An Outreach IPM, Reduced-Risk Pesticide and Biological Control Program for Greenhouse and Nursery Growers in Missouri - Final Report

Disclaimer

This report was prepared by an EPA assistance agreement recipient and represents only the views of the author rather than EPA.

An Outreach IPM, Reduced-Risk Pesticide and Biological Control Program for Greenhouse and Nursery Growers in Missouri Including the development of Educational Materials and Efforts to include the surrounding states of Iowa, Nebraska, and Kansas.

Project Coordinator

James Quinn
Horticulture Department- University of Missouri
1-87 Ag Building
Columbia, MO 65211
573-882-7514
QuinnJa@missouri.edu

Report Date

December 30, 2004

Project Period

October 2002- September 2004

Project Participants

Dave Trinklein- University of Missouri
Judy Grundler- Missouri Department of Agriculture

Project Overview

Twelve commercial businesses agreed to collaborate in the project and they varied in size, location in the state, mix of crops produced, and degree of IPM already practiced (See Appendix A). Eleven followed through and participated. All received an ‘IPM for Bedding Plants’ scouting and pest management guide. (4th quarter 2002)

An initial site visit was made to each collaborator, after which an IPM plan was developed in an area they felt would be worthwhile to ‘try or investigate’. I felt additional site visits were needed to assist in, reinforce, or demonstrate some of the IPM techniques to the cooperators. In the end 29 site visits were made, one with the Missouri Department of Agriculture administrator Judy Grundler. Over 20 beneficial insects (products) were shipped to 8 of the cooperators. IPM monitoring products included sticky cards and 30x magnifying lens (7). Insecticide products that are beneficial insect friendly were supplied to 4 cooperators. All but one of the collaborators was able to follow their IPM plan. [The IPM plans were sent to the EPA in February 2003, and are available on request] The outreach efforts had an earlier start with a February presentation at University of Missouri’s 6th Annual Greenhouse Growers’ School in Columbia with about 100 attending. (1st and 2nd quarters 2003)

In the 3rd quarter of 2003 a survey was conducted with the collaborators and it was summarized in the 4th quarter. The results are presented in the first two parts of the Survey Results section. The first part attempts to gauge how progressive the collaborators were in adopting IPM practices and the second part summarizes their experience with the project. Their responses provided us with the outreach direction to pursue for 2004, which was further aided by my change in position and employment to Research/Extension Associate at the University of Missouri Horticulture Department.

Our 2004 outreach efforts consisted of the following:

A regular e-mail communiqué on timely IPM issues to (about 35) Missouri greenhouse growers. Eight were sent between January and November.
Formation of 2 to 3 informal grower groups who would try similar IPM tactics for later comparison. After some initial discussion there was no action.
Development of a Powerpoint presentation on the project, which was given to the University of Missouri’s 7th Annual Greenhouse Growers’ School (140 attending) and used for an IPM/pesticide presentation to the Advanced Greenhouse Management Short Course (25 attending). A CD of the Powerpoint presentation for the 7th Annual Greenhouse Growers’ School was sent to the EPA this spring.
Develop an MU Guide titled ‘Integrated Pest Management in Missouri’s Greenhouses and Herbaceous Nurseries- Using Reduced Risk and Biologically-based Pesticides to Favor Beneficial Insects’. This MU Guide is currently being formatted for distribution and internet posting and is available upon request. It is expected for distribution to the 8th Annual Greenhouse Growers’ School this February.

The MU Guide was delayed for several reasons. First, the current situation with the EPA and the State of Missouri on the definition of what pesticides are approved for use in a greenhouse (see Appendix B) caused greater scrutiny to be paid to the presentation of the information and tailoring the information to three categories: commercial ornamentals, commercial ornamentals & food crops, and homeowner/hobbyist. Secondly, numerous pesticides for greenhouse usage were brought to the market this year, most with positive attributes for use with beneficial insects. Finally 3 instrumental resource books were published from July through November (IPM for Midwest Landscapes; NE Greenhouse Floriculture Guide 2005-2006; Total Crop Management for Greenhouse Production with an emphasis on IPM).

