James Tette
New York State IPM Program
Cornell University
Geneva, NY 14456-0462
(prepared from the videotaped presentation*)
In a recent report from the Office of Technology Assessment the authors were rather critical of Cooperative Extension noting how the organization has become financially strapped and also has apparently diverted funds to social problems. In agriculture the report speaks about how Extension now has limited opportunity to bring non-chemical practices to the field and it almost deplores the loss of a key role that Extension formerly played in grower decision-making.
I don't believe the authors of that report truly understand the need for Extension to depart from going one-on-one with producers involved in every producer's crop protection decision making. If crop protection is to truly follow an integrated pest management (IPM) pathway, growers need to be responsible for their own crop protection decisions or delegate that to a private crop consultant. IPM is most effectively practiced on a field by field basis. Extension educators cannot afford to work on this basis to be effective educators. They need to be aware, familiar, and confident in biologically-based technology. This will not happen unless they carry out their mission of educational outreach, validation of new knowledge, and demonstration of new knowledge and technology. These roles are more mission-oriented and really speak more to the call for mission-oriented research than the report authors realize.
Today, in keeping with the topic of this conference, I would like to illustrate a new form of Extension that is dedicated to evaluating, demonstrating, promoting and assuring the adoption of alternatives to pesticides, especially biological control methods.
The advent of Federal IPM funds in 1972 prompted Cornell University and most other Land Grant Universities to take a fresh approach in research and extension programs to address the emphasis on alternatives to pesticides. The first organizational structure change in Extension in New York and in many other states was to designate an IPM Coordinator who would work with many disciplines to promote alternatives to pesticides and work toward reductions in pesticide use. In 1986, this approach received an even bigger boost in New York when the legislature established an IPM partnership program between the State Department of Agriculture and Markets, Cornell University, and Cornell Cooperative Extension. The funds that accompanied this legislative act were specifically assigned to the partners to extend and demonstrate alternative IPM concepts like biological control to the agriculture producers of the state.
These combined federal and state funds for IPM have made it possible to do several things, the two most important being to enhance the research base on alternatives to call forth knowledge and technology that was near ready to be demonstrated on the farm. Secondly, to place new technical resources in Cooperative Extension that would support the adoption of biological control agents and other pesticide alternative measures.
A portion of the funding was used to begin a grants program to provide funds for applied research and for demonstrations of new knowledge. It is important to note that 70% of the grants given out through this program, over the last 5 years have been for biological control. Nearly 75% of the funding allocated, $1,409,000, has been for biological control.
Another portion of the state IPM funding was used to enhance or create new IPM experts in the Cornell Cooperative Extension system. One level of expertise was created at the college level and designated to be an Extension IPM Coordinator position. These positions were created for four major commodity areas: fruit, vegetables, ornamentals, and dairy/field crops. The purpose of these positions is
On the Cornell campus, there are about 12 departments that contribute to IPM, so these coordinators work with many faculty and staff with an eye to implementation of IPM methods.
A second position titled Extension IPM Area Educators was created to bolster and lead IPM extension efforts in key regions of the state. These positions were similar to other Extension Area Educators, already at work leading other forms of educational outreach. The positions were established to:
Part of the responsibility of these Area Educators is to work in partnership with industry representatives, such as crop consultants and biological control distributors. This is important to the future of biological control and other IPM methods because oftentimes industry either needs to know how products perform or needs to share expertise with extension. Industry can be valuable multipliers of knowledge and technology.
Since New York now has had ten years of experience working with an IPM Extension model that promotes biological control and other methods, what can be said about the track record? One interesting and important aspect that can be reported is that pesticide use in most commodities has been reduced by 30-50% through the use of IPM methods of monitoring, pest forecasting, and action thresholds. Thus, even before most biological control technologies are introduced, pesticide use has been significantly lowered. Furthermore, it appears that major gains in pesticide reductions beyond this point come slowly and require even greater technical assistance. This may seem to be a rather gloomy prospect for biological control enthusiasts but it must be remembered that a significant amount of effort must still be invested in the evaluation, validation and demonstration of all biologically-based IPM methods.
Some specific biological control projects that have been very successful and are now being adopted by producers are with flies in dairy barns and with insects or mites in field crops, greenhouses, apples and turf. Many of these projects have shown producers ways to reduce their pesticide use by eighty percent
In summary, new Cooperative Extension positions, focused on IPM including biologically-based crop protection methods, are providing new opportunities to validate biological control in commercial settings. They offer a mechanism to continually evaluate the effectiveness of these methods, assist in developing educational, reassure the adopters who have chosen to use biological control agents, and document the economics of biological control.
This vigorous effort, in New York, to extend biological control to agricultural producers has been recently bolstered by the marketplace as it adds its voice to the call to producers to improve their environmental stewardship by practicing IPM. We believe these efforts are all part of a positive outlook for the adoption of biological control methods.
©All material is protected by Section 107 of the 1976 copyright law.
Copyright is held by Cornell University.
If you intend to use this material, please acknowledge the author and the source of the information.