IPM Funding

0 The Elusive IPM0
By Scott H. Hutchins
in Ag Consultant January, 1998

Integrated pest management (IPM) is uniformly recognized as one of the most useful and productive concepts in modern agriculture. Regretfully, however, IPM implementation is often cited as a pressing need to decrease the perceived overuse of pesticides.

Vernon Stern and his coworkers at the University of California are credited with introducing IPM in 1959 in "The Integrated Control Concept," a paper that documented the principles of ecological balance as a viable agricultural concept. They argued that insect pests can be partially controlled by natural enemies and that this benefit should be accounted for before crop protection products are used. Further, they argued that control costs are justified only when the pest population exceeds an "economic injury level." This concept is the foundation for IPM and puts the key economic and biologic components in perspective to ensure objective decision making.

A precise and uniformly accepted definition of IPM has been elusive, but there are two key criteria every IPM program should meet:

  1. Use of objective value-based decision making. Control decisions should be based on maintaining pest populations below calculated economic-injury levels. <0L>
  2. Integrative use of multiple management tactics. IPM uses diverse tactics -- including natural enemies and pesticides -- in a total management strategy.

Note that these two qualifying attributes require that economic and biologic information are considered in the context of producer values. There is no preference given to one class of tactics over the other, except where value can be demonstrated. With real-world implementation of IPM using the above criteria, several by-products may emerge -- including the reduction in pesticide (or other tactic) inputs. As a result of the confusion between qualifying elements and by-products, however, IPM has experienced an identity crisis since its inception.

To be truly sustainable, IPM must be supported as a sound financial enterprise represented through value-added services and products. Four principles must be considered to support IPM implementation:

  1. Value is the key concept, but can only be defined by the user.
    • Each grower will have a different business goal and therefore perspective on value-added IPM.
    • "Income risk" is a key value-added quality of certain control tactics within IPM. THe growers may choose to apply preventive pesticide treatments even if there is no absolute certainty that pests will generate future damage.
    • We must account for different perceptions of value among farmers. For example, one farmer may value soil conservation attributes of no-till production, while another may value the reduced use of herbicides that conventional tillage may allow.

  2. Value will be exploited as a business enterprise.
    • Value-based IPM will develop sponsors and financial stakeholders, such as consultants.
    • IPM cannot be sustained as a public non-profit endeavor. It's not something the Extension service can do at the field level and make it sustainable.
    • Public focus should be on business support mechanisms along with continuing education processes.

  3. IPM is input-independent. Value should drive decisions.
    • Pest control input analysis should be based on a cost-benefit analysis and on financial criteria, but tempered by the user's subjective valuation of the tangible and intangible benefits.
    • Prejudice against any single tactic or class of tactics (e.g., pesticides) that does not specifically consider individual grower goals should be avoided.
    • Use of objective criteria for assessing input value (e.g., economic-injury levels) is key.

  4. Regulatory emphasis should be on real risks with restriction of specific tactics accordingly.
    • IPM should not imply the promotion of biological or non-chemical tactics, but can focus the evaluation of alternatives to tactics that are restricted as a result or product of new legislation (e.g., the Food Quality Protection Act).
    • Risk assessment (vs. perception) is the objective of regulatory policy and should apply to all tactics.

These principles -- supported by a financially viable pest management industry -- will ensure sustained implementation of IPM. Without them IPM is another short-term public initiative borne out of sociopolitical circumstances and artificially motivated through public grants. IPM's qualifying elements, combined with key business and regulartory implementation principles, will reinstate the focus of IPM as a key crop protection tool.


Last Updated on 2/7/98
By Karen Lutz
Email: karen@hillnet.com

GO TO tools of the trade ipm in the field topics