SARE Proposal Funded, 2001

Jim Cuda

Justification

After three decades of research and extension efforts in Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in the United States, IPM as it was envisioned in the 1970s currently is practiced on less than 8% of U.S. crop acreage (Ehler and Bottrell 2000). This figure falls well short of the national commitment to implement IPM that has its foundation in biological control on 75% of the total U.S. acreage by the year 2000 (Ehler and Bottrell 2000). The report by Ehler and Bottrell (2000) should serve as a wake-up call to all IPM practitioners.

According to this report, farm practices have changed very little since 1993 when a national IPM initiative was established to implement biologically based alternatives to pesticides for controlling arthropod pests, weeds and crop diseases. Biological control - the suppression of pests with natural enemies - was identified as a key component of the national IPM initiative. However, pesticides remain the primary tools of pest consultants and farmers because there was no incentive to adopt alternative strategies that required more effort to implement, produced unpredictable results, and required new knowledge (Zalom 1999, Ehler and Bottrell 2000). This finding is somewhat surprising because IPM will often result in substantial monetary savings by reducing pesticide applications when it is properly implemented. What is even more disturbing is the apparent lack of integration of compatible pest management practices, a violation of the original premise of IPM (Ehler and Bottrell 2000).

It is almost certain that pesticide use will decrease, if not voluntarily, then by statute in the wake of recent pesticide cancellations and the passage of the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. When this decline in pesticide usage is coupled with the higher costs associated with new pesticide registrations, increasing levels of pesticide resistance, human and animal health risks, and concerns about consumption of contaminated food and water, the grower community will become more receptive to adopting biological control-based IPM practices. However, "...Training [of pest consultants] is simply inadequate for dealing with the ecological complexity and challenge of IPM. ... and the LGCAs [land grant colleges of agriculture] have failed to assume proper responsibility for a job that should be part of their mission..." (Ehler and Bottrell 2000). It is clear from this report that extension specialists must do a better job of providing county extension agents, conventional and organic growers, Master Gardeners and Naturalists, and other pest consultants with adequate training to enable them to effectively communicate and deliver to stakeholders- the farmer, land manager, producer, and homeowner- biological control practices that should be the foundation of all IPM programs.

Considerable effort has been devoted to developing biological control as a component of IPM programs in Florida because of its unique pest problems and crop production systems, sensitivity to chemical pollutants, and increased urbanization (Capinera et al. 1994, Rosen et al. 1996). However, in a recent assessment of county priorities in the program areas of agriculture, horticulture and natural resources, county faculty identified as a high priority the need for more information and training materials in biological control and IPM practices (Jacob et al. 1999). The appropriate response to this needs assessment is a coordinated statewide education and participatory training program that will enable all Florida citizens to benefit from advances in biological control in the context of IPM (App and Nell 1995). For example, better training in biological control techniques will empower small farmers to adopt biologically-based sustainable pest management practices (Knox and Crocker 1999), and will encourage greater farmer participation and information exchange in planning and implementing successful IPM programs (Swisher 1999). To achieve this goal, the University of Florida is partnering with the Center for Biological Control at Florida A&M University (FAMU) as well as state agencies (Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Florida's Water Management Districts), federal research and education centers (USDA-ARS laboratories in Gainesville, Ft. Pierce, Ft. Lauderdale, Miami) and local industries (Entomos, US Suger, Walt Disney World) to develop a statewide framework for delivering biological control information and training in IPM to the agricultural, horticultural, public health, urban, and natural resource sectors.

