In the last few years, wild pigs have been multiplying to the point where several states have already changed hunting laws to try to manage wild pig populations. Last year, Texas passed a law allowing aerial hunting of feral pigs. Last month, Oklahoma legalized the ability to release “Judas pigs” wearing a tracking device to “rat out” the rest of the herd. And North Carolina has just approved night hunting for wild pigs and coyotes.

Wild pigs include both feral hogs (pigs that were once domestic but escaped) and wild boar, introduced to the U.S. from Eurasia. The two species can interbreed, and their offspring can reproduce prolifically. According to an Extension publication on wild pigs, a wild pig population can double in just four months. Wild pigs are not a new introduction; they have actually been around since Christopher Columbus introduced them in 1493 (Barrett and Birmingham 1994). In the last few years, however, they have been introduced into states that had no wild pigs before, and their fast reproductive rate has been causing havoc for the agricultural community.

According to several sources, wild pigs are either loved or hated, depending on each person’s vantage point. Hunters argue that wild pigs are a great source of recreation because they are more intelligent and faster than other game such as deer, making them more of a challenge to hunt. Farmers and homeowners, on the contrary, dread the news of wild pig herds in their area because of the destruction they can cause to property. Wild pigs can flatten crops and dig up lawns and fields.

In North Carolina, hog farmers are worried about what the presence of wild pigs will do to the state’s profitable pork industry, especially since researchers have discovered that wild pigs carry antibodies to pseudorabies virus and Brucella suis (Sandfoss, et al., 2012). Dr. Mark Sandfoss with NC State University, along with a team of scientists from the university and USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, tested feral swine for both diseases and discovered several feral swine that carried B. suis in 2008. According to the article, the authors believe that the disease was introduced into the North Carolina feral pig population from swine from South Carolina. Currently native hogs in North Carolina do not carry antibodies to either virus, so hog farmers worry that feral pigs could transmit the disease to their livestock. The diseases are also transmissible to humans, mostly through the meat preparation process.

In addition to the two diseases found in feral pigs in North Carolina, cholera, swine brucellosis, trichinosis, bovine tuberculosis, and food and mouth disease are other diseases that can be transmitted by wild pigs to both native pigs and cattle.

Across the nation, wild pig populations number between 5 and 8 million and can be found in at least 45 states. Several states have outlawed bringing live wild pigs into the state. In some states, it is illegal even to move a wild pig to another location.

Anyone who hunts wild pigs and prepares the meat needs to take necessary precautions to wear protective clothing and gloves while butchering the pig and cook the meat to the proper temperature of 145 degrees F. (USDA).

Resources on wild pigs:

Barrett, R.H., and Birmingham, G.H. “Wild Pigs.” Cooperative Extension Publication, University of Nebraska – Lincoln, 1994. http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/nreos/wild/wildlife/animals/mammals/wild_pigs.htm

Sandfoss, M.R., DePerno, C.S., Betsill, C.W., Palamar, M.B., Erickson, G., and Kennedy-Stoskopf, S. “A serosurvey for Brucella suis, classical swine fever virus, porcine circovirus Type 2, and pseudorabies virus in feral swine (Sus scrofa) of eastern North Carolina.” Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 48(2), 2012, pp. 462-466.

Kulikowski, M. “Study Shows First N.C. Case of Feral Pig Exposure to Nasty Bacteria.” http://news.ncsu.edu/releases/mk-feral-pig-bacteria/.

Mississippi State University Wild Pig Info

Feral pigs, Wisconsin

Wild pigs at Henry W. Coe State Park, California

USDA National Invasive Species Information Center: Wild Boar

Feral Hogs, Texas Parks and Wildlife

Total release foggers, also known as “bug bombs,” are pesticide products containing aerosol propellants that release their contents at once to fumigate an area. These products are often used around the home to kill cockroaches, fleas, and other pests. Because the aerosol propellants in these foggers typically are flammable, improper use may cause a fire or explosion. In addition to this hazard, failure to vacate premises during fogging or reentering without airing out may result in illness.

Pest Prevention First

Foggers and bug bombs should not be used as the only method to attempt to control bed bugs.

The most effective way to reduce or eliminate pest problems and risks posed by pesticides is to first prevent these pests from entering your home. Around the home, such measures include removing sources of food and water (such as leaky pipes) and destroying pest shelters and breeding sites (such as litter and plant debris). For additional information about preventing pests around the home, please review EPA’s Web page on Controlling Pests, and for additional advice on pest issues and pesticide safety see the “Citizen’s Guide to Pest Control and Pesticide Safety” (PDF) (54 pp, 2.4 MB)

Safety Precautions

When nonchemical pesticide prevention measures are not effective to control pests, you may choose to use a chemical pesticide. One type of product is the total release fogger. While these products can be effective under the proper circumstances, they can pose real risks to your home and family if used improperly. Before using a total release fogger in your home or building, please read and follow the safety tips and common-sense precautions below.

