Biointensive Integrated Pest Management

BIOINTENSIVE
INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT
(IPM)
FUNDAMENTALS OF SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE

ATTRA is the national sustainable agriculture information center funded by the USDA’s Rural Business--Cooperative Service.
Abstract: This publication provides the rationale for biointensive Integrated
Pest Management (IPM), outlines the concepts and tools of biointensive IPM,
and suggests steps and provides informational resources for implementing IPM.
It is targeted to individuals interested in agriculture at all levels.

By Rex Dufour
NCAT Agriculture Specialist
July 2001

Contents
“Conventional” and “Biointensive” IPM ......................................................................................................... 2
Why Move to Biointensive IPM? ....................................................................................................................... 4
Components of Biointensive IPM ...................................................................................................................... 5
How to Get Started ......................................................................................................................................... 5
The Pest Manager/Ecosystem Manager ..................................................................................................... 5
Proactive Strategies (Cultural Controls) ...................................................................................................... 6
Biological Controls ........................................................................................................................................ 11
Mechanical and Physical Controls ............................................................................................................. 12
Pest Identification ......................................................................................................................................... 12
Monitoring ..................................................................................................................................................... 13
Economic Injury & Action Levels ............................................................................................................... 14
Special Considerations ...................................................................................................................................... 14
Cosmetic Damage and Aesthetics .............................................................................................................. 14
Record-keeping ............................................................................................................................................. 14
Chemical Controls ........................................................................................................................................ 14
Integrated Weed Management Systems ......................................................................................................... 17
Current Status of IPM ....................................................................................................................................... 19
Crops with Developed IPM Programs ...................................................................................................... 19
Government Policy ....................................................................................................................................... 19
The Future of IPM .............................................................................................................................................. 20
Food Quality Protection Act ........................................................................................................................ 20
New Options ................................................................................................................................................. 20
More Weed IPM ............................................................................................................................................ 20
On-farm Resources ............................................................................................................................................ 21
IPM On-line ........................................................................................................................................................ 21
IPM Certification and Marketing .................................................................................................................... 21
Summary ............................................................................................................................................................. 22
References ........................................................................................................................................................... 23
Appendices:
A: IPM Planning Considerations ................................................................................................................ 25
B: Microbial Pesticides ................................................................................................................................ 27
C: Microbial Pesticide Manufacturers and Suppliers ............................................................................. 34
D: Conservation Security Act 2000 ............................................................................................................ 37
E: Pest Management Practices in Major Crops ........................................................................................ 38
F: IPM Information Resources ................................................................................................................... 39

ATTRA is a project of the National Center for Appropriate Technology

“Conventional” and “Biointensive” IPM ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Pest management is an ecological matter. The A conception of a managed resource, such
size of a pest population and the damage it as a cropping system on a farm, as a
inflicts is, to a great extent, a reflection of the component of a functioning ecosystem.
design and management of a particular agricul- Actions are taken to restore and enhance
tural ecosystem. natural balances in the system, not to
eliminate species. Regular monitoring
We humans compete with other organisms for makes it possible to evaluate the popula-
food and fiber from our crops. We wish to tions of pest and beneficial organisms. The
secure a maximum amount of the food re- producer can then take steps to enhance
source from a given area with minimum input natural controls (or at least avoid or limit
of resources and energy. However, if the the disruption of natural controls) of the
agricultural system design and/or manage- target pest(s).
ment is faulty—making it easy for pests to
develop and expand their populations or, An understanding that the presence of a
conversely, making it difficult for predators pest does not necessarily constitute a
and parasites of pests to exist—then we will be problem. Before a potentially disruptive
expending unnecessary resources for pest control method is employed, appropriate
management. Therefore, the first step in sus- decision-making criteria are used to deter-
tainable and effective pest management is mine whether or not pest management
looking at the design of the agricultural ecosys- actions are needed.
tem and considering what ecological concepts
can be applied to the design and management A consideration of all possible pest manage-
of the system to better manage pests and their ment options before action is taken.
parasites and predators.
A philosophy that IPM strategies integrate
The design and management of our agricul- a combination of all suitable techniques in
tural systems need re-examining. We’ve come as compatible a manner as possible; it is
to accept routine use of biological poisons in important that one technique not conflict
our food systems as normal. But routine use of with another (1).
synthetic chemicals represents significant
energy inputs into the agricultural system, and However, IPM has strayed from its ecological
carries both obvious and hidden costs to the roots. Critics of what might be termed “con-
farmer and society. Attempting to implement ventional” IPM note that it has been imple-
an ecology-based discipline like IPM in large mented as Integrated Pesticide Management
monocultures, which substitute chemical (or even Improved Pesticide Marketing) with
inputs for ecological design, can be an exercise an emphasis on using pesticides as a tool of
in futility and inefficiency. first resort. What has been missing from this
approach, which is essentially reactive, is an
IPM, as it was originally conceived, proposed understanding of the ecological basis of pest
to manage pests though an understanding of infestations (see first bullet above). Also
their interactions with other organisms and the missing from the conventional approach are
environment. Most of the 77 definitions for guidelines for ecology-based manipulations of the
IPM listed in The Database of IPM Resources farm agroecosystem that address the questions:
(DIR) website, <http://www.ipmnet.org/
DIR/>, despite some differences in emphasis, Why is the pest there?
agree with this idea and have the following How did it arrive?
elements in common: Why doesn’t the parasite/predator
complex control the pest?

//Biointensive Integrated Pest Management Page 2

reactive Chemical Controls
Applied Biologicals

Mechanical &
Physical Conrols

Monitoring & ID of Pests Monitoring & ID of Pests
& Beneficials

//Biointensive Integrated Pest Management
Sanitation, Planting Dates, & Crop Rotation

Aboveground Crop Genetic Diversity
Beneficial Habitat & Cultivars Appropriate
& Healthy Soil to Ecosystem & Pest
Pressures
proactive

Biointensive IPM Conventional IPM

Page 3

Why Move to Biointensive IPM? ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Biointensive IPM incorporates ecological and dominated by farms. Although some pending
economic factors into agricultural system design legislation has recognized the costs to farmers
and decision making, and addresses public of providing these ecological services (see
concerns about environmental quality and food Appendix D), it’s clear that farmers and
safety. The benefits of implementing ranchers will be required to manage their land
biointensive IPM can include reduced chemical with greater attention to direct and indirect off-
input costs, reduced on-farm and off-farm farm impacts of various farming practices on
environmental impacts, and more effective water, soil, and wildlife resources. With this
and sustainable pest management. An likely future in mind, reducing dependence on
ecology-based IPM has the potential of chemical pesticides in favor of ecosystem
decreasing inputs of fuel, machinery, and manipulations is a good strategy for farmers.
synthetic chemicals—all of which are energy
intensive and increasingly costly in terms of Consumers Union, a group that has carried
financial and environmental impact. Such out research and advocacy on various
reductions will benefit the grower and society. pesticide problems for many years, defines
biointensive IPM as the highest level of IPM:
Over-reliance on the use of synthetic pesticides
in crop protection programs around the world “a systems approach to pest management
has resulted in disturbances to the environ- based on an understanding of pest ecology.
ment, pest resurgence, pest resistance to pesti- It begins with steps to accurately diagnose
the nature and source of pest problems,
cides, and lethal and sub-lethal effects on non-
and then relies on a range of preventive
target organisms, including humans (3). These tactics and biological controls to keep pest
side effects have raised public concern about populations within acceptable limits.
the routine use and safety of pesticides. At the Reduced-risk pesticides are used if other
same time, population increases are placing tactics have not been adequately effective,
ever-greater demands upon the “ecological as a last resort, and with care to minimize
services”—that is, provision of clean air, water risks.” (2)
and wildlife habitat—of a landscape
This “biointensive” approach sounds remark-
Prior to the mid-1970s, lygus bugs were ably like the original concept of IPM. Such a
considered to be the key pest in California “systems” approach makes sense both intu-
cotton. Yet in large-scale studies on insec- itively and in practice.
ticidal control of lygus bugs, yields in un-
treated plots were not significantly differ- The primary goal of biointensive IPM is to
ent from those on treated plots. This was provide guidelines and options for the effective
because the insecticides often induced out- management of pests and beneficial organisms
breaks of secondary lepidopterous larvae in an ecological context. The flexibility and
(i.e., cabbage looper, beet armyworm, and environmental compatibility of a biointensive
bollworm) and mite pests which caused ad- IPM strategy make it useful in all types of
ditional damage as well as pest resurgence cropping systems.
of the lygus bug itself. These results, from
an economic point of view, seem paradoxi- Even conventional IPM strategies help to
cal, as the lygus bug treatments were costly, prevent pest problems from developing, and
yet the treated plots consistently had lower reduce or eliminate the use of chemicals in
yields (i.e., it cost farmers money to lose managing problems that do arise. Results of 18
money). This paradox was first pointed out economic evaluations of conventional IPM on
by R. van den Bosch, V. Stern, and L. A. cotton showed a decrease in production costs
Falcon, who forced a reevaluation of the of 7 percent and an average decrease in pesti-
economic basis of Lygus control in Califor- cide use of 15 percent (4). Biointensive IPM
nia cotton (5). would likely decrease chemical use and costs
even further.


Components of Biointensive IPM ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

An important difference between conventional When planning a biointensive IPM program,
and biointensive IPM is that the emphasis of some considerations include:
the latter is on proactive measures to redesign Options for design changes in the agricul-
the agricultural ecosystem to the disadvantage tural system (beneficial organism habitat,
of a pest and to the advantage of its parasite crop rotations)
and predator complex. At the same time, Choice of pest-resistant cultivars
biointensive IPM shares many of the same Technical information needs
components as conventional IPM, including Monitoring options, record keeping, equip-
monitoring, use of economic thresholds, record ment, etc.
keeping, and planning.
The table in Appendix A provides more details
How To Get Started With IPM about these and other ideas that should be
— PLANNING, PLANNING, PLANNING considered when implementing a biointensive
IPM program.
Good planning must precede implementation
of any IPM program, but is particularly impor- The Pest Manager / Ecosystem Manager
tant in a biointensive program. Planning
should be done before planting because many The pest manager is the most important link in
pest strategies require steps or inputs, such as a successful IPM program. The manager must
beneficial organism habitat management, that know the biology of the pest and the beneficial
must be considered well in advance. Attempt- organisms associated with the pest, and under-
ing to jump-start an IPM program in the begin- stand their interactions within the farm envi-
ning or middle of a cropping season generally ronment. As a detailed knowledge of the pest
does not work. is developed, weak links in its life cycle

Blocks on the Pesticide Treadmill

Resistance: Pesticide use exerts a powerful selection pressure for changing the genetic make-up of
a pest population. Naturally resistant individuals in a pest population are able to survive pesti-
cide treatments. The survivors pass on the resistance trait to their offspring. The result is a much
higher percentage of the pest population resistant to a pesticide. In the last decade, the number of
weed species known to be resistant to herbicides rose from 48 to 270, and the number of plant
pathogens resistant to fungicides grew from 100 to 150. Resistance to insecticides is so common —
more than 500 species — that nobody is really keeping score (2).

Resurgence: Pesticides often kill off natural enemies along with the pest. With their natural en-
emies eliminated, there is little to prevent recovered pest populations from exploding to higher,
more damaging numbers than existed before pesticides were applied. Additional chemical pesti-
cide treatments only repeat this cycle.

Secondary Pests: Some potential pests that are normally kept under good control by natural en-
emies become actual pests after their natural enemies are destroyed by pesticides. Mite outbreaks
after pesticide applications are a classic example.

Residues: Only a minute portion of any pesticide application contacts the target organism. The
remainder may degrade harmlessly, but too often water, wind, and soil will carries pesticides to
non-target areas and organisms, affecting the health of human and wildlife populations. Public
concerns over residues are deepened by the lack of research and knowledge about possible syner-
gistic interactions between pesticide residues and the hundreds of other synthetic chemical resi-
dues now found in the environment.


become apparent. These weak links are phases The second set of options is more reactive.
of the life cycle when the pest is most suscep- This simply means that the grower responds to
tible to control measures. The manager must a situation, such as an economically damaging
integrate this knowledge with tools and tech- population of pests, with some type of short-
niques of biointensive IPM to manage not one, term suppressive action. Reactive methods
but several pests. A more accurate title for the generally include inundative releases of bio-
pest manager is “ecosystem doctor,” for he or logical controls, mechanical and physical
controls, and chemical controls.
she must pay close attention to the pulse of the
managed ecosystem and stay abreast of devel-
Proactive Strategies (Cultural Control)
opments in IPM and crop/pest biology and
ecology. In this way, the ecosystem manager • Healthy, biologically active soils (increasing
can take a proactive approach to managing belowground diversity)
pests, developing ideas about system manipu-
lations, testing them, and observing the results. • Habitat for beneficial organisms (increasing
aboveground diversity)
IPM options may be considered proactive or
reactive. Proactive options, such as crop • Appropriate plant cultivars
rotations and creation of habitat for beneficial
organisms, permanently lower the carrying Cultural controls are manipulations of the
capacity of the farm for the pest. The carrying agroecosystem that make the cropping system
capacity is determined by factors like food, less friendly to the establishment and prolifera-
shelter, natural enemies complex, and weather, tion of pest populations. Although they are
designed to have positive effects on farm
which affect the reproduction and survival of a
ecology and pest management, negative im-
species. Cultural controls are generally consid-
pacts may also result, due to variations in
ered to be proactive strategies. weather or changes in crop management.

Carrying Capacity of Farm Systems for Pest Populations:

In a non-farmscaped system, where pests have fewer natural controls and thus reach higher average
populations, they are more likely to approach or exceed the economic threshold level for the crop, making
pesticide treatments likely. In a farmscaped system, greater and more consistent populations of beneficial
organisms put more ecological pressure on the pests, with the result that pest populations are less likely to
approach the economic threshold. In other words, the ecological carrying capacity for a pest will probably be lower in
a farmscaped system. For more on farmscaping, see p. 11.


Maintaining and increasing biological diversity occur there as well. For example, larvae of one
of the farm system is a primary strategy of species of blister beetle consume about 43
cultural control. Decreased biodiversity tends grasshopper eggs before maturing (10). Both
to result in agroecosystems that are unstable are found in the soil. (Unfortunately, although
and prone to recurrent pest outbreaks and blister beetle larvae can help reduce grasshop-
many other problems (5). Systems high in per populations, the adult beetles can be a
biodiversity tend to be more “dynamically serious pest for many vegetable growers.)
stable”—that is, the variety of organisms Overall, a healthy soil with a diversity of
provide more checks and balances on each beneficial organisms and high organic matter
other, which helps prevent one species (i.e., content helps maintain pest populations below
pest species) from overwhelming the system. their economic thresholds.

There are many ways to manage and increase Genetic diversity of a particular crop may be
biodiversity on a farm, both above ground and increased by planting more than one cultivar.
in the soil. In fact, For example, a
diversity above “When we kill off the natural recent experiment
ground influences in China (11)
enemies of a pest we inherit
diversity below demonstrated that
their work”  Carl Huffaker disease-susceptible
ground. Research has
shown that up to half rice varieties
of a plant’s photosynthetic production (carbo- planted in mixtures with resistant varieties had
hydrates) is sent to the roots, and half of that 89% greater yield and a 94% lower incidence of
(along with various amino acids and other rice blast (a fungus) compared to when they
plant products) leaks out the roots into the were grown in monoculture. The experiment,
surrounding soil, providing a food source for which involved five townships in 1998 and ten
microorganisms. These root exudates vary townships in 1999, was so successful that
from plant species to plant species and this fungicidal sprays were no longer applied by
variation influences the type of organisms the end of the two-year program.
associated with the root exudates (6).
Species diversity of the associated plant and
Factors influencing the health and biodiversity animal community can be increased by allow-
of soils include the amount of soil organic ing trees and other native plants to grow in
matter; soil pH; nutrient balance; moisture; and fence rows or along water ways, and by inte-
parent material of the soil. Healthy soils with a grating livestock into the farm system. Use of
diverse community of organisms support plant the following cropping schemes are additional
health and nutrition better than soils deficient ways to increase species diversity. (See
in organic matter and low in species diversity. ATTRA’s Farmscaping to Enhance Biological
Research has shown that excess nutrients (e.g., Control for more information on this topic.)
too much nitrogen) as well as relative nutrient
balance (i.e., ratios of nutrientsfor example, Crop rotations radically alter the environment
twice as much calcium as magnesium, com- both above and below ground, usually to the
pared to equal amounts of both) in soils affect disadvantage of pests of the previous crop.
insect pest response to plants (7, 8). Imbalances The same crop grown year after year on the
in the soil can make a plant more attractive to same field will inevitably build up populations
insect pests (7, 8), less able to recover from pest of organisms that feed on that plant, or, in the
damage, or more susceptible to secondary case of weeds, have a life cycle similar to that
infections by plant pathogens (8). Soils rich in of the crop. Add to this the disruptive effect of
organic matter tend to suppress plant patho- pesticides on species diversity, both above and
gens (9). In addition, it is estimated that 75% of below ground, and the result is an unstable
all insect pests spend part of their life cycle in system in which slight stresses (e.g., new pest
the soil, and many of their natural enemies variety or drought) can devastate the crop.


An enforced rotation program in the Imperial Val- direct return per acre than the alternate crop,
ley of California has effectively controlled the but may also lower management costs for the
sugar beet cyst nematode. Under this program, alternate crop (by reducing weed pressure, for
sugar beets may not be grown more than two example, and thus avoiding one tillage or
years in a row or more than four years out of ten herbicide application), with a net increase in
in clean fields (i.e., non-infested fields). In infested profit.
fields, every year of a sugar beet crop must be
followed by three years of a non-host crop. Other Other Cropping Structure Options
nematode pests commonly controlled with crop
rotation methods include the golden nematode Multiple cropping is the sequential production
of potato, many root-knot nematodes, and the of more than one crop on the same land in one
soybean cyst nematode. year. Depending on the type of cropping
sequence used, multiple cropping can be useful
When making a decision about crop rotation,
as a weed control measure, particularly when
consider the following questions: Is there an
the second crop is interplanted into the first.
economically sustainable crop that can be
rotated into the cropping system? Is it compat-
Interplanting is seeding or planting a crop into a
ible? Important considerations when develop-
growing stand, for example overseeding a
ing a crop rotation are:
cover crop into a grain stand. There may be
microclimate advantages (e.g., timing, wind
• What two (or three or several) crops can
protection, and less radical temperature and
provide an economic return when considered
humidity changes) as well as disadvantages
together as a biological and economic system
(competition for light, water, nutrients) to this
that includes considerations of sustainable soil
strategy. By keeping the soil covered, inter-
management?
planting may also help protect soil against
erosion from wind and rain.
• What are the impacts of this season’s crop-
ping practices on subsequent crops? Intercropping is the practice of growing two or
more crops in the same, alternate, or paired
• What specialized equipment is necessary for rows in the same area. This technique is
the crops? particularly appropriate in vegetable produc-
tion. The advantage of intercropping is that
• What markets are available for the rotation
crops?

A corn/soybean rotation is one example of
rotating compatible economic crops. Corn is a
grass; soybean is a leguminous broadleaf. The
pest complex of each, including soil organisms,
is quite different. Corn rootworm, one of the
major pests of corn, is virtually eliminated by
using this rotation. Both crops generally
provide a reasonable return. Even rotations,
however, create selection pressures that will
ultimately alter pest genetics. A good example
is again the corn rootworm: the corn/bean
rotation has apparently selected for a small
population that can survive a year of non-corn
(i.e., soybean) cropping (12).

Management factors should also be considered. Intercropping French beans with cilantro
For example, one crop may provide a lower —a potential control for symphylans.


the increased diversity helps “disguise” crops plants from these seeds will have a good
from insect pests, and if done well, may allow chance of being better suited to the local envi-
for more efficient utilization of limited soil and ronment and of being more resistant to insects
water resources. Disadvantages may relate to and diseases. Since natural systems are dy-
ease of managing two different crop species namic rather than static, breeding for resistance
with potentially different nutrient, water, and must be an ongoing process, especially in the
light needs, and differences in harvesting time case of plant disease, as the pathogens them-
and methodin close proximity to each other. selves continue to evolve and become resistant
For a detailed discussion, request the ATTRA to control measures (13).
publication, Intercropping: Principles and Produc-
tion Practices. Sanitation involves removing and destroying
the overwintering or breeding sites of the pest
Strip cropping is the practice of growing two or as well as preventing a new pest from establish-
more crops in different strips across a field ing on the farm (e.g., not allowing off-farm soil
wide enough for independent cultivation (e.g., from farm equipment to spread nematodes or
alternating six-row blocks of soybeans and corn plant pathogens to your land). This strategy
or alternating strips of alfalfa and cotton or has been particularly useful in horticultural and
alfalfa and corn). It is commonly practiced to tree-fruit crop situations involving twig and
help reduce soil erosion in hilly areas. Like branch pests. If, however, sanitation involves
intercropping, strip cropping increases the removal of crop residues from the soil surface,
diversity of a cropping area, which in turn may the soil is left exposed to erosion by wind and
help “disguise” the crops from pests. Another water. As with so many decisions in farming,
advantage to this system is that one of the crops both the short- and long-term benefits of each
may act as a reservoir and/or food source for action should be considered when tradeoffs like
beneficial organisms. However, much more this are involved.
research is needed on the complex interactions
between various paired crops and their pest/ Spacing of plants heavily influences the devel-
predator complexes. opment of plant diseases and weed problems.
The distance between plants and rows, the
The options described above can be integrated shape of beds, and the height of plants influ-
with no-till cultivation schemes and all its ence air flow across the crop, which in turn
variations (strip till, ridge till, etc.) as well as determines how long the leaves remain damp
with hedgerows and intercrops designed for from rain and morning dew. Generally speak-
beneficial organism habitat. With all the ing, better air flow will decrease the incidence
cropping and tillage options available, it is of plant disease. However, increased air flow
possible, with creative and informed manage- through wider spacing will also allow more
ment, to evolve a biologically diverse, pest- sunlight to the ground, which may increase
suppressive farming system appropriate to the weed problems. This is another instance in
unique environment of each farm. which detailed knowledge of the crop ecology
is necessary to determine the best pest manage-
Other Cultural Management Options ment strategies. How will the crop react to
increased spacing between rows and between
Disease-free seed and plants are available from plants? Will yields drop because of reduced
most commercial sources, and are certified as crop density? Can this be offset by reduced
such. Use of disease-free seed and nursery pest management costs or fewer losses from
stock is important in preventing the introduc- disease?
tion of disease.
Altered planting dates can at times be used to
Resistant varieties are continually being bred by avoid specific insects, weeds, or diseases. For
researchers. Growers can also do their own example, squash bug infestations on cucurbits
plant breeding simply by collecting non-hybrid can be decreased by the delayed planting
seed from healthy plants in the field. The strategy, i.e., waiting to establish the cucurbit


crop until overwintering adult squash bugs to vegetables by insect pests when hay or straw
have died. To assist with disease management was used as mulch. The difference was due to
decisions, the Cooperative Extension Service spiders, which find mulch more habitable than
(CES) will often issue warnings of “infection bare ground (15). Other researchers have
periods” for certain diseases, based upon the found that living mulches of various clovers
weather. reduce insect pest damage to vegetables and
orchard crops (16). Again, this reduction is due
In some cases, the CES also keeps track of to natural predators and parasites provided
“degree days” needed for certain important habitat by the clovers. Vetch has been used as
insect pests to develop. Insects, being cold- both a nitrogen source and as a weed suppres-
blooded, will not develop below or above sive mulch in tomatoes in Maryland (17).
certain threshold temperatures. Calculating Growers must be aware that mulching may
accumulated degree days, that is, the number also provide a more friendly environment for
of days above the threshold development slugs and snails, which can be particularly
temperature for an insect pest, makes the damaging at the seedling stage.
prediction of certain events, such as egg hatch,
possible. University of California has an excel- Mulching helps to minimize the spread of soil-
lent website that uses weather station data from borne plant pathogens by preventing their
around the state to help California growers transmission through soil splash. Mulch, if
predict pest emergence: <http://
heavy enough, prevents the germination of
www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/WEATHER/
many annual weed seeds. Winged aphids are
ddretrieve.html>.
repelled by silver- or aluminum-colored
mulches (18). Recent springtime field tests at
Some growers gauge the emergence of insect
the Agricultural Research Service in Florence,
pests by the flowering of certain non-crop plant
South Carolina, have indicated that red plastic
species native to the farm. This method uses
the “natural degree days” accumulated by mulch suppresses root-knot nematode damage
plants. For example, a grower might time in tomatoes by diverting resources away from
cabbage planting for three weeks after the the roots (and nematodes) and into foliage and
Amelanchier species (also known as saskatoon, fruit (19).
shadbush, or serviceberry) on their farm are in
bloom. This will enable the grower to avoid Biotech Crops. Gene transfer technology is being
peak egg-laying time of the cabbage maggot fly, used by several companies to develop cultivars
as the egg hatch occurs about the time resistant to insects, diseases, and herbicides.
Amelanchier species are flowering (14). Using An example is the incorporation of genetic
this information, cabbage maggot management material from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), a
efforts could be concentrated during a known naturally occurring bacterium, into cotton,
time frame when the early instars (the most corn, and potatoes, to make the plant tissues
easily managed stage) are active. toxic to bollworm, earworm, and potato beetle
larvae, respectively.
Optimum growing conditions are always impor-
tant. Plants that grow quickly and are healthy Whether or not this technology should be
can compete with and resist pests better than adopted is the subject of much debate. Oppo-
slow-growing, weak plants. Too often, plants nents are concerned that by introducing Bt
grown outside their natural ecosystem range genes into plants, selection pressure for resis-
must rely on pesticides to overcome conditions tance to the Bt toxin will intensify and a valu-
and pests to which they are not adapted. able biological control tool will be lost. There
are also concerns about possible impacts of
Mulches, living or non-living, are useful for genetically-modified plant products (i.e., root
suppression of weeds, insect pests, and some exudates) on non-target organisms as well as
plant diseases. Hay and straw, for example, fears of altered genes being transferred to weed
provide habitat for spiders. Research in Ten- relatives of crop plants. Whether there is a
nessee showed a 70% reduction in damage market for gene-altered crops is also a


consideration for farmers and processors. example, focuses on the establishment of
Proponents of this technology argue that use of flowering annual or perennial plants that
such crops decreases the need to use toxic provide pollen and nectar needed during
chemical pesticides. certain parts of the insect life cycle. Other
habitat features provided by farmscaping
Biological Control include water, alternative prey, perching sites,
overwintering sites, and wind protection.
Biological control is the use of living organisms Beneficial insects and other beneficial organ-
—parasites, predators, or pathogens—to main- isms should be viewed as mini-livestock, with
tain pest populations below economically specific habitat and food needs to be included
damaging levels, and may be either natural or in farm planning.
applied. A first step in setting up a biointensive
IPM program is to assess the populations of The success of such efforts depends on knowl-
beneficials and their interactions within the edge of the pests and beneficial organisms
local ecosystem. This will within the cropping
help to determine the system. Where do
potential role of natural the pests and bene-
enemies in the managed ficials overwinter?
agricultural ecosystem. It What plants are hosts
should be noted that some and non-hosts?
groups of beneficials (e.g., When this kind of
spiders, ground beetles, knowledge informs
bats) may be absent or planning, the eco-
scarce on some farms logical balance can
because of lack of habitat. be manipulated in
These organisms might favor of beneficials
make significant contri- and against the
butions to pest manage- Beneficial organisms should be viewed as pests.
ment if provided with mini-livestock, with specific habitat and
adequate habitat. food needs to be included in farm planning. It should be kept in
mind that ecosystem
Natural biological control results when naturally manipulation is a two-edged sword. Some
occurring enemies maintain pests at a lower plant pests (such as the tarnished plant bug
level than would occur without them, and is and lygus bug) are attracted to the same plants
generally characteristic of biodiverse systems. that attract beneficials. The development of
Mammals, birds, bats, insects, fungi, bacteria, beneficial habitats with a mix of plants that
and viruses all have a role to play as predators flower throughout the year can help prevent
and parasites in an agricultural system. By such pests from migrating en masse from
their very nature, pesticides decrease the farmscaped plants to crop plants.
biodiversity of a system, creating the potential
for instability and future problems. Pesticides, See ATTRA’s Farmscaping to Enhance Biological
whether synthetically or botanically derived, Control for a detailed treatment of this subject.
are powerful tools and should be used with
caution. Applied biological control, also known as aug-
mentative biocontrol, involves supplementa-
Creation of habitat to enhance the chances for tion of beneficial organism populations, for
survival and reproduction of beneficial organ- example through periodic releases of parasites,
isms is a concept included in the definition of predators, or pathogens. This can be effective
natural biocontrol. Farmscaping is a term coined in many situations—well-timed inundative
to describe such efforts on farms. releases of Trichogramma egg wasps for co-
Habitat enhancement for beneficial insects, for dling moth control, for instance.


Most of the beneficial organisms used in ap- from a greenhouse and are forced to concen-
plied biological control today are insect para- trate predation/parasitism on the pest(s) at
sites and predators. They control a wide range hand.
of pests from caterpillars to mites. Some spe-
cies of biocontrol organisms, such as An increasing number of commercially avail-
Eretmocerus californicus, a parasitic wasp, are able biocontrol products are made up of micro-
specific to one host—in this case the organisms, including fungi, bacteria, nema-
sweetpotato whitefly. Others, such as green todes, and viruses. Appendix B, Microbial
lacewings, are generalists and will attack many Pesticides, lists some of the formulations avail-
species of aphids and whiteflies. able. Appendix C, Microbial Pesticide Manufac-
turers and Suppliers, provides addresses of
Information about rates and timing of release manufacturers and suppliers.
are available from suppliers of beneficial
organisms. It is important to remember that Mechanical and Physical Controls
released insects are mobile; they are likely to
leave a site if the habitat is not conducive to Methods included in this category utilize some
their survival. Food, nectar, and pollen sources physical component of the environment, such
can be “farmscaped” to provide suitable habi- as temperature, humidity, or light, to the
tat. detriment of the pest. Common examples are
tillage, flaming, flooding, soil solarization, and
The quality of commercially available applied plastic mulches to kill weeds or to prevent
biocontrols is another important consideration. weed seed germination.
For example, if the organisms are not properly
labeled on the outside packaging, they may be Heat or steam sterilization of soil is commonly
mishandled during transport, resulting in the used in greenhouse operations for control of
death of the organisms. A recent study by soil-borne pests. Floating row covers over
Rutgers University (20) noted that only two of vegetable crops exclude flea beetles, cucumber
six suppliers of beneficial nematodes sent the beetles, and adults of the onion, carrot, cab-
expected numbers of organisms, and only one bage, and seed corn root maggots. Insect
supplier out of the six provided information on screens are used in greenhouses to prevent
how to assess product viability. aphids, thrips, mites, and other pests from
entering ventilation ducts. Large, multi-row
While augmentative biocontrols can be applied vacuum machines have been used for pest
with relative ease on small farms and in gar- management in strawberries and vegetable
dens, applying some types of biocontrols crops. Cold storage reduces post-harvest
evenly over large farms has been problematic. disease problems on produce.
New mechanized methods that may improve
the economics and practicality of large-scale Although generally used in small or localized
augmentative biocontrol include ground situations, some methods of mechanical/
application with “biosprayers” and aerial physical control are finding wider acceptance
delivery using small-scale (radio-controlled) or because they are generally more friendly to the
conventional aircraft (21). environment.

Inundative releases of beneficials into green- Pest Identification
houses can be particularly effective. In the
controlled environment of a greenhouse, pest A crucial step in any IPM program is to identify
infestations can be devastating; there are no the pest. The effectiveness of both proactive
natural controls in place to suppress pest and reactive pest management measures
populations once an infestation begins. For this depend on correct identification. Misidentific-
reason, monitoring is very important. If an ation of the pest may be worse than useless; it
infestation occurs, it can spread quickly if not may actually be harmful and cost time and
detected early and managed. Once introduced, money. Help with positive identification of
biological control agents cannot escape pests may be obtained from university person-


nel, private consultants, the Cooperative Exten- Monitoring
sion Service, and books and websites listed
under Useful Resources at the end of this Monitoring involves systematically checking
publication. crop fields for pests and beneficials, at regular
intervals and at critical times, to gather infor-
After a pest is identified, appropriate and mation about the crop, pests, and natural
effective management depends on knowing enemies. Sweep nets, sticky traps, and phero-
mone traps can be used to collect insects for
answers to a number of questions. These may
both identification and population density
include:
information. Leaf counts are one method for
recording plant growth stages. Square-foot or
• What plants are hosts and non-hosts of this larger grids laid out in a field can provide a
pest? basis for comparative weed counts. Records of
rainfall and temperature are sometimes used to
• When does the pest emerge or first appear? predict the likelihood of disease infections.

• Where does it lay its eggs? In the case of Specific scouting methods have been developed
weeds, where is the seed source? For plant for many crops. The Cooperative Extension
pathogens, where is the source(s) of Service can provide a list of IPM manuals
inoculum? available in each state. Many resources are
now available via Internet (see Appendix F for
• Where, how, and in what form does the pest IPM-related websites).
overwinter?
The more often a crop is monitored, the more
information the grower has about what is
• How might the cropping system be altered
happening in the fields. Monitoring activity
to make life more difficult for the pest and should be balanced against its costs. Frequency
easier for its natural controls? may vary with temperature, crop, growth
phase of the crop, and pest populations. If a
Monitoring (field scouting) and economic pest population is approaching economically
injury and action levels are used to help answer damaging levels, the grower will want to
these and additional questions (22). monitor more frequently.

yellow sticky
monitoring card

Monitoring for squash pests (aphids and whiteflies).


Economic Injury and Action Levels cutworm can do more damage to an emerging
cotton plant than to a plant that is six weeks
The economic injury level (EIL) is the pest old. Clearly, this pest’s EIL will change as the
population that inflicts crop damage greater cotton crop develops.
than the cost of control measures. Because
growers will generally want to act before a ETLs are intimately related to the value of the
population reaches EIL, IPM programs use the crop and the part of the crop being attacked.
concept of an economic threshold level (ETL or For example, a pest that attacks the fruit or
ET), also known as an action threshold. The vegetable will have a much lower ETL (that is,
ETL is closely related to the EIL, and is the the pest must be controlled at lower popula-
point at which suppression tactics should be tions) than a pest that attacks a non-saleable
applied in order to prevent pest populations part of the plant. The exception to this rule is
from increasing to injurious levels. an insect or nematode pest that is also a disease
vector. Depending on the severity of the
In practice, many crops have no established disease, the grower may face a situation where
EILs or ETLs, or the EILs that have been devel- the ETL for a particular pest is zero, i.e., the
oped may be static over the course of a season crop cannot tolerate the presence of a single
and thus not reflect the changing nature of the pest of that particular species because the
agricultural ecosystem. For example, a single disease it transmits is so destructive.

