Biointensive Integrated Pest Management (IPM) ~ PDF...//Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page...

ATTRA is a project of the National Center for Appropriate Technology

BIOINTENSIVE

INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT(IPM)

ATTRA is the national sustainable agriculture information center funded by the USDA’s Rural Business--Cooperative Service.

By Rex Dufour

NCAT Agriculture Specialist

July 2001

FUNDAMENTALS OF SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE

Contents“Conventional” and “Biointensive” IPM ......................................................................................................... 2Why Move to Biointensive IPM? ....................................................................................................................... 4Components of Biointensive IPM ...................................................................................................................... 5 How to Get Started ......................................................................................................................................... 5 The Pest Manager/Ecosystem Manager ..................................................................................................... 5 Proactive Strategies (Cultural Controls) ...................................................................................................... 6 Biological Controls ........................................................................................................................................ 11 Mechanical and Physical Controls ............................................................................................................. 12 Pest Identification ......................................................................................................................................... 12 Monitoring ..................................................................................................................................................... 13 Economic Injury & Action Levels ............................................................................................................... 14Special Considerations ...................................................................................................................................... 14 Cosmetic Damage and Aesthetics .............................................................................................................. 14 Record-keeping ............................................................................................................................................. 14 Chemical Controls ........................................................................................................................................ 14Integrated Weed Management Systems ......................................................................................................... 17Current Status of IPM ....................................................................................................................................... 19 Crops with Developed IPM Programs ...................................................................................................... 19 Government Policy ....................................................................................................................................... 19The Future of IPM .............................................................................................................................................. 20 Food Quality Protection Act ........................................................................................................................ 20 New Options ................................................................................................................................................. 20 More Weed IPM ............................................................................................................................................ 20On-farm Resources ............................................................................................................................................ 21IPM On-line ........................................................................................................................................................ 21IPM Certification and Marketing .................................................................................................................... 21Summary ............................................................................................................................................................. 22References ........................................................................................................................................................... 23Appendices: A: IPM Planning Considerations ................................................................................................................ 25 B: Microbial Pesticides ................................................................................................................................ 27 C: Microbial Pesticide Manufacturers and Suppliers ............................................................................. 34 D: Conservation Security Act 2000 ............................................................................................................ 37 E: Pest Management Practices in Major Crops ........................................................................................ 38 F: IPM Information Resources ................................................................................................................... 39

Abstract: This publication provides the rationale for biointensive IntegratedPest Management (IPM), outlines the concepts and tools of biointensive IPM,and suggests steps and provides informational resources for implementing IPM.It is targeted to individuals interested in agriculture at all levels.

//Biointensive Integrated Pest Management

Pest management is an ecological matter. Thesize of a pest population and the damage itinflicts is, to a great extent, a reflection of thedesign and management of a particular agricul-tural ecosystem.

We humans compete with other organisms forfood and fiber from our crops. We wish tosecure a maximum amount of the food re-source from a given area with minimum inputof resources and energy. However, if theagricultural system design and/or manage-ment is faulty—making it easy for pests todevelop and expand their populations or,conversely, making it difficult for predatorsand parasites of pests to exist—then we will beexpending unnecessary resources for pestmanagement. Therefore, the first step in sus-tainable and effective pest management islooking at the design of the agricultural ecosys-tem and considering what ecological conceptscan be applied to the design and managementof the system to better manage pests and theirparasites and predators.

The design and management of our agricul-tural systems need re-examining. We’ve cometo accept routine use of biological poisons inour food systems as normal. But routine use ofsynthetic chemicals represents significantenergy inputs into the agricultural system, andcarries both obvious and hidden costs to thefarmer and society. Attempting to implementan ecology-based discipline like IPM in largemonocultures, which substitute chemicalinputs for ecological design, can be an exercisein futility and inefficiency.

IPM, as it was originally conceived, proposedto manage pests though an understanding oftheir interactions with other organisms and theenvironment. Most of the 77 definitions forIPM listed in The Database of IPM Resources(DIR) website, <http://www.ipmnet.org/DIR/>, despite some differences in emphasis,agree with this idea and have the followingelements in common:

� A conception of a managed resource, suchas a cropping system on a farm, as acomponent of a functioning ecosystem.Actions are taken to restore and enhancenatural balances in the system, not toeliminate species. Regular monitoringmakes it possible to evaluate the popula-tions of pest and beneficial organisms. Theproducer can then take steps to enhancenatural controls (or at least avoid or limitthe disruption of natural controls) of thetarget pest(s).

� An understanding that the presence of apest does not necessarily constitute aproblem. Before a potentially disruptivecontrol method is employed, appropriatedecision-making criteria are used to deter-mine whether or not pest managementactions are needed.

� A consideration of all possible pest manage-ment options before action is taken.

� A philosophy that IPM strategies integratea combination of all suitable techniques inas compatible a manner as possible; it isimportant that one technique not conflictwith another (1).

However, IPM has strayed from its ecologicalroots. Critics of what might be termed “con-ventional” IPM note that it has been imple-mented as Integrated Pesticide Management(or even Improved Pesticide Marketing) withan emphasis on using pesticides as a tool offirst resort. What has been missing from thisapproach, which is essentially reactive, is anunderstanding of the ecological basis of pestinfestations (see first bullet above). Alsomissing from the conventional approach areguidelines for ecology-based manipulations of thefarm agroecosystem that address the questions:

� Why is the pest there?� How did it arrive?� Why doesn’t the parasite/predator

complex control the pest?

○ ○ ○ ○ ○“Conventional” and “Biointensive” IPM


Ab

ov

eg

rou

nd

Be

ne

fic

ial

Ha

bit

at

& H

ea

lth

y S

oil

Cro

p G

en

eti

c D

ive

rsit

y

& C

ult

iva

rs A

pp

rop

ria

te

to E

co

sys

tem

& P

es

t

Pre

ss

ure

s

Sa

nit

ati

on

, P

lan

tin

g D

ate

s,

& C

rop

Ro

tati

on

Mo

nit

ori

ng

& I

D o

f P

es

tsM

on

ito

rin

g &

ID

of

Pe

sts

& B

en

efi

cia

ls

Me

ch

an

ica

l &

Ph

ys

ica

l C

on

rols

Ch

em

ica

l C

on

tro

ls

Ap

pli

ed

Bio

log

ica

ls

reactive

pro

active

Bio

inte

ns

ive

IP

MC

on

ve

nti

on

al

IPM


Biointensive IPM incorporates ecological andeconomic factors into agricultural system designand decision making, and addresses publicconcerns about environmental quality and foodsafety. The benefits of implementingbiointensive IPM can include reduced chemicalinput costs, reduced on-farm and off-farmenvironmental impacts, and more effectiveand sustainable pest management. Anecology-based IPM has the potential ofdecreasing inputs of fuel, machinery, andsynthetic chemicals—all of which are energyintensive and increasingly costly in terms offinancial and environmental impact. Suchreductions will benefit the grower and society.

Over-reliance on the use of synthetic pesticidesin crop protection programs around the worldhas resulted in disturbances to the environ-ment, pest resurgence, pest resistance to pesti-cides, and lethal and sub-lethal effects on non-target organisms, including humans (3). Theseside effects have raised public concern aboutthe routine use and safety of pesticides. At thesame time, population increases are placingever-greater demands upon the “ecologicalservices”—that is, provision of clean air, waterand wildlife habitat—of a landscape

○ ○ ○ ○ ○

dominated by farms. Although some pendinglegislation has recognized the costs to farmersof providing these ecological services (seeAppendix D), it’s clear that farmers andranchers will be required to manage their landwith greater attention to direct and indirect off-farm impacts of various farming practices onwater, soil, and wildlife resources. With thislikely future in mind, reducing dependence onchemical pesticides in favor of ecosystemmanipulations is a good strategy for farmers.

Consumers Union, a group that has carriedout research and advocacy on variouspesticide problems for many years, definesbiointensive IPM as the highest level of IPM:

Why Move to Biointensive IPM?

“a systems approach to pest managementbased on an understanding of pest ecology.It begins with steps to accurately diagnosethe nature and source of pest problems,and then relies on a range of preventivetactics and biological controls to keep pestpopulations within acceptable limits.Reduced-risk pesticides are used if othertactics have not been adequately effective,as a last resort, and with care to minimizerisks.” (2)

This “biointensive” approach sounds remark-ably like the original concept of IPM. Such a“systems” approach makes sense both intu-itively and in practice.

The primary goal of biointensive IPM is toprovide guidelines and options for the effectivemanagement of pests and beneficial organismsin an ecological context. The flexibility andenvironmental compatibility of a biointensiveIPM strategy make it useful in all types ofcropping systems.

Even conventional IPM strategies help toprevent pest problems from developing, andreduce or eliminate the use of chemicals inmanaging problems that do arise. Results of 18economic evaluations of conventional IPM oncotton showed a decrease in production costsof 7 percent and an average decrease in pesti-cide use of 15 percent (4). Biointensive IPMwould likely decrease chemical use and costseven further.

Prior to the mid-1970s, lygus bugs wereconsidered to be the key pest in Californiacotton. Yet in large-scale studies on insec-ticidal control of lygus bugs, yields in un-treated plots were not significantly differ-ent from those on treated plots. This wasbecause the insecticides often induced out-breaks of secondary lepidopterous larvae(i.e., cabbage looper, beet armyworm, andbollworm) and mite pests which caused ad-ditional damage as well as pest resurgenceof the lygus bug itself. These results, froman economic point of view, seem paradoxi-cal, as the lygus bug treatments were costly,yet the treated plots consistently had loweryields (i.e., it cost farmers money to losemoney). This paradox was first pointed outby R. van den Bosch, V. Stern, and L. A.Falcon, who forced a reevaluation of theeconomic basis of Lygus control in Califor-nia cotton (5).


○ ○ ○ ○ ○Components of Biointensive IPM

An important difference between conventionaland biointensive IPM is that the emphasis ofthe latter is on proactive measures to redesignthe agricultural ecosystem to the disadvantageof a pest and to the advantage of its parasiteand predator complex. At the same time,biointensive IPM shares many of the samecomponents as conventional IPM, includingmonitoring, use of economic thresholds, recordkeeping, and planning.

How To Get Started With IPM— PLANNING, PLANNING, PLANNING

Good planning must precede implementationof any IPM program, but is particularly impor-tant in a biointensive program. Planningshould be done before planting because manypest strategies require steps or inputs, such asbeneficial organism habitat management, thatmust be considered well in advance. Attempt-ing to jump-start an IPM program in the begin-ning or middle of a cropping season generallydoes not work.

When planning a biointensive IPM program,some considerations include:� Options for design changes in the agricul-

tural system (beneficial organism habitat,crop rotations)

� Choice of pest-resistant cultivars� Technical information needs� Monitoring options, record keeping, equip-

ment, etc.

The table in Appendix A provides more detailsabout these and other ideas that should beconsidered when implementing a biointensiveIPM program.

The Pest Manager / Ecosystem Manager

The pest manager is the most important link ina successful IPM program. The manager mustknow the biology of the pest and the beneficialorganisms associated with the pest, and under-stand their interactions within the farm envi-ronment. As a detailed knowledge of the pestis developed, weak links in its life cycle

Blocks on the Pesticide Treadmill

Resistance: Pesticide use exerts a powerful selection pressure for changing the genetic make-up ofa pest population. Naturally resistant individuals in a pest population are able to survive pesti-cide treatments. The survivors pass on the resistance trait to their offspring. The result is a muchhigher percentage of the pest population resistant to a pesticide. In the last decade, the number ofweed species known to be resistant to herbicides rose from 48 to 270, and the number of plantpathogens resistant to fungicides grew from 100 to 150. Resistance to insecticides is so common —more than 500 species — that nobody is really keeping score (2).

Resurgence: Pesticides often kill off natural enemies along with the pest. With their natural en-emies eliminated, there is little to prevent recovered pest populations from exploding to higher,more damaging numbers than existed before pesticides were applied. Additional chemical pesti-cide treatments only repeat this cycle.

Secondary Pests: Some potential pests that are normally kept under good control by natural en-emies become actual pests after their natural enemies are destroyed by pesticides. Mite outbreaksafter pesticide applications are a classic example.

Residues: Only a minute portion of any pesticide application contacts the target organism. Theremainder may degrade harmlessly, but too often water, wind, and soil will carries pesticides tonon-target areas and organisms, affecting the health of human and wildlife populations. Publicconcerns over residues are deepened by the lack of research and knowledge about possible syner-gistic interactions between pesticide residues and the hundreds of other synthetic chemical resi-dues now found in the environment.


become apparent. These weak links are phasesof the life cycle when the pest is most suscep-tible to control measures. The manager mustintegrate this knowledge with tools and tech-niques of biointensive IPM to manage not one,but several pests. A more accurate title for thepest manager is “ecosystem doctor,” for he orshe must pay close attention to the pulse of themanaged ecosystem and stay abreast of devel-opments in IPM and crop/pest biology andecology. In this way, the ecosystem managercan take a proactive approach to managingpests, developing ideas about system manipu-lations, testing them, and observing the results.

IPM options may be considered proactive orreactive. Proactive options, such as croprotations and creation of habitat for beneficialorganisms, permanently lower the carryingcapacity of the farm for the pest. The carryingcapacity is determined by factors like food,shelter, natural enemies complex, and weather,which affect the reproduction and survival of aspecies. Cultural controls are generally consid-ered to be proactive strategies.

The second set of options is more reactive.This simply means that the grower responds toa situation, such as an economically damagingpopulation of pests, with some type of short-term suppressive action. Reactive methodsgenerally include inundative releases of bio-logical controls, mechanical and physicalcontrols, and chemical controls.

Proactive Strategies (Cultural Control)

• Healthy, biologically active soils (increasingbelowground diversity)

• Habitat for beneficial organisms (increasingaboveground diversity)

• Appropriate plant cultivars

Cultural controls are manipulations of theagroecosystem that make the cropping systemless friendly to the establishment and prolifera-tion of pest populations. Although they aredesigned to have positive effects on farmecology and pest management, negative im-pacts may also result, due to variations inweather or changes in crop management.

In a non-farmscaped system, where pests have fewer natural controls and thus reach higher averagepopulations, they are more likely to approach or exceed the economic threshold level for the crop, makingpesticide treatments likely. In a farmscaped system, greater and more consistent populations of beneficialorganisms put more ecological pressure on the pests, with the result that pest populations are less likely toapproach the economic threshold. In other words, the ecological carrying capacity for a pest will probably be lower ina farmscaped system. For more on farmscaping, see p. 11.

Carrying Capacity of Farm Systems for Pest Populations:


Maintaining and increasing biological diversityof the farm system is a primary strategy ofcultural control. Decreased biodiversity tendsto result in agroecosystems that are unstableand prone to recurrent pest outbreaks andmany other problems (5). Systems high inbiodiversity tend to be more “dynamicallystable”—that is, the variety of organismsprovide more checks and balances on eachother, which helps prevent one species (i.e.,pest species) from overwhelming the system.

There are many ways to manage and increasebiodiversity on a farm, both above ground andin the soil. In fact,diversity aboveground influencesdiversity belowground. Research hasshown that up to halfof a plant’s photosynthetic production (carbo-hydrates) is sent to the roots, and half of that(along with various amino acids and otherplant products) leaks out the roots into thesurrounding soil, providing a food source formicroorganisms. These root exudates varyfrom plant species to plant species and thisvariation influences the type of organismsassociated with the root exudates (6).

Factors influencing the health and biodiversityof soils include the amount of soil organicmatter; soil pH; nutrient balance; moisture; andparent material of the soil. Healthy soils with adiverse community of organisms support planthealth and nutrition better than soils deficientin organic matter and low in species diversity.Research has shown that excess nutrients (e.g.,too much nitrogen) as well as relative nutrientbalance (i.e., ratios of nutrients for example,twice as much calcium as magnesium, com-pared to equal amounts of both) in soils affectinsect pest response to plants (7, 8). Imbalancesin the soil can make a plant more attractive toinsect pests (7, 8), less able to recover from pestdamage, or more susceptible to secondaryinfections by plant pathogens (8). Soils rich inorganic matter tend to suppress plant patho-gens (9). In addition, it is estimated that 75% ofall insect pests spend part of their life cycle inthe soil, and many of their natural enemies

occur there as well. For example, larvae of onespecies of blister beetle consume about 43grasshopper eggs before maturing (10). Bothare found in the soil. (Unfortunately, althoughblister beetle larvae can help reduce grasshop-per populations, the adult beetles can be aserious pest for many vegetable growers.)Overall, a healthy soil with a diversity ofbeneficial organisms and high organic mattercontent helps maintain pest populations belowtheir economic thresholds.

Genetic diversity of a particular crop may beincreased by planting more than one cultivar.

For example, arecent experimentin China (11)demonstrated thatdisease-susceptiblerice varieties

planted in mixtures with resistant varieties had89% greater yield and a 94% lower incidence ofrice blast (a fungus) compared to when theywere grown in monoculture. The experiment,which involved five townships in 1998 and tentownships in 1999, was so successful thatfungicidal sprays were no longer applied bythe end of the two-year program.

Species diversity of the associated plant andanimal community can be increased by allow-ing trees and other native plants to grow infence rows or along water ways, and by inte-grating livestock into the farm system. Use ofthe following cropping schemes are additionalways to increase species diversity. (SeeATTRA’s Farmscaping to Enhance BiologicalControl for more information on this topic.)

Crop rotations radically alter the environmentboth above and below ground, usually to thedisadvantage of pests of the previous crop.The same crop grown year after year on thesame field will inevitably build up populationsof organisms that feed on that plant, or, in thecase of weeds, have a life cycle similar to thatof the crop. Add to this the disruptive effect ofpesticides on species diversity, both above andbelow ground, and the result is an unstablesystem in which slight stresses (e.g., new pestvariety or drought) can devastate the crop.

“When we kill off the natural

enemies of a pest we inherit

their work” Carl Huffaker


When making a decision about crop rotation,consider the following questions: Is there aneconomically sustainable crop that can berotated into the cropping system? Is it compat-ible? Important considerations when develop-ing a crop rotation are:

• What two (or three or several) crops canprovide an economic return when consideredtogether as a biological and economic systemthat includes considerations of sustainable soilmanagement?

• What are the impacts of this season’s crop-ping practices on subsequent crops?

• What specialized equipment is necessary forthe crops?

• What markets are available for the rotationcrops?

A corn/soybean rotation is one example ofrotating compatible economic crops. Corn is agrass; soybean is a leguminous broadleaf. Thepest complex of each, including soil organisms,is quite different. Corn rootworm, one of themajor pests of corn, is virtually eliminated byusing this rotation. Both crops generallyprovide a reasonable return. Even rotations,however, create selection pressures that willultimately alter pest genetics. A good exampleis again the corn rootworm: the corn/beanrotation has apparently selected for a smallpopulation that can survive a year of non-corn(i.e., soybean) cropping (12).

