Evaluation of Integrated Pest Management Training: Targeting Minority and Disadvantaged Blueberry Growers in Michigan January 25 Murari Suvedi, Asc. Professor John Wise, Asst. Professor Michigan State University Introduction The Michigan, Ohio, Indiana blueberry growing area is the top blueberry-producing region in the nation. Blueberry production is one of the few farming enterprises in which independent farmers can find seasonably dependable and profitable markets. Even so, current market and regulatory forces are threatening the successful transition of this important agriculture industry from conventional to more environmentally friendly production practices. For minority and disadvantaged blueberry growers this transition will be even more difficult. Compared to the big commercial blueberry operations (largely Caucasian owned) in the region, Latino and African-American farmers do not have the cash capital to hire professional pest scouting services. Rather, they need to learn to scout their own farms. Unfortunately, the primary sources of information for learning about pest scouting and Integrated Pest Management (IPM), like University extension programs, do not effectively target small minority farmers. Both in terms of program advertising and the content of materials (reading level, etc.), extension programs overwhelming target the large, commercial well-educated grower audiences. Without help, it will be very difficult for disadvantaged blueberry growers to make the impending transition and maintain the necessary product quality to meet the market demands. Based on a one-year Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) grant Michigan State University Extension and the MSU Trevor Nichols Research Complex developed a comprehensive pilot IPM scout training program targeting minority (Hispano/Latino) and other disadvantaged small fruit growers to provide critical risk management tool for the blueberry industry. The objectives of this pilot program were to: 1 To enhance risk-management skills of disadvantaged blueberry growers through the enhancement of IPM application. 2 To integrate disadvantaged blueberry producers and workers into the mainstream agriculture community through improved access to risk-management information. The pilot program included a bilingual technical curriculum alongside a capstone crosscultural framework program that included cross-cultural education and leadership training. This program uniquely combined laboratory and field training elements. In 23 this pilot program attracted a total of 22 trainees, 6 Hispanic/Latinos and 16 Caucasians. 1
Approach and Methods The IPM training program was designed as hands-on workshops conducted at the MSU Trevor Nichols Research Complex in the new IPM Training Center located in Fennville, MI. This facility is in close proximity to the major blueberry-growing region at the state of Michigan. The program was designed with layers of increasing depth, so that commodity specific components can be interchanged with new specialty areas as sessions are completed. The classroom component, for example, includes a series of sessions focused on the basic principles of IPM (i.e., IPM theory, pesticide safety, horticultural basics, entomology, plant pathology, weeds, scouting methods, record keeping, and basic business principles), followed by more indepth topics specific to blueberry IPM (i.e., monitoring and management of blueberry insects and diseases, etc.). The curriculum was developed to match the background and educational level of the target audience. In addition, it included a social reference frame as a capstone program designed to provide the trainees with the leadership and social skills necessary to succeed. The handson workshops provide intensive training during the field season to learn pest identification, measuring impact of beneficial organisms, and the proper use of pest monitoring tools and techniques. This included laboratory time where participants use teaching microscopes to further study pest stages and their identification. Each training session consisted of both a technical and a Cross-Cultural component. The capstone curriculum included subjects such as leadership skills, bookkeeping, tax education, immigration issues, and cross-cultural education. Units were taught in English with help sessions in Spanish, using bilingual material designed explicitly for this audience. Training sessions were five hours long with 1-minute coffee breaks and a one-hour lunch break. Participants received a "scout tool kit" for use in blueberry fields, including: a hand lens on a lanyard, a pocket knife, MSU Extension publications E-154 "Fruit Spraying Calendar", Blueberry IPM Scouting Fact sheets, NRAES-55 Highbush Blueberry Production Guide, Weed ID bulletins, a Pesticide Applicators Core Manual, and other pertinent materials. Certificates were presented to participants who completed the classroom training. Mentoring was offered to participants. It provided an opportunity to undergo farmer-tofarmer training, with experienced blueberry growers in the region. Mentors served as guide, advisor, coach, motivator, facilitator and role model within the context of applying IPM techniques and reducing farming risk. Mentors were be recruited from farmers and previouslytrained IPM scouts, based on their farming skill and ability to communicate. A group of 22 trainees were recruited for this training program. Lecture-based training began in January 24. IPM Field and lab-based training along with cross-cultural education began in April and continued through August 24. The IPM training graduation ceremony was held in September 24. In November 24, the program was evaluated for immediate impact assessment using a mail survey (see Appendix A). Evaluation questionnaires were mailed to all participants who completed the training in November 24. As of December 15 th, 11 completed 2