Special Considerations ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Cosmetic Damage and Aesthetics Time and Resources

Consumer attitudes toward how produce looks A successful biointensive IPM program takes
is often a major factor when determining a time, money, patience, short- and long-term
crop’s sale price. Cosmetic damage is an planning, flexibility, and commitment. The
important factor when calculating the EIL, pest manager must spend time on self-educa-
since pest damage, however superficial, lowers tion and on making contacts with Extension
a crop’s market value. Growers selling to a and research personnel. Be aware that some
market that is informed about IPM or about IPM strategies, such as increasing beneficial
organically grown produce may be able to insect habitat, may take more than a year to
tolerate higher levels of cosmetic damage to show results.
their produce.
A well-run biointensive IPM system may
Record-keeping: “Past is prologue” require a larger initial outlay in terms of time
and money than a conventional IPM program.
Monitoring goes hand-in-hand with record- In the long run, however, a good biointensive
keeping, which forms the collective “memory” IPM program should pay for itself. Direct
of the farm. Records should not only provide pesticide application costs are saved and
information about when and where pest equipment wear and tear may be reduced.
problems have occurred, but should also
incorporate information about cultural prac- Chemical Controls
tices (irrigation, cultivation, fertilization,
mowing, etc.) and their effect on pest and Included in this category are both synthetic
beneficial populations. The effects of non- pesticides and botanical pesticides.
biotic factors, especially weather, on pest and
beneficial populations should also be noted. Synthetic pesticides comprise a wide range of
Record-keeping is simply a systematic ap- man-made chemicals used to control
proach to learning from experience. A variety insects, mites, weeds, nematodes, plant dis-
of software programs are now available to help eases, and vertebrate and invertebrate pests.
growers keep track of—and access—data on These powerful chemicals are fast acting and
their farm’s inputs and outputs. relatively inexpensive to purchase.


Pesticides are the option of last resort in IPM Biorational pesticides. Although use of this term
programs because of their potential negative is relatively common, there is no legally ac-
impacts on the environment, which result from cepted definition (24). Biorational pesticides
the manufacturing process as well as from their are generally considered to be derived from
application on the farm. Pesticides should be naturally occurring compounds or are formula-
used only when other measures, such as bio- tions of microorganisms. Biorationals have a
logical or cultural controls, have failed to keep narrow target range and are environmentally
pest populations from approaching economi- benign. Formulations of Bacillus thuringiensis,
cally damaging levels. commonly known as Bt, are perhaps the best-
known biorational pesticide. Other examples
include silica aerogels, insect growth regula-
tors, and particle film barriers.

Particle film barriers. A relatively new technol-
ogy, particle film barriers are currently avail-
able under the tradename Surround WP Crop
Protectant. The active ingredient is kaolin clay,
an edible mineral long used as an anti-caking
agent in processed foods, and in such products
as toothpaste and Kaopectactate. There ap-
pears to be no mammalian toxicity or any
danger to the environment posed by the use of
kaolin in pest control. The kaolin in Surround
is processed to a specific particle size range,
and combined with a sticker-spreader. Non-
processed kaolin clay may be phytotoxic.

Surround is sprayed on as a liquid, which
evaporates, leaving a protective powdery film
on the surfaces of leaves, stems, and fruit.
Conventional spray equipment can be used and
full coverage is important. The film works to
deter insects in several ways. Tiny particles of
the clay attach to the insects when they contact
the plant, agitating and repelling them. Even if
particles don’t attach to their bodies, the insects
The pesticide Agrophos used in a new planting. The red
color code denotes the most hazardous class of chemical. may find the coated plant or fruit unsuitable for
In this instance, the farmer had applied the product in feeding and egg-laying. In addition, the highly
the bag (a granular systemic insecticide) by hand. reflective white coating makes the plant less
recognizable as a host. For more information
If chemical pesticides must be used, it is to the about kaolin clay as a pest management tool,
grower’s advantage to choose the least-toxic see ATTRA’s publications Kaolin Clay for Man-
pesticide that will control the pest but not harm agement of Glassy-winged Sharpshooter in Grapes
non-target organisms such as birds, fish, and and Insect IPM in Apples: Kaolin Clay.
mammals. Pesticides that are short-lived or act
on one or a few specific organisms are in this Sugar Esters. Throughout four years of tests,
class. Examples include insecticidal soaps, sugar esters have performed as well as or better
horticultural oils, copper compounds (e.g., than conventional insecticides against mites
bordeaux mix), sulfur, boric acid, and sugar and aphids in apple orchards; psylla in pear
esters (23). orchards; whiteflies, thrips, and mites on


vegetables; and whiteflies on cotton. How- Compost teas are most commonly used for foliar
ever, sugar esters are not effective against disease control and applied as foliar nutrient
insect eggs. Insecticidal properties of sugar sprays. The idea underlying the use of com-
esters were first investigated a decade ago post teas is that a solution of beneficial mi-
when a scientist noticed that tobacco leaf hairs crobes and some nutrients is created, then
exuded sugar esters for defense against some applied to plants to increase the diversity of
soft-bodied insect pests. Similar to insecticidal organisms on leaf surfaces. This diversity
soap in their action, these chemicals act as competes with pathogenic organisms, making
contact insecticides and degrade into environ- it more difficult for them to become established
mentally benign sugars and fatty acids after and infect the plant.
application. AVA Chemical Ventures of Ports-
mouth, NH hopes to have a product based on An important consideration when using
sucrose octanoate commercially available by compost teas is that high-quality, well-aged
the end of 2001. Contact: Gary J. Puterka, ARS compost be used, to avoid contamination of
Appalachian Fruit Research Station, plant parts by animal pathogens found in
Kearneysville, WV, (304) 725-3451 ext. 361, fax manures that may be a component of the
(304) 728-2340, e-mail compost. There are different techniques for
<gputerka@afrs.ars.usda.gov>. creating compost tea. The compost can be
immersed in the water, or the water can be
Because pest resistance to chemical controls
circulated through the compost. An effort
has become so common, susceptibility to
should be made to maintain an aerobic envi-
pesticides is increasingly being viewed by
ronment in the compost/water mixture.
growers as a trait worth preserving. One
ATTRA has more information about compost
example of the economic impact of resistance
teas, available on request.
to insecticides has been documented in Michi-
gan, where insecticide resistance in Colorado
Pesticide application techniques
potato beetle was first reported in 1984 and
caused severe economic problems beginning
in 1991. In 1991 and following years, control As monetary and environmental costs of
costs were as high as $412/hectare in districts chemical pesticides escalate, it makes sense to
most seriously affected, in contrast to $35−74/ increase the efficiency of chemical applications.
hectare in areas where resistance was not a Correct nozzle placement, nozzle type, and nozzle
problem (25). The less a product is applied, pressure are very important considerations.
the longer a pest population will remain Misdirected sprays, inappropriate nozzle size,
susceptible to that product. Routine use of any or worn nozzles will ultimately cost the grower
pesticide is a problematic strategy. money and increase the risk of environmental
damage.
Botanical pesticides are prepared in various
ways. They can be as simple as pureed plant If the monitoring program indicates that the
leaves, extracts of plant parts, or chemicals pest outbreak is isolated to a particular loca-
purified from plants. Pyrethrum, neem formu- tion, spot treatment of only the infested area will
lations, and rotenone are examples of botani- not only save time and money, but will con-
cals. Some botanicals are broad-spectrum serve natural enemies located in other parts of
pesticides. Others, like ryania, are very spe- the field. The grower should also time treat-
cific. Botanicals are generally less harmful in ments to be least disruptive of other organisms.
the environment than synthetic pesticides This is yet another example where knowledge
because they degrade quickly, but they can be about the agroecosystem is important.
just as deadly to beneficials as synthetic pesti-
cides. However, they are less hazardous to With the increasing popularity of no-till and
transport and in some cases can be formulated related conservation tillage practices, herbicide
on-farm. The manufacture of botanicals use has increased. One way to increase appli-
generally results in fewer toxic by-products. cation efficiency and decrease costs of


herbicide use is through band application. This Integrated Weed Management
puts the herbicide only where it is needed,
Systems
usually in soil disturbed by tillage or seed
planting, where weeds are most likely to
sprout. Weeds as competitors in crops present a
number of unique challenges that need to be
Baits and microencapsulation of pesticides are recognized when developing management
promising technologies. For example, Slam strategies. The intensity of weed problems
is an insecticide-bait mixture for control of during a growing season will be influenced by
corn rootworm. It is a formulation of a bait, weed population levels in previous years. The
curcubitacin B, and carbaryl (Sevin) in axiom “one year’s seeding equals seven years’
microspheres. It is selective, and reduces the weeding” is apt.
amount of carbaryl needed to control the
rootworm by up to 90%. (Remember that crop Weed control costs cannot necessarily be
rotation will generally eliminate the need for calculated against the current year’s crop
any corn rootworm chemical control.) production costs. Weeds present a physical
problem for harvesting. Noxious weed seed
Another example of bait-insecticide technol- mixed with grain reduces the price paid to
ogy is the boll weevil bait tube. It lures the growers. If the seed is sold for crop produc-
boll weevil using a synthetic sex pheromone. tion the weed can be spread to new areas. For
Each tube contains about 20 grams of example, the perennial pepperweed, thought
malathion, which kills the boll weevil. This to have been introduced to California in sugar
technique reduces the pesticide used in cotton beet seed, now infests thousands of acres in
fields by up to 80% and conserves beneficials. the state. In addition, weed economic thresh-
It is most effective in managing low, early- olds must take into account multiple species
season populations of the boll weevil. and variable competetive ability of different
crops. For example, 12.7 cocklebur plants in

Sustainable Agriculture and IPM
Sustainable agriculture is a system of agriculture that is ecologically, economically, and socially viable, in
the short as well as long term. Rather than standing for a specific set of farming practices, a sustainable
agriculture represents the goal of developing a food production system that:

yields plentiful, affordable, high-quality food and other agricultural products

does not deplete or damage natural resources (such as soil, water, wildlife, fossil fuels, or the
germplasm base)

promotes the health of the environment

supports a broad base and diversity of farms and the health of rural communities

depends on energy from the sun and on natural biological processes for fertility and pest management

can last indefinitely

IPM and sustainable agriculture share the goal of developing agricultural systems that are ecologically and
economically sound. IPM may be considered a key component of a sustainable agriculture system.
A premise common to IPM and sustainable agriculture is that a healthy agroecosystem depends on healthy
soils and managed diversity. One of the reasons modern agriculture has evolved into a system of large mo-
nocultures is to decrease the range of variables to be managed. However, a system with few species, much
like a table with too few legs, is unstable.


10 sq. meters of corn cause a 10% yield loss. • Surface residue management — As men-
Only 2 cockleburs in the same area planted to tioned earlier, a thick mulch may shade the
soybeans will cause the same 10% crop loss soil enough to keep weed seeds from
(12). germinating. In addition, some plant
residues are allelopathic, releasing com-
“Rotation crops, when accompanied by care in pounds that naturally suppress seed germi-
the use of pure seed, is the most effective means nation.
yet devised for keeping land free of weeds. No • Altered plant spacing or row width — An
other method of weed control, mechanical, chemi- example is narrow-row (7–18 between
cal, or biological, is so economical or so easily prac- rows compared to conventional 36–39
ticed as a well-arranged sequence of tillage and between rows) soybean plantings. The
cropping.” faster the leaves shade the ground, the less
Source: Leighty, Clyde E. 1938. Crop Rotation. p. 406-429. weeds will be a problem.
In: Soils and Men, 1938 Yearbook of Agriculture. U.S. Govt. • Herbivores — Cattle, geese, goats, and
Print. Office, Washington, DC.
insects can be used to reduce populations
of specific weeds in special situations.
Tactics that can be integrated into weed man- Cattle, for example, relish Johnson grass.
agement systems include: Weeder geese were commonly used in
cotton fields before the advent of herbi-
• Prevention — The backbone of any success-
cides. Musk thistle populations can be
ful weed management strategy is preven-
satisfactorily reduced by crown- and seed-
tion. It is important to prevent the intro-
eating weevils. Goats may be used for
duction of seeds into the field through
sources like irrigation water or manure. large stands of various noxious weeds.
• Adjusting herbicide use to situation —
• Crop rotation —A practical and effective Herbicide selection and rate can be ad-
method of weed management (discussed in justed depending upon weed size, weed
previous sections). species, and soil moisture. Young weeds
are more susceptible to chemicals than
• Cultivation — Steel in the Field: A Farmer’s older weeds.
Guide to Weed Management Tools shows how
today’s implements and techniques can By integrating a variety of tactics, farmers can
handle weeds while reducing or eliminat- reduce or eliminate herbicide use. For more
ing herbicides (26). information about weed management options
see ATTRA’s publication, Principles of Sustain-
• Flame weeding — good for control of small able Weed Management for Croplands.
weeds.

• Delayed planting — Early-germinating WEED PREVENTION
weeds can be destroyed by tillage. And
with warmer weather, the subsequently • Have a long, diverse rotation
planted crop (depending on the crop, of • Sow clean seed
course) will grow more quickly, thus com- • Prevent weed seed formation
peting better with weeds. • Avoid imported feeds or manures
• Compost all manure thoroughly
• Staggered planting schedule — This will • Control weeds in field borders
allow more time for mechanical weed • Delay planting the crop (for faster crop
control, if needed. This also lessens the growth and quicker ground coverage)
weather risks and spaces out the work load • Maintain good soil quality
at harvest time.


Current Status of IPM ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Crops with Developed IPM Programs for measurement have been criticized for not
distinguishing between practices that are
In the last twenty years or so, IPM programs related to “treatment” and those that are “pre-
have been developed for important pests in ventive,” that is, based on altering the biologi-
corn, soybeans, cotton, citrus, apples, grapes, cal and ecological interactions between crops,
walnuts, strawberries, alfalfa, pecans, and most pests, and beneficial organisms. Practices that
other major crops. These programs are con- constitute “treatment” with or contribute to the
stantly being revised or fine-tuned, and occa- efficiency of pesticides are considered as “in-
sionally undergo a significant overhaul as the dicative of an IPM approach” by USDA’s
introduction of a new technology or new pest criteria, as are practices that draw upon and are
makes the present IPM program obsolete. most compatible with biological relationships
on the farm (29).
The best source of information on conventional
IPM is the Cooperative Extension Service (CES) A 1998 USDA-funded survey of pest manage-
associated with the land-grant university in ment practices was published in August 1999
each state. Booklets and fact sheets describing and is available at http://www.reeusda.
IPM programs and control measures for a wide gov/ipm/publications.htm. Highlights of
range of crops and livestock are available free this report are excerpted in Appendix E, Pest
or for a small charge. For the address of a state Management Practices: 1998 USDA Survey
IPM coordinator, refer to the Directory of State Summary Highlights.
Extension Integrated Pest Management Coordina-
tors. A free copy can be obtained from the The primary goal of biointensive IPM is to
Cooperative State Research, Education, and provide guidelines and options for the effective
Extension Service (27), or through the world management of pests and beneficial organisms
wide web at http://www.reeusda.gov/ipm/ in an ecological context. This requires a some-
ipmdirectory.pdf. (Adobe Acrobat Reader what different set of knowledge from that
must be loaded on your computer in order to which supports conventional IPM, which in
access this page.) turn requires a shift in research focus and
approach. Recommended actions to better
Government Policy facilitate the transition to biointensive IPM are:

In 1993, leaders from USDA, EPA, and FDA • Build the knowledge/information infra-
announced a goal of placing 75% of U.S. crop structure by making changes in research
acreage under IPM by the year 2000. The IPM and education priorities in order to empha-
Initiative described three phases: size ecology-based pest management

1. Create teams of researchers, Extension • Redesign government programs to promote
personnel, and growers to propose projects biointensive IPM, not “Integrated Pesticide
to achieve the 75% goal. Management”

2. Fund the best of those projects. • Offer consumers more choices in the mar-
ketplace
3. Facilitate privatization of IPM practices
developed in the process. • Use the market clout of government and
large corporations
Although some progress is evident, the Initia-
tive has not received full funding from Con- • Use regulation more consciously, intelli-
gress (28). In addition, the USDA’s criteria gently, and efficiently


The Future of IPM ○ ○ ○ ○

As this publication has highlighted, IPM in the helped open the market for a new generation of
future will emphasize biological and ecological microbial pesticides. For more information about
knowledge in managing pests. Beyond that, microbial and “biopesticides”, see Appendix B,
specific areas are described here that will Microbial Pesticides, and Appendix C, Microbial
impact research and implementation of IPM in Pesticide Manufacturers and Suppliers, and visit
the future. EPA’s biopesticides website at: http://
www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides/.
Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) (Please note that this website will be discontin-
ued sometime in 2001.)
The FQPA, the amended Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), Research is proceeding on natural endophytes —
requires the EPA to review all federally regis- fungi or bacteria that have a symbiotic (mutu-
tered pesticides in the next 10 years and to use ally beneficial) relationship with their host
a more comprehensive health standard when plant—and their effects on plant pests. This
allowing re-registra- research might
tion. The ultimate yield products
impact is unknown, that could be
“A convergence of technical, environmental and
but FQPA will most used to inocu-
social forces is moving agriculture towards more
likely result in stricter late plants
non-pesticide pest management alternatives like
regulations concern- against certain
biological control, host plant resistance and
ing pesticide residues pests.
cultural management.”
in food, particularly —Michael Fitzner, National IPM Program Leader,
with respect to Synthetic
USDA Extension Service
organochlorines, beneficial
organophosphates, attractants such
and carbamates. Some of the most toxic pesti- as Predfeed IPM and L-tryptophan may help
cides have already been “de-registered” with increase the efficacy of natural controls by
respect to some of their former uses. These attracting beneficials to a crop in greater num-
regulations may provide incentive for more bers than usual.
widespread adoption of IPM. More informa-
tion, including implementation status (from an More Weed IPM
August 1999 Progress Report) can be found at
the FQPA homepage: http://www.epa.gov/ Weeds are the major deterrent to the develop-
opppsps1/fqpa/. ment of more sustainable agricultural systems,
particularly in agronomic crops. Problems
New Options associated with soil erosion and water quality
are generally the result of weed control mea-
Pest control methods are evolving and diversi- sures like tillage, herbicides, cultivation, plant-
fying in response to public awareness of ing date and pattern, etc. (30). In the future,
environmental and health impacts of synthetic research will focus not on symptoms, such as
chemical pesticides and resulting legislation. soil erosion, but on basic problems such as how
The strong growth of the organic foods mar- to sustainably manage soils. Weeds, as an
ket—20% annual expansion for the past several important facet of sustainable soil manage-
years—may also be a factor in the accelerated ment, will consequently receive more emphasis
development of organic pest management in IPM or Integrated Crop Management (ICM)
methods. programs.

