I. IPM Working Groups (IWGs): Support for the Vegetable IPM Working Group to Keep Working 4a. Problem, Background and Justification The vegetable industry in the Northeast consists of at least 12,000 farms that cultivate and harvest over 370,000 acres of vegetables (2002 Census of Agriculture). These figures do not include potatoes, strawberries, or greenhouse vegetable crops, which are important components on many vegetable farms. Farms range is size from 1 acre to >2000 acres, and vegetables are marketed in many ways -- for processing, through wholesale distributors or direct to supermarkets and institutions, as well as retail through farm stands, farmers markets, restaurants, or Community Supported Agriculture structures. Relative to field crops, vegetables are have high value per acre, with gross value ranging from about $1500 per acre for wholesale processing vegetables to >$30,000 per acre for intensively grown fresh market retail crops. Thus, as land values increase and farmers seek higher value crops with direct market potential in order to sustain their farms, farmers often turn from other commodities to vegetable production. Quality demands are high, and effective pest management is essential to meet market demand. Integrated pest management, when implemented through an on-farm monitoring program, has proven that it saves money, reduces health and environmental risks and provides effective control of pests. The Northeast Vegetable IPM Working Group (Vegetable IWG) was established in 2002 under the umbrella of the Northeast Pest Management Center. The group represents diverse types of vegetable farmers, as well as consultants, marketing specialists, University, state agency, and other agricultural professionals from the Northeast Region (Attachment A, 2006 membership list). Our mission and goals are as follows: Mission Statement. The mission of the Northeast Vegetable IPM Working Group is to foster the development and use of IPM as a means to achieve ecological and economic sustainability of vegetable farms in the Northeast. Goals of the Northeast Vegetable IPM Working Group 1. Identify and prioritize regional vegetable and strawberry IPM needs, in particular gaps in research, extension and regulation. 2. Represent the views of vegetable and strawberry farmers and other stakeholders to the Northeast IPM Center. 3. Develop, facilitate or implement appropriate research and educational projects that address work group priorities. 4. Strengthen partnerships and exchange of information among vegetable farmers, agricultural professionals, and other stakeholders throughout the Northeast region. Update on activities. The group held its 2006 annual meeting on December 5&6 in Philadelphia with fifteen of seventeen members present. The fact that we had the best attendance ever reflects the engagement of the group in its ongoing projects. We celebrated the completion
of the first northeast-wide regional PMSP, for sweet corn. This PMSP was part of our 2003 working group proposal. The stakeholder meeting was in December 2004 and it was written and edited from 2005 through 2006. The Sweet Corn PMSP is now posted on the national IPM Center website (http://www.ipmcenters.org/pmsp/pmsp_form.cfm?usdaregion=national%20site), with links from the Northeastern IPM Center website. The document reflects differences that exist from north to south in the region, but also shows how we have common needs and concerns across the whole region. This document is now ready to be used to help guide research, extension and regulatory agencies and funding organizations in their decisions about this key vegetable crop. At our 2006 meeting, the working group updated our recommendations on priority needs for IPM on vegetable farms in the Northeast (Attachment B). The Vegetable IWG also provided guidance to the projects in progress: conducting an Educator Exchange grants program; building collaboration with Natural Resources Conservation Service to increase the use of IPM on vegetable farms; the vegetable IPM resource database housed at the Northeast IPM Center website; and publishing a regional Pest Identification Guide. These projects received funding as part of the 2005 or 2006 Vegetable Working Group Proposals, or the 2006 Working Group Projects proposal to the Northeast IPM Center Partnership grants program. In this proposal we are seeking additional funds to support completion or continuation of these projects. Where appropriate, they are described and budgeted separately within this proposal under the categories of Regional IPM Publications and Working Group Priorities. Within the project category of IPM Working Group, we are seeking funds to continue meeting and operating as a working group and to administer an Educator Exchange program that was initiated with funding obtained from the NE IPM Center in 2006. Vegetable IWG Membership. Our success depends upon being an engaged, energetic group with membership that rotates on a regular basis (see Attachment A). Our annual meeting with two days of face-to-face interaction is the heart of our group s existence. New members who attended for the first time in 2006 included a weed specialist, a state IPM