AN EVALUATION OF THE SCOUTING ACTIVITIES
OF PEST MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS
STRATEGIC STUDIES UNIT
401 M STREET, S.W.
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460
Charles D. Reese, Project Officer
Jeff Kempter, Project Member
AND
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
PEST MANAGEMENT STAFF
PLANT -PROTECTION AND QUARANTINE PROGRAMS
ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE
HYATTSVILLE, MARYLAND 20782
Dr. James R. Brazzel, Project Officer
Mr. Gary Moorehead, Project Member
EPA - 540/9-75-014
1974
-------
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This EPA Report has been reviewed by the Office of Pesticide
Programs and approved for publication. Approval does not
signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and
policies of the Environmental Protection Agency, or does mention
of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
Interagency Agreement iii
Statement of Work v
Acknowledgement ... x
I Introduction 1
II Past and Present
A. Scouting Objectives 4
,B. - Pest Management Objectives . 8
C. Mechanics of Implementation 11
D. Resource Implications 29
E. Effectiveness 34
III Future
A. Constraints . 39
B. Projected Costs 42
C. Probable Effectiveness 49
IV Recommendations 53
References Cited . . 57
ii
-------
INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
AND THE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
I. PURPOSE:
The purpose of this Interagency Agreement is to provide the
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs,
with a study which evaluates the results of Government sponsored
and private pest scouting activities as part of organized pest
management.
II. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED:
The United States Department of Agriculture will develop a
report following the attached statement of work.
The USDA representative will meet each month with the EPA
Project Officer to discuss the study and submit a short resume
of progress.
III. PUBLICATION:
The final report will consist of narrative and all tables
and figures necessary for a clear understanding of the information
provided. The report will contain as appendix material all
necessary documentation to support and verify the statements
made in the report. A draft of the final report will be submitted
to EPA by June 30, 1974. Following a 30 day review period by
EPA, USDA will have 30 days to submit twnety-five copies of a
final report which reflects the EPA review. It is agreed that the
USDA shall acknowledge EPA's support whenever research projects
funded in whole or in part by this agreement are publicized in
any news media. USDA shall include, in any publication resulting
from the research performed under this agreement, an acknowledg-
ment identifying EPA as the sponsoring agency and the associated
agreement number.
IV. PERIOD OF AGREEMENT:
This agreement will cover a period of approximately six
months. The information will be delivered in final form by
June 30, 1974; it may be terminated by either agency upon 30 days
advance written notice. The agreement may be modified by mutual
consent of both parties.
ill
-------
V. PROJECT OFFICERS:
Mr. Charles D. Reese, Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA
Dr. James R. Brazzel* Plant Protection and Quaranting
Programs, APHIS, USDA
VI. FUNDING ARRANGEMENTS:
EPA will reimburse USDA-APHIS for actual costs incurred in
the performance of, this work in an amount not to exceed $50,000.
Request for reimbursement should be made by itemized SF 1080
submitted quarterly to the EPA Division of Financial Management,
401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D. C. 20460. Requests for
reimbursement and related correspondence should cite the number
of this agreement together with the following accounting
information:
Appropriation Symbol
Account No.
Document Control Number
Object Class
68X0108
418332P991
K00280
25.70
VII. AUTHORITY:
This interagency agreement is entered into under the
authority of the Economy Act of 1932 as amended (31-USC-686).
APPROVED AND ACCEPTED FOR THE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE
APPROVED AND ACCEPTED FOR THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY /-
Date
MAR 2 5 1974
Assistant Administrator for
Hazardous Materials Control
Date
iv
-------
STATEMENT OF WORK
PEST MANAGEMENT
Background
The primary goal of any sound crop production system is to obtain
maximum yields through the use of management practices which are ecolog-
ically, socially, and economically acceptable. Invariably, achievement
of this goal is complicated by the presence of plant diseases, insect
pests, and weeds. When the presence of these pests reach or exceed
certain levels they become economically important and must be controlled,
Traditionally, this situation has been taken care of on an individual
grower basis and when a method of control was deemed necessary a
pesticide was applied. If warranted and applied at the proper time
these applications of pesticide were frequently effective in decreasing
the population level of the pest. Often, however, a lack of sound
knowledge of pest population levels and the full range of impacts of
pesticide use has led to the widespread adoption of unnecessary
prophylactic or insurance application of pesticides. In fact, such
applications have in some cases inhibited the growth of crops and/or
resulted in resurgence of major pests or eruption of secondary pests.
Since 1971, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
of the U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has been involved in a
cooperative Federal-State pest management program which is generating
large amounts of biological data which may provide insights into many
of the interactions and impacts of pesticides on several cropping
systems. This data is being gathered as a result of the scouting or
population assessment phase of the overall pest management program.
Such data, after careful evaluation, has been used for making pesticide
application recommendations. The net result of this scouting activity
in some local pest management projects has been a reduction in the
unnecessary application of pesticides.
Outline of Study
The contractor shall provide all personnel, materials, equipment,
and facilities necessary to evaluate the results of government sponsored
and private pest scouting activities. This analysis will consider
program benefits and cost in addition to the level of public acceptance.
The study will also address itself to the broader term of pest manage-
ment and the concept of area-wide suppression of crop pests.
Three major aspects to this investigation of scouting activities
are: (1) evaluation of past and present programs, both public and
private; (2) implementation of scouting activities as a part of organ-
ized pest management; and, (3) the implementation of pest management
programs in all crop production systems.
-------
1. The evaluation of the effectiveness of past and existing
scouting programs will include consideration of the following:
A. Short and long-term objectives of past and existing
scouting programs.
What was the rationale for selecting these
objectives?
What was the strategy for achieving these
programs?
B. Short and long-term objectives of a total pest manage-
ment program.
What was the rationale for selecting these
objectives?
What was the strategy for achieving these
programs?
C. Mechanics of implementation.
For which crops and states were the programs
selected? Why?
Are certain classes of chemicals more affected
than others by scouting activities?
What managerial qualifications are needed?
Are people with this training available?
,-tow are the scouts selected? What training do they
receive? Have enough people been available? Is
there any consideration given to personnel safety?
What data are collected? What is the frequency of
'collection? Why?
After the scouts collect the raw data what is the
decision-making process used by managers to make
recommendations? (Specific examples will be provided).
Do the scouting programs consider climate, genetic
differences and/or adjacent crop interactions?
Are the environmental impacts assessed? How?
-------
Resource implications (cost of programs).
How many scouts were required in programs to date?
Is the number of scouts determined on the basis
of acreage, number of farms or some other factor?
How and by whom are the scouts paid? Is the basis
for pay an hourly rate, acreage, or some other
factor?
Is there a large turnover in scout personnel?
What factors seem to cause turnover? What are the
cost implications?
What are the managerial costs of programs done to
date? Who was paid for the programs?
What are the costs of evaluating the environmental
impact of these programs?
E. Effectiveness.
Were the objectives of the programs achieved? Why
or why not?
What was the level of social acceptance to these
programs?
Was per acre pesticide use reduced? Why?
What has been the effect on crop yields?
Did the programs affect subsequent grower manage-
ment practices? Why or why not?
What was the environmental impact of these programs?
Were the sampling programs adequate?
2. Implementation of scouting activities as part of an organized
pest management program.
A. Constraints.
Can existing pest management programs for particular
crops be applied to all other areas of the U. S.
where those crops are grown. How and why?
vii
-------
What is the anticipated level of public acceptance?
Why? What institutional modifications such as
Incentives and educational programs appear to be
necessary to achieve public acceptance and program
Implementation?
How many scouts will be needed and are they
available?
How many managerial personnel will be needed and
are they available?
B. Projected costs.
Cost of personnel required.
Cost of training required.
Other system costs to include administration,
equipment, and incentives.
Is the program cost effective?
C. Probable effectiveness.
Will the objectives and strategies of present
programs be achieved? Are new objectives needed
and are they being developed?
What will be the level of public acceptance of such
programs?
Will the total use of pesticides be reduced? What
other benefits may result?
Will the adverse environmental impact be reduced?
Could past and existing programs yield management
models?
3. Recommendations.
Suggested changes in strategy and objectives.
Improved training programs or techniques for scouts and
managers.
viii
-------
Improved data gathering and analysis procedures.
Funding requirements.
Incentives and public education for achieving public
acceptance.
Implementation plan for a national scouting program
within the confines of a pest management program.
ix
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We wish to acknowledge the assistance, through hours of discussion
and answering questions, of a large number of people involved in
the area of pest management. They shared their knowledge and
experiences unselfishly. Groups or agencies represented were:
the State cooperative extension services, the Extension Service,
U. S. Department of Agriculture, the State agricultural experiment
stations, growers, the State regulatory agencies, the chemical
industry, private pest management consultants, and project scouts.
-------
I
INTRODUCTION
-------
INTRODUCTION
The origin of insect scouting in agricultural crops is lost in
antiquity, to be sure. Insect scouting, as we know it today,
seems to have appeared in the second decade of the 1900's. Its
birth in Arkansas is well documented (Boyer et al., 1962).
Scouting as the basis for cotton insect control in this State
had its beginning in research conducted by Dwight Isley in the
1920's. The first commercial scout 1n Arkansas was hired in 1925
and worked under Isley's direction.
This initial scouting was done to determine pest population levels
prior to the application of insecticides so that differences in
efficacy among various materials could be determined. Isley's
work in this area led to his insistence that insect infestations
varied from field to field and from week to week, to the extent
that scouting was needed on a weekly basis in all fields in order
to use insecticides in a biologically and economically sound
manner. With the need established, cotton scouting in Arkansas
grew, and has since spread to other parts of the cotton growing
region of the United States.
Until about the mid-1950's, cotton scouting usually resulted in
the use of more insecticides as growers realized the limiting
influence of insect pests on crop production. Over the years,
however, boll weevils became resistant to an increasing number
of insecticides. Entomologists also became aware that the insec-
ticides used for boll weevil control were creating outbreaks of
other pests by destroying their natural enemies. As a result,
additional control strategies were developed against the boll
weevil. The diapause control concept (Brazzel et al., 1961),
which lessened the adverse impact of pesticides on natural
populations of beneficial arthropods which suppressed other pests,
is one such strategy.
In the last 15 years, the direction of cotton scouting has been
toward its employment as a monitoring tool in a more complete
management system. The development of alternate strategies, when
successfully implemented, has resulted in optimizing insect
control while often reducing the frequency and amount of insecti-
cide usage.
The use of chemicals for control of insect pests has developed
on other crops where the need for strategic timing is also
essential. In addition, chemicals are now widely used to control
weeds, nematodes, and diseases. Cultural and biological methods
-------
aimed at management of pests have also continued to develop.
Along with this evolution, scouting and consulting have developed
into viable enterprises in certain areas of the country. These
areas usually are regions where a combination of available tech-
nology, dedicated people, and economic feasibility coexists. For
example, the number of consultants in California and the Mississippi
River flood, plain in the midsouth has rapidly increased in the
last 8 to 10 years (now over 200 in these areas) and some have
been in business for nearly 25 years.
Where good pest management strategies, including periodic monitor-
ing of field conditions, have not been effectively employed,
insecticides have been subject to overuse, poor timing, and other
means of misuse. More recently, this has become prominent with
other pesticides as well. In addition, the use of chemicals for
one pest often counteract natural or other management methods for
control of other pests, or adversely affect the yield potential
of a crop through physiological damage. Further, practices
employed in one field or on one crop often interfere with optimum
pest management in another field or on other crops in the same
area. What has clearly evolved is the need for planning and
implementing overall management practices which not only optimize
production in an individual field, but which, in the case of pest
management, are in harmony throughout an area.
The widespread use of large quantities of pesticides, especially
insecticides and herbicides, has also caused tremendous public
concern over potential environmental destruction. As a result,
the use of some chemicals has been banned, and many others may
only be used under restrictive conditions, on certain crops, or
in certain geographical areas. More stringent controls on pesti-
cide use are destined for the future, and this will create an
even greater need to sophisticate pest management strategies.