Management factors should also be considered.For example, one crop may provide a lower

Other Cropping Structure Options

Multiple cropping is the sequential productionof more than one crop on the same land in oneyear. Depending on the type of croppingsequence used, multiple cropping can be usefulas a weed control measure, particularly whenthe second crop is interplanted into the first.

Interplanting is seeding or planting a crop into agrowing stand, for example overseeding acover crop into a grain stand. There may bemicroclimate advantages (e.g., timing, windprotection, and less radical temperature andhumidity changes) as well as disadvantages(competition for light, water, nutrients) to thisstrategy. By keeping the soil covered, inter-planting may also help protect soil againsterosion from wind and rain.

Intercropping is the practice of growing two ormore crops in the same, alternate, or pairedrows in the same area. This technique isparticularly appropriate in vegetable produc-tion. The advantage of intercropping is that

direct return per acre than the alternate crop,but may also lower management costs for thealternate crop (by reducing weed pressure, forexample, and thus avoiding one tillage orherbicide application), with a net increase inprofit.

Intercropping French beans with cilantro—a potential control for symphylans.

An enforced rotation program in the Imperial Val-ley of California has effectively controlled thesugar beet cyst nematode. Under this program,sugar beets may not be grown more than twoyears in a row or more than four years out of tenin clean fields (i.e., non-infested fields). In infestedfields, every year of a sugar beet crop must befollowed by three years of a non-host crop. Othernematode pests commonly controlled with croprotation methods include the golden nematodeof potato, many root-knot nematodes, and thesoybean cyst nematode.


the increased diversity helps “disguise” cropsfrom insect pests, and if done well, may allowfor more efficient utilization of limited soil andwater resources. Disadvantages may relate toease of managing two different crop specieswith potentially different nutrient, water, andlight needs, and differences in harvesting timeand method in close proximity to each other.For a detailed discussion, request the ATTRApublication, Intercropping: Principles and Produc-tion Practices.

Strip cropping is the practice of growing two ormore crops in different strips across a fieldwide enough for independent cultivation (e.g.,alternating six-row blocks of soybeans and cornor alternating strips of alfalfa and cotton oralfalfa and corn). It is commonly practiced tohelp reduce soil erosion in hilly areas. Likeintercropping, strip cropping increases thediversity of a cropping area, which in turn mayhelp “disguise” the crops from pests. Anotheradvantage to this system is that one of the cropsmay act as a reservoir and/or food source forbeneficial organisms. However, much moreresearch is needed on the complex interactionsbetween various paired crops and their pest/predator complexes.

The options described above can be integratedwith no-till cultivation schemes and all itsvariations (strip till, ridge till, etc.) as well aswith hedgerows and intercrops designed forbeneficial organism habitat. With all thecropping and tillage options available, it ispossible, with creative and informed manage-ment, to evolve a biologically diverse, pest-suppressive farming system appropriate to theunique environment of each farm.

Other Cultural Management Options

Disease-free seed and plants are available frommost commercial sources, and are certified assuch. Use of disease-free seed and nurserystock is important in preventing the introduc-tion of disease.

Resistant varieties are continually being bred byresearchers. Growers can also do their ownplant breeding simply by collecting non-hybridseed from healthy plants in the field. The

plants from these seeds will have a goodchance of being better suited to the local envi-ronment and of being more resistant to insectsand diseases. Since natural systems are dy-namic rather than static, breeding for resistancemust be an ongoing process, especially in thecase of plant disease, as the pathogens them-selves continue to evolve and become resistantto control measures (13).

Sanitation involves removing and destroyingthe overwintering or breeding sites of the pestas well as preventing a new pest from establish-ing on the farm (e.g., not allowing off-farm soilfrom farm equipment to spread nematodes orplant pathogens to your land). This strategyhas been particularly useful in horticultural andtree-fruit crop situations involving twig andbranch pests. If, however, sanitation involvesremoval of crop residues from the soil surface,the soil is left exposed to erosion by wind andwater. As with so many decisions in farming,both the short- and long-term benefits of eachaction should be considered when tradeoffs likethis are involved.

Spacing of plants heavily influences the devel-opment of plant diseases and weed problems.The distance between plants and rows, theshape of beds, and the height of plants influ-ence air flow across the crop, which in turndetermines how long the leaves remain dampfrom rain and morning dew. Generally speak-ing, better air flow will decrease the incidenceof plant disease. However, increased air flowthrough wider spacing will also allow moresunlight to the ground, which may increaseweed problems. This is another instance inwhich detailed knowledge of the crop ecologyis necessary to determine the best pest manage-ment strategies. How will the crop react toincreased spacing between rows and betweenplants? Will yields drop because of reducedcrop density? Can this be offset by reducedpest management costs or fewer losses fromdisease?

Altered planting dates can at times be used toavoid specific insects, weeds, or diseases. Forexample, squash bug infestations on cucurbitscan be decreased by the delayed plantingstrategy, i.e., waiting to establish the cucurbit


crop until overwintering adult squash bugshave died. To assist with disease managementdecisions, the Cooperative Extension Service(CES) will often issue warnings of “infectionperiods” for certain diseases, based upon theweather.

In some cases, the CES also keeps track of“degree days” needed for certain importantinsect pests to develop. Insects, being cold-blooded, will not develop below or abovecertain threshold temperatures. Calculatingaccumulated degree days, that is, the numberof days above the threshold developmenttemperature for an insect pest, makes theprediction of certain events, such as egg hatch,possible. University of California has an excel-lent website that uses weather station data fromaround the state to help California growerspredict pest emergence: <http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/WEATHER/ddretrieve.html>.

Some growers gauge the emergence of insectpests by the flowering of certain non-crop plantspecies native to the farm. This method usesthe “natural degree days” accumulated byplants. For example, a grower might timecabbage planting for three weeks after theAmelanchier species (also known as saskatoon,shadbush, or serviceberry) on their farm are inbloom. This will enable the grower to avoidpeak egg-laying time of the cabbage maggot fly,as the egg hatch occurs about the timeAmelanchier species are flowering (14). Usingthis information, cabbage maggot managementefforts could be concentrated during a knowntime frame when the early instars (the mosteasily managed stage) are active.

Optimum growing conditions are always impor-tant. Plants that grow quickly and are healthycan compete with and resist pests better thanslow-growing, weak plants. Too often, plantsgrown outside their natural ecosystem rangemust rely on pesticides to overcome conditionsand pests to which they are not adapted.

Mulches, living or non-living, are useful forsuppression of weeds, insect pests, and someplant diseases. Hay and straw, for example,provide habitat for spiders. Research in Ten-nessee showed a 70% reduction in damage

to vegetables by insect pests when hay or strawwas used as mulch. The difference was due tospiders, which find mulch more habitable thanbare ground (15). Other researchers havefound that living mulches of various cloversreduce insect pest damage to vegetables andorchard crops (16). Again, this reduction is dueto natural predators and parasites providedhabitat by the clovers. Vetch has been used asboth a nitrogen source and as a weed suppres-sive mulch in tomatoes in Maryland (17).Growers must be aware that mulching mayalso provide a more friendly environment forslugs and snails, which can be particularlydamaging at the seedling stage.

Mulching helps to minimize the spread of soil-borne plant pathogens by preventing theirtransmission through soil splash. Mulch, ifheavy enough, prevents the germination ofmany annual weed seeds. Winged aphids arerepelled by silver- or aluminum-coloredmulches (18). Recent springtime field tests atthe Agricultural Research Service in Florence,South Carolina, have indicated that red plasticmulch suppresses root-knot nematode damagein tomatoes by diverting resources away fromthe roots (and nematodes) and into foliage andfruit (19).

Biotech Crops. Gene transfer technology is beingused by several companies to develop cultivarsresistant to insects, diseases, and herbicides.An example is the incorporation of geneticmaterial from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), anaturally occurring bacterium, into cotton,corn, and potatoes, to make the plant tissuestoxic to bollworm, earworm, and potato beetlelarvae, respectively.

Whether or not this technology should beadopted is the subject of much debate. Oppo-nents are concerned that by introducing Btgenes into plants, selection pressure for resis-tance to the Bt toxin will intensify and a valu-able biological control tool will be lost. Thereare also concerns about possible impacts ofgenetically-modified plant products (i.e., rootexudates) on non-target organisms as well asfears of altered genes being transferred to weedrelatives of crop plants. Whether there is amarket for gene-altered crops is also a


consideration for farmers and processors.Proponents of this technology argue that use ofsuch crops decreases the need to use toxicchemical pesticides.

Biological Control

Biological control is the use of living organisms—parasites, predators, or pathogens—to main-tain pest populations below economicallydamaging levels, and may be either natural orapplied. A first step in setting up a biointensiveIPM program is to assess the populations ofbeneficials and their interactions within thelocal ecosystem. This willhelp to determine thepotential role of naturalenemies in the managedagricultural ecosystem. Itshould be noted that somegroups of beneficials (e.g.,spiders, ground beetles,bats) may be absent orscarce on some farmsbecause of lack of habitat.These organisms mightmake significant contri-butions to pest manage-ment if provided withadequate habitat.

Natural biological control results when naturallyoccurring enemies maintain pests at a lowerlevel than would occur without them, and isgenerally characteristic of biodiverse systems.Mammals, birds, bats, insects, fungi, bacteria,and viruses all have a role to play as predatorsand parasites in an agricultural system. Bytheir very nature, pesticides decrease thebiodiversity of a system, creating the potentialfor instability and future problems. Pesticides,whether synthetically or botanically derived,are powerful tools and should be used withcaution.

Creation of habitat to enhance the chances forsurvival and reproduction of beneficial organ-isms is a concept included in the definition ofnatural biocontrol. Farmscaping is a term coinedto describe such efforts on farms.Habitat enhancement for beneficial insects, for

example, focuses on the establishment offlowering annual or perennial plants thatprovide pollen and nectar needed duringcertain parts of the insect life cycle. Otherhabitat features provided by farmscapinginclude water, alternative prey, perching sites,overwintering sites, and wind protection.Beneficial insects and other beneficial organ-isms should be viewed as mini-livestock, withspecific habitat and food needs to be includedin farm planning.

The success of such efforts depends on knowl-edge of the pests and beneficial organisms

within the croppingsystem. Where dothe pests and bene-ficials overwinter?What plants are hostsand non-hosts?When this kind ofknowledge informsplanning, the eco-logical balance canbe manipulated infavor of beneficialsand against thepests.

It should be kept inmind that ecosystem

manipulation is a two-edged sword. Someplant pests (such as the tarnished plant bugand lygus bug) are attracted to the same plantsthat attract beneficials. The development ofbeneficial habitats with a mix of plants thatflower throughout the year can help preventsuch pests from migrating en masse fromfarmscaped plants to crop plants.

See ATTRA’s Farmscaping to Enhance BiologicalControl for a detailed treatment of this subject.

Applied biological control, also known as aug-mentative biocontrol, involves supplementa-tion of beneficial organism populations, forexample through periodic releases of parasites,predators, or pathogens. This can be effectivein many situations—well-timed inundativereleases of Trichogramma egg wasps for co-dling moth control, for instance.

Beneficial organisms should be viewed asmini-livestock, with specific habitat andfood needs to be included in farm planning.


Most of the beneficial organisms used in ap-plied biological control today are insect para-sites and predators. They control a wide rangeof pests from caterpillars to mites. Some spe-cies of biocontrol organisms, such asEretmocerus californicus, a parasitic wasp, arespecific to one host—in this case thesweetpotato whitefly. Others, such as greenlacewings, are generalists and will attack manyspecies of aphids and whiteflies.

Information about rates and timing of releaseare available from suppliers of beneficialorganisms. It is important to remember thatreleased insects are mobile; they are likely toleave a site if the habitat is not conducive totheir survival. Food, nectar, and pollen sourcescan be “farmscaped” to provide suitable habi-tat.

The quality of commercially available appliedbiocontrols is another important consideration.For example, if the organisms are not properlylabeled on the outside packaging, they may bemishandled during transport, resulting in thedeath of the organisms. A recent study byRutgers University (20) noted that only two ofsix suppliers of beneficial nematodes sent theexpected numbers of organisms, and only onesupplier out of the six provided information onhow to assess product viability.

While augmentative biocontrols can be appliedwith relative ease on small farms and in gar-dens, applying some types of biocontrolsevenly over large farms has been problematic.New mechanized methods that may improvethe economics and practicality of large-scaleaugmentative biocontrol include groundapplication with “biosprayers” and aerialdelivery using small-scale (radio-controlled) orconventional aircraft (21).

Inundative releases of beneficials into green-houses can be particularly effective. In thecontrolled environment of a greenhouse, pestinfestations can be devastating; there are nonatural controls in place to suppress pestpopulations once an infestation begins. For thisreason, monitoring is very important. If aninfestation occurs, it can spread quickly if notdetected early and managed. Once introduced,biological control agents cannot escape

from a greenhouse and are forced to concen-trate predation/parasitism on the pest(s) athand.

An increasing number of commercially avail-able biocontrol products are made up of micro-organisms, including fungi, bacteria, nema-todes, and viruses. Appendix B, MicrobialPesticides, lists some of the formulations avail-able. Appendix C, Microbial Pesticide Manufac-turers and Suppliers, provides addresses ofmanufacturers and suppliers.

Mechanical and Physical Controls

Methods included in this category utilize somephysical component of the environment, suchas temperature, humidity, or light, to thedetriment of the pest. Common examples aretillage, flaming, flooding, soil solarization, andplastic mulches to kill weeds or to preventweed seed germination.

Heat or steam sterilization of soil is commonlyused in greenhouse operations for control ofsoil-borne pests. Floating row covers overvegetable crops exclude flea beetles, cucumberbeetles, and adults of the onion, carrot, cab-bage, and seed corn root maggots. Insectscreens are used in greenhouses to preventaphids, thrips, mites, and other pests fromentering ventilation ducts. Large, multi-rowvacuum machines have been used for pestmanagement in strawberries and vegetablecrops. Cold storage reduces post-harvestdisease problems on produce.

Although generally used in small or localizedsituations, some methods of mechanical/physical control are finding wider acceptancebecause they are generally more friendly to theenvironment.

Pest Identification

A crucial step in any IPM program is to identifythe pest. The effectiveness of both proactiveand reactive pest management measuresdepend on correct identification. Misidentific-ation of the pest may be worse than useless; itmay actually be harmful and cost time andmoney. Help with positive identification ofpests may be obtained from university person-


nel, private consultants, the Cooperative Exten-sion Service, and books and websites listedunder Useful Resources at the end of thispublication.

After a pest is identified, appropriate andeffective management depends on knowinganswers to a number of questions. These mayinclude:

• What plants are hosts and non-hosts of thispest?

• When does the pest emerge or first appear?

• Where does it lay its eggs? In the case ofweeds, where is the seed source? For plantpathogens, where is the source(s) ofinoculum?

• Where, how, and in what form does the pestoverwinter?

• How might the cropping system be alteredto make life more difficult for the pest andeasier for its natural controls?

Monitoring (field scouting) and economicinjury and action levels are used to help answerthese and additional questions (22).

Monitoring

Monitoring involves systematically checkingcrop fields for pests and beneficials, at regularintervals and at critical times, to gather infor-mation about the crop, pests, and naturalenemies. Sweep nets, sticky traps, and phero-mone traps can be used to collect insects forboth identification and population densityinformation. Leaf counts are one method forrecording plant growth stages. Square-foot orlarger grids laid out in a field can provide abasis for comparative weed counts. Records ofrainfall and temperature are sometimes used topredict the likelihood of disease infections.

Specific scouting methods have been developedfor many crops. The Cooperative ExtensionService can provide a list of IPM manualsavailable in each state. Many resources arenow available via Internet (see Appendix F forIPM-related websites).

The more often a crop is monitored, the moreinformation the grower has about what ishappening in the fields. Monitoring activityshould be balanced against its costs. Frequencymay vary with temperature, crop, growthphase of the crop, and pest populations. If apest population is approaching economicallydamaging levels, the grower will want tomonitor more frequently.

yellow stickymonitoring card

Monitoring for squash pests (aphids and whiteflies).


Economic Injury and Action Levels

The economic injury level (EIL) is the pestpopulation that inflicts crop damage greaterthan the cost of control measures. Becausegrowers will generally want to act before apopulation reaches EIL, IPM programs use theconcept of an economic threshold level (ETL orET), also known as an action threshold. TheETL is closely related to the EIL, and is thepoint at which suppression tactics should beapplied in order to prevent pest populationsfrom increasing to injurious levels.

In practice, many crops have no establishedEILs or ETLs, or the EILs that have been devel-oped may be static over the course of a seasonand thus not reflect the changing nature of theagricultural ecosystem. For example, a single

Cosmetic Damage and Aesthetics

Consumer attitudes toward how produce looksis often a major factor when determining acrop’s sale price. Cosmetic damage is animportant factor when calculating the EIL,since pest damage, however superficial, lowersa crop’s market value. Growers selling to amarket that is informed about IPM or aboutorganically grown produce may be able totolerate higher levels of cosmetic damage totheir produce.

Record-keeping: “Past is prologue”

Monitoring goes hand-in-hand with record-keeping, which forms the collective “memory”of the farm. Records should not only provideinformation about when and where pestproblems have occurred, but should alsoincorporate information about cultural prac-tices (irrigation, cultivation, fertilization,mowing, etc.) and their effect on pest andbeneficial populations. The effects of non-biotic factors, especially weather, on pest andbeneficial populations should also be noted.Record-keeping is simply a systematic ap-proach to learning from experience. A varietyof software programs are now available to helpgrowers keep track of—and access—data ontheir farm’s inputs and outputs.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Time and Resources

A successful biointensive IPM program takestime, money, patience, short- and long-termplanning, flexibility, and commitment. Thepest manager must spend time on self-educa-tion and on making contacts with Extensionand research personnel. Be aware that someIPM strategies, such as increasing beneficialinsect habitat, may take more than a year toshow results.

A well-run biointensive IPM system mayrequire a larger initial outlay in terms of timeand money than a conventional IPM program.In the long run, however, a good biointensiveIPM program should pay for itself. Directpesticide application costs are saved andequipment wear and tear may be reduced.

Chemical Controls

Included in this category are both syntheticpesticides and botanical pesticides.

Synthetic pesticides comprise a wide range ofman-made chemicals used to controlinsects, mites, weeds, nematodes, plant dis-eases, and vertebrate and invertebrate pests.These powerful chemicals are fast acting andrelatively inexpensive to purchase.

cutworm can do more damage to an emergingcotton plant than to a plant that is six weeksold. Clearly, this pest’s EIL will change as thecotton crop develops.

ETLs are intimately related to the value of thecrop and the part of the crop being attacked.For example, a pest that attacks the fruit orvegetable will have a much lower ETL (that is,the pest must be controlled at lower popula-tions) than a pest that attacks a non-saleablepart of the plant. The exception to this rule isan insect or nematode pest that is also a diseasevector. Depending on the severity of thedisease, the grower may face a situation wherethe ETL for a particular pest is zero, i.e., thecrop cannot tolerate the presence of a singlepest of that particular species because thedisease it transmits is so destructive.