In July a follow-up e-mail and phone survey was conducted to the grower cooperators concerning their pesticide use for this spring. The summarized results and comments are presented in the third part of the Survey Results section.

Survey Results

Initial Survey

Participants were queried on the following criteria to get an idea how much they had already adopted IPM practices.

Are you able to clean thoroughly between crops? All houses (6) Some houses (3) No houses (1)
Are sticky cards used for monitoring? Always (3) In some seasons (6) Never (1)
Do you have a regular scouting program, or ‘as seems appropriate’?* Regular (6) As seems appropriate (5)
Do you keep records on your monitoring or scouting? Yes (3) No (6) Sometimes (1)
Are you confident on your ability to identify the different pests? Very (2) Mostly (7) No (1)
Do you practice preventative spraying?* Regularly (4) Occasionally (6) Never (2)
Have you released beneficial insects prior to 2003? Yes (4) No (6)
* Answers do not add up to 10 as some participants have answered twice for their operation when it employed different production systems- i.e. propagation and production.

Project Involvement Survey

On the IPM Plan and IPM Booklet Provided-

Did you find the IPM for bedding plant booklet helpful? Yes (7) No (1) Some (1) No Reply (1)
Did you understand your IPM plan sent to you in January? Yes (10)
Were you able to follow your IPM plan this spring, at least for the trial area? Yes (7) Partially (2) Not Applicable (1)

On the IPM Plan Used-

Comments on release of beneficial insects (7 participants released beneficial insects; 3 of those had released beneficial insects in previous years, but not the beneficial insect species released in this project).

Aphidius spp. were released for aphid control at 6 locations. They did not provide enough control to avoid chemical control (5 out of 6 locations) but parasitized aphids could be found (at all locations). Two out of 6 participants felt ‘they did some good’.
Encarsia formosa was released for whitefly control at 6 locations. They did not provide enough control to avoid chemical control (2 out of 6 locations) and parasitized whitefly pupae could only be found at one location.* The two tomato growers are trying them again this year, more due to the wide use of Encarsia formosa with tomatoes, then due to their success. Two participants had no problem with whitefly after releasing but could not verify it was the reason (especially since other insecticide spray activity may have reduced their whitefly problem to nil).
Spidermite predators (Phytoseiulus persimilis) were released at 2 out of 7 locations. Both had no problem with spidermites after release, but could not say that was the reason. However, they appeared willing to give this release as having some merit.
Ladybugs were released at 2 out of 7 locations. Both participants were happy with the results and want to explore future use and areas for the application. (One other participant had used ladybugs before and felt they worked better than Aphidius spp.)
In this one location the parasitized pupae were found when the weather had warmed up substantially (end of May) and a beneficial supplier was used, that has a strain effective against both greenhouse and silverleaf whitefly.

Comments- on use of IPM monitoring cards, four out of 10 participants.

Two participants used monitoring cards for the first time. One really liked using them. The other felt it probably helped in reducing preventative sprays and will consider it in the future, but is concerned about the time it takes as compared to scouting indicator plants.
One participant felt having a threshold number for thrips to base insecticide applications on was helpful, and probably reduced spraying. That participant is interested in continuing with that approach.
One participant felt the IPM cards were impractical (for tomatoes) as the whitefly problem is usually obviously too high or the problem is better detected when a person is picking fruit (scouting).

Comments- on use of newer and/or safer insecticides.