The United States farmer is faced with the need to solve the pest
control dilemma for five principle reasons: (1) Unwise use of
agricultural chemicals including pesticides which may adversely
affect crop yields, (2) the increasing incidence of pest species
becoming resistant to pesticides, (3) the adverse affects of
pesticides on natural suppressive agents which result in the
elevation of former secondary pests to the role of major pests,
(4) pesticides contribute to environmental contamination, and
must be regulated to reduce this occurrence, (5) costs of pesti-
cides, as with other farming inputs, are constantly increasing
disproportionately to the rise in farm income. These costs may
accelerate even more due to the energy crises and stronger demand
-------
for available petroleum products. The average grower may either
not have the necessary Information or capability to implement
the type of pest management methods needed to cope with all these
factors. He cannot be a specialist 1n all areas of farm manage-
ment. As mentioned previously, he will also have to work with
his neighbors for the most effective management of pests.
A number of States are currently taking steps toward solving the
pest management dilemma. This report deals with some of their
approaches, most of which rely heavily upon scouting activities.
-------
II
PAST AND PRESENT
-------
A. Scouting Objectives
Short-Term Objective of Past Scouting Program
A scouting program, as originally conceived, was designed
to enable the grower to use insecticides more efficiently and to
ensure that pest infestations did not develop and cause damage
without the knowledge of the producer. Of course, this is based
upon the fact that the growers and technical personnel recognize
that an automatic or prophylactic approach to pest control with
chemicals is uneconomical, and the knowledge that pest situations
differ from field to field or in areas within a field. It was
only logical that some systematic approach was needed to keep
the farmer aware of his problems so that the necessary corrective
action could be taken.
A basic philosophy in the early days of scouting was for the
technical personnel to develop the techniques for scouting which
were reliable, train the farmer, and then the farmer could do his
own scouting. In fact, it was around this approach that the con-
sulting entomologist profession, which is increasing rapidly in
this country, came into being. The operator of a large farm,
with more operations to supervise and with the greater complexity
of operating farms in recent years, may not have the time to devote
to population surveillance of pests in his crops. In this situa-
tion, if he recognizes the value of this service, the farmer
usually goes to outside help to obtain such service.
Basically, the early strategy was designed primarily to determine
when or when not to use a chemical pesticide. Also, during the
early days of scouting, economic thresholds were very poorly
defined, as they are for many crops at the present time. However,
from experience and from the limited amount of research that had
been done in this area, producers had general guidelines which they
exercised in the initiation of chemical treatments when scouting
was used as a part of their effort to control insect pests. To
a great extent these guidelines were well on the safe side, and
often resulted in use of pesticides in excess of amounts needed
for acceptable control. Growers knew from experiences gained
prior to the availability of the present highly effective pesti-
cides the damage and severe losses that pests could inflict upon
a crop. Therefore, scouting in the past, prior to the initiation
of the concerted pest management effort which was begun in 1971,
could be considered as a year by year pest surveillance program
aimed directly at determining whether or not pesticides were
necessary.
-------
The strategy for achieving this objective in previous scouting
programs started out primarily by recruiting entomology students
and other interested persons for summer employment. The scouts
were under the supervision of the extension service, or in many
cases, under the supervision of the farmer himself. Most of the
early consultants were trained 1n entomology and their services
were almost entirely directed toward insects and insect control.
However, in recent years with the advent of herbicides and
fungicides as regular production tools in agriculture, it has
expanded to the point that many of these consultants or part-
time helpers are asked t.o obtain information which pertains to
weed or disease control.
Gradually over the recent years, particularly since the 1950's
with the advent of such a great variety of pesticides for use in
agriculture, the use of scouts has become more organized and
structured. To a great extent, the use of scouts in an area is
tied directly to the interest of the local extension agent in
furnishing or helping the farmers in the area to obtain such a
service. This supplements the extension personnel in achieving
their objective because it eliminates the personal service that
the extension agent is expected, in many cases, to furnish. Some
of the load of this work is shifted to the scouts with the agent
using the scouting reports to advise,the farmer in his information
and education program. Also, in the early days of the develop-
ment of this activity, some of the States recognized the need
for promoting this service for the grower and assigned personnel,
usually extension, to assist the farmers in organizing scouting
areas and to assist in recruiting personnel to do the scouting.
As the demand or need for this service activity increased, some
entomologists began to see the potential for meaningful employ-
ment as consultants in this area of furnishing pest control
information to the farmer. As the program and need developed,
information for herbicide and fungicide recommendations, soil
types, need for lime, and various and sundry other decisions that
had to do with agricultural chemicals, was necessary. This is
what led to the development of the growing pest consultant
businesses which have had their greatest success in California
and in the midsouth. In California, this success has been 1n the
very highly diversified and high unit value crop production,
and in the south almost entirely in cotton, which is an intensively
cultivated crop that requires constant attention during the growing
season to protect it from pests.
However, prior to the cooperative effort initiated in 1971, the
emphasis on scouting or consultant activity was built basically
-------
around the decision of whether or not to use agricultural chemi-
cals. Further, in all cases, the final decision as to the use
the farmer made of this consultant information was left to the
farmer himself. This is as it should be, since he is the person
who has the investment in and the experience in producing his
crop on his land. This is even more important when one realizes
that economic thresholds, as they are presently developed,
cannot be accepted as absolute infallible values, and the level
of tolerance of pest populations in a crop will depend upon many
factors including production practices, production conditions,
the market standards for the crop, and many others.
Short-Term Objective of Existing Scouting Program
The short-term objective of the existing scouting program,
other than that sponsored by the cooperative effort which was
initiated in 1971, is as mentioned before. This is to furnish
the farmer the necessary information on which to base a decision
on whether or not to apply a pesticide on his crop as an econom-
ical production practice. The short-term objective of the
sponsored pest management program is to demonstrate to the farmer
the value of a supervised control program upon which he can
depend for economic control of his crop pests. It is recognized
that this control program is basically one in which the decisions
involve whether or not to use pesticides. Our major objective
in this area, on a short-term basis, is to convince the farmer
that he needs to know what is in his field in order to make
rational decisions on the use of pesticides. At the same time,
we have begun to bring to the consciousness of the farmer, in
these sponsored programs, the fact that there are other strategies
which can be used under certain situations which do not necessarily
involve pesticides. It is recognized that it is going to be
extremely difficult to break the present pesticide use patterns
which have developed during the last 25 years. This is primarily
because these techniques are very easy to use, they are successful,
they are highly effective, and from a practical standpoint, they
are the best way for the farmer to control his crop pests with
the least amount of effort and time. The investment for pest
control.while it is continuing to grow, is still a relatively
small percentage of the cost of production of the crops in those
situations where you have an intensively produced, high value
crop. In situations where a crop with a lower per acre value is
produced you will find less pesticide use. However, we firmly
believe that there are more pesticides used than is necessary at
the present time; and, that we do have some economically feasible
alternative control techniques, which are not based upon chemicals,
-------
that will fit into most control programs very well. It is abso-
lutely necessary that we have a pest surveillance activity going
on 1n the field in order to use these new techniques.
With this in mind, the short-term objective, restated, is to
educate the farmer as to the value of a population surveillance
or a supervised control program as a needed and economically
efficient part of his operations. We hope to show them their
need for this service so that they begin to use it to the extent
that they will offer employment, in the private sector, for people
to do this type of consul ting.work. By this program we hope to
reduce the wasteful overuse of pesticides, and build a sound
basis for the development of a consultant program or consultant
industry which is viable and which will continue to attract
qualified people to it.
Long-Term Objective of Past Scouting Programs
With a few exceptions, there was no long-range strategy
involved in pest scouting programs of the past prior to initiation
of the cooperative effort in 1971. Scouting was primarily a
season by season activity which certain growers had learned was
of economic value to them. This service allowed them to effici-
ently control their pest populations so that they could count on
making a crop insofar as pest problems were concerned.
Long-Term Objectives of Existing Scouting Programs
The long-term objective, as referred to previously, is to
develop a solid, viable, pest consultant enterprise which will
attract good sound agricultural pest control specialists to
furnish this important service to farmers where it is needed. It
is recognized by those involved in pest management that the base
upon which any pest management program is built must be a knowledge
of the current and potential pest situations in the crop. The
only way that we have at present to obtain this information is
through scouting or surveillance of the fields in some fashion to
get a reading on population levels. These levels may in turn be
related to economic threshold levels. Economic thresholds take
into consideration production practices, cropping systems, and
other factors in crop production. Knowledge of pest population
potential and economic thresholds allow a farmer to make a
rational decision as to whether or not there is need for some
control strategy other than natural control which is always at
work 1n these fields.
-------
8
However, we do not consider scouting as the ultimate or end
activity in pest management. Scouting is considered essential
in achieving a true pest management approach in pest control
which involves the use of a series of alternate strategies. The
scouting information is necessary in order to intelligently use
certain chemical and nonchemlcal controls.
Pest Management Objectives
Short-Term Objective of Total Pest Management Program
The short-term objective of the pest management program is
to very broadly demonstrate the feasibility of the concept. This
involves a number of requirements and is inclusive of some of the
scouting objectives, but goes beyond them in scope. A pest manage-
ment system is highly technical and requires a much more
knowledgeable consultant or scout than the present prophylactic
or inseason control type activities with agricultural chemicals.
Therefore, demonstration of the need for a sound consulting
industry with qualified persons is one of these requirements.
Another requirement is that of demonstration of the worth of the
various alternate control strategies. An educational program to
inform the farmers of the benefits to be obtained from approaching
his pest problems in this manner is essential. This is because,
as mentioned, before, so many of our present chemical control
strategies are so highly effective and so relatively inexpensive
that there is reluctance on the part of the farmer to change his
methods when the present system is working. Therefore, it is
necessary to develop, through demonstrations, a sound program
which will show the farmer in his field that there are alternative
controls that will work which also have tremendous value associ-
ated with them. In addition to controlling his pests, these
control measures protect the environment and extend the longevity
of the chemical control agents which must be available for use
when required.
Another requirement, that of structuring and developing a multi-
disciplinary organizational unit for an organized cooperative
approach to the various pest control problems, is essential to
the implementation of a functional pest management system. This
is necessary to prevent the recommendation by one discipline of
a pest control measure which will aggravate or intensify pest
control problems associated with another discipline.
-------
All of these requirements are being addressed directly by the
individual pest management-projects that have been established
across the country. These projects were Initiated through coop-
erative agreements among the various Federal and State agencies
involved. The agencies and their roles are presented in the
following table.
Agency
Role
Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS)
With the Extension Service, to
jointly provide leadership at the
national level. Assist in collec-
tion of pest population data,
collection and analysis of samples
to monitor personal safety, eval-
uate program efficiency and
environmental impact. CompiTation
and retrieval of all data collected
in the projects.
Extension Service (ES)
With APHIS, to jointly provide
leadership at the national level.
To provide educational informational
support to the Cooperative Extension
Service.
Provide leadership at the local
level. Develop an information and
education program aimed at program
needs. Make pest control
recommendations.
Cooperative Extension
Service (CES)
State Agricultural Experiment
Stations (In cooperation
with the Agricultural
Research Service and the
Cooperative States Research
Service)
Conducts research in support of
local projects. Develops alternate
control technology.
State Regulatory Agencies
Where appropriate, regulate the
proper use of pesticides; promul-
gate and enforce regulations on
cultural practices areawide pest
suppression techniques, movement
of plant materials, and licensing
of pesticide applicators and
consultants.
-------
10
Long-Term Objectives of a Total Pest Management Program
The long-term objective, as stated in the Pest Management
Committee Report of April 1971 (see appendix), is, "to achieve
pest control based on sound ecological principles which integrate
chemical, biological, and other methods into a feasible control
program." This was modified in a 1975 APHIS budget justification
to read as follows: . . . "the development of areawide pest
suppression techniques in which one or more control methods are
selected for use in an integrated program using a series of
alternatives including parasites and predators, cultural prac-
tices, sanitation, resistant varieties, pathogens, and chemicals."
This will be accomplished as pest management projects in similar
cropping systems receive acceptance and are implemented on an
areawide basis. This is of extreme importance because frequently
pest problems go beyond the political boundaries of a county or
a State and require an areawide approach to their solution.