Special Considerations


Pesticides are the option of last resort in IPMprograms because of their potential negativeimpacts on the environment, which result fromthe manufacturing process as well as from theirapplication on the farm. Pesticides should beused only when other measures, such as bio-logical or cultural controls, have failed to keeppest populations from approaching economi-cally damaging levels.

If chemical pesticides must be used, it is to thegrower’s advantage to choose the least-toxicpesticide that will control the pest but not harmnon-target organisms such as birds, fish, andmammals. Pesticides that are short-lived or acton one or a few specific organisms are in thisclass. Examples include insecticidal soaps,horticultural oils, copper compounds (e.g.,bordeaux mix), sulfur, boric acid, and sugaresters (23).

Biorational pesticides. Although use of this termis relatively common, there is no legally ac-cepted definition (24). Biorational pesticidesare generally considered to be derived fromnaturally occurring compounds or are formula-tions of microorganisms. Biorationals have anarrow target range and are environmentallybenign. Formulations of Bacillus thuringiensis,commonly known as Bt, are perhaps the best-known biorational pesticide. Other examplesinclude silica aerogels, insect growth regula-tors, and particle film barriers.

Particle film barriers. A relatively new technol-ogy, particle film barriers are currently avail-able under the tradename Surround WP CropProtectant. The active ingredient is kaolin clay,an edible mineral long used as an anti-cakingagent in processed foods, and in such productsas toothpaste and Kaopectactate. There ap-pears to be no mammalian toxicity or anydanger to the environment posed by the use ofkaolin in pest control. The kaolin in Surroundis processed to a specific particle size range,and combined with a sticker-spreader. Non-processed kaolin clay may be phytotoxic.

Surround is sprayed on as a liquid, whichevaporates, leaving a protective powdery filmon the surfaces of leaves, stems, and fruit.Conventional spray equipment can be used andfull coverage is important. The film works todeter insects in several ways. Tiny particles ofthe clay attach to the insects when they contactthe plant, agitating and repelling them. Even ifparticles don’t attach to their bodies, the insectsmay find the coated plant or fruit unsuitable forfeeding and egg-laying. In addition, the highlyreflective white coating makes the plant lessrecognizable as a host. For more informationabout kaolin clay as a pest management tool,see ATTRA’s publications Kaolin Clay for Man-agement of Glassy-winged Sharpshooter in Grapesand Insect IPM in Apples: Kaolin Clay.

Sugar Esters. Throughout four years of tests,sugar esters have performed as well as or betterthan conventional insecticides against mitesand aphids in apple orchards; psylla in pearorchards; whiteflies, thrips, and mites on

The pesticide Agrophos used in a new planting. The redcolor code denotes the most hazardous class of chemical.In this instance, the farmer had applied the product inthe bag (a granular systemic insecticide) by hand.


vegetables; and whiteflies on cotton. How-ever, sugar esters are not effective againstinsect eggs. Insecticidal properties of sugaresters were first investigated a decade agowhen a scientist noticed that tobacco leaf hairsexuded sugar esters for defense against somesoft-bodied insect pests. Similar to insecticidalsoap in their action, these chemicals act ascontact insecticides and degrade into environ-mentally benign sugars and fatty acids afterapplication. AVA Chemical Ventures of Ports-mouth, NH hopes to have a product based onsucrose octanoate commercially available bythe end of 2001. Contact: Gary J. Puterka, ARSAppalachian Fruit Research Station,Kearneysville, WV, (304) 725-3451 ext. 361, fax(304) 728-2340, e-mail<[email protected]>.

Because pest resistance to chemical controlshas become so common, susceptibility topesticides is increasingly being viewed bygrowers as a trait worth preserving. Oneexample of the economic impact of resistanceto insecticides has been documented in Michi-gan, where insecticide resistance in Coloradopotato beetle was first reported in 1984 andcaused severe economic problems beginningin 1991. In 1991 and following years, controlcosts were as high as $412/hectare in districtsmost seriously affected, in contrast to $35−74/hectare in areas where resistance was not aproblem (25). The less a product is applied,the longer a pest population will remainsusceptible to that product. Routine use of anypesticide is a problematic strategy.

Botanical pesticides are prepared in variousways. They can be as simple as pureed plantleaves, extracts of plant parts, or chemicalspurified from plants. Pyrethrum, neem formu-lations, and rotenone are examples of botani-cals. Some botanicals are broad-spectrumpesticides. Others, like ryania, are very spe-cific. Botanicals are generally less harmful inthe environment than synthetic pesticidesbecause they degrade quickly, but they can bejust as deadly to beneficials as synthetic pesti-cides. However, they are less hazardous totransport and in some cases can be formulatedon-farm. The manufacture of botanicalsgenerally results in fewer toxic by-products.

Compost teas are most commonly used for foliardisease control and applied as foliar nutrientsprays. The idea underlying the use of com-post teas is that a solution of beneficial mi-crobes and some nutrients is created, thenapplied to plants to increase the diversity oforganisms on leaf surfaces. This diversitycompetes with pathogenic organisms, makingit more difficult for them to become establishedand infect the plant.

An important consideration when usingcompost teas is that high-quality, well-agedcompost be used, to avoid contamination ofplant parts by animal pathogens found inmanures that may be a component of thecompost. There are different techniques forcreating compost tea. The compost can beimmersed in the water, or the water can becirculated through the compost. An effortshould be made to maintain an aerobic envi-ronment in the compost/water mixture.ATTRA has more information about compostteas, available on request.

Pesticide application techniques

As monetary and environmental costs ofchemical pesticides escalate, it makes sense toincrease the efficiency of chemical applications.Correct nozzle placement, nozzle type, and nozzlepressure are very important considerations.Misdirected sprays, inappropriate nozzle size,or worn nozzles will ultimately cost the growermoney and increase the risk of environmentaldamage.

If the monitoring program indicates that thepest outbreak is isolated to a particular loca-tion, spot treatment of only the infested area willnot only save time and money, but will con-serve natural enemies located in other parts ofthe field. The grower should also time treat-ments to be least disruptive of other organisms.This is yet another example where knowledgeabout the agroecosystem is important.

With the increasing popularity of no-till andrelated conservation tillage practices, herbicideuse has increased. One way to increase appli-cation efficiency and decrease costs of


herbicide use is through band application. Thisputs the herbicide only where it is needed,usually in soil disturbed by tillage or seedplanting, where weeds are most likely tosprout.

Baits and microencapsulation of pesticides arepromising technologies. For example, Slamis an insecticide-bait mixture for control ofcorn rootworm. It is a formulation of a bait,curcubitacin B, and carbaryl (Sevin ) inmicrospheres. It is selective, and reduces theamount of carbaryl needed to control therootworm by up to 90%. (Remember that croprotation will generally eliminate the need forany corn rootworm chemical control.)

Another example of bait-insecticide technol-ogy is the boll weevil bait tube. It lures theboll weevil using a synthetic sex pheromone.Each tube contains about 20 grams ofmalathion, which kills the boll weevil. Thistechnique reduces the pesticide used in cottonfields by up to 80% and conserves beneficials.It is most effective in managing low, early-season populations of the boll weevil.

Integrated Weed ManagementSystems

Weeds as competitors in crops present anumber of unique challenges that need to berecognized when developing managementstrategies. The intensity of weed problemsduring a growing season will be influenced byweed population levels in previous years. Theaxiom “one year’s seeding equals seven years’weeding” is apt.

Weed control costs cannot necessarily becalculated against the current year’s cropproduction costs. Weeds present a physicalproblem for harvesting. Noxious weed seedmixed with grain reduces the price paid togrowers. If the seed is sold for crop produc-tion the weed can be spread to new areas. Forexample, the perennial pepperweed, thoughtto have been introduced to California in sugarbeet seed, now infests thousands of acres inthe state. In addition, weed economic thresh-olds must take into account multiple speciesand variable competetive ability of differentcrops. For example, 12.7 cocklebur plants in

Sustainable Agriculture and IPM

Sustainable agriculture is a system of agriculture that is ecologically, economically, and socially viable, inthe short as well as long term. Rather than standing for a specific set of farming practices, a sustainableagriculture represents the goal of developing a food production system that:

☞ yields plentiful, affordable, high-quality food and other agricultural products

☞ does not deplete or damage natural resources (such as soil, water, wildlife, fossil fuels, or the germplasm base)

☞ promotes the health of the environment

☞ supports a broad base and diversity of farms and the health of rural communities

☞ depends on energy from the sun and on natural biological processes for fertility and pest management

☞ can last indefinitely

IPM and sustainable agriculture share the goal of developing agricultural systems that are ecologically andeconomically sound. IPM may be considered a key component of a sustainable agriculture system.

A premise common to IPM and sustainable agriculture is that a healthy agroecosystem depends on healthysoils and managed diversity. One of the reasons modern agriculture has evolved into a system of large mo-nocultures is to decrease the range of variables to be managed. However, a system with few species, muchlike a table with too few legs, is unstable.


10 sq. meters of corn cause a 10% yield loss.Only 2 cockleburs in the same area planted tosoybeans will cause the same 10% crop loss(12).

“Rotation crops, when accompanied by care inthe use of pure seed, is the most effective meansyet devised for keeping land free of weeds. Noother method of weed control, mechanical, chemi-cal, or biological, is so economical or so easily prac-ticed as a well-arranged sequence of tillage andcropping.”

Tactics that can be integrated into weed man-agement systems include:

• Prevention — The backbone of any success-ful weed management strategy is preven-tion. It is important to prevent the intro-duction of seeds into the field throughsources like irrigation water or manure.

• Crop rotation —A practical and effectivemethod of weed management (discussed inprevious sections).

• Cultivation — Steel in the Field: A Farmer’sGuide to Weed Management Tools shows howtoday’s implements and techniques canhandle weeds while reducing or eliminat-ing herbicides (26).

• Flame weeding — good for control of smallweeds.

• Delayed planting — Early-germinatingweeds can be destroyed by tillage. Andwith warmer weather, the subsequentlyplanted crop (depending on the crop, ofcourse) will grow more quickly, thus com-peting better with weeds.

• Staggered planting schedule — This willallow more time for mechanical weedcontrol, if needed. This also lessens theweather risks and spaces out the work loadat harvest time.

• Surface residue management — As men-tioned earlier, a thick mulch may shade thesoil enough to keep weed seeds fromgerminating. In addition, some plantresidues are allelopathic, releasing com-pounds that naturally suppress seed germi-nation.

• Altered plant spacing or row width — Anexample is narrow-row (7–18" betweenrows compared to conventional 36–39"between rows) soybean plantings. Thefaster the leaves shade the ground, the lessweeds will be a problem.

• Herbivores — Cattle, geese, goats, andinsects can be used to reduce populationsof specific weeds in special situations.Cattle, for example, relish Johnson grass.Weeder geese were commonly used incotton fields before the advent of herbi-cides. Musk thistle populations can besatisfactorily reduced by crown- and seed-eating weevils. Goats may be used forlarge stands of various noxious weeds.

• Adjusting herbicide use to situation —Herbicide selection and rate can be ad-justed depending upon weed size, weedspecies, and soil moisture. Young weedsare more susceptible to chemicals thanolder weeds.

By integrating a variety of tactics, farmers canreduce or eliminate herbicide use. For moreinformation about weed management optionssee ATTRA’s publication, Principles of Sustain-able Weed Management for Croplands.

WEED PREVENTION

• Have a long, diverse rotation• Sow clean seed• Prevent weed seed formation• Avoid imported feeds or manures• Compost all manure thoroughly• Control weeds in field borders• Delay planting the crop (for faster crop

growth and quicker ground coverage)• Maintain good soil quality

Source: Leighty, Clyde E. 1938. Crop Rotation. p. 406-429.In: Soils and Men, 1938 Yearbook of Agriculture. U.S. Govt.Print. Office, Washington, DC.


Current Status of IPM

Crops with Developed IPM Programs

In the last twenty years or so, IPM programshave been developed for important pests incorn, soybeans, cotton, citrus, apples, grapes,walnuts, strawberries, alfalfa, pecans, and mostother major crops. These programs are con-stantly being revised or fine-tuned, and occa-sionally undergo a significant overhaul as theintroduction of a new technology or new pestmakes the present IPM program obsolete.

The best source of information on conventionalIPM is the Cooperative Extension Service (CES)associated with the land-grant university ineach state. Booklets and fact sheets describingIPM programs and control measures for a widerange of crops and livestock are available freeor for a small charge. For the address of a stateIPM coordinator, refer to the Directory of StateExtension Integrated Pest Management Coordina-tors. A free copy can be obtained from theCooperative State Research, Education, andExtension Service (27), or through the worldwide web at <http://www.reeusda.gov/ipm/ipmdirectory.pdf>. (Adobe Acrobat Readermust be loaded on your computer in order toaccess this page.)

Government Policy

In 1993, leaders from USDA, EPA, and FDAannounced a goal of placing 75% of U.S. cropacreage under IPM by the year 2000. The IPMInitiative described three phases:

1. Create teams of researchers, Extensionpersonnel, and growers to propose projectsto achieve the 75% goal.

2. Fund the best of those projects.

3. Facilitate privatization of IPM practicesdeveloped in the process.

Although some progress is evident, the Initia-tive has not received full funding from Con-gress (28). In addition, the USDA’s criteria

○ ○ ○ ○ ○

for measurement have been criticized for notdistinguishing between practices that arerelated to “treatment” and those that are “pre-ventive,” that is, based on altering the biologi-cal and ecological interactions between crops,pests, and beneficial organisms. Practices thatconstitute “treatment” with or contribute to theefficiency of pesticides are considered as “in-dicative of an IPM approach” by USDA’scriteria, as are practices that draw upon and aremost compatible with biological relationshipson the farm (29).

A 1998 USDA-funded survey of pest manage-ment practices was published in August 1999and is available at <http://www.reeusda.gov/ipm/publications.htm>. Highlights ofthis report are excerpted in Appendix E, PestManagement Practices: 1998 USDA SurveySummary Highlights.

The primary goal of biointensive IPM is toprovide guidelines and options for the effectivemanagement of pests and beneficial organismsin an ecological context. This requires a some-what different set of knowledge from thatwhich supports conventional IPM, which inturn requires a shift in research focus andapproach. Recommended actions to betterfacilitate the transition to biointensive IPM are:

• Build the knowledge/information infra-structure by making changes in researchand education priorities in order to empha-size ecology-based pest management

• Redesign government programs to promotebiointensive IPM, not “Integrated PesticideManagement”

• Offer consumers more choices in the mar-ketplace

• Use the market clout of government andlarge corporations

• Use regulation more consciously, intelli-gently, and efficiently


The Future of IPM

As this publication has highlighted, IPM in thefuture will emphasize biological and ecologicalknowledge in managing pests. Beyond that,specific areas are described here that willimpact research and implementation of IPM inthe future.

Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA)

The FQPA, the amended Federal Insecticide,Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA),requires the EPA to review all federally regis-tered pesticides in the next 10 years and to usea more comprehensive health standard whenallowing re-registra-tion. The ultimateimpact is unknown,but FQPA will mostlikely result in stricterregulations concern-ing pesticide residuesin food, particularlywith respect toorganochlorines,organophosphates,and carbamates. Some of the most toxic pesti-cides have already been “de-registered” withrespect to some of their former uses. Theseregulations may provide incentive for morewidespread adoption of IPM. More informa-tion, including implementation status (from anAugust 1999 Progress Report) can be found atthe FQPA homepage: <http://www.epa.gov/opppsps1/fqpa/>.

New Options

Pest control methods are evolving and diversi-fying in response to public awareness ofenvironmental and health impacts of syntheticchemical pesticides and resulting legislation.The strong growth of the organic foods mar-ket—20% annual expansion for the past severalyears—may also be a factor in the accelerateddevelopment of organic pest managementmethods.

Agricultural pests are developing resistance tomany synthetic agrichemicals, and new syn-thetic chemicals are being registered at aslower rate than in the past. This situation has

○ ○ ○ ○

helped open the market for a new generation ofmicrobial pesticides. For more information aboutmicrobial and “biopesticides”, see Appendix B,Microbial Pesticides, and Appendix C, MicrobialPesticide Manufacturers and Suppliers, and visitEPA’s biopesticides website at: <http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides/>.(Please note that this website will be discontin-ued sometime in 2001.)

Research is proceeding on natural endophytes —fungi or bacteria that have a symbiotic (mutu-ally beneficial) relationship with their hostplant—and their effects on plant pests. This

research mightyield productsthat could beused to inocu-late plantsagainst certainpests.

Syntheticbeneficialattractants such

as Predfeed IPM and L-tryptophan may helpincrease the efficacy of natural controls byattracting beneficials to a crop in greater num-bers than usual.

More Weed IPM

Weeds are the major deterrent to the develop-ment of more sustainable agricultural systems,particularly in agronomic crops. Problemsassociated with soil erosion and water qualityare generally the result of weed control mea-sures like tillage, herbicides, cultivation, plant-ing date and pattern, etc. (30). In the future,research will focus not on symptoms, such assoil erosion, but on basic problems such as howto sustainably manage soils. Weeds, as animportant facet of sustainable soil manage-ment, will consequently receive more emphasisin IPM or Integrated Crop Management (ICM)programs.

“A convergence of technical, environmental andsocial forces is moving agriculture towards morenon-pesticide pest management alternatives likebiological control, host plant resistance andcultural management.”

—Michael Fitzner, National IPM Program Leader,USDA Extension Service


On-farm Resources

As farm management strategies become in-creasingly fine-tuned to preserve a profitablebottom line, the conservation, utilization, anddevelopment of on-farm resources will take onadded importance. In the context ofIPM, this will mean greater empha-sis on soil management as well ason conserving beneficial organisms,retaining and developing beneficialhabitats, and perhaps developingon-farm insectaries for rearingbeneficial insects.

IPM On-line

There is an increasing body of infor-mation about production, market-ing, and recordkeeping available togrowers via the Internet. TheInternet is also a good source of in-formation about IPM, beneficial insects, prod-ucts, and pest control options for individualcrops. IPM specialists are generating high-quality websites as a modern educational deliv-ery tool, and many Extension Service leafletsare now being made available in electronic for-mat only. This trend will only accelerate asmore and more agriculturists familiarize them-

One Generic Model for Ecolabel/IPM Certification Standards*

selves with the Internet. See Appendix F for athorough listing of IPM resources available onthe Internet.

IPM Certification and Marketing

Certification of crops raisedaccording to IPM or someother ecology-based standardsmay give growers a marketingadvantage as public concernsabout health and environmen-tal safety increase. For ex-ample, since 1995, Wegmanshas sold IPM-labeled fresh-market sweet corn in itsCorning, Geneva, Ithaca,Syracuse, and Rochester, NewYork stores. Wegmans hasalsoadded IPM-labeled corn,beets, and beans to its shelves

of canned vegetables. One goal of the program,in addition to being a marketing vehicle, is toeducate consumers about agriculture and thefood system. Another goal is to keep all grow-ers moving along the “IPM Continuum.”Growers must have an 80% “score” on the IPMprogram elements within three years, or facelosing Wegmans as a buyer.