• Do not use more foggers than necessary – Watch Video

Accidents involving total release foggers have occasionally occurred when homeowners release too much fogging material, leading to a high buildup of flammable vapors. Currently available foggers come in several sizes. Read the label carefully to determine the appropriate size for the space you have.

Foggers should not be used in small, enclosed places, such as closets, cabinets, or under counters or tables. Use of a fogger in an enclosed space may cause the product to explode, resulting in injury to people or damage to property.

To calculate the volume of a living area, multiply the height, width, and length of each room, and then add the room volumes together. For example, a 10 foot by 10 foot room with a standard 8 foot ceiling has a volume of 800 cubic feet.

• Keep foggers away from ignition sources – Watch Video

Accidents are most likely to occur if large amounts of fogger material come into direct contact with an ignition source, such as a flame, pilot light, or spark from an electrical appliance that cycles on and off (e.g., refrigerator or air conditioner). EPA recommends placing the active fogger at least 6 feet or farther from all ignition sources. If you need assistance with extinguishing pilot lights, please contact your local gas utility or management company.

• Notify family members, neighbors, and anyone else that may enter the premises

In addition to telling everyone that they should not enter the area, be certain to use door tags if they are included with the product or print out your own warning signs (1 pp, 41.50K) if you cannot find tags with the product. This will help reduce the risk of other people walking into the home or room and accidentally exposing themselves to the pesticides released from the device. Remember that the product in the fogger is a toxin and can have adverse effects on people as well as insects.

• Vacate the treated house, individual apartment unit, or other structure immediately – Watch Video

Breathing spray mist may be harmful. Safe use of these products requires that everyone, including pets, leave the treated space and close the doors after foggers have been released. Stay out until the time indicated on the label has passed, usually two to four hours. Prematurely entering the treated premises may lead to illness.

• Air out after returning to the treated area

Upon return to the treated area, open the doors and windows to ventilate any remaining fumes. Fans placed in doors and windows can assist in airing out the treated area.

Take Other Common-Sense Precautions

• Use no more than one fogger per room, since a typical 6 oz. fogger is enough to treat a very large area, up to 25 by 25 feet of unobstructed space.
• Remove all children, pets, toys, and uncovered food from treated area.
• Read the label and follow directions carefully.
• Keep the product away from children, for example, in a locked cabinet or shed.
• Teach children not to touch pesticide products and other household chemicals.
• Keep the telephone number of your local poison control center or the toll-free number (1-800-222-1222) for the National Poison Control Hotline handy.

Burmese pythons eat a wide variety of birds and mammals, from small birds and rats to animals as large as alligators and white-tailed deer. With no predators to keep them in check (in their native southeast Asia, they are classified as a “threatened” species), the giant snakes can reproduce and feed as they please. Recently a group of scientists from the Smithsonian Institution, U.S. Geological Survey and the National Park Service have discovered that the pythons can feed on something that before now was not considered part of the snakes’ diet: bird eggs. The scientists’ findings are reported in the March issue of Reptiles & Amphibians: Conservation and Natural History.

Burmese pythons began “immigrating” into the U.S. via the exotic pet trade in 1970 to be sold as pets. According to a Florida Extension publication, the snakes are popular pets because they are purportedly docile and have colorful markings. Unfortunately, some people who buy a 20-inch baby python don’t realize that within a year they will have to feed an 8-foot creature who can actually squeeze them to death. Unable to find the snake another home, some of these owners release the snakes into uninhabited areas or forests. Undaunted by the lack of predators, the pythons eat, find mates as other pythons are released, and multiply.

Park officials in the Florida Everglades first discovered and removed Burmese pythons in 1979. Until 2004, python numbers were small (less than 20), and officials were able to remove them manually. By 2007, however, about 418 pythons were removed or found dead, and the exponential increase in population numbers between 2004 (75) to 2007 meant that officials were finding only a fraction of the actual python population.

Until January 2011, wildlife specialists considered the Burmese python a risk mainly to fledgling and adult mammals and birds. In January 2011, however, when scientists from the South Florida Collections Management Center in the Everglades National Park examined the stomach contents of an adult Burmese python, they discovered two crushed bird eggs. The eggs were from a Limpkin (Aramus guarauna), a large water bird about the size of a Great Blue Heron.

In May of the same year, the Miami-Dade Fire Rescue Venom Response Unit discovered a Burmese python near a Guineafowl nest on a farm in Miami-Dade County. As the unit was transporting the snake off of the farm, the snake regurgitated a whole Guineafowl hen and ten eggs. Before these two incidents, scientists did not consider the Burmese python a threat to unhatched birds.