Another area of importance involves the development and use of
predictive and action models. In the development of pest models
it is necessary to collect, in a systematic fashion, data on
pest populations, weather conditions, production practices, and
so forth, which can be used in developing the models for use in
•predicting the likelihood of pest outbreaks. Scouting information,
collected with the proper degree of standardization, can be used
for this purpose. In addition, standardization of scouting
procedures is needed so that data on pest conditions can be used
by the information and education agencies from one State to
another in educating farmers as to the likelihood of the problems
that they may face.
The scouting activity is absolutely essential to the intelligent
use of selective pest control strategies when a pest situation
is such that the best approach for control is an areawide popu-
lation suppression program. In this context, not only is
information and education necessary, but the necessary regulatory
measures to require and achieve the proper level of participation
by all producers in an area is absolutely essential. The scouting
activity, hopefully handled by consulting entomologists in coopera-
tion with the information and education agency and the regulatory
agencies, could result in an organized and highly efficient
approach to our pest control problems. This approach would utilize
a variety of pest control strategies to achieve the most economic
pest control, insure economic production of the crop, and insure
maximum protection of the environment.
-------
11
While many of the projects are concerned with only one disci-
pline, entomology, a number are becoming multidisciplinary and
there is evidence of recognition of the need for this type of
an approach in all projects. A coordinated approach involving
consulting entomologists, information and education agencies,
and regulatory agencies can best be achieved through an organized
cooperative effort by these groups at the local level. Inputs
from grower organizations will be necessary to insure that pro-
cedures proposed for use in such an approach are in effect
supported and desired by the growers. This is particularly true
where regulatory measures would be used to achieve'the level of
participation by the growers to make the selective strategy
employed effective to reach the objective. In effect, this is
the organizational approach recommended in initiating the present
pest management projects. However, in the course of most of these
projects there has been little input from either the consulting
entomologist or the regulatory agency in the area. In addition,
it is believed that a given public agency should have the prime
responsibility in developing and assisting in development of
farmer organizations and in the development of control strategies
to be used with the grower group, the information-education group,
research group, and regulatory group.
C. Mechanics of Implementation
For which crops and States were the programs selected? Why?
As stated in the Pest Management Committee Report of April 1971,
(see appendix) . . . "pilot projects should be located on crops
in which intensive chemical pest control is presently practiced."
The crop that fits this criterion best is cotton. Of the first
22 projects to be initiated, 14 were on cotton.
After selection of the cotton projects, additional projects were
selected on the basis of the merits of solicited project proposals.
Guidelines for these proposals dated August 28, 1972, are included
in the appendix.
The following criteria were used in selecting projects for funding:
1. Severity of pest problem
2. Extent of cooperation with other agencies
3. Pesticide use problem present
4. Pest threshold levels established
-------
12
5. Research backup for program
6. Nonfederal funding for program
7. Prospects for long-term benefits
8. Prospects for short-term benefits
9. Present use of scouts
10. Size project to be meaningful
Crops, other than cotton, that were considered to be high pesti-
cide users were tobacco, apples, peanuts, sweet corn, citrus,
and potatoes. As additional money became available, projects on
these commodities were funded.
Research progress in a particular crop is a very important cri-
terion for initiation of a project. The objective in pest
management is to implement alternate strategies in the best scheme
for achieving economic pest control while preserving the environ-
ment. This makes it almost essential that we have alternate
methods, which have shown promise on a limited scale in research,
to substitute for some of the chemical control that is presently
being used. In many cases, this research may not be perfected to
a high level. Therefore, it was decided that the best way to
demonstrate to ourselves and to the growers that these alternate
methods will work was to approach them on a large-scale demonstra-
tion basis. This is basically what the cooperative pest management
projects do. The idea is that the growers will see the methods in
action, see that they are the most efficient methods of pest con-
trol , and will adopt them in their production practices. Growers
in the vicinity will observe the program and begin to adopt the
practices in a gradual spread of the new technology. We recognize
that the spread of these practices will be slow because of the
difficulty of changing pest control patterns which are presently
working and in which the grower has confidence. Also, the neces-
sity of regulatory measures in some cases will be abhorrent to
certain people and growers. In many cases, we may not have
adequate alternate strategies for control of certain pests and
it will still be necessary, until these are developed, to continue,
as we have for the last 25 years, the unilateral use of pesticides.
The number of failures through use of this approach are increasing.
Research to develop new strategies as production practices and
cropping systems change will be necessary in order to have a
viable up-to-date program.
-------
13
We have also put many of our projects in areas where scouting is
already reasonably well to a highly established activity. The
reason for doing this was to proceed beyond the short-term
objective of the scouting, which has been mentioned already, and
proceed to the next step which is the integration of alternate
control strategies into .the present control system. Of course,
scouting is a necessary part of achieving this objective.
Are certain classes of chemicals more affected than others by
scouting activities?
In general, scouting activities have no effect on the class of
pesticide used on certain crops. However, data collected by
scouts does, in certain rather advanced pest management systems,
influence the selection of specific materials within a given
class. A case in point would be the selective use of various
miticides on apples. Depending on the time of the year and the
presence and level of predacious mites, various materials at
differing rates may be recommended to lessen the effect on these
beneficial species.
However, in most pest control situations the necessary alternate
chemicals and expertise for using them in a selective manner has
not been developed to the point that the grower has the confidence
in approaching his pest control problem in such a highly selective
manner. In most cases it will be the cost of the available effec-
tive pesticides that will be the determining factor.
The following table illustrates how various materials can be used
in a selective manner based on the time of year and the predacious
mite situation.
-------
14
Timing uses of Pesticides for Michigan
Pest Management Project 1972-75 - B.A. Croft
Chemical Formulation
Lime Sulfur
Cyprex 65W
Phygon SOW
Captan SOW
Dikar SOW
Dikar SOW
Wettable Sulfur
Parathion 15W
Phosphamidon 8 EC
Systox 6 EC
Cygon 2.7 EC
Guthion 50W
Imidan SOW
Norestan 25W
Acaralate 2 EC
Calacron or
Fundal SP
Gardona 75W +
Thiodan SOW
Thiodan SOW
Sevin SOW
Diazinon
Rate/Acre
- 8 gal.
+ 2 Ibs.
+ 1 Ib.
+ 8 Ibs.
8 Ibs.
6 Ibs.
+ 24 Ibs.
- 8 Ibs.
2 pts.
1 pt.
1-1/3 pts.
2/3 pt.
6 pts.
4 pts.
+ 2 Ibs.
+ 4 Ibs.
2 Ibs.
1 Ib.
- 6 pts.
+ 2 Ibs.
2-3/4 Ibs.
4 Ibs.
2 Ibs.
- 4 Ibs.
- 4 Ibs.
Usable
prior
to
June
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Usable Usable
prior between
to June 10
June to end
10 of season
X X
X X
X
X X
X X
i
X
X
X
X
X X
X X
X X
X
X
X X
X
Usable after
predator prey
interaction
has occurred
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------
15
(2)
Usable
prior
Chemical Formulation Rate/Acre to
Zolone 3 EC +4
Omite 30W + 5
Kel thane 35W + 5
LeadArsenate + 8
Katathane 25W . 2
25W 1
Plictran 50W 1-1
Plictran SOW 1/2
Superior Oil - Phosphate
Dieldrin
Poly ram
Difolitan
Tedion 1 EC 4
Lists preferable materials
to use after June 10 for
pest control
June
1
pts. x
Ibs. x
Ibs. x
Ibs. x
Ibs. x
Ib. x
/3 Ibs. x
Ib. x
x
X
X
X
qts. x
(a)
[Guthion
Imidan
Parathion
Lead-
Arsenate]
(b)
[Diazion]
(c)
[Gardona
Zolone
Sevin]
Usable
prior
to
June
10
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
(a)
[Captan
Cyprex
Polyram]
(b)
[Dikar
Usable
between
June 10
to end
of season
x
x
x
x
x
(a)
[Cygon]
(b)
[Thiodan
Usable after
predator prey
interaction
has occurred
x
x
x
x
(a)
[Omi te
Plictran]
(b)
Phosphami-[TEPP
don
Karathane]Systox]
(c)
[Sulfur]
Morestan]
(c)
[Kel thane
Acaralate
Fundal
Galacron]
a = best if necessary
b = will cause intermediate mortality
c = will almost eliminate predators
-------
16
What managerial qualifications are needed?
Because of the complex,nature of the pest management programs,
.managerial personnel need the training and perspective which will
enable them to put all the required inputs together into a
totally unified program. This necessarily includes inputs from
a combination of or all of the following disciplines: entomology,
agronomy, plant pathology, nematology, meterology, economics,
weed science, soil science, biometrics, systems analysis, agri-
cultural engineering, sociology and agricultural business.
It is obvious that few, if any, individuals possess the high level
of competence which would be ideally needed in all these fields
of work. For this reason, the sponsored pest management program
employs the strategy of using multidisciplinary teams of special-
ists to develop and implement the pilot pest management projects.
It is true that many of these projects presently are not multi-
disciplinary in nature. However, project personnel are continually
urged to expand these programs to include the other relevant
disciplines as rapidly as possible. A remarkable amount of
progress is being made in this area of a multidisciplinary approach
as project personnel in the field see the need for this kind of
cooperation.
Insofar as the private consultant approach to pest management is
concerned, the type of managerial personnel required are generally
those who have developed the necessary skills while working in the
field or in on-the-job training. The acquisition of these skills
has come over a period of many years of experience and the devel-
opment of mutual respect and confidence between these private
consultants and the growers they advise. It can be found that all
these consultants have excellent training in one or more of the
disciplines involved. From this basic background they have been
able, through frequent contacts with research and extension
personnel in the related disciplines, to develop the necessary
expertise to advise growers on their many pest problems. The
need for practical, on-the-job training for any manager, consultant,
or otherwise, of a supervised pest control program cannot be
overemphasized.
A basic qualification for a managerial position is a Ph. D. or
equivalent experience and education in the lead discipline
involved in the project. This is not to imply that the obtain-
ment of a Ph. D. degree in any of these disciplines is a necessity.
Those who have obtained this level of training are expected to
have the necessary basic background which will enable them to
rapidly adapt the necessary information in the other disciplines
-------
17
Into a management system. More than an information transfer
system is necessary for the management of these programs. In
the cases of the managers of the sponsored projects or the con-
sultants, these people are the ones who advise the grower on the
basis of the pest population levels detected by the scouting
activity. As emphasized earlier, pest management is of suffi-
cient complexity that many growers will not trust themselves to
make the necessary control decisions alone, but will request the
assistance of specialists in their problem area. This need is
presently being filled primarily by research and extension
personnel. This need could be (is being to a limited extent)
very effectively filled by pest management consultants as this
activity and service function grows and the necessary number of
personnel are developed.
In addition to the qualifications mentioned above, an academic
background or experience in one or more of the supportive dis-
ciplines is also helpful. Possibly more important, than even this,
is a realization of the complex manner in which factors within the
various disciplines interact in a given cropping system. This
qualification of broad thinking and interdisciplinary understanding
is mastered more through experience on the job rather than in the
classroom. To reemphasize this point, living with the problems
of pest management on a day to day basis is developing pest manage-
ment specialists or advisers out of entomologists, plant pathologists,
agronomists, etc.
In addition, people involved in this activity must have a feel for
production practices of the crops involved and they must develop
rapport with the farmer. The farmer is quick to detect indecision
on the part of an adviser. When this happens, he loses confidence
and the adviser becomes ineffective. It is absolutely necessary
that there be a close and intimate exchange of information, dis-
cussions, and thoughts with the farmer if the adviser is to be
effective. Therefore, he must be able to talk the farmer's
language and to present to him, in a lucid and very candid fashion,
what his alternatives are, describing the advantages and disadvan-
tages of each to assist the. grower in making his decision. In this
context, consultants or advisers should be familiar with models,
when developed, and how to effectively utilize them as a part of
the decision making process.