These “ecolabels,” as they’re known, arebecoming more popular, with over a dozenbrands now in existence. They may providefor a more certain market and perhaps a pricepremium to help growers offset any costsassociated with implementing sustainablefarming practices. A possible downside toimplementing such programs is that theyrequire additional paperwork, development ofstandards and guidelines, and inspections.There is concern from some quarters that IPMlabeling will cause consumers to raise morequestions about pesticide use and the safety ofconventional produce. Some advocates oforganic farming worry about consumer confu-sion over the relationship of the ecolabel to the“Certified Organic” label.

Mothers & Others for a Livable Planet, anational, non-profit, consumer advocacy andenvironmental education organization, haspartnered with apple farmers in the Northeastregion to create a supportive market environ-ment for farm products that are locally grownand ecologically responsible. The result is theCore Values eco-label:

There has been an IPM labeling programcasualty in 2000. Massachusetts’s “Partnerswith Nature” marketing program closed itsdoors after losing funding support from theMassachusetts Department of Food and Agri-culture. The program, which included IPMproduction guidelines, had operated since1994, with 51 growers participating in 1999.

A bibliography of IPM Certification, Labeling,and Marketing can be found at: <http://www.ipminstitute.org/ipm_bibliography.htm>.

Summary ○ ○ ○ ○

IPM can be a flexible and valuable tool whenused as a concept with which to approach pestmanagement. IPM is not a cookbook recipe forpest control, but a flexible approach for dealingwith agriculture’s ever-changing financial,regulatory, and physical environment.

The key to effective IPM is the farmer’s under-standing of its concepts. In 1916, Liberty HydeBailey wrote a small book, entitled The Prin-ciples of Fruit Growing, as part of a Rural ScienceSeries published by MacMillan Co. The text isa marvelous mix of scientific theory and prac-tice. Bailey ended with the following note:

“We have now completed the fruit book,having surveyed the field. It is a field ofgreat variety, demanding many qualities onthe part of the successful grower. Thegrower should first apprehend the prin-ciples and the underlying reasons, and toteach this is the prime purpose of the book.If the grower knows why, he will teachhimself how” (31).

FeedbackHelp us better help farmers. If youhave suggestions for improvement ofthis publi-cation, areas about whichyou’d like more information or detail,ideas, case studies, or sources of goodIPM information (articles or websites),please call Rex Dufour at 530-756-8518ext. 39, or e-mail at <[email protected]>.

A CORE Values Northeast apple is locallygrown in the Northeast (New York and NewEngland) by farmers who are striving to pro-vide apples of superior taste and quality whilemaintaining healthy, ecologically balancedgrowing environments. Growers whose applesbear the CORE Values Northeast seal areaccredited in knowledge-based biointensiveIntegrated Pest Management (IPM) productionmethods. For more information about thisprogram, visit: <http://www.corevalues.org/cvn/home.html>.

The ecolabel to the right is a result of acollaboration between the World Wild-life Fund (WWF), the WisconsinPotato and Vegetable GrowersAssociation (WPVGA), and theUniversity of Wisconsin. Raisingconsumer demand for biology-based-IPM farm products is the goal of the program.


References:

1) Flint, M.L. and van den Bosch, R. 1977. A SourceBook on Integrated Pest Management. p. 173-174.Limited distribution. Supported by grant#G007500907 to UC International Center forIntegrated and Biological Control.

2) Benbrook, Charles M. 1996. Pest Management atthe Crossroads. Consumers Union, Yonkers, NY.272 p.

3) Prakash, Anand and Jagadiswari Rao. 1997.Botanical Pesticides in Agriculture. CRC Press,Boca Raton, FL. 461 p.

4) Norton, G.W. and J. Mullen. 1994. EconomicEvaluation of Integrated Pest ManagementPrograms: A Literature Review. Virginia Coop-erative Extension Publication 448-120.112 p.

5) Altieri, Miguel A. 1994. Biodiversity and PestManagement in Agroecosystems. The HaworthPress, Binghamton, NY. 185 p.

6) Marschner, H. 1998. Soil-Root Interface: Biologi-cal and Biochemical Processes. p. 191-232. In: SoilChemistry and Ecosystem Health. P.M. Huang(ed.). Soil Science Society of America, Inc.,Madison, WI.

7) Phelan, L. 1997. Soil-management history and therole of plant mineral balance as a determinant ofmaize susceptibility to the European Corn Borer.Biological Agriculture and Horticulture. Vol. 15.(1-4). p. 25-34.

8) Daane, K.M. et al. 1995. Excess nitrogen raisesnectarine susceptibility to disease and insects.California Agriculture. July-August. p. 13-18.

9) Schneider, R.W. 1982. Suppressive Soils andPlant Disease. The American PhytopathologicalSociety. St. Paul, MN. 88 p.

10) Metcalf, Robert L. 1993. Destructive and UsefulInsects: Their Habits and Control, 5th ed.McGraw-Hill, NewYork, NY.

11) Zhu, Y., H. et al. 2000. Genetic diversity anddesease control in rice. Nature. 17 August.p. 718-722.

12) Leslie, Anne R. and Gerritt Cuperus. 1993.Successful Implementation of Integrated PestManagement for Agricultural Crops. CRC Press,Boca Raton, FL. 193 p.

13) Elwell, Henry and Anita Maas. 1995. NaturalPest and Disease Control. Natural FarmingNetwork. Harare, Zimbabwe. 128 p.

14) Couch, G.J. 1994. The use of growing degreedays and plant phenology in scheduling pestmanagement activities. Yankee Nursery Quar-terly. Fall. p. 12-17.

15) Reichert, Susan E. and Leslie Bishop. 1989. Preycontrol by an assemblage of generalist predators:Spiders in garden test systems. Ecology. Fall.p. 1441-1450.

16) Bugg, Robert L., Sharad C. Phatak, and James D.Dutcher. 1990. Insects associated with cool-season cover crops in southern Georgia: Implica-tions for pest control in truck-farm and pecanagroecosystems. Biological Agriculture andHorticulture. p. 17-45.

17) Abdul-Baki, Aref A., and John Teasdale. 1997.Sustainable Production of Fresh Market Toma-toes and Other Summer Vegetables with OrganicMulches. Farmers’ Bulletin No. 2279. USDA-Agriculture Research Service, Washington, D.C.23 p. <http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/np/tomatoes.html>.

18) Anon. 1999. Green Peach Aphid And OtherEarly Season Aphids. Webpage, Statewide IPMProject, University of California, Division ofAgriculture and Natural Resources. <http://axp.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/r783300711.html>.

19) Adams, Sean. 1997. Seein’ red: colored mulchstarves nematodes. Agricultural Research.October. p. 18.

20) Zien, S.M. 2001. B.U.G.S. Flyer. March. p. 1-3.

21) Marh, S. 2000. Mechanized delivery of beneficialinsects. The IPM Practitioner. April. p. 1-5.

22) Adams, Roger G. and Jennifer C. Clark (ed.).1995. Northeast Sweet Corn Production andIntegrated Pest Management Manual. Univ. ofConnecticut Coop. Ext. Service. 120 p.

23) McBride, J. 2000. Environmentally friendlyinsecticides are sugar-coated—For real.ARS News and Information. March 10. <http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2000/000310.htm>.

24) Williamson, R. C. 1999. Biorational pesticides:What are they anyway? Golf Course Management website. <http://www.gcsaa.org/gcm/1999/oct99/10biorational.html>.


25) Grafius, E. 1997. Economic impact of insecticideresistance in the Colorado potato beetle(Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) on the Michiganpotato industry. Journal of Economic Entomology.October. p. 1144.

26) Bowman, Greg (ed.). 1997. Steel in the Field.USDA Sustainable Agriculture Network.Burlington, VT. 128 p.

27) Directory of State Extension Pest ManagementCoordinatorsWendy Leight/Michael FitznerAg Box 2220Coop State Research, Education, &Extension Service, USDAWashington, D.C. 20250-2220http://www.reeusda.gov/nipmn/

28) Green, Thomas A. 1997. The USDA IPM Initia-tive: What has been accomplished? IPM Solu-tions, Gempler’s Inc., Mt. Horeb, WI. November4 p.

29) Hoppin, Polly J. 1996. Reducing pesticide relianceand risk through adoption of IPM: An environ-mental and agricultural win-win. Third NationalIPM Forum. February. 9 p.

30) Wyse, Donald. 1994. New Technologies andApproaches for Weed Management in SustainableAgriculture Systems. Weed Technology,Vol. 8. p. 403-407.

31) Steiner, P.W. 1994. IPM: What it is, what it isn’t..IPMnet NEWS. October.


APPENDIX A:IPM PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS


AP

PE

ND

IX B

: M

ICR

OB

IAL

PE

ST

ICID

ES

Bene

ficia

l Org

anis

m

Agro

bact

eriu

m ra

diob

acte

r

Ampe

lom

yces

qui

squa

lis

Baci

llus

popi

lliae

Baci

llus

subt

ilis

Baci

llus

subt

ilis F

ZB24

Baci

llus

thur

ingi

ensi

s va

r.ai

zaw

ai

Baci

llus

thur

ingi

ensi

s va

r.is

rael

ensi

s

Trad

e Na

me

Nor

bac

84-C

™N

ogal

l™G

alltr

ol-A

™

AQ-1

0™

Doo

m ™

Japa

dem

ic™

Epic

™Ko

diak

™M

BI 6

0Se

rana

de (Q

ST71

3)Sy

stem

3 (+

met

alax

yl +

PCN

B)C

ompa

nion

(EPA

Exp

erim

enta

l Use

Per

mit)

HiS

tick

N/T

(a R

hizo

bium

and

B. s

ubtil

is m

ix)

Subt

ilex

Rhi

zo-P

lus,

Rhi

zo-P

lus

Konz

XenT

ari D

F™Ag

ree™

(Tur

ex o

utsi

de U

S)D

esig

n™ (d

isco

ntin

ued

in20

00)

Mat

tch™

Gna

trol™

Vect

oBac

™Ba

ctim

os™

Skee

tal™

Aqua

bac™

Bact

icid

e™Ve

ctoc

ide

Tekn

ar™

Man

ufac

ture

rs a

ndSu

pplie

rs

New

Bio

Prod

ucts

New

Bio

Prod

ucts

AgBi

oChe

m

Ecog

en

Fairf

ax B

iolo

gica

l L

abor

ator

y

Gus

tafs

on, I

nc.

Gus

tafs

on, I

nc.

Gus

tafs

on, I

ncAg

raQ

uest

Inc

Hel

ena

Che

mic

al C

o.G

row

th P

rodu

cts

Mic

roBi

o G

roup

Mic

roBi

o G

roup

KFZB

Bio

tech

nik

Abbo

ttTh

erm

o Tr

ilogy

Ther

mo

Trilo

gy

Ecog

en

Abbo

ttAb

bott

Abbo

ttAb

bott

Beck

er M

icro

bial

Biot

ech

Int’l

Nu-

Gro

Gro

upTh

erm

o Tr

ilogy

Pest

s Co

ntro

lled

Cro

wn

gall

caus

ed b

y A.

tum

efac

iens

Pow

dery

mild

ew

Larv

ae o

f Jap

anes

e be

etle

s,O

rient

al b

eetle

s, c

hafe

rs, s

ome

May

& Ju

ne b

eetle

s

Rhi

zoct

onia

, Fus

ariu

m, A

ltern

aria

, &As

perg

illus,

that

cau

se ro

ot ro

ts &

seed

ling

dise

ases

. M

ay a

lso

beef

fect

ive

agai

nst s

ome

folia

rdi

seas

es.

For m

anag

emen

t of R

hizo

cton

iaso

lani

, Fus

ariu

m s

pp.,

Alte

rnar

iasp

p., S

cler

otin

ia, V

ertic

illium

,St

rept

omyc

es s

cabi

es o

n fie

ld(p

otat

oes,

cor

n), v

eget

able

s, a

ndor

nam

enta

l pla

nts

Lepi

dote

ra in

veg

etab

les

and

corn

Larv

ae o

f mos

quito

es, b

lack

flie

s &

mid

ges

Type

of A

ctio

n

Anta

goni

st

Hyp

erpa

rasi

te

Stom

ach

pois

on

Biol

ogic

al fu

ngic

ide/

anta

goni

st, a

pplie

d di

rect

lyto

see

d. I

t will

grow

with

root

sys

tem

.

Stom

ach

pois

on

Stom

ach

pois

on

Coun

tryRe

gist

ered

U.S

. (N

orba

c an

dN

ogal

l)

U.S

.

U.S

.


Bene

ficia

l Org

anis

mTr

ade

Nam

eM

anuf

actu

rers

and

Supp

liers

Pest

s Co

ntro

lled

Type

of A

ctio

nCo

untry

Regi

ster

ed

U.S

.

U.S

., Eu

rope

Stom

ach

pois

on

Stom

ach

pois

on

Inse

ct s

peci

fic fu

ngus

Mos

t lep

idop

tera

larv

ae w

ith h

igh

gut p

H, s

ome

form

ulat

ions

act

ive

agai

nst l

eaf b

eetle

s (i.

e. R

aven

™)

Col

orad

o po

tato

bee

tle a

nd s

ome

othe

r lea

f bee

tles

Mol

e cr

icke

t, c

higg

ers,

whi

te g

rubs

,fir

e an

ts, a

nts,

flea

bee

tle, b

oll

wee

vil,

whi

tefli

es, p

lant

bug

,gr

assh

oppe

rs, t

hrip

s, a

phid

s, m

ites,

and

man

y ot

hers

Abbo

ttAb

bott

Abbo

ttAb

bott

Abbo

ttAb

bott

Beck

erM

icro

bial

Biot

ech

Int’l

Ecog

enEc

ogen

Ecog

enEc

ogen

Ecog

enEc

ogen

Ecog

enEc

ogen

Forw

ard

Int’l

Nu-

Gro

Gro

upPr

obel

te, S

.A.

Teco

mag

SR

L,Th

erm

o Tr

ilogy

Ther

mo

Trilo

gyTh

erm

o Tr

ilogy

Ther

mo

Trilo

gyTr

oy B

iosc

ienc

esTr

oy B

iosc

ienc

esW

ockh

ardt

Ltd

Abbo

tt (d

ist.

by V

alen

t B

iosc

ienc

es)

Troy

Bio

scie

nces

Troy

Bio

scie

nces

Troy

Bio

scie

nces

Nat

ural

Pla

nt P

rote

ctio

n (N

PP)

Myc

otec

hM

ycot

ech

Myc

otec

h

Dip

el™

Biob

it XL

FC

™Bi

obit

HP

WP™

Fora

y 48

B™Fo

ray

68B™

Fora

y™BM

P 12

3™Bi

olep

™C

ondo

r™C

utla

ss™

Cry

max

™Fo

il BF

C™

Lepi

nox™

M-P

eril™

MVP

II™

Rav

en™

Forw

abit™

Bact

osid

K™

Turib

el™

Agro

bac™

Able

™D

eliv

er (i

s re

plac

ing

CoS

tar)

Jave

linW

G™

(Del

fin™

out

side

US)

Thur

icid

e™La

rvo-

BT™

Troy

-BT™

Hal

t™

Nov

odor

™

Nat

ural

is-L

™N

atur

alis

-H&G

™ (

Hom

e&G

arde

n)N

atur

alis

-T&O

™ (

Turf&

Orn

amen

tals

)O

strin

il™

Myc

otro

l ™M

ycot

rol-O

* *

(OK’

d by

OM

RI)

Bota

niga

rd22

WP™

Baci

llus

thru

ingi

ensi

s va

r.ku

rsta

ki

Baci

llus

thur

ingi

ensi

s va

r.Te

nebr

ioni

s/sa

n di

ego

Beau

veria

bas

sian

a


Bene

ficia

l Org

anis

mTr

ade

Nam

eM

anuf

actu

rers

and

Supp

liers

Pest

s Co

ntro

lled

Type

of A

ctio

nCo

untry

Regi

ster

ed

U.S

.

U.S

., Is

rael

Ger

man

y

Italy

Fran

ce

Finl

and

U.S

.

Switz

erla

nd

U.S

.

Seed

trea

tmen

t or

seed

ling

dren

ch

Col

oniz

es fr

uit s

urfa

ce,

espe

cial

ly w

ound

edtis

sues

, the

reby

inhi

bitin

g ot

her m

icro

bial

colo

niza

tion

seed

trea

tmen

t or s

oil

inco

rpor

atio

n

Anta

goni

st

Dis

ease

-cau

sing

viru

s

Dis

ease

-cau

sing

viru

s

Inse

ct e

atin

g ne

mat

ode

Soil

path

ogen

s —

Fus

ariu

m,

Pyth

ium

, Fus

ariu

m, a

nd d

isea

seca

used

by

lesi

on, s

pira

l, la

nce,

and

stin

g ne

mat

odes

on

alfa

lfa, b

arle

y,be

ans,

clo

ver,

cotto

n, p

eas,

gra

inso

rghu

m, v

eget

able

cro

ps, a

ndw

heat

post

harv

est p

atho

gens

— B

otry

tis,

Peni

cilliu

m

Scle

rotin

ia s

cler

otio

rum

and

S.

min

or o

n ca

nola

, sun

flow

er, p

eanu

t,so

ybea

n, a

nd v

eget

able

s (le

ttuce

,be

an, t

omat

o)

Fusa

rium

oxy

spor

um, F

usar

ium

mon

ilifor

me

on b

asil,

car

natio

n,cy

clam

en, t

omat

o

For m

anag

emen

t of P

ythi

um s

pp.,

Rhi

zoct

onia

sol

ani s

pp.,

Botry

tissp

p., a

nd D

idym

ella

spp

. on

gree

nhou

se c

rops

Soil

path

ogen

s

Soil

path

ogen

s th

at c

ause

dam

ping

off a

nd ro

ot ro

t, es

p. R

hizo

cton

iaso

lani

& P

ythi

um s

pp.

Leaf

rolle

r

Cod

ling

mot

h

Man

y ty

pes

of le

pido

pter

an la

rvae

,tu

rf gr

ubs

(incl

udin

g Ja

pane

sebe

etle

) and

oth

er s

oil i

nsec

t pes

ts

Stin

e M

icro

bial

Pro

duct

s (

dist

ribut

ed b

y M

arke

t VI L

LC)

Ecog

en

Prop

hyta

BIO

VED

, Ltd

SIAP

AN

atur

al P

lant

Pro

tect

ion

Kem

ira A

gro

Oy

Kem

ira A

gro

Oy

Ther

mo

Trilo

gy

Ande

rmat

t

Ther

mo

Trilo

gy

Ecog

enH

ydro

-Gar

dens

(ov

er a

doz

en m

anuf

actu

rers

and

2 d

ozen

dis

tribu

tors

in

the

US)

Den

y™

Aspi

re™

Con

tans

KON

I

Biof

ox C

Fusa

clea

n

Prim

asto

p

Glio

Mix

™

Soil G

uard

12G

™

Cap

ex™

Cyd

-X™

(dis

cont

inue

d)

Cru

iser

™ (

also

mar

kete

d by

spe

cies

nam

e of

nem

atod

e)

Burk

hold

eria

cep

acia

(form

erly

Pse

udom

onas

cepa

cia)

Can

dida

ole

ophi

la

Con

ioth

yriu

m m

inita

ns

Fusa

rium

oxy

spor

umno

npat

hoge

nic

Glio

clad

ium

cat

enul

atum

Glio

clad

ium

spp

.