The necessity for developing IPM protocols for Florida's major plant and animal pests was underscored in a new statewide initiative. In November 1999, the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) at the University of Florida launched Putting Florida FIRST –Focusing IFAS Resources on Solutions for Tomorrow (Florida FIRST 1999). The Florida FIRST initiative was created with input from stakeholders to define the role of IFAS in shaping Florida's future in the 21st century. Through Florida FIRST, IFAS will be focusing its research and education imperatives in several key areas. One of the major program imperatives identified is the need to protect Florida's plants, animals and human population from existing and invasive pests (insects, diseases, and weeds) (Florida FIRST 1999). Florida's climate is conducive to a wide range of pests affecting agriculture, natural areas, public health, and structures (Capinera et al. 1994). Increasing concerns expressed repeatedly by Florida's scientific community and the general public about environmental contamination, food safety issues, and human and animal health problems resulting from the indiscriminate use (and often misuse) of pesticides are making existing methods for pest management obsolete. Florida FIRST mandates that education and training programs in IPM, with biological control as the main component, be developed for Florida's major pest species (Florida FIRST 1999). Successful implementation of "true" IPM will have the added benefit of helping Florida "...enhance natural resources, provide consumers with a wide variety of safe and affordable foods,... provide enhanced environments for homes, work places, and vacations, maintain a sustainable food and fiber system, and improve the quality of life..." (Florida FIRST 1999).

The challenge facing Florida is not only to develop biological control technology to be used in IPM programs, but more importantly to encourage the adoption of these technologies at the local or grassroots level. County extension faculty, Master Gardeners and Naturalists as well as receptive producers can play a key role in this process. However, these educators need to be well trained in biological control concepts and programs in order to clearly explain and demonstrate to their clientele or neighbors that biological control should be an integral part of all IPM programs. Successful implementation of these underutilized technologies will maximize current and emerging agricultural productivity in an increasingly competitive global market while protecting Florida's fragile ecosystems and conserving its natural resources.

Our mission is to provide leadership in delivering basic concepts and practical training in biological control so that it can serve as the basis of IPM in the priority areas of agriculture, horticulture, structures, natural resources and public health. The purpose of this project will be to address a statewide mandate to improve the knowledge base of extension professionals by developing and implementing in-service training programs for county extension faculty, Master Gardeners and Naturalists, conventional and organic mentoring farmers, natural resource managers and other pest consultants in biological control techniques to support IPM practices.

Behavior-based Objectives

  • Assist county faculty / mentoring groups in delivering information. Synthesize, evaluate, integrate and apply information in support of county faculty; help identify audiences and technical needs; organize pertinent literature; describe biological control / IPM projects in the counties, successful and unsuccessful; and increase State Major Program (SMP) impact and efficiency. (Design Team, graduate student)
  • Link extension specialists and researchers with county extension faculty. List SMP members; identify expertise on specific crops, pests and natural enemies; form multi-institutional partnerships for research and teaching; coordinate resources and expertise; establish goals, determine resource needs, monitor implementation, and evaluate outcomes; and conduct annual meetings. (Design Team, O'Brien)
  • Enhance teaching of biological control / IPM. Deliver training to county extension faculty, provide slide sets and PowerPoint presentations of pests and associated natural enemies, develop and disseminate other educational materials, and encourage team teaching. (Cuda, graduate student)
  • Establish and maintain a biological control / IPM web site. Establish a listserv to facilitate and increase communication; maintain linkages to county, state, national and international IPM programs, and connect with Florida Pest Alert, Featured Creatures, School IPM and other local sources of information. The web site also will be a portal to relevant IFAS web-based information systems such as the Electronic Digital Information Source (EDIS), the Distance Diagnostic Information System (DDIS), and the Florida Automated Weather Network (FAWN) (UF-IFAS 1999) (Fasulo, Douglas)
  • Advance commercial biological control / IPM in Florida. Increase opportunities for biological control business in Florida, encourage technology transfer and natural enemy production and supply within the state, provide access to the greater biological control community, assist with regulatory process for importation and release of beneficial living organisms, and interface with county and state IPM programs. (Leppla)
  • Determine educational and technical needs and opportunities for biological control and IPM. Conduct strategic planning and establish shared objectives for targeted pests, identify promising natural enemies, and make rapid progress in solving problems of Florida's agricultural and non-agricultural clientele. (Design Team)

Evaluation

Evaluations of individual training sessions on the basic concepts and principles of biological control in the context of IPM will be accomplished by using standardized pre-assessment/post-assessment methods. The satisfactory completion of a comprehensive certification examination patterned after traditional pesticide applicator training examinations is another option that is being contemplated.

