This article describes the results of three integrated pest management (IPM) surveys of corn, soybean, and small grains farmers in the coastal plains region of Virginia. Farmers identified their weed, disease, insect, and animal pests, and the reasons they use (or do not use) IPM practices for those pests

Herbert, D Ames, Jr

Malone, Sean

Pheasant, Susan

English

Clemson University: TigerPrints

The Journal of Extension Volume 42 Number 4 Article 16 8-1-2004 Determining Adoption of Integrated Pest Management Practices by Grains Farmers in Virginia Sean Malone Virginia Tech Tidewater Agricultural Research and Extension Center, smalone@vt.edu D Ames Herbert Jr Virginia Tech Tidewater Research and Extension Service, herbert@vt.edu Susan Pheasant Pheasat Projects, Inc, pheasant@nwi.net This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 License. Recommended Citation Malone, S., Herbert, D., & Pheasant, S. (2004). Determining Adoption of Integrated Pest Management Practices by Grains Farmers in Virginia. The Journal of Extension, 42(4), Article 16. https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/joe/vol42/iss4/16 This Research in Brief is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences at TigerPrints. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Journal of Extension by an authorized editor of TigerPrints. For more information, please contact kokeefe@clemson.edu. 	 JOEHOME JOURNAL GUIDELINES ABOUT	JOE CONTACT NATIONAL	JOB	BANKCurrent	Issues Back	IssuesAugust	2004	//	Volume	42	//	Number	4	//	Research	in	Brief	//	4RIB6Determining	Adoption	of	Integrated	Pest	Management	Practicesby	Grains	Farmers	in	VirginiaAbstractThis	article	describes	the	results	of	three	integrated	pest	management	(IPM)	surveys	of	corn,soybean,	and	small	grains	farmers	in	the	coastal	plains	region	of	Virginia.	Farmers	identifiedtheir	weed,	disease,	insect,	and	animal	pests,	and	the	reasons	they	use	(or	do	not	use)	IPMpractices	for	those	pests.	IntroductionThere	are	many	constraints	to	integrated	pest	management	(IPM)	adoption	on	the	farm.	Drost,Long,	Wilson,	Miller,	and	Campbell	(1996)	reported	that	time,	information,	and	marketing	wereimportant	considerations	in	whether	farmers	adopt	new	practices.	The	IPM	practices	must	beeconomical.	While	some	IPM	practices	have	become	widely	used,	there	are	other	practices	thatmeet	the	above	criteria	and	never	become	accepted	by	farmers.	The	objective	of	the	researchdiscussed	here	was	to	determine	what	IPM	practices	corn,	soybean,	and	small	grains	farmers	in	thecoastal	plains	region	of	Virginia	are	(or	are	not)	using	and	why	they	are	(or	are	not)	using	them.This	information	could	help	Extension	personnel	determine	what	farmers	need	in	terms	of	IPMprograms	as	well	as	indicate	areas	to	provide	more	education,	service,	or	support.MethodsIn	2002,	three	6-page	surveys	(one	survey	per	crop)	were	developed	to	obtain	farmers'	opinions	oncorn,	soybean,	and	small	grains	IPM	practices.	Survey	questions	were	based	on	personal	interviewswith	four	Virginia	Tech	Extension	Specialists,	10	Virginia	Cooperative	Extension	Agriculture	andNatural	Resources	(ANR)	Agents,	and	three	farmer	focus	groups	(consisting	of	seven	or	eightindividuals	per	group).	The	focus	groups	indicated	important	pest	problems,	what	IPM	practiceswere	needed,	and	which	IPM	practices	were	popular	or	unpopular	with	farmers.	Surveys	werereviewed	by	cooperating	ANR	agents.A	total	of	747	different	addresses	were	provided	by	ANR	agents,	representing	all	known	corn,soybean,	and	small	grains	farmers	in	their	respective	counties.	This	mailing	list	was	sortedalphabetically	and	printed	in	three	columns.	The	randomization	for	the	mailing	of	the	surveys	wasSean	MaloneResearch	AssociateVirginia	Tech	Tidewater	Agricultural	Research	and	Extension	CenterSuffolk,	Virginiasmalone@vt.eduD.	Ames	Herbert,	Jr.Extension	EntomologistVirginia	Tech	Tidewater	Agricultural	Research	and	Extension	CenterSuffolk,	Virginiaherbert@vt.eduSusan	PheasantPresident	and	Principal	ConsultantPheasant	Projects,	Inc.Wenatchee,	WApheasant@nwi.netdone	by	column.	(All	names	in	column	one	received	the	corn	survey,	the	soybean	survey	wasdistributed	to	those	in	column	two,	and	the	small	grains	survey	was	sent	to	those	in	column	three.)This	was	done	so	that	relatives	who	worked	on	the	same	farm	would	most	likely	receive	differentsurveys.Surveys	were	mailed	in	October,	and	a	reminder	postcard	and	replacement	survey	was	mailed	tothose	who	did	not	respond	within	2	to	3	weeks.	Surveys	were	coded	to	keep	track	of	returns."Usable"	surveys	were	ones	completed	and	returned	by	farmers.	"Unusable"	surveys	were	onesreturned	by	retired	farmers,	spouses	of	recently	deceased	farmers,	and	non-farmers.	A	returnedsurvey	where	the	respondent	did	not	follow	directions	was	considered	unusable.In	one	part	of	the	survey,	farmers	were	asked	to	rate	their	feelings	and/or	experiences	with	IPM	ona	Likert-type	scale	of	1-4	(1	=	very	false,	2	=	somewhat	false,	3	=	somewhat	true,	and	4	=	verytrue).	This	rating	system	provided	an	equal	number	of	positive	and	negative	choices,	required	thepotential	respondents	to	characterize	their	own	behavior	to	a	greater	extent	than	simplerresponses	such	as	"true/false"	or	"agree/disagree"	would	entail,	and	made	the	surveys	as	user-friendly	as	possible.Practices	with	mean	ratings	of	1.0-1.9	were	considered	"rarely	used."	Those	with	ratings	of	2.0-2.9were	"sometimes	used,"	and	those	from	3.0-4.0	were	"often	used."	For	example,	a	mean	responseof	3.5	to	the	survey	question,	"I	personally	scout	my	field	for	insect	pests	of	soybean"	fallsbetween	the	"somewhat	true"	and	"very	true"	categories	and	therefore	the	IPM	practice	wasconsidered	to	be	often	used.In	another	part	of	the	survey,	farmers	were	asked	to	indicate	all	weeds,	diseases,	and	insects	thatwere	moderate	or	major	pests	on	their	farm	for	a	specific	commodity.	They	rated	crop	damagecaused	by	vertebrate	animal	pests	on	a	scale	of	1-4	(1	=	no	economic	damage,	2	=	minordamage,	3	=	moderate	damage,	and	4	=	major	damage).	We	used	multiple-choice	questions	todetermine	whether	farmers	had	used	specific	IPM	resources	available	on	Virginia	Tech's	Web	siteand	why	they	were	(or	were	not)	used.Results	and	DiscussionOverall,	we	had	a	49.1%	survey	return	rate,	24.6%	of	which	were	usable.	Unusable	surveys	camemostly	from	individuals	who	no	longer	farmed.	