questionnaires were received. Data were coded and entered into a Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) program and analyzed using descriptive statistics. Major findings are summarized in the following sections. Who responded to this evaluation? Major Findings As indicated earlier, 23 pilot program attracted a total of 22 trainees, 6 Hispanic/Latinos and 16 Caucasians. Evaluation form in the form of a survey was mailed to all participants. As of December 24, 11 completed and returned the survey, i.e., 5 percent response rate. Analysis showed that five out of 11 were Caucasian and four were Hispanic or Latino. Similarly, five out of 11 indicated that they were both grower and manager; 2 were growers; 2 were laborers and one indicated as other Respondents indicated owning, managing or scouting blueberry farms. On an average, each respondent looked after about 8 acres of blueberries. Participants came from several Michigan counties. Respondents to this evaluation came from Allegan (2 participants), Berry (1 participant), Ottawa (3 participants). Van Buren (4 participants), and Other (1 participant). Did participants follow IMP scouting practice? Before participating in training, nine out of eleven respondents indicated that they did not scout their own blueberries, while two respondents indicated that they had. When asked, If you are a grower, did you scout your fields on your own? Three responded that they had scouted their fields on their own. Of the three respondents, two had specified how long they had been scouting on their own; one responded with 14 years, while the other for 25 years. Five of the respondents said that an outside person had been paid to scout their fields mainly for insects and diseases, but did not specify how much this other person was paid. When asked what the scouts they hired were used for, whether they were scouting for insects, diseases, nutrients in soil, weeds, or yield estimates. Nearly two-thirds of respondents indicated that scouts that were hired were paid to scout for insects and diseases. Six participants responded to the question, If you are a farm worker, did you scout for your employer? Only one respondent indicated yes. It should be noted that only two respondents indicated that they were farm workers indicating that one farm worker had scouted for his/her employer, while the other had not. Participants were asked if they had scouted for other farmers or growers. Nine out of 11 participants indicated that they had not. 3
Were the IPM scouting services and resources accessible to growers? Before this training in Blueberry IPM Scouting, four respondents indicated that it was difficult to access government and/or Michigan State University Extension programs or resources, while five respondents indicated that it was not. Ten respondents felt more confident in obtaining access to government and extension resources and programs, whereas one does not. All eleven respondents felt more confident in their scouting abilities. Although all respondents indicated that they had more confidence in their scouting abilities, one indicated that he needs more training on the subject. Six out of 11 respondents indicated that their learning experience in the 24 Blueberry IPM Scout Training Program resulted in reduced pest management costs. The range of savings for pest management was between $1. and $8. per acre with a mean of $5. per acre. Five out of 11 participants indicated that the training resulted in higher blueberry crop yields. Two participants estimated that their crop yields increased approximately 1%, while one indicated an estimated yield increase of 15% and one indicated a 25% yield increase. Eight out of 11 respondents indicated that their income had increased after IPM Scout Training; three respondents indicated a 5% increase, while three others indicated a 25% increase. Two respondents indicated a 15% and 5% increase, respectively. One respondent indicated a 15% increase in scouting acreage, and two respondents indicated an increase in scouting acreage of 5% or more. Of the six respondents that indicated a yield increase, two reported a 5% increase, and two reported a 15% percent increase. One respondent indicated that the yield for the crops they had scouted increased 25%, and one indicated that crop yields had increased 5% or more (see Table 1). Findings in Table 1 show that most respondents had a fairly good level of comfort level on various aspects of cross-cultural education topics at the beginning of the training. One of the exceptions