Integrated pest management : a look to the future

‘Historic, archived document

Do not assume content reflects current
scientific knowledge, policies, or practices.

Resewve
Gi
Ey Vidz Ese

...@look to the future
EXTENSION UNITED STATES ESC 583
SERVICE DEPARTMENT

OF AGRICULTURE

The Extension Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture offers its
programs to all eligible persons regardless of race, color, or national
origin, and is an equal opportunity employer.

Cooperative Extension Work: United States Department of Agriculture
and State Land-Grant Universities Cooperating. Issued July 1977.

{1
Integrated Pest Management -- A Look to the Future

Y
J. M. Good, Director
Pest Management Programs

Before 1945, pest losses on livestock, crops, and home gardens were
enormous. Pests limited agricultural production and degraded the
esthetic values of our environment. Farmers went to work by sunrise
and did not leave the fields until dusk--as agriculturalists have done
for centuries. Farmers and home gardeners were restricted to a few
pesticides such as arsenic and paris green. They relied heavily on
hand plucking of insects and other century old labor-intensive methods
of pest control. Shrubs and home lawns consisted mainly of a

few cultivars and native species that survived pest attack. Except
for those of the very wealthy, home lawns and shrubs were unthrifty
and unattractive. Swept yards (dirt) were commonplace in much of
rural America.

All this changed in the 1940's and 1950's with the advent of modern
pesticides and with vast improvements in crop varieties, introduction
of exotic species of plants, a rising economy, increased mechanization,
higher fertility practices, improved irrigation systems, and above all,
unprecedented good weather for agriculture.

Extension educational programs on pest control contributed greatly

to this beauty and agricultural abundance. Midway in this period that
came to be known as the "pesticide treadmill," Extension agents and
specialists were among the first to observe and sound the alarm that
there were problems with pesticides. They pointed out to researchers
and others that insects and diseases were becoming resistant to modern
pesticides. Application dosages had to be increased and the interval
between applications shortened. Many nontarget organisms were being
affected by pesticides.

Agricultural scientists began to define the problem and develop solutions.

By 1971, Extension was prepared to initiate pest management demon-
strations with farmers in several states.

Objectives Ai IPM

The objectives of the Extension Integrated Pest Management Program
(IPM) are to:

|. Develop and implement an effective, integrated
program to prevent or mitigate losses caused by
pests through use of biological, cultural, chemical,
and varietal methods of control.

2. Develop methods for monitoring pest populations
in farmers' fields.

3. Provide producers and those who advise farmers
with information and training in the principles
of IPM.

The goal of the Extension education pilot projects is to teach farmers,
ranchers, and home owners how to carry out more effective pest control;
protect natural enemies; implement, where feasible, nonchemical

means of controlling pests; and apply pesticides on an as-needed basis.
The program has been designed to:

|. 'Hasten the establishment of IPM programs in states
where progress has been slow, or where such programs
are lacking.

2. Broaden the scope of existing programs to include
additional commodities and pests and accelerate
the technology transfer process.

3. Improve pest management services offered by
the private sector.

History of the IPM Program

Cotton insect scouting on an organized basis started in Arkansas in
about 1946. In 1968, a grower organization was formed in Scotland
Neck, North Carolina, to spray for cotton insects on an as-needed
basis that was determined by field scouting. In 1969, the Safford
Valley Cotton Growers Cooperative, with guidance from the Arizona
Cooperative Extension Service, launched a successful IPM program.
It became the model for other cooperatives to follow.

The USDA funded Extension pest management program originated
with two projects in 1972, one in Arizona for managing cotton insects,
and the other in North Carolina on tobacco insects. In 1973, 3-year
pilot projects were initiated on cotton insects in I4 states. In FY 1975
and 1976, sufficient increases were provided by Congress to allow

5

initiation of statewide educational programs for managing boll weevils
and other cotton pests in Texas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana,
Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and North
Carolina. Growers are required to pay the costs of field scouting for
insects, which averages about $1.50 per acre.

Starting in 1973 and continuing through 1976, Extension began to expand
the program to other major crops. These crops included corn, soybeans,
rice, peanuts, tobacco, wheat, grain sorghum, alfalfa, potatoes, vegetables,
citrus, pears, apples, peaches, and pecans.

In 1975 and 1976, in order to maintain progress already made, the "pilot
projects" were renewed as "application projects" in order to teach
additional farmers the principles of IPM, and to expand programs to
cover additional pests. Renewals were made with the provision that
farmers must pay the direct cost of monitoring pests in their fields,
and USDA funds would be used for professional salaries and other
program costs such as computer services, educational materials, and
scout training.

At the outset, emphasis was placed on managing insects because of
the great use of insecticides. As the projects were expanded, most
included monitoring of diseases, weeds, and nematodes as well as
insects. Most of the projects are now multidisciplinary in that the
objective is to manage a complex of pests in multiple cropping systems
involving two or more crops.

In 1978, all states will have the opportunity to initiate pilot pest manage-
ment projects on commodities and pests of their choice. A minimum

of $25,000 of federal funds will be provided to each state for this
purpose, with a maximum of $115,000 to states with greatest pesticide .
use. Approved projects must meet USDA guidelines.

Organizing a State IPM Program

To carry out such a complex program, the Extension Service had to
develop a new system of providing IPM information to farmers. An
interdisciplinary State Pest Management Steering Committee with
farmer representation is established in each state. This committee
decides on the type of technology that is feasible to implement, estab-
lishes policies, and identifies the area of the state, crops, and pests

to be included in the project. Also, the steering committee suggests
grower fees and other financial and legal arrangements. During the

3

first year, federal funds can be used to augment grower fees needed

for hiring scouts, but with the understanding that growers will eventually
assume all costs attendant to scouting their fields. The ultimate objective
is education and technical assistance rather than providing farmers

with individual services.

Pilot projects that were extended into the demonstrational phase of

the program (for a second 3-year period) require that growers must

pay all direct costs of scouting fields. This cost has varied from less
than $I per acre to more than $8 per acre, depending upon the commodity
and complex of pests involved. (Horticultural crops and small fields

are the most expensive to scout.) A statewide pest management specialist
(leader or coordinator) provides leadership and assistance to county
agents and farmers. The county agent, along with state Extension
specialists, and with local farm leadership, organizes either formal

or informal associations of growers to carry out the project. Legal
arrangements are drawn up between the participating growers and

the state Extension Service.

The growers are responsible for recruiting scouts, collecting fees,
paying the scouts, keeping records relating to scouting, and operating
the association. The state Cooperative Extension Service is respon-
sible for training growers, scouts, and private organizations who provide
advice to farmers on IPM decisions. The state Extension Service may
also provide participating farmers, other farmers in the community,
consulting firms, and chemical industry fieldmen with training and
information on IPM. This is done through publications, grower meetings,
TV and radio, farm journals, and local newspapers.

Federal funds can be used to pay professional Extension salaries and
travel costs, develop and purchase publications on IPM, provide program
support in the form of supplies and assistance for data processing,

and procure specialized communication and monitoring equipment.
Frequently, federal funds are used to employ area or county pest
management specialists who help the county agents provide farmers
information on which to make decisions. Or, county agents can employ
supervisors to work with scouts. In some cases, the growers pay the
cost of scout supervisors. The cost of professional Extension personnel
has been paid from public funds. These state projects are mutually
agreed to by the state Extension Services and the U.S. Department

of Agriculture because all Extension programs have financial commitments
from federal, state, and county sources.

Scouts are trained in the identification of pests, techniques for mon-
itoring field populations and recordkeeping. This requires | to 2 weeks
training before field operations begin. Subsequently, one-half day

per week training sessions are required throughout the season to maintain
quality and introduce the scouts to new pests they will encounter as

the season progresses.

Scouts do not make recommendations on pesticides or other pest con-
trol strategies to farmers. Each time the farmer's field is scouted,

a copy of the scout's report is given to both the farmer and the county
agent. A copy is retained by the state pest management leader to

use in computer simulation or other program decisions and evaluations.
If private consultants cooperate in the program, the consultant would
receive a copy of the scout's report. A qualified professional who

is either an Extension specialist, county agent, or private consultant
then discusses the scout's findings with the grower. The grower has
final responsibility for making the decision on the type of pest control
he uses.

Records are maintained of the type of management practices employed
by farmers so that progress of grower adoption of new practices can

be evaluated. Where computer monitoring is feasible, information
obtained from field scouting, along with weather and crop development
data, is programed into university computers from which rapid feed-
back of recommendations can be made to county agents and others

for transmittal to growers. Growers are reached by personal contact,
mailed notices, and newsletters. Newsletters are usually provided

to all growers in the area.

Program Accomplishments

Growers in a cotton insect pest management program typically use

2 to 4 fewer insecticide applications than nonparticipating growers.
This often represents a 35 to 50 percent reduction in insecticide use,
and net profits of $25 to $95 per acre, depending on insect population
densities, timing of insecticide applications, and yield increases. In
1977, because there had been adequate educational support of the cotton
insect management program, about one-half of U.S. cotton acreage

is under some type of pest management program.

In the pilot pest management projects on other commodities, the pilot
projects have shown that the number of applications and amount of
pesticides can be reduced 30 to 70 percent in situations where unwarranted
or poorly timed applications have previously occurred.

Depending on the pest complex and crops involved, there is a benefit-
cost ratio or 4-I to 10-l. The cost includes those of monitoring fields,
advising farmers, and applying pest suppression methods. Only about

2 million cultivated acres are now under the pilot pest management
program (for crops other than cotton), but with an adequately supported
educational system the potential is about 85 percent of most cultivated
fruit, forage, vegetable, and high value field crops.

A number of states have demonstrated prototype predictive models

to more accurately forecast local pest outbreaks and provide farmers
and pest management advisors with better decisionmaking capabilities.
There is increasing acceptance of the programs and a willingness of
farmers to pay the cost of monitoring field populations of pests either
by hiring consultants or by forming grower owned pest management
cooperatives.

An outgrowth of this pilot pest management program has been the
development of many training and informational materials. States
have developed educational materials to meet their local needs.

The Extension Service-USDA, working cooperatively with the states,
has developed educational publications and teaching aids for diverse
audiences. These include a leaflet on Integrated Pest Management--
Saves Dollars and Environment, which gives information on the nature
and benefits of the program. The Extension Service also published
Establishing and Operating Grower-Owned Organizations for Integrated
Pest Management for use with farmers and state Extension staffs.

The Farmer Cooperative Service has published Cooperatives in Integrated
Pest Management as a guiae for farm leadership and managers of
service cooperatives.

Eight 14 to 36-minute movies have been produced on IPM by the Extension
Service. These cover corn, apples, alfalfa, pears, grain sorghum, peanuts,
cotton, soybeans, and vegetables. The Extension Service has produced

a 45-minute TV video-tape and a movie depicting the general principles
and benefits of IPM. These visual aids are primarily designed for farmers
but are instructive to other audiences.

The Extension Service has developed cooperative agreements with
lead states to develop I3 regional IPM publications:

-- Pest Management for Alfalfa Seed Production
-- Tobacco Pest Management

-- A Handbook for Cotton Scouting

-- Apple Pest Management

-- Pest Management for Potatoes

-- Cotton Pest Management

-- Alfalfa Pest Management

-- Pest Management for Vegetables on the Eastern

Shore

-- Soybean Pest Management on the Eastern Shore
-- Managing Short-Life of Peaches

-- Pest Management for Corn in the Plain States
-- Peanut Pest Management in the Southeast

-- Corn Pest Management in the Midwest

In recent years, the Extension Committee on Organization and Policy
(ECOP) has sponsored thirteen national workshops on IPM. More are
planned.

The Extension IPM program has been widely acclaimed for its innovative-
ness and impact upon farmers, and it has accelerated research pro-
grams. Many Extension-trained professionals have entered the private
consulting business or are working for cooperatives and the pesticide
industry. The thousands of rural youth who have been trained as pest
management scouts will become better farmers. Many are pursuing
professional careers in the public service or are working in the private
sector where they are creating profound changes in attitudes about
pesticide use.

In 1973, there were fewer than 100 private consultants offering pest
management advisory services to farmers. Today, the number exceeds
500. Before Extension undertook this program, there were fewer than
a dozen service cooperatives that provided any kind of IPM advice,
while today several dozen cooperatives and farm management firms
provide pest mangement services. More are developing this capability
as trained professionals become available.

Many states have developed improved pest diagnostic facilities such
as mobile laboratories and diagnostic clinics. Most states conduct
specialized courses on identification of pests and provide instruction
on latest recommendations to pest control operators, aerial applicators,
and pesticide salesmen. Growers are advised on selection of resistant
varieties, cultural practices, and when to spray. Clinics are also held
in a number of major cities to better inform home owners and home
gardeners. The subject matter is interdisciplinary, involving plant
pathology, entomology, weed science, and nematology. Extension
plant pathologists have organized on a regional basis for the purpose
of reporting and forecasting epidemics of diseases such as wheat rust,
blights of corn, tomatoes, and potatoes.

Crop Protection Compared with Human Health Care

Integrated Pest Management has many similarities with human health
services. It may be more complex because of the great number of
species and crop varieties involved in protecting the health of plants
and animals. Medical services deal with diseases, disorders, and pest-
parasite interactions of only a single species--man.

A great variety of public and quasi-public health institutions provide
research, services, and education at both the state and national levels.

A sophisticated industry exists for research and development of chemical
and biological pharmaceuticals. State and county health departments
provide health services and education to physicians and the public.

To provide human health care, thousands of medical specialists practice
in public hospitals and clinics. There are hundreds of private and co-

op type hospitals and clinics. Public and private medical insurance
systems, including Medicare, are readily available to aid our citizens.

A number of agencies regulate these diverse activities.

A similar but not so elaborately financed and staffed system exists

in agriculture to protect the health of crops and animals. State and
national agricultural agencies provide research, services, and education
(academic teaching and noncredit Extension education). A highly

efficient industry exists for research, development and sales of chemical
pesticides. Industrial development of biological agents is in its infancy.
Several thousand technical representatives and salesmen of manufac-
turing and retail industry advise farmers and sell crop protection products.
This differs from human health care whose physicians cannot sell chemicals.
There will be about 200,000 registered commercial applicators of pesticides
in 1978, including aerial applicators, pest control operators, and others

who apply pesticides for hire. State Departments of Agriculture and
several federal agencies regulate many of these activities. There
are approximately 500 Extension specialists with assignments in the
areas of crop and animal health as well as county agents who provide
information; most specialists are located on university campuses.

At the present time there are about 500 private consultants working
independently or for farm service firms and farmers' cooperatives

to provide advice and make recommendations on IPM, and most of
these professionals have been in practice less than five years.

There are other interesting comparisons. For medical advice and
recommendations, prescriptions and treatments--both chemical and
nonchemical--we have a number of choices. Most citizens prefer
private physicians who practice in local communities. Others, especially
the more affluent, travel great distances to university medical centers
and world renowned clinics for advice and treatment. Still others

use county health facilities and company operated clinics. County
nurses provide valuable services and education in the area of preventive
health care.

The parallel situation in agriculture occurs when the more successful,
usually large and affluent farmers, frequently travel great distances

to university centers and research stations for consultation with Extension
specialists or researchers to obtain the latest and most sophisticated
assistance possible. However, most farmers rely on advice and coun-
seling that is provided through their local county agricultural Extension
office.

As in human medicine, a growing number of qualified private consul-
tants and service firms and cooperatives provide pest management
services, usually on a fee basis. This type of private sector enterprise
must be encouraged and expanded so that it will become a major source
of IPM advice and service. Today, their numbers are inadequate to
meet the needs of farmers and home gardeners.

Because there are so few private and public pest management advisors,
our agricultural system has depended heavily on the great number

of pesticide industry sales and technical representatives, who are
familiar with pests and the performance of their proprietary pesticides,
to advise farmers on controlling pests. This has been a free service

but it has been oriented almost exclusively to the use of a company's
proprietary products. Objectivity can be questioned when a salesman
recommends his proprietary chemical. However, few salesmen would

9

recommend a chemical knowing that it would not control the target
pest.

Expansion of the Program

Extension now uses many methods in multiplying its educational program.
These include: TV, radio, newspapers, farm and trade magazines,
university and local meetings, individual counseling, group meetings,
clinics and workshops, and farm demonstrations and pilot projects.

The demonstration system relies heavily on community farm leaders,
who provide information to their neighbors. USDA, State Agricultural
Experiment Stations, and the State Cooperative Extension Services
distribute publications on pest control; large numbers of these publica-
tions are distributed by commercial pesticide outlets and salesmen.

Individual contacts with farmers are educationally the most effective
and preferred means of helping farmers, but Extension resources are
insufficient to reach 2.8 million farmers by this method, and it is even
more difficult to reach 32 million home gardeners by personal contact.
Services of the county Extension offices are available to all, but because
of the demand current pest control advice is limited to routine inquiries.

State Extension specialists carry out specialized educational programs,
and serve as resource persons for county agents who might need assistance
in handling unusual or new pest problems.

Experience with IPM and other Extension programs indicates that

several years are required for most farmers to fully accept new tech-
nology. This is especially so for IPM because of the complex nature

of the program. Also, it will take longer for small farmers to acquire

the abilities and resources to adopt pest management practices without
much assistance from Extension. Rapid expansion of the program

will depend on availability of many additional trained personnel, including
scouts, Extension county and area pest management agents, and private
sector professionals.

Many farmers will employ private consultants or utilize their cooper-
atives' IPM services rather than monitor fields themselves for pests.

It will take no less than 10 years to implement a well-planned program,
in a stepwise orderly process, to coincide with readiness of research
technology and availability of university trained professionals. Also,
this much time will be needed to develop the public and private sector

10

organizational structures to deliver the program. Job opportunities
with Extension and with consulting firms and farmer cooperatives
must approximate the number of students that can be trained by the
colleges of agriculture. Extension will ultimately need 500-600 pest
management agents and state specialists in addition to the existing
staff.

Pest control education for farmers, especially for small farmers, can
be improved in the future as more rapid communication systems are
perfected and procured. Foremost on the list will be the development
of English language computer programs that will make available infor-
mation and solutions of complex pest problems at the county office
level. This now requires consultation with Extension specialists or
other university technical personnel. Better agricultural weather
information, combined with developing new technologies for forecasting
and predicting outbreaks of pests, will improve pest control and further
advance IPM programs. Farmers will receive more sophisticated and
precise information on how to manage pests and reduce losses, thereby
increasing agricultural production and contributing to a better environ-
ment.

State Extension staffs will develop program training packages on IPM
and train urban Extension horticultural agents. These materials will
be used by county staffs to train paraprofessionals who work with
home gardening programs in urban communities.

Extension must continue to train farmers, ranchers, and others on
how to carry out more effective IPM programs. To perfect such a
complex program, the Extension Service must continually develop
innovative systems of delivering pest management information. The
pilot project system was developed as the best method of introducing
new technology and delivering pest management services.

The state Cooperative Extension Services will provide training to
growers, scouts, and private organizations who offer advisory services

to farmers, rather than rely on manufacturer's representatives and
salesmen of pesticides. The State Extension Services will provide
participating growers, other farmers, home gardeners, consulting firms,
and chemical industry fieldmen with educational materials and informa-
tion on IPM. Public funds will be used only to pay professional Extension
costs; develop and purchase publications; provide program support

in the form of supplies, clerical assistance for data collection, processing
and forecasting of pest populations; and develop specialized communication
and monitoring equipment.

Farmers who are the primary beneficiaries will pay an increasing propor-
tion of the total cost through fees paid to private firms and service
cooperatives. Where computer modeling is practical, information
obtained from field scouting, along with the weather and crop develop-
ment data, will be programed into university computers from which
rapid feedback of recommendations can be made to county agents

and others for transmittal to farmers.

Each state will have an interdisciplinary IPM Steering Committee

and statewide coordinator who will be responsible for developing a

state plan to progressively move from the demonstration phase into

a statewide program. As the program moves into a new area, farmers
will be organized to implement IPM. Initially, Extension will provide
intensive training and assistance to farmers that will establish a demand
that will be conducive to the subsequent operation of a farmers' cooper-
ative or private consultants who offer IPM advisory services to farmers.
After about 3 years, the intensive educational phase will be redirected
into other areas of the state, but a county or area IPM agent will be
needed in the original area(s) to provide continuing educational and
technical assistance, which will assure steady improvement in the
program.

In this manner the principles of IPM will be demonstrated to farmers,
and a permanent system will be established to give farmers improved
decisionmaking capability. Program development will coincide with
the availability of trained personnel, and the basis for rapid transfer
of new research technology will be firmly established.

Resources For the Future

A successful IPM educational program can be planned and developed
with adequate financing over a |0-year period. In 1978, $4.4 million

of federal funds are provided the State Cooperative Extension Services
to initiate pilot programs in all states. The following resource plan

is based on an annual increase of about $2 million through 1986. By
1986 the educational program could be well established with a federal
support base of about $20.4 million. 1/

By 1980, the program could encompass 38 million acres of most major
crops (table |). The percent of planted acres under IPM would vary
from a low of | percent for wheat and rice to a high of about 75 per-

17 These estimates of resources are based on analysis of current

state programs and do not represent the position of the agency
or the Department.

12

cent for cotton. Each year more than 30,000 scouts would be employed,
and about one-half must receive up to 2 weeks training every year.
Depending on the crop, grower fees will range from $1.50 to $20 per
acre. Growers will pay about $115 million to consulting firms and cooper-
atives for IPM advisory services.

By 1986, there could be 109 million acres under IPM. The percentage

of acres in the program will dramatically increase (table 2), especially
on commodities where pilot projects have existed for several years.
Over one-half of the acres of cotton, corn, peanuts, tobacco, soybeans,
fruit and nuts, and grain sorghum could reach proportions that approach
the potential for each crop.

The efficiency of scouting will increase because of refinements in
thresholds and monitoring techniques. Nonetheless, approximately
63,000 scouts will be involved in the program if quality is maintained.
The number of scouts that must be recruited and trained is critical
for success and indicates the urgent need for research on thresholds
and monitoring techniques, especially for automated data collection,
computer modeling, and more rapid communication systems. Growers
will pay higher per acre fees because the program will provide IPM
services on a greater number of pest species. The estimated grower
cost in 1986 will be $566 million.

An outgrowth of this program will be the creation of new job oppor-
tunities. Thousands of youth will be provided training, summer employ-
ment, and career opportunities.

The federal cost (ES-USDA) will be $8.4 million in 1980 and $20.4 million
in 1986 (table 3). This will provide for training scouts, data handling,

53 state and federal IPM coordinators, and 105 area Extension IPM
agents in 1980. The number of area IPM agents will increase to 330

in 1986 to serve 3,000 counties.

As the program develops, the state Extension Services, through realloca-
tion of regular funds, or from fund increases from state and local
governments, will provide an average of 4 specialists per state from

crop protection disciplines (entomology, plant pathology, nematology,
weed science, and others) at a cost of about $8 million. The participation
of these interdisciplinary specialists (200) is essential and will assure
integration of control methods needed to manage complexes of pests.

Conservatively, more than 1,900 private-sector advisors (consultants
from firms and cooperatives) will be needed to manage 38 million

13

acres in 1980. This assumes that each consultant can care for 20,000
acres. By 1986, with increased efficiency, 3,633 advisors will be needed
to handle about 109 million acres. Growers will pay for the services

of consultants.

Based on data on pesticide sales in the past few years, without an
IPM program, the value of pesticide sales could reach $6.3 billion by
1986 (Il percent annual increase) (table 4). It was $1.8 billion in 1974.
By 1986, the pounds of pesticide products sold will reach 2.6 billion
pounds (6 percent annual increase). There were 1.3 billion pounds of
pesticides sold in 1974. An effective IPM program could reduce these
sales by 30 percent--a savings of $1.8 billion and a reduction of 0.8
billion pounds of pesticides. Farmers would spend $566 million on
IPM instead of pesticides. Public cost of IPM would be $28.4 million.
Therefore, the net savings over cost would be $1.2 billion annually
above public cost of the program and grower fees for IPM services.

TABLE 1. SCOPE OF IPM IN 1980

Crops of Acres
Planted

an
pe OC

Acres Acres Naber
(1,000)1 Scout ee Acre (Million)
5/625 1,200 4,690 ee
11,685 1,500 7,790 seanil
of so 1,020 10.00
1,000

100
P00
oN es.
2,728 fe
300 _

00

1,500

2,728

ly ae 1,130 15.00
AT i722 5,860
1,207
2,706 2,706

| seuss ana mcs |
eee Ete ae

TOTALS

lgased on USDA Agricultural Statistics, 1976.

38,021 30,9412

TABLE 2. SCOPE OF IPM IN 1986

Henne Ex Percent Acres Acres Number
Crops of Acres In IPM per of Dollars
Planted 1,000)1 Scout Scouts? Acre”
a a

:

TOTALS

apased on USDA Agricultural Statistics, 1976.

2,400 3,362

3,000 12,984

1,149 1,000 1,149 12.00

6,153 20.00

2,000

215238 122.6

2,000 13,619

5123

1,014 2553) 25.00

2,489 8,297 30.00

1,200
3,754

3,000 R251

3,000 3,654

=]
ie}
h
bh
ie)
bor
=

10,962

135529 1,500 9,019

566.2

109,425 63,477

2variable increase in scouting efficiency, introduction of other monitoring methods
for each crop over 1980 level.

3tIncrease in grower fees due to inflation and increase in number of pests monitored.

TABLE 3. COSTS OF IPM PROGRAMS

SOURCE OF SUPPORT

Extension Service/USDA

Train one-half of required scouts,

two week sessions annually ($100 each;

CES supplies travel, etc. - scouts pay

meals and lodging). f+ $1,545,600 S135L73,950

State and USDA IPM Coordinators
53 x $35,000 1,855,000 1,855,000

Area or County IPM Agents
105 x $35,000 3,675,000 =<
330 x $40,000 -- 13,200,000

Educational Materials and Data
Processing 1,324,400 Zoli 5150

TOTALS $8,400,000 # $20,400,000

State Cooperative Extension Service

Supporting Interdisciplinary State

Specialists (4 per state)
60 x $35,000 $2,100,000 --
200 x $40,000 —- $8,000,000

Farmer's Fees Paid to Private Sector
IPM Advisors

1,900 Advisors to handle 38-million
acres (20,000 acres each) $114,900,000
3,633 Advisors to handle 109-million
acres (30,000 acres each) -- $566, 200,000

TABLE 4. PROJECTED USE OF SYNTHETIC

————— ee

ORGANIC PESTICIDES 1974 - 1986

(billion) (billion)
gl | 32

Le

lgales of pesticides (manufacturer's level) based on 11% annual
increase.

2sales of products based on 6% annual increase.

hy

Piccy

id

ms)

or]

%