From	the	surveys,	we	described	the	most	importantpests	for	the	three	commodities	(Tables	1	and	2)	and	use	of	IPM	Internet	resources	(Table	3).Likert-type	ratings	of	all	the	individual	IPM	practices	were	too	numerous	to	include	here,	so	weprovided	highlights	from	the	"often	used"	and	"rarely	used"	categories.Table	1.Major	Crop	Pests	in	the	Coastal	Plains	Region	of	VirginiaWeeds Diseases InsectsSpecies %1 Species % Species %CornMorningglory 70 Smut 32 European	corn	borer 46Pigweed 65 Gray	leaf	spot 28 White	grub 37Italian	ryegrass 49	 	Seedcorn	maggot 33Johnsongrass 49	 	Cutworm 33Lambsquarters 49	 	Wireworm 32Honeyvine	milkweed 49	 	Armyworm 30SoybeanMorningglory 84 Purple	seed	stain 22 Corn	earworm 80Lambsquarters 63 Phytophthora 13 Soybean	looper 42Pigweed 55	 	Spider	mite 33	 	 	 	Armyworm 31	 	 	 	Thrips 27Small	grains	(wheat,	barley,	oats,	rye)Italian	ryegrass75Powdery	mildew81Cereal	leaf	beetle79Wild	garlic67Barley	yellow	dwarf48Aphid68Chickweed54Septoria40Armyworm24Henbit44Head	scab37 	 	Vetch43Leaf	rust30 	 	Cornflower30 	 	 	 	Johnsongrass30 	 	 	 	1	Percentage	of	farmer	surveys	indicating	the	species	as	a	moderate	or	major	pest	ontheir	farm.	Table	2.Crop	Damage	Caused	by	Vertebrate	Animal	PestsAnimal	pest n1 Meanrating2CornDeer50 2.5Crows46 2.3Geese46 1.8SoybeanDeer56 2.8Groundhogs 57 3.1Small	grainsDeer52 2.5Geese49 2.2Swans41 1.51	Number	of	responses	for	each	questionnaire	item.2	Mean	of	all	responses	for	each	questionnaire	item,	using	a	1-4	scale	where1	=	no	economic	damage	and	4	=	major	damage.	Table	3.Use	of	IPM	Internet	Resources	by	FarmersIPM	resource n1 Usage(%)2CornVirginia	weed	identification	guide	Web	site	(http://www.ppws.vt.edu/weedindex.htm)53 13.2Virginia	Insect	Control	Expert	for	Corn	(VICE	Corn)Web	site(http://www.isis.vt.edu/~pbhogar/vicecorn.html)53 1.9SoybeanVirginia	weed	identification	guide	Web	site(http://www.ppws.vt.edu/weedindex.htm)59 15.3Corn	earworm	advisory58 55.2Corn	earworm	threshold	calculator	Web	site(http://www.ipm.vt.edu/cew/)64 4.7Small	grainsVirginia	weed	identification	guide	Web	site(http://www.ppws.vt.edu/weedindex.htm)59 8.51	Number	of	responses	for	each	questionnaire	item.2	Percentage	of	respondents	indicating	use	of	the	IPM	Internet	resource.Farmers	often	used	the	following	IPM	practices	in	all	three	commodities	(unless	indicatedotherwise):Scouting	for	weeds	and	insects.Using	scouting	to	determine	whether	herbicide	applications	are	needed.Basing	herbicide	selection	on	weed	scouting.Use	of	scouting	to	manage	weeds	and	diseases	in	future	crop	rotationsRotation	of	herbicide	modes	of	action	between	crops.Use	of	reduced-till	or	no-till	practices.Selection	of	disease-resistant	corn	and	small	grains	varieties.Use	of	rapid	canopy	closure	to	control	weeds	in	soybean.Having	agricultural	suppliers	or	chemical	dealers	scout	for	diseases	and	insects	in	smallgrains.Use	of	thresholds	for	corn	earworm	in	soybean	and	cereal	leaf	beetles	and	aphids	in	smallgrains.Farmers	rarely	used	the	following	IPM	practices	in	all	three	commodities	(unless	indicatedotherwise):Having	independent	crop	consultants	scout	for	weeds,	diseases,	and	insects.Use	of	cultivation	to	control	weeds.Making	maps	of	weed	hotspots	in	a	field.Having	ANR	Agents	scout	for	weeds,	diseases,	and	insects	in	corn	and	soybean.Use	of	bait	stations	and	baited	wire	traps	to	monitor	soil	insect	pests	in	corn.Convincing	farmers	to	adopt	IPM	programs	is	usually	a	slow	process,	but	farmers	understand	thatIPM	is	necessary.	When	corn,	soybean,	and	small	grains	farmers	were	asked	about	their	feelings	onthe	statement	"IPM	is	important,"	the	average	response	on	the	1-4	Likert-type	scale	was	3.5,falling	halfway	between	"somewhat	true"	and	"very	true."	