Because pesticides are only one tool in the IPM toolbox, few of the articles I read about IPM cover them directly. In IPM, the use of pesticides is, or at least should be, directly related to the action threshold. For most pests of agricultural products, the threshold is a published number that lets the farmer know how many pests that should be present before any treatment begins. For a refresher on the steps for IPM, see my blog post from October on the different farming practices.

I’m not going to defend or deplore pesticides; they have a specific purpose, and they are effective when used properly. However, most of the articles I’ve read in recent months have taken one extreme side or the other: either pesticides are harmful to human health, so consumers should buy produce that’s pesticide-free; or there is absolutely nothing wrong with pesticides at all. I’m not going to argue the truth or fallacy in either of those arguments or make an emotional argument about whether pesticides are good or bad. Instead, I’m going to answer some questions about some of the technical aspects of pesticides.

1. I’ve heard the term, “the label is the law.” What does that mean?The label on any pesticide—whether it’s an insecticide, fungicide, herbicide or the antibacterial spray you use on your counters—describes how the pesticide should be used. Those instructions include the crops or settings it can be used on, the amount that can be used, how it must be diluted, what clothing should be worn and how far from a body of water you must be.If there is a definitive time that a pesticide is bad, it is when the label is not followed. For instance, if you have thrips on your roses, you cannot use the same insecticide that you may use on your beans if the label does not say that you can use the product for roses. If you’re using RoundUp on weeds, you can use the diluted version in the spray bottle or dilute the concentrated version with the amount of water that it specifies, but NOT use the concentrated version directly on the weed. In fact, farmers who use a pesticide that is not labeled for a crop can face punitive action if FDA testing shows residues of an illegal pesticide on the crop.
2. When food is sold in the supermarket, are any of the pesticides still on the food, and how do I know the food is safe to eat?This question highlights the main reason why IPM stories shy away from discussing the use of pesticides. The answer to the first question is “yes,” if pesticides have been used on the product (and yes, that includes organic food products, which can be sprayed with natural pesticides). The answer to the second question is a bit more complicated.EPA does extensive testing of pesticide residues on food and establishes levels of “tolerances,” or the amount of a pesticide that may remain in and on foods. The assumption is that in most cases, some of the pesticide will remain on the food. The EPA’s goal is to set a level of that amount that will pose the least amount of risk to adults and children. The EPA website has information about how it sets tolerances. The instructions for use on the pesticide label are written with those tolerances in mind. That is why anyone using a pesticide must abide by the label’s instructions for method of use, crops that it can be used on, and the amount that can be used in one application. If those instructions are not followed, the person may be endangering the consumer.

   While most of us want to see the word “safe” when referring to any human activity, especially eating, realistically speaking, there is always some level of risk in anything we do. Although many articles speak definitively about pesticides being “safe,” I am instead going to discuss pesticide residue testing in terms of the level of risk.

   The EPA uses four steps to assess human health risk for establishing tolerances: hazard identification, dose-response assessment, exposure assessment and risk characterization.

   In general, the EPA requires pesticide companies to evaluate their pesticides for a wide range of adverse effects, including eye and skin irritation, cancer, birth defects and neurological problems. Scientists use laboratory animals to evaluate health effects on humans. EPA also consults outside scientists and public literature to confirm evaluation reports.

   Next, scientists test the maximum dose that can be used before human health effects occur. Because some people may be more sensitive than others, EPA automatically builds in extra safety margins, and the Food Quality Protection Act requires EPA to add an extra 10-fold safety factor for infants and children. Pesticides are tested for short-term exposure, intermediate and long-term exposure to check for acute and chronic toxicity.

   The EPA places a value on the risk, called “risk characterization.” This value equates the amount of risk with the level of toxicity of the product and the likelihood of a person’s exposure to it. For instance, a product that will be used to control roaches and ants in a school building will have a different level of risk than a product that will kill fire ants in an outdoor area that can be quarantined, even thought the toxicity of the products may be the same, and the directions on the label will reflect that. The label on products that have a higher level of toxicity will specify a time period for re-entry into the treated area, based on the tested level of degradation of the chemicals. School IPM coordinators typically use low toxicity products like baits inside a school, so that children will not come into contact with them.