Snakes that eat hard-surfaced objects such as eggs (called egg-eaters) are rare, and egg-eating species have special bladelike elements on the spine, called hypapophyses, that can break the eggshell while in the esophagus. When scientists examined Burmese python organs, they discovered the pythons have hypapophyses. The discovery of the python’s ability to ingest bird eggs uncovers a new threat to bird species in the Everglades.

Want to help reduce the increase of the invasive snake population? The following list includes some ways that citizens can help stop the spread of invasive snakes or other exotic species often kept as pets:

• Before you buy any type of exotic animal, do your research first. Find out how big the animal will be as an adult, its feeding and exercise needs, etc.
• If you or someone you know can no longer care for an exotic pet, find someone who can or call your county’s wildlife division for advice on how to dispose of the animal. Do NOT set the animal free in the woods.
• Learn identify your state’s native snakes and tell them apart from exotics.
• Learn more about invasive species and download educational materials at http://www.nps.gov/ever/naturescience/floridainvaders.htm.

In the world of evaluation, there is a saying that ‘20% effort can provide 80% of the information needed’. Evaluation is a critical need in this ‘era of accountability’ and evaluation should be seen as a continuous process. In the winter edition of Southern Exchange Newsletter, you were introduced to the concept of Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels, namely, Reaction, Learning, Behavior and Results (impacts). This article will focus on the basics of Logic Model and demonstrate how it can be used to design and implement a continuous evaluation plan.

Logic Model is a concept made famous in the 1970s and it has been used successfully by managers in a variety of fields – from business to health and education programs. It has been modified by Dr. Ellen Taylor-Powell and her colleagues at the University of Wisconsin to fit Extension education programs. Fundamentally, the Logic Model is a visualization tool for program planners that allow depiction of relationships between INPUTS, OUTPUTS, and OUTCOMES (Figure 1.).

Figure 1. Depiction of A Logic Model and Evaluation Plan for IPM Programs

The Logic Model is very useful for Extension IPM programs that use existing university infrastructure for new projects. Logic Models can be simple one-page summary done in Microsoft Word or it can be a network of complex flowcharts developed with specialized software like DoView.  Although Logic Model appears to be linear process, it actually comprises of numerous internal linkages and feedback loops (Figure 1). Logic Model also lays emphasis on unique assumptions and the environment within which a program operates.

Note that the Logic Model provides equal importance on short-term (knowledge-changes) and medium-term outcomes (behavior-changes) without over-relying on long-term impacts alone as a measure of program success. Below are descriptions for each component of the Logic model and some statements about IPM evaluations.

SITUATION: There should be a documented evidence for need of an IPM program. Needs assessments are important for both baseline and reactive IPM programs since they provide ‘benchmark’ information to which future improvements can be compared.

INPUTS: These are the resources available for conducting an IPM program. Inputs include all human and capital resources (including grants), all equipment and technological components, and all external and internal partnerships that are utilized during program delivery. Listing of inputs is often the hardest part of the Logic model since many resources are shared and/or limited. Inputs should justify the outputs.

OUTPUTS: These are the deliverables of an Extension program. Outputs include all tangible and intangible objects such as publications, websites, social networks and interactions, number of Extension events and participants, etc. Program outputs should be carefully monitored and documented for reporting to stakeholders who are very likely to pay attention to those details. Program outputs should be distinguished from outcomes in progress reports.

OUTCOMES: These are the critical ‘changes’ that happen due to an IPM program implementation (Figure 1). Short-term outcomes include changes in knowledge, attitude, and skills that can be measured using pre/post-tests (using content from a curriculum), skills tests (e.g., insect identification, damage symptoms), and interviews (qualitative data). While pre/post-tests help quantify a short-term gain during an event, follow-up tests after a predetermined time-period can determine information retention and usefulness. Medium-term outcomes measure behavioral changes, e.g., changes in technology adoption, changes in production practices, etc. It is often easier to measure the adoption rates for new IPM recommendations than changes in entire crop production practices. Ask your audience specifically about IPM tactics they may have adopted after training, e.g., scouting for invasive insects, use of a new cell phone app, reduced use of insecticides, etc. These are your success outcome markers or indicators. You do not need to measure everything, but stick to your project objectives and select evaluation questions carefully.

Short- and medium-term evaluations can be done repeatedly over the life of an IPM program or project to generate information about long-term impacts. In many cases, on-going surveys provide more information about a successful IPM program than direct impact assessments that may undervalue behavioral changes and removal of barriers.  Survey instrument for various evaluations can be merged together for convenience, e.g., behavioral change surveys with needs assessment and event quality surveys (Extension projects). It is easy to document critical evaluation findings in an EXCEL spreadsheet with indicators on the X-axis and findings from various events on the Y-axis. Every IPM event should be evaluated using standardized instrument (yearly reviewed) to generate consistent information. Remember to provide ample time to the audience to respond to your questions. For further information, please consult an evaluation specialist at your institution or at the IPM center.