Endeavor was used for the first time by 3 of the participants. All reported good results. Two participants who have used it said the same. And one participant tried changing the application method from a cold fog to a wet spray with spreader sticker added, and reported better results.
Marathon II was not purchased for any participants but two comments were made. One comment was that Marathon II does not control aphids with one application like Endeavor (nor does the Marathon II label suggest it’s use for heavy populations). Another participant said he likes the way Marathon II works for light problems (how the label suggests it be used)
One participant tried Distance (a new IGR labeled for whitefly) and was very pleased. Distance is now labeled for use on greenhouse tomatoes and they are expanding the label to include thrip control. It is already labeled for aphids.
Gnatrol was in general use by several participants and was purchased for 3 to try. Comments on its effectiveness varied from ‘it probably helps’ to ‘I can’t tell’. A significant problem with it is that it should be kept in the refrigerator and used within 1-2 years of manufacture.
A tomato grower liked the action of Botaniguard and Azatin together and said it prevented the whiteflies from reaching a level that sooty mold becomes problematic. He also liked the way a natural pyrethrum worked. Use of those products did not cause any delay in tomato harvesting.
One participant used Conserve for the first time and liked it. Another participant liked the idea of using it at the rate labeled for mites, because his spring mite problem is very fleeting and occurs when thrips become active as well.

Comments- on other techniques or products tried.

Target spraying (spraying only the crops, varieties or area where the pests are occurring) was tried by at least 5 participants. Two thought it worked very well, two thought it was OK, and one felt it worked but eventually the insect pests spread. This technique is undoubtedly in widespread use during peak bedding plant season just to save on application time.
Two growers felt they learned how to apply and mix pesticides more correctly during site visit discussions and follow-up communications.

On pests, pesticide use and causes of pest problems-

Pests ranked in order of trouble.

Aphids
Thrips
Whitefly
Shore Fly
Fungus Gnats
Mites
Caterpillars

Pests ranked in (estimated) amount of insecticide used for control.

Whitefly*
Aphids
Thrips
Mites
Fungus Gnats**
Shore Fly**
Caterpillars
* The use of Marathon as a preventative insecticide for controlling whitefly in poinsettia production increases its use and controls the pest (generally) with ease.
** The recommended control for fungus gnats and shore flies is through sanitation and watering practices, leading to infrequent insecticide use.

Pest problems- ranking of contributing factors.

Not having time to monitor or treat in timely fashion
Plants coming in from various propagators (or propagating activity), bringing in insects
Lack of vent screens
Weeds harboring the pests and soil harboring the pest (fungus gnat only)

Other factors noted

Moving plants around within operation
Getting coverage
Pest not controlled by a product even though the pest is on the label as being controlled.

On opportunities for continued IPM outreach-

Information that would help you the most with IPM techniques, the use of reduced risk pesticides, or technique (s) to reduce overall pesticide use (ranked)?

Better information on newer or safer insecticides and understanding what they can be used on (i.e. food crops and Conserve), including updates on label changes.
(tie) An e-mail network group, list serve, or similar for interested growers to communicate about IPM, pesticides, management ideas, etc. & more information on insect identification, including beneficial insects.
Management suggestions or tips, including applicators (i.e. sprayers).

Participants that responded favorably to informally collaborate with other growers on an IPM approach (as suggested or for a given problem).

Five- Fungus gnat control tactic(s) of some kind.
Five- Shore fly control tactic(s) of some kind
Four- Late winter/early spring release of ladybugs for control of aphids on over-wintered perennials.

General comments about the project-

Learned something about thrips,
Enjoyed program and would like to continue being involved.
Enjoyed approach.
Would opt out on future collaboration as already has a good local grower network and subscribes to newsletter that addresses IPM.
Felt privileged to take part in study/project.
Would like to see beneficial insects help in pest control of bedding plant industry.
Got a lot out of the project and felt it raised awareness among employees at the business.
Enjoyed trying beneficial insects and the increase in options for using chemical insecticides in combination with them. Glad they participated.

Follow-up Survey Results

Of the 12 participants, 8 answered the follow up survey. Of the four that did not respond, one went out of business, one hardly participated (they did not have a phone), one was organic (so they participated only marginally) and one could not be reached.