The support system for the pest management consultant or adviser
will consist of the research and extension personnel in the land
grant colleges as well as in industry and others with expertise
in plant pest control. In many cases the consultants will go
directly to the researcher to get the answer to his problems. In
-------
18
other situations they will go to the extension specialist or the
local county agent for this assistance. Most States presently
provide yearly training programs designed to update private con-
sultants and growers on new developments in pest control so that
they have available the latest information. As the pest manage-
ment projects progress, more universities are offering training
in this area in recognition of the need for on-the-ground, on-the-
job training. In many cases universities are giving cotton scouts
and other project personnel academic credit for their work
experience.
Are people with this training available?
Very few people with the necessary training are available to enter
into the pest consultant business and satisfy the needs of the
farmer in this area. Those that are available started with the
basic principles from their college training and then further
developed their training at the practical field level. We are
convinced that there is no way to turn out seasoned agricultural
consultants from a university. What people get in the universities
are the basic principles. An additional intern program under the
possible sponsorship of the university could involve on-the-job
or infield training so that interns could develop a feel for the
requirements out in the field. Concern over this problem of
training prompted a workshop for "the development of the educa-
tional concepts for a integrated approach to economically and
ecologically sound pest management and plant protection." This
workshop addressed itself very well to this problem area. A
report of this meeting is enclosed in the appendix. In an attempt
to provide the proper mix of academic training and work experience,
a number of universities have initiated advanced degree programs
in pest management. Virginia Polytechnic Institute, North Carolina
State University, and the University of California, are a few of
the universities with such a program.
It must be emphasized that consulting will never be cut and dried,
where you compare a column of figures of pest populations against
a column of figures for economic thresholds. There is need for
a certain amount of judgment and a certain amount of rationaliza-
tion involving production practices, grower preferences, weather
conditions, and many other factors. Making pest control decisions
is more of an art than a science. No two crop fields will be the
same. Each field will require individual consideration and a
decision as to its requirements. There is no way that the neces-
sary training, such as an internship, for doing this properly can
be obtained without a close and intimate knowledge of farming
practices 1n the area as they relate to the pest populations.
-------
19
How are scouts selected?
Scout selections are usually made in one of the following ways:
1. By pest management project personnel
2. By members of a grower organization
3. By local county agents
4. By combinations of 1, 2, and 3 above
5. By private consultants.
The criteria for selection of scouts varies considerably from
project to project depending on the crop or crops involved, the
intensity of the pest problem, and the availability of labor in a
given location. Scouts are usually of high school or college age
and are selected because of their interest, background, or educa-
tion in entomology, or some other ag-related field. Others are
selected who do not meet these criteria, but who are interested
in this type of work and exhibit a responsible attitude towards
it.
What training do they receive?
The type and amount of training varies from program to program
depending on the background of the scouts and the kind of scouting
program being conducted. A formal 3-day school is common among
the cotton projects while others provide as little as 1/2 day.
The scouts are briefed in some or all of the following areas:
1. Pest identification
2. Insect behavior and life history
3. Sampling techniques
4. Recordkeeping
5. Economic thresholds
6. Pesticide safety
7. Public relations.
-------
20
Actually, formal training for a scout to do the job of collecting
information in the field can be rather limited. It does not
require a long training period to acquaint the scout with the
major pests and the damage that they do and to teach him to record
the necessary data on a prepared form. However, the best way to
train a scout is to give him some basic information on the points
just mentioned and then make training a continuing on-the-job
activity between the scout supervisor and the scout. This contin-
ual practice of season long, on-the-job training is an important
part of most sponsored projects.
It is also important that scout supervisors have frequent contact
with the scout and do some scouting behind him to verify that he
is collecting the data properly. The supervisor should also
explain to him all of the many variables that occur in the course
of evaluating a pest population. If the scout is not receptive
to this information and shows little interest, the odds are that
a bad selection was made and another person should be selected.
If he has interest, he will pick up the scouting rapidly and can
within a very short period of time be very reliable.
Under actual conditions of the sponsored projects it is evident
that a great number of the growers themselves do some spot check-
ing behind the scouts. This is apparently done to satisfy themselves
that the data obtained are accurate. This is considered to be an
excellent practice on the part of the grower and shows he is
truly interested in this service rather than just relying on the
scout supervisor or project leader to give him a control recom-
mendation without verifying it for himself.
As mentioned earlier, in the history of scouting activities,
scouting originally started as a practice which the grower could
be instructed in and use. However, while many growers are capable
of doing this scouting, other management practices are so pressing
that they do not have the time. In cases where time is available,
counsel from pest control specialists is usually requested by the
grower.
Examples of some of the material covered in the formal training
sessions from the pepper and lettuce project in Delaware and the
cotton project in Arizona are included in the appendix.
Have enough people been available?
Generally, an adequate number of people have been available to
fill scouting positions. If there has been any problem, it has
been during the first year of a project. In the second year of
-------
21
the cotton project in Mississippi (1973), twice as many people
applied for scouting positions as there were positions available
(32 applicants for 16 positions). In Arkansas (cotton) where
150 or more scouts may be hired each year, scout recruitment has
become a year-around job and no cotton has gone unscouted due to
a lack of scouts.
The most difficult problem in obtaining scouts, since most scouts
are students, has been for those crops where surveillance activity
is needed before summer vacation or after school starts in the
fall. This has required that some of the areas rely heavily on
their scout supervisors during this period. Others have been
able to hire scouts on a part-time basis, such as after school
lets out in the afternoon or on weekends. In a few cases scouts
are permanent people who work the year-round. Naturally, the
best approach to this would be to let a well-developed consultant
industry be responsible for finding the labor to do the scouting.
However, it is realized that this will not be possible at all
times and some provisions must be made for attracting the necessary
labor. Consultants presently use the same source of labor for
scouting as the sponsored pest management projects.
The ideal situation would be to develop the consulting industry to
the point that it becomes a year-round service. One of the most
common deterrents to qualified scientists entering the field is
that it is now basically a 3 to 4 month operation during the
summer. However, the most successful consultants have worked
variations into their activity such as soil sampling, farm mapping,
structural pest control, and other activities and have made it a
highly successful year-round operation. From the long-range
standpoint we should think in terms of ultimately having technical
people make this a year-round enterprise.
Is there any consideration given to personal safety?
Personal safety has been of prime importance since the beginning
of the cooperative pest management programs. A set of guidelines
was developed for use in setting up projects and training person-
nel in pesticide safety. In addition to pesticide safety, these
guidelines also cover monitoring of cholinesterase activity
(included in appendix).
The following is excerpted from the 1973 Mississippi Annual Report
and illustrates our concern in this area:
"Several precautionary measures were taken against insecti-
cide poisoning of scouts. Blood samples were taken four
times during the 1973 season (two preexposure samples and
-------
22
two postexposure samples) to monitor acetylcholinesterase
levels of each scout . . . Each hospital in the pest manage-
ment area and surrounding counties were notified of the
scouting program and requested to maintain sufficient levels
of antidote in the event of accidental poisoning. Each scout
was encouraged to wear protective clothing and to carry a
card containing emergency instructions and information on
poison control centers in the States. Scouts were warned
not to enter a field within 24 hours of an insecticide
application."
An additional safety precaution has been the use of scouts in
pairs.
What data are collected?
The data collected in the pest management programs fit into four
general categories. They are:
1. Insect, disease, weed, and nematode information (benefi-
cial as well as pest species).
2. Chemical usage (insecticide, defoliant, fungicide, nema-
ticide, herbicides, or other growth regulators).
3. Cultural and phenological information (including nonpest
related crop damage).
4. Identification and background information.
What is the frequency of collection? Why_?
Category 1 information is collected for the very obvious reason
that to make rational pest control decisions, a grower must know
the population level of pest species present in his crops. The
frequency of collection of this data depends on the crop, and how
quickly or under what conditions the pest species reproduce..
Annual or semiannual sampling for nematodes is considered adequate
whereas sampling twice a week to pinpoint critical greenbug situa-
tions in sorghum is necessary. Most situations involving insects
and diseases require at least weekly collection of data while
sampling of weeds and nematodes is sufficient if done twice a
year.
With respect to the grower making his immediate pest control
decisions, the above information is basically all he needs. How-
ever, if long-range management of his pest problems is what a grower
is after, then the following information is also important.
-------
23
Chemical use data, category 2, is collected on a regular basis as
it occurs, usually once every week or two. This has proven to
be the most difficult data to collect. Experience has shown that
many growers in our pest management projects keep very poor pesti-
cide use records, or for one reason or another will not reveal
this information. In some areas, commercial concerns handle most
pesticide applications, and in these cases, good records are
available and are used. Along with documentation of the type of
chemical used, the application date is important since its compari-
son with pest population levels gives information on efficacy.
Data from category 3, cultural and phenological, are collected as
they occur and include things such as plant growth stages, fruiting
levels, and activities on target or adjacent crops which might
directly or indirectly affect pest insect situations. Examples of
these activities would be cutting an adjacent alfalfa field or
irrigation of the target crop.
Category 4 information is mainly collected on a once a year basis
and includes grower and field identification, plant variety, row
pattern, plant density, yield data, and the like. Category 3 and
4 data are collected to aid in defining some of the situations
that arise, both locally and areawide. They can also be used in
measuring the impact of certain farm practices and pesticide use
patterns on pest problems.
The National Data Format as developed for the cotton projects is
included in the appendix. Provisions were made for the collection
of data covering most aspects of crop production. In many cases,
because of disagreement between APHIS and ES, there has been a
lack of attention to certain aspects of this information. While
this has not adversely affected the short-term objective of scout-
ing, it will have a decidedly deleterious affect upon the long-
term objectives of using these data to work out the relationships
between such things as genetic differences, adjacent crops,
adjacent ground cover, production practices, and the many other
factors which have a bearing on pest populations. It is hoped
that in the future we will, in these sponsored programs, collect
the data which will be needed to assist in the development of
action and predictive models. It is further recognized that, in
most cases, all data being collected are not necessary to make an
immediate decision on whether or not to use chemicals. However,
if we are truly going to develop a pest management approach in
which the many interactions of crop production are considered, we
must know the relationship between all the various production
practices and our pest population outbreaks in order to take the
proper corrective action.
-------
24
After the scouts collect the raw data, what is the decisionmaking
process used by managers to make recommendations?
The decisionmaking process can best be explained through the use
of simple flow diagrams. The following data flow diagram is
generalized and varies slightly from project to project.
Scout Data
Project Manager or . Grower
Private Consultant
Basically, portions of the raw scouting data relating to economic
thresholds of pests are given directly to the cooperating grower
in the form of a grower report. By comparing this information to
established economic thresholds, the grower can make his own
decision to treat or not treat. A complete set of data goes to
project managers where, in the absence of firm economic thresholds,
treatment recommendations can be formulated and conveyed to growers,
Following are the data flow diagrams for the sweet corn project
in Maryland and that for the tobacco project in North Carolina.
-------
25
CORN mu»
Sampling
Control
INSECT
SCOUTS
\
x
/
k . 4
FOOD
PROCESSORS
FIELD MEN
Training
Insect Population Data
Control Reconmendatlons
UNIV. OF MD.
Extension Entomologist
Survey Entomologist
x
P
Pi
KANAt
HEADQl
/
ST
5EMENT
JARTERS
V
| USD* APHIS |
f
LIGHT TRAP DATA
OTHER PROGRAMS
MARYLAND DATA FLOW
TOBACCO
'GROWER
Survey Report
1st day
TOBACCO'
FIELD
(Scout)
Survey Report
1st day
SCOUT Threshold Reports
SUPERVISOR
(date coding
ind compilation)
2nd day
PROJECT OFFICE
(keypunching)
COMPUTER
NEWS
MEDIA
3rd day
STATE
EXTENSION
SPECIALIST
COUNTY
AGENT
REPORT
FIELD
SUMMARY
SCOUT
SUMMARY
QUALITY
AREA CONTROL ERROR
SUMMARY LISTING LISTING
I I L__
NORTH CAROLINA DATA FLOW
-------
26
A decisionmaking scheme utilized by managers in the Maryland sweet
corn project is one of the few that has been documented.