Bed bugs and ticks have a few similarities, but very few. They both are flat, wingless, bite people and feed on their blood. That’s where the similarity ends. I assure you: if you go to any reputable university web site and look at photos of bed bugs and ticks, you will have enough information to identify them.

Common bed bug, Source: Wikipedia

Bed bugs are members of the Insecta class, so they have six legs (as opposed to eight legs, as members of the Arachnida class have). They are tiny, rusty or deep red, and round in shape. They reproduce rapidly. They are usually found indoors. Although they are nicknamed “bed bugs” because they typically feed on people while they are sleeping, they can live in any type of furniture, including hard surfaced furniture such as a bed table or dresser.

Bed bugs are most typically found in the bed, between the mattress and the box spring. They feed at night, and although the bite feels like a tiny pin prick, most people are not aware of being bitten until after they’re awake. Bed bugs feed for 3 to 10 minutes and move to another place, so they can bite you several times in one night. They can live without feeding for over a year.

Bed bug infestations are much more common now because of increased travel and hotel stays. Although you’re most likely to encounter bed bugs in a hotel (any hotel, not just the cheap ones), you can be exposed to bed bugs in office buildings, restaurants, airports, and though used furniture or clothing.

In an earlier post, I gave detailed information about how to check for bed bugs, how to avoid transferring them to your home, and ways you can eradicate them if you do get an infestation. In that post, there are several links to Web resources that have reliable information about bed bugs, so we recommend that you start there if you think you have bed bugs.

Aside from their flat, rounded shape and blood-sucking behavior, ticks are vastly different from bed bugs. You will most often encounter them outside in the grass or other areas close to the ground. Unlike bed bugs, which do not transmit any serious human diseases, ticks transmit some serious human diseases including Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever and Lyme Disease. Ticks are from the Arachnida class, which has eight legs (that’s one easy way to tell the difference between bed bugs and ticks—bed bugs have six legs). They also hang onto the same bite site for days after their initial bite, unlike bed bugs, which feed for a short time and then move on. Ticks also typically feed on animals but will feed on humans if an animal isn’t available.

Brown dog tick, Source: Michigan State University

The most significant difference between bed bugs and ticks is that while you will typically see only one species of bed bug, you will find several species of ticks, all depending on where you live. The best resource on ticks in the South is at Texas AgriLife University, http://tickapp.tamu.edu/. The site is a downloadable phone “app,” so if you have an Android or Smart Phone, you can download the information in the site, helpful if you’re in the middle of the woods (assuming you are somewhere that has cell service) and you get bitten. Remember that ticks DO carry disease, so you will need to identify the tick and keep an eye on the bite for several days.

So in a nutshell, here are the differences between bed bugs and ticks:

• Bed bugs are insects (6 legs), while ticks are arachnids (like spiders) (adults have 8 legs)
• Bed bugs feed mainly on human blood but can bite animals, while ticks feed mainly on animal blood but will bite humans
• Bed bugs are usually found indoors, while ticks are usually outdoors, especially in grassy or wooded areas
• Bed bugs feed in several places on your body, mainly at night, while ticks attach to one spot and hang on for a few days until they are fully gorged
• Bed bugs do not carry diseases (but they can carry bacteria); ticks carry serious diseases, including Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever and Lyme Disease
• Most people see only one species of bed bugs (there are others, so they’re fairly easy to identify once you know what they look like. Ticks, on the other hand, have several species, so you need to know which kind of tick you’re dealing with, as each species carries different diseases.

Want to read a story about a tick’s life and find out how to prevent ticks from making a meal off of you? Go to stoppests.org and read Allie’s blog post.

When I started my job here in 2006, many of my friends would ask me about my new job. As I tried to explain where I was working, I could tell that they could understand the word “Center” but were still trying to wrap their heads around “integrated.” Now, almost six years later and several attempts at explanation, some of them still don’t quite understand what integrated pest management is.

So if you got to this blog while looking for something else, or you were just curious to see what IPM is, this post is for you. And, while you’re here, I’m going to try to touch on another question that I’m sure is burning in many people’s minds.

What does integrated pest management, or IPM, do for us?

By definition, IPM is a way of controlling pests by choosing pest control methods that work for that particular pest. In other words, if you have ants, you may choose to use baits to kill the colony, and then find the place where they’re entering and seal it so other ants can’t come in. Sometimes insects that feed on other insects—called predator insects—can help reduce pest insects that are feeding on your plants.

