1 / 23

Bhadriraju Subramanyam (Subi) Department of Grain Science and Industry Kansas State University

Issues and Challenges in Implementing Stored Grain Integrated (Insect) Pest Management Programs in the US. Bhadriraju Subramanyam (Subi) Department of Grain Science and Industry Kansas State University Manhattan, KS 66506 sbhadrir@ksu.edu.

leone
Download Presentation

Bhadriraju Subramanyam (Subi) Department of Grain Science and Industry Kansas State University

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. Issues and Challenges in Implementing Stored Grain Integrated (Insect) Pest Management Programs in the US Bhadriraju Subramanyam (Subi) Department of Grain Science and Industry Kansas State University Manhattan, KS 66506 sbhadrir@ksu.edu Presented at the 9th International Working Conference on Stored-Product Protection, 15-18 October 2006, Campinas, Brazil

  2. Grain (Wheat) Flow Patterns Farm storage Flour mill Country Elevator Livestock Terminal Elevator Export Consumer

  3. IPM tools • Bin/silo sanitation • Residual products for empty structures • Grain sanitation • Use of grain spreaders, leveling, coring • Application of a protectant • Temperature monitoring • Grain turning • Exclusion practices • Biological control • Fumigation • Many of the tactics are underutilized by producers (farmers) and commercial grain managers

  4. The true meaning of IPM • Use of multiple tactics that are compatible • Use of sampling information for decision-making (treat or fail to treat) • Use of insecticides as a last resort • Evaluation of costs and benefits of tactics used

  5. Management of insects in stored grain on the farm and in the marketing system is with insecticides (protectants and fumigants)

  6. Pesticide Use on Wheat – USDA-National Ag. Statistics Service Survey 1997 14 states surveyed; 1956 reports; 82% of US production in the marketing system

  7. USDA-NASS Survey1997 Crop • Did not include on-farm usage • 3.6 billion bushels of wheat handled in the 14 states surveyed • 14.21% of wheat treated with insecticides • 175,300 lb of insecticides applied

  8. USDA-NASS Survey • Aluminum phosphide (Phosphine) 11.56% • Chlorpyrifos-methyl (Reldan) 1.35% • Lindane (seed treatments) 0.02% • Malathion 1.47% • Methyl bromide 0.35% • Diatomaceous earth 0.22%

  9. Pesticide Residues in Wheat • USDA’s Pesticide Data Program • Started 1991 • Respond to food safety and marketing concerns • Protect public health • Provide data to the EPA to assess dietary risks posed by pesticides

  10. USDA’s PDP Data, 1995 600 samples were analyzed for residues

  11. USDA’s PDP Data, 1996 309 out of 340 samples (91%) had pesticide residues

  12. USDA’s PDP Data, 1997 500 out of 623 samples (80%) had pesticide residues

  13. Conflicts between surveys • NASS survey shows only 15% of grain was treated • PDP surveys show 80-91% of the grain had detectable residues • 1) A substantial amount of farm-stored grain was treated • 2) A high degree of blending occurred during marketing and detectable residues were transferred to all of the bulk

  14. Possible reasons why we do not have viable IPM programs

  15. Hard and agonizing facts • Fewer institutions involved in stored grain research • Purdue, Oklahoma State University, Kansas State University, USDA, Grain Marketing & Production Research Center • Entomologists, Ag. Engineers, Mycologists, Ag. Economists • Fewer people involved in stored grain extension • Direct link to end users is missing, unless you are working on a research project • Decreased extension funding over the years

  16. Research projects have a narrow focus • Research on insect management is limited to a single option • Most research “ideas” are funding driven, and not necessarily identified by the “end-users” • Emphasis on publications rather than on altering bad practices followed by grain managers • Research is not implemented as “end-user managed trials” (no stakeholder input) • Some integrated projects (combining 2 tactics) • Some success stories to reduce number of fumigations-but still reliance is on insecticides • Oklahoma State University • Areawide project

  17. Technology transfer • Our pest profile has not changed in more than 30 years • Lack of an effective infrastructure to impart stored grain IPM principles and practices to end users • Information provided on individual rather than on a combination of tactics • Little understanding of what it takes to change behavior of grain managers to adopt proper pest management practices • Level of education versus adoption • Is it cost or is it lack of commitment to change?

  18. Some possible solutions • 1) Are research questions identified by producers, elevator managers, or the grain industry? • Focus groups (12-15 individuals) • Conduct relevant research based on needs • 2) Do we need more research or just become better at using existing knowledge? • End-user managed trials • Educational sessions • Follow-up surveys to determine if suggested best management practices were implemented

  19. The new face of IPM • Driven by multinational corporations • Specific set of IPM practices shall be implemented • IPM may be driven by preferences of consumers (organic products) • We have not even addressed needs of organic grain managers-a real challenge!

More Related