Did you change your pesticide practices from last year, in some way attributable to your involvement with the project? Yes (6) No (2)
(If your answer is NO, then you need not answer the following question, but comments relating to it are welcome)
With those changes (i.e. use of reduced risk pesticides, monitoring with sticky cards, using target spraying more frequently, etc.) do you think your pesticide use decreased this spring?
Yes (3) No (2) Probably (1)
Do you think you increased your use of/reliance on reduced risk insecticides, either this spring, or as a trend over the last several years? Yes (5) No (1) Maybe (1)

Three growers added the following comments-

Continued sticky card monitoring; more aphids this year; changed to imidacloprid the last few years from another chemical (can’t remember what)
Would like to spend more time scouting and spot spraying
More spot spraying and use of IGR’s this last spring. Using an outside scout. Did not use ladybugs as intended.

Project Assessment

Goals and Objectives

The collaborators, ‘on average’ would be considered as moderately progressive on their use of IPM practices, although there is no ‘industry standard’ to gauge this. The collaborators seemed to enjoy being engaged on this topic, were friendly and receptive to the surveys, and, for the most part, made a good effort to implement their IPM plans. All objectives were met or substantially surpassed (see Appendix C), especially considering the follow-up outreach efforts for 2004.

The only area that was not addressed as planned was attending the Kansas City Nurseryman’s Trade Show and Conference to distribute educational material. Completion of the MU Guide titled ‘Integrated Pest Management in Missouri’s Greenhouses and Herbaceous Nurseries- Using Reduced Risk and Biologically-based Pesticides to Favor Beneficial Insects’ will allow the distribution of the educational materials to the surrounding states of Iowa, Nebraska, and Kansas and complete that aspect of the project, although somewhat later than planned.

The primary goals were to see if the adoption of IPM practices, for the collaborators:

increased to the business’s entire operation;
reduced pesticide use;
caused reduced risk pesticides to be preferably purchased over more persistent older pesticides;
and helped implemented the use of beneficial insects.

The follow-up survey results indicate that of these four goals, numbers 1, 2 & 3 occurred for the majority of those responding to the follow-up survey. The shift to reduced risk pesticides is probably more attributable to an overall trend in the industry than to involvement with this project. The primary disappointment was the failure of the use of beneficial insects to provide any ‘perceived or real’ pest control. Thus the incorporation of beneficial insect friendly/reduced risk pesticides with the purchase of beneficial insects for pest control appeared to provide no or little economic incentive. [This is the reason the MU Guide focuses on beneficial insects that naturally occur in a greenhouse or herbaceous nursery.]

Impact of Project on Greenhouse Growers Use of Pesticides and IPM Practices

In general, greenhouse growers are fairly progressive and quite interested in using products that provide the ‘perception or actual condition’ of a healthy work environment. This coupled with the development of highly effective, target specific, and (often) expensive pesticides makes adopting IPM practices easier and economically sensible (use less product and when you use it, it works well). Many of the new products are first released for use on ornamentals because they require less expensive human safety testing then food crops and the high value of ornamentals allows the manufacturers to charge a higher price for that labeled use. This has led to a positive view towards using these products, being judicious with there use, and being favorable towards IPM practices to create an environment where products have to be used less often (in many cases to save on application labor). However, preventative use of some insecticides is practiced, and may be fully warranted, as in the case of imidacloprid (Marathon) to prevent whitefly on poinsettias. Any interesting development demonstrated with the survey is that more pesticide is used for whitefly control, but it was ranked 3rd in difficultly to control. Quite a change from a decade ago whitefly on poinsettia was an ongoing struggle.

The educational material developed as part of this project will facilitate this overall shift to the newer reduced risk type synthetic and biopesticides. We hope to see lasting impact with the guide, as it will be web based and can be updated as new products and label changes occur. We spent considerable time making sure a similar updated list does not exist (I have not found any), and keeping it updated will be a key feature.