The first step in IPM is to be able to identify the insect, disease or weed that is the “pest.” One of the first rules of IPM is that not every insect is a pest insect. Spiders eat other insects. Bees pollinate flowers that become fruit. If you have insect predators on your property, they can help you reduce the amount of pesticides that you’ll need to use on your plants. Reducing the amount of pesticides you need will save you money, one of the things that IPM can do for you. IPM “integrates” different types of controls rather than relying on one control such as pesticides.

Let’s talk about “management.” You may be thinking, “why do you want to manage pests? I don’t like bugs at all. Why can’t I just get rid of them?” The simple answer is that you just can’t. No matter how many bottles of insect killer or weed killer you get, you are never going to completely annihilate every insect and every weed. Some insects are needed to keep others in check; if you get rid of them, the pest insects multiply rapidly. Weeds have seeds that are buried deep in the ground and eventually sprout. The exotic invasive weeds and insects such as hydrilla, emerald ash borer and hemlock woolly adelgid have taught us why beneficial insects are so important. Without natural controls, destructive insects have nothing to keep them from multiplying and defoliating everything in their path, and many of them have found ways to protect themselves from insecticide sprays.

Insecticide resistance is another reason why IPM is important. If you’ve ever known someone who used antibiotics every time that person was sick, you know that those antibiotics eventually stop working, and the person has to use a stronger antibiotic to get better the next time. Similarly, if you use one insecticide, fungicide or herbicide repeatedly, you will eventually notice that it doesn’t work as well as it used to. When you use different methods at various times, the pest doesn’t have the opportunity to build up immunity. For example, I switch between the different flea treatments I use on my dog, so I make sure that fleas don’t ever get used to one brand in particular. IPM allows you to manage pests for the long term.

Even though many of us can’t see how the produce at the grocery store is grown on the farm, farmers have to make daily decisions about pest management. The choices they make are much more complex than the choices that most homeowners have to make about their home or garden. One element that affects their choice about pest management is the price that they will get for their crop from the buyer. Many farmers use IPM because it’s the most cost-effective in the long run, and it keeps them from wasting pounds of pesticides when the pest or disease is not present. It also helps them figure out when to use pesticides to protect their crop from pests or diseases in their area. Many farmers have used IPM to significantly reduce the amount of chemicals they use on their crops, making both your food and the environment safer.

IPM is also practiced at many of our nation’s schools. Several states have laws requiring that parents be notified when insecticides will be applied to a school building, and schools with particularly strict IPM rules have staff that regularly monitor the building for cracks and openings where insects and other pests can enter, and close those openings. Kitchen staff make sure that counters and floors are clean so that ants and cockroaches are not attracted to the kitchen or dining areas. Reducing the number of pesticide applications in schools, while still keeping the school pest-free keeps children from getting sick from both chemicals and allergens brought in by pests.

So what does IPM do for you?

• It lowers your costs, both in your own home and garden and when you shop for products.
• It helps you keep pests away for the long-term, not just for a short while, because it reduces the chance for pesticide resistance.
• It reduces the amount of chemicals going into the environment and into your body.
• It keeps children from becoming sick from pesticide applications and from pest allergens

International Awards of Excellence

1. One of the major challenges with controlling fungal plant diseases is timing. If fungicides are applied too soon, they are wasted. If applied too late, they may not be able to contain the spread of the disease. To get the timing just right, observations from the field and weather data must be shared widely, in real time. The Soybean Rust PIPE project responded to that need in 2005 by setting up a platform for collaboration between governments, researchers, extension agents, and soybean grower organizations, as well as private groups representing the seed and chemical industry.

2. Cowpeas are rich in protein, and many small farming operations in West/Central Africa use it as a principle food grain, and Buchid weevils eat them in storage. Responding to annual losses in the millions, the Purdue Improved Cowpea Storage Team developed effective storage bags that stop the weevils cold. With support from the Gates Foundation and international colleagues, the new bags have improved food security and economic conditions for millions of cowpea farmers. Demonstrations have been held in 30,000 villages in 10 countries.

3. Dr. Alexandre Latchininsky responded to a grasshopper outbreak in Wyoming by creating a system called “Reduced Agent-Area Treatments.” It involves surveillance-driven chemical control in a pattern on the rangeland, where untreated swaths are left alone. In the untreated swaths, insects that eat grasshoppers are preserved, providing more population control. It’s a win-win strategy that reduces pesticide use by more than 50%. The word is spreading across the western United States, Asia and West Africa, where grasshoppers and locusts do the same kind of damage.