   More specific information about health risk assessment can be found on the EPA’s website.

   In short, a pesticide, used properly, is neither always safe nor always dangerous but does involve risk, just as many other human activities do.

3. How do I know that the farmer who sells the food is following the label on the pesticide?If you are buying your food at a grocery store, producers go through sample testing by either USDA or FDA. If USDA screeners find residues that are above the EPA recommended amount, or if they find residues of a pesticide on a food product not included in the label of that pesticide, the product is prohibited from being sold.Produce sold on a family farm or a roadside stand is typically not inspected by USDA. Take the opportunity to talk to the farmer about how he or she protects the produce from insects or diseases if you’re concerned.
4. If a farmer who uses IPM is still using pesticides, why is IPM considered better than conventional? There are still pesticides being used.The blunt answer to that question is that it depends on what you’re comfortable with. If a farmer is truly using IPM and is using pesticides, there are enough pests on his or her farm to meet the action threshold, and if he or she didn’t use pesticides, the crop would be damaged. Many of us would like to think that we could get the same gorgeous, unblemished produce at the store with no pesticides, but in many parts of the South, insects are abundant and very hungry. Being able to eat a tomato with no holes means that the farmer must keep pests away from it, which, even after other practices like crop rotation and cover crops, sometimes means that pesticides must be used. So don’t assume that anything labeled “organic” will be pesticide-free, either, as organic farmers must also sell “pretty” produce. A farmer who is practicing IPM will be using pesticides only when they are needed and not simply on a scheduled routine.Remember that any pesticide that is used legally (by the instructions on the label) has been tested for its effect on human health. There have been studies that have pointed to health effects of certain types of pesticides, such as organophosphates. The EPA is starting to re-review many of the pesticide classes again and welcomes public comment on those reviews. If you’re interested in commenting, or simply learning more about what goes into those reviews (there’s a lot of technical information in those posted research summaries), go to http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/reregistration/.

   Sometimes there are local farms located in an area undisturbed by pests. While those farmers may not brand themselves as “certified” organic (certification costs money), they are worth seeking out. However, if you typically buy your produce from a farmers’ market or roadside stand, take the opportunity to talk to the vendor about how pests are managed on the farm. That conversation will at least give you more information about how your food is grown, and you’ll be making an informed choice when you make your purchase.

So now that you’ve read the long answer, the short answer is that you get to decide what you’re comfortable buying. Like anyone, I too prefer buying something that I know has not been sprayed. However, if that’s not an option, I trust that the systems that the U.S. has in place are protecting me to the best of their ability, and it’s my choice to buy the product or not.

This first draft is Chairwoman Deborah Stabenow’s markup and can be found at this link. The bill goes to the full Senate Agricultural Committee for markup on May 14. That draft will then be voted on by the full Senate.

Typically for bills that must be passed (such as the Farm Bill), the Agricultural Committees in both the House and Senate create a draft that goes before the full House or Senate for a vote. If the bills vary significantly (which they usually do), a conference committee, made up of members from Congress, drafts a bill that draws a compromise between the two bills. That draft goes to both the House and Senate for a vote.

This is the first version of a Farm Bill draft seen this year. The 2008 Farm Bill expired in 2012.

Mandatory funding is provided for the following five programs:

(1) Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative ($16 million over 5 years); (2) Specialty Crop Research Initiative ($200 million over 5 years); (3) Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program ($85 million over 5 years); (4) Biomass R&D ($130 million over 5 years); and (5) Biodiesel Fuel Education Program ($5 million over 5 years).

In addition to the five year funding for the Specialty Crop Research Initiative, the bill  provides a budgetary baseline for the program for fiscal years beyond FY 2018. This permanent baseline will be very important when the 2018 Farm Bill is developed.

The bill provides one-time funding of $100 million for the Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research, a new, 501(c)(3) organization.

The bill also provides explicit authorization for the Regional IPM Centers, in Section 7308, although no funding amount is specified.