A demonstration project will be conducted to show participating producers how to use biological control and IPM practices to reduce the use of pesticides in a small farm production system. For example, Florida ranks second in the U.S. in the production of strawberries (USDA 1998). Yet current production costs make strawberries one of the most expensive crops to produce (USDA 1998). Approximately 88% of the commercial growers in central and south Florida reported that mites are the worst arthropod pest problem on strawberries (USDA 1998). Maintaining populations of beneficial predaceous mites through augmentative releases is recognized as an important component of strawberry pest management, but less than 20% of the major Florida producers currently use this practice (USDA 1998).

Biological control of the two-spotted spider mite, Tetranychus urticae Koch, in strawberry production can be effective when it is properly implemented. A relatively straightforward procedure that requires minimal training has been developed for use in commercial strawberry production systems (van de Vrie and Price 1996). Small farmers in north Florida that are experimenting with strawberry production as an alternative crop could benefit from hands-on training in the proper use of beneficial mites. The demonstration project that is proposed would complement other SARE sustainable agriculture programs that have been implemented for small farmers in north Florida (Knox and Crocker 1999). Producers will be involved in all phases of the project, i.e. planning, implementing and evaluating results.

Success in the long term ultimately will be demonstrated by a fundamental shift away from relying exclusively on pesticides to the general acceptance of biological control-based IPM as the preferred method of pest control in Florida.

Approaches and Methods

The procedures we plan to use in establishing our professional development program will be based on the model proposed by Van Dreische and Bellows (1996). We envision the establishment of a new State Major Program (SMP) that will perform the following five functions:

  1. Provide Leadership. A SMP entitled "Delivery of Biological Control Information and IPM Technology" will be formally designated according to the major program concept adopted by Florida (Taylor 1994, Taylor and Summerhill 1994). A Design Team will be established to provide leadership in planning activities and assigning programmatic responsibilities, developing and disseminating appropriate educational materials, coordinating resources and expertise, organizing in-service training programs, and assisting county faculty in implementing and evaluating the impact of the SMP. The composition of the Design Team will include individuals representing all relevant disciplines, institutions, agencies, private industry and grower organizations having a vested interest in biological control and IPM in Florida. A county faculty member will be designated as one of the Co-Leaders of the Design Team to ensure the needs of the counties are being met.
  2. Train Extension Agents in Biological Control. The Design Team will provide the central structure and coordination for developing appropriate materials for training county faculty, their clientele, and other pest consultants. The training program will cover all relevant topics including natural enemy identification and biology, monitoring techniques, and will stress the incorporation of biological control into existing and new pest management programs. An emphasis will be placed on Internet and interactive video conferencing distance learning methods to avoid placing an additional burden on county faculty travel budgets. UF-IFAS has well-equipped classrooms at various locations throughout the state of Florida that will enable biological control/IPM specialists and county faculty to communicate with each other through a two-way audio and video signal (UF-IFAS 1999).
  3. Provide Regular Information Updates. The proposed web site will draw together useful biological control information by commodity, and be a portal to new developments in biological control and IPM specific to Florida. Separate sections in the web site will be devoted to: free
    • Extension Contacts - expertise available in the field of biological control;
    • Extension Troubleshooting - biological control for homeowners, growers, etc.;
    • Hot Topics -current issues, up-coming events, what's new;
    • Frequently Asked Questions -problems solved in one location that apply to others;
    • Biological Control Links - DDIS, EDIS, FAWN, Biological Control Virtual Information Center, others;
    • Teaching Biological Control - concepts, principles, ideas;
    • Commercial Biological Control - opportunities for industry in Florida;
    • Environmental Assessments - recent examples;
    • Biological Control Glossary - technical terms defined;
    • Identification - assistance in determining the identity of pests and their natural enemies via DDIS EDIS, other sources.
  4. Provide Materials to Train Growers. The web site will link to and complement EDIS, a database that references all current IFAS Extension Publications, and can deliver extension information through the internet, on CD-ROM, and in print media (UF-IFAS 1999). The web site also will link to DDIS, a web-based diagnostic/educational program that can provide growers with rapid identification of the pests and their natural enemies (UF-IFAS 1999).
  5. Participation of Extension Agents and Growers in Biological Control Research. The SMP will provide the institutional mechanism to create opportunities for growers, county faculty and extension specialists to participate in biological control research and demonstration projects. Active participation of county faculty and growers in the planning and implementation of research projects will provide them with practical training in handling natural enemies, increase their understanding of the biologies of natural enemies, and enable them to gain an appreciation for some of the factors that contribute to biological control successes and failures. The practical experience obtained from participating in field projects will make county faculty more effective in convincing growers to adopt IPM practices that emphasize biological control. Involvement of county faculty also is essential in establishing grower contacts for demonstration projects.

