LESSON TWO

Title: Benefits of IPM

Learning Objective: An understanding of why implementation of an IPM program can be beneficial.

Materials: Presentation board (chalk board or flip chart) or slide projector, chalk or pen and lesson-fact sheet (handed out at the end of the lesson).

Time Needed: 30 minutes

Power Point Presentation: Lesson 1 (computer file: lesson1.ppt)

Opening: Begin with a discussion which poses the following questions to start participants thinking about the cost and impact of pesticides and their use:

Are pesticides free?; Are they cheap?; Could a reduction in pesticide use increase profits in a farming operation?; Are pesticides poisonous?; Who are they poisonous too?; Can they damage the environment?; Is the general public concerned about pesticide use?; Do you think they might more readily buy produce produced with less pesticide use?

Presentation:

Benefits of IPM

 

A. Economic benefits of IPM (especially verses conventional chemical pest

control methods)

 

1. Potential for saving on pesticides costs

a. reduced use of pesticides verses calendar spraying

i. apply pesticide only when necessary

ii. lower pesticide application rates

 

EXAMPLE: Cabbage production in Texas; decrease in insecticide

applications averaging six per season, amounting to a 43% reduction in

pesticide cost (Cartwright et al 1989)

2. Potential for higher value and/or increased marketability due to labeling as

"IPM" or "reduced input"

a. Consumer attitudes toward IPM

i. may be more willing purchase reduced pesticide use produce verses produce produced conventionally

ii. may be willing to pay more for reduced pesticide use produce

b. No mention of one products safety over another product in IPM labeling, but makes the consumer aware that growers are managing pests better, usually reducing pesticide use, and protecting the water and the environment.

 

EXAMPLES: Study on consumer choice for cabbage and sweet corn grown under conventional, IPM, and organic systems, the majority of consumers chose IPM and no-pesticide produce (Collins et al, 1990) (See hand out of study with chart included in lesson)

New York example with sweet corn (See hand out)(Olsen, 1997)

 

B. Environmental benefits of IPM

 

1. Potential reduced use of pesticides, which reduces chances of environmental

contamination and worker health problems

a. control pests only when necessary

b. uses lowest effective rate

(broad spectrum (standard chemical program)--> selective use (IPM)

c. allows for control by natural enemies of pests

d. reduces chance of pests developing resistance

e. potential energy savings, in the manufacturing and application of pesticides

f. reduced pesticide application could avoid problems with soil

compaction from pesticide application equipment

2. Makes full use of environmentally sound control methods, which reduces

chances of environmental contamination and worker health problems

 

C. Benefit of increased knowledge of pest management options and techniques

1. Allows grower to determine seriousness of problem and to take action when they deem necessary

2. Develops a greater understanding of pests and their control by the grower

3. Allows the grower to modify their pest management program to meet their

specific needs

 

Closing: Brief discussion of the importance of these three benefits to production.

Resources:

Cartwright, B., J.V. Edelson, and C. Chambers. 1987. "Composite Action Thresholds for the Control of Lepidopterous Pests on Fresh Market Cabbage in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas", J. Econ. Entomol. 80:175-181

 

Collins, J.K., G.W. Cuperus, B. Cartwright, J.A. Stark, and L.L. Ebro. 1992. "Consumer Attitudes on Production Systems for Fresh Produce", J. Sustain. Agric. 3:67-77

 

Leslie, A.R. and Gerrit W. Cuperus. 1993. Successful Implementation of Integrated Pest Management. Boca Raton, Florida. pp. 193.

 

Olsen, L.G. 1997. "IPM Labeling of Food Products Boosts IPM". The IPM Report, 6:1: 4-5

Examples for Lesson Two: Consumer choice for IPM produced products

 

Example One:

 

In 1990, Collins et al. conducted studies to assess consumer response to cabbage and sweet corn grown under a variety of pest control management strategies. The studies were conducted in two suburban farmers markets and two urban supermarkets.

For the survey, cabbage and sweet corn were grown using three pesticide treatment strategies:

1. Weekly applications of a pyrethroid insecticide (conventional).

2. Applications of the same insecticide were used as needed based upon IPM

guidelines with an economic threshold.

3. No insecticides used.

The produce was all priced the same and consumers were surveyed before they were told of the different control strategies used and after they were told the type of control strategy used. The findings were as follows:

 

Acceptability

(% of Respondents)


 

Supermarkets Farmers Markets

Before After Before After

History History History History

CABBAGE

Conventional 54.9 16.8 90.3 48.0

IPM-grown 41.1 44.4 8.7 19.4

Untreated 3.7 38.1 1.0 32.1

SWEET CORN

Conventional 40.7 13.7 20.0 10.8

IPM-grown 36.1 11.9 75.0 27.8

Organic pest. 6.9 17.0 3.4 14.2

Untreated 17.0 58.2 1.7 47.2

Discussion: This study seems to show that the majority of consumers choose IPM and no-pesticide produce over produce produced under conventional pest control strategies.

CABBAGE: In the Supermarket more consumers chose the IPM and untreated produce over the conventional treatment produce. But at the farmers market, there is not as great a difference in choice for IPM produce. There is though a great difference in choice for untreated produce. This seems to show, for cabbage, people shopping in a super market are more willing to purchase IPM treated produce, as well as untreated produce. But at the farmers market, their is a greater demand for untreated produce and only a slightly greater demand for IPM produce.

SWEET CORN: In the supermarket, more people chose the untreated and organic produce over the IPM and conventional produce and in the farmers market the same situation occurred. This seems to show , for corn, there is a greater demand for untreated and organic produce over IPM and conventionally produced sweet corn. But if people are given the choice between only IPM produce and conventional produce, they may choose IPM produce.

 

Reference

Collins, J.K., G.W. Cuperus, B. Cartwright, J.A. Stark, and L.L. Ebro. 1992. "Consumer Attitudes on Production Systems for Fresh Produce", J. Sustain. Agric. 3:67-77. In:

Leslie, A.R. and Gerrit W. Cuperus. 1993. Successful Implementation of Integrated Pest Management. Boca Raton, Florida. pp. 193.

Example Two: New York markets to label produce as IPM

Wegmans Food markets in New York State, in 1996, launched a campaign to promote and sell canned and frozen vegetables grown under verified integrated pest management practices. This labeling calls consumer attention to growers IPM practices and their environmental stewardship. The program says nothing about food safety, that one product is safer than another. What is mentioned is that growers are managing pests better, usually reducing pesticide use, and protecting the water and the environment. They have produced in-store video tapes, brochures, and television ads to tell consumers about IPM. They began this program after finding the sale of IPM grown fresh sweet corn to be highly successful.

Reference:

Olsen, L.G. 1997. "IPM Labeling of Food Products Boosts IPM". The IPM Report, 6:1: 4-5