coordinator, a county agent, and a marketing specialist. Our NRCS representative was unable to attend. Our four farmer members were all present. In 2005, we added a strawberry specialist (David Handley) to the membership. The new members have provided fresh ideas and maintain diverse representation from around the region, while the original members are providing continuity and the functionality of an established team. The group works well together, hearing each other s diverse views and reaching consensus to move forward. Ruth Hazzard (MA) has agreed to continue as Work Group leader until 2008, when our new co-chair, Joanne Whalen (DE), anticipates assuming the chair position. Kathy Murray (ME) is providing leadership for the NRCS/IPM collaboration effort. Vegetable Educator Exchange Program within the Northeast Region. Historically, vegetable extension programs in the Northeast have functioned primarily on a state or subregional basis. While there is strong collaboration within the mid-atlantic region and in New England, as reflected by collaborative organization of major vegetable conferences and vegetable management guides, communication outside of these regions is far less active. It is common for agricultural professionals at the county or state level to be unaware of research or extension work that is taking place outside their nearby area. This situation leads to less collaboration, less
information for growers, and less adoption of newly developed practices, to the detriment of the advancement of IPM and of sustainable vegetable production in general. Continuing budget cuts to Extension programs exacerbate this geographic and informational isolation. One of our major goals is to strengthen partnerships and exchange of information among vegetable farmers, agricultural professionals, and other stakeholders throughout the Northeast region. The NE IPM Center had initially set aside funding to support a regional IPM conference; however, at the 2005 Vegetable IWG meeting we decided that our goals would be met most effectively by establishing an Agricultural Educator Exchange Program. The IPM Center has allocated $15,000 in support of a regional IPM program which will be used for an Educator Exchange program, and has provided the funding requested in the 2006 Vegetable Working Group grant to initiate the Educator Exchange program to support professional training and communication across the region for agricultural professionals in vegetable IPM. The program was broadly advertised in fall 2006 (see RFP, Attachment C), and applications are being received and reviewed. At the 2006 Vegetable IWG meeting $5,150 was awarded to 9 out of 12 applicants, leaving a balance of $9,850. This proposal seeks funds to administer the application and award process for the remaining funds, as well as catalogue the outreach efforts of those who receive awards and evaluate the impact of the program. 4b. Objectives and Anticipated Impacts Objective 1. Maintain and strengthen the capacity of the Vegetable IPM Working Group to accomplish its mission and goals. This proposal will provide capacity to do our work, including travel funds to meet in November 2007, and support for administrative staff to coordinate our communications, membership and projects. We anticipate bringing three projects to completion in 2007: the Educator Exchange, the Northeastern Pest Identification Supplement, and the Vegetable IPM Database upgrade. Anticipated impacts: Growers, regulators, researchers and educators will learn about the Northeast Vegetable IPM Working Group and will use one or more of the tools and resources created through our projects. Impacts of specific projects will be listed for each project. As a result, wider use of IPM on vegetable farms will occur. Objective 2. Implement a Vegetable Educator Exchange Program within the Northeast Region. Anticipated impacts: Participants in the Educator Exchange will attend an educational program that is outside their state or their sub-region, or possibly outside the Northeast region. They will gain new knowledge about IPM programs and technologies and will meet new colleagues. When they return, they will be expected to share what they learn about vegetable or strawberry IPM. Possible methods include: Present or organize a program at a conference, workshop, or twilight meeting; Write newsletter articles that could also be posted on the Northeastern IPM Center website; Work directly with growers to implement or evaluate a new practice; Participate in the planning committee for the next vegetable or strawberry conference (or other educational program) in their home state;