Glio

clad

ium

vire

ns

Gra

nulo

sis

viru

s

Gra

nulo

sis

viru

s

Het

eror

habd

itis

bact

erio

phor

a


Bene

ficia

l Org

anis

mTr

ade

Nam

eM

anuf

actu

rers

and

Supp

liers

Pest

s Co

ntro

lled

Type

of A

ctio

nCo

untry

Regi

ster

ed

U.S

.

U.S

., C

entra

lAm

eric

a

Aust

ralia

Brita

in, S

wed

en,

Nor

way

, Sw

itzer

land

,Fi

nlan

d, b

ut n

ot U

.S.

Flor

ida

only

U.S

.

Swed

en

Inse

ct e

atin

g ne

mat

ode

Dis

ease

-cau

sing

fung

us

Cau

ses

dise

ase

in la

rvae

Dis

ease

-cau

sing

viru

s

Dis

ease

-cau

sing

viru

s

Dis

ease

-cau

sing

viru

s

Biof

ungi

cide

Initi

ates

root

infe

ctio

n

Seed

trea

tmen

t

Blac

k vi

ne w

eevi

l

Soil-

inha

bitin

g be

etle

, ter

mite

s,co

ckro

ache

s (B

io-P

ath)

Alfa

lfa lo

oper

(Aut

ogra

phic

aca

lifor

nica

)

Amer

ican

bol

lwor

m,

cotto

nbo

llwor

m=

toba

cco

budw

orm

(Hel

icov

erpa

vire

scen

s), c

orn

earw

orm

=tom

ato

fruitw

orm

(Hel

icov

erpa

zea

)

beet

arm

ywor

m (S

podo

pter

aex

igua

), le

sser

arm

ywor

m, p

igw

eed

cate

rpilla

r, sm

all m

ottle

dw

illow

mot

h

Whi

tefly

s, a

phid

s, a

nd th

rips

ingr

eenh

ouse

s

For m

anag

ing

vario

us n

emat

ode

spp.

on

bana

na, t

omat

oes,

sug

arca

ne, p

inea

pple

, citr

us, w

heat

,po

tato

es, a

nd o

ther

s

Sum

mer

con

trol o

f rus

t cau

sed

byH

eter

obas

idio

n an

nosu

m o

n pi

nean

d sp

ruce

tree

s

Stra

ngle

r vin

e (M

oren

ia o

dora

to)

Soil

path

ogen

s:

Riz

octo

nia,

Fusa

rium

, Phy

thiu

m

Leaf

stri

pe, n

et b

lotc

h, F

usar

ium

spp.

, spo

t blo

tch,

leaf

spo

t, an

dot

hers

on

barle

y an

d oa

ts

Kopp

ert B

iolo

gica

lSy

stem

s

Baye

r AG

EcoS

cien

ceEc

oSci

ence

Ther

mo

Trilo

gy

Ther

mo

Trilo

gy

Ther

mo

Trilo

gy

Ther

mo

Trilo

gy

Ther

mo

Trilo

gy (

mar

kete

d th

roug

h O

lym

pic

Hor

t. Pr

oduc

ts)

Tech

nolo

gica

lIn

nova

tion

Cor

pora

tion

Kem

ira

Abbo

tt La

b.

Soil

Tech

nolo

gies

BioA

gri A

B

Larv

anem

™

Bay

Bio

1020

™Bi

o-Bl

ast™

Bio-

Path

™

VFN

80™

(dis

cont

inue

d)

To b

e in

trodu

ced

in 2

001

Gem

star

LC

™

Spod

-X L

C

PFR

97™

Paec

il (a

lso

know

n as

Bio

act)

Rot

stop

™

DeV

ine™

Inte

rcep

t™

Ced

omon

Het

eror

habd

itis

meg

idis

.

Met

hariz

ium

ani

sopl

iae

Nuc

lear

pol

yhed

rosi

svi

rus

(NPV

) for

Auto

grap

ha c

alifo

rnic

a

NPV

for A

nagr

apha

falc

ifera

NPV

for H

elic

over

pa z

eaH

elio

thus

vire

scen

s

NPV

for S

podo

pter

aex

igua

Paec

ilom

yces

fum

osor

oseu

s

Paec

ilom

yces

lila

cinu

s

Phel

bia

giga

ntea

Phyt

opht

hora

pal

miv

ora

Pseu

dom

onas

cep

acia

Pseu

dom

onas

chlo

rora

phis


Bene

ficia

l Org

anis

mTr

ade

Nam

eM

anuf

actu

rers

and

Supp

liers

Pest

s Co

ntro

lled

Type

of A

ctio

nCo

untry

Regi

ster

ed

Euro

pe, A

ustra

lia

U.S

.

Fran

ce

U.S

.

Cze

ch R

epub

lic

U.S

.

Anta

goni

st/c

ompe

titor

Anta

goni

st/c

ompe

titor

Seed

trea

tmen

t or s

oil

inco

rpor

atio

n

Cau

ses

dise

ase

in la

rvae

Cau

ses

dise

ase

in la

rvae

P. to

lasi

i on

mus

hroo

ms

Erw

inia

am

ylov

ora

on a

pple

, che

rry,

alm

ond,

pea

ch, p

ear,

pota

to,

stra

wbe

rry, t

omat

o

P. s

olan

acea

rum

in v

eget

able

s

Post

harv

est p

atho

gens

on

appl

es,

pear

s (B

iosa

ve 1

00) a

nd c

itrus

(Bio

save

100

0)

Soil

path

ogen

s th

at c

ause

bro

wn

patc

h, &

dol

lar s

pot

Man

agem

ent o

f Pyt

hium

spp

.,Fu

sariu

m s

pp.,

Botry

tis s

pp.,

Phyt

opht

hora

spp

., Ap

hano

myc

essp

p., A

ltern

aria

spp

., Ti

lletia

car

ies,

Pseu

doce

rcos

pore

llahe

rpot

richo

ides

, Gae

uman

nom

yces

gram

inis

, Rhi

zoct

onia

sol

ani,

Scle

rotiu

m c

epiv

oru

in v

ario

uscr

ops

incl

udin

g ve

geta

bles

(tom

atoe

s, p

otat

oes,

pep

per,

cucu

mbe

rs, B

rass

icac

eae

vege

tabl

es),

fruits

(gra

pes,

stra

wbe

rries

, citr

us),

legu

mes

,ce

real

s, c

anol

a, fo

rest

nur

serie

san

d or

nam

enta

l pla

nts

Phyt

hium

ultim

um i

n su

gar b

eets

Lepi

dopt

era

Beet

arm

ywor

m (S

podo

pter

aex

igua

)

Mau

ri Fo

ods

Sylv

an S

paw

n

Plan

t Hea

lth T

echn

olog

ies

Nat

ural

Pla

ntPr

otec

tion

EcoS

cien

ce

Eco-

Soil

Plan

t Pro

duct

ion

Ins

titut

e

Ther

mo

Trilo

gy

Ecog

enTh

erm

o Tr

ilogy

Con

quer

™

Blig

ht B

an A

506™

PSSO

L™

Bio-

Save

100

, 110

, 100

0™

BioJ

et™

Poly

vers

um (

form

erly

Pol

ygan

dron

)

Cel

ery

loop

er v

irus

Otie

nem

-S™

Spod

-X™

Pseu

dom

onas

flou

resc

ens

Psue

dom

onas

flou

resc

ens

Pseu

dom

onas

sola

nace

arum

Pseu

dom

onas

syr

inga

e

Pseu

dom

onas

sp.

plu

sAz

ospi

rillu

m

Pyth

ium

olig

andr

um

Syng

raph

a fa

lcife

raN

ucle

ar P

olyh

edro

sis

Viru

s(N

PV)

Spod

opte

ra e

xigu

a N

PV


Bene

ficia

l Org

anis

mTr

ade

Nam

eM

anuf

actu

rers

and

Supp

liers

Pest

s Co

ntro

lled

Type

of A

ctio

nCo

untry

Regi

ster

ed

U.S

.U

.S.

U.S

.

U.S

., Fi

nlan

d

Ger

man

y

U.S

. , E

urop

e

Isra

el

U.K

., Sw

eden

Inse

ct e

atin

g ne

mat

ode

Inse

ct e

atin

g ne

mat

ode

Com

petit

ion/

anta

goni

sm

Para

site

, com

petit

or

Myc

opar

asite

livi

ng o

not

her f

ungi

Myc

opar

asite

Blac

k vi

ne w

eevi

l, st

raw

berry

root

wee

vil,

cran

berry

gird

ler,

and

man

yot

her l

arva

l ins

ects

Larv

ae o

f vin

e w

eevi

ls a

nd fu

ngus

gnat

s

For m

anag

emen

t of c

itrus

wee

vils

on c

itrus

Soil

path

ogen

s —

Fus

ariu

m,

Alte

rnar

ia, R

hizo

cton

ia, P

hom

opsi

s,Ph

ythi

um, P

hyto

ptho

ra, P

ythi

um,

Botry

tis —

that

cau

se w

ilt, s

eed,

root

, & s

tem

rots

For m

anag

emen

t of V

ertic

illium

dahl

iae,

V. a

lbo-

atru

m, a

ndR

hizo

cton

ia s

olan

i in

tom

ato,

cucu

mbe

r, st

raw

berry

, rap

e oi

lsee

d

Soil

path

ogen

s —

Pyt

hium

,R

hico

zokt

onia

, Ver

ticilli

um,

Scle

rotiu

m,

and

othe

rs

Botri

tis c

iner

ea a

nd o

ther

s

Tree

-wou

nd p

atho

gens

Ther

mo

Trilo

gyTh

erm

o Tr

ilogy

Biol

ogic

ARBI

CO

Har

mon

y Fa

rmIP

M L

abs.

Prax

isH

ydro

Gar

dens

Mic

roBi

oEc

ogen

Biob

est

Kopp

ert

Ther

mo

Trilo

gy

Ther

mo

Trilo

gy

Plan

et N

atur

al (

form

erly

Boz

eman

Bio

tech

)Ke

mira

Agr

o O

y (

AgBi

o D

ev. i

s U

S d

istri

buto

r for

Kem

ira)

Rin

con

Vito

va

Prop

hyta

Biol

gisc

her

Pfla

nzen

schu

tz

BioW

orks

,W

ilbur

-Ellis

,Bo

rrega

ard

Mak

htes

him

Bio-

Inno

vatio

n

Bio-

Safe

-N™

Biov

ecto

r 25™

Ecom

ask™

Scan

mas

k™G

uard

ian™

Nem

asys

™N

emas

ys M

™O

tiene

m-S

™En

tone

m™

X-G

nat

Biov

ecto

r 355

™

Myc

osto

p™

Prot

us W

G

Roo

tShi

eld™

BioT

rek

22G

™Su

pres

ivit™

T-22

G™

T-22

HB™

Tric

hode

x™

Bina

b™

Stei

nern

ema

carp

ocap

sae

Stei

nern

ema

felti

ae

Stei

nern

ema

riobr

avis

Stre

ptom

yces

gris

eovi

ridis

Tala

rom

yces

flav

us, i

sola

teV1

17b

Tric

hode

rma

harz

ianu

m

Tric

hode

rma

harz

ianu

m

Tric

hode

rma

harz

ianu

m &

T. p

olys

poru

m


Bene

ficia

l Org

anis

mTr

ade

Nam

eM

anuf

actu

rers

and

Supp

liers

Pest

s Co

ntro

lled

Type

of A

ctio

nCo

untry

Regi

ster

ed

Arm

illaria

, Bot

ryos

haer

ia, a

nd o

ther

s

Gro

wth

pro

mot

er, R

hizo

cton

ia s

olan

i,Sc

lero

tium

rolfs

ii, P

ythi

um s

pp.,

Fusa

rium

spp

. on

nurs

ery

and

field

crop

s

For m

anag

emen

t of R

hizo

cton

iasp

p., P

ythi

um s

pp.,

Fusa

rium

spp

.,ro

ot ro

t, se

edlin

g ro

t, co

llar r

ot, r

edro

t, da

mpi

ng-o

ff, F

usar

ium

wilt

on

wid

e va

riety

of c

rops

Aphi

d sp

ecie

s, e

xcep

tC

hrys

anth

emum

aph

id,

Mac

rosi

phon

iella

san

born

i

New

Zea

land

U.S

.U

.S.

Belg

ium

Indi

a

Euro

peIn

sect

eat

ing

fung

us(V

ERTA

LEC

requ

ires

a te

mp.

of

18-2

8 de

gree

s C

elsi

us a

nd a

min

imum

rela

tive

hum

idity

of

80%

for 1

0-12

hou

rs a

day

for

seve

ral d

ays

afte

r app

licat

ion.

)

Agrim

m T

echn

olog

ies

J.H

. Bio

tech

Myc

ontro

l, Lt

d.D

e C

eust

er

Ecos

ense

Lab

s

Kopp

ert

Tric

hope

l™Tr

icho

jet™

Tric

hodo

wel

s™Tr

icho

seal

™

Prom

ot™

Tric

hode

rma

2000

Biof

ungu

s

Trie

co

Verta

lec™

Tric

hode

rma

harz

ianu

m&

T. v

iride

Tric

hode

rma

spp.

Tric

hode

rma

virid

e

Verti

cilliu

m le

cani

i

� � �


Abbott LaboratoriesSee Valent entry below.

AgBio9915 Raleigh StreetWestminster, CO 80030303-469-9221303-469-9598 Fax

AgBioChem, Inc.Richard Bahme3 Fleetwood Ct.Orinda, CA 94563925-254-0789

AgraQuest, Inc.1530 Drew AvenueDavis, CA 95616530-750-0150530-750-0153 Faxhttp://www.agraquest.comE-mail:[email protected]

Agricola del Sol30 calle 11-42, zona 12, 01012Ciudad de Guatemala,Guatemala, Centro America502-2 760496 TelefaxE-mail: [email protected]

Agimm Technologies, Ltd.P.O. Box 13-245Christchurch, New Zealand64-13-366-867164-13-365-1859 Fax

Andermatt Biocontrol AGUnterdorf, CH-6146Grossdietwil, Switzerland062-927-28-40062-927-21-23 Fax

American Cyanamid Co.(See BASF)800-327-4645

Amycel Spawn MateP.O. Box 560Avondale, PA 19311800-795-1657610-869-8456 FaxU.S. Distributor of MicroBio’sNemasys M.

ARBICO EnvironmentalsP.O. Box 4247Tucson, AZ 85738-1247520-825-9785800-827-2847520-825-2038 Faxhttp://www.arbico.com/

Bactec Corp.2020 Holmes Rd.Houston, TX 77045713-797-0406713-795-4665 Fax

Bayer AGBusiness Group Crop ProtectionDevelopment/RegulatoryAffairsAgrochemical Center MonheimD-51368 Leverkusen, Germany49-2173-38-328049-2173-38-3564 Faxhttp://www.bayer.com

Becker Microbial Products, Inc.9464 NW 11th St.Plantation, FL 33322305-474-7590305-474-2463 FaxE-mail: [email protected]

Biobest N. V., Biological SystemsIlse Velder 18Westerlo B-2260 Belgium32-14-23170132-14-231831 Fax

Bio-Care Technology Pty. Ltd.RMB 1084, Pacific HighwaySomersby, NSW 2250, Autralia

Bio-Innovation ABBredholmenBox 56, S-545 02ALGARAS, Sweden46-506-4200546-506-42072 Fax

BioLogic Co.P.O. Box 177Willow Hill, PA 17271717-349-2789/2922717-349-2789 Fax

Biopreparaty Ltd.Tylisovska 1, 160 00Prague 6, Czech Republic(4202) 311 42 98(4202) 3332 12 17 FaxE-mail:[email protected]

BIOVED, Ltd.Ady Endre u. 102310 Szigetszentmiklos,Hungary36-24-441-554E-mail: [email protected]

BioWorks, Inc. (formerly TGT,Inc.)122 North Genesee St.Geneva, NY 14456315-781-1703315-781-1793 Fax

Bozeman BiotechSee listing for Planet Natural

Borregaard BioplantHelsingforsgade 27 BDK 8200 Aarhus NDenmark45-8-678-698845-8-678-6922

Caffaro, S.p.A.Via Fruili, 5520031 Cesano Maderno, Italy39-362-51-426639-362-51-4405 Fax

Calliope S.A. (commercial exportoffice)16 Rue Antonin Raynaud92300 Levallois Perret, France33-1-47-58-474533-1-47-58-4339 Fax

Certis USA9145 Guilford Road, Suite 175Columbia, MD 210461-800-847-5620Formerly Thermo Trilogy.

Ciba-Geigy Corp. See Novartis entry below.

APPENDIX C

MICROBIAL PESTICIDE MANUFACTURERS AND SUPPLIERS


Ecogen, Inc.2000 W. Cabot Blvd. #170Langhorne, PA 19047-1811215-757-1595215-757-2956 Faxhttp://www.ecogeninc.com

EcoScience Corp.17 Christopher WayEatontown, NJ 07724-3325732-676-3000732-676-3031 Faxhttp://www.ecosci.com

Ecosense Labs (I) Pvt. Ltd.54 Yogendra BhavanJ.B. Nagar, Andheri (E)Mumbai–400 059 India834-9136/830-0967(91-22) 822-8016 FaxE-mail: [email protected]

Eco Soil Systems, Inc.10740 Thornmint RoadSan Diego, CA 92127619-675-1660800-331-8773619-675-1662 Faxhttp://www.ecosoil.com/

Grondortsmettingen DeCuesterFortsesteenweg 30B-2860 St.-Katelijne-waver,Belgium32-15-31-22-5732-15-36-15 Fax

Growth ProductsP.O. Box 1259White Plains, NY 10602800-648-7626http://www.growthproducts.com

Gustafson, Inc.1400 Preston Road, Suite 400Plano, TX 75093-5160972-985-8877972-985-1696 Faxhttp://www.gustafson.com

Harmony Farm Supply3244 Hwy 116 NorthSebastopol, CA 95472707-823-9125707823-1734 Faxhttp://www.harmonyfarm.com

Makhteshim–Agan of N.America551 5th Ave., Suite 1000New York, NY 10175212-661-9800221-661-9038/9043 Faxhttp://www.makhteshim.co.il/html/mcw.html

Market VI LLCContact: Vern Illum6613 NaskinsShawnee KS [email protected] Mobile

Mauri Foods67 Epping Rd.North Ryde, Australia

MicroBio Group Ltd.17 High Street, WhittlesfordCambridge, CB2 4LT. UK44 (0)1223 83086044 (0)1223 830861 Faxhttp://www.microbiogroup.com/See website for listing of U.S. distributors.