Expected Outcomes

Developing effective training in biological control for IPM programs requires dedicated extension professionals and willing and cooperative growers. In order to succeed, growers must realize that implementing biological control as part of an IPM program is a more complex endeavor than simply treating pests when they occur. Therefore, the goals of this project are to:

  1. Improve the understanding and appreciation of biological control and pesticide alternatives in the farming, gardening, natural resources and urban communities;
  2. Reduce reliance on pesticides through the increased adoption of biological control and pesticide alternatives;
  3. Develop an effective network of extension specialists, county faculty, and mentoring farmers dedicated to delivering biological control technology within the context of IPM to user groups;
  4. Incorporate this pilot training program into the curriculum for the new Doctor of Plant Medicine degree program recently created at the University of Florida, and
  5. If the project is successful in Florida, partner with the newly established regional Pest Management Center located in Florida to implement the training program in other southern states, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Anticipated Timetable

  • Year 1 - Design Team will determine the type of biological control/IPM information that is needed by county faculty and Master Gardeners from frequent listserv discussions and quarterly video conferences. Design Team Co-leaders will meet and develop in-service training and learning activities based on the needs assessment. Instructors (Extension Specialists) and a graduate teaching assistant will compile and organize training materials for dissemination by the most appropriate medium of delivery (e.g. annual workshops, video conference short courses, web site, CD-ROM, print media). Graduate student will develop a biological control database by commodity group, and work with webmaster to incorporate "user-friendly" information and images into the new web site. Design Team Co-leaders will meet with the key personnel at the Center for Biological Control at FAMU , and extension specialists at the North Florida Research and Education Center, Quincy, FL, to coordinate program activities and solicit their participation in delivering biological control/IPM information and techniques to small farm communities in North Florida. Initiate regional demonstration projects based on input from the Design Team. Prepare and submit progress report.
  • Year 2 - Conduct in-service training programs, develop appropriate evaluation instruments for measuring program success, and promote the SMP and web site at local, state and national conferences. Continue to update web site and complete the process of incorporating relevant information from EDIS and DDIS into the web site. Work with extension specialists, county faculty and participating growers to monitor and evaluate results of the demonstration project in terms of a reduction in pesticide usage. Submit annual report.