4. Over 10 years ago, the USDA established four Regional IPM Centers in the United States, in the west, the south, the northeast, and north central states. As a collaborative network, these Centers are being recognized for their groundbreaking work. They listen to growers, consumers, extension professionals, researchers, regulators, and industry groups to identify priority IPM challenges. Then they coordinate the same stakeholders as team members in finding and promoting solutions. “The Regional IPM Centers have demonstrated the capacity and commitment necessary to dramatically increase multistate, regional, and national collaborations,” said Herb Bolton, National Program Leader, USDA/NIFA.

5. When growers use advanced IPM practices for apple production, the benefits are good for society as a whole, but the risks and costs are borne by the growers alone. In 2005, “Eco Apple” was created to support local family-owned orchards, promote IPM techniques, and help them market their produce in a way that rewards their efforts. It also created consumer demand for sustainably produced apples, driving even more adoption of IPM practices. The innovative collaboration started as an IPM Apple Working Group, convened by Red Tomato, the IPM Institute of North America, researchers from UMass and Cornell, and some veteran apple growers.

6. Just north of Houston, Texas, the Spring Independent School District serves over 36,000 students on 40 campuses. In 2005, they made a decision to truly adopt a district-wide IPM program. According to C.G. Cezeaux, Director of Operations, “By adopting a verifiable IPM program, we have been able to reduce our pesticide applications by 50%, our program is 100% green, this includes our cleaning chemicals as well. Our pest complaints are down by 45% and our staff is much happier now.” They are valuable members of a new professional association for Texas school IPM coordinators, sharing their experience and spreading the word.

Lifetime Achievement Award

Walter Bentley began his long career as an IPM Entomologist with the University of California focusing on pest problems in almonds, grapes and stone fruit. Since that time, he has been committed to three major goals as part of the UC Statewide IPM Program, 1) Coordinate with others, 2) Do research that meets the needs, and 3) Develop relevant outreach. The results are impossible to deny. Working WITH a team, IPM approaches, and alternative control strategies were developed and demonstrated to successfully reduce use of the highest risk insecticides (carbamates and organophosphates) by 80-90% in almonds, table grapes, and tree fruit. This reduction helps the environment and the producers. Mr. Bentley believes that it’s people who make the program a success and it wouldn’t have been possible without constant communication, training, education, and information sharing throughout the state.

International Awards of Recognition

1. Dr. Thomas Green started his career as an entomologist working on IPM in the apple industry. For the past two decades, he has been a champion for IPM implementation in the marketplace, in agriculture, in schools, and in hospitals. “Dr. Green has four successful startups in IPM product supply, consulting, risk management and certification/standards development. He has created certification standards, performance evaluation tools and auditor training programs for IPM, animal welfare, soil and water conservation, and fair treatment of farm workers. These programs are now in use in more than forty crops as well as school systems and professional services,” according to Sherry Glick, a national expert in school IPM.

2. Mr. Ashraf Saber Alhawamdeh is a member of the National Center for Agricultural Research and Extension (NCARE) in Ghor el Safi in Jordan. Although IPM approaches in Jordan are not new, farmers still tend to overuse pesticides in tomato production. NCARE developed a training program for farmers in this region, engaging members of the media, students, teachers and environmental NGOs. According to Mr. Alhawamdeh, “Strengthening farmers’ knowledge on IPM and enhancing ownership and community coherence encouraged farmers in Ghor el Safi to change farming practices and protect the environment for generations to come.”

3. The Integrated Plant Protection Center (IPPC) at Oregon State University provides national and international leadership for research and extension in IPM. They have opened and maintained communication networks at the state, regional and global levels, using new technologies to support IPM implementation. They have also channeled resources to address research gaps, demonstrating a model for maintaining long-term IPM programs that are flexible enough to respond to emerging pest problems.

4. Sherry Glick has spent her career at the US EPA as a champion for IPM in schools and day care centers. The national school IPM workgroup, that now has over 200 members, was built with Ms. Glick’s instrumental cooperation and advocacy. Dr. Dawn Gouge, an urban entomologist at the University of Arizona stated, “Sherry Glick maintains school IPM at the forefront of EPA focus and a top priority for the Office of Pesticide Programs. Sherry is an inspirational leader, dedicated collaborator, and a determined children’s health advocate.”

http://www.ipmcenters.org/ipmsymposium12/

The opening plenary session begins at 8:30 AM on Tuesday in Ballroom B, MCCC.

Continental breakfast will be available starting at 7:00 AM in the Grand Lobby, MCCC.

Program:

Symposium App Available – Here is the direct link to the Android Marketplace (now called Google Play)

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=info.cipm.www&feature=search_result#?t=W251bGwsMSwyLDEsImluZm8uY2lwbS53d3ciXQ

Also, attached is the QR code image that you can scan with your smart device to get to the same install page.

We hope to have the Mac iOS app very soon.