MicroBio (USA) Ltd.104-A W. Dozier St.Marion SC 29571843-423-2036843-423-2044 Fax

Mycogen Corp.(an affiliate of DowAgroSciences)9330 Zionsville RdIndianapolis, IN 46268-1054800-MYCOGENhttp://www.mycogen.com

Mycontrol, Ltd.Alon Hagalil M.P.Nazereth Elit 17920,Israel972-4-9861827 ph./FaxE-mail:[email protected]

MycoTech CorporationP.O. Box 4109Butte, MT 59702-4109Carla Elias, Customer [email protected] Faxhttp://www.mycotech.com/

Helena Chemical Co.6075 Poplar Avenue Suite 500Memphis, TN 38119-0101901-761-0050901-683-2960 Faxhttp://www.helenachemical.com

Hydro-Gardens, Inc.P.O. Box 25845Colorado Springs, CO 80936800-634-6362719-495-2266719-495-2267 FaxE-mail: [email protected]://www.hydro-gardens.com

IPM Laboratories, Inc.P.O. Box 300Locke, NY 13092-0300315-497-2063315-497-3129 Faxhttp://www.imptech.com

J.H. Biotech4951 Olivas Park DriveVentura, CA 93003805-650-8933805-650-8942 FaxE-mail: [email protected]://www.jhbiotech.comKemira Agro OyPorkkalankatu 3P.O. Box 330FIN-00101Helsinki, Finland358-0-10-861-511358-0-10-862-1126 Faxhttp://www.kemira-agro.com/

Ki-Hara Chemicals LtdLifford HallLifford LaneKings NortonBirmingham0121-693-59000121-693-5901 Fax

Koppert B.V.Veilingweg 17P.O. Box 1552650 AD Berkel en RodenrijsThe Netherlands31-010-514-0444431-010-511-5203 Faxhttp://www.koppert.nl/english/index.html


Natural Plant ProtectionB.P. 80Route D’Artix64150 Noguères, France33-59-84-104533-59-84-8955 Fax

New BioProducts, Inc.2166 NW Fritz PlCorvallis, OR 97330541-752-2045541-754-3968 Faxhttp://www.newbioproducts.com

Novo Nordisk BioChemNorth America, Inc.77 Perry Chapel RoadBox 576Franklinton, NC 27525919-494-3000919-494-3450 Fax

Nu-Gro Professional& Consumer Group2270 Speers RdOakville OntarioCanada L6L 2X8800-461-6471

Planet Natural (formerly Bozeman Biotech)1612 Gold Ave.Bozeman, MT 59715800-289-6656406-587-5891E-mail: [email protected]://www.planetnatural.com/plantdiseasecontrol.html

Plant Health TechnologiesSteve Kelly, Biological Products7525 Postma RdMoxee City, WA 98936509-452-7265

Praxis2723 116th AveAllegan, MI 49010616-673-2793http://www.praxis-ibc.comE-mail: [email protected]

Rincon-VitovaP.O. Box 1555Ventura, CA 93002-1555800-248-2847805-643-5407http://www.rinconvitova.com

Sandoz Agro, IncSandoz merged with Ciba Geigy in1996 to form a new company,Novartishttp://www.novartis.com

Sanex, Inc. (see Nu-Gro Group)

San Jacinto EnvironmentalSupplies2221-A West 34th StreetHouston, TX 77018-6004713-957-0909800-444-1290713-957-707 Faxhttp://sanjacorganic.comE-mail: [email protected]

S.I.A.P.A.Via Vitorio Veneto1 Galliera, 40010Bologna, Italy39-051-81550839-051-812069 Fax

Soil Technologies Corp.2103 185th St.Fairfield, IA 52556515-472-3963http://www.soiltechcorp.com

Stine Microbial Products2225 Laredo TrailAdel, IA 50003Contact: Vern Illum of:Market VI LLC(exclusive marketers of Deny)913-268-7504http://www.stine.com/

Sun Moon Chemical Co., Ltd.K.W.T.C.P.O. Box 7Seoul, Korea82-2-565-165382-2-565-1654 Faxhttp://www.kwtc.com

Sylvan Spawn LaboratoryWest Hills Industrial Park Bldg#1Kittanning, PA 16201724-543-2242http://www.sylvaninc.com

Technological InnovationCorporation Pty. Ltd.Innovation House124 Gymnasium Dr.Macquarie UniversitySydney NSW, 2109 Australia61 2 9850 821661 2 9884 7290 Faxhttp://www.ticorp.com.au

Tecomag SRLVia Quattro Passi 108Formigine (Modena) Italy 4104339-59-57374539-59-572170 Faxhttp://www.tecomag.comE-mail: [email protected]

Thermo TrilogySee Certis entry above.

Troy BioSciences113 S. 47th AvePhoenix, AZ 85043602-233-9047http://www.troybiosciences.com

Uniroyal Chemical B.V.Ankerweg 181041 AT, AmsterdamThe Netherlands31-20-587-187131-20-587-1700 Faxhttp://www.uniroyalchem.com

Valent Biosciences870 Technology WayLibertyville, IL 60048800-323-9597http://www.valent.comBought Abbott Laboratories in 2001.

Vyskumny ustav rastlinnej(Plant Production Institute)Bratislavsk cesta 122921 68 PiestanySlovak Republic838-223 11-12223 26-27838 263 06 Fax

Wilbur-EllisAgricultural Services Corp. Office191 W. Shaw Ave., Suite 107Fresno, CA 93704559-226-1934http://www.wilburellis.com/


APPENDIX D

Summary: The Conservation Security Act(CSA) of 2000 provides financial assistance tohelp farmers and ranchers find viable solutionsto agricultural, environmental, and economicconcerns. The CSA helps agriculture respondto site-specific environmental challenges on avoluntary basis with a flexible program de-signed to address these challenges in a cost-effective and results-oriented fashion. TheCSA rewards producers for good stewardshipin appreciation of the many nonmarket envi-ronmental and social benefits that these prac-tices provide society. The Act balances federalfunding for conservation on working landswith existing funding for land retirement,providing farmers access to payments forwhole-farm resource planning.

Conservation Purposes: The ConservationSecurity Program (CSP) created by the CSAaddresses the full range of conservation con-cerns related to agriculture, including:conservation of soil, water, energy, and otherrelated resources; soil, water, and air qualityprotection and improvement; on-farm conser-vation and regeneration of plant germplasm;wetland and wildlife habitat restoration,conservation, and enhancement; greenhousegas emissions reduction and carbon sequestra-tion; and other similar conservation goals.

Participation: Participation in the programstipulates that land practices must achieveresource and environmental benefits, but doesnot require the removal of land from produc-tion. In addition, practices do not need to benewly introduced to the farm/ranch; produc-ers can be rewarded for good stewardshippractices implemented prior to enrollment inthe CSP. Participants are responsible fordeveloping conservation security plans thatidentify targeted resources, practices, andimplementation schedules. Participants aregranted maximum flexibility for choosing landmanagement, vegetative, and structural prac-

Conservation Security Act 2000

New Legislation that’s being considered in the 2002 Farm Bill,with components that support implementation of IPM

tices suitable for individual farms. In certaininstances, the plan may include an on-farmresearch or demonstration component.

Tiers: Participants have the choice of enrollingin one of three tiers:

• Tier I participants address priority resourceconcerns on all or part of their farms/ranches.Practices may include soil and residue manage-ment, nutrient management, pest management,irrigation management, grazing management,wildlife habitat management, contour farming,strip cropping, cover cropping, and relatedpractices.• Tier II participants address priority resourceconcerns on the whole farm/ranch and meetapplicable resource management systemcriteria. Tier II practices entail adoption ofland use adjustment practices such as resource-conserving crop rotations, rotational grazing,conversion to soil-conserving practices, install-ing conservation buffer practices, restoration ofwildlife habitats, prairies, and/or wetlands,and other related practices.• Tier III participants satisfy the requirementsof tiers I and II, while integrating land usepractices into a whole-farm, total-resourceapproach that fosters long-term sustainabilityof the resource base.

Payment and Eligibility: Payments are basedon the natural resource and environmentalbenefits expected from plan implementation,the number and timing of management prac-tices established, income forgone due to landuse adjustments, costs related to on-farmresearch, and several other factors. Bonusesare also offered for beginning farmers, jointparticipation by operators within a smallwatershed, and plans that optimize carbonsequestration and minimize greenhouse gasemissions. Payments may not exceed $20,000,$35,000, and $50,000 for Tier I, II, and III con-tracts, respectively.


Barley: The leading pest management practice wasrotating crops. Sixty-three percent of the farms usedthis practice on 71 percent of the acres across theU.S. The following practices were used on over 40percent of the barley acres across the nation: usingtillage practices to manage pests, cleaning imple-ments after fieldwork, rotating crops to controlpests, scouting, and alternating the use of pesticides.

Corn: Rotating crops to control pests was theleading pest management practice, used on 77percent of the nation’s corn acres. It was also themost widely used practice in terms of number offarms, at 67 percent. Scouting for pests was reportedon 52 percent of the corn acres. Alternating pesti-cides and using tillage practices to manage pestswere also common, each being reported on nearlyhalf of the corn acres.

Cotton: Almost three-fourths of the U.S. cotton acreswere scouted for pests, on 65 percent of the cottonfarms. Prevention practices, such as using tillagepractices to manage pests, removing or plowingdown the crop residue, and cleaning implementsafter fieldwork were also widely used practices,being used on more than half of the cotton acres.Other practices reported on 50 percent or more ofthe acres: alternating pesticides, using records tokeep track of pests, and using pheromones tomonitor pests.

Soybeans: The most common pest managementpractice was rotating crops to control pests, whichwas done on 78 percent of the U.S. soybean acresand on 76 percent of the soybean farms. Otherpractices used on 40 percent or more of the acreswere: using tillage to manage pests, scouting forpests, using seed varieties that were geneticallymodified to be resistant to specific herbicides, andalternating pesticides.

All Wheat: The leading pest management practicewas rotating crops to control pests, which was usedon 58 percent of the acres and by 53 percent of thefarms. Cleaning implements after fieldwork was thesecond most widely used practice, with 49 percentof the acres and 33 percent of the farms. Usingtillage to manage pests and scouting for pests wereeach reported on 40 percent or more of the acres.

Alfalfa Hay: Rotating crops to control pests was themost widely used pest management practice on theU.S. alfalfa acreage, at 33 percent. Scouting for pestsand using tillage to control pests were used on 26percent and 23 percent of the acres, respectively.

APPENDIX EPest Management Practices: 1998 USDA Survey Summary Highlights

Other Hay: Twelve percent of the U.S. producers ofhay other than alfalfa utilized tillage practices tomanage pests. Five percent or more of the hayproducers used the following practices on theirfarms: cleaning implements after fieldwork, rotatingcrops to control pests, and scouting for pests.

Fruits and Nuts: The most widely used pest man-agement practice was scouting for pests, whichoccurred on 82 percent of the U.S. fruit and nutacres. Using tillage to manage pests was the secondmost common practice, used on 79 percent of theacres. Alternating pesticides and keeping records totrack pest problems were used on 72 and 62 percentof the acres, respectively.

Vegetables: Eighty percent of the U.S. vegetableacres were scouted for pests, making it the mostcommon pest management practice for vegetablecrops. Rotating crops was reported on 78 percent ofthe acres, while using tillage to manage pests wasused on 74 percent of the acres.

All other Crops and Cropland Pasture: This groupincludes crops that were not specifically targetedduring the survey such as sorghum, oats, rice,peanuts, etc. The most widely used pest manage-ment practice was rotating crops to control pests, at 52percent of the acres. Using tillage to manage pests,scouting for pests, and cleaning implements after field-work were each utilized on more than 40 percent of theacres.

Genetically modified crop varieties: The practicesshowing the most change from the 1997 crop year tothe 1998 crop year were the use of varieties thatwere genetically modified to be resistant to insectsor to specific herbicides.For corn, there was an increase from 5 percent of theacres in 1997 to 20 percent of the acres in 1998 thatwere planted to varieties that were modifiedthrough genetic engineering or conventional breed-ing to be resistant to insects.For cotton, there was an increase of 9 percentagepoints, from 13 percent of the acres in 1997 to 22percent in 1998.The use of crop varieties resistant to specificherbicides on corn increased from 2 percent in 1997to 11 percent of the acres in 1998. The use of thesevarieties for cotton and soybeans showed a greaterincrease. For cotton: an increase from 5 percent in1997 to 34 percent in 1998. The proportion ofsoybean varieties used: 10 percent in 1997 and 48percent in 1998.


APPENDIX F: IPM INFORMATION RESOURCES

ATTRA Resources related to IPM

Farmscaping to Enhance Biological Controlhttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/farmscape.html

Sustainable Management of Soil-borne PlantDiseaseshttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/soildiseases.pdf

Alternative Nematode Controlhttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/nematode.html

Compost Teas for Plant Disease Controlhttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/comptea.html

Disease Suppressive Potting Mixeshttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/dspotmix.html

Use of Baking Soda as a Fungicidehttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/baksoda.html

Alternative Controls for Late Blight in Potatoeshttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/lateblight.html

Management Alternatives for Thrips on Vegetableand Flower Crops in the Fieldhttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/thrips.html

Phenology Web Links: Sequence of Bloom, FloralCalendars, What’s in Bloomhttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/phenology.html

Grasshopper Managementhttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/grasshopper.html

Fire Ant Managementhttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/fireant.html

Integrated Pest Management for GreenhouseCropshttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/gh-ipm.html

Greenhouse IPM: Sustainable Thrips Controlhttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/gh-thrips.html

Greenhouse IPM: Sustainable Aphid Controlhttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/gh-aphids.html

Greenhouse IPM: Sustainable Whitefly Controlhttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/gh-whitefly.html

ATTRA Resources in print onlyCall 800-346-9140

• Colorado Potato Beetle: Organic Control Options• Corn Earworm: Organic Control Options• Downy Mildew Control in Cucurbits• Flea Beetle: Organic Control Options• Organic Control of Squash Bug• Organic Control of Squash Vine Borer• Powdery Mildew Control in Cucurbits

General IPM Reference Materials

Contacts/Coordinators

State IPM Coordinators & Web Siteshttp://www.reeusda.gov/agsys/ipm/coordinators.htm

Resource Centers

IPM Access: Integrated Pest ManagementInformation Servicehttp://www.efn.org/~ipmpa/index.shtml

Pest Management Resource Centerhttp://www.pestmanagement.co.uk

StudyWeb | Science| Integrated Pest Managementhttp://www.studyweb.com/links/2509.html

StudyWeb | Science| Pest Managementhttp://www.studyweb.com/links/2510.html

IPM Guides

There are numerous books, manuals and websites thataddress insect and disease pests of vegetable crops.

APS PressAmerican Phytopathological Society3340 Pilot Knob RoadSt. Paul, MN 55121-2097651-454-7250651-454-0766 [email protected]://www.scisoc.org/

• Diseases of Vegetables CD-ROM• Advances in Potato Pest Biology and Management• Compendium of Bean Diseases• Compendium of Beet Diseases• Compendium of Corn Diseases, 3rd Edition• Compendium of Cucurbit Diseases


• Compendium of Lettuce Diseases• Compendium of Pea Diseases• Compendium of Tomato Diseases

Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC)

BIRC publishes The IPM Practitioner andCommon Sense Pest Quarterly as well as anannual Directory of IPM Products and Benefi-cial Insects. BIRC also produces booklets andreprints on least-toxic controls for selectedpests. The IPM Practitioner is published tentimes per year. Must be a member of the BioIntegral Resource Center (BIRC) to receive TheIPM Practioner. Memberships: $50/yr. forinstitutions; $25/yr. for individuals; $18/yr. forstudents. Dual memberships available if youwish to receive the Common Sense Pest ControlQuarterly.

Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC)P.O. Box 7414Berkeley, CA 94707510-524-2567510-524-1758 [email protected]://www.igc.org/birc/

Common Sense Pest Control. 1991. Olkowski, W., S.Daar and H. Olkowski. The Tauton Press, Newton, CT.715 p.A good reference and resource book for IPM of a widerange of pests.

Complete Guide to Pest Control With and WithoutChemicals, 3rd Edition. 1996. By George Ware. Thomp-son Publishing Co., California. 350 p.

Entomological Society of America9301 Annapolis RoadLanham, MD 20706-3115301-731-4535301-731-4538 [email protected]://www.entsoc.org/catalog/

• Complete Guide to Pest Control With and WithoutChemicals, 3rd Edition

• Insect Pests of Farm, Garden and Orchard, 8th Edition• Integrated Pest Management for Onions (Cornell)• Manual on Natural Enemies of Vegetable Insect Pests

(Cornell)• Pests of the West, Revised• Farmscape Ecology of Stink Bugs in Northern

California• Numerous standard reference books: IPM, biological

control, ecology, and behavior

The Florida Cooperative Extension PublicationsResourcehttp://hammock.ifas.ufl.edu/EDIS—The Florida Cooperative Extension PublicationsResource—has a wealth of information on a wide varietyof topics of interest to IPM practitioners. Brief overviewsare provided for all topics, and more detailed informationis accessible if you have Adobe Acrobat Reader.

Integrated Pest Management (IPM): Concepts andDefinitionshttp://www.ippc.orst.edu/cicp/IPM.htm

IPMnet NEWS Archiveshttp://www.IPMnet.org/IPMnet_NEWS/archives.html

IPMnet News is published monthly andprovides information about new research,articles, resources, and activities of interest toIPM practitioners. IPMnet NEWS is accessiblethrough FTP, TELNET, and FINGER and alsovia e-mail using FTPMAIL. For more informa-tion send e-mail to: [email protected]: 01-503-737-3080, Phone: 01-503-737-6275

IPM SolutionsGempler’s IPM Almanachttp://www.ipmalmanac.com/solutions/archive.aspThis site’s IPM section is an excellent resource for folksworking on-the-ground in IPM. It has a wide variety oftools, hardware, traps, etc. that are useful to the IPMprofessional.

Pest Management & Crop Development BulletinUniversity of Illinois Extensionhttp://www.ag.uiuc.edu/cespubs/pest/

Pests of the Garden and Small Farm:A Grower’s Guide to Using Less Pesticide. 1991. ByMary Louise Flint. University of California, StatewideIntegrated Pest Management Project, Division of Agricul-ture and Natural Resources, Publication 3339. 257 p.