Programs	that	are	financially	sound,offer	incentives	for	their	use,	and	fit	with	current	farming	practices	have	the	best	chance	of	beingadopted	(Herbert,	1995).Farmers	have	limited	time	available	to	personally	scout	their	fields,	and	it	may	not	be	economicallyfeasible	to	hire	an	independent	crop	consultant.	Agricultural	suppliers	and	chemical	dealers	oftenscout	without	charge	and	outnumber	ANR	Agents	(more	people	can	scout	more	land).	Surveysshowed	that	agricultural	suppliers	and/or	chemical	dealers	scouted	fields	more	than	ANR	Agents	orindependent	crop	consultants.The	surveys	provided	the	following	farmer	insights	into	why	IPM	practices	are	(or	are	not)	popular:The	Virginia	Tech	Web	site	offers	pest	identification	guides,	expert	crop	managementsystems,	suggestions	for	managing	pests,	and	pest	advisories.	Use	of	these	resources	was15.3%	or	less,	with	the	exception	of	the	corn	earworm	advisory,	which	had	55.2%	usage.These	IPM	resources	are	infrequently	used	due	to	lack	of	awareness	and	limited	computer	orInternet	access.	Pocket-sized	references	(pest	identification	and	management	guidesappropriate	for	the	region)	could	be	of	value,	especially	for	limited-resource	farmers.	The	cornearworm	advisory	had	higher	percent	usage	than	other	Internet	resources	because	it	is	alsoavailable	through	local	media.	While	farmers	considered	developing	satellite	and/orunmanned	aircraft	scouting	technologies	"somewhat	important,"	low	computer	usagesuggests	that	it	may	be	difficult	to	get	them	to	use	more	complicated	technologies.Farmers	have	confidence	in	their	pest	identification	skills,	but	mentioned	a	need	for	morescouting	education.	A	workshop	on	farmer	constraints	to	IPM	adoption	indicated	the	need	forbetter-educated	scouts	(Sorensen,	1993).	For	example,	farmers	ranked	the	soybean	looper	asthe	second	most	important	insect	pest	of	soybean	(Table	1),	while	an	Extension	Specialiststated	that	it	is	rarely	a	problem	in	Virginia.	Green	cloverworms	are	often	misidentified	assoybean	loopers.	Because	a	green	cloverworm	eats	only	about	half	as	much	as	a	soybeanlooper,	a	plant	can	tolerate	more	green	cloverworms	than	soybean	loopers.	Properidentification	of	these	pests	could	prevent	unnecessary	pesticide	usage.Farmers	are	generally	aware	that	pest	thresholds	are	available,	especially	for	their	mostimportant	species	such	as	corn	earworm	in	soybean	and	cereal	leaf	beetles	and	aphids	insmall	grains.	However,	thresholds	for	single	weed	species	and	species	complexes	do	notexist,	causing	each	farmer	to	develop	his/her	own	weed	tolerance	level.	Focus	group	farmersmentioned	a	need	for	IPM	practices	for	vertebrate	pests;	surveys	indicated	that	deer	andgroundhog	damage	approached	moderate	levels	(Table	2).Few	corn	farmers	scout	and	monitor	soil	insect	pests	because	they	are	difficult	to	observe	andrequire	special	traps,	therefore	demanding	more	of	the	farmers'	time	and	money.	Althoughfarmers	did	not	feel	that	the	techniques	were	too	complicated,	they	were	provided	with	asimpler	alternative--digging	and	counting	them	before	planting--but	this	too	was	rarely	done.Farmers	know	that	crop	rotation	helps	to	avoid	problems	of	diseases,	weeds,	and	insects;maximizes	land	usage	and	profits;	and	affects	nutrient	management	practices.	They	rarelycultivate	for	weed	control	because	of	the	benefits	of	reduced-till	or	no-till	practices(reductions	in	erosion,	increased	soil	quality,	and	compliance	with	conservation	and	nutrientmanagement	requirements).Farmers	realize	the	importance	of	herbicide	rotation	and	resistance	monitoring.	