Agricultural pests are developing resistance to
many synthetic agrichemicals, and new syn-
thetic chemicals are being registered at a
slower rate than in the past. This situation has


On-farm Resources selves with the Internet. See Appendix F for a
thorough listing of IPM resources available on
As farm management strategies become in- the Internet.
creasingly fine-tuned to preserve a profitable
bottom line, the conservation, utilization, and IPM Certification and Marketing
development of on-farm resources will take on
added importance. In the context of Certification of crops raised
IPM, this will mean greater empha- according to IPM or some
sis on soil management as well as other ecology-based standards
on conserving beneficial organisms, may give growers a marketing
retaining and developing beneficial advantage as public concerns
habitats, and perhaps developing about health and environmen-
on-farm insectaries for rearing tal safety increase. For ex-
beneficial insects. ample, since 1995, Wegmans
has sold IPM-labeled fresh-
IPM On-line market sweet corn in its
Corning, Geneva, Ithaca,
There is an increasing body of infor- Syracuse, and Rochester, New
mation about production, market- York stores. Wegmans has
ing, and recordkeeping available to also
growers via the Internet. The added IPM-labeled corn,
Internet is also a good source of in- beets, and beans to its shelves
formation about IPM, beneficial insects, prod- of canned vegetables. One goal of the program,
ucts, and pest control options for individual in addition to being a marketing vehicle, is to
crops. IPM specialists are generating high- educate consumers about agriculture and the
quality websites as a modern educational deliv- food system. Another goal is to keep all grow-
ery tool, and many Extension Service leaflets ers moving along the “IPM Continuum.”
are now being made available in electronic for- Growers must have an 80% “score” on the IPM
mat only. This trend will only accelerate as program elements within three years, or face
more and more agriculturists familiarize them- losing Wegmans as a buyer.

One Generic Model for Ecolabel/IPM Certification Standards*


These “ecolabels,” as they’re known, are There has been an IPM labeling program
becoming more popular, with over a dozen casualty in 2000. Massachusetts’s “Partners
brands now in existence. They may provide with Nature” marketing program closed its
for a more certain market and perhaps a price doors after losing funding support from the
premium to help growers offset any costs Massachusetts Department of Food and Agri-
associated with implementing sustainable culture. The program, which included IPM
farming practices. A possible downside to production guidelines, had operated since
implementing such programs is that they 1994, with 51 growers participating in 1999.
require additional paperwork, development of
standards and guidelines, and inspections. A bibliography of IPM Certification, Labeling,
There is concern from some quarters that IPM and Marketing can be found at: http://
labeling will cause consumers to raise more www.ipminstitute.org/ipm_bibliography.htm.
questions about pesticide use and the safety of
conventional produce. Some advocates of Summary ○ ○ ○ ○
organic farming worry about consumer confu-
sion over the relationship of the ecolabel to the
IPM can be a flexible and valuable tool when
“Certified Organic” label.
used as a concept with which to approach pest
management. IPM is not a cookbook recipe for
Mothers Others for a Livable Planet, a
pest control, but a flexible approach for dealing
national, non-profit, consumer advocacy and
with agriculture’s ever-changing financial,
environmental education organization, has
regulatory, and physical environment.
partnered with apple farmers in the Northeast
region to create a supportive market environ-
The key to effective IPM is the farmer’s under-
ment for farm products that are locally grown
standing of its concepts. In 1916, Liberty Hyde
and ecologically responsible. The result is the
Bailey wrote a small book, entitled The Prin-
Core Values eco-label:
ciples of Fruit Growing, as part of a Rural Science
Series published by MacMillan Co. The text is
a marvelous mix of scientific theory and prac-
tice. Bailey ended with the following note:

A CORE Values Northeast apple is locally “We have now completed the fruit book,
grown in the Northeast (New York and New having surveyed the field. It is a field of
England) by farmers who are striving to pro- great variety, demanding many qualities on
vide apples of superior taste and quality while the part of the successful grower. The
maintaining healthy, ecologically balanced grower should first apprehend the prin-
growing environments. Growers whose apples ciples and the underlying reasons, and to
bear the CORE Values Northeast seal are teach this is the prime purpose of the book.
accredited in knowledge-based biointensive If the grower knows why, he will teach
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) production himself how” (31).
methods. For more information about this
program, visit: http://www.corevalues.org/
cvn/home.html.
Feedback
The ecolabel to the right is a result of a Help us better help farmers. If you
collaboration between the World Wild- have suggestions for improvement of
life Fund (WWF), the Wisconsin this publi-cation, areas about which
Potato and Vegetable Growers you’d like more information or detail,
Association (WPVGA), and the ideas, case studies, or sources of good
University of Wisconsin. Raising IPM information (articles or websites),
consumer demand for biology-based- please call Rex Dufour at 530-756-8518
ext. 39, or e-mail at rexd@ncat.org.
IPM farm products is the goal of the program.


References: 13) Elwell, Henry and Anita Maas. 1995. Natural
Pest and Disease Control. Natural Farming
1) Flint, M.L. and van den Bosch, R. 1977. A Source Network. Harare, Zimbabwe. 128 p.
Book on Integrated Pest Management. p. 173-174.
Limited distribution. Supported by grant 14) Couch, G.J. 1994. The use of growing degree
#G007500907 to UC International Center for days and plant phenology in scheduling pest
Integrated and Biological Control. management activities. Yankee Nursery Quar-
terly. Fall. p. 12-17.
2) Benbrook, Charles M. 1996. Pest Management at
the Crossroads. Consumers Union, Yonkers, NY. 15) Reichert, Susan E. and Leslie Bishop. 1989. Prey
272 p. control by an assemblage of generalist predators:
Spiders in garden test systems. Ecology. Fall.
3) Prakash, Anand and Jagadiswari Rao. 1997. p. 1441-1450.
Botanical Pesticides in Agriculture. CRC Press,
Boca Raton, FL. 461 p. 16) Bugg, Robert L., Sharad C. Phatak, and James D.
Dutcher. 1990. Insects associated with cool-
4) Norton, G.W. and J. Mullen. 1994. Economic season cover crops in southern Georgia: Implica-
Evaluation of Integrated Pest Management tions for pest control in truck-farm and pecan
Programs: A Literature Review. Virginia Coop- agroecosystems. Biological Agriculture and
erative Extension Publication 448-120. Horticulture. p. 17-45.
112 p.
17) Abdul-Baki, Aref A., and John Teasdale. 1997.
5) Altieri, Miguel A. 1994. Biodiversity and Pest Sustainable Production of Fresh Market Toma-
Management in Agroecosystems. The Haworth toes and Other Summer Vegetables with Organic
Press, Binghamton, NY. 185 p. Mulches. Farmers’ Bulletin No. 2279. USDA-
Agriculture Research Service, Washington, D.C.
6) Marschner, H. 1998. Soil-Root Interface: Biologi- 23 p. http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/np/
cal and Biochemical Processes. p. 191-232. In: Soil tomatoes.html.
Chemistry and Ecosystem Health. P.M. Huang
(ed.). Soil Science Society of America, Inc., 18) Anon. 1999. Green Peach Aphid And Other
Madison, WI. Early Season Aphids. Webpage, Statewide IPM
Project, University of California, Division of
7) Phelan, L. 1997. Soil-management history and the Agriculture and Natural Resources. http://
role of plant mineral balance as a determinant of axp.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/r783300711.html.
maize susceptibility to the European Corn Borer.
Biological Agriculture and Horticulture. Vol. 15. 19) Adams, Sean. 1997. Seein’ red: colored mulch
(1-4). p. 25-34. starves nematodes. Agricultural Research.
October. p. 18.
8) Daane, K.M. et al. 1995. Excess nitrogen raises
nectarine susceptibility to disease and insects. 20) Zien, S.M. 2001. B.U.G.S. Flyer. March. p. 1-3.
California Agriculture. July-August. p. 13-18.
21) Marh, S. 2000. Mechanized delivery of beneficial
9) Schneider, R.W. 1982. Suppressive Soils and insects. The IPM Practitioner. April. p. 1-5.
Plant Disease. The American Phytopathological
Society. St. Paul, MN. 88 p. 22) Adams, Roger G. and Jennifer C. Clark (ed.).
1995. Northeast Sweet Corn Production and
10) Metcalf, Robert L. 1993. Destructive and Useful Integrated Pest Management Manual. Univ. of
Insects: Their Habits and Control, 5th ed. Connecticut Coop. Ext. Service. 120 p.
McGraw-Hill, NewYork, NY.
23) McBride, J. 2000. Environmentally friendly
11) Zhu, Y., H. et al. 2000. Genetic diversity and insecticides are sugar-coated—For real.
desease control in rice. Nature. 17 August. ARS News and Information. March 10. http://
p. 718-722. www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2000/000310.htm.

12) Leslie, Anne R. and Gerritt Cuperus. 1993. 24) Williamson, R. C. 1999. Biorational pesticides:
Successful Implementation of Integrated Pest What are they anyway? Golf Course Manage
Management for Agricultural Crops. CRC Press, ment website. http://www.gcsaa.org/gcm/
Boca Raton, FL. 193 p. 1999/oct99/10biorational.html.


25) Grafius, E. 1997. Economic impact of insecticide
resistance in the Colorado potato beetle
(Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) on the Michigan
potato industry. Journal of Economic Entomology.
October. p. 1144.

26) Bowman, Greg (ed.). 1997. Steel in the Field.
USDA Sustainable Agriculture Network.
Burlington, VT. 128 p.

27) Directory of State Extension Pest Management
Coordinators
Wendy Leight/Michael Fitzner
Ag Box 2220
Coop State Research, Education,
Extension Service, USDA
Washington, D.C. 20250-2220
http://www.reeusda.gov/nipmn/

28) Green, Thomas A. 1997. The USDA IPM Initia-
tive: What has been accomplished? IPM Solu-
tions, Gempler’s Inc., Mt. Horeb, WI. November
4 p.

29) Hoppin, Polly J. 1996. Reducing pesticide reliance
and risk through adoption of IPM: An environ-
mental and agricultural win-win. Third National
IPM Forum. February. 9 p.

30) Wyse, Donald. 1994. New Technologies and
Approaches for Weed Management in Sustainable
Agriculture Systems. Weed Technology,
Vol. 8. p. 403-407.

31) Steiner, P.W. 1994. IPM: What it is, what it isn’t..
IPMnet NEWS. October.


APPENDIX A:
IPM PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS


APPENDIX B: MICROBIAL PESTICIDES
Manufacturers and Country
Beneficial Organism Trade Name Suppliers Pests Controlled Type of Action Registered
Agrobacterium radiobacter Norbac 84-C™ New BioProducts Crown gall caused by A. Antagonist U.S. (Norbac and
Nogall™ New BioProducts tumefaciens Nogall)
Galltrol-A™ AgBioChem
Ampelomyces quisqualis AQ-10™ Ecogen Powdery mildew Hyperparasite U.S.
Bacillus popilliae Doom ™ Fairfax Biological Larvae of Japanese beetles, Stomach poison
Japademic™ Laboratory Oriental beetles, chafers, some May
June beetles
Epic™ Gustafson, Inc. Rhizoctonia, Fusarium, Alternaria, Biological fungicide/ U.S.
Bacillus subtilis Aspergillus, that cause root rots antagonist, applied directly
Kodiak™ Gustafson, Inc.
MBI 60 Gustafson, Inc seedling diseases. May also be to seed. It will grow with
Seranade (QST713) AgraQuest Inc effective against some foliar root system.
System3 (+metalaxyl +PCNB) Helena Chemical Co. diseases.
Companion (EPA Growth Products
Experimental Use Permit)
HiStick N/T (a Rhizobium and MicroBio Group

B. subtilis mix)
Subtilex MicroBio Group
Rhizo-Plus, KFZB Biotechnik For management of Rhizoctonia
Bacillus subtilis FZB24 solani, Fusarium spp., Alternaria
Rhizo-Plus Konz
spp., Sclerotinia, Verticillium,
Streptomyces scabies on field
(potatoes, corn), vegetables, and
ornamental plants

XenTari DF™ Abbott Lepidotera in vegetables and corn Stomach poison
Bacillus thuringiensis var.
aizawai Agree™ (Turex outside US) Thermo Trilogy
Design™ (discontinued in Thermo Trilogy
2000)
Mattch™ Ecogen
Gnatrol™ Abbott Larvae of mosquitoes, black flies Stomach poison
Bacillus thuringiensis var. midges
israelensis VectoBac™ Abbott
Bactimos™ Abbott
Skeetal™ Abbott
Aquabac™ Becker Microbial
Bacticide™ Biotech Int’l
Vectocide Nu-Gro Group

Page 27
Teknar™ Thermo Trilogy

Dipel™ Abbott Most lepidoptera larvae with high Stomach poison
Bacillus thruingiensis var. Biobit XL FC™ Abbott gut pH, some formulations active
kurstaki Biobit HP WP™ Abbott against leaf beetles (i.e. Raven™)
Foray 48B™ Abbott
Foray 68B™ Abbott
Foray™ Abbott
BMP 123™ BeckerMicrobial
Biolep™ Biotech Int’l
Condor™ Ecogen
Cutlass™ Ecogen
Crymax™ Ecogen
Foil BFC™ Ecogen
Lepinox™ Ecogen
M-Peril™ Ecogen
MVP II™ Ecogen
Raven™ Ecogen
Forwabit™ Forward Int’l
Bactosid K™ Nu-Gro Group
Turibel™ Probelte, S.A.
Agrobac™ Tecomag SRL,
Able™ Thermo Trilogy
Deliver (is replacing CoStar) Thermo Trilogy

JavelinWG™ (Delfin™ Thermo Trilogy
outside US)
Thuricide™ Thermo Trilogy
Larvo-BT™ Troy Biosciences
Troy-BT™ Troy Biosciences
Halt™ Wockhardt Ltd

Bacillus thuringiensis var. Novodor™ Abbott (dist. by Valent Colorado potato beetle and some Stomach poison U.S.
Tenebrionis/san diego Biosciences) other leaf beetles
Beauveria bassiana Naturalis-L™ Troy Biosciences Mole cricket, chiggers, white grubs, Insect specific fungus U.S., Europe
Naturalis-HG™ Troy Biosciences fire ants, ants, flea beetle, boll
(HomeGarden) weevil, whiteflies, plant bug,
Naturalis-TO™ Troy Biosciences grasshoppers, thrips, aphids, mites,
(TurfOrnamentals) and many others
Ostrinil™ Natural Plant
Protection (NPP)
Mycotrol ™ Mycotech
Mycotrol-O* Mycotech
*(OK’d by OMRI)
Botanigard22WP™ Mycotech

Page 28

Burkholderia cepacia Deny™ Stine Microbial Soil pathogens — Fusarium, Seed treatment or U.S.
(formerly Pseudomonas Products Pythium, Fusarium, and disease seedling drench
cepacia) (distributed by caused by lesion, spiral, lance, and
Market VI LLC) sting nematodes on alfalfa, barley,
beans, clover, cotton, peas, grain
sorghum, vegetable crops, and
wheat

Candida oleophila Aspire™ Ecogen postharvest pathogens — Botrytis, Colonizes fruit surface, U.S., Israel
Penicillium especially wounded
tissues, thereby
inhibiting other microbial
colonization

Coniothyrium minitans Contans Prophyta Sclerotinia sclerotiorum and S. Germany
KONI BIOVED, Ltd minor on canola, sunflower, peanut,
soybean, and vegetables (lettuce,
bean, tomato)

Fusarium oxysporum Biofox C SIAPA Fusarium oxysporum, Fusarium seed treatment or soil Italy
nonpathogenic Fusaclean Natural Plant moniliforme on basil, carnation, incorporation France
Protection cyclamen, tomato

Gliocladium catenulatum Primastop Kemira Agro Oy For management of Pythium spp.,
Rhizoctonia solani spp., Botrytis
spp., and Didymella spp. on
greenhouse crops

Gliocladium spp. GlioMix™ Kemira Agro Oy Soil pathogens Finland
Gliocladium virens Soil Guard12G™ Thermo Trilogy Soil pathogens that cause damping Antagonist U.S.
off and root rot, esp. Rhizoctonia
solani Pythium spp.