New initiatives specified in the bill include:

• a corn, soybean meal, cereal grains, and grain byproducts research and extension program,
• a “Pulse Health Initiative” for research and extension efforts related to dry beans, dry peas, lentils, and chickpeas or garbanzo beans
• an advanced forest products research and extension initiative
• a “Comprehensive Food Safety Training Network,” to establish and maintain a network for an internationally integrated training system to enhance protection of the United States food supply

To view the bill, go to http://www.ag.senate.gov/issues/farm-bill and click on Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act of 2013 (Chairwoman’s Mark).

To learn more about how the Farm Bill becomes law, see this blog post.

During his 13-year service with Manatee County Schools, Dan has educated school staff and administrators about IPM and has worked closely with staff to change attitudes about pest management. Now when the occasional teacher calls with a pest complaint, they let him know WHAT pest they need controlled.

L-R: Joe LaForest, Dan Lisenko, Faith Oi, Danielle Dimon and Todd Henson

Dan has a supportive team that has made his program strong. His supervisor Danielle Dimon and Todd Henson, Director of Maintenance and Operations, have fully supported Dan for spearheading and overseeing school IPM in every school in the district. Dan has implemented school IPM programs at 60 facilities, along with their athletic facilities and grounds.

Dan’s program is centered on one key best management practice: all of the facilities staff must have or obtain a pest control license. In fact, the Manatee County district was one of the first to require the policy, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has included it in their Best Management Practices for School IPM. The policy also allows only licensed facilities staff to handle and apply pesticides. Dan says he has removed many a RAID can from a teacher’s desk drawer.

A quick look at the IPM storage area puts most well-organized storage areas and big-box store retail shelves to shame. Each chemical is labeled and dated, items are neatly lined up in a way that would make a Marine sergeant proud and the floor and shelves are free of dust and debris.

Dan Lisenko and Rick Mills, superintendent of Bradenton County Schools

Because of Dan’s programs, the district has reduced pesticide use by 80 percent and saved 50 to 60 percent in product costs over the long run. Dan tests each type of control, whether it is chemical or non-chemical, for effectiveness and safety. For instance, mole crickets in lawns and athletic fields are controlled year-round with nematodes, which eat the mole crickets in just days. In fact, Dan says that the nematodes usually starve to death by the end of the summer because the mole crickets are gone.

Through Dan’s educational presentations to classes, students and teachers have changed their habits to make their classrooms less hospitable for insects like ants and roaches. Teachers now store food in plastic resealable containers instead of in the cabinets and reduced the amount of food in the classroom. In addition, schools have invested in recycling programs, which reduces the amount of waste in general.

Dan attributes much of his success to the assistance and support he has received from Drs. Faith Oi and Rebecca Baldwin at the University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS).

One of the highlights of Dan’s IPM program is his fire ant control program. Dan has spent copious amounts of time testing different materials to find one that is effective. His staff treats fire ant mounds during the summer, when the children are not in school. Before the program, about 1% (400-500) students would need medical treatment for fire ant stings. Treating the fire ant mounds at the appropriate time has significantly reduced the risk of life threatening stings for the student population.

“You have to be proactive about pest management,” says Dan. “I have to answer to people outside of the district about what I’m doing, so I make sure I follow the pesticide label and keep records of what we’ve done. We now have a process that can be adopted at any school.”

In most of the South, we have three main genera of mosquitoes: Aedes species (breed in flood waters), Anopheles species (breed in permanent bodies of fresh water) and Culex species (breed in quiet, standing water). Most of the advice that you’ve read about reducing standing water in your yard obviously will help reduce the populations of the Culex species, some of which bite during the day and can bite repeatedly (such as the Asian tiger mosquito, or Aedes albopictus).

Mosquitoes transmit a number of different diseases, including West Nile virus, encephalitis, malaria (spread by the Anopheles species), dengue fever and yellow fever. The main two diseases that have been reported in the Southern region are encephalitis and West Nile virus. Several different species can transmit each of them.

This post will be a short refresher on some of the tips you’ve probably seen before about how to reduce mosquitoes in your yard. If you’re interested in more scientific information about mosquitoes, check out the “HowStuffWorks” website.

