I've been watching this portion of the conversation with a fair amount of
interest, because IPM is a way of life for us and most of the growers we
know and work with.  Since none of us grow corn, soy or canola on a scale as
large as what folks seem interested in, I didn't reply at first.  But IPM as
a management strategy goes WAY beyond do we spray vs do we not spray.  The
folks we know who are using IPM to the fullest extent possible, are taking
the very long view of not only what pests are likely to hit which crops, but
also then considering ALL the different management tools and options are
available to either minimize those populations, OR minimize their economic
impact.  So for instance, crop rotation is very much alive and well for
several reasons including IPM, such that no one disease or pest become so
rampant in any given field that it creates a significant economic loss.
Other valid and economically rewarding strategies are trap crops, predatory
insects, resistant varieties, soil improvements, timing of planting,
cultivation and/or harvesting, row covers, and probably a few others that
don't come to mind at the moment.  

 

Traps for the target insects are also very helpful because if used
consistently for several years, they can help "dial in" when that pest is
really becoming a problem in any given location and/or market crop.  After
several years of use, we know that once those traps catch more than X amount
of target insects, whatever other methods we're using aren't doing the
trick, at which point then we consider using sprays (but event then, there
are sprays which are less toxic than others).  Other years, the traps
indicate that the target pest population never reached a threshold that
would indicate imminent economic damage, so spraying is not economically
justified.  Using a combination of those methods along with population
monitoring, growers are often able to avoid chemical treatments of any kind,
during most years.  But the grower has to be interested in learning how to
use all those tools in advance; they don't just happen.  

 

The question of whether someone makes the "philosophical" decision to follow
organic practices and how that relates to IPM is complex.  Sometimes folks
come to organic growing because of some personal preference, and IPM is
almost a requirement for long term organic production.  Other folks are more
and more involved with IPM because the cost of any sort of pesticide is
painful to bear, so growers look for any way to minimize or avoid it.  The
increased management cost is offset by the improved sale price (retail or
wholesale) from becoming certified organic, at which point the manager is
essentially paid to do the IPM.  Most folks we know were already interested
in both so they never teased apart which was more important.  For our
particular customer base, they have more and more consistently demanded
certified organic produce, for a wide range of reasons.  I can either argue
with them about what they want and why, or I can just raise what they want.
Which is why I think Randy's comments are possibly the bottom-line.  When
customers begin to demand poison-free produce, they'll get it.  Until then,
they won't.  The law of supply and demand is working pretty well.

Kathryn Kerby

Frogchorusfarm.com

Snohomish, WA

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Peter L Borst
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2014 4:21 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [BEE-L] Chemicals and IPM

 

>If we applied IPM to ourselves, we would stop vaccinations and wait for the
diseases to develop.

> I do not think that is a valid argument.  Vaccinations do not impact
beneficials or the environment.

 

The issue sort of hinges on what the goal is. If the goal is to reduce the
use of pesticides overall, then the use of pesticides to prevent an outbreak
that is practically assured would be justified because, as James said, it
takes less material to prevent infestation than to remediate it. 

 

The context is also of utmost importance. If your bees, for example, are
surrounded by diseased or infested hives, it would make perfect sense to
protect your investment by basing your practices on the infestation rate in
the environment, not just the rate in your hives. We don't live in a vacuum.

 

The thing that IPM was trying to move away from initially was using
pesticides where there is no need for them. An integrated approach implies
using whatever means necessary, but pesticides as a last resort. If
biological or other controls can prevent pest outbreak, then pesticide use
is avoided. 

 

Again, if the goal is the reduction of overall use, you could justify
integrating prophylactic treatment into your pest management. Especially if
experience over time has shown that the damage incurred by waiting will be
excessive. The thing that makes humans different from the rest is that we
can anticipate the future and prevent harm.

 

Integrated pest management has always been viewed as a pragmatic approach,
not an ideology. Going organic or "treatment free" is a philosophical
decision, which some choose to make. Many of us regard pesticide free as an
admirable goal but one that can only be approached and perhaps never
achieved. Pest control is a fact of nature, that's why bees have stingers.

 

PLB

 

             ***********************************************

The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned

LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:

http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html


             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html