Granulosis virus Capex™ Andermatt Leafroller Disease-causing virus Switzerland
Granulosis virus Cyd-X™ (discontinued) Thermo Trilogy Codling moth Disease-causing virus

Heterorhabditis Cruiser™ Ecogen Many types of lepidopteran larvae, Insect eating nematode U.S.
bacteriophora (also marketed by Hydro-Gardens turf grubs (including Japanese
species name of (over a dozen beetle) and other soil insect pests
nematode) manufacturers and
2 dozen distributors
in the US)

Page 29

Heterorhabditis megidis. Larvanem™ Koppert Biological Black vine weevil Insect eating nematode U.S.
Systems

Metharizium anisopliae Bay Bio 1020™ Bayer AG Soil-inhabiting beetle, termites, Disease-causing fungus
Bio-Blast™ EcoScience cockroaches (Bio-Path)
Bio-Path™ EcoScience
Nuclear polyhedrosis VFN80™ Thermo Trilogy Alfalfa looper (Autographica Causes disease in larvae U.S., Central
virus (NPV) for (discontinued) californica) America
Autographa californica
NPV for Anagrapha To be introduced in 2001 Thermo Trilogy Disease-causing virus
falcifera
NPV for Helicoverpa zea Gemstar LC™ Thermo Trilogy American bollworm, cotton Disease-causing virus
Heliothus virescens bollworm= tobacco budworm
(Helicoverpa virescens), corn
earworm=tomato fruitworm
(Helicoverpa zea)
NPV for Spodoptera Spod-X LC Thermo Trilogy beet armyworm (Spodoptera Disease-causing virus
exigua exigua), lesser armyworm, pig

weed caterpillar, small mottled
willow moth

Paecilomyces PFR97™ Thermo Trilogy Whiteflys, aphids, and thrips in
fumosoroseus (marketed through greenhouses
Olympic Hort. Products)

Paecilomyces lilacinus Paecil (also known as Technological For managing various nematode Australia
Bioact) Innovation Corporation spp. on banana, tomatoes, sugar
cane, pineapple, citrus, wheat,
potatoes, and others

Phelbia gigantea Rotstop™ Kemira Summer control of rust caused by Biofungicide Britain, Sweden,
Heterobasidion annosum on pine Norway, Switzerland,
and spruce trees Finland, but not U.S.

Phytophthora palmivora DeVine™ Abbott Lab. Strangler vine (Morenia odorato) Initiates root infection Florida only
Soil pathogens: Rizoctonia,
Pseudomonas cepacia Intercept™ Soil Technologies Fusarium, Phythium U.S.

Pseudomonas Cedomon BioAgri AB Leaf stripe, net blotch, Fusarium Seed treatment Sweden
chlororaphis spp., spot blotch, leaf spot, and
others on barley and oats

Page 30

Pseudomonas flourescens Conquer™ Mauri Foods P. tolasii on mushrooms Europe, Australia
Sylvan Spawn

Psuedomonas flourescens Blight Ban A506™ Plant Health Erwinia amylovora on apple, cherry, U.S.
Technologies almond, peach, pear, potato,
strawberry, tomato

Pseudomonas PSSOL™ Natural Plant P. solanacearum in vegetables France
solanacearum Protection
Pseudomonas syringae Bio-Save 100, 110, 1000™ EcoScience Postharvest pathogens on apples, Antagonist/competitor U.S.
pears (Biosave 100) and citrus
(Biosave 1000)

Pseudomonas sp. plus BioJet™ Eco-Soil Soil pathogens that cause brown Antagonist/competitor
Azospirillum patch, dollar spot

Pythium oligandrum Polyversum Plant Production Management of Pythium spp., Seed treatment or soil Czech Republic
(formerly Polygandron) Institute Fusarium spp., Botrytis spp., incorporation
Phytophthora spp., Aphanomyces
spp., Alternaria spp., Tilletia caries,
Pseudocercosporella

herpotrichoides, Gaeumannomyces
graminis, Rhizoctonia solani,
Sclerotium cepivoru in various
crops including vegetables
(tomatoes, potatoes, pepper,
cucumbers, Brassicaceae
vegetables), fruits (grapes,
strawberries, citrus), legumes,
cereals, canola, forest nurseries
and ornamental plants Phythium
ultimum in sugar beets

Syngrapha falcifera Celery looper virus Thermo Trilogy Lepidoptera Causes disease in larvae U.S.
Nuclear Polyhedrosis Virus
(NPV)
Spodoptera exigua NPV Otienem-S™ Ecogen Beet armyworm (Spodoptera Causes disease in larvae
Spod-X™ Thermo Trilogy exigua)

Page 31

Bio-Safe-N™ Thermo Trilogy Black vine weevil, strawberry root Insect eating nematode U.S.
Steinernema carpocapsae Biovector 25™ Thermo Trilogy weevil, cranberry girdler, and many U.S.
Ecomask™ Biologic other larval insects
Scanmask™ ARBICO
Guardian™ Harmony Farm
IPM Labs.
Praxis
Hydro Gardens
Steinernema feltiae Nemasys™ MicroBio Larvae of vine weevils and fungus Insect eating nematode
Nemasys M™ Ecogen gnats
Otienem-S™ Biobest
Entonem™ Koppert
X-Gnat Thermo Trilogy
Steinernema riobravis Biovector 355™ Thermo Trilogy For management of citrus weevils U.S.
on citrus
Streptomyces griseoviridis Mycostop™ Planet Natural Soil pathogens — Fusarium, Competition/antagonism U.S., Finland
(formerly Bozeman Alternaria, Rhizoctonia, Phomopsis,
Biotech) Phythium, Phytopthora, Pythium,
Kemira Agro Oy Botrytis — that cause wilt, seed,

(AgBio Dev. is US root, stem rots
distributor for Kemira)
Rincon Vitova
Talaromyces flavus, isolate Protus WG Prophyta For management of Verticillium Germany
V117b Biolgischer dahliae, V. albo-atrum, and
Pflanzenschutz Rhizoctonia solani in tomato,
cucumber, strawberry, rape oilseed

Trichoderma harzianum RootShield™ BioWorks, Soil pathogens — Pythium, Parasite, competitor U.S. , Europe
BioTrek 22G™ Wilbur-Ellis, Rhicozoktonia, Verticillium,
Supresivit™ Borregaard Sclerotium, and others
T-22G™
T-22HB™

Trichoderma harzianum Trichodex™ Makhteshim Botritis cinerea and others Mycoparasite living on Israel
other fungi
Trichoderma harzianum Binab™ Bio-Innovation Tree-wound pathogens Mycoparasite U.K., Sweden
T. polysporum

Page 32

Trichoderma harzianum Trichopel™ Agrimm Technologies Armillaria, Botryoshaeria, and others New Zealand
T. viride Trichojet™
Trichodowels™
Trichoseal™

Trichoderma spp. Promot™ J.H. Biotech Growth promoter, Rhizoctonia solani, U.S.
Trichoderma 2000 Mycontrol, Ltd. Sclerotium rolfsii, Pythium spp., U.S.
Biofungus De Ceuster Fusarium spp. on nursery and field Belgium
crops
Trichoderma viride Trieco Ecosense Labs For management of Rhizoctonia India
spp., Pythium spp., Fusarium spp.,
root rot, seedling rot, collar rot, red
rot, damping-off, Fusarium wilt on
wide variety of crops
Verticillium lecanii Vertalec™ Koppert Aphid species, except Insect eating fungus Europe
Chrysanthemum aphid, (VERTALEC requires a temp. of
Macrosiphoniella sanborni 18-28 degrees Celsius and a
minimum relative humidity of
80% for 10-12 hours a day for
several days after application.)

Page 33

APPENDIX C
MICROBIAL PESTICIDE MANUFACTURERS AND SUPPLIERS
Abbott Laboratories ARBICO Environmentals Biopreparaty Ltd.
See Valent entry below. P.O. Box 4247 Tylisovska 1, 160 00
Tucson, AZ 85738-1247 Prague 6, Czech Republic
AgBio 520-825-9785 (4202) 311 42 98
9915 Raleigh Street 800-827-2847 (4202) 3332 12 17 Fax
Westminster, CO 80030 520-825-2038 Fax E-mail:
303-469-9221 http://www.arbico.com/ biopreparaty@mbox.vol.c
303-469-9598 Fax
Bactec Corp. BIOVED, Ltd.
AgBioChem, Inc. 2020 Holmes Rd. Ady Endre u. 10
Richard Bahme Houston, TX 77045 2310 Szigetszentmiklos,
3 Fleetwood Ct. 713-797-0406 Hungary
Orinda, CA 94563 713-795-4665 Fax 36-24-441-554
925-254-0789 E-mail: boh8457@helka.iif.hu
Bayer AG
AgraQuest, Inc. Business Group Crop Protection BioWorks, Inc. (formerly TGT,
1530 Drew Avenue Development/Regulatory Inc.)
Davis, CA 95616 Affairs 122 North Genesee St.
530-750-0150 Agrochemical Center Monheim Geneva, NY 14456
530-750-0153 Fax D-51368 Leverkusen, Germany 315-781-1703
http://www.agraquest.com 49-2173-38-3280 315-781-1793 Fax
E-mail: 49-2173-38-3564 Fax
agraquest@agraquest.com http://www.bayer.com Bozeman Biotech
See listing for Planet Natural
Agricola del Sol Becker Microbial Products, Inc.
30 calle 11-42, zona 12, 01012
9464 NW 11th St. Borregaard Bioplant
Ciudad de Guatemala,
Plantation, FL 33322 Helsingforsgade 27 B
Guatemala, Centro America
305-474-7590 DK 8200 Aarhus N
502-2 760496 Telefax
305-474-2463 Fax Denmark
E-mail: restrada@guate.net
E-mail: tcouch@icanect.net 45-8-678-6988
45-8-678-6922
Agimm Technologies, Ltd.
Biobest N. V., Biological Systems
P.O. Box 13-245
Ilse Velder 18 Caffaro, S.p.A.
Christchurch, New Zealand
Westerlo B-2260 Belgium Via Fruili, 55
64-13-366-8671
32-14-231701 20031 Cesano Maderno, Italy
64-13-365-1859 Fax
32-14-231831 Fax 39-362-51-4266
Andermatt Biocontrol AG 39-362-51-4405 Fax
Unterdorf, CH-6146 Bio-Care Technology Pty. Ltd.
Grossdietwil, Switzerland RMB 1084, Pacific Highway Calliope S.A. (commercial export
062-927-28-40 Somersby, NSW 2250, Autralia office)
062-927-21-23 Fax 16 Rue Antonin Raynaud
Bio-Innovation AB 92300 Levallois Perret, France
American Cyanamid Co. Bredholmen 33-1-47-58-4745
(See BASF) Box 56, S-545 02 33-1-47-58-4339 Fax
800-327-4645 ALGARAS, Sweden
46-506-42005 Certis USA
Amycel Spawn Mate 46-506-42072 Fax 9145 Guilford Road, Suite 175
P.O. Box 560 Columbia, MD 21046
Avondale, PA 19311 BioLogic Co. 1-800-847-5620
800-795-1657 P.O. Box 177 Formerly Thermo Trilogy.
610-869-8456 Fax Willow Hill, PA 17271
U.S. Distributor of MicroBio’s 717-349-2789/2922 Ciba-Geigy Corp.
Nemasys M. 717-349-2789 Fax See Novartis entry below.


Ecogen, Inc. Helena Chemical Co. Makhteshim–Agan of N.America
2000 W. Cabot Blvd. #170 6075 Poplar Avenue Suite 500 551 5th Ave., Suite 1000
Langhorne, PA 19047-1811 Memphis, TN 38119-0101 New York, NY 10175
215-757-1595 901-761-0050 212-661-9800
215-757-2956 Fax 901-683-2960 Fax 221-661-9038/9043 Fax
http://www.ecogeninc.com http:// http://www.makhteshim.co.il/
www.helenachemical.com html/mcw.html
EcoScience Corp.
17 Christopher Way Hydro-Gardens, Inc. Market VI LLC
Eatontown, NJ 07724-3325 P.O. Box 25845 Contact: Vern Illum
732-676-3000 Colorado Springs, CO 80936 6613 Naskins
732-676-3031 Fax 800-634-6362 Shawnee KS 66216
http://www.ecosci.com Illiumv@aol.com
719-495-2266
913-268-7504
719-495-2267 Fax
Ecosense Labs (I) Pvt. Ltd. 816-805-0120 Mobile
E-mail: hgi@usa.net
54 Yogendra Bhavan http://www.hydro-
Mauri Foods
J.B. Nagar, Andheri (E) gardens.com
67 Epping Rd.
Mumbai–400 059 India
North Ryde, Australia
834-9136/830-0967 IPM Laboratories, Inc.
(91-22) 822-8016 Fax P.O. Box 300 MicroBio Group Ltd.
E-mail: ecosense.mamoo Locke, NY 13092-0300 17 High Street, Whittlesford
@gems.vsnl.net.in 315-497-2063 Cambridge, CB2 4LT. UK
315-497-3129 Fax 44 (0)1223 830860
Eco Soil Systems, Inc. http://www.imptech.com 44 (0)1223 830861 Fax
10740 Thornmint Road http://
San Diego, CA 92127 J.H. Biotech www.microbiogroup.com/
619-675-1660 4951 Olivas Park Drive See website for listing of U.S. distributors.
800-331-8773 Ventura, CA 93003
619-675-1662 Fax 805-650-8933 MicroBio (USA) Ltd.
http://www.ecosoil.com/ 805-650-8942 Fax 104-A W. Dozier St.
E-mail: biotech@rain.org Marion SC 29571
Grondortsmettingen DeCuester http://www.jhbiotech.com 843-423-2036
Fortsesteenweg 30 Kemira Agro Oy 843-423-2044 Fax
B-2860 St.-Katelijne-waver, Porkkalankatu 3
Belgium P.O. Box 330 Mycogen Corp.
32-15-31-22-57 FIN-00101 (an affiliate of Dow
32-15-36-15 Fax Helsinki, Finland AgroSciences)
358-0-10-861-511 9330 Zionsville Rd
Growth Products 358-0-10-862-1126 Fax Indianapolis, IN 46268-1054
P.O. Box 1259 http://www.kemira-agro.com/ 800-MYCOGEN
White Plains, NY 10602 http://www.mycogen.com
800-648-7626 Ki-Hara Chemicals Ltd
http:// Lifford Hall Mycontrol, Ltd.
www.growthproducts.com Lifford Lane Alon Hagalil M.P.
Kings Norton Nazereth Elit 17920,
Gustafson, Inc. Israel
Birmingham
1400 Preston Road, Suite 400 972-4-9861827 ph./Fax
0121-693-5900
Plano, TX 75093-5160 E-mail:
0121-693-5901 Fax
972-985-8877 mycontro@netvision.net.il
972-985-1696 Fax Koppert B.V.
http://www.gustafson.com MycoTech Corporation
Veilingweg 17
P.O. Box 4109
P.O. Box 155 Butte, MT 59702-4109
Harmony Farm Supply 2650 AD Berkel en Rodenrijs
3244 Hwy 116 North Carla Elias, Customer Service
The Netherlands Representative
Sebastopol, CA 95472 31-010-514-04444 celias@mycotech.com
707-823-9125 31-010-511-5203 Fax 406-782-2386
707823-1734 Fax http://www.koppert.nl/ 406-782-9912 Fax
http://www.harmonyfarm.com english/index.html http://www.mycotech.com/


Natural Plant Protection Sandoz Agro, Inc Technological Innovation
B.P. 80 Sandoz merged with Ciba Geigy in Corporation Pty. Ltd.
Route D’Artix 1996 to form a new company, Innovation House
64150 Noguères, France Novartis 124 Gymnasium Dr.
33-59-84-1045 http://www.novartis.com Macquarie University
33-59-84-8955 Fax Sydney NSW, 2109 Australia
Sanex, Inc. (see Nu-Gro Group) 61 2 9850 8216
New BioProducts, Inc. 61 2 9884 7290 Fax
2166 NW Fritz Pl San Jacinto Environmental http://www.ticorp.com.au
Corvallis, OR 97330 Supplies
541-752-2045 2221-A West 34th Street Tecomag SRL
541-754-3968 Fax Houston, TX 77018-6004 Via Quattro Passi 108
http://www.newbioproducts.com 713-957-0909 Formigine (Modena) Italy 41043
800-444-1290 39-59-573745
Novo Nordisk BioChem 713-957-707 Fax 39-59-572170 Fax
North America, Inc. http://sanjacorganic.com http://www.tecomag.com
77 Perry Chapel Road E-mail: sjes@aol.com E-mail: inc@tecomag.com
Box 576
Franklinton, NC 27525 S.I.A.P.A. Thermo Trilogy
919-494-3000 Via Vitorio Veneto See Certis entry above.
919-494-3450 Fax 1 Galliera, 40010
Bologna, Italy Troy BioSciences
Nu-Gro Professional 39-051-815508 113 S. 47th Ave
Consumer Group 39-051-812069 Fax Phoenix, AZ 85043
2270 Speers Rd 602-233-9047
Oakville Ontario Soil Technologies Corp. http://
Canada L6L 2X8 2103 185th St. www.troybiosciences.com
800-461-6471 Fairfield, IA 52556
515-472-3963 Uniroyal Chemical B.V.
Planet Natural http://www.soiltechcorp.com Ankerweg 18
(formerly Bozeman Biotech) 1041 AT, Amsterdam
1612 Gold Ave. Stine Microbial Products The Netherlands
Bozeman, MT 59715 2225 Laredo Trail 31-20-587-1871
800-289-6656 Adel, IA 50003 31-20-587-1700 Fax
406-587-5891 Contact: Vern Illum of: http://www.uniroyalchem.com
E-mail: ecostore@ycsi.net Market VI LLC
http://www.planetnatural.com/ (exclusive marketers of Deny) Valent Biosciences
plantdiseasecontrol.html 913-268-7504 870 Technology Way
http://www.stine.com/ Libertyville, IL 60048
Plant Health Technologies 800-323-9597
Steve Kelly, Biological Products Sun Moon Chemical Co., Ltd. http://www.valent.com
7525 Postma Rd K.W.T.C. Bought Abbott Laboratories in 2001.
Moxee City, WA 98936 P.O. Box 7
509-452-7265 Seoul, Korea Vyskumny ustav rastlinnej
82-2-565-1653 (Plant Production Institute)
Praxis 82-2-565-1654 Fax Bratislavsk cesta 122
2723 116th Ave http://www.kwtc.com 921 68 Piestany
Allegan, MI 49010 Slovak Republic
616-673-2793 Sylvan Spawn Laboratory 838-223 11-12
http://www.praxis-ibc.com West Hills Industrial Park Bldg 223 26-27
E-mail: praxis@allegan.net 838 263 06 Fax
#1
Kittanning, PA 16201
Rincon-Vitova Wilbur-Ellis
724-543-2242
P.O. Box 1555 Agricultural Services Corp. Office
http://www.sylvaninc.com
Ventura, CA 93002-1555 191 W. Shaw Ave., Suite 107
800-248-2847 Fresno, CA 93704
805-643-5407 559-226-1934
http://www.rinconvitova.com http://www.wilburellis.com/