was the understanding of immigrations and labor regulations in Michigan. There were also low comfort levels in the topics of understanding crop insurance and using IPM Scout training manuals to aid production problems. After training, the level of comfort in these topics had increased to at least 75% respondents. What types of IPM practices are adopted by the participants? Participants were given a list of possible IPM practices for blueberry crop and they were asked to indicate which of the practice they have adopted as a result of this training. Findings are summarized in Table 2. As shown in Table 2, several participants indicated that they have been practicing most of the IPM practices before they participated in this training. Almost one third of the participants indicated that they have adopted or were considering adopting the following IPM practices as a result of their participation in this training program: 4
Insecticide applications made by targeting a pest s life stage, and with consideration for biological control agents. Insect and mite management with the use of improved monitoring tools, and use of local weather data to calculate degree days for predicting critical life stages. Fields monitored for weeds regularly. Herbicide application by targeting weed stage, and with consideration for resistance. Plant nutrient assessment with appropriate foliar analysis. Overall, participants indicated significant behavioral changes after the training. They felt that the training has been very useful for their blueberry enterprise. Table 1. Perceived impact of blueberry IPM scout training on cross cultural education Cross Cultural Education Before Training After Training I was I was not I am more I am not a. Are you interacting with Latinos or African American farmers/farm workers in your business b. Are you interacting with Caucasian farmers in your business? c. Do you feel working with farm owners/workers with different cultural backgrounds? d. Are you taking a leadership role among farm workers you previously worked with? e. Are you working with/confident in your understanding of immigration/labor regulations in this state? f. Are you with/confident of your understanding of book keeping and tax preparation? g. Are you with/confident of you understanding of crop insurance? h. Are you using the IPM Scout Training manuals to aid production problems and decision making? Frequency (%) 1 (1%) 1 (1%) 1 (1%) 9 (9%) 5 (62.5%) 7 (77.8%) 4 (5%) 5 (62.5%) Frequency Frequency (%) (%) 9 (1%) 9 (1%) 9 (1%) 1 (1%) 3 (37.5%) 2 (22.2%) 4 (5%) 3 (37.5%) 9 (1%) 8 (88.9%) 7 (87.5%) 8 (72.7%) 9 (1%) Frequency (%) 1 (11.1%) 1 (12.5%) 3 (27.3%) 5
Table 2. Adoption of blueberry IPM practices by respondents Blueberry IPM Practices Adoption of Practices A. Soil and Nutrient Management a. Plant nutrition assessment with appropriate: Foliar Analysis Soil Analysis Practicing prior to training Frequency (%) Began practice this year Frequency (%) Intend to practice in the future Frequency (%) No plans to adopt Frequency (%) 4 (5%) 5 (55.6%) 1 (12.5%) 2 (25%) 1 (12.5%) b. Fertilizers applied by split application 6 (66.7%) c. Fields monitored for weeds regularly 6 (66.7%) d. Herbicide applications are made: On a calendar basis Targeting weed stage With consideration for resistance 3 (27.3%) 4 (44.4%) 5 (55.6%) 3 (33.3%) e. Bushes are pruned regularly 8 (88.9%) B. Pesticides, Application Equip and Record Keeping a. Pesticide labels carefully reviewed for target pests application, and timing 7 (77.8%) b. Pesticide application equipment calibrated at start of 8 (88.9%) season c. Records of pesticide apps/crop stages maintained 8 (88.9%) d. Weather/atmospheric conditions considered before 6 (66.7%) spraying to ensure pesticide hits target area C. Disease Management a. Fields monitored for disease symptoms on a regular basis, and records maintained 7 (77.8%) b. If unidentified disease infections found, help is 8 (8%) 1 (1%) 1 (1%) sought from professionals and/or labs c. Sanitation practices are used 8 (88.9%) d. Fungicide, bactericide applications are made On a calendar basis Based on crop stage and weather conditions With consideration for resistance 4 (44.4%) 8 (88.9%) 7 (77.8%) 4 (44.4%) 4 (44.4%) 6
D. Insect and Mite Management a. Fields are monitored for pests on a regular basis 6 (66.7%) and records maintained b. Visual monitoring for pests is used for pest 7 (77.8%) management and decision making c. Improved monitoring tools are used 4 (44.4%) 3 (33.3%) d. Local weather data are used to calculate degree 4 (44.4%) 3 (33.3%) days for predicting critical life stages e. Fruit and foliage injury after application is monitored to determine effectiveness of management decisions 7 (77.8%) f. Cultural methods are used for insect management For Cultivation (rotivation) For Cover crops g. Insecticide, miticide, applications are made: On a calendar basis Targeting a pests life stage With consideration for biological control agents With consideration for resistance management 8 (88.9%) 6 (66.7%) 3 (33.3%) 4 (44.4%) 3 (33.3%) 6 (66.7%) 5 (55.6%) 6 (66.7%) 3 (33.3%) 4 (44.4%) 7