Tuesday and Wednesday evening sessions – due to the number of sessions, several sessions have been scheduled for the evening – don’t miss them as you’re planning your schedule:

For those of you without a smart device, here is a link to the program: http://www.ipmcenters.org/ipmsymposium12/IPM12_program_final.pdf

This will be given to all attendees.

Here is a link to the abstract/proceedings book: http://www.ipmcenters.org/ipmsymposium12/IPM_12_Proceedings_final.pdf

Note that we will NOT be giving these out at the meeting this year.

As in the past, we will collect .pdf files of presentations for posting on the website after the symposium.  This is not required; it’s up to the presenters if they want to do this.

Extra activities:

Memphis Zoo and Agricenter International/Shelby Farms Park tours – Monday, March 26

Plan to meet in the Grand Lobby of MCCC to board the buses.

Rock ‘n’ Soul Museum Reception – Monday, March 26

5:00-8:00 PM – Self-guided tours of the Museum; Cash bar available

6:00-8:00 PM – Hors d’oeuvres served

Transportation is not included, the museum is about 12 blocks from MCCC.

Groups may meet in the Grand Lobby to walk/taxi/trolley together.

School IPM Round Table Discussion – Wednesday, March 28- 7:00–8:15AM at MCCC room L-2

All those interested in school IPM or currently working with IPM in K-12 schools are welcome to attend.  The agenda will include a brief update from national school IPM steering committee members, a break for breakfast, and an opportunity for participants to give updates and talk about current needs.

Posters can be set up beginning at 9:30 AM on Tuesday and should be in place by 5:00 PM on Tuesday.

Getting to the Hotel from the airport
The Memphis Marriott Downtown does not offer shuttle service from the airport. The hotel is 13 miles from the airport, usually about a 20-minute ride. 

Tennco Transportation offers online reservations at www.tenncoexpress.com. They are offering conference attendees a discounted round-trip fare of $25.00 (normal is $30.00). If you book online, the code is “X06H0″. Fare can be paid with credit card when reserved online. Advance reservations are recommended (so they know how many vans to have at the airport), but not required. Drivers can only accept payment in cash; you can give the driver the code also for the discount. 
Shuttles leave from the airport every 30 minutes; on the hour and half-hour.
Shuttles leave from the Marriott at the top of every hour. If you find you need to leave at a different time from your original reservation, that is acceptable.

The headquarters hotel is Memphis Marriott Downtown
250 North Main Street
Memphis, Tennessee 38103 USA
Phone: 1-901-527-7300
Fax: 1-901-214-3711
Toll-free: 1-888-557-8740

Sessions will take place at Memphis Cook Convention Center (across the street from the Marriott)

255 North Main St.

Memphis, TN 38103

Memphis tourist information will be sent in another email.

Weather – predicted high temperatures of 74-82°F.  While it’s raining now, the sun is supposed to shine for our arrival on Sunday and Monday.  There may be showers before we leave town.

Invasive species are second to habitat destruction as the leading cause for biodiversity loss. They cost millions of dollars to control and can cause millions of dollars in damage through crop loss or landscape destruction. Scientists use information about the source of the species to understand its habitat, find predators and predict its patterns of invasion. Several tools aid in locating a species’ source, all of which use spatial analysis to pinpoint an area that may be the species’ native habitat.

Geographic profiling is a spatial analysis tool typically used by police in serial crimes. Police use geoprofiling to narrow down suspects when the list of suspects is too large to be useful in identifying the criminal. Geoprofiling makes two assumptions: first, the probability of a crime decreases as the distance from the criminal’s home base increases (distance decay function), and second, criminals are less likely to commit crimes too near their homes, for fear of being caught (buffer zone). Criminalists use these two assumptions to narrow the search area for the criminal.

Although invasive species probably don’t rationalize their distance from their home base as a means to escape capture, some of the assumptions on movement used to locate criminals can also be used on invasive species, according to scientists at Queen Mary University of London. The team of scientists compared geoprofiling to common methods of locating the sources of invasive species and found that geoprofiling was usually more reliable than the other methods.

The team compared the model to other widely used ways to gather spatial statistics, including center of minimum distance, spatial mean and spatial median. Geographic profiling outperformed all of them in addition to a kernel density approach. Just as in detective work, geographic profiling proved most useful when the number of sources of invasion were numerous.

GP models were used on all types of invasive species, including insects, animals and plants. The team was able to apply the principles of distance decay function and buffer. That’s because offspring or seedlings have better chances to thrive further from the parent, where they would have to compete for water and other nourishment, but often don’t travel too far on their own, since the environment can change the further it is from the source. GP models don’t take human intervention into account, however, which is the way many invasive pests move, through the movement of firewood.