APPENDIX D
New Legislation that’s being considered in the 2002 Farm Bill,
with components that support implementation of IPM

Conservation Security Act 2000

Summary: The Conservation Security Act tices suitable for individual farms. In certain
(CSA) of 2000 provides financial assistance to instances, the plan may include an on-farm
help farmers and ranchers find viable solutions research or demonstration component.
to agricultural, environmental, and economic
concerns. The CSA helps agriculture respond Tiers: Participants have the choice of enrolling
to site-specific environmental challenges on a in one of three tiers:
voluntary basis with a flexible program de-
signed to address these challenges in a cost- • Tier I participants address priority resource
effective and results-oriented fashion. The concerns on all or part of their farms/ranches.
CSA rewards producers for good stewardship Practices may include soil and residue manage-
in appreciation of the many nonmarket envi- ment, nutrient management, pest management,
ronmental and social benefits that these prac- irrigation management, grazing management,
tices provide society. The Act balances federal wildlife habitat management, contour farming,
funding for conservation on working lands strip cropping, cover cropping, and related
with existing funding for land retirement, practices.
providing farmers access to payments for • Tier II participants address priority resource
whole-farm resource planning. concerns on the whole farm/ranch and meet
applicable resource management system
Conservation Purposes: The Conservation criteria. Tier II practices entail adoption of
Security Program (CSP) created by the CSA land use adjustment practices such as resource-
addresses the full range of conservation con- conserving crop rotations, rotational grazing,
cerns related to agriculture, including: conversion to soil-conserving practices, install-
conservation of soil, water, energy, and other ing conservation buffer practices, restoration of
related resources; soil, water, and air quality wildlife habitats, prairies, and/or wetlands,
protection and improvement; on-farm conser- and other related practices.
vation and regeneration of plant germplasm; • Tier III participants satisfy the requirements
wetland and wildlife habitat restoration, of tiers I and II, while integrating land use
conservation, and enhancement; greenhouse practices into a whole-farm, total-resource
gas emissions reduction and carbon sequestra- approach that fosters long-term sustainability
tion; and other similar conservation goals. of the resource base.

Participation: Participation in the program Payment and Eligibility: Payments are based
stipulates that land practices must achieve on the natural resource and environmental
resource and environmental benefits, but does benefits expected from plan implementation,
not require the removal of land from produc- the number and timing of management prac-
tion. In addition, practices do not need to be tices established, income forgone due to land
newly introduced to the farm/ranch; produc- use adjustments, costs related to on-farm
ers can be rewarded for good stewardship research, and several other factors. Bonuses
practices implemented prior to enrollment in are also offered for beginning farmers, joint
the CSP. Participants are responsible for participation by operators within a small
developing conservation security plans that watershed, and plans that optimize carbon
identify targeted resources, practices, and sequestration and minimize greenhouse gas
implementation schedules. Participants are emissions. Payments may not exceed $20,000,
granted maximum flexibility for choosing land $35,000, and $50,000 for Tier I, II, and III con-
management, vegetative, and structural prac- tracts, respectively.


APPENDIX E
Pest Management Practices: 1998 USDA Survey Summary Highlights

Barley: The leading pest management practice was Other Hay: Twelve percent of the U.S. producers of
rotating crops. Sixty-three percent of the farms used hay other than alfalfa utilized tillage practices to
this practice on 71 percent of the acres across the manage pests. Five percent or more of the hay
U.S. The following practices were used on over 40 producers used the following practices on their
percent of the barley acres across the nation: using farms: cleaning implements after fieldwork, rotating
tillage practices to manage pests, cleaning imple- crops to control pests, and scouting for pests.
ments after fieldwork, rotating crops to control
pests, scouting, and alternating the use of pesticides. Fruits and Nuts: The most widely used pest man-
agement practice was scouting for pests, which
Corn: Rotating crops to control pests was the occurred on 82 percent of the U.S. fruit and nut
leading pest management practice, used on 77 acres. Using tillage to manage pests was the second
percent of the nation’s corn acres. It was also the most common practice, used on 79 percent of the
most widely used practice in terms of number of acres. Alternating pesticides and keeping records to
farms, at 67 percent. Scouting for pests was reported track pest problems were used on 72 and 62 percent
on 52 percent of the corn acres. Alternating pesti- of the acres, respectively.
cides and using tillage practices to manage pests
were also common, each being reported on nearly Vegetables: Eighty percent of the U.S. vegetable
half of the corn acres. acres were scouted for pests, making it the most
common pest management practice for vegetable
Cotton: Almost three-fourths of the U.S. cotton acres crops. Rotating crops was reported on 78 percent of
were scouted for pests, on 65 percent of the cotton the acres, while using tillage to manage pests was
farms. Prevention practices, such as using tillage used on 74 percent of the acres.
practices to manage pests, removing or plowing
down the crop residue, and cleaning implements All other Crops and Cropland Pasture: This group
after fieldwork were also widely used practices, includes crops that were not specifically targeted
being used on more than half of the cotton acres.
during the survey such as sorghum, oats, rice,
Other practices reported on 50 percent or more of
peanuts, etc. The most widely used pest manage-
the acres: alternating pesticides, using records to
ment practice was rotating crops to control pests, at 52
keep track of pests, and using pheromones to
percent of the acres. Using tillage to manage pests,
monitor pests.
scouting for pests, and cleaning implements after field-
work were each utilized on more than 40 percent of the
Soybeans: The most common pest management
acres.
practice was rotating crops to control pests, which
was done on 78 percent of the U.S. soybean acres
Genetically modified crop varieties: The practices
and on 76 percent of the soybean farms. Other
showing the most change from the 1997 crop year to
practices used on 40 percent or more of the acres
were: using tillage to manage pests, scouting for the 1998 crop year were the use of varieties that
pests, using seed varieties that were genetically were genetically modified to be resistant to insects
modified to be resistant to specific herbicides, and or to specific herbicides.
alternating pesticides. For corn, there was an increase from 5 percent of the
acres in 1997 to 20 percent of the acres in 1998 that
All Wheat: The leading pest management practice were planted to varieties that were modified
was rotating crops to control pests, which was used through genetic engineering or conventional breed-
on 58 percent of the acres and by 53 percent of the ing to be resistant to insects.
farms. Cleaning implements after fieldwork was the For cotton, there was an increase of 9 percentage
second most widely used practice, with 49 percent points, from 13 percent of the acres in 1997 to 22
of the acres and 33 percent of the farms. Using percent in 1998.
tillage to manage pests and scouting for pests were The use of crop varieties resistant to specific
each reported on 40 percent or more of the acres. herbicides on corn increased from 2 percent in 1997
to 11 percent of the acres in 1998. The use of these
Alfalfa Hay: Rotating crops to control pests was the varieties for cotton and soybeans showed a greater
most widely used pest management practice on the increase. For cotton: an increase from 5 percent in
U.S. alfalfa acreage, at 33 percent. Scouting for pests 1997 to 34 percent in 1998. The proportion of
and using tillage to control pests were used on 26 soybean varieties used: 10 percent in 1997 and 48
percent and 23 percent of the acres, respectively. percent in 1998.


APPENDIX F: IPM INFORMATION RESOURCES
ATTRA Resources related to IPM
ATTRA Resources in print only
Farmscaping to Enhance Biological Control Call 800-346-9140
http://www.attra.org/attra-pub/farmscape.html • Colorado Potato Beetle: Organic Control Options
• Corn Earworm: Organic Control Options
Sustainable Management of Soil-borne Plant • Downy Mildew Control in Cucurbits
Diseases • Flea Beetle: Organic Control Options
http://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/ • Organic Control of Squash Bug
soildiseases.pdf • Organic Control of Squash Vine Borer
• Powdery Mildew Control in Cucurbits
Alternative Nematode Control
http://www.attra.org/attra-pub/nematode.html

Compost Teas for Plant Disease Control
General IPM Reference Materials
http://www.attra.org/attra-pub/comptea.html
Contacts/Coordinators
Disease Suppressive Potting Mixes
http://www.attra.org/attra-pub/dspotmix.html State IPM Coordinators Web Sites
http://www.reeusda.gov/agsys/ipm/
Use of Baking Soda as a Fungicide coordinators.htm
http://www.attra.org/attra-pub/baksoda.html
Resource Centers
Alternative Controls for Late Blight in Potatoes
http://www.attra.org/attra-pub/lateblight.html IPM Access: Integrated Pest Management
Information Service
Management Alternatives for Thrips on Vegetable http://www.efn.org/~ipmpa/index.shtml
and Flower Crops in the Field
http://www.attra.org/attra-pub/thrips.html Pest Management Resource Center
http://www.pestmanagement.co.uk
Phenology Web Links: Sequence of Bloom, Floral
Calendars, What’s in Bloom StudyWeb | Science| Integrated Pest Management
http://www.attra.org/attra-pub/phenology.html http://www.studyweb.com/links/2509.html

Grasshopper Management StudyWeb | Science| Pest Management
http://www.attra.org/attra-pub/grasshopper.html http://www.studyweb.com/links/2510.html

Fire Ant Management IPM Guides
http://www.attra.org/attra-pub/fireant.html
There are numerous books, manuals and websites that
Integrated Pest Management for Greenhouse address insect and disease pests of vegetable crops.
Crops
http://www.attra.org/attra-pub/gh-ipm.html APS Press
American Phytopathological Society
Greenhouse IPM: Sustainable Thrips Control 3340 Pilot Knob Road
http://www.attra.org/attra-pub/gh-thrips.html St. Paul, MN 55121-2097
651-454-7250
Greenhouse IPM: Sustainable Aphid Control 651-454-0766 Fax
http://www.attra.org/attra-pub/gh-aphids.html aps@scisoc.org
http://www.scisoc.org/
Greenhouse IPM: Sustainable Whitefly Control
http://www.attra.org/attra-pub/gh-whitefly.html • Diseases of Vegetables CD-ROM
• Advances in Potato Pest Biology and Management
• Compendium of Bean Diseases
• Compendium of Beet Diseases
• Compendium of Corn Diseases, 3rd Edition
• Compendium of Cucurbit Diseases


• Compendium of Lettuce Diseases The Florida Cooperative Extension Publications
• Compendium of Pea Diseases Resource
• Compendium of Tomato Diseases http://hammock.ifas.ufl.edu/
EDIS—The Florida Cooperative Extension Publications
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) Resource—has a wealth of information on a wide variety
of topics of interest to IPM practitioners. Brief overviews
BIRC publishes The IPM Practitioner and are provided for all topics, and more detailed information
Common Sense Pest Quarterly as well as an is accessible if you have Adobe Acrobat Reader.
annual Directory of IPM Products and Benefi-
cial Insects. BIRC also produces booklets and Integrated Pest Management (IPM): Concepts and
reprints on least-toxic controls for selected Definitions
pests. The IPM Practitioner is published ten http://www.ippc.orst.edu/cicp/IPM.htm
times per year. Must be a member of the Bio
Integral Resource Center (BIRC) to receive The IPMnet NEWS Archives
IPM Practioner. Memberships: $50/yr. for http://www.IPMnet.org/IPMnet_NEWS
institutions; $25/yr. for individuals; $18/yr. for /archives.html
students. Dual memberships available if you IPMnet News is published monthly and
wish to receive the Common Sense Pest Control provides information about new research,
Quarterly. articles, resources, and activities of interest to
IPM practitioners. IPMnet NEWS is accessible
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) through FTP, TELNET, and FINGER and also
P.O. Box 7414 via e-mail using FTPMAIL. For more informa-
Berkeley, CA 94707 tion send e-mail to: deutscha@bcc.orst.edu
510-524-2567 Fax: 01-503-737-3080, Phone: 01-503-737-
510-524-1758 Fax 6275
birc@igc.apc.org
http://www.igc.org/birc/ IPM Solutions
Gempler’s IPM Almanac
Common Sense Pest Control. 1991. Olkowski, W., S. http://www.ipmalmanac.com/solutions/archive.asp
Daar and H. Olkowski. The Tauton Press, Newton, CT. This site’s IPM section is an excellent resource for folks
715 p. working on-the-ground in IPM. It has a wide variety of
A good reference and resource book for IPM of a wide tools, hardware, traps, etc. that are useful to the IPM
range of pests. professional.

Complete Guide to Pest Control With and Without Pest Management Crop Development Bulletin
Chemicals, 3rd Edition. 1996. By George Ware. Thomp- University of Illinois Extension
son Publishing Co., California. 350 p. http://www.ag.uiuc.edu/cespubs/pest/

Entomological Society of America Pests of the Garden and Small Farm:
9301 Annapolis Road A Grower’s Guide to Using Less Pesticide. 1991. By
Lanham, MD 20706-3115 Mary Louise Flint. University of California, Statewide
301-731-4535 Integrated Pest Management Project, Division of Agricul-
301-731-4538 Fax ture and Natural Resources, Publication 3339. 257 p.
esa@entsoc.org
http://www.entsoc.org/catalog/ Radcliffe’s IPM World Textbook
http://ipmworld.umn.edu/
• Complete Guide to Pest Control With and Without
Chemicals, 3rd Edition UC Pest Management Guidelines
• Insect Pests of Farm, Garden and Orchard, 8th Edition http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/
• Integrated Pest Management for Onions (Cornell) crops-agriculture.html
• Manual on Natural Enemies of Vegetable Insect Pests
(Cornell) University of California Statewide Integrated
• Pests of the West, Revised
• Farmscape Ecology of Stink Bugs in Northern
Pest Management Project
California http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/
• Numerous standard reference books: IPM, biological
control, ecology, and behavior


UC Statewide IPM Project Integrated Crop and Pest Management Guidelines for
University of California Commercial Vegetable Production
One Shields Avenue Cornell Cooperative Extension
Davis, CA 95616-8620 http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/recommends/
530-752-7691
http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/ IPM — Fruits Vegetables at University of Illinois
http://www.aces.uiuc.edu/~ipm/fruits/fruits.html
For-Sale Publications:
• IPM for Tomatoes IPM in New York State Vegetables
• IPM for Cole Crops and Lettuce http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/ipmnet/ny/vegetables/
• IPM for Potatoes
• Managing Insects and Mites with Spray Oils USDA/OPMP Crop Profiles Database
• Natural Enemies Are Your Allies! (poster) USDA Office of Pesticide Management Programs,
• Natural Enemies Handbook: The Illustrated Guide to (OPMP) Pesticide Impact Assessment Program (PIAP)
Biological Pest Control http://cipm.ncsu.edu/CropProfiles/
• Pests of the Garden and Small Farm: A Grower’s A great place to find out what the standard pest controls
Guide to Using Less Pesticide, 2nd edition are for vegetable crops.
• UC IPM Pest Management Guidelines
• IPM in Practice: Principles and Methods of Inte- VegEdge — Vegetable IPM for the Midwest
grated Pest Management http://www3.extension.umn.edu/vegipm/
• IPM for Floriculture and Nurseries
• Pierce’s Disease Vegetable Production and Pest Control Guides from
• Grape Pest Management Land-Grant Universities
• IPM for Apples Pears, 2nd Edition Oregon State University http://www.orst.edu/Dept/
• Organic Apple Production Manual NWREC/veglink.html
• Aquatic Pest Control
• Turfgrass Pests VegNet
• IPM for Citrus Ohio State University
http://www.ag.ohio-state.edu/~vegnet/index.html
On-Line Publications:
• UC IPM Pest Management Guidelines Newsletters/Alerts

Vegetable Guidebooks The Georgia Pest Management Newsletter
http://www.ces.uga.edu/Agriculture/
entomology/pestnewsletter/newsarchive.html
Crop Knowledge Master: Vegetables
University of Hawaii at Manoa
Integrated Crop Management Newsletter
http://www.extento.hawaii.edu/kbase/crop/
Iowa State University
crops/vegetabl.htm
http://www.ipm.iastate.edu/ipm/icm/
Database of IPM Resources (DIR): Internet Resources
on Potato IPM Pest Alert
http://www.ippc.orst.edu/cicp/crops/potato.htm Colorado State University
http://www.colostate.edu/programs/pestalert/
Database of IPM Resources (DIR): Internet IPM index.html
Resources on Tomato
http://www.ippc.orst.edu/cicp/crops/tomato.htm Pest Crop Newsletter
Purdue University http://www.entm.purdue.edu/entomol-
Database of IPM Resources (DIR): Internet Re- ogy/ext/
sources on Vegetable Pest Management targets/newslett.htm
http://www.ippc.orst.edu/cicp/Vegetable/veg.htm
Internet Resources on Vegetable Pest Management is a Vegetable Newsletters
sub-category of DIR that provides links to materials on
insect and disease problems associated with vegetable The Illinois Fruit and Vegetable News
production. A great starting point! http://www.aces.uiuc.edu/ipm/news/
fvnews.html


Pay Dirt—Newsletter for Vegetable Growers Entomology Index of Internet Resources: A Directory
North Carolina State University and Search Engine of Insect-Related Resources on the
http://henderson.ces.state.nc.us/newsletters/ Internet
veg/ Iowa State University
http://www.ent.iastate.edu/list/
Plant Pest Advisory, Vegetable Edition
Rutgers University, New Jersey Entomology on World-Wide Web
http://www.rce.rutgers.edu/pubs/ Colorado State University
plantandpestadvisory/index.html http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/Entomology
/www_sites.html
South Carolina Pumpkin News
http://virtual.clemson.edu/groups/hort/vegprog.htm Featured Creatures: The Good, The Bad, and The
Pretty
Vegetable Crop Advisory Team (CAT) Alert University of Florida Department of Entomology and
Michigan State University Nematology
http://www.msue.msu.edu/ipm/vegCAT.htm http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~insect/index.htm
This University of Florida website is a great first-step
Vegetable Crops Hotline IPM site to find quick, essential knowledge about pest
Purdue University http://www.entm.purdue.edu/entomol- insects: Introduction - Hosts - Distribution - Description
ogy/ext/targets/newslett.htm - Life Cycle - Damage - Economic Injury Level - Man-
agement - Selected References.
The Vegetable Gazette
The Pennsylvania State University Insect Pests of Farm, Garden and Orchard, 8th Edition.
http://www.ento.psu.edu/vegetable/veggaz 1987. By R. Davidson W. Lyon. John Wiley Sons,
/veggazette.htm New York. 640 p.