SAMPLING AND
DECISION-MAKING
SCHEME
MARYLAND SAMPLING AND DECISION-MAKING SCHEME
Pest management decisions at each sampling step in this scheme
are based on the following action thresholds:
1. 15 egg masses of the European corn borer per 50 plants
after the late whorl stage.
2. 5-10 percent of the silks with corn earworm eggs with
at least 10-20 per 100 silks.
3. 5-10 percent of the silks with dusky sap beetle eggs
with at least 10 to 20 eggs per 100 silks.
-------
27
4. 25 percent of the silks with Japanese beetles which
only applies to the early to midsilking period.
5. 5-10 percent of the silks with fall armyworm larvae.
(Above excerpted from 1972 Maryland annual report).
This illustrates the complexity of this type of decision where
five different insect species are involved. Similar schemes are
used in other projects. Schemes for making other control decisions
(nematode, diseases or weeds) or production decisions must be
superimposed upon each other to come up with the best overall
answer to any given set of circumstances.
Do the scouting programs consider climate, genetic differences.
and/or adjacent crop interactions!
Factors such as climate, genetic difference, and adjacent crops
are but a few of the diverse considerations in setting up the
scouting activities of a pest management program. The reason for
consideration of these factors is the relationship they have with
the pest problems in a given cropping system.
Climate, more specifically, weather, is the driving force behind
many pest and disease problems. Dry weather promotes buildups of
spider mites in grain sorghum and the lesser corn stalk borer in
peanuts. Wet weather can initiate scab and other disease outbreaks
in apples and other crops. Temperature and humidity, or moisture,
also influence the effectiveness of pesticides. For these reasons,
many of the sponsored projects rely heavily on weather data to
guide their scouting and control programs.
Genetics is of prime importance when one considers the narrow
genetic base of many hybrid crops being grown today. The southern
corn blight outbreak of a few years ago emphasized this when the
entire U. S. corn crop was seriously threatened because of the
heavy reliance upon blight susceptible germ plasm in our hybrid
corn breeding program. The importance of using plant varieties
genetically resistant to various pests and diseases is well known.
Data on crop variety is being collected in all the pest management
projects and is of particular importance in the fruit projects
where varietal susceptibility to various diseases is important in
guiding control programs. Certain varieties of sweet corn are
also more susceptible to corn earworm damage. As agronomists and
plant pathologists become more involved in these programs, genetics
is receiving more and more consideration.
-------
28
The importance of adjacent crop interactions has been recognized
for some time and data on this, have been collected since the
initiation of the cooperative pest management programs in 1971.
Harvest of adjacent safflower or alfalfa fields is known to
present a potential threat to Arizona and California cotton fields
from lygus bugs. Maturation of corn crops planted next to cotton
can be responsible for increased levels of bollworm damage in
the cotton. Chemical control activities in an adjacent field or
crop could have disastrous effects on beneficial insect populations
in another crop.
Factors, such as a dirt road next to an orchard, can have a tre-
mendous effect on the pest situation because of the adverse effect
of dust on host acceptance by beneficial insects. Other suspected
interactions of this type are mentioned in a report on "Data
Evaluation" by Ganyard and Worley, which is included in the
appendix.
Are the environmental impacts assessed? How?
Scouting programs, per se, do not usually assess environmental
impact. However, this is being done in all of the cooperative
pest management programs. Data are being collected that will
allow assessment in the following ways:
1. Documentation of pesticide use to enable assessment of
possible shifts in pesticide use patterns and the impact on the
environment.
2. Collection and analysis of environmental samples (soil
and small rodents) for pesticide residue and environmental impact
data.
3. Monitoring of cholinesterase activity levels of all
scouts and certain supervisory personnel.
In the assessment of changes in pesticide use patterns, we have
seen a shift away from "calendar" approaches of pesticide (insec-
ticides in particular) applications to treatment based on need.
This is documented in the Mississippi Cotton Project Annual Report
for 1972 where they state . . . "Cooperators sprayed only 72 percent
of the potential spray acreage as compared to 94 percent of the
potential spray acreage by noncooperators." In the Arizona cotton
project, 57 percent of the growers in 1972 treated on the basis of
need. In 1973 the percentage of growers treating on the basis of
need increased to 78 percent. In situations, cotton production
for example, where overuse of insecticides is common, the above
response means less insecticide is being put in the environment.
-------
29
With the loss of persistent insecticides, such as DDT and dieldrin,
new nonpersistent materials are being used and monitored to assess
their impact. Initially, numerous environmental components were
being sampled and analyzed for residues of these materials.
These environmental components included fish, birds, frogs, turtles,
lizards, beetles, small rodents, water, crop residues, and soil.
The main objective was to collect sufficient data to determine
if a detectable trend existed in the pesticide load within the
environment inside project areas, as compared with areas outside
the project. The cost of monitoring all these components was
prohibitive and it was decided to limit the monitoring of the
pest management projects to two major components—soil and one
biological organism.
Information gathered to date indicates no appreciable difference
in pesticide load in the environment between areas inside the
project areas and those outside. There are two possible reasons
for this. First of all, the nonpersistent chemicals being used
may not persist long enough to be picked up by the sampling plan
being used. Secondly, the slight differences resulting from
pesticide use that have occurred to date in the two areas may not
be detectable. Nevertheless, no environmental problems have been
identified to date through the use of the present monitoring
scheme.
Another important area of assessment is that of monitoring scouts'
exposure to pesticides by checking cholinesterase activity levels.
Overexposure to organophosphates, the major class of pesticides
being used in the pest management programs, brings about depressed
levels of cholinesterase activity which can be detected through
chemical tests. Throughput the 1972 and 1973 crop years in the
cotton projects, approximately 583 pest management scouts had
their cholinesterase activity levels monitored. No medically
significant depressions in activity levels were found (medically
significant, in this instance, refers to a depression of 50 percent
from base line or more). This appears to support the soundness of
the recommended reentry intervals established in these programs.
D. Resource Implications (Cost of Programs)
How many scouts were required in programs to date? Is the number
of scouts determined on the basis of acreage, number of farms or
some other factor?
In the 3 years that the cooperative pest management programs have
been underway, somewhere between 800 and 1,000 scouts have been
-------
30
employed. Approximately 400 scouts per year have been utilized
in cotton projects alone.
The number of scouts necessary for a given project is determined
mainly on the basis of acreage to be scouted. Scouts can handle
from between 200-225 acres per man in tobacco to as many as 2,500-
3,000 acres in field or sweet corn. By knowing the acre/scout
ratio for a specific crop and the acreage to be scouted, the
number of scouts necessary for the project is reduced to a problem
of division.
A number of different factors do go into deciding how many acres
a scout can effectively cover. Average field size is an important
factor, since in many cases, as much time is required to collect
data from a 4-acre field as is needed for a 20 to 40-acre field.
The small average size of the fields in the North Carolina tobacco
project is the main reason for their low acre/scout ratio.
The intensity of the scouting is another factor to be considered.
The acre/scout ratio (ca. 435A) in the Texas peanut project can be
accounted for by the fact that a scout must pull 100 plants per
field to check for soil borne pests. In addition to checking for
these soil borne pests, the plants are examined for foil age feeders
and plant diseases. This requires 2 to 4 hours per field. By
contrast, approximately 1 hour is required to scout the average
cotton field.
The last important consideration is that of field density within
a given area. It stands to reason that a scout traveling less
than 2 miles between fields can cover more fields in a given period
of time than one traveling 5 to 6 miles.
The following information on scout workloads, excerpted from
Womack's cotton project evaluation (see appendix), illustrates the
range and variation in workloads among the cotton projects in 1972.
-------
31
State Acres per scout Fields per scout
North Carolina
South Carolina
Georgia
Tennessee
Alabama
Mississippi
Arkansas
Louisiana
Missouri
Oklahoma
Texas
New Mexico
Arizona
California
807
1031
1407
335
1436
1000
1365
... 933
1655
1306
1692
906
1000
986
79
52
64
55
55
68
38
38
46
37
43
50
32
20
How and by whom are the scouts paid? Is the basis for pay an .
hourly rate,'acreage'," or some otheF factor?
Scout pay is handled in a number of different ways. Initially,
in practically all of the projects, scout salaries were paid from
the cooperative project funds handled by the State cooperative
extension service (CES). To some extent this is still being done
today, but as growers are assuming the responsibility of scout
salaries, new ways of handling this are developing.
There are very few instances of a scout being paid directly by a
grower. In situations where private consultants use scouts or
field checkers, as they are sometimes called, the consultant
collects his fee from the grower and pays his scouts accordingly.
This system is used in Mississippi. In other areas of the Cotton
Belt, North Carolina and Arizona for instance, grower organizations
hire their own scouts. The grower group assesses each member a
fee on the basis of the acres scouted. The scouts are paid by the
organization from these funds, usually on a weekly basis.
In other areas local business concerns, such as gins or farmer,
cooperatives, are handling funds for paying scouts. In west-
central Oklahoma in 1973, one group of participating growers paid
one-half the cost for a scouting program and the local cotton gin
paid the other half. The scouts in this case were trained and
supervised by CES. On the eastern shore of Maryland, vegetable
-------
32
processors are hiring and paying CES trained and supervised scouts.
Thefe is no limit to the number of ways that scout pay can be
handled.
Generally, scouts in the pest management projects are paid on a
weekly basis. In most cases, they are assigned a given number of
fields to survey on a given schedule, the schedule usually being
once a week. For this he receives a set amount which in some
projects, South Carolina for example, starts at $75 per week for a
"first-year" scout. Scouts who furnish their own,transportation
(the rule rather than exception) are paid 7-12 cents per mile in
addition to their salary. The Michigan apple project in 1972
started Its scouts at $115.50 per week and furnished travel expenses
and meals. Although it varies, a week generally means 5 workdays
but ranges from 4 to 7.
Scouts are also paid on a daily, hourly, or acreage basis. The
Maryland vegetable project starts its scouts off at $25 per day
plus 10 cents per mile for transportation. The Delaware vegetable
project pays its scouts $2.65 per hour plus 10 cents per mile. A
variation based on acreage is the Tennessee cotton project where
scouts are paid $1.50 per acre for the season and average 1,200
acres per person. This includes all expenses.
Another variation, based upon acreage and a guarantee, is a system
being tried this year in one area of North Carolina on cotton.
The scouts are paid $1.50 per survey on a field basis with a
guarantee of $165 per week. This is somewhat more complicated
than the other pay systems, but is is felt that it will provide an
incentive not present in the pay schemes already mentioned since
the opportunity to gross in excess of $200 per week exists.
Some projects provide a bonus at the end of the season to encour
age scouts to finish out the season, or to reward a job well done.
Is there a large turnover in scout personnel? What factors seem
to cause turnover? What are the cost implications?
A high rate of scout turnover has been encountered in a number of
the pest management projects. Not only has the turnover rate from
year to year been high in some cases, but inseason turnover has
also been high. Arizona had 25 percent of their 1971 scouts
return in 1972, but only about 10 percent.of the 1972 scouts
returned in 1973. In 1973 their inseason turnover approached 50
percent. Louisiana project personnel have also experienced a
high rate of turnover, 67 percent for 1974, from season to season.
-------
33
For reasons not readily discerned, there are also a number of
projects that have no appreciable problem with scout turnover.
The apple project in Michigan has six out of seven scouts returning
for 1974. About 70 percent of Maryland's 1973 scouts are returning
for 1974.
It is easy to hypothesize why some projects have high rates of
scout turnover, but an indepth study would be necessary to confirm
any of these reasons. Briefly, some possible reasons for high
turnover are:
1. The temporary nature of the job.
2. The fact that in many cases the work is physically very
demanding.
3. The low ski 11/know!edge level necessary for some scouting
positions.
4. Summer vacation schedules for students do not coincide
with scouting periods in many cases.
The converse of some of these reasons may be why turnover is low
in some of the projects.
A high rate of scout turnover is preferred by some project managers.
One in particular has stated that, "it's easy to keep them
interested for 1 year. After that first year the fact that scout-
ing is physically hard work becomes more of a factor and scouts
will try to think up ways to outsmart you to get out of work."
This statement surely deserves some consideration.