Radcliffe’s IPM World Textbookhttp://ipmworld.umn.edu/

UC Pest Management Guidelineshttp://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/crops-agriculture.html

University of California Statewide IntegratedPest Management Projecthttp://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/


UC Statewide IPM ProjectUniversity of CaliforniaOne Shields AvenueDavis, CA 95616-8620530-752-7691http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/

For-Sale Publications:• IPM for Tomatoes• IPM for Cole Crops and Lettuce• IPM for Potatoes• Managing Insects and Mites with Spray Oils• Natural Enemies Are Your Allies! (poster)• Natural Enemies Handbook: The Illustrated Guide to

Biological Pest Control• Pests of the Garden and Small Farm: A Grower’s

Guide to Using Less Pesticide, 2nd edition• UC IPM Pest Management Guidelines• IPM in Practice: Principles and Methods of Inte-

grated Pest Management• IPM for Floriculture and Nurseries• Pierce’s Disease• Grape Pest Management• IPM for Apples & Pears, 2nd Edition• Organic Apple Production Manual• Aquatic Pest Control• Turfgrass Pests• IPM for Citrus

On-Line Publications:• UC IPM Pest Management Guidelines

Vegetable Guidebooks

Crop Knowledge Master: VegetablesUniversity of Hawaii at Manoahttp://www.extento.hawaii.edu/kbase/crop/crops/vegetabl.htm

Database of IPM Resources (DIR): Internet Resourceson Potato IPMhttp://www.ippc.orst.edu/cicp/crops/potato.htm

Database of IPM Resources (DIR): Internet IPMResources on Tomatohttp://www.ippc.orst.edu/cicp/crops/tomato.htm

Database of IPM Resources (DIR): Internet Re-sources on Vegetable Pest Managementhttp://www.ippc.orst.edu/cicp/Vegetable/veg.htmInternet Resources on Vegetable Pest Management is asub-category of DIR that provides links to materials oninsect and disease problems associated with vegetableproduction. A great starting point!

Integrated Crop and Pest Management Guidelines forCommercial Vegetable ProductionCornell Cooperative Extensionhttp://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/recommends/

IPM — Fruits & Vegetables at University of Illinoishttp://www.aces.uiuc.edu/~ipm/fruits/fruits.html

IPM in New York State Vegetableshttp://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/ipmnet/ny/vegetables/

USDA/OPMP Crop Profiles DatabaseUSDA Office of Pesticide Management Programs,(OPMP) & Pesticide Impact Assessment Program (PIAP)http://cipm.ncsu.edu/CropProfiles/A great place to find out what the standard pest controlsare for vegetable crops.

VegEdge — Vegetable IPM for the Midwesthttp://www3.extension.umn.edu/vegipm/

Vegetable Production and Pest Control Guides fromLand-Grant UniversitiesOregon State University http://www.orst.edu/Dept/NWREC/veglink.html

VegNetOhio State Universityhttp://www.ag.ohio-state.edu/~vegnet/index.html

Newsletters/Alerts

The Georgia Pest Management Newsletterhttp://www.ces.uga.edu/Agriculture/entomology/pestnewsletter/newsarchive.html

Integrated Crop Management NewsletterIowa State Universityhttp://www.ipm.iastate.edu/ipm/icm/

Pest AlertColorado State Universityhttp://www.colostate.edu/programs/pestalert/index.html

Pest & Crop NewsletterPurdue University http://www.entm.purdue.edu/entomol-ogy/ext/targets/newslett.htm

Vegetable Newsletters

The Illinois Fruit and Vegetable Newshttp://www.aces.uiuc.edu/ipm/news/fvnews.html


Pay Dirt—Newsletter for Vegetable GrowersNorth Carolina State Universityhttp://henderson.ces.state.nc.us/newsletters/veg/

Plant & Pest Advisory, Vegetable EditionRutgers University, New Jerseyhttp://www.rce.rutgers.edu/pubs/plantandpestadvisory/index.html

South Carolina Pumpkin Newshttp://virtual.clemson.edu/groups/hort/vegprog.htm

Vegetable Crop Advisory Team (CAT) AlertMichigan State Universityhttp://www.msue.msu.edu/ipm/vegCAT.htm

Vegetable Crops HotlinePurdue University http://www.entm.purdue.edu/entomol-ogy/ext/targets/newslett.htm

The Vegetable GazetteThe Pennsylvania State Universityhttp://www.ento.psu.edu/vegetable/veggaz/veggazette.htm

Vegetable IPM MessageUniversity of Massachussettshttp://www.umass.edu/umext/programs/agro/vegsmfr/Articles/Newsletters/Newsletters.htm

Vegetable NewletterNova Scotia Department of Agriculturehttp://agri.gov.ns.ca/pt/hort/newslets/vegetable/index.htm

VegNet NewsletterOhio State Universityhttp://www.ag.ohio-state.edu/~vegnet/news/newslist.htm

VegNewsUniversity of Arizonahttp://ag.arizona.edu/hypermail/vegnews/index.html

Insect Lifecycles and Management

Destructive and Useful Insects. 1993. Metcalf, R.L. &R.A. Metcalf. 5th ed. McGraw-Hill Inc, New York, NY.A good reference for lifecycle information for agricul-tural pests and beneficials.

Entomology Index of Internet Resources: A Directoryand Search Engine of Insect-Related Resources on theInternetIowa State Universityhttp://www.ent.iastate.edu/list/

Entomology on World-Wide WebColorado State Universityhttp://www.colostate.edu/Depts/Entomology/www_sites.html

Featured Creatures: The Good, The Bad, and ThePrettyUniversity of Florida Department of Entomology andNematologyhttp://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~insect/index.htmThis University of Florida website is a great first-stepIPM site to find quick, essential knowledge about pestinsects: Introduction - Hosts - Distribution - Description- Life Cycle - Damage - Economic Injury Level - Man-agement - Selected References.

Insect Pests of Farm, Garden and Orchard, 8th Edition.1987. By R. Davidson & W. Lyon. John Wiley & Sons,New York. 640 p.

Insects on WWWVirginia Techhttp://www.isis.vt.edu/~fanjun/text/Links.html

Land Grant University Entomological ResourcesUniversity of Florida jump sitehttp://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~pest/vector/link_sub.htm#Land

Mites Injurious to Economic Plants. 1975. Jeppson,L.R., HH Keifer and E.W. Baker. U C Press. Berkeley,CA. 679 p.

Rodale’s Color Handbook of Garden Insects. Carr,Anna. 1979. Rodale Press, Emmaus, PA. 241 p.An identification guide. Over 300 color photographs ofinsects in the egg, larval, pupal, and adult stages.Descriptions include range, life cycle, host plants, feedinghabits, natural controls.

Vegetable Insect Fact SheetsUniversity of Kentucky — Department of Entomologyhttp://www.uky.edu/Agriculture/Entomology/entfacts/efveg.htm

Vegetable Insect Management: With Emphasis on theMidwest. 1995. By Rick Foster and Brian Flood (eds.)Meister Publishing Co., Willoughby, OH. 206 p.A comprehensive 206-page manual produced by thePurdue Research Foundation, published by MeisterPublishing Company. This is one of the best pestmanagement guides on vegetables compiled by theExtension Service.


Vegetable IPM Insect NotesNorth Carolina State Universityhttp://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/ent/notes/Vegetables/vegetable_contents.html

Diseases

Commercial Biocontrol Products For Use AgainstSoilborne Crop DiseasesUSDA-ARShttp://www.barc.usda.gov/psi/bpdl/bpdlprod/bioprod.html

Disease Management for Vegetables and Herbs inGreenhouses Using Low InputSustainable MethodsNorth Carolina State Universityhttp://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/pp/notes/oldnotes/vg2.htm

Minimizing Vegetable DiseaseCornell Universityhttp://plantclinic.cornell.edu/vegetable/minimizevege/minimizevege.htm

An Online Guide to Plant Disease ControlOregon State Universityhttp://plant-disease.orst.edu/index.htmThis site, hosted by Oregon State University, providespictures as well as fact sheets about a range of plantpathogens found in the Pacific Northwest. This site is avery good reference for the control and managementtactics for important plant diseases in the Pacific North-west.

Plant Pathology Internet Guide Bookhttp://www.ifgb.uni-hannover.de/extern/ppigb/ppigb.htm

Texas Plant Disease Handbookhttp://cygnus.tamu.edu/Texlab/tpdh.html

Traditional Practices for Plant Disease Management inTraditional Farming SystemsH. David Thurston, Cornell Universityhttp://www.tropag-fieldtrip.cornell.edu/Thurston_TA/default.html

Vegetable Diseases and their Control, 2nd Edition.1986. By Arden F. Sherf and Alan A. MacNab. JohnWiley & Sons, New York. 728 p.

Vegetable MD OnlineCornell University Vegetable Disease Web Pagehttp://ppathw3.cals.cornell.edu/Extension/VegetableDiseases/Home.htm

Organic Pest Control

Organic Pest Control Guide for Insect and DiseaseControlUniversity of Georgiahttp://www.ces.uga.edu/Agriculture/entomology/pest99/hort/organic/organic.htm

Organic Vegetable IPM GuideMississippi State Universityhttp://ext.msstate.edu/pubs/pub2036.htm

Praxis Websitehttp://www.praxis-ibc.com/id88.htmFor Vegetable Crops & Fruit Production—Directed togrowers who want to eliminate pesticides, herbicides, andfungicides from their production systems. Offers consul-tation about growing alternatives for vegetable, grain,and fruit crops. Consultation includes biological controlof major and minor crop pests, and reduction of non-pointpollution and groundwater contamination

Cultural Controls

General

Cultural ControlRadcliffe’s IPM World Textbookhttp://ipmworld.umn.edu/chapters/ferro.htm

Cultural Control for Management of Vegetable Pestsin FloridaUniversity of Floridahttp://www.imok.ufl.edu/LIV/groups/cultural/pests/insects.htm

Crop Rotations

Conservation Crop Rotation: Effects on Soil QualityNRCS Soil Quality Institute, Agronomy Technical NoteNo. 2.http://www.statlab.iastate.edu/survey/SQI/pdf/agronomy2.pdf

Crop Rotation: The Future of the Potato Industry inAtlantic CanadaEastern Canada Soil and Water Conservation Centrehttp://www.cuslm.ca/ccse-swcc/publications/english/rotation.pdf

Crop Rotations in Direct SeedingAlberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Developmenthttp://www.agric.gov.ab.ca/agdex/500/519-28.html


Having Problems Controlling Vegetable Crop Diseases- Try RotationUniversity of Connecticut, IPM Programhttp://www.canr.uconn.edu/ces/ipm/veg/htms/rotate.htm

Biological Control

Approaches to Biological Control of Insect PestsDepartment of Entomology, Connecticut AgriculturalExperiment Stationhttp://www.state.ct.us./caes/fsen0004f.htm

Arizona Biological Control Inchttp://www.arbico.com/This site, run by Arizona Biological Control Inc.(ARBICO), has a wide range of tools available for theIPM practitioner, provides basic information aboutbeneficials and application rates.

Association of Natural Bio-Control Producers —Natural Enemy Fact Sheetshttp://ipmwww.ncsu.edu/biocontrol/anbp/Factsheets.html

Beneficial Insects and MitesUniversity of Floridahttp://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/IN078

Beneficial Insects Sheet 1University of Floridahttp://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/in002




Biological Control: A Guide to Natural Enemies inNorth AmericaCornell Universityhttp://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/ent/biocontrol/This site provides photos and descriptions of over 100biological control (or biocontrol) agents of insect,disease, and weed pests in North America. It is also atutorial on the concept and practice of biological controland integrated pest management (IPM). Excellent photosand lifecycle descriptions supplemented with diagrams.

Biological Control of Insect and Mite PestsUniversity of Nebraska Cooperative Extensionhttp://www.ianr.unl.edu/pubs/insects/g1251.htm

Biological Control of Insect Pests of Cabbage andOther Crucifers. 1993. By Susan E. Rice Mahr, DanielL. Rice,and Jeffrey A. Wyman. North Central Region PublicationNo. 471. Cooperative Extension Service, University ofWisconsin. 55 p. To place an order, see:http://www1.uwex.edu/ces/pubs/

Biological Control: Predators and ParasitoidsUniversity of Minnesota, Center for Urban Ecology andSustainabilityhttp://www.ent.agri.umn.edu/cues/dx/pred-par.htm

Biological Control of Insects and Mites: An Introduc-tion to Beneficial Natural Enemies and their Use inPest Management. 1993. By Daniel L. Mahr and NinoM. Ridgeway. North Central Region Publication No. 481.Cooperative Extension Service, University of Wisconsin91 p. To review contents and place an order, see:http://muextension.missouri.edu/xplor/regpubs/ncr481.htm

Biological Control NewsUniversity of Wisconsinhttp://www.entomology.wisc.edu/mbcn/mbcn.html

Field Guide to Predators, Parasites, and PathogensAttacking Insect and Mite Pests of Cotton. Knutson,Allen and John Ruberson. 1996. Texas AgriculturalExtension Service, The Texas A & M University System,Bryan, TX. 125 p.Applicable to many other crops where same “good bugs”are present. Excellent color photos and written descrip-tions.

Identification and Management of Major Pests& Beneficial Insects in PotatoOregon State Universityhttp://ippc2.orst.edu/potato/

Integrated Pest Management for Greenhouse CropsATTRAhttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/gh-ipm.html

Appendix II: Beneficial Organisms

Natural Enemies Handbook: The Illustrated Guide toBiological Pest Control. Publication 3386B4. Univer-sity of California, Statewide Integrated Pest ManagementProject. 164 p. To review contents and place an order,see:http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/GENERAL/naturalenemiesflyer.html


Natural Enemies of Vegetable Insect Pests. 1993. ByMichael P. Hoffman and Anne A. Frodsham. CornellCooperative Extension Service, Ithaca, New York. 63 p.The complete manual can also be found on the web at:Biological Control: A Guide to Natural Enemies inNorth America http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/ent/biocontrol/

Praxis Websitehttp://www.praxis-ibc.com/id88.htmSee p. 43 for description.

Predatory Insects in Fruit OrchardsPublication 208, Ontario Ministry of Food and Agricul-ture. 32 pages.Predatory Insects in Fruit Orchards identifies over 100beneficial insects that work in the orchard. It featuresdetailed color pictures and life cycle descriptions for eachinsect. Though this particular bulletin is geared to fruitorchards, much of the information is universally appli-cable to horticulture crops. To review contents and placean order, see:http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english//products/newpubs.html#insects

Suppliers of Beneficial Organisms in North America.Hunter, Charles D. 1997. California EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Sacramento, CA. 32 p.For a free copy, write to:California Environmental Protection AgencyDepartment of Pesticide RegulationEnvironmental Monitoring and PestManagement Branch1020 N Street, Room 161Sacramento, CA 95814-5624Ph: (916) 324-4100A web-based version can be found at:http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/dprdocs/goodbug/benefic.htm

Biological Control: Systems Approaches

Farmscaping to Enhance Biological Control. 2000.Dufour, R. ATTRA, Fayetteville, AR. 25 p.http://www.attra.org/attra-pub/farmscape.htmlThe on-line ATTRA publication that summarizeshabitat manipulation as a means to create insectrefugia and attract beneficial insects to the farm, thusenhancing natural biological control. It provides anintroduction to farmscaping, practical examples ofhabitat manipulation employed by farmers, andpointers to useful print and web resources.

Naturalize Your Farming System: A Whole-FarmApproach to Managing PestsSustainable Agriculture Network, USDA-SAREhttp://www.sare.org/farmpest/index.htmhttp://www.sare.org/farmpest/farmpest.pdf

Phenology Web Links: Sequence of Bloom, FloralCalendars, What’s in BloomATTRAhttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/phenology.html

A Total System Approach to Sustainable Pest Manage-ment —The ImageBiological Control as a Component of SustainableAgriculture, USDA-ARShttp://sacs.cpes.peachnet.edu/lewis/ecolsyst.gif

A Total System Approach to Sustainable Pest Manage-ment —The StoryBiological Control as a Component of SustainableAgriculture, USDA-ARShttp://sacs.cpes.peachnet.edu/lewis/lewis1.pdfThis is a classic biointensive IPM article from theNovember 1997 issue of Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Science. It is accompanied by the diagram-matic illustration that shows an unstable pyramid on theleft (Pesticide Treadmill) transitioning through boxes inthe middle (Therapeutics) + (Ecosystem Manipulation) toget to a stable pyramid on the right (Total System Man-agement).

Biological Control: Beneficial Nematodes

Beneficial Nematodes: Suppliers andPesticide Compatibility,Nematology Pointer No. 45University of Floridahttp://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/in096

Insect Parasitic Nematodeshttp://www.oardc.ohio-state.edu/nematodes/Ohio State U., UC Davis, U. Florida, Rutgers U., EPA,Society of Invertebrate Pathology, Dodge Foundation,OceanSpray, Cranberry Institute, and Thermo Triologysupport this website. This site has much useful informa-tion about the use of insect parasitic nematodes: thebiology and ecology of nematodes, how to use nematodes,a list of suppliers, and more! An extremely useful sectionprovides full citation for research papers according toauthor, title, or abstract. Research papers can also besearched for according to Order and Family of targetinsect. To get to this section, click on: SearchPublicationsÞKeyword Search Page (just underneath the“author, title, abstract” search engine)ÞInsects. Thenyou may choose the Order and Family of your choice.

Insect Parasitic NematodesOhio State Universityhttp://www2.oardc.ohio-state.edu/nematodes/


Suppliers of Beneficial Organisms in North AmericaCalifornia Environmental Protection Agencyhttp://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/ipminov/bensuppl.htm

Biological Control: Nematodes

Alternative Nematode ControlATTRAhttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/nematode.html

Nematode Suppressive CropsAuburn Universityhttp://www.aces.edu/department/extcomm/publications/anr/anr-856/anr-856.htm

Soil Organic Matter, Green Manures and CoverCrops For Nematode ManagementEntomology and Nematology Department, Univer-sity of Floridahttp://hammock.ifas.ufl.edu/txt/fairs/vh/17728.html

Pesticides

Pesticide Registration

Kelly Pesticide Registration Systemshttp://www.kellysolutions.com/Some states provide free access to pesticide registra-tion databases. Use them to identify pest controlproducts for target pests.

Alternatives to Pesticides

Methyl Bromide Alternatives NewsletterUSDAhttp://www.ars.usda.gov/is/np/mba/mebrhp.htm

Methyl Bromide Phase Out Web SiteEPAhttp://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/

Alternatives in Insect Pest Management: Biologi-cal & Biorational Approaches. 1991. By RickWeinzierl and Tess Henn. North Central RegionalExtension Publication 401.http://spectre.ag.uiuc.edu/%7Evista/abstracts//aaltinsec.html

Alternatives in Insect Pest Management: Biologi-cal & Biorational ApproachesNorth Central Region Extension Publication 401http://spectre.ag.uiuc.edu/%7Evista/abstractsaaltinsec.html

Commercial Biocontrol Products For Use AgainstSoilborne Crop DiseasesUSDA-ARShttp://www.barc.usda.gov/psi/bpdl/bpdlprod/bioprod.html

Hydrated Lime as an Insect RepellentUniversity of Connecticut Integrated Pest Manage-ment Programhttp://www.canr.uconn.edu/ces/ipm/veg/htms/hydlime.htm

Insect Management: BotanicalsSustainable Practices for Vegetable Production inthe South, Dr. Mary Peet, NCSUhttp://www.cals.ncsu.edu/sustainable/peet/IPM/insects/botan.html

Integrated Pest ManagementATTRAhttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/ipm.html

Appendix A: Microbial PesticidesAppendix B: Microbial Pesticide Manufactur-

ers and Suppliers

Integrated Pest Management for GreenhouseCropsATTRAhttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/gh-ipm.html

Appendix III: Biorational Pesticides

Least Toxic Materials for Managing Insect PestsIPM Access - An Integrated Pest ManagementOnline Servicehttp://www.efn.org/~ipmpa/leastox.html

Use of Baking Soda as a FungicideATTRAhttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/bakingsoda.html

What are Biorational Pesticides?University of Minnesota, Center for Urban Ecologyand Sustainabilityhttp://www.ent.agri.umn.edu/cues/dx/bugs/bio1.htm

Biorational Pesticides

Biorational pesticides, also known as least-toxic pesti-cides, are those that are pest-specific and cause the leastamount of harm to beneficial organisms or the environ-ment. Examples include microbial insecticides, insecti-cidal soaps, horticultural oils, insect growth regulators,sorptive dusts like diatomaceous earth, pheromones, andto some extent, botanical plant extracts.