Vegetable IPM Message Insects on WWW
University of Massachussetts Virginia Tech
http://www.umass.edu/umext/programs/agro/ http://www.isis.vt.edu/~fanjun/text/Links.html
vegsmfr/Articles/Newsletters/Newsletters.htm
Land Grant University Entomological Resources
Vegetable Newletter University of Florida jump site
Nova Scotia Department of Agriculture http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~pest/vector/
http://agri.gov.ns.ca/pt/hort/newslets/vegetable/ link_sub.htm#Land
index.htm
Mites Injurious to Economic Plants. 1975. Jeppson,
VegNet Newsletter L.R., HH Keifer and E.W. Baker. U C Press. Berkeley,
Ohio State University CA. 679 p.
http://www.ag.ohio-state.edu/~vegnet/news/
newslist.htm Rodale’s Color Handbook of Garden Insects. Carr,
Anna. 1979. Rodale Press, Emmaus, PA. 241 p.
VegNews An identification guide. Over 300 color photographs of
University of Arizona insects in the egg, larval, pupal, and adult stages.
http://ag.arizona.edu/hypermail/vegnews/index.html Descriptions include range, life cycle, host plants, feeding
habits, natural controls.

Insect Lifecycles and Management Vegetable Insect Fact Sheets
University of Kentucky — Department of Entomology
Destructive and Useful Insects. 1993. Metcalf, R.L. http://www.uky.edu/Agriculture/Entomology/entfacts/
R.A. Metcalf. 5th ed. McGraw-Hill Inc, New York, NY. efveg.htm
A good reference for lifecycle information for agricul-
tural pests and beneficials. Vegetable Insect Management: With Emphasis on the
Midwest. 1995. By Rick Foster and Brian Flood (eds.)
Meister Publishing Co., Willoughby, OH. 206 p.
A comprehensive 206-page manual produced by the
Purdue Research Foundation, published by Meister
Publishing Company. This is one of the best pest
management guides on vegetables compiled by the
Extension Service.


Vegetable IPM Insect Notes
North Carolina State University
Organic Pest Control
http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/ent/notes/Vegetables/
vegetable_contents.html Organic Pest Control Guide for Insect and Disease
Control
Diseases University of Georgia
http://www.ces.uga.edu/Agriculture/entomology/pest99/
Commercial Biocontrol Products For Use Against hort/organic/organic.htm
Soilborne Crop Diseases
USDA-ARS Organic Vegetable IPM Guide
http://www.barc.usda.gov/psi/bpdl/bpdlprod/ Mississippi State University
bioprod.html http://ext.msstate.edu/pubs/pub2036.htm

Disease Management for Vegetables and Herbs in Praxis Website
Greenhouses Using Low Input http://www.praxis-ibc.com/id88.htm
Sustainable Methods For Vegetable Crops Fruit Production—Directed to
North Carolina State University growers who want to eliminate pesticides, herbicides, and
http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/pp/notes/oldnotes/vg2.htm fungicides from their production systems. Offers consul-
tation about growing alternatives for vegetable, grain,
Minimizing Vegetable Disease and fruit crops. Consultation includes biological control
Cornell University of major and minor crop pests, and reduction of non-point
http://plantclinic.cornell.edu/vegetable/minimizevege/ pollution and groundwater contamination
minimizevege.htm
Cultural Controls
An Online Guide to Plant Disease Control
Oregon State University
General
http://plant-disease.orst.edu/index.htm
This site, hosted by Oregon State University, provides
Cultural Control
pictures as well as fact sheets about a range of plant
Radcliffe’s IPM World Textbook
pathogens found in the Pacific Northwest. This site is a
http://ipmworld.umn.edu/chapters/ferro.htm
very good reference for the control and management
tactics for important plant diseases in the Pacific North-
Cultural Control for Management of Vegetable Pests
west.
in Florida
University of Florida
Plant Pathology Internet Guide Book
http://www.imok.ufl.edu/LIV/groups/cultural/pests/
http://www.ifgb.uni-hannover.de/extern/ppigb/
insects.htm
ppigb.htm

Texas Plant Disease Handbook Crop Rotations
http://cygnus.tamu.edu/Texlab/tpdh.html
Conservation Crop Rotation: Effects on Soil Quality
Traditional Practices for Plant Disease Management in NRCS Soil Quality Institute, Agronomy Technical Note
Traditional Farming Systems No. 2.
H. David Thurston, Cornell University http://www.statlab.iastate.edu/survey/SQI/pdf/
http://www.tropag-fieldtrip.cornell.edu/ agronomy2.pdf
Thurston_TA/default.html
Crop Rotation: The Future of the Potato Industry in
nd
Vegetable Diseases and their Control, 2 Edition. Atlantic Canada
1986. By Arden F. Sherf and Alan A. MacNab. John Eastern Canada Soil and Water Conservation Centre
Wiley Sons, New York. 728 p. http://www.cuslm.ca/ccse-swcc/publications/english/
rotation.pdf
Vegetable MD Online
Cornell University Vegetable Disease Web Page Crop Rotations in Direct Seeding
http://ppathw3.cals.cornell.edu/Extension/ Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development
VegetableDiseases/Home.htm http://www.agric.gov.ab.ca/agdex/500/
519-28.html


Having Problems Controlling Vegetable Crop Diseases Biological Control of Insect and Mite Pests
- Try Rotation University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension
University of Connecticut, IPM Program http://www.ianr.unl.edu/pubs/insects/g1251.htm
http://www.canr.uconn.edu/ces/ipm/veg/htms/
rotate.htm Biological Control of Insect Pests of Cabbage and
Other Crucifers. 1993. By Susan E. Rice Mahr, Daniel
L. Rice,
Biological Control and Jeffrey A. Wyman. North Central Region Publication
No. 471. Cooperative Extension Service, University of
Approaches to Biological Control of Insect Pests Wisconsin. 55 p. To place an order, see:
Department of Entomology, Connecticut Agricultural http://www1.uwex.edu/ces/pubs/
Experiment Station
http://www.state.ct.us./caes/fsen0004f.htm Biological Control: Predators and Parasitoids
University of Minnesota, Center for Urban Ecology and
Arizona Biological Control Inc Sustainability
http://www.arbico.com/ http://www.ent.agri.umn.edu/cues/dx/pred-par.htm
This site, run by Arizona Biological Control Inc.
(ARBICO), has a wide range of tools available for the Biological Control of Insects and Mites: An Introduc-
IPM practitioner, provides basic information about tion to Beneficial Natural Enemies and their Use in
beneficials and application rates. Pest Management. 1993. By Daniel L. Mahr and Nino
M. Ridgeway. North Central Region Publication No. 481.
Association of Natural Bio-Control Producers — Cooperative Extension Service, University of Wisconsin
Natural Enemy Fact Sheets 91 p. To review contents and place an order, see:
http://ipmwww.ncsu.edu/biocontrol/anbp/ http://muextension.missouri.edu/xplor/
Factsheets.html regpubs/ncr481.htm

Beneficial Insects and Mites Biological Control News
University of Florida University of Wisconsin
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/IN078 http://www.entomology.wisc.edu/mbcn/mbcn.html

Beneficial Insects Sheet 1 Field Guide to Predators, Parasites, and Pathogens
University of Florida Attacking Insect and Mite Pests of Cotton. Knutson,
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/in002 Allen and John Ruberson. 1996. Texas Agricultural
Extension Service, The Texas A M University System,
Beneficial Insects Sheet 2 Bryan, TX. 125 p.
University of Florida Applicable to many other crops where same “good bugs”
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/in003 are present. Excellent color photos and written descrip-
tions.
Beneficial Insects Sheet 3
University of Florida Identification and Management of Major Pests
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/in012 Beneficial Insects in Potato
Oregon State University
Beneficial Insects Sheet 4
http://ippc2.orst.edu/potato/
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/in013
Integrated Pest Management for Greenhouse Crops
ATTRA
Biological Control: A Guide to Natural Enemies in http://www.attra.org/attra-pub/gh-ipm.html
North America Appendix II: Beneficial Organisms
Cornell University
http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/ent/biocontrol/ Natural Enemies Handbook: The Illustrated Guide to
This site provides photos and descriptions of over 100 Biological Pest Control. Publication 3386B4. Univer-
biological control (or biocontrol) agents of insect, sity of California, Statewide Integrated Pest Management
disease, and weed pests in North America. It is also a Project. 164 p. To review contents and place an order,
tutorial on the concept and practice of biological control see:
and integrated pest management (IPM). Excellent photos http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/GENERAL/
and lifecycle descriptions supplemented with diagrams. naturalenemiesflyer.html


Natural Enemies of Vegetable Insect Pests. 1993. By Phenology Web Links: Sequence of Bloom, Floral
Michael P. Hoffman and Anne A. Frodsham. Cornell Calendars, What’s in Bloom
Cooperative Extension Service, Ithaca, New York. 63 p. ATTRA
The complete manual can also be found on the web at: http://www.attra.org/attra-pub/phenology.html
Biological Control: A Guide to Natural Enemies in
North America http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/ent/ A Total System Approach to Sustainable Pest Manage-
biocontrol/ ment —The Image
Biological Control as a Component of Sustainable
Praxis Website Agriculture, USDA-ARS
http://www.praxis-ibc.com/id88.htm http://sacs.cpes.peachnet.edu/lewis/ecolsyst.gif
See p. 43 for description.
A Total System Approach to Sustainable Pest Manage-
Predatory Insects in Fruit Orchards ment —The Story
Publication 208, Ontario Ministry of Food and Agricul- Biological Control as a Component of Sustainable
ture. 32 pages. Agriculture, USDA-ARS
Predatory Insects in Fruit Orchards identifies over 100 http://sacs.cpes.peachnet.edu/lewis/lewis1.pdf
beneficial insects that work in the orchard. It features This is a classic biointensive IPM article from the
detailed color pictures and life cycle descriptions for each November 1997 issue of Proceedings of the National
insect. Though this particular bulletin is geared to fruit Academy of Science. It is accompanied by the diagram-
orchards, much of the information is universally appli- matic illustration that shows an unstable pyramid on the
cable to horticulture crops. To review contents and place left (Pesticide Treadmill) transitioning through boxes in
an order, see: the middle (Therapeutics) + (Ecosystem Manipulation) to
http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/ get to a stable pyramid on the right (Total System Man-
/products/newpubs.html#insects agement).

Suppliers of Beneficial Organisms in North America. Biological Control: Beneficial Nematodes
Hunter, Charles D. 1997. California Environmental
Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA. 32 p. Beneficial Nematodes: Suppliers and
For a free copy, write to: Pesticide Compatibility,
California Environmental Protection Agency Nematology Pointer No. 45
Department of Pesticide Regulation University of Florida
Environmental Monitoring and Pest http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/in096
Management Branch
1020 N Street, Room 161 Insect Parasitic Nematodes
Sacramento, CA 95814-5624 http://www.oardc.ohio-state.edu/nematodes/
Ph: (916) 324-4100 Ohio State U., UC Davis, U. Florida, Rutgers U., EPA,
A web-based version can be found at: Society of Invertebrate Pathology, Dodge Foundation,
http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/dprdocs/goodbug/ OceanSpray, Cranberry Institute, and Thermo Triology
benefic.htm support this website. This site has much useful informa-
tion about the use of insect parasitic nematodes: the
Biological Control: Systems Approaches biology and ecology of nematodes, how to use nematodes,
a list of suppliers, and more! An extremely useful section
Farmscaping to Enhance Biological Control. 2000. provides full citation for research papers according to
Dufour, R. ATTRA, Fayetteville, AR. 25 p. author, title, or abstract. Research papers can also be
http://www.attra.org/attra-pub/farmscape.html searched for according to Order and Family of target
The on-line ATTRA publication that summarizes insect. To get to this section, click on: Search
habitat manipulation as a means to create insect PublicationsÞKeyword Search Page (just underneath the
refugia and attract beneficial insects to the farm, thus “author, title, abstract” search engine)ÞInsects. Then
enhancing natural biological control. It provides an you may choose the Order and Family of your choice.
introduction to farmscaping, practical examples of
habitat manipulation employed by farmers, and Insect Parasitic Nematodes
pointers to useful print and web resources. Ohio State University
http://www2.oardc.ohio-state.edu/
Naturalize Your Farming System: A Whole-Farm nematodes/
Approach to Managing Pests
Sustainable Agriculture Network, USDA-SARE
http://www.sare.org/farmpest/index.htm
http://www.sare.org/farmpest/farmpest.pdf


Suppliers of Beneficial Organisms in North America Alternatives in Insect Pest Management: Biologi-
California Environmental Protection Agency cal Biorational Approaches. 1991. By Rick
http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/ipminov/ Weinzierl and Tess Henn. North Central Regional
bensuppl.htm Extension Publication 401.
http://spectre.ag.uiuc.edu/%7Evista/abstracts//
Biological Control: Nematodes aaltinsec.html

Alternative Nematode Control Alternatives in Insect Pest Management: Biologi-
ATTRA cal Biorational Approaches
http://www.attra.org/attra-pub/nematode.html North Central Region Extension Publication 401
http://spectre.ag.uiuc.edu/%7Evista/abstracts
Nematode Suppressive Crops aaltinsec.html
Auburn University
http://www.aces.edu/department/extcomm/ Commercial Biocontrol Products For Use Against
publications/anr/anr-856/anr-856.htm Soilborne Crop Diseases
USDA-ARS
Soil Organic Matter, Green Manures and Cover http://www.barc.usda.gov/psi/bpdl/bpdlprod/
Crops For Nematode Management bioprod.html
Entomology and Nematology Department, Univer-
sity of Florida Hydrated Lime as an Insect Repellent
http://hammock.ifas.ufl.edu/txt/fairs/vh/ University of Connecticut Integrated Pest Manage-
17728.html ment Program
http://www.canr.uconn.edu/ces/ipm/veg/htms/
Pesticides hydlime.htm

Pesticide Registration Insect Management: Botanicals
Sustainable Practices for Vegetable Production in
Kelly Pesticide Registration Systems the South, Dr. Mary Peet, NCSU
http://www.kellysolutions.com/ http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/sustainable/peet/IPM/
Some states provide free access to pesticide registra- insects/botan.html
tion databases. Use them to identify pest control
products for target pests. Integrated Pest Management
ATTRA
Alternatives to Pesticides http://www.attra.org/attra-pub/ipm.html
Appendix A: Microbial Pesticides
Methyl Bromide Alternatives Newsletter Appendix B: Microbial Pesticide Manufactur-
USDA ers and Suppliers
http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/np/mba/
mebrhp.htm Integrated Pest Management for Greenhouse
Crops
Methyl Bromide Phase Out Web Site ATTRA
EPA http://www.attra.org/attra-pub/gh-ipm.html
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/ Appendix III: Biorational Pesticides

Least Toxic Materials for Managing Insect Pests
Biorational Pesticides IPM Access - An Integrated Pest Management
Online Service
http://www.efn.org/~ipmpa/leastox.html
Biorational pesticides, also known as least-toxic pesti-
cides, are those that are pest-specific and cause the least
Use of Baking Soda as a Fungicide
amount of harm to beneficial organisms or the environ-
ATTRA
ment. Examples include microbial insecticides, insecti-
http://www.attra.org/attra-pub/bakingsoda.html
cidal soaps, horticultural oils, insect growth regulators,
sorptive dusts like diatomaceous earth, pheromones, and
What are Biorational Pesticides?
to some extent, botanical plant extracts.
University of Minnesota, Center for Urban Ecology
and Sustainability
http://www.ent.agri.umn.edu/cues/dx/bugs/
bio1.htm