Appendix A Evaluation of Blueberry Intergrated Pest Management (IPM) Scout Training 24 Cover Letter Dear Blueberry IPM Scout Training Participants, You are being asked to participate in a study on the evaluation of IPM Scout Training you participated this year. In this study you will complete a questionnaire concerning the impacts of this training program on your knowledge, attitude or behaviors. The information you provide will help improve future integrated pest management to growers and agribusinesses. There are 12 questions, and we estimate it will take about 2 minutes to complete. Your completion of this survey is completely voluntarily. You are free to not answer any question or to stop participating at any time without penalty. Your responses to this questionnaire will be kept confidential by the researcher to the maximum extent allowable by law. If you have any questions about this study you may call the investigator, Dr. Murari Suvedi at 517-355-658 Ext 214 or Dr. John Wise at 517-432-2268. If you have any questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, you may contact Peter Vasilenko, PhD, Chair of the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects at Michigan State University (517-355-218, Fax 517-432-453, UCRIHS@msu.edu, 22 Olds Hall, East Lansing 48824). By completing this survey, you indicate your voluntary consent to participate in this study and have your answers included in the project data set. Please complete and return this survey in the enclosed postage-paid self-addressed envelope to: Dr. Anamaria Gomez MSU Trevor Nichols Research Complex 6237 124 th Ave., Fennville, MI 4948 Thank you for your cooperation and support. Sincerely, Murari Suvedi Asc. Professor John Wise Ast. Professor 8
Impact Survey for the 23 Blueberry IPM Scout Training Bilingual (English/Spanish) Certificate Program This survey has two objectives: (1) to assess the usefulness of the various topics covered during Blueberry IPM Scout training, and (2) to determine the impact of the training on the adoption of IPM practices. There are no right or wrong answers to these questions. Please provide us with your candid answers to each question. Your responses will be kept completely anonymous and only group responses will be used to prepare the evaluation report. Part I. General Information 1. How would you classify yourself? (Check only one) Grower, Farm Worker Crop Consultant/Scout, Other (specify) a. How many acres of blueberries do you own? or manage? or scout? b. In which County or Counties are they located? c. With which cultural tradition do you most readily identify yourself? Caucasian Hispanic/Latino African American Other (specify) 2. Before participating in this training, did you scout yours or others blueberries? Yes No a. If Yes, how important do you feel the following topics are for your scouting? Please rate the importance on a 1 to 5 scale, with 1 being least important and 5 being the most important. Least Important Most Important Insects 1 2 3 4 5 Diseases 1 2 3 4 5 Weeds 1 2 3 4 5 Nutrients (plant and/or soil) 1 2 3 4 5 Yield estimates 1 2 3 4 5 b. If a grower or farm worker, did you scout your fields on your own? Yes No If yes, for how long? Years If no, was an outside person paid to do it? Yes No c. If you utilized a scout, he was used to scout for (check all that apply): Insects Diseases Weeds Nutrients (plant/soil) Yield estimates 3. Before this training were you scouting to other blueberry growers/farms? Yes No a. If yes, for how many farms? b. How many acres did you scout in total? Acres 4. Before this training did you experience difficulties in accessing to government and/or MSU extension resources and programs? Yes No If yes, for which subject areas in particular? (check all that apply) Blueberry production and pest scouting Crop insurance and related programs Pesticide certification 9
5. After the IPM scout training, do you feel more confident in your scouting abilities? Yes No 6. After the IPM scout training, do you feel more confident in obtaining access to government and extension resources and programs? Yes No 7. How important are the following written resources for you to make crop management decisions including Integrated Pest Management of insects, diseases and weeds? (Please rate the importance on a 1 to 5 scale, with 1 being least important and 5 being the most important). Least Important Very Important a) Fruit Cat-Alert 1 2 3 4 5 b) MSU Fruit Management Guide (spraying calendar) 1 2 3 4 5 c) Blueberry IPM Scout Training course notebook 1 2 3 4 5 d) Extension Bulletins 1 2 3 4 5 e) Magazines from Agrochemical stores 1 2 3 4 5 f) Other references (specify) 1 2 3 4 5 8. Did your pest scouting in 24 result in reduced pest management costs? Yes No a. If yes, approximately how much per acre $ savings in pesticide costs? 9. Did your scouting in 24 result in higher blueberry crop yield? Yes No a. If yes, approximately how much was the yield increase? 5% 1% 15% 25% or more 1. Did your scouting in 24 result in enhanced blueberry crop quality? Yes No a. If yes, approximately how much was the $ per pound increase in sales due to enhanced crop quality? 11. If you provide professional scouting services, did this training increase your income in 24? Yes No a. If yes, estimate your increased income? 5% 15% 25% 5% or more b. If yes, estimate your increased scouting acreage? 