Many cities have mosquito control programs now for residential area. However, before you hire one to spray your yard, talk to your neighbors. Control is more effective if it is done for an entire neighborhood, but some residents are wary of the chemicals used in the spray. However, because mosquitoes are flying insects, you will not have much relief if you have only your yard sprayed.

Some of the best ways to control mosquito populations are many of the tips you’ve probably seen before:

• Drain water from plant pots, bird baths, fountains, tires and outdoor toys.
• Keep gutters free of debris and store boats so they do not collect rainwater.
• Fill holes that can fill with water and repair outdoor leaks from pipes, sprinklers, rain barrels and faucets.
• Empty pet water bowls regularly and check livestock watering troughs and tanks.
• Use a mosquito larvacide in ponds. Mosquitoes lay their eggs in standing water, so use a larvacide in any water that you do not wish to empty.
• When outdoors, wear light colored clothing with loose fitting long sleeves, long pants and socks. Or wear insect repellent.
• If possible, avoid sitting outdoors during evening and early morning hours when the sun is not shining.

If you do get bitten, clean the bite area with soap and water and apply a topical corticosteroid to reduce the itching and rash. Oral antihistamines can sometimes reduce the itching and rash as well. Cold compresses can help, but be sure not to press ice against the skin.

Each state has an organization that disseminates information about mosquito species in that state. Below are some that may be helpful:

Alabama: http://www.aces.edu/pubs/docs/A/ANR-1116/ANR-1116-low.pdf or http://www.aces.edu/counties/Marion/pages/mosquito.tmpl or Protecting Yourself from Mosquito Borne Illness

Arkansas: http://www.uaex.edu/Other_Areas/publications/pdf/FSA-7059.pdf

Florida: http://mosquito.ifas.ufl.edu/Index.htm

Georgia: http://health.state.ga.us/epi/vbd/mosquito.asp

Kentucky: http://www.ca.uky.edu/entomology/entfacts/ef005.asp

Louisiana: http://www.lsuagcenter.com/en/environment/insects/Mosquitoes/

Mississippi: http://msucares.com/insects/mosquitoes/

North Carolina: http://ipm.ncsu.edu/AG369/notes/mosquitoes.html

Oklahoma: http://www.ok.gov/health/Disease,_Prevention,_Preparedness/Acute_Disease_Service/Disease_Information/Tickborne_and_Mosquitoborne_Diseases/

South Carolina: https://www.scdhec.gov/environment/envhealth/pests/mosquitoes.htm

Tennessee: http://www.cityofknoxville.org/engineering/stormwater/brochures/mosquitoes.pdf

Texas: https://insects.tamu.edu/fieldguide/bimg220.html and http://agrilife.org/aes/public-health-vector-and-mosquito-control/mosquitoes-of-texas/

Virginia: http://www.mosquito-va.org/linksinfo.htm

Also, check out our new “pin board” on insects and human health in Pinterest.

Although research on CCD has been ongoing since 2007, honey bee losses continue to be high. Best Management Practices have been developed, but implementation has faced obstacles. To address the needs of beekeepers, growers and others, the CCD Steering Committee and Pennsylvania State University organized and convened a conference in October 2012. The goal of the conference was to share results of CCD research and to gather input from stakeholders.

The summary of research findings is as follows:

