For More Info Contact:
Cathy Nardozzo
314 Ag Administration Bldg.
University Park, PA 16802
Phone: 814-863-0604
E-mail: cfn2@psu.edu
As the new Farm Bill is being written, the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) communities and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) have been discussing program modifications that would allow a better alignment of NRCS incentive programs in support of IPM practice adoption, especially in specialty crops. NRCS has funded IPM practice adoption for specialty crops in Pennsylvania for the past 4 years. The Pennsylvania IPM Program (PAIPM), a collaboration between Penn State University and the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (PDA) has promoted and facilitated this interaction. Penn State, NRCS and PDA personnel have been instrumental in its success. Crops have included apples, peaches, pears, Christmas trees, sweet corn, and grapes, but IPM criteria for funding in other specialty crops are being continually developed.
Three different farm bill conservation programs have been used in Pennsylvania to support IPM adoption: Agricultural Management Assistance (AMA), Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP), and Conservation Security Program (CSP). The Bush administration is proposing to merge AMA into EQIP and retain CSP. Some other proposals call for keeping AMA. There are expected to be at least be two programs funding IPM in the future. Currently, AMA/EQIP provides incentives for producers to implement new practices. CSP provides incentives to producers who have adopted a practice and agree to continue using it. There are proposals to increase CSP funding to provide incentives to more growers and the IPM tools are available for these growers, but funding is limited.
There is a need for IPM-knowledgeable people to work with farmers and farm consultants to explain contracted IPM practices through NRCS and their proper implementation. This is especially true in high value specialty crops where production practices are more intensive and IPM programs are more complex. These knowledgeable people can be NRCS employees, university personnel in extension or field research, or private consultants. As can be seen below, there are many environmental benefits to IPM in specialty crops in addition to the production benefits to growers. Currently, PA NRCS is trying to target growers who are using intensive pesticide spray programs in specialty crops and where good IPM alternatives exist.
Environmental/Natural Resource Benefits of IPM
• IPM provides multiple benefits to the quality of air, water, and soil as well as improving wildlife habitat/biodiversity and human health.
• IPM improves air, soil and water quality through reduced pesticide and fertilizer inputs.
• Alternatives to soil fumigation such as green manures and alternatives to herbicides such as mulching both increase soil respiration and ecosystem functioning to improve soil quality
• Improvements in wildlife habitat, biological pest control and alternative pollinators through cover crops, windbreaks, and wild flower strips that also help prevent soil erosion.
• Reductions in air pollution and offsite pesticide contamination are attained by using improved “smart sprayer” agri-technology for more targeted pesticide applications.
• Substitution of non-pesticide control (e.g. mating disruption dispensers or increased biological control) for pesticide inputs.
• Substitution of environmentally safer, low rate, reduced risk pesticides in place of broad spectrum neurotoxin insecticides.
• Improved safety to pesticide applicators and workers should be considered.
• Reduction in pesticide residues on food is an important outcome.
• IPM is a critical component of multidisciplinary environmental stewardship (i.e. sustainable agriculture) when combined with other farming practices.
Current Events: