For 2020 and newer grants, please go to https://grants.ipmcenters.org/
Home       Current RFAs       PD User Guide       Projects       Login

Funded Project

Funding Program: Regional IPM Grants (S-RIPM)

Project Title: Evaluation of IPM in the Southern Region

Project Directors (PDs): George Williamson Norton [1] Jeffrey Alwang [2]

Lead State: VA Lead Organization: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

Research Funding: $99,719

Start Date: Jul-01-2007 End Date: Jun-30-2009

Summary: This proposal details an IPM Evaluation project with a goal of developing a systematic set of methods for evaluating impacts of IPM practices and programs at the state, regional, and national levels. The primary objectives are to: (a) design a practical set of methods, compatible across levels of assessment, for evaluating economic, health, and environmental impacts of IPM programs, (b) examine the suitability of existing data, and identify practical means of obtaining additional data where needed to apply the evaluation methods, and (c) conduct impact assessments on at least two IPM programs to demonstrate how the necessary data can be collected and the methods applied. Attention will be paid to how spatially-referenced data on adoption of IPM practices can be obtained on a consistent and regular basis to facilitate impact assessment. The approach will include: (a) reviewing previous methods used to assess IPM impacts on health, environment, and economic wellbeing, and identifying their strengths and weaknesses for evaluating specific IPM programs or for evaluating aggregate benefits of IPM, (b) reviewing data sources and availability and identifying data gaps for IPM impact evaluation, (c) designing a practical approach, drawing on a range of methods, for evaluating the economic, health, and environmental impacts of IPM programs, and for obtaining necessary data, (d) applying the suggested analytical and data collection methods to a sample of IPM programs of importance in the South, and (e) publishing the evaluations and preparing a step by step impact evaluation manual for inclusion on the Southern Region IPM Center website. We will coordinate with evaluation experts in the North Central and Northeastern regions during the project. Objectives: 1) Design a practical set of methods, compatible across levels of impact assessment, for evaluating the economic, health, and environmental impacts of IPM programs, 2) Examine the suitability of existing data and identify the most practical means of obtaining additional data, especially on IPM practice adoption, to apply the evaluation methods, and 3) Conduct impact assessments for at least two IPM programs of importance in the South to demonstrate how the necessary data can be collected and the methods applied.

Final Report:

Results From report submitted by the PI to USDA CRIS report system PROGRESS: 2007/07 TO 2010/06 OUTPUTS: First, Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) pesticide residue data were examined and it was discovered that these data can not be linked with farmers who adopt integrated pest management (IPM), making them unsuitable for IPM impact analysis. Most of the AMS samples do not exceed established risk level limits making it difficult to assess the impact of IPM on reducing risk from dietary exposure to pesticides using these data. An implication of the low risk levels is that the U.S. food supply is relatively safe as it demonstrates low pesticide residue levels, and therefore the major HE impacts of pesticides are likely to be felt at the producer as opposed to the consumer level. Second, the Agricultural Resource Management Surveys (ARMS) and the Agricultural Chemical Use Surveys from NASS and ERS were accessed to assess impacts of IPM on pesticide use in the United States. The ARMS data contained information collected from 1996 through 2007 on fourteen different commodities. Impact estimates were generated with econometric analysis using multiple definitions of IPM for the 14 crops as a group and for corn and cotton separately. Third, experimental economic methods were used to generate data to assess potential health and environmental impacts of IPM. Fourth data were collected to assess the economic impacts of the eastern U.S. reduced-risk apple IPM program. templates were created that can be used for impact analyses of other IPM programs. A grower survey was completed in Pennsylvania to assess IPM adoption rates that could be combined with crop budgets and price and quantity data in an economic surplus analysis. A Ph.D. thesis is near completion from this project. PARTICIPANTS: George Norton gave overall direction to this project. Jason Maupin is completing his Ph.D. disseration based on the results of this project. Jeffrey Alwang provided technical assistance. Robert Dubman (USDA-ERS) provided access to the ARMS data, along with Dave Mueller, Deputy Director NASS Virginia Field Office and Herman Ellison, Director NASS Virginia Field Office. TARGET AUDIENCES: Administrators who ask IPM sceintists to document impacts of their program; state, regional, and national IPM leaders and coordinators PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: Nothing significant to report during this reporting period. IMPACT: 2007/07 TO 2010/06 Estimated impacts of IPM on pesticide use suggest that IPM as a whole does not reduce pesticide expenditures, although specific IPM practices do reduce pesticide use. IPM reduces pounds of pesticide active ingredients on corn in some years with the effects varying by practice. Crop monitoring practices such as scouting have no statistically significant effect on chemical spending, although systematic scouting was estimated to significantly decrease chemical spending on corn production in 2001. The analysis also suggested that pesticide use depends heavily on factors such as the year (weather)in which the crop was grown and the location of the crop. This result indicates the importance of having local IPM programs designed to meet the specific needs of local pesticide users. The results also suggest that IPM practices may have been more directed at increasing farmer profits than reducing pesticide use, although profits are important if IPM practices are to be adopted. Fifty-six percent of growers in the apple IPM program adopted at least half of the IPM practices, reflecting the fact that higher yields with IPM on the crop offset higher costs per acre. PUBLICATIONS (not previously reported): 2007/07 TO 2010/06 1. Maupin, J., Norton, G.W., and J. Alwang (2009). Impacts of IPM on Agricultural Pesticide Use in the United States. Poster at Sixth International IPM Symposium Portland, Oregon. 2. Maupin, J. and G.W. Norton (2009). Does IPM Adoption Reduce Pesticide Use A National-Level Accounting. Poster at the AAEA Annual Meeting Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 3. Maupin, J. and G.W. Norton (2010). Pesticide Use and IPM Adoption: Does IPM Reduce Pesticide Use in the United States Selected Paper presented at the AAEA Annual Meeting, Denver, Colorado.

Outcomes N/A

Impacts From report submitted by the PI to USDA CRIS report system Estimated impacts of IPM on pesticide use suggest that IPM as a whole does not reduce pesticide expenditures, although specific IPM practices do reduce pesticide use. IPM reduces pounds of pesticide active ingredients on corn in some years with the effects varying by practice. Crop monitoring practices such as scouting have no statistically significant effect on chemical spending, although systematic scouting was estimated to significantly decrease chemical spending on corn production in 2001. The analysis also suggested that pesticide use depends heavily on factors such as the year (weather)in which the crop was grown and the location of the crop. This result indicates the importance of having local IPM programs designed to meet the specific needs of local pesticide users. The results also suggest that IPM practices may have been more directed at increasing farmer profits than reducing pesticide use, although profits are important if IPM practices are to be adopted. Fifty-six percent of growers in the apple IPM program adopted at least half of the IPM practices, reflecting the fact that higher yields with IPM on the crop offset higher costs per acre.

Close Window

Southern IPM Center North Carolina State University 1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 110 Raleigh, NC 27606 p. 919.513.1432   f. 919.513.1114		Developed by the Center for IPM © Copyright CIPM 2004-2025