1 / 11

INTO-project transferring IPM to greenhouse ornamental growers (1.6.2004-30.6.2007)

IN tegroitu TO rjunta koristekasvi-tuotannossa (84231). IN tegroitu TO rjunta Etelä-Suomen koristekasvi-tuotannossa (84354). INTO-project transferring IPM to greenhouse ornamental growers (1.6.2004-30.6.2007). Irene Vänninen Agrifood Research Finland MTT. Target group.

keegan
Download Presentation

INTO-project transferring IPM to greenhouse ornamental growers (1.6.2004-30.6.2007)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. INtegroitu TOrjunta koristekasvi-tuotannossa (84231) INtegroitu TOrjunta Etelä-Suomen koristekasvi-tuotannossa (84354) INTO-project transferring IPM to greenhouse ornamental growers (1.6.2004-30.6.2007) Irene Vänninen Agrifood Research Finland MTT

  2. Target group Cut flowers 207 operations (of which roses 107), pot plants 353 operations Average size of a greenhouse about 2000 m2

  3. MTT Puutarha

  4. The work environment In 2004 (interview of 30 randomly selected growers of cut and pot plants, Korkala 2005): 70% knew the right definition of integrated control 40 % claimed to have already tried some means of integrated control Reasons to changeover: 1) working conditions, 2) pesticide resistance, 3) environmental reasons Reasons not to changeover: 1) chemicals work OK; 2) IPM is not efficient; 3) information not Available; 4) IPM is expensive 60 % were willing to change to IPM if a possibi- lity showed up (advisory services, information delivered via different channels): - benefits to staff - benefits for marketing (”Finnish Fair Flowers” - benefits to environment

  5. The work environment No national legislative incentives to changeover Certified label ”Kauniisti kotimainen” (Beautiful and domestic): just general mentioning of GAP, no explicitly stated criteria concerning IPM (www.finfood.fi) Backup research at MTT in 1994-96, 1998-2000 Information delivery via grower magazines since 1994 (MTT, Glasshouse Growers Association) Initiative from growers in 2001, simultaneously Initiative from MTT

  6. The project INTO • Education (courses, seminars, grower meetings) • Advisor in IPM • Delivery of information: • Website www.agropolis.fi/into • Grower magazines • Video (November 2006) • Networking (extension organizations, foreign experts, authorities, biocontrol andpesticide companies, research institutions)

  7. Theme 2005:Identification, monitoring and action thresholds Courses 2004-05: Thrips and mites Aphids and whiteflies Miscellaneous pests Scales insects and leaf miners Pesticide resistance and its management

  8. Theme 2006:Applying IPM in practice and defining its costs Courses: disease management IPM of key pests Special course on IPM for teachers of horticultural colleges Plant protection plan Adopted by participants: Resistance management Monitoring Biocontrol of spider mites New selective chemicals Planning of IPM and pest manag. in general Hand held PDA for recording monitoring results

  9. Advisor Marika Linnamäki (full time) Irene (4 mo/year): planning, coordination Courses, networking Pauliina Laitinen (5 mo/2006): organo- silicones, biorational pesticides, PDA trials) Marketing of project, economics of IPM (5 mo/2006)

  10. IPM guidelines www.agropolis.fi/into Tietopankki IPM-ohjeistot • IPM- guidelines: • Preparing for IPM • Monitoring • IPM in cut roses • IPM in poinsettia • In 2006: Pot plants

More Related