• Consensus is building that a complex set of stressors and pathogens is associated with CCD, and researchers are increasingly using multi – factorial approaches to studying causes of colony losses.
• The parasitic mite Varroa destructor remains the single most detrimental pest of honey bees, and is closely associated with overwintering colony declines.
• Multiple virus species have been associated with CCD.
• Varroa is known to cause amplified levels of viruses.
• The bacterial disease European foulbrood is being detected more often in the U .S. and may be linked to colony loss. · Nutrition has a major impact on individual bee and colony longevity.
• Research indicates that gut microbes associated with honey bees play key roles in enhancement of nutrition, detoxification of chemicals, and protection against diseases.
• Acute and sublethal effects of pesticides on honey bees have been increasingly documented, and are a primary concern. Further tier 2 (semi – field conditions) and tier 3 (field conditions) research is required to establish the risks associated with pesticide exposure to U.S. honey bee declines in general.
• The most pressing pesticide research questions lie in determining the actual field – relevant pesticide exposure bees receive and the effects of pervasive exposure to multiple pesticides on bee health and productivity of whole honey bee colonies.
• Long term cryopreservation of honey bee semen has been successfully developed and provides the means for long – term preservation of “top – tier” domestic honey bee germplasm for breeding. Genetic variation improves bee thermoregulation, disease resistance and worker productivity.
• Genomic insights from sequencing the honey bee genome are now widely used to understand and address major questions of breeding, parasite interactions, novel controls ( e.g ., RNA i ), and management to make bees less stressed and more productive.

Stakeholders voiced their concerns in working groups centered on the four main issues affecting bee health: nutrition, pesticides, parasites/pathogens and genetics/biology/breeding. Below is a list of the most common concerns:

• Federal and state partners should consider actions affecting land management to maximize available nutritional forage to promote and enhance good bee health and to protect bees by mitigating their movement in to pesticide – treated crop acreage.
• Undernourished or malnourished bees appear to be more susceptible to pathogens, parasites, and other stressors, including toxins. Research is needed on forage, pollen, insect metabolic pathways, artificial and natural food sources, and food processing and storage in the hive.
• More outreach programs targeting farmers on managing potential exposure of honey bees to pesticides is needed. Efforts would benefit from involvement of beekeepers, crop consultants, pesticide manufacturers and applicators, and State lead agencies and extension agents.
• BMPs associated with bees and pesticide use, exist, but are not widely or systematically implemented by members of the crop producing industry. A central theme of the pesticides session was the need for informed and coordinated communication/education/extension of growers and beekeepers and the need for effective collaboration between stakeholders.
• Beekeepers accentuated the need for accurate and timely beekill incident reporting, monitoring, and enforcement.
• Pathogens and arthropod pests have major negative impacts on colonies. Management of Varroa and viruses was recognized as a special concern.
• Breeding emphasis is on traits, including hygienic behavior, that confer improved resistance to Varroa mites and diseases, such as American Foulbrood.

Other web pages/websites to see:

• Bee Informed
• Bee deaths: EU to ban neonicotinoid pesticides (BBC News)
• Government study cites mix of factors in death of honeybees (NY Times)

The editorial staff of the Communicator, consisting of Extension specialists from Auburn University, Tuskegee University and Alabama A&M University received the Friends of Southern IPM Pulling Together award at the Southeastern Branch of the Entomological Society of America on March 5, a prime example of collaboration between 1862 and 1890 institutions.

L-R: Henry Fadamiro, Ayanava Majumdar, and Joe LaForest

The Alabama IPM Communicator began in April 2010 as a series of timely information factsheets and a component of a larger communications project called IPM-CORE (IPM COmmunication REsources), funded by an Alabama Department of Agriculture and Industries Specialty Crops Grant. However, with new research projects underway and expansion of the IPM projects, producers needed continuous updates, resulting in the development of an IPM newsletter. The Communicator is now sustained by funding from the state IPM coordinator budget, the Southern SARE Program, Organic Agriculture Research and Education Initiative grants, and the Wallace Center. The Alabama Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association and pesticide industry also support this one-of-a-kind resource.

The newsletters are in PDF format, archived in the Alabama Cooperative Service online store (https://store.aces.edu/ListItems.aspx?CategoryID=180). Most issues are presented on the web page with a short blurb and a link to the PDF file. Social media channels were added to the overall communication strategy in 2011 and now links to each issue are shared with internet-savvy clientele.

Ideas for an online newsletter began when Extension specialists from Auburn University wanted a way to inform growers about IPM research findings and to communicate IPM recommendations in a way that would be timelier than periodic grower workshops. The newsletter began as a downloadable PDF file available on the Alabama Vegetable IPM website. However, as more farmers discovered the newsletter and started downloading it en masse, the IPM website could not keep up with the volume of visitors and routinely crashed during the growing season. The newsletter, therefore, moved to the Alabama Cooperative Education Service online store, available as a free download but housed on a more robust server.

