For the 2010-2011 budget year we were allocated $500,000 for Agricultural IPM and, most unfortunately, $0 for Community IPM. This represents about a third of our state allocation in recent years. When this is combined with our federal USDA IPM funding, we have approximately $700,000 that can be used for IPM. Therefore, we have funding for approximately only half of the IPM programming that we did in 2009. Obviously this will have most significant impacts on both our staffing and programming for the coming year.

Why is this news of a northeastern state important to us in the South? It’s not because of my personal ties there. It is because the NY IPM program is very much like those in North Carolina, Virginia, Texas, Florida and the rest of the Southern states: hanging on by a fingernail, and now starting to slip. The NY IPM program was one of the best not only at supporting IPM research and developing Extension IPM programs, but also at documenting the positive impacts on the state’s economy, environment, and human health.

Cutting effective programs during a time of austerity may be unavoidable. It’s still a shame.

Most of us—whether homeowner or building maintenance professional—will need to hire a pest control contractor at least once in our lives. If you’re a homeowner, you may need annual termite inspections. If you’re a maintenance professional for a school or office building, you need a contractor for monthly inspections and periodic control measures. With so many pest professionals to choose from, how can you evaluate whether a company is using Integrated Pest Management (IPM)?  Below are some questions to ask your contractor.

QUALIFICATIONS

• Is the contractor licensed?
• Is the contractor experienced in IPM?

SITE ASSESSMENT (INSPECTION)

• Has the contractor toured the campus with you to see where improvements are needed?
• Is the contractor doing inspections on a regular basis (e.g., monthly) to keep on top of changing conditions?

PROBLEM ASSESSMENT (DAMAGE)

• Does the contractor perform a thorough assessment of each pest problem?
• Is the contractor knowledgeable about the damage from each type of pest?
• Can the contractor distinguish mammal pests from the types of holes?

PEST I.D.

• Does the contractor know the species of each insect?
• Does the contractor know the biology of the pests?
• Does the contractor know the type of weeds?
• Does the contractor know what conditions the weeds are indicators of (e.g poor irrigation, poor drainage, poor nutrients, etc.).

MONITORING

• Does the contractor use scouting or inspection procedures to monitor population levels at least monthly? (for schools) Or recommend areas to check in the home at least monthly for pests?
• Does the contractor use monitoring traps for insects and rodents?
• Does the contractor place mouse and rat traps correctly?
• Are the monitoring traps still sticky?
• Are traps placed where they should be?
• (For schools) Monitoring records should be kept on school district property for each building or site specified in the contract. Review these records periodically.

INJURY LEVEL

• Does the contractor have a way of determining when control is warranted, and how much control is enough?
• What is the goal? Eradication or management? (for some pests, the goal should be eradication; for others, you want to keep a small number to maintain a predator population)

ALTERNATIVES/ACTION

• What does the contractor recommend in terms of prevention: sealing cracks and holes, or routine preventative spray treatments?
• (For homeowners) Does the contractor suggest ways you can manage minor pest populations on your own?
• Does the contractor minimize the use of and potential exposure to pesticides wherever possible (e.g. use of non-pesticide treatments, reduced risk pesticides treatments, etc.)?

For more on reducing pests through IPM in homes and buildings, see The Southern Region School IPM Working Group eXtension website.

Ron, I’m on Rt. 85, just crossed the Carolina line. Where do I turn?

Head south on Rt. 1 at Henderson

Oops, we passed that 10 minutes ago.

(later) No worries. Take Rt. 15 at Oxford.

Dang, I can see that exit…in the rear view mirror. Now what?

(no signal).

Well, finally we reached the intersection with Rt. 40, miles west of Durham, and backtracked east along 40 to our destination in Apex.

What’s the point, you ask? Just this: sometimes you don’t take the most direct route, but you still get where you’re going. I hope that’s the case with public funding for IPM programs that until now have been supported through the section 406 line within USDA’s NIFA budget.

Last night the Senate Appropriations Committee approved this year’s mark up for the FY 2012 budget. Like the House Ag Approps subcommittee, they did not restore funding for CAR, RAMP or Regional IPM Centers. So we’ve missed three turns so far (President’s budget, House Ag Approps, Senate Approps). That doesn’t mean we’re lost yet. I hope.

image provided by Bugwood.org

Ah, summer! Vacations have started, pools are already crowded and the mosquitoes are biting. The intense heat that has plagued the east coast seems to have made this year’s mosquitoes more plentiful and vicious. For anyone who wants to know how to reduce the number of mosquitoes in his or her yard (although it’s virtually impossible), the Web has hundreds of suggestions on mosquitoes control. If you’re in the South, go to the list at the bottom of the page to find a fact sheet on mosquitoes for your state.

For the most part, the following advice can help reduce mosquito populations and your probability of being bitten:

• Eradicate standing water or treat low-lying areas that can’t be corrected
• Wear repellant outside
• Repair cracks and openings on the house to keep mosquitoes from coming in
• Keep brush clipped short

In the United States, mosquitoes are a nuisance, but in many parts of the world, they deliver a death sentence to their victims. Because mosquitoes pose a severe threat to human health, scientists throughout the world are trying to find ways of reducing mosquito populations, especially those that transmit diseases.

One such study was conducted by scientists in Texas. The study, completed in 2002, focused on finding a way to keep the mosquito species Culex quinquefaciatus, the Southern house mosquito, from developing resistance to the two insecticides labeled for its control. Researchers found that alternating the insecticides after a certain percentage of the mosquitoes became resistant to one of them helped maintain a major population of susceptible mosquitoes.

Yale University scientists are studying olfactory receptors in the malaria-transmitting species Anopheles gamblae to find out how it uses scent to sniff out its next meal. Scientists hope that the results will help them develop more effective repellants and traps.

Researchers at Wageningen University in the Netherlands and in South Africa are experimenting with the fungus Beauveria bassiana to control populations of insecticide-resistant mosquitoes, especially those that transmit malaria. This entomopathogen enters insects upon contact and spreads through the body, killing them within days. Researchers found that B. bassiana kills mosquitoes that are resistant to DDT or permethrin. Although DDT is banned from use in the United States, permethrin is one of the primary insecticides used to control several species of mosquitoes.

Several scientists are exploring the Sterile Insect Technique, releasing sexually sterile male insects to reduce pest populations. Scientists in Jerusalem, California, North Carolina and Pennsylvania have been analyzing how genetically modified mosquitoes might reduce mosquito populations and debating the ecological and ethical ramifications of using this tactic.

Finally, scientists at the University of Florida have been studying how copepods control mosquito larvae. A budding scientist in the family may be interested this factsheet, which contains instructions on how to collect and maintain a copepod population to control mosquitoes at home, right in your own kiddie pool.

If the major native mosquito species in the U.S. weren’t enough of a nuisance, the Asian tiger mosquito (Aedes albopictus) is an exotic species that is even more aggressive. They breed in used tires (in fact, that’s how they got to this country), and they hover close to the ground, biting feet and ankles before you even know they’re there. In its natural habitat Ae. albopictus is a vector of a number of viruses including dengue fever and eastern equine encephalitis. However, there is no evidence that this mosquito is a public health threat in the United States.

Resources in southern states on mosquitoes:

Alabama: Mosquitoes In and Around the Home

Florida: Mosquito IPM

Georgia: Organizing, Operating and Maintaining an Integrated Community-Wide or County-Wide Mosquito Control Program

Kentucky: Mosquitoes: Practical Advice for Homeowners

Louisiana: Taking the Bite Out of Mosquitoes

Mississippi: Mosquitoes in Mississippi

North Carolina: Mosquitoes

Oklahoma: Mosquitoes & WNV

South Carolina: Asian Tiger Mosquito

Tennessee: Mosquito Control Around Homes

Texas: Mosquito Safari

Virginia: Mosquitoes

Unfortunately, funding was not restored for three other 406 programs: Regional IPM Centers, Crops at Risk from FQPA Implementation, and FQPA Risk Mitigation Program for Major Food Crops. We are hopeful that the Senate will restore funding for these programs as well as those restored by the House.

Other programs funded through section 406 – Food Safety, Water Quality, and Methyl Bromide Alternatives – were restored in this mark-up. The report does stress “that the results reported in this report are tentative and subject to change when and if the Agriculture Appropriations bill is marked up by the House Appropriations Committee and debated on the House floor.”

So, how many strikes before we’re out? Maybe more than three. Other “pitches” that IPM might score a hit on:

• the Senate Ag Appropriations mark-up
• Appropriations Committee mark-ups for either chamber (is it likely that either would make a decision that its own subcommittee passed on?)
• floor debate in either chamber (see previous comment)
• deliberations of the conference committee to reconcile bills across both chambers

If neither chamber restores 406 IPM funding, the fate of CAR, RAMP and Regional IPM Centers probably rests with decisions at USDA-NIFA whether to make a place for the functions these programs serve within next year’s AFRI (Agriculture and Food Research Initiative) program. USDA has sent some signals that this might happen, but no assurances.