What are Biopesticides Principles of Integrated Weed Management
EPA Office of Pesticide Programs: Biopesticides Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Publication 75
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides/ http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/crops/
what_are_biopesticides.htm facts/IWM.htm
The EPA Classifies biopesticides into three major
categories: Weed Control Practices
(1) Microbial pesticides contain a microorganism Oregon State University
(e.g., a bacterium, fungus, virus or protozoan) as the http://www.orst.edu/dept/hort/weeds/
active ingredient. For example, there are fungi that weedcontrol.htm
control weeds, and bacteria that control plant
diseases. Weed Prevention
(2) Plant-pesticides are pesticidal substances that Alberta Practical Crop Protection
plants produce from genetic material that has been http://www.agric.gov.ab.ca/agdex/000/
added to the plant. For example, the gene for the Bt pp6063s1.html
pesticidal protein has been introduced into corn.
(3) Biochemical pesticides are naturally occurring Weeds in Agroecosystems
substances that control pests by non-toxic mecha- Dalhousie University, Canada
nisms. Conventional pesticides, by contrast, are http://is.dal.ca/~dp/reports/mcpheest.htm
synthetic materials that usually kill or inactivate the
pest. Biochemical pesticides include substances, such A Whole-Farm Approach to Weed Control: A
as pheromones, that interfere with growth or mating Strategy for Weed-Free Onions
of the pest. Anne Eric Nordell, Sharing the Lessons of Organic
Farming Conference, January 30–31, 1998, Univer-
Weed Control sity of Guelph
http://gks.com/library/OrgConf/1998d.html
Weed Identification An online conference paper that summarizes the methods
Anne Eric Nordell use to control weeds in onion fields.
New Jersey Weed Gallery
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey A Whole-Farm Approach to Weed Control: A
http://www.rce.rutgers.edu/weeds/index.html Strategy for Weed-Free Onions (Video)
Anne Eric Nordell
UC IPM Weed Photo Gallery The Nordells work with horses to raise a 6-acre market
University of California Statewide IPM Project garden in Pennsylvania, growing dried flowers, herbs,
http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/ lettuce, potatoes, onions, and other vegetables. They use a
weeds_common.html combination of cover crops, fallowing, tillage, and hand
weeding for weed control. To provide a visual image of
General how they integrate different components of their farm into
a whole, the Nordells videotaped a slide presentation they
Controlling Weeds with Fewer Chemicals. use at organic farming workshops. The 52-minute tape is
Cramer, Craig (ed.). 1991. Rodale Institute, available for $10 postpaid from:
Emmaus, PA. 138 p. Anne and Eric Nordell
RDI Box 205
Integrated Pest Management Plan for Lower Trout Run, PA 17771
Klamath and Tule Lake NWRs — Weeds
National Center for Appropriate Technology 1988 REAP: Guide to Economical Weed Control
http://refuges.fws.gov/NWRSFiles/HabitatMgmt/ Roger Samson, Canada-REAP
KBasin/Weeds.html http://eap.mcgill.ca/MagRack/SF/
Spring%2089%20D.htm
Integrated Weed Management in Vegetable Crops
University of Illinois Extension Service
http://www.aces.uiuc.edu/ipm/fruits/iwm/
iwm.html


Biological Control Vegetable Farmers and Their Weed-Control
Machines
Biological Control of Weeds Handbook. 1993. A 75-minute educational video on cultivation and
flaming equipment produced in 1996 by Vern Grubinger,
Watson, Alan K. (ed.) Weed Science Society of UVM Extension System and Mary Jane Else, UMass
America, Champaign, IL. 202 p. Extension with funding from USDA-SARE. Cost is
Included are introduced natural enemies, native or $12.00 from:
naturalized insects and nematodes, plant pathogens, and The Center for Sustainable Agriculture
vertebrate herbivores specifically managed to control University of Vermont State Agricultural College
weeds. 590 Main Street
Burlington, Vermont 05405-0059
802-656-0233
Cultivation 802-656-8874 Fax
http://moose.uvm.edu/~susagctr/index.html
Cultivation Basics for Weed Control in Corn. 1997. Cover Crops
By Jane Mt. Pleasant. Cornell University. Publica-
tion 125IB241. 10 p. Contribution of Cover Crop Mulches to Weed
Cultivation is discussed as an alternative to herbicides, as Management
well as in combination with herbicides through a mixed University of Connecticut, IPM Program
weed control approach. A description of six inter-row http://www.canr.uconn.edu/ces/ipm/weeds/
and in-row tools is provided, accompanied by color htms/
photos. Research on mechanical weed control field trials cvrcrps.htm
at Cornell is summarized.
Cover Crops For Weed Control In Lettuce
Innovative Cultivating Tools New Alchemy Quarterly, No. 40
University of Connecticut, IPM Program Mark Schonbeck, Judy Browne and Ralph
http://www.canr.uconn.edu/ces/ipm/weeds/ DeGregorio
htms/ http://www.fuzzylu.com/greencenter/q40/
culttools.htm weed9009.htm

Photo Gallery Glossary of Cultivators and Cover-Cropping with Rye and Bellbeans in
Implements Used in Physical Weed Control California Vegetable Production
European Weed Research Society Center for Agroecology and Sustainable Food
http://www.ewrs.org/physical-control/ Systems, UC Santa Cruz
glossary.htm http://www.agroecology.org/cases/
rbcovercrop.htm
Rotary hoe, flexible chain harrow, spring tine harrow,
Lilliston rolling cultivator, horizontal-axis brush hoe,
Mechanisms of Weed Suppression By Squash
vertical-axis brush hoe, finger weeder, torsion weeder
Intercropped in Corn
Phillip Thomas Fujiyoshi, UC Santa Cruz
Steel in the Field: A Farmer’s Guide to Weed http://www.agroecology.org/people/phillip/
Management Tools. 1997. By Greg Bowman (ed.). dissertation.htm
Sustainable Agriculture Network, Handbook Series
No. 2. Sustainable Agriculture Publications, Univer- Watermelon Cover Cropping with Wheat and
sity of Vermont. 128 p. Barley in Niigata, Japan
Center for Agroecology and Sustainable Food
Cultivation techniques and the tools used in association Systems, UC Santa Cruz
with mechanical weed control are less familiar to farmers http://www.agroecology.org/cases/
after several decades of widespread chemical weed control. watermeloncover.htm
Steel in the Field, a handbook in the Sustainable Agricul-
ture Network series, provides illustrations, descriptions, Organic/Non-chemical
and practical examples of 37 specialized tools used to
control weeds. It features profiles of farmers using Integrating Non-Chemical Methods to Enhance
reduced- or non-chemical weed control strategies, and Weed Management
contains a listing of suppliers of these specialized tools. Horticultural Sciences Department
http://www.imok.ufl.edu/LIV/groups/
cultural/pests/weed_man.htm


Non-Chemical Weed Control Information Services
Ray Bauml
Options in Agriculture: Exploring Organic Alterna- Agricultural Weather.com
tives, Saskatoon, February 8–10, 1998. http://www.agriculturalweather.com
http://www3.sk.sympatico.ca/hhaidn/
conference98/page29a.htm Agricultural Weather Information Service (AWIS)
http://www.awis.com
Nonchemical Weed Management Strategies
University of Illinois Extension Service The Arizona Meteorological Network (AZMET)
http://www.aces.uiuc.edu/ipm/fruits/ http://Ag.Arizona.Edu/azmet/
nonchem.html
DTN Kavouras Weather Services
Organic Field Crop Handbook — Weed Manage-
http://www.dtn.com/weather/
ment
Canadian Organic Growers, COG
NEWA, The Northeast Weather Association
http://eap.mcgill.ca/MagRack/COG/
http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/ipmnet/ny/
COGHandbook/COGHandbook_1_7.htm
program_news/newa/newa99.html
A Review of Non-Chemical Weed Control Tech-
niques Oklahoma Mesonet
S. Parish http://okmesonet.ocs.ou.edu/body.html
Biological Agriculture and Horticulture, Vol. 7.
http://eap.mcgill.ca/MagRack/BAH/ PAWS Weather Data (Pennsylvania)
BAH%205.htm http://frost.prosser.wsu.edu

Sustainable Weed Management in Organic Herb SkyBit, Agricultural Weather Information Service
Vegetable Production http://www.skybit.com
University of New England, NSW (Australia)
http://www.une.edu.au/agronomy/weeds/ Texas AM Meteorology
organic/organic.html http://www.met.tamu.edu/personnel/students/
weather/current.html
Weed Control Beyond Herbicides. Willis, Harold.
Midwestern Bio-Ag, Blue Mounds, WI. 24 p. WeatherSites: Jump Site from University of
Presents weed control in terms of working with and Michigan
understanding natural processes. http://cirrus.sprl.umich.edu/wxnet/servers.html

Weed Management Strategies in Organic Farming WI–MN Cooperative Extension Agricultural
Systems Weather
David Oien http://bob.soils.wisc.edu/wimnext/
1997 Direct Seeding Conference, Saskatchewan Soil
Conservtion Association UK Agricultural Weather Center
http://ssca.usask.ca/97-Proceed/Oien.htm University of Kentucky
http://wwwagwx.ca.uky.edu/
http://wwwagwx.ca.uky.edu/Agwx.html
Weather
Weather — especially temperature humidity — Pest Forecasters
plays a crucial role in insect and disease develop-
ment. A modern feature of IPM is the use of California PestCast: Disease Model Database
weather monitoring to predict periods of heavy http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/DISEASE/
infestation. The following weather sites on the DATABASE/diseasemodeldatabase.html
Internet specialize in agricultural data; in most
instances these sites focus on IPM at the regional Cucurbit Downy Mildew Forecasts
level. North Carolina State University
Here you can find data on degree days to predict http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/pp/cucurbit/
insect emergence, frost prediction, and pest specific
data such as blight forecasts (onions, tomatoes, IPM Weather Data and Degree-Days: For Pest
potatoes); maggot emergence (onions); European Management Decision Making in the Pacific North-
corn borer forecasts and trap catches (sweet corn); west
phenology; etc. http://www.orst.edu/Dept/IPPC/wea/


Leaf Wetness Observations Massachusetts IPM Guidelines: Commodity
University of Florida http://www.imok.ufl.edu/ Specific Definitions
weather/archives/ http://www.umass.edu/umext/programs/agro/
2000/Leaf%20Wetness/leafwetness2000.htm ipm/ipm_guidelines/
The Massachusetts IPM Guidelines have been used to
MELCAST verify IPM use by the USDA Farm Service Agency in
http://www.hort.purdue.edu/hort/ext/veg/ Massachusetts since 1990, and by the Partners with
melcast.html Nature IPM certification program since 1993. For
certification in the Partners with Nature program, a crop
TOMCAST must be grown using a minimum of 70% of the Adjusted
http://www.ag.ohio-state.edu/%7Evegnet/ Total Practice Points. Qualified growers are licensed to
tomcats/ use the Partners with Nature logo and are provided with
tomfrm.htm marketing assistance including posters, leaflets, bro-
chures and documentation of their certification.
The Vegetable Crops Planner—Weather
Ohio State University Elements of New York State IPM
http://www.ag.ohio-state.edu/~vegnet/ Cornell University
planner.htm http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/ipmnet/ny/
vegetables/
Weather Data / Precipitation Totals elements/index.html
Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station New York state growers can market vegetables under the
http://www.state.ct.us/caes/Weather/wxdata.htm Cornell IPM logo if they follow these IPM guidelines and
meet at least 80% of the recommended practices.

The Food Alliance
IPM Certification and Labeling http://www.thefoodalliance.org
The Food Alliance is a non-profit organization in the
IPM guidelines, or best management practices, have Pacific Northwest that offers a brand label to farms
been established by several state and private transitioning to sustainable agriculture. Farms that bear
organizations. IPM guidelines are being used: (1) the Food Alliance label meet or exceed standards in three
As a checklist for farmers to evaluate their on-farm areas: (1) Conserving soil and water; (2) Pest and disease
pest management programs and identify areas management; and (3) Human resources.
where management can be improved; (2) To verify
and document that IPM is practiced on the farm; CORE Values Northeast
and (3) As an educational tool that describes the http://www.corevalues.org/cvn/consumers/
scope and complexity of IPM to farmers, govern- olabel.html
ment officials, community groups, and the general CORE Values is a northeastern apple label based on bio-
public. intensive growing methods.

In addition to pest management education, IPM Bibliography of IPM Certification, Labeling and
labeling has emerged as a green marketing strategy Marketing
parallel to organic food channels. http://www.ipminstitute.org/
ipm_bibliography.htm
Some food processing companies—for example An online bibliography listing over 70 in-print and
Wegman’s in the Northeastern U.S.—now display online articles associated with the topic of IPM
an IPM logo on canned or frozen vegetable labels, certification,labeling, and marketing.
with accompanying text that touts the environmen-
tal benefits of IPM. Eco-Spuds: Prince Edward Island Farmers Work
with WWF to Reduce Pesticide Use
The IPM Institute of North America Spudman Magazine
http://www.ipminstitute.org/links.htm http://www.spudman.com/pages/
This site has information about IPM labeling issue00vol6_eco_spuds.html
(“ecolabeling”) programs around the country,
standards, certification and links to many organiza-
tions sponsoring ecolabeling programs with IPM
components. Also has information about IPM in
schools.


IPMlit —The Database of Current IPM Literature
IPM Databases Search Engines http://ippc.orst.edu/IPMlit/index.html
IPM is knowledge intensive, so easy access to IPM An online searchable database that focuses on current
materials and information is a big help. The Internet has research and technical papers focused on Integrated Pest
turned into a premier source of information on IPM. Management (IPM) and related topics. Titles are
Here, dozens of university programs and IPM specialists selected from a wide array of technical and professional
make their materials available online, for free. journals. IPMlit broadly groups listed papers by pest or
tactic categories, e.g., Biocontrol, Entomology, Nematol-
A few websites are designed to organize all this informa- ogy, Plant Pathology, Vertebrate Management, and
tion and make it available through databases and directo- General.
ries. Powerful search engines allow visitors to find
information by typing in keywords. National IPM Network
http://www.reeusda.gov/nipmn/
National IPM Network, which has IPM documents,
Database of IPM Resources (DIR) decision aids, farmland-use-planning software and other
http://www.ipmnet.org/DIR/ interesting crop production information (weather, crop
http://www.ippc.orst.edu/cicp/Index.htm prices, futures, etc). A search engine allows searches by
Database of IPM Resources (DIR) is an information commodity, pest, state/region, and tactics. The system
retrieval system that searches through a compendium of includes graphics and hyperlinks to most of the IPM
directories containing IPM information resources on the information currently on the World Wide Web, including
Internet. This site has hundreds of links to other IPM- literature from Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Purdue
related sites as well as a powerful search engine with University, University of Colorado, Cornell University,
which one can search by keyword. Various resource Michigan State University, University of Florida, USDA,
pages are arranged by a useful variety of topic areas. and many more. For more information, contact Ron
Stinner, NIPMN Steering Committee Chairman at
cipm@ncsu.edu.
Database of IPM Resources (DIR): Internet Re-
sources on Vegetable Pest Management National IPM Network Search Engine (North Central
http://www.ippc.orst.edu/cicp/Vegetable/veg.htm Region)
Internet Resources on Vegetable Pest Management is a http://www.ipm.iastate.edu/ipm/ncrsearch/
sub-category of DIR that provides links to materials on A search engine for IPM materials published by land
insect and disease problems associated with vegetable grant institutions of the North Central Region.
production. A great starting point!
Canadian IPM Information System (IPMIS)
Database of IPM Resources (DIR): Internet Resources IPM Information System (IPMIS) is an electronic
on Potato IPM library of IPM information. It is now available to
http://www.ippc.orst.edu/cicp/crops/potato.htm the public on the Internet. IPMIS contains informa-
tion on pest management with particular emphasis
Database of IPM Resources (DIR): Internet IPM on British Columbia. The focus is primarily on IPM
Resources on Tomato and least-toxic and alternative pesticides. Under
http://www.ippc.orst.edu/cicp/crops/tomato.htm continuing development by the Pesticide Manage-
ment Section of BC Environment, the project is
supported by funding from the Canada-British
Columbia Green Plan for Agriculture, Environment
Canada and Agriculture and Agri-foods Canada.
The IPMIS database is available through Free-nets
or other service providers carrying access to British
Columbia World Wide Web servers. Access to the
database is also available through the use of Mosaic
for SLIP, PPP or other TCP/IP connections at:
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/

This Appendix was compiled by
NCAT Agriculture Specialist Steve Diver. It is
adapted from his Sustainable Vegetable Production
Resource List.


The electronic version of Biointensive Integrated Pest
Management is located at:
HTML
http://www.attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/ipm.html
PDF
http://www.attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/ipm.pdf

by Rex Dufour
NCAT Agriculture Specialist
July 2001

The ATTRA Project is operated by the National Center for Appropriate Technology under a
grant from the Rural Busines—Cooperative Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. These
organizations do not recommend or endorse products, companies, or individuals. ATTRA is
located in the Ozark Mountains at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville at P.O. Box
3657, Fayetteville, AR 72702. ATTRA staff members prefer to receive requests for information
about sustainable agriculture via the toll-free number 800-346-9140.


Biointensive Integrated Pest Management

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to Biointensive Integrated Pest Management

More from ElisaMendelsohn

Recently uploaded

Biointensive Integrated Pest Management