Make use of new professional contacts to invite speakers to the region. They may also be in a position to develop collaborative projects with colleagues from another part of the Northeast or outside the region. Because of the above outreach efforts, growers will become more aware of the latest IPM research and practices. By including growers and crop consultants and agricultural professionals in other types of organizations besides land grant universities, we will broaden everyone s horizons, support respect among colleagues, and encourage interchange on a wide range of topics. 4c. Approach and Procedures Objective 1. Maintain and strengthen the capacity of the Vegetable IPM Working Group to accomplish its mission and goals. a. We will maintain regionally representative and diverse membership in the working group. We have plans for members to rotate off the committee after serving 3-7 years, and to continue to add new members who balance the group geographically and in their experience, views and expertise We also have a plan for transitioning to new leadership by 2008. Rotating leadership and membership over time reinforces the vitality of the group. b. We will meet annually to evaluate ongoing projects, review priorities and initiate new projects. An annual face-to-face meeting strengthens the relationships in the group and makes it possible for us to monitor our current projects, review priority pest management needs, and develop our next work plan. The 2007 meeting will is set for November 26-27 in Manchester NH. We have determined that the best locations are at an airport hub, and that about half the group will need to fly. We will meet for the better part of two days. We will share leadership of working group projects among members of the group. c. We will engage stakeholders in review of priority pests and needs. Each year we update priority needs and pest concerns and post them on the Center website (Attachment B, 2006 Priority Needs; http://northeastipm.org/work_vegpriority2005.cfm). At our 2006 meeting, we acknowledged that we need to be more active in meeting our responsibility to engage growers in this process. After much discussion on the most effective way to accomplish this, we have a specific plan for 2007. We will prepare three open-ended questions (one on critical pests; one on barriers to using IPM; and one on how to gain benefit in the marketplace from using IPM). At winter meetings, which are the largest gatherings of vegetable growers in one place and time, we will find ways to encourage growers to respond to these questions. This may be accomplished through paper or electronic means. We will all use the same questions, though our method and enticements may differ. Results from each state will be returned to UMass for compilation. Although open-ended questions are more difficult to compile, we believe that they also result in more meaningful information. Through this proposal we seek funds for staff time to compile, organize and publish the responses. d. Develop and disseminate information about the working group and its projects. The best story about us is when a useful tool arrives in the hands of those who will use it. An upcoming article in On Target will announce the completion of the regional Sweet Corn Pest management Strategic Plan. This PMSP is now posted and available to researchers and regulators.
We expect to report on our NRCS/IPM project milestones, and other projects as they are completed. The most exciting news will be a Pest ID Supplement in the hands of 6,000 commercial vegetable growers in the region, sometime in fall 2007 or winter 2008. Objective 2. Implement a Vegetable Educator Exchange Program within the Northeast Region. The Educator Exchange Program has been advertised throughout the region through On Target and the Center s email list, as well as circulated within states by program directors (Attachment C). At the December meeting in Philadelphia we established criteria for approval of applications, reviewed the twelve applications that had been received, and approved eight. In some cases, approval was contingent upon the applicant providing more specific plans for outreach. A subcommittee of five (Tim Elkner, Hank Bissell, Jim Ward, David Handley, and, exofficio, Carrie Koplinka-Loehr) agreed to review subsequent applications until all travel funds are disseminated. Administrative staff at UMass will be responsible for receiving, acknowledging and disseminating applications to the review committee, as well as communicating with applicants. d. Evaluation Plans. Objective 1: Good turnout at meetings, active participation of members in our projects, and progress toward completing our projects are measures of success as a working group. The impact of our completed projects will be monitored in a time frame and a method appropriate to each project. Our first major project (the sweet corn PMSP) has just been completed and its impact will be, first, on regulators and researchers and later, on growers. The first step in evaluation can be done through monitoring use of these documents where they are posted on national and regional websites. One vehicle for getting feedback from growers on the impact of our projects will be to add questions to the brief surveys that we develop for assessing priority needs. This will be done after projects have been completed. Objective 2. We will survey the participants regarding what they learned, how they shared the information, what new contacts were made, and other outcomes such as enrichment of educational programs in the home area. One survey will be sent shortly after travel has occurred, and one 6-12 months later when the participant has had time to pursue their outreach activities.