The ‘green industry’ employs many workers who really enjoy their work, but frequently lower paid than in other sectors of the economy. This leads to employee turnover and a constant struggle to keep employees educated and trained. The growers recognize quite well where their pest problems originate, with most problems deriving from having sufficient quality labor to scout, quarantine or treat infested plants in a timely manner. (The economic benefit, i.e. the purchase and installment, of insect barrier screening is another related issue.) We are also fortunate to have an increase operations, many times started by individuals relatively new to the industry, often small in size. Offering affordable and convenient training to business owners, their families, and employees is key to MU’s outreach efforts through the greenhouse grower educational program. This project has incorporated IPM into it’s winter and summer program more fully and will continue with these efforts, thereby aiding greenhouse growers with the ongoing process of keeping not only themselves, but their employees abreast. The e-mail communiqué targets a more select group, which hopefully will encourage the progressive growers to stay at the forefront and provide leadership as ‘early adopters’ to their colleagues.

Pesticide and IPM Issues to Address for the Green Industry in Missouri

Specific to the greenhouse grower sector, this project identified three areas that could not be resolved or fully addressed by the project.

Relaying timely IPM information to growers who do not use the internet (a fair number of growers in Missouri are Amish or Mennonite);
Easily and properly disposing of old pesticide products;
Interpretation of pesticide labels to allow for increased use of newer reduced risk pesticides, especially as it concerns vegetable production- whether transplants for resale or as food.
Directly working with collaborators or cooperators seemed to stimulate energy and interest in IPM. We will seek to identify activities and propose projects that will have an outreach component working directly with growers.

The Missouri greenhouse industry is not as large or developed as in some other states such as Michigan, Ohio, Texas, Florida and most of the North Eastern US. In many of those states fairly comprehensive programs exist that address just greenhouse production. An approach that may offer good potential in this region would be to:

Comprehensively address the green industry with IPM efforts. This could include woody nursery products, greenhouse and herbaceous nursery crops, and (possible) turf.
Develop a wider outreach project that addresses the dominant areas of St. Louis and Kansas City but also includes agriculture organizations and agencies in the adjoining states of Kansas and Illinois for a regionally focused effort.

We hope to be involved with the Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program through projects and activities in the future.

Final Report Appendices

A. Greenhouse Collaborator Group for EPA Region 7 Project

Business name Contact Phone
(e-mail) Address City (region) Operation/ Products

Ballou’s
David Ballou
417-831-8822
dballou@ cityutilities.net
527 Sandstone Road
Ozark 65721
(SW) Wholesale Tomatoes

Bonnie’s Plant Farm
Al Cordle
660-699-9068
bonnieplants@mcmsys.com
38009 AA Highway
Anabel 63431
(NE) Wholesale Veg. bedding plants

D&R Derv Kruger 573-796-3531
drplants@aol.com
57465 Highway 50
California 65018
(C) Wholesale Bedding plants

Fahr Greenhouses
Patrick Bellrose
636 458-3991
(fahrghpat @aol.com)
18944 St. Albans Rd.
Wildwood 63038
(E) Wholesale Bedding & potted plants

Graber’s
Lee Graber
660-684-6518
30707 State Hwy 6
Jamesport 64648
(NW) Bedding plants

Hillerman Nursery & Florist
Michelle Traub
636-239-7959
4100 South Point Rd
Washington 63090
(E) Retail Bedding plants & perennials

Lang’s Ted Lange
816-779-7230
lange326@ hotmail.com
12008 East 211th St
Peculiar 64078
(W) Retail/ Wholesale ornamental

Shirk’s Produce & Greenhouse
Eugene & Ester Shirk
573-392-6056
20203 Jones Creek Rd
Barnett 65011
(C) Retail-Bedding plants & tomatoes

ShowMe Fresh Farm
Octavia Scharenborg
Showmefarm@clas.net
573-334-0287
438 Bighorn Lane
Cape Girardeau 63701
(SE) Restaurant direct- Salad greens & herbs

