# USDA integrated pest management initiative



## chun (Aug 21, 2009)

I'm currently reviewing the use of insecticides in arable farming in the UK for my Msc thesis. Whilst researching i came across the USDA's integrated pest management (IPM) initiative which aimed to insure future profitability, sustainability and comeptitveness of US agriculture. The 1993, the Clinton Administration in joint testimony by the USDA and EPA and FDA before Congress stated that "implementing IPM [a more sustainable approach to pest management favouring nonspraying methods such as using economic thresholds, biocontrol, pheremone traps etc] on 75% of the nation's crop acres by 2000 was a national goal".

not sure if many people are familiar with US' agricultural policies, but it's worth asking because i am clueless about US policies. I've found a few sources on the strategies of achieving the goal, but as we all know with politics, not every promised targets or goals are reached or achieved, so i was wondering if anyone know if the USDA achieved the national goal in 2000?

It's abit of a long shot


----------



## PhilinYuma (Aug 21, 2009)

Have to love that IPM. Very much a political animal aimed at the urban voting population who are increasingly opting for "organic" "pesticide free" produce without any idea it seems, of how that is to be effected on a grand scale. The blurb site, long on promises and short on facts is here: http://www.ipmcenters.org/whatis.cfm

For more factual information, Google the PDF put out by Pennsylvania Univerity on "Commercial Vegetable Production Recommendations Pennsylvania 2007"

Their recomendation if crop spraying is not effective? Spray earlier and more. There are about 6 pages in section 5 listing pesticides in current use.

Also, take a look at this document: http://www.ipmcenters.org/whatis.cfm

Susan T. Ratcliffe is very much to the fore on this topic, and you might wish to contact her. If you Google her name, you will get her phone # and Email addy at the University of Illinois, Urbana.

Good luck!


----------



## kamakiri (Aug 22, 2009)

IPM...love the concept and practice what I can personally, but I sincerely doubt any goal like that has been met. 75% ha! Especially by 2000. I'd be surprised if the goal was met even recently. I also try to support such efforts through the household purchasing of USDA certified organic produce, but when you look at how few organic products are available (even though it is waay better than just a few years ago) there is no way IPM can actually be implemented with that target number, well, unless the measurement of such statistic were highly um, 'adjusted'.

Interesting topic, and I'd love to hear what you find out...


----------



## kamakiri (Aug 22, 2009)

Reading through this document:

http://www.ipmcenters.org/ipmsymposiumv/sessions/3_Gray.pdf

I'd say 'no', the goal has not been met.

Getting farmers to buy in that IPM is a better way does not appear to be taking root. I'd also search what a major US company like ConAgra has to say on the subject. Especially over their entire operations and not just an arm that markets organic products.

Personally, I think the government just needs to fund the research and to make the beneficial insects, spores, etc. available even if for free or subsidized cost.


----------



## chun (Aug 24, 2009)

Thanks for the info, i will email Susan later on. My thesis' main aim is to break down and review the economic threshold component of IPM, questioning their importance in modern wheat and oilseed rape farming and the current economic climate. It's no surprise that in the UK, farmers are over-spraying their crops with insecticides, in particularly pyrethroids against insect pests, taking very little into account the actual pest abundance which rarely exceeds the economic thresholds. This over-spraying and general disregard for adoptiong a threshold-based pest management approach highlights some the issues farmers face. Farmers, like any businesses, want to a) maximise profits and B) minimise risk associated with investing, so it's no surprise that farmers use pesticides as a form of insurance to protect against crop loss or failures, especially if broad spectrum pyrethroids/insecticides are worth peanuts; i would do exactly the same thing if i was a farmer. An USDA paper i read about the IPM initiative sounded optimistic and to be honest, a lot more practical than the approach the UK are taking to reduce pesticide usage and residues. What i found interesting was how the USDA are trying to promote the sustainable agriculture and has provided strategies and objectives for doing so. Unlike the States, European policies focus more on simply reducing pesticide use and often provides very little outline on how to achieve such objective. Just thought it was a good idea to research into how much of the objectives set up were actual bull''''", it'll interesting either way. To be honest, i dont think pumping money into much needed agricultural research would be one of the governments' top priority in the UK and probably likewise for the States...and it shows by the difficulty in getting enough money and grant to conduct these important research. But i'm a scientist, i know nothing about politics.

I agree with you kamikiri, i thought the target was OVERLY optimistic, but atleast they tried. i think IPM is a brilliant idea but i still think the science behind it is still quite young and a lot of work (and money) are needed to improve it, but like with everything else, where will that money come from? The majority of consumers want reduced chemical residues on their food but are not prepared to pay for it and unfortunately, organic farming will never be productive enough to produce enough yield, in particularly, wheat. At the end of the day, pesticides will always be the cheapest and most viable option until IPM can show its worth, sigh.


----------