5% 15% 25% 5% or more c. If yes, approximately how much was the yield increase per acre of acreage scouted? % Part II. Perceptions of culture, society and public resources 12. Following is a list of issues and situations relevant to working within our increasingly diverse agriculture community of the state of Michigan. We would like to know the extent to which your comfort level has changed before and after you attended the cross-cultural education component (Capstone program) of the Blueberry IPM training program. Please read each question carefully and check (X) the appropriate columns or boxes on the right-hand side. Cross-Cultural Education Before Training After Training I was I was not I am I am not a. Are you in engaging Hispanic or African American farmers/farm workers in your business? b. Are you in engaging Caucasian farmers/farm workers in your business? c. Do you feel in working with farm owners/farm worker from different cultural backgrounds? d. Are you taking a leadership role among farm workers 1
that you had previously worked with? e. Are you with and/or confident of your understanding of immigration and labor regulations in the state? d. Are you with and/or confident of your understanding of book keeping and tax preparation? e. Are you with and/or confident of your understanding of crop insurance? f. Are you in utilizing MSU blueberry IPM reference materials to aid your production problems and decision making? Part III. Adoption or Use of IPM Practices 13. Following is a list of possible IPM practices relevant to blueberry production in Michigan. We would like to know the extent to which you have adopted or planning to adopt these practices. Please read each of the IPM practice carefully and check the appropriate columns or boxes on the right-hand side. Blueberry IPM Practices Adoption of IPM Practice Practicing prior to training Began practice this year Intend to practice in the future No plans to adopt A. Soil and Nutrient Management and Cultural Practices a. Plant nutrition assessment with an appropriate: Foliar analysis Soil analysis b. Fertilizers applied by split application. Some is applied after bloom and another portion before fruit coloring. c. Fields are monitored for weeds on a regular basis, records maintained, and help sought from professionals if weeds are unidentified. d. Herbicide applications are made: On a calendar basis without regard to environmental and biological conditions. Targeting the weed s stage or time of season that optimizes control. With consideration of the need to rotate herbicides for resistance management purposes e. Bushes are pruned on a regular basis to optimize fruiting, plant vigor and reduce incidence of disease. B. Pesticides, Application Equipment and Record Keeping a. Pesticide labels are carefully reviewed for target pest, application rates and timing, and seasonal use restrictions. b. Pesticide application equipment is calibrated at the start of the season and the procedure is recorded. c. Records of pesticide applications and crop stages are maintained. d. Weather and atmospheric conditions are considered before spraying is done to assure that pesticides hit target area. C. Disease Management a. Fields are monitored for disease symptoms on a regular basis and records maintained. b. If unidentified disease infections are found, help from professional 11
consultants or a diagnostic laboratory is attained. c. Sanitation practices, like dormant pruning, are used to reduce disease incidence in infected areas. d. Fungicide, bactericide applications are made: On a calendar basis without regard to environmental and biological conditions. Based on crop stage and weather conditions favorable for disease infection. With consideration of the need to rotate pesticides for resistance management purposes. D. Insect and mite management a. Fields are monitored for pests on a regular basis, records maintained, and help sought from professionals if pests are unidentified. b. Visual monitoring of fields for threshold levels of pests and biological control agents is used for pest management decision-making. c. Enhanced monitoring tools like pheromone and volatile baited traps are used to measure pest presence and set biofix points for control timing. d. Local weather data are used to calculate degree days for predicting critical life stages (i.e., egg hatch) of insect pests. e. Monitoring for fruit and foliage injury post-application is used to determine the effectiveness of pest management tactics. f. Cultural methods are used for insect pest management: cultivation (rotivation) cover crops. g. Insecticide, miticide applications are made: On a calendar basis without regard to environmental and biological conditions. Targeting the pest s life stage (i.e., egg, larva, adult) that optimizes a specific pesticide s performance. With consideration of the impact of the specific pesticide on biological control agents With consideration of the need to rotate pesticides for resistance management purposes Thank you. Please return this completed evaluation in the enclosed self-addressed stamped envelop to: Dr. Anamaria Gomez MSU Trevor Nichols Research Complex 6237 124 th Ave., Fennville, MI 4948 12