Generally speaking, if people are available, cost implications are
negligible since it requires a very short training period, and
little in the way of preparation for a scout to perform'the duties
required in our pest management efforts.
What are the managerial costs of programs done to date? Who has
paid for the programs?
The managerial costs to date in the cooperative pest management
programs have been as high as 50 percent of the allocated funds
or more. Funds allocated for 1972 and 1973 were approximately $2.5
million and $3.5 million respectively. These managerial costs,
in the sponsored programs, have been higher than would be required
in an ongoing pest consultant type operation. The reason for this
is the fact that we are collecting a vast amount of related data
to arrive at some clear understanding of those many subtle
-------
34
interactions between various production practices and pest popu-
lations. This has naturally caused the cost of these projects
to be higher than an ongoing consultant type operation, but the
added costs are necessary in terms of investment in the future
of pest management.
Initially, this managerial input is being funded through Federal
grants, or cooperative agreements, but as projects develop, more
and more of this Federal support is being replaced by funds from
the private sector. Tables 8 and 9 of Womack's cotton project
evaluation (see appendix) contain detailed information on manage-
rial costs and who has paid for the program.
What are the costs of evaluating the environmental Impact of
the program?
The environmental monitoring being done to assess the impact of
the pest management programs, even in the limited sense that it
is being done, is by no means inexpensive. APHIS has estimated
that an average sample costs $100 to collect, ship, and analyze.
Under the APHIS guidelines (see appendix), the cost per project
would be $10,000 per year. At the present project level this
amounts to approximately $400,000 per-year. t
E. Effectiveness
Were objectives of the program achieved?
In general, the short-term objectives of the program have been
achieved. The programs have almost invariably met with approval
by the grower and that is the criterion by which to measure the
effectiveness. The growers have continued to participate and they
have put greater amounts of funds into the programs each year as
they see the value of the program demonstrated. The long-term
objectives of developing and integrating alternate pest control
strategies into the pest control system have not been achieved to
a great extent at the present time. It will be necessary to have
a considerable period of followthrough on the present programs in
order to achieve areawide suppression techniques with the necessary
accompanying education, information, and regulatory action to
insure that these alternate techniques will be used effectively
and in the most economical fashion. At the present time, all that
has been achieved is some degree of expansion of the scouting
activity aimed at making the decision of whether or not to use
chemicals. We like to emphasize the fact that our job is not
finished until we show the need for and see the actual use of
alternate approaches with a minimal use of chemicals.
-------
35
An Economic Research Service (ERS) evaluation (by Womack) of the
cotton projects for 1972 is included in the appendix. The main
conclusion drawn from this evaluation is that, "the available
evidence is inadequate to draw any conclusions about the cotton
pest management program's effects upon economic efficiency or
environmental quality in 1972."
What was the level of social acceptance to these programs?
Social acceptance of the pest management programs has been very
high. People, in general, tend to relate very positively to
programs that offer relief from environmental contamination and
especially when there is no reduction in the standard of quality
of living. Pest management is that kind of program. We should
add, however, that our measurement in this respect is partially
related to the producer himself who is actively using the program.
It would be desirable to get a better measure of the acceptance
of the nonfarming public for this activity.
There is no doubt that our approach is being accepted by the
general public. However, it is presently felt that the general
public has little feel for what is actually being accomplished.
Support by the general public would be a valuable asset in achiev-
ing our objectives in pest management. Some attention should be
given to this, not only from the standpoint of getting the informa-
tion out, but to measure acceptance. The information that has
gone out on this program do date has been largely directed at
rural populations. We should also get this information to the
urban populations.
Was per acre pesticide use reduced? Why?
Insecticide use has been reduced in all but a few of the cooperative
pest management projects. Examples of a few projects where this
has been documented are:
North Carolina--tobacco
The average number of insecticide applications in 1971 was
2.4 per field as opposed to 1.57 and 1.9 in 1972 and 1973,
respectively.
Delaware—peppers
The pre-1972 average of 11 insecticide applications per field
was reduced to eight in 1972 and five in 1973.
-------
36
Michigan—apples
Acaracide applications were reduced from two to three in
1972 to one or none in 1972.
Mississippi--cotton
In 1972, cooperators averaged 2.8 fewer applications of
insecticides per acre than noncooperators. Producers who strictly
adhered to pest management recommendations in 1973 made an average
of 2.3 fewer applications of insecticide than those who did not.
Cotton yields per acre have been maintained or improved, while
insecticide use has been reduced from 35 to 50 percent.
Arizona—cotton
The average number of insecticide treatments went from 8.7
in 1972 to about 6.0 in 1973 amounting to a reduction of approxi-
mately 81,000 acre treatments. -
Although a majority of the projects are experiencing reductions in
the use of insecticides, the alfalfa project in Indiana is recom-
mending an increase in pesticide use. The reason for this is that
alfalfa and other forage crops in Indiana have been historically
undermanaged. The judicious use of highly effective, yet rela-
tively safe insecticides, such as malathion and methoxychlor along
with specific herbicides, has the potential of increasing alfalfa
forage yield 2.5 and 3 times. This project provides a unique
opportunity to demonstrate maximizing yield through the selective
use of pesticides without accompanying environmental degradation.
The reason, in most cases, that reductions in insecticide use have
been possible is that they have been overused in the past.
Treatments were made on a calendar basis rather than as needed
which in many situations resulted in overuse. By knowing what
pest species are present and the level of their presence, treat-
ment may be withheld in instances where pests are not present or
are below economic thresholds. This is the area where reduction
in pesticide use become possible. Most reductions result from
withholding early season applications until the presence of a
pest species is confirmed or when an economic threshold is reached.
What has been the effect on crop yields?
The effect of pest management on crop yields has not been objec-
tively assessed in very many cases. Two projects, where attempts
at yield assessment have been made are the cotton projects in
-------
37
North Carolina and Arizona (complete reports in appendix). Fol-
lowing are yield breakdowns for 2 years in Arizona.
Pounds Lint Yield/Acre
County Average Project Average
1971
1972
919
1,052
1,139
1,069
Both years 986 1,104
The 1973 yield study in North Carolina came up with the following
information.
Estimated Average Lint Yield Per Acre
Pest Management Group Neighboring Fields
Northampton Co., 541 476
Halifax Co. 690 479
Edgecombe Co. 639 401
Subjective reports on yield from other projects have indicated
that project yields have been comparable to countrywide averages.
Did the programs affect subsequent grower management practices?
Why or why not?
There is no question that pest management programs are bringing
about changes in grower management practices. The reduction in
pesticide use already mentioned is proof of this since it has come
about as a result of a change in grower pesticide use patterns.
A specific example of this is the treatment of bloom infestations
of pink bollworms in Arizona cotton. "In 1971, it was a common
practice to begin treatments when pink bollworms first appeared
in the blooms. Not only was this practice useless, in terms of
pink bollworm control, but it was often responsible for initiating
outbreaks of bollworms . . .. timely newsletter and followup action
by program supervisors almost eliminated the bloom treatment
practice in 1972."
-------
38
Changes also took place 1n the New Jersey sweet corn project as
evidenced by the following statement from their 1973 annual report.
"After the 1972 season and during the 1973 season many cooperating
growers realized they were applying more sprays than necessary to
maintain their quality standards. Therefore, the pest population
monitoring information was not only used for pest management
blocks, but was also applied to nonproject sweet corn acreage. . .
Statewide an average of two sprays was eliminated because monitor-
ing pest populations showed they were unnecessary." This indicates
a definite shift in grower insecticide use patterns.
There are projects where no changes in grower management practices
have taken place to date. This is understandable since a majority
of these projects are still in the pilot phase of development.
What was the environmental impact of thes.e programs? Were the
sampling programs adequate?
On the basis of what has already been said about the reduction in
pesticide use in these programs, it can be said that the environ-
mental impact has been of a'positive nature. Overall, less
pesticide chemicals are going into the environment.
Results to date on the residue analysis of the environmental
samples that have been collected, while not complete, indicate no
problems.
As to the adequacy of the sampling program, in terms of the objec-
tives set up for this part of the pest management programs, it is
serving its purpose. Statistically and biologically the sampling
plan as a whole leaves much to be desired. If environmental
sampling is to be part of these programs after the pilot phases,
then a different sampling program needs to be developed.
One thing to keep in mind in developing and implementing a good
environmental sampling program is that the soundest program in
the world will not be used unless total project funds are suffi-
cient. If left to choice, the monitoring usually receives a low
priority behind other program activities. This can be supported
by the fact that in 1973 only 19 of the 39 pest management projects
submitted environmental monitoring samples for analysis. Two
States, Alabama and Washington, are conducting their own sampling
programs.
-------
Ill
FUTURE
-------
39
A. Constraints
Can existing pest management programs' for particular crops be
applied to all other areas of the United States where those
crops are grown?How and why?
In a broad sense, pest management principles can be applied to
any cropping system in the United States. Pest management programs,
per se and in toto, on a given crop cannot be applied across the
board. An example of this is pest management in apples. The
basic pest management principles behind the apple projects in the
States of Washington and Pennsylvania are the same. However, the
pest management program on apples in Pennsylvania cannot be applied
in Washington.
The reasons a given program cannot be applied across the country
are that the pest situations and the way they are effectively
handled, as well as production practices, differ greatly from one
area of the country to another. In some cases, differences even
occur within a given State. Different pest complexes operate in
different parts of given crop ranges. The key pest in cotton in
Arizona is the pink bollworm, whereas in the southeastern cotton-
growing areas it is the boll weevil. Even though the basic
principles involved in approaching the pest problems are the same,
the execution of the programs to accomplish pest management must
be tailored to fit local situations and philosophies.
Scouting, as developed in the cotton projects, is not the answer
to all pest control problems. Technologies are now being developed
in some areas of pest management that will make it possible for
control decisions to be made without a scout even setting foot in
the crop. The technologies involve remote sensing, computer
modeling and pest forecasting.
What is the anticipated^level of public acceptance? Why? What
institutional modifications such as incentives and educational
programs appear to be necessary to achieve public acceptance
and program implementation?
As mentioned earlier in this report, the anticipated level of
public acceptance is very high. Pest management addresses itself
directly to the present public concern on the issues of environ-
mental contamination and the misuse and overuse of pesticides and
other agricultural chemicals. In this time of worldwide food and
energy shortages, high prices and inflation, pest management
offers growers an opportunity to improve their economic position.
This is done by lowering their production costs through efficient
-------
40
use of available resources. This is in line with the public's
best interest.
Evidence of public support has come to light in Arizona where an
"environmental group" has expressed an interest in identifying
with and actively supporting the pest management effort in that
State.
It is not expected that institutional modifications would have
much effect on public acceptance, but there is no doubt that
certain modifications would have a beneficial effect on program
implementation. Initially, many of the pest management programs
exhibited a lopsided, single disciplined approach to pest manage-
ment, that of the entomologists. There is no intent meant to
fault this dedicated group of individuals who got these programs
organized and running, but even now some of the programs continue
to be insect oriented to the extent that pests of other types are
not even given comparable consideration. In some projects it has
taken 3 to 4 years for inputs from other disciplines, such as
phytopathology or agronomy, to receive consideration on a level
comparable to that of entomology. In limited cases where these
other disciplines were represented by project leadership, these
disciplines received biased emphasis.
Changes in the way the programs are organized and executed at the
local level could bring about some real changes in this area.
Appointment of coordinators above the departmental or disciplinary
level would provide a better opportunity for development of pro-
gram with appropriate disciplinary balance. This in turn would
have the ptoential for increasing program efficiency and in the
long run, possibly increase public acceptance.
The Ph. D. thesis, by Wayne Willey, included in the appendix of
this report, contains valuable information on the dissemination
of pest management information that may be of some use in future
program implementation.
How many scouts will be needed and are they available?
There is no way to realistically estimate how many scouts might
be required in pest management programs across the United States.
Assuming these projects will continue to expand at a reasonable
rate throughout the various cropping systems, there is no reason
to doubt that a sufficient number of scouts will be available.
Arkansas, a State using over 150 scouts each year, continues to
meet its need for this type of personnel each year.