Institutional Capacity and Major Participants

The University of Florida (UF) and Florida A& M University (FAMU) have dedicated significant resources and personnel to biological control and IPM programs. Both universities provide regional service in biological control research, student training, and, to a limited extent, dissemination of information on biological control implementation. State agencies such as the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and Florida's Water Management Districts (FWMDs) have made major commitments to fund classical biological control research. The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) provides identification and quarantine services to support biological control efforts. Federal research and education centers (USDA-ARS laboratories in Gainesville, Ft. Pierce, Ft. Lauderdale, Miami) and local industries (Entomos, US Sugar,Walt Disney World) also have active biological control research, education and rearing programs. Two new quarantine and training centers are currently under construction in Florida. UF and FDACS are jointly funding a new facility at the Ft. Pierce REC, and the USDA is building a new laboratory in Davie. Walt Disney World also has agreed to provide natural enemies for demonstration projects and training purposes. All of the aforementioned agencies will have representation on the Design Team.

Project Collaborators

  • Entomology & Nematology Department, University of Florida (James Cuda (Co-PI), Norm Leppla (Co-PI), Thomas Fasulo, Marion Douglas)
  • University of Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Alachua County (Gary Brinen)
  • Center for Biological Control, Florida A&M University (Charles O'Brien)
  • Florida Organic Growers (Marty Mesh)
  • Master Gardeners (Dale Habeck)

Contributions and responsibilities of the project collaborators are identified under "Behavior-Based Objectives." The project collaborators and participating growers will provide leadership in coordinating and communicating the planning, execution, and evaluation of a new SMP in biological control implementation.

References

App, J. and T. Nell. 1995. Environmentally compatible pest management- urban pest management, environmental landscape management. Partnership with Florida, University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. 2 pp.

Capinera, J. L., F. D. Bennett and D. Rosen. 1994. Introduction: why biological control and IPM are important to Florida, pp. 3-8. In D. Rosen, F. D. Bennett, and J. L. Capinera (eds.), Pest Management in the Subtropics: Biological Control- a Florida Perspective. Intercept Limited, Andover, UK.

Ehler, L. E. and D. G. Bottrell. (2000). "The illusion of integrated pest management. Issues in Science and Technology Online." http://www.nap.edu/issues/16.3/ehler.htm. (May 30, 2001).

Florida FIRST. 1999. Putting Florida first: Focusing IFAS resources on solutions for tomorrow. University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. 16 pp. & 2 appendices.

Jacob, S., L. Arrington and J. Rogers. 1999. Tentative county programming priorities summary report. University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Cooperative Extension Service. 20 pp.

Knox, G. and T.E. Crocker. 1999. Integrated production of sustainable crops for small farmers in north Florida. Progress Report ES97-30 : 21. Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education, Southern Region Professional Development Program.

Rosen, D., F. D. Bennett, and J. L. Capinera. 1996. Preface, pp. v-vi. In D. Rosen, F. D. Bennett, and J. L. Capinera (eds.), Pest Management in the Subtropics: Integrated Pest Management- a Florida Perspective. Intercept Limited, Andover, UK.

Swisher, M. E. 1999. Farmer to Farmer networks: An experimental approach. Final Report LST96-12: 7-8. Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education, Southern Region Professional Development Program.

Taylor, C. L. 1994. Concept of a major program. Fact Sheet PE-49, University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Cooperative Extension Service. 2 pp.

Taylor, C. L. and W. R. Summerhill. 1994. Concept of state major programs and design teams. Fact Sheet PE-56, University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Cooperative Extension Service. 2 pp.

UF/IFAS. 1999. New faculty orientation, UF/IFAS information technologies. 41 pp.

USDA, OPMP & PIAP. (1998). "Crop profile for strawberries in Florida." http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/docs/FLstrawberries.html. (May 30, 2001).

Van de Vrie, M. and J.F. Price. 1996. Biological control of two-spotted spider mites on strawberries in Florida. Citrus and Vegetable Magazine 60: 24-26, 55.

Van Driesche, R. G. and T. S Bellows. 1996. The role of grower education in biological control, pp. 401-414. In Biological Control, Chapter 19. Chapman & Hall, New York.

Zalom, F. G. 1999. Professional training and technology transfer, pp. 765-787. In J. R. Ruberson (ed.), Handbook of Pest Management. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York.