Springwater Greenhouse
Sherry Hacker
Springwatergreenhouse@cdsinet.net
660-595-2443
Rte 1 Box 125
Malta Bend 65339
(C) Retail/ Wholesale ornamental

Stuzman’s
David Stuzman
660-684-6092
24968 St Hwy 190
Jamesport 64648
(NW) Tomatoes

Sullivan’s Greenhouse
Tim Sullivan
816-899-2536
(sullivangreenhouse@juno.com)
4202 East 307th St
Cleveland 64734
(W) Wholesale & retail-Bedding plants & herbs

B. Greenhouse Label Interpretation (e-mail) Letter

From: James Quinn <quinnja@missouri.edu>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:00:33 -0600
To: Dave Trinklein <TrinkleinD@missouri.edu>
Cc: "Jett, Lewis W." <JettL@missouri.edu>, paul bailey <Paul_Bailey@mail.mda.state.mo.us>
Subject: EPA clarification on pesticides available for greenhouse vegetables is needed

Hello Dave,
Thanks for talking with me today. I hope this e-mail is convenient to forward to your greenhouse extension colleagues, and perhaps with their input we can formulate some way to get this matter addressed, or at least define it to the benefit of the growers.

According to our local Missouri EPA specialist- Dave Ramsey (573-636-5223) the EPA redefined their approach to what could be used in the greenhouse about 1991. Unfortunately this has never been put into any kind of formal document and distributed to the industry as a whole. The original documents, which stated pesticides could only be used in greenhouses if the label clearly mentioned greenhouse use, have been reinterpreted. Both the original documents and the decision to reinterpret them involved Jack Neylan of the EPA. Copied farther below is what first alerted me to this situation, a correspondence between Linda Propst of the EPA and John Lake of the PA Dept. of Ag. ( I was checking into pesticide use wording for a High Tunnel Tomato Production Guide.) Copied here is the section that specifically addresses the 'greenhouse issue'-

[ Subject: Re: Greenhouse Labeling Issue

John, I've had some labeling people look at your comments and their responses can be found in the attached document. If you have further comments or questions you can contact Larry Schnaubelt at 703-308-8058.

Sorry it took so long in my getting back to you. Linda

Wpd-Document in plain text below:

1) It is our understanding that the Agency=s current policy regarding greenhouse use is that a pesticide may legally be used (i.e., it would not be considered use Ainconsistent with its labeling@ or misuse) in a greenhouse if directions for use for the crop (e.g. tomatoes, ornamentals, etc.) appear on the label (and the site is not defined so as to exclude the use in a greenhouse); there are no other restrictions or prohibitions in the directions for use regarding use in a greenhouse (or indoor use); and the label does not in any other section (e.g. statements required by the Worker Protection Standard) prohibit use in a greenhouse. In other words, greenhouses need not be specified in the directions for use. This is essentially the enforcement position specified in Amy Brown=s 9/19/02 e-mail to AAPSE members and John Lake's 11/23/93 e-mail. ]

Our state's Dept. of Ag pesticide registration specialist (Paul Bailey 573-751-5510) was quite surprised and felt the EPA should make a published statement for us to broadly inform growers. Dave Ramsey (EPA) said the EPA has been advised they should as well, but have failed to do so, even with ample time. Instead the field offices have been advised to handle any greenhouse pesticide reports of misuse on a 'case by case basis'. So the new interpretation is almost as vaguely defined as possible.

There are undoubtedly a number of older pesticides that with this interpretation would be 'OK' to use on a crop like greenhouse tomatoes- (it appears Sevin would qualify). This may not be what one would want with this reinterpretation but, several highly successful reduced risk products would probably be impacted as well. For instance-

Spintor (Conserve for ornamentals) or spinosad is restricted for use on vegetable transplants, but not for vegetable crops in a greenhouse. We all know its value against thrips and it is labeled for mites at a higher concentration.

Fulfill (Endeavor for ornamentals) appears it would qualify as well- up to and including the day of harvest. As it is