damage. UMass. Ext. Sm. Frt. & Veg. Fact Sheet. VegSF 3-99. (APPENDIX E) with the cooperation of the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife and the Vegetable and Small Fruit Team.

Schloemann, S.G., A.R. Bonanno, D.R. Cooley and C.S. Hollingsworth. 1999. Strawberry. pp.55-58. In. C.S. Hollingsworth and W.M. Coli (eds). Massachusetts integrated pest management guidelines: commodity specific definitions. Univ. Mass. Ext. Bull. IP-IPMA. 66 pp.

Project Participants and Support Staff

Craig Hollingsworth provided leadership for the UMass Extension IPM Education and Certification Project. The following individuals participated in the project:

Apple IPM Education: R. Prokopy, K. Hauschild, W. Coli and J. Mackiewicz (UMass Extension Communications). Survey assistance by Cordell Bagley.

Structural IPM Working Group: B. Alexson, R. Berman, M. Buffone, B. Buono, S. Certa, A. Christensen, D.Duxbury, K. Moran, D. Rivard, R. Suchocki

Assessment of Integrated Pest Management Adoption using Massachusetts IPM Guidelines: W. Coli, R. Szala, R. Hazzard, Sonia Schloemann

IPM Certification Issues: W. Coli

Development and Revision of IPM Guidelines: R. Bonnano, W. Coli, D. Cox, D. Ferro, R. Hazzard, J. Howell R. Propkopy, H. Sandler, S. Schloemann, A. Tuttle, R. Van Driesche, R. Wick, and S. Wright (UMass); J. Boucher (CT Cooperative Extension); L. Massad (Blue Heron Farm); G. Morin, and R. Spitko (New England Fruit Consultants).

Partners with Nature Implementation: S. Black (MDFA) and P. Fischer (FSA) coordinated their respective agency activities; R. LaBlanc and Larry Street (MDFA) promoted PWN, especially in supermarkets; R. Hazzard and S. Schloemann (UMass) assisted in enrollment and verification; R. Rondeau (MDFA) assisted in verification; B. Matthis (FSA) coordinated distribution of educational material to growers; the UMass Extension Vegetable and Small Fruit Integrated Crop and Pest Management Program assisted growers in meeting PWN requirements.

Stakeholder Input: This project participates in the UMass Extension Vegetable and Small Fruit Integrated Crop and Pest Management Program Advisory Council.

Selected IPM Articles:
Education and Certification Report FY 1999
Education and Certification Report FY 2000
Adoption of IPM Systems
Sweet Corn IPM Adoption
IPM in Massachusetts Public Schools
Partners with Nature - History
IPM for Bedding Plants - 1996 Survey
Massachusetts IPM Guidelines
Introduction & Acknowledgements
Apple
Cole Crops
Cranberry
Pepper
Potato
Pumpkin & Squash
Strawberry
Sweetcorn
Field Tomato
Greenhouse Tomato
Highbush Blueberry
Pointsettia
Raspberry
Wine Grape