Although the authors recommend more practical research on using the method for finding invasive species sources, they say that it could lead to more efficient searches for sources of invasive species.

Source: Stevenson, M.D., Rossmo, D.K., Knell, R.J., and Le Comber, S.C. Geographic profiling as a novel spatial tool for targeting the control of invasive species. Ecography 35: 001-012, 2012.

Details of the funding line changes are explained in the document FY 2013 Budget Explanatory Notes for the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (pdf), which says the new program “will provide support for projects that respond to pest management challenges with coordinated region-wide and national research, education and extension programs, and serve as a catalyst for promoting further development and use of IPM approaches. The program will also foster regional and national team building efforts, communication networks, and enhanced stakeholder participation” (p. 17-81).

The Crop Protection Program would replace several programmatic lines, including:

• Expert Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Decision Support System
• IPM & Biological Control
• Minor Crop Pest Management IR-4
• Pest Management Alternatives Program
• Smith-lever 3(d) Pest Management (State IPM Coordinators)
• Regional IPM Centers

Listening Sessions Schedule

IPM stakeholders—especially those who receive funding directly or indirectly from NIFA—should be aware of these proposed changes and weigh in on plans for the future. NIFA will hold a series of listening sessions to gather stakeholder input on how the new Crop Protection line item should be implemented (official announcements of these sessions will be published in the Federal Register):

• March 29, 2012 (2:00-5:00pm CT) at the conclusion of the 7th International IPM Symposium in Memphis, TN.
• April 11 (via web and conference call)
• April 16 (Washington, DC at the Waterfront Center, NIFA offices)
• May 1, 2012 (via web and conference call).

Please feel free to contact the Southern Region IPM Center if you’d like to share questions or feedback with us, or make plans to discuss how these changes might affect IPM in our region.

Overview of the Crop Protection Program

Key information about the Crop Protection Program is excerpted here (from pp. 17-81 and 17-82 of NIFA’s FY 2013 Budget Explanatory Notes):

The consolidated IPM program will provide support in five areas:

Plant Protection Tactics and Tools. This program area will support the development and introduction of new pest management tactics into agricultural production systems. In some cases, the program will develop new tactics that provide the breakthrough needed to fundamentally change a pest management system, resulting in greater profitability and smaller environmental and health risks. In other cases, the program will support the introduction of a new replacement tactic when a critical tactic is no longer available due to development of pest resistance, regulatory action or marketing decisions of manufacturers. The loss of a key management tactic can have devastating impacts on productivity, product quality and profitability. Examples include the impending loss of methyl bromide, the loss of effectiveness of glyphosate due to the development of resistant weed populations, and the endocrine disruptor issue associated with atrazine in runoff.

Diversified IPM Systems. Diversified IPM systems represent the long-term sustainable solution to many pest management problems. This program will support long-term projects focused on the development and implementation of innovative IPM systems on an area or landscape basis. The outcomes associated with IPM systems projects will be reduced reliance on single pest management tactics, the reduction of potential risks to human health and the environment caused by pests or the use of pest management practices, and increased economic benefits of adopting IPM practices. IPM systems projects will typically be multi-state or regional in scale and will involve multiple managed ecosystems with emphasis on enhanced stability and sustainability of IPM systems. The projects supported will be broad and systems-oriented efforts, with involvement of relevant disciplinary and subject matter experts in plant and animal sciences, water quality, food safety, and other relevant areas.

Enhancing Agricultural Biosecurity. This program area will support the development and maintenance of key information systems, networks, and decision support tools that provide the knowledge infrastructure needed for early detection and the application of science-based IPM systems for invasive, emerging and high-consequence pests that threaten U.S. agriculture. The program will support formal and informal education/training programs, and the development of pest management data and information needed by pest managers, regulatory agencies and policy makers to improve their ability to respond appropriately to endemic and exotic pests and diseases.

IPM for a Sustainable Society. Much of the IPM knowledge and expertise developed for agricultural systems has direct application in non-traditional settings. As IPM becomes more relevant in the areas that are fringe to agricultural crop production, much of what is learned can be applied to less traditional areas of food and quality of life on the rural-urban interface. For example IPM discoveries can be applied to urban pests (including Asian Long-horned Beetle, Emerald Ash Borer, and Laurel Wilt) and in community gardens. In addition, knowledge gained from IPM can be applied to pests/pesticides within living spaces in schools and homes.

Development of the Next Generation of IPM Scientists. This program area will support education programs needed to prepare the next generation of IPM scientists. Education efforts will focus on the training of interdisciplinary IPM scientists and IPM discipline experts such as new age systematists who are able to link to traditional methods. Support also will be provided for curriculum development, including web-based courses.

Additional information about the proposed budget is available at USDA’s website.