Due to the wide range of IPM articles, today there are approximately 1,373 subscribers to the newsletter in addition to over 100 Extension personnel and 300 Master Gardeners. Major audience consists of 60% farmers, 10% crop advisors, and 10% industry representatives. A survey conducted in 2012 indicated that most readers use the newsletter for information pertinent to their interests. Articles from the Communicator have appeared in several grower newspapers and magazines. Because of the demand from specialty crop producers for information, the Communicator also provides information for organic, transitioning and small-acreage farming throughout the region.

Survey results indicate that growers are heeding the recommendations in the Communicator. In 2012, growers indicated that they had saved 50 percent or more of their crop through recommendations in the newsletter and through Extension training events that they had learned about through the newsletter. Profits for commercial fruit and vegetable farms increased by over $100 per acre based on newsletter recommendations, translating to nearly $3.6 million for the specialty crop industry. Farmers on small acreage farms saved between $343 and $591 by using IPM recommendations in the newsletter.

The team was one of three Friends of Southern IPM award winners to receive their award at the Southeastern Branch meeting in March.

Alabama IPM Communicator Editorial Staff

Auburn University:
Dr. Ayanava Majumdar
Dr. Henry Fadamiro
Dr. Kathy Flanders
Dr. Timothy Reed
Dr. Ronald Smith
Dr. Elina Coneva
Dr. Edward Sikora
Dr. Austin Hagan
Dr. Xing Ping Hu

Alabama A&M University:Dr. Cathy Sabota

Tuskegee University:
Dr. Conrad Bonsi
Dr. Franklin Quarcoo

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-april-9-2013/jimmy-carter-pt–1

Here is some more about guinea worm: http://www.cartercenter.org/health/guinea_worm/mini_site/index.html

In Balkan countries, women would spread the leaves of the red kidney bean over their floors and beds. The fibers on the leaves were shaped like tiny hooks, and functioned as such when a bed bug would walk across it. The bug would catch one leg in the hook-like hairs, and as it tried to escape, would find all of its legs ensnared.

Scientists studied and videoed how the insects would become trapped on the leaves, and then tried to recreate the medium. With no luck. The bed bugs walked on the synthetic substrate, became momentarily caught, and then managed to dislodge themselves and walk on. The team consisted of scientists from the University of California at Irvine and the University of Kentucky.

A few commenters after the NY Times article asked why scientists were bothering to try to replicate the leaves, and why they hadn’t thought about simply growing mast quantities of bean plants and selling them as bed bug remedies. There were a couple of responses, but one came to mind almost immediately, considering that such an enterprise would require massive kidney bean farms.

Synthetic “leaves” would be more sustainable than real leaves.

First, we have many more pests and plant diseases than the Balkans faced in early times. Growing real bean plants may require chemical treatment. Legumes are susceptible to several pests and diseases such as rust. Filling a bed with chemically-treated bean leaves would undermine the chemical-free nature of using the leaves for bed bug control.

Second, shipping and supplying the leaves to buyers would be more difficult than supplying a synthetic substance that could last permanently. Bed bugs multiply rapidly, and depending on the length of time shipment of the leaves took, keeping them fresh and keeping a bed bug infestation from growing would be very difficult. While scientists have looked at the effect of the leaves on small numbers of bed bugs, testing for a massive bed bug infestation has yet to be done.

Considering those deterrents, the scientific team will need to consider the second step to the Balkan control: disposing of the trapping substance. The Balkans would tie the leaves up at night and burn them, killing the insects. Depending on what the synthetic “leaf” is made of, burning may not be the optimal solution. In that case, scientists will need to determine how, after the bed bugs are trapped, will they be permanently disposed of.

Eligible applicants include Land-Grant Institutions (1862, 1890 and 1994)  in the Southern Region of the United States.  All proposals must be submitted using the Grants.gov process.

For information, see the web page http://www.nifa.usda.gov/fo/regionalintegratedpestmgtsouthern.cfm

If you have questions, please contact competition manager Jim VanKirk at jim@sripmc.org  or 919-513-8179.