-------
41
We do expect to see evolution in the techniques used to gather
the information necessary to realistically estimate or predict
pest populations. The product of this evolution may not involve
intensive use of visual examination of plants. It is entirely
possible that remote sensing techniques will fill this need in
certain types of crops. -There are many developments which may
occur through research, which will eliminate the need for large
numbers of people walking the fields. Also, as the consulting
industry develops, we expect to see more efficient use of highly
refined techniques in population assessment which will eliminate
the need for the large number of people presently required to
collect this information.
How many managerial personnel will be needed and are they
available?
Ultimately one can assume that pest management will be applicable
and eventually spread to most of the 50 States in the United States.
Presently there are cooperative programs in 29 States, but not all
of these States have full-time pest management personnel assigned.
A reason for this 1s that initially, emphasis is being placed on
the "pest" part of the programs and the "management" part goes
lacking. As these programs move more into the "management" phases
the real need for full-time managerial personnel will become
evident.
It is felt that some form of organized, publicly supported effort
similar to the modest beginning of the sponsored pest management
programs will be necessary to actually achieve the integration of
"management" into pest control. Each State having a pest manage-
ment project or projects would have at least one full-time
extension specialist charged with a continuing information, educa-
tion, and advisory responsibility. In addition, an APHIS specialist
would be assigned to each State to assume coleadership with the
extension service specialist in the total pest management effort
and as liaison and collaborator with the State department of
agriculture on pest management activities. This level of staffing
is considered to be essential and will serve as a nucleus for a
continuing expansion of pest management into all aspects of agri-
cultural pest control in the State. Also to be considered are the
managerial personnel, that would be the pest consultants who deal
directly with the farmers, discussing their pest situation and
making recommendations. A real problem exists in this area because
a sufficient number of people with the necessary background are
not available. These managers will require both academic training,
and field experience. Once the basics have been obtained in a
university pest management training program, it may take 2 years
-------
42
or more of practical experience in the field before a man is
adequately qualified and has the necessary feel for the problem
to advise the farmer with real confidence. Therefore, it will
be a long-term project to develop people with the expertise to
handle pest management.
B. Projected Costs
Cost of personnel required.
Pest management projects were, conceived as action oriented programs.
With this in mind, the funding intent was that the major portion
be directed toward personnel costs. In some of the projects,
these costs amount to as much as 95 to 97 percent of the total
project funds.
It must be emphasized at this point that present projects are
basically pilot or demonstration projects. Managerial and per-
sonnel costs are understandably disproportionately high during
the initial stages of these projects. As the programs develop,
growers are expected to participate financially more and more
until the projects are mainly grower supported.
As projects progress to this point, the only cost to the govern-
ment is expected to be that necessary for the salary and support
of two pest management professionals per State.
Cost of training required.
Training costs associated with pest'management projects involve
mainly scout training. Data on these costs are difficult to
retrieve since separate figures have not been kept. In projects
where formal training sessions have been held, an estimate can
be made on the basis of the professional man-hours involved.
The length of the various formal pest management training sessions
varies from 1/2 day to 3 days. At that rate, anywhere from 1 to 8
or 10 professional man-days are involved per session. Practically
all projects use some type of on-the-job training throughout the
scouting season. The maximum period of time given to this activity
is about 1/2 day per scout or scout team per week. Usually this
on-the-job training is carried out by project supervisors during
the course of carrying out their supervisory responsibilities.
On the basis of the foregoing discussion, it can be seen that
scout training costs are minimal when compared to other project
costs.
-------
43
Other system costs to include administration, equipment, and
incentives'!
Other system costs can best be illustrated by inclusion of repre-
sentative financial breakdowns from various projects. Following
are proposed 1974 budgets for the Arizona and Mississippi cotton
projects, the Maryland bean and corn project, and the New Jersey
corn, lettuce, and potato project. Complete information on the
cotton projects for 1972 is included in table 8 of Womack's cotton
project evaluation (see appendix).
-------
1974 Proposed Budget for Cooperative U. S. Department of Agriculture - Arizona
Agricultural Extension Service Cotton Pest Management Project
Classification
Project Leader
County Extension Agents
Research Entomologist
Pest Management Specialist
Entomology Aids
(Scouts) - For 3 months
Personnel Health Monitoring
Supplies (traps, nets,
forms , etc . )
Clerical Help
Regulartory Personnel
Data Processing
Communications
Sub-Total
TOTAL
Est.
Man
Years
1/3
1/2
1/5
6
12
1 2/3
1/2
FUNDS
Requested USDA Pest
Management Funding
Cooperative APHIS
Extension
Service
..__
•
$16,000 $25,000
1,000
— __ ____
$17,000 $25,000
$42,000
: SOURCE AND
Cooperative
Extension
Service
$ 8,000
10,000
— -.--
$ 18,000
$116,300
AGENCY
Other
Funds
State
Research
....
$4,000
— — --
$4,000
State Producer
Dept. of
Agric.
$30,000
46,500
' 1,000
700
----- 6,900
$8,000
1,200
$8,000 $86,300
-------
Example Budget Format -
1974 Budget for Cooperative U. S. Department of Agriculture Mississippi
Agricultural Extension Service Cotton Pest Management Project
Est
Man
Years
Classification
Project Leader 1/6
Extension Crop Specialists 1/3
County Extension Agents 1 1/3
Extension Administration 1/30
Research Entomologists
Research Plant Pathologists
Experiment Station
Administration
Pest Management
Special ist(sj 3
Entomology Aids
(Scouts) - For 3 months
Personnel Health Monitoring
Supplies (traps, nets,
forms, etc.)
Clerical Help 1 3/10
Regulatory Personnel 1/30
Data Processing
Environmental Monitoring
Ongoing Research Input
Sub-Total
Total
Grand Total
FUNDS: SOURCE AND AGENCY
Requested US DA
Pest Management Funding
Cooperative
Extension
Service
$ 600
600
51,244
14,625
1,000
6,250
4,000
$ 78,319
102,319
$212,536
State
Dept. of
Agricul-
ture
APHIS
$24,000
$24,000
Other Funds
Cooperative
Extension
Service
$ 3,666
5,333
8,843
690
$ 18,532
$110,217
State or
USDA
Research
$640
$640
State
Dept.
Agriculture
$345
$345
Producer
$90,700
$90,700
Cotton
Funds to be used to helo suooort suoervisors and scouts in new county programs yet to be developed; 9 county programs
-------
1974 Budget for the Cooperative USDA - Maryland Bean and Corn Pest Management Program
Classification
SES Technical Consult.
CES Ext. Entomologist
Survey Entomologist
Business and Accounting
Services
Pest Management Spec.
Benefits
Travel
Clerical Help
Benefits
Corn Scouts (10)
Travel
Bean Scouts (4)
Travel
Scout Supervisors (2)
Travel
Data Technician
Telephone Services
Data Processing
Supplies and Equipment
Personal Health Monitoring
Environmental Monitoring
Sub-Totals
TOTAL
Est.
Man
Years
1/4
1/4
1/12
V5
1
1
2
1
1/2
1/4
Requested USDA
Funds
__..
$15,810
3,000
2,000
6,100
1,060
12,500
4,000
4,000
950
5,000
1,500
1,200
500
300
750
330
1,000
$60,000
$75,400
SOURCE OF FUNDING
Md. Cooperative
Extension Service
$ 4,000
4,000
1,000
2,400
$11,400
Food
Processors
.._.
$2,000
750
1,000
250
.
$4,000a/
^contributions depend oh the number of companies which employ their own scouts.
-------
Agricultural
Proposed 1974 Budget for Cooperative U. S. Department of Agriculture - New Jersey
al Extension Service Fresh Market Sweet Corn, Fall Lettuce and Potato Pest Management Project
*.
-J
FUNDS: SOURCE AND AGENCY
Est.
Man
Classification Years
Project Leader 1/5
Ext. Pest Management Specialist 1/10
County Extension Agents 1/2
Extension Administration 1/4
Research Entomologist 1/3
Research Plant Pathologists 1/2
Extension Plant Pathologists 1/4
Pest Management Special ist(s) 1
Entomology Aids
12 (scouts) - For 204 man wks.
Pest Management Assistant 1
Personnel Health Monitoring
Supplies (traps, nets,
forms, etc. )
Clerical Help 1
Regulatory Personnel & Scout 1
Supervisors
Data Processing 1/10
Environmental Monitoring 1/10
Ongoing Research Input
Sub-Total
Total
Grand Total
Requested USOA
Pest Management Other Funds
Funding
Coop. State Coop. State or State
Ext. Dept. of Ext. USO^ Dept. of
Serv. Agric. APHIS • Serv. Resea-ch Aqric. Producer Other
.„ $ 4.00C
• ._ 2,000
10,000
6,000
-- ' -- 7,000
8.000 -- -- .
5,000
$ 24,547
$36,000
10,000
$1,000
6,000 -- -- -- -- ' -- -
6,667
515,000
2,000 -- - -- --
$2,000 -- -- -- -- 2,000 '
3,000 -- $5,000*
$ 49,214 $36,000 $2,000 $27,000 $18,000 $15,000 $5,000 $3,000
87,214 $68,000
$155,214
*utilities, risk and cost of control in Pest Management area
-------
48
Incentives are not reflected in these budget breakdowns, but are
used in some projects. In 1973, the corn and bean project in
Maryland paid $50 bonuses to black light trap tenders who submit-
ted collections on a timely basis throughout the entire season.
Certain other projects have paid small bonuses to scouts who
complete the entire scouting season. In 1974, cotton scouts in
one area of North Carolina are being paid on an incentive plan,
but this is meant to cut actual scouting costs by as much as 40
percent, rather than add cost.
Is the program cost effective?
No hard, objective evaluation of cost effectiveness has been made
of the pest management projects at the national level. Limited
evaluations at the project level have furnished information such
as:
"Based on results for the 2 years (1972 and 1973), the
Mississippi extension service calculates that the 3-year invest-
ment of $185,000 will return a savings of $2,129,000 to the
participating farmers." (Cotton project).
". . . reductions in control costs brought about by pest
management will undoubtedly pay for the estimated scouting costs
of $25 per field. Furthermore, these returns do not include the
possible gains in product quality and reductions in processing
costs as a result of more effective insect control." (Maryland
1974 Sweet Corn and Beans Annual Report).
The profitability or cost effectiveness in 11 of the 14 cotton
projects, as a whole, is such that growers are paying the entire
cost of scouting. Although this does not reflect the entire cost
of the program it does indicate that the cost of the scouting is
worth the money to the grower. It was not expected that the pilot
pest management programs would be cost effective. They were set
up in an attempt to demonstrate a program that would be cost
effective. This has not been possible in all cases. A case in
point is the tobacco project in North Carolina. As this project
progressed, it became evident that the intensive scouting approach
aimed at the insect problems could not pay its way. The intensity
of the insect problems on tobacco in this State is such that only
one or two insecticide applications might be necessary and inten-
sive scouting is not profitable. Program modifications involving
plant pathology and nematology are being considered in an attempt
to put together a program that will be cost effective.
The California pear pest management project has attempted to sell
Itself, almost from the beginning, on the basis of -cost effectiveness,
-------
49
The project has worked through commercial consultants and has
told cooperating growers that if they would follow project
recommendations they could make an additional $80 an acre. To
sign up with the project requires an initial grower input of
$8/acre (one-half of the private consultants fee). Even if the
grower had to pay the total consultant fee ($16/acre) he would
have the opportunity to increase this almost fivefold.
The private consulting aspect of pest management is also cost
effective, at least in the sense of profitability, as indicated
by the following data developed from a talk given by Dr. Wayne
Willey at the annual meeting of the Association of Applied Insect
Ecologists in Monterrey, California, February 1-3, 1974.