“Bt” is a natural insecticide produced by the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis that works by creating pores within an insect’s gut (see this link for more detail on how Bt kills insects).

In its biological form, Bt is sprayed on crops and can be used in organic agriculture. Bt interacts with special proteins carried only by certain insects. Because people do not have the same proteins, Bt is harmless to people. In fact, different strains of Bt are needed for each insect species; what kills one species will not kill another.

Bt was discovered in 1901 by Japanese biologist Shigetane Ishiwatari, who was searching for the cause of dead of large populations of silkworms. Later, in 1911, German scientist Ernst Berliner isolated the same bacteria, which was killing Mediterranean flour moths, in Thuringia, Germany, giving it the name, Bacillus thuringiensis. German growers began using Bt as a pesticide in 1920, in a product named Sporine. Only a few growers used Bt at the time, since synthetic pesticides were still very effective and cheaper.

US growers began using Bt as a pesticide in 1958, and by 1961, EPA registered Bt as a pesticide. Bt was still used primarily by organic growers, but scientists discovered several strains of Bt, each with a toxin unique to a specific species. In the 1980s, as pests began developing resistance to synthetic pesticides, and environmentalists found that the chemicals had negative environmental impacts, more growers began to use Bt. By the mid-1990s, scientists had found a way to insert the Bt gene into corn.

In the South, cotton growers waged a constant battle against the boll weevil and bollworm. Some growers began spraying with Bt as part of an integrated pest management system to rotate away from chemistries that were no longer working. When Bt cotton hit the market in 1996, cotton growers thought they had their secret weapon.

EPA set guidelines around planting Bt crops, in order to prevent future Bt resistance. Growers were required to plant non-Bt crops in “refuge” fields near the Bt fields, ensuring that insects beginning to develop resistant genes to Bt would mate with Bt-susceptible insects in the refuge fields. The concept worked as long as the resistant genes in an insect species were recessive.

For at least a decade, growers reaped several benefits from planting Bt crops. Yield increased because the toxin killed the pests that typically fed on the crops. Because Bt was so effective at killing major pests, growers sprayed fewer of the synthetic pesticides, benefiting both the environment and their profits. Biotechnology organizations that produced Bt crops advertised the crops as “environmentally-friendly.”

However, during this time, environmental groups began to voice concerns about the widespread use of Bt and its ultimate safety. These groups argued that the products were not as environmentally friendly as biotech companies promoted. A 1999 Cornell laboratory study showed that milkweed leaves dusted with pollen from Bt-corn increased mortality of the monarch butterfly. Because the study started a public outcry against the use of Bt crops, other scientists questioned the validity of the data, collected from laboratory specimens of monarch butterfly who were force-fed large amounts of Bt in closed containers. In 2004, USDA Agricultural Research Study scientists discovered that in the field, levels of the Bt toxin from corn pollen on milkweed leaves was too low to be fatal to monarchs – thereby officially debunking the Cornell study. One exception was the pollen of Bt 176-corn, which ARS scientists discovered expressed high enough amounts of the toxic protein to kill butterflies. As a result of the ARS study, the EPA did not re-register Bt 176-corn.

Controversy over Bt-engineered crops, as with other genetically-modified crops, has continued to rage. Advocates of Bt crops cite advantages of reduced synthetic pesticides and reductions in crop losses. A University of Arizona entomologist, Bruce Tabashnik, claimed in 2005 that resistance to Bt-cotton seemed to be decreasing, according to his studies. In 2007, Tabashnik joined a research team in Mexico working on a designer toxin that could kill Bt-resistant insects.

As the number of acres of both Bt-corn and Bt-cotton increased, and some growers began cutting corners on refuge acreage, several Extension entomologists predicted the inevitable: growers would soon see the day when resistance would creep into the Lepidoptera pest pool. Some growers relied exclusively on Bt-crops to manage pests, while others added insecticides to try to increase yields even more.

They were right. Bt-resistant populations of Helicoverpa zea, the cotton bollworm, were detected in over a dozen fields in Mississippi and Arkansas between 2003 and 2006. In a peer-reviewed article published in the Journal of Economic Entomology in 2009, Tabashnik stated that bollworm resistance to Bt was present in southern states and seemed to be increasing.

Unfortunately for growers of Bt crops, H. zea defied the characteristic trait needed to keep resistance from occurring: the resistance gene for H. zea is dominant, not recessive.

So far, H. zea seems to be the only insect species to have developed resistance to Bt-cotton. Cotton growers continue to rely on Bt crops, and critics continue posing questions about the wisdom of relying on one form of pest management. Somewhere in the middle is an integrated pest management answer to this debate.

If you’re not familiar with the Regional IPM Centers and their function, the article provides a short background. For more information about the Southern Region IPM Center and what we have done for the region, go to www.sripmc.org.

Older posts on this topic include:

What SRIPMC Means to Our Stakeholders (May 17, 2010)

IPM Centers a No-Show in President’s Budget (February 6, 2010)

A Texas homeowner talks about why she put a bat house on her property in this NBC video.

Bats are currently being killed by a new disease known as white nose syndrome. To find out more about this disease, read this article in Science Daily.

No. Yet grass—whether in a residential neighborhood or in the expanse of a golf course—have been criticized as “high maintenance.” Many homeowners irrigate their lawns almost daily and often exceed recommended rates of fertilizer and pesticides. Since golf courses need to meet the PGA’s strict requirements for turf quality, they typically receive higher doses of fertilizer and pesticides and are irrigated frequently during the summer months.

However, several golf course superintendents are discovering that integrated pest management, or IPM, not only reduces the amount of water and chemicals that need to be added to the turf, but it can also result in healthier turf. San Francisco’s Harding Park and North Carolina State University’s Lonnie Poole golf courses are two environmentally-friendly golf courses that have met the strict requirements of the PGA without the high inputs of chemicals.

When properly maintained, turf benefits water quality because it acts as a filter for silt, excess nutrients, and other contaminants. Superintendents at the Harding Park and NC State’s Lonnie Poole Golf Course, as well as homeowners who maintain their lawns through use of IPM, recommend the following practices for a safe and healthy, low-maintenance lawn:

• Test your soil. Soil tests, available for little or no cost in most states, can predict possible problems a homeowner may face. Most soil tests indicate the balance of nutrients available in the soil, and recommend ways to correct soil that is improperly balanced. Balancing the soil before planting will reduce the amount of fertilizer required to keep the grass healthy later.
• Scout frequently. Many landscape specialists tell homeowners to “walk the property” several times a week. Check for brown spots or holes, indicating possible soil pests, and keep an eye on those spots. Standing water or soggy areas can invite disease and insect problems. Pull or mow weeds before they become numerous. Treating problems while they are small saves time and money.
• Timing is everything. How many of us have seen sprinklers at an office park watering the grass during a rain shower? Overwatering weakens the roots, making grass more vulnerable to abiotic stresses (drought, heat, etc.) as well as biotic ones (diseases, insects, etc.). Water only during dry periods, watering “deeper” only once a week. “Some golf courses have water sensors to tell you when to water,” says Dr. Danesha Seth Carley, turfgrass physiologist at NC State University. “This technology is coming to homeowners as well!” The Clemson University Extension website has tips on how to tell when to water the lawn and how long to run the sprinklers.
• Conserve the fertilizer. Fertilizing a warm-season lawn in October wastes fertilizer and money, since grass is preparing to go into its dormant season. Instead of applying a generous amount of fertilizer on the lawn twice a year, fertilize based on the results of a soil test and depending on the type of grass. Check your state Extension website for recommendations on fertilizing in your state. Also, be very careful to keep the fertilizer on your lawn and not on impervious surfaces – sidewalks and driveways – where it may run-off into storm drains becoming a potential pollutant.
• Practice good mowing techniques. Cut only the top one-third of the grass, and during dry periods, mow less often. Unless you live in a wet area, leave the grass clippings on the ground to provide mulch for the soil. During dry periods, frequent mowing can stress the grass and leave it vulnerable to pests and die-back.

Resources on Lawn Care:

TurfFiles (North Carolina State University): This site contains information on native grasses, lawn care issues and more for North Carolina and surrounding states.

Solutions for Your Life: Groundcovers and Lawngrasses (University of Florida): This site offers information on variety selection and lawn establishment and maintenance in Florida’s unique environment.

AggieTurf (Texas A&M University): This site contains grass and weed identification sections, an automated fertilizer rate calculator, control recommendations for insects, diseases and weeds, and volumes of other information about the care and maintenance of turf.