Below is the announcement, with more information, from USDA-NIFA:

The National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) is pleased to announce the release of the FY 2013 Request for Applications (RFAs) for the Regional Integrated Pest Management (RIPM) Competitive Grants Program.  The purpose of this program is to support the continuum of research and extension efforts needed to increase the implementation of IPM methods. The RIPM program supports projects that develop individual pest control tactics, integrate individual tactics into an IPM system, and develop and implement extension and education programs. The program is administered by the land-grant university system’s four regional IPM Centers (North Central, Northeastern, Southern, Western) in partnership with NIFA.

Application Deadline: – All RIPM Applications must be received by Grants.gov by 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, May 16, 2013.

Please share this funding opportunity with those who might be interested.

Note:  Make certain that you are referencing the FY 2013 RIPM RFAs.  From March 21-27, 2013 the RIPM RFA Funding Opportunity pages indicated that the FY 2013 RFAs had been released, but were referring to the FY 2012 RFAs in error.

If you have any questions related to Grants.gov content, contact the Grants.gov Contact Center:
Email:  support@grants.gov, Phone: Toll Free: 1-800-518-4726, 24 hour support, excluding Federal holidays.

Useful Links:
NIFA Grant Application Information:  www.nifa.usda.gov/funding/application_info.html
Grants.gov Help:  www.grants.gov/help/help.jsp.

Southern RIPM RFA:

Funding Opportunity Number:  USDA-NIFA-RIPM-004212

NIFA Funding Opportunity Page:  www.nifa.usda.gov/fo/regionalintegratedpestmgtsouthern.cfm.   This page includes links to the Request for Applications (RFA), the NIFA Grants.gov Application Guide, the Application Package, and Abstracts of Funded Projects.

Grants.gov Synopsis Page: http://www07.grants.gov/search/search.do;jsessionid=7Qj2RbLbLRvLWQtnc1hBMFvvLHJJG5hSSTwJLbKpxGkXvZhTcd2G!457173371?oppId=228884&mode=VIEW.   This page includes a synopsis of the funding opportunity, a link to the full announcement (RFA) and the application package.

Grants Manager:  Mr. James R. VanKirk, telephone:  (919) 513-8179, email:  jim@sripmc.org.

According to the report, new diseases and pests are evolving resistance to chemicals and some cultural practices. With the changing climate and market demands and preferences, growers need a system to predict issues and needs and proactively work to develop new crop varieties, forage varieties, diagnostic tools, treatment chemistries, livestock therapeutics, and specific strategies to keep the region at the leading edge of productivity despite its challenges.

“Without this support system, the region’s producers would have to rely on commercial research and the research of out-of-region universities–research that would not be specific and customized to specialized regional characteristics (and therefore likely not as effective), and would have limited, unbiased assistance in translating research findings, disseminating, or assisting in adopting these findings to their benefits.” Battelle report, page 38.

The Southern Region has as many as 880,000 farms, many of them small farms, which rely extensively on the knowledge and information disseminated by the Extension Service and Experiment Station System.

The section of the report dedicated to pest management focuses mainly on plant breeding but mentions a few case studies of effective relationships between farmers and Extension and researchers. Case studies include:

• Rice breeding and research at the University of Arkansas, where scientists support a $1 billion industry in that state. Arkansas is the leading producer and processor of rice in the United States.
• A study of the timing of cattle removal from wheat pastures in Oklahoma, saving farmers from yield losses because cattle removal gives the plant time to heal prior to the reproductive growth stage.
• An integrated weed strategy proposed in Georgia is saving cotton producers from losing yield to pigweed infestation. Extension agents recommended a strategy of diversification rather than reliance on one strategy (chemical).
• The Southern Region Small Fruit Consortium, a regional collaboration among NC State University, Clemson University, the University of Georgia, the University of Tennessee, Virginia Tech, and the University of Arkansas is leading research and extension efforts in berries and grapes. Income generated from small fruits production in the South has increased over 300 percent in the last decade, and in 2011 generated $99 million.

Read the Report