1 / 23

Assessing IPM Adoption of Midwest Processing Tomato Growers

Assessing IPM Adoption of Midwest Processing Tomato Growers. Jim Jasinski Ohio State University Extension IPM Program

taite
Download Presentation

Assessing IPM Adoption of Midwest Processing Tomato Growers

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. Assessing IPM Adoption of Midwest Processing Tomato Growers Jim JasinskiOhio State University Extension IPM Program Carol Pilcher - Iowa State UniversityJanice LeBoeuf & Elaine Roddy - Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs Elizabeth Maynard & Chris Gunter - Purdue UniversityCeleste Welty & Brad Bergefurd – The Ohio State University

  2. Presentation Objectives • Background of GLVWG • Organization that developed and conducted survey • Outline of MW Processing Tomato Industry • Survey Details • Survey Section Highlights • Conclusions

  3. Great Lakes Vegetable Working Group • Formed in Oct., 2004 • Competitive grant from North Central IPM Center • All projects have a Pest Management focus • 150 members • University specialists, stakeholders • IL, IN, KY, MI, MN, NY, OH, PA, WI, & Ontario, CAN • Mission: • Facilitate communication throughout the region • Address priority issues facing growers and the vegetable industry

  4. Great Lakes Vegetable Working Group • Communicate via listserv & web; hold annual mtgs. • IPM Surveys • ’05/’06 = Carrot, Asparagus, Peppers, Horseradish, Melons • Pumpkin ‘06, Proc. Tomato ‘07, Sweet Corn ‘08 • IPM Workshops • Cucurbits ‘07, Sweet Corn ‘08 • Publications • Cucurbit DVD ’07, SC DVD ‘08 & SC ID pocket guide ‘08 • Heirloom Tomato Trial ‘09 • Season Extension Webinars and Workshops ‘10?

  5. Midwest Tomato Industry Snapshot • From 70’s, 80’s into 90’s, paste products dominated (Heinz & Campbells Soup) • From mid 90’s to now, whole pack product dominates (Red Gold) • Production is contracted • plant and harvest time dictated by processor • USDA NASS for IN, MI, OH Proc. Tomatoes • ‘98 16,500 A, $35.1 M • ’03 18,200 A, $41.4 M • ’08 18,300 A, $53.2 M

  6. Sections of the Survey • Educational • Record keeping (not covered) • Pre-plant • Field selection, variety selection, sprayer calibration, nozzle selection, etc. • At-plant • Starter fertilizer, plant trap crop, remove diseased transplants, etc. • In-season • Disease models, scouting, traps, cultivate, spot spraying, etc. • Harvest • Ethephon timing to manage harvest, select pesticides based on PHI • Post harvest • Plow down residue, chop vine residue, plant cover crop, etc. • General Demographics

  7. IPM Adoption Assessment • Each practice is rated on overall importance to crop • Low=5 , Moderate=10, High=15 (key) • Section points added for overall “Grand Total” • Based on # of practices used & points accumulated, growers fit in 3 categories • <33% “Grand Total” (Low Adopter) • 34-65% “Grand Total” (Moderate Adopter) • >66% “Grand Total” (High Adopter)

  8. Survey Administration • Online via SurveyMonkey.com • Survey began in Fall of 2006 • Advertised through state IPM / veg newsletters • Hard copy • Administered to growers at 2007 Indiana Horticulture Congress Raw Products Conference • Bulk of Red Gold growers from IN, MI, and OH attend • Results based on input from 70 growers, representing about 80% acres in 2006

  9. Educational IPM

  10. Sources of pest management info.

  11. 23 Pre-plant IPM Practices – bottom 5 TMV Thrips TSWV

  12. 23 Pre-plant IPM Practices – top 5 2 years Boom height, wind spd

  13. At Plant IPM Practices Add in future – use of in-furrow or drench insecticides?

  14. 15 In Season IPM Practices – bottom 5

  15. 15 In Season IPM Practices – top 5 early bloom Not Spot spraying

  16. Harvest IPM Practices

  17. Post Harvest IPM Practices Any new practices

  18. Crop Scouting85% want more IPM training Proc. field man? Proc. field man Everyone scouts, good!

  19. Most difficult aspect of production Disease + insects or weeds

  20. Grower tomato acreage in ‘0680% covered by survey

  21. Growing experience

  22. Grower Breakout

  23. Conclusions • Lots of IPM practice options available to growers • Some practices “we” rated “High” growers didn’t • Tomato growers in MW are tightly integrated with processor • Primary source of information • Processor field reps #1, Extension #4 • Growers still interested in obtaining IPM training • All processing growers surveyed categorized as moderate to high level IPM adopters • Repeat the survey in a few years and compare results • Survey is available at http://glvwg.ag.ohio-state.edu/projects

More Related