What are BiopesticidesEPA Office of Pesticide Programs: Biopesticideshttp://www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides/what_are_biopesticides.htmThe EPA Classifies biopesticides into three majorcategories:

(1) Microbial pesticides contain a microorganism(e.g., a bacterium, fungus, virus or protozoan) as theactive ingredient. For example, there are fungi thatcontrol weeds, and bacteria that control plantdiseases.(2) Plant-pesticides are pesticidal substances thatplants produce from genetic material that has beenadded to the plant. For example, the gene for the Btpesticidal protein has been introduced into corn.(3) Biochemical pesticides are naturally occurringsubstances that control pests by non-toxic mecha-nisms. Conventional pesticides, by contrast, aresynthetic materials that usually kill or inactivate thepest. Biochemical pesticides include substances, suchas pheromones, that interfere with growth or matingof the pest.

Weed ControlWeed Identification

New Jersey Weed GalleryRutgers, The State University of New Jerseyhttp://www.rce.rutgers.edu/weeds/index.html

UC IPM Weed Photo GalleryUniversity of California Statewide IPM Projecthttp://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/weeds_common.html

General

Controlling Weeds with Fewer Chemicals.Cramer, Craig (ed.). 1991. Rodale Institute,Emmaus, PA. 138 p.

Integrated Pest Management Plan for LowerKlamath and Tule Lake NWRs — WeedsNational Center for Appropriate Technologyhttp://refuges.fws.gov/NWRSFiles/HabitatMgmt/KBasin/Weeds.html

Integrated Weed Management in Vegetable CropsUniversity of Illinois Extension Servicehttp://www.aces.uiuc.edu/ipm/fruits/iwm/iwm.html

Principles of Integrated Weed ManagementOntario Ministry of Agriculture, Publication 75http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/crops/facts/IWM.htm

Weed Control PracticesOregon State Universityhttp://www.orst.edu/dept/hort/weeds/weedcontrol.htm

Weed PreventionAlberta Practical Crop Protectionhttp://www.agric.gov.ab.ca/agdex/000/pp6063s1.html

Weeds in AgroecosystemsDalhousie University, Canadahttp://is.dal.ca/~dp/reports/mcpheest.htm

A Whole-Farm Approach to Weed Control: AStrategy for Weed-Free OnionsAnne & Eric Nordell, Sharing the Lessons of OrganicFarming Conference, January 30–31, 1998, Univer-sity of Guelphhttp://gks.com/library/OrgConf/1998d.htmlAn online conference paper that summarizes the methodsAnne & Eric Nordell use to control weeds in onion fields.

A Whole-Farm Approach to Weed Control: AStrategy for Weed-Free Onions (Video)Anne & Eric NordellThe Nordells work with horses to raise a 6-acre marketgarden in Pennsylvania, growing dried flowers, herbs,lettuce, potatoes, onions, and other vegetables. They use acombination of cover crops, fallowing, tillage, and handweeding for weed control. To provide a visual image ofhow they integrate different components of their farm intoa whole, the Nordells videotaped a slide presentation theyuse at organic farming workshops. The 52-minute tape isavailable for $10 postpaid from:

Anne and Eric NordellRDI Box 205Trout Run, PA 17771

1988 REAP: Guide to Economical Weed ControlRoger Samson, Canada-REAPhttp://eap.mcgill.ca/MagRack/SF/Spring%2089%20D.htm


Biological Control

Biological Control of Weeds Handbook. 1993.Watson, Alan K. (ed.) Weed Science Society ofAmerica, Champaign, IL. 202 p.Included are introduced natural enemies, native ornaturalized insects and nematodes, plant pathogens, andvertebrate herbivores specifically managed to controlweeds.

Cultivation

Cultivation Basics for Weed Control in Corn. 1997.By Jane Mt. Pleasant. Cornell University. Publica-tion 125IB241. 10 p.Cultivation is discussed as an alternative to herbicides, aswell as in combination with herbicides through a mixedweed control approach. A description of six inter-rowand in-row tools is provided, accompanied by colorphotos. Research on mechanical weed control field trialsat Cornell is summarized.

Innovative Cultivating ToolsUniversity of Connecticut, IPM Programhttp://www.canr.uconn.edu/ces/ipm/weeds/htms/culttools.htm

Photo Gallery & Glossary of Cultivators andImplements Used in Physical Weed ControlEuropean Weed Research Societyhttp://www.ewrs.org/physical-control/glossary.htmRotary hoe, flexible chain harrow, spring tine harrow,Lilliston rolling cultivator, horizontal-axis brush hoe,vertical-axis brush hoe, finger weeder, torsion weeder

Steel in the Field: A Farmer’s Guide to WeedManagement Tools. 1997. By Greg Bowman (ed.).Sustainable Agriculture Network, Handbook SeriesNo. 2. Sustainable Agriculture Publications, Univer-sity of Vermont. 128 p.

Cultivation techniques and the tools used in associationwith mechanical weed control are less familiar to farmersafter several decades of widespread chemical weed control.Steel in the Field, a handbook in the Sustainable Agricul-ture Network series, provides illustrations, descriptions,and practical examples of 37 specialized tools used tocontrol weeds. It features profiles of farmers usingreduced- or non-chemical weed control strategies, andcontains a listing of suppliers of these specialized tools.

Vegetable Farmers and Their Weed-ControlMachinesA 75-minute educational video on cultivation andflaming equipment produced in 1996 by Vern Grubinger,UVM Extension System and Mary Jane Else, UMassExtension with funding from USDA-SARE. Cost is$12.00 from:The Center for Sustainable AgricultureUniversity of Vermont & State Agricultural College590 Main StreetBurlington, Vermont 05405-0059802-656-0233802-656-8874 Faxhttp://moose.uvm.edu/~susagctr/index.html

Cover Crops

Contribution of Cover Crop Mulches to WeedManagementUniversity of Connecticut, IPM Programhttp://www.canr.uconn.edu/ces/ipm/weeds/htms/cvrcrps.htm

Cover Crops For Weed Control In LettuceNew Alchemy Quarterly, No. 40Mark Schonbeck, Judy Browne and RalphDeGregoriohttp://www.fuzzylu.com/greencenter/q40/weed9009.htm

Cover-Cropping with Rye and Bellbeans inCalifornia Vegetable ProductionCenter for Agroecology and Sustainable FoodSystems, UC Santa Cruzhttp://www.agroecology.org/cases/rbcovercrop.htm

Mechanisms of Weed Suppression By SquashIntercropped in CornPhillip Thomas Fujiyoshi, UC Santa Cruzhttp://www.agroecology.org/people/phillip/dissertation.htm

Watermelon Cover Cropping with Wheat andBarley in Niigata, JapanCenter for Agroecology and Sustainable FoodSystems, UC Santa Cruzhttp://www.agroecology.org/cases/watermeloncover.htm

Organic/Non-chemical

Integrating Non-Chemical Methods to EnhanceWeed ManagementHorticultural Sciences DepartmentUniversity of Floridahttp://www.imok.ufl.edu/LIV/groups/cultural/pests/weed_man.htm


Non-Chemical Weed ControlRay BaumlOptions in Agriculture: Exploring Organic Alterna-tives, Saskatoon, February 8–10, 1998.http://www3.sk.sympatico.ca/hhaidn/conference98/page29a.htm

Nonchemical Weed Management StrategiesUniversity of Illinois Extension Servicehttp://www.aces.uiuc.edu/ipm/fruits/nonchem.html

Organic Field Crop Handbook — Weed Manage-mentCanadian Organic Growers, COGhttp://eap.mcgill.ca/MagRack/COG/COGHandbook/COGHandbook_1_7.htm

A Review of Non-Chemical Weed Control Tech-niquesS. ParishBiological Agriculture and Horticulture, Vol. 7.http://eap.mcgill.ca/MagRack/BAH/BAH%205.htm

Sustainable Weed Management in Organic Herb& Vegetable ProductionUniversity of New England, NSW (Australia)http://www.une.edu.au/agronomy/weeds/organic/organic.html

Weed Control Beyond Herbicides. Willis, Harold.Midwestern Bio-Ag, Blue Mounds, WI. 24 p.Presents weed control in terms of working with andunderstanding natural processes.

Weed Management Strategies in Organic FarmingSystemsDavid Oien1997 Direct Seeding Conference, Saskatchewan SoilConservtion Associationhttp://ssca.usask.ca/97-Proceed/Oien.htm

WeatherWeather — especially temperature & humidity —plays a crucial role in insect and disease develop-ment. A modern feature of IPM is the use ofweather monitoring to predict periods of heavyinfestation. The following weather sites on theInternet specialize in agricultural data; in mostinstances these sites focus on IPM at the regionallevel.Here you can find data on degree days to predictinsect emergence, frost prediction, and pest specificdata such as blight forecasts (onions, tomatoes,potatoes); maggot emergence (onions); Europeancorn borer forecasts and trap catches (sweet corn);phenology; etc.

Information Services

Agricultural Weather.comhttp://www.agriculturalweather.com

Agricultural Weather Information Service (AWIS)http://www.awis.com

The Arizona Meteorological Network (AZMET)http://Ag.Arizona.Edu/azmet/

DTN Kavouras Weather Serviceshttp://www.dtn.com/weather/

NEWA, The Northeast Weather Associationhttp://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/ipmnet/ny/program_news/newa/newa99.html

Oklahoma Mesonethttp://okmesonet.ocs.ou.edu/body.html

PAWS Weather Data (Pennsylvania)http://frost.prosser.wsu.edu

SkyBit, Agricultural Weather Information Servicehttp://www.skybit.com

Texas A&M Meteorologyhttp://www.met.tamu.edu/personnel/students/weather/current.html

WeatherSites: Jump Site from University ofMichiganhttp://cirrus.sprl.umich.edu/wxnet/servers.html

WI–MN Cooperative Extension AgriculturalWeatherhttp://bob.soils.wisc.edu/wimnext/

UK Agricultural Weather CenterUniversity of Kentuckyhttp://wwwagwx.ca.uky.edu/http://wwwagwx.ca.uky.edu/Agwx.html

Pest Forecasters

California PestCast: Disease Model Databasehttp://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/DISEASE/DATABASE/diseasemodeldatabase.html

Cucurbit Downy Mildew ForecastsNorth Carolina State Universityhttp://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/pp/cucurbit/

IPM Weather Data and Degree-Days: For PestManagement Decision Making in the Pacific North-westhttp://www.orst.edu/Dept/IPPC/wea/


Leaf Wetness ObservationsUniversity of Florida http://www.imok.ufl.edu/weather/archives/2000/Leaf%20Wetness/leafwetness2000.htm

MELCASThttp://www.hort.purdue.edu/hort/ext/veg/melcast.html

TOMCASThttp://www.ag.ohio-state.edu/%7Evegnet/tomcats/tomfrm.htm

The Vegetable Crops Planner—WeatherOhio State Universityhttp://www.ag.ohio-state.edu/~vegnet/planner.htm

Weather Data / Precipitation TotalsConnecticut Agricultural Experiment Stationhttp://www.state.ct.us/caes/Weather/wxdata.htm

IPM Certification and Labeling

IPM guidelines, or best management practices, havebeen established by several state and privateorganizations. IPM guidelines are being used: (1)As a checklist for farmers to evaluate their on-farmpest management programs and identify areaswhere management can be improved; (2) To verifyand document that IPM is practiced on the farm;and (3) As an educational tool that describes thescope and complexity of IPM to farmers, govern-ment officials, community groups, and the generalpublic.

In addition to pest management education, IPMlabeling has emerged as a green marketing strategyparallel to organic food channels.

Some food processing companies—for exampleWegman’s in the Northeastern U.S.—now displayan IPM logo on canned or frozen vegetable labels,with accompanying text that touts the environmen-tal benefits of IPM.

The IPM Institute of North Americahttp://www.ipminstitute.org/links.htmThis site has information about IPM labeling(“ecolabeling”) programs around the country,standards, certification and links to many organiza-tions sponsoring ecolabeling programs with IPMcomponents. Also has information about IPM inschools.

Massachusetts IPM Guidelines: CommoditySpecific Definitionshttp://www.umass.edu/umext/programs/agro/ipm/ipm_guidelines/The Massachusetts IPM Guidelines have been used toverify IPM use by the USDA Farm Service Agency inMassachusetts since 1990, and by the Partners withNature IPM certification program since 1993. Forcertification in the Partners with Nature program, a cropmust be grown using a minimum of 70% of the AdjustedTotal Practice Points. Qualified growers are licensed touse the Partners with Nature logo and are provided withmarketing assistance including posters, leaflets, bro-chures and documentation of their certification.

Elements of New York State IPMCornell Universityhttp://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/ipmnet/ny/vegetables/elements/index.htmlNew York state growers can market vegetables under theCornell IPM logo if they follow these IPM guidelines andmeet at least 80% of the recommended practices.

The Food Alliancehttp://www.thefoodalliance.orgThe Food Alliance is a non-profit organization in thePacific Northwest that offers a brand label to farmstransitioning to sustainable agriculture. Farms that bearthe Food Alliance label meet or exceed standards in threeareas: (1) Conserving soil and water; (2) Pest and diseasemanagement; and (3) Human resources.

CORE Values Northeasthttp://www.corevalues.org/cvn/consumers/olabel.htmlCORE Values is a northeastern apple label based on bio-intensive growing methods.

Bibliography of IPM Certification, Labeling andMarketinghttp://www.ipminstitute.org/

ipm_bibliography.htmAn online bibliography listing over 70 in-print andonline articles associated with the topic of IPMcertification,labeling, and marketing.

Eco-Spuds: Prince Edward Island Farmers Workwith WWF to Reduce Pesticide UseSpudman Magazinehttp://www.spudman.com/pages/issue00vol6_eco_spuds.html


IPM Databases & Search EnginesIPM is knowledge intensive, so easy access to IPMmaterials and information is a big help. The Internet hasturned into a premier source of information on IPM.Here, dozens of university programs and IPM specialistsmake their materials available online, for free.

A few websites are designed to organize all this informa-tion and make it available through databases and directo-ries. Powerful search engines allow visitors to findinformation by typing in keywords.

Database of IPM Resources (DIR)http://www.ipmnet.org/DIR/http://www.ippc.orst.edu/cicp/Index.htmDatabase of IPM Resources (DIR) is an informationretrieval system that searches through a compendium ofdirectories containing IPM information resources on theInternet. This site has hundreds of links to other IPM-related sites as well as a powerful search engine withwhich one can search by keyword. Various resourcepages are arranged by a useful variety of topic areas.

Database of IPM Resources (DIR): Internet Re-sources on Vegetable Pest Managementhttp://www.ippc.orst.edu/cicp/Vegetable/veg.htmInternet Resources on Vegetable Pest Management is asub-category of DIR that provides links to materials oninsect and disease problems associated with vegetableproduction. A great starting point!

Database of IPM Resources (DIR): Internet Resourceson Potato IPMhttp://www.ippc.orst.edu/cicp/crops/potato.htm

Database of IPM Resources (DIR): Internet IPMResources on Tomatohttp://www.ippc.orst.edu/cicp/crops/tomato.htm

IPMlit —The Database of Current IPM Literaturehttp://ippc.orst.edu/IPMlit/index.htmlAn online searchable database that focuses on currentresearch and technical papers focused on Integrated PestManagement (IPM) and related topics. Titles areselected from a wide array of technical and professionaljournals. IPMlit broadly groups listed papers by pest ortactic categories, e.g., Biocontrol, Entomology, Nematol-ogy, Plant Pathology, Vertebrate Management, andGeneral.

National IPM Networkhttp://www.reeusda.gov/nipmn/National IPM Network, which has IPM documents,decision aids, farmland-use-planning software and otherinteresting crop production information (weather, cropprices, futures, etc). A search engine allows searches bycommodity, pest, state/region, and tactics. The systemincludes graphics and hyperlinks to most of the IPMinformation currently on the World Wide Web, includingliterature from Virginia Polytechnic Institute, PurdueUniversity, University of Colorado, Cornell University,Michigan State University, University of Florida, USDA,and many more. For more information, contact RonStinner, NIPMN Steering Committee Chairman at<[email protected]>.

National IPM Network Search Engine (North CentralRegion)http://www.ipm.iastate.edu/ipm/ncrsearch/A search engine for IPM materials published by landgrant institutions of the North Central Region.

Canadian IPM Information System (IPMIS)IPM Information System (IPMIS) is an electroniclibrary of IPM information. It is now available tothe public on the Internet. IPMIS contains informa-tion on pest management with particular emphasison British Columbia. The focus is primarily on IPMand least-toxic and alternative pesticides. Undercontinuing development by the Pesticide Manage-ment Section of BC Environment, the project issupported by funding from the Canada-BritishColumbia Green Plan for Agriculture, EnvironmentCanada and Agriculture and Agri-foods Canada.The IPMIS database is available through Free-netsor other service providers carrying access to BritishColumbia World Wide Web servers. Access to thedatabase is also available through the use of Mosaicfor SLIP, PPP or other TCP/IP connections at:http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/

This Appendix was compiled byNCAT Agriculture Specialist Steve Diver. It is

adapted from his Sustainable Vegetable ProductionResource List.


The ATTRA Project is operated by the National Center for Appropriate Technology under agrant from the Rural Busines—Cooperative Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Theseorganizations do not recommend or endorse products, companies, or individuals. ATTRA islocated in the Ozark Mountains at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville at P.O. Box3657, Fayetteville, AR 72702. ATTRA staff members prefer to receive requests for informationabout sustainable agriculture via the toll-free number 800-346-9140.

by Rex DufourNCAT Agriculture Specialist

July 2001

The electronic version of Biointensive Integrated PestManagement is located at:HTMLhttp://www.attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/ipm.htmlPDFhttp://www.attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/ipm.pdf

Biointensive Integrated Pest Management (IPM) ~ PDF...//Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page...

Documents

Transcript of Biointensive Integrated Pest Management (IPM) ~ PDF...//Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page...