A	farmerfocus	group	indicated	that	those	who	planted	glyphosate-resistant	soybean	were	stillconcerned	about	and	scouted	for	weeds,	even	though	they	typically	had	few	weed	problems.Farmers	indicated	little	concern	about	corn	diseases	or	about	nematodes	and	diseases	insoybean.	They	may	feel	that	these	are	held	in	check	by	use	of	resistant	varieties	and	croprotation.	Nematode	assays	were	rarely	performed	in	soybean	fields.	Surveys	indicated	thatfarmers	did	not	know	how	to	collect	samples	and	were	not	confident	in	their	ability	toassociate	nematodes	with	disease.	Laboratory	processing	time	for	samples	and	cost	did	notseem	to	be	a	deterrent.ConclusionsSurveys	indicated	that	corn,	soybean,	and	small	grains	farmers	understand	the	importance	ofusing	IPM	practices.	Scouting	and	use	of	thresholds	were	two	of	the	most	often	used	IPM	practices.Extension	should	continuously	help	farmers	learn	about	IPM	and	provide	IPM	refresher	courses.Computer	training	may	help	farmers	become	better	scouts	and	keep	them	aware	of	current	IPMpractices;	however,	posting	IPM	information	on	the	Internet	does	not	guarantee	that	it	will	bediscovered,	so	providing	hard	copies	of	information	is	also	recommended.	Lack	of	familiarity,	time,and	resources	were	recurring	reasons	for	non-use	of	IPM	practices;	therefore,	researchers	andExtension	personnel	should	develop	and	emphasize	IPM	programs	that	are	economical	and	easy	touse.AcknowledgmentsRandy	Shank	and	Marc	Aveni,	with	the	Virginia	Department	of	Conservation	and	Recreation,assisted	with	all	aspects	of	this	project.	Participating	Virginia	Cooperative	Extension	ANR	agents,Extension	specialists,	and	farmers	are	thanked	for	their	assistance.	This	project	was	funded	in	partby	the	Virginia	Coastal	Program	at	the	Department	of	Environmental	Quality,	grant	numberNA17OZ1142	of	the	National	Oceanic	and	Atmospheric	Administration.ReferencesDrost,	D.,	Long,	G.,	Wilson,	D.,	Miller,	B.,	&	Campbell,	W.	(1996).	Barriers	to	adopting	sustainableagricultural	practices.	Journal	of	Extension	[On-line],	34	(6).	Available	at:http://www.joe.org/joe/1996december/a1.htmlHerbert,	D.A.,	Jr.	(1995).	Integrated	pest	management	systems:	back	to	basics	to	overcomeadoption	obstacles.	Journal	of	Agricultural	Entomology,	12:	203-210.Sorensen,	A.	(1993).	Regional	producer	workshops:	Constraints	to	the	adoption	of	integrated	pestmanagement.	Office	of	Pesticide	Programs,	U.S.	EPA,	51	pp.Copyright	©	by	Extension	Journal,	Inc.	ISSN	1077-5315.	Articles	appearing	in	the	Journal	become	the	property	of	theJournal.	 Single	 copies	 of	 articles	may	 be	 reproduced	 in	 electronic	 or	 print	 form	 for	 use	 in	 educational	 or	 trainingactivities.	Inclusion	of	articles	in	other	publications,	electronic	sources,	or	systematic	large-scale	distribution	may	bedone	only	with	prior	electronic	or	written	permission	of	the	Journal	Editorial	Office,	joe-ed@joe.org.If	you	have	difficulties	viewing	or	printing	this	page,	please	contact	JOE	Technical	Support©	Copyright	by	Extension	Journal,	Inc.	ISSN	1077-5315.	Copyright	Policy

Determining Adoption of Integrated Pest Management Practices by Grains Farmers in Virginia

https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4854&context=joe

Determining Adoption of Integrated Pest Management Practices by Grains Farmers in Virginia

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Clemson University: TigerPrints