Consultant Financing 1972--Ca1ifornia
Crop
cotton
oranges
alfalfa
grapes
tomatoes
alfalfa seed
produce
beets
nuts
deciduous fruits
Average
charge
per
acre
$ 3.10
16.10
1.55
4.80
6.05
3.30
4.30
2.40
6.80
11.40
Average
cost
per
acre
$ 2.34
8.26
.49
3.32
2.03
2.43
1.65
2.64
2.10
4.70
Average
profit
per
acre
$ .76
7.84
1.06
1.48
4.02
.87
3.65
.24
4.70
6.70
# Acres
under
consulting
program
141,000
12,000
54,000
3,700
14,500
14,500
39,000
23,900
5,800
7,500
It should further be pointed out that cost effectiveness should
not be considered merely in the context of "saved pesticides" vs.
the cost of the program. It should be recognized that there are
certain intangibles which do not readily lend themselves to a
dollar value evaluation. A few of these intangibles are less
pesticide use, less environmental pollution, and also less like-
lihood of losing a given pesticide due to pest resistence.
C. Probable Effectiveness
Will the objectives and strategies of present programs be achieved?
Are new objectives needed and are they being developed?
It is expected that the objectives and strategies of the present
programs will be achieved. There is evidence of excellent progress
-------
50
toward this end at the present time as indicated before in this
report. However, as was also pointed out, it is highly likely
that the long-term objectives will not be achieved if the projects
are terminated at the end of the 3-year period. For example, in
the case of most cotton projects, the cost of scouting is currently
borne by the growers themselves.
It is hoped that eventually pest management, as a concept, will be
adopted by the agricultural industry and supported by it except
for technical advisory and research functions. However, to achieve
long-range objectives of employment or integration of new pest
control strategies into current programs, considerable technical
and research inputs are necessary. Therefore, it is considered
imperative that the necessary technical and research functions be
continued and oriented toward the development of long-term pest
management approaches to pest control problems. The necessary
objectives should be developed and documented as a part of this
program within the coming year. We have reached the point, at
least in the case of the cotton projects, where we are ready to
proceed to the second phase of the development of pest management.
That is, the integration of new strategies into the control pro-
gram. This is not to imply that the need for scouting services
has been completely satisfied in the cotton area. However, the
value of scouting has been demonstrated time and time again and in
many cases, it is the application of the new strategies for control
that will convince many growers that they need the scouting
services.
Over the years, many growers have been able to handle their pest
problems satisfactorily. This has involved rule-of-thumb evalua-
tions of their fields, and has frequently resulted in excessive
use of pesticides. Their use of a good population assessment
program as a part of their strategy will only come when they begin
to employ new techniques in pest control. The cooperative pest
management program, which was initiated in 1971, has reached the
point in time when it should be reevaluated within the Department
and by other interested agencies. Pest management is a dynamic
concept requiring continual updating. In view of the experiences
of the last 3 years the necessary objectives should be developed
for a continuing, on-going program in order to make this a viable,
long-term approach to the solution of our pest problems.
What will be the level of public acceptance of such programs?
It is not only expected that these programs will be highly accept-
able to the public; it is felt that the public will demand this
approach to our pest control problems. In view of the real concern
-------
51
by the urban population, as well as some of the agricultural
community, over long-term environmental pollution, this program
makes sense. Also, it makes sense from the biological standpoint
and from a practical standpoint, for long-term, acceptable, and
effective control of pests in agriculture. It is suggested that
a part of the extension service information and education program
should be devoted to the distribution of information concerning
the benefits of this approach to pest control as well as documen-
tation of the progress made to date and its impact upon the urban
dweller. Although the public, or society as a whole, is not the
direct benefactor of pest management, a number of benefits are
received indirectly. A few examples are:
1. Lower priced agricultural goods through lower production
costs.
2. Quality agricultural goods at these lower prices due to
more efficient use of pesticides through more precisely timed
applications.
3. An environment unthreatened by maladies brought about by
misuse or overuse of pesticides.
Will the total use of pesticides be reduced? What other benefits
may resuTt?
Evaluations of these programs to date show that there is a defi-
nite reduction in the total use of pesticides if data from a
scouting program are followed. However, the potential of pest
management is just barely being touched if a scouting program is
the total extent of, rather than just a component of, the pest
management effort. It is expected that the introduction and use
of alternate strategies, which are presently available, such as
organized areawide pest suppression measures will substantially
further reduce the amount of pesticide required to produce a crop
economically. It is also obvious that this reduction in total use
of pesticides may enhance the quality of the environment. This is
an intangible benefit which is very difficult to measure in dollars
and cents. Nevertheless, it is one of the important benefits of
this program, and will be recognized as such by the general public.
Will the adverse environmental impact be reduced?
It stands to reason that the reduction in the amount Of pesticide
used with its resultant impact on nontarget organisms and residues
left in the environment, will substantially reduce hazards. To
date, insufficient data have been collected to obtain and document
-------
52
any adverse environmental impact within or without the pest
management project areas. It is expected that a trend may become
evident once we get a total 3-year study in these pest management
areas. It should be emphasized also that there is an adverse
impact from insects, weeds, and plant diseases on the environment,
particularly as it relates to the production of food and fiber.
Therefore, we must reach some compromise on the environmental
aspects of control of these enemies of agriculture and the proce-
dures used to achieve that control. For that reason, it is deemed
imperative that pest management be adopted as our national approach
to the control of enemies of agriculture in a pest management
scheme which does not rely completely upon chemicals.
Could past and existing programs yield management models?
Yes, it is expected, and the data collection format was designed
in a manner, to collect reliable data for use in predictive and
action models at the field level. As pointed out earlier in this
report, the cost of these projects is considerably higher than
that for a private consultant doing the same service. The
reason for this increased cost is the time and effort required
to collect all of the additional data over and above that of pese
population levels. This data is collected in an attempt to
arrive at an understanding of the subtle interactions which exist
between pests, the agricultural crop production system, and the
environment in which the crop is grown. Cost of data collected
to keep the model current after it is validated will be substan-
tially less than that required for the developmental stages. The
reason for this is that the amount of data will be much less.
There is a great deal of interest at the present time in using
these data in the models which are currently being produced in
many of the States as a part of their pest management effort. A
"decisionmaking" model used in the Maryland vegetable project was
discussed earlier in this report. It is expected that some
additional input into this program will be necessary to begin to
use the backlog of data which has been accumulated over the last
2 to 3 years in connection with the projects.
-------
IV
RECOMMENDATIONS
-------
53
Suggested changes 1n strategy and objectives.
It is suggested that we have reached the point, at the present
time, in our pest management effort to review the accomplishments
to date and revise our Immediate objectives. We have reached the
point in cotton when we are ready to begin implementation of
alternate strategies other than pesticide in many of our pest
control situations. This is not to imply that they are not
presently being used in some cases. However, they are not being
used on the large-scale and in the organized fashion that they
must be used in to achieve full benefit from these alternate proce-
dures. Examples of underutilized alternate strategies are diapause
control, trap crops, and pheremones, to name a few.
The framework for organized efforts is presently being developed.
There is a drastic need at the present time for improved or
increased input on the part of the regulatory agencies to achieve
areawide approaches and to assist in the organized overall effort.
Pest management appears to have little chance of succeeding in
tobacco unless an areawide regulatory program of enforced plant
destruction is undertaken. High overwintering populations of
budworms and hornworms produced on this postharvest residue are
limiting factors in carrying out an effective pest management
program on this crop.
It is felt that it will be necessary to organize a nucleus in each
State, of managers from the extension service and the State regula-
tory agencies to achieve this objective. In other words, we are
now ready to begin a strategy based on the long-term objective of
an integrated approach to pest control. It will require a coordi-
nated effort of State and Federal research, extension, and
regulatory agencies to achieve this objective and it is imperative
that these agencies be involved in the development of the long-
range strategy.
Improved training programs or techniques for scouts and managers.
The greatest need for improved training is not at the scout level
but at the manager level. The simple procedure of collecting the
data in the field can be obtained with a minimal amount of formal
training of the scouts with a continuing followup and training by
the supervisory personnel. The supervisory personnel are the key '
to execution of a scouting or supervised control program. Unfor-
tunately, these people are not trained at the university level to
enter the field fully effective. A system of on-the-job training
is necessary. It is recommended that a system of grants or public
support should be made in order to sponsor these people in, on-the-
job training to allow them to develop the necessary level of
-------
54
competence to enter a pest situation and make a recommendation.
This will not only furnish the necessary personnel to supervise
the public sponsored pilot and application project, but it will
also furnish the necessary trained personnel to take over the
continuing need for this service in a private consultant status.
Improved data gathering and analysis procedures.
This is an area in which very little work has been done at the
present time other than to attempt the development of a standard-
ized format for data collection and an itemization of the
necessary types of data to be used. Actual programming of this
data into a form where it can be retrieved to answer the questions
on pest control has had little attention up to the present time.
Most of the data retrieval has been done in the form of summaries
to be used in the information-education program at the field
level. The real long-term value of this data is to identify
interactions between crop production pests and develop the neces-
sary predictive techniques and action models to be used in pest
control at the field level. This will require a cooperative
effort of the State leaders involved in the pilot and application
projects at the field level, the people who have developed the
models, and some agency designated with the responsibility for
maintenance and use of the data bank in developing models both
in a predictive and an action sense.
Funding requirements.
It is expected that funding requirements will be increased in the
future if we are to successfully switch from a pesticide control
approach to a pest management approach. This funding will be
needed more in the sense of furnishing services to the State and
growers in the form of pest outbreak predictions, action models,
and the monitoring of the environment behind various pest control
procedures to determine environmental impact. It will also
require the necessary funds to keep the nucleus of a pest manage-
ment team involving extension and regulatory agencies in each
State to assume the leadership for the development of such organ-
ized efforts across the board. The minimum requirement for
personnel would be 1 man-year for CES and 1 man-year for the
regulatory agency involved. Additional requirements of up to
5 man-years per State could be expected where certain areawide
practices were used requiring regulatory inputs on practices
(survey, enforcement, or control trapping).
Incentives and public education for achieving public acceptance.
Most of the information-education program associated with the
effort to date has been directed at the agricultural community.
-------
55
This is as it should be in view of the fact that we are
attempting to sell to the grower a new approach to his
pest control problems. In view of the fact that in most
cases existing chemical controls are doing an excellent
pest control job, it will require an extensive and long-
term effort in information-education to achieve acceptance
of new nonchemical approaches to pest control. However,
it is also felt that the time has come to expand this
information-education program to include the general
public. It is a logical approach and will be accepted as
such by the general public, in view of the general con-
cern over contamination of the environment and the
opportunities afforded with this approach to alleviate
some of this problem.
Implementation plan for a national scouting program within
the confines of pest management program.
It is not recommended that a national scouting program
be implemented as a part of the pest menegement program.
The scouting program is merely a service and as such, it
should be borne by the group or the segment of the
agricultural industry which benefits from this service,
namely the grower. There will be certain instances where
the economics of the crop production will not be sufficient
to adequately support a private industry scouting effort.
In these cases, we should take advantage of the develop-
ment of models based upon the data collected and the
prediction of pest outbreaks to handle such situations.
This, or course, will require a modest amount of data
collection on a year-by-year basis to keep the models
updated and to detect changes which may be occurring in
response to production practices. However, this would
be relatively minor activity and could be handled very
adequately with the present insect survey system which is
a part of the APHIS activity.
The cost of attempting a national scouting program would
be prohibitive. Also, inview of the fact that this is a
service activity it could be best handled by the private
sector instead of a federally sponsored action. Of course,
thare should be a continuing and intensive information-
education program pointing out the need for this service
and attempts to expand it further in all of the crops
where it is an economically viable activity. From the
national standpoint, it is felt that the thing that is
most needed at the present time is a clear-cut and
concise policy of endorsement of the pest management
concept at the national level as out approach to pest
-------
56
control problems. This policy and its implications, as
well as the role of scouting or other surveillance in
pest mangement, should be given widespread publicity
in an attempt to educate the general public and agricul-
ture as a whole to the desirability of this approach as
compared with or present approach to our pest problems.
-------
57
References Cited
Boyer, W. P., L. 0. Warren, and Charles Lincoln. Cotton insect
scouting 1n Arkansas. Ark. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bui. 656, 1962.
Brazzel, J. R., T. B. Davich, and L. D. Harris. A new approach
to boll weevil control. J. Econ. Ent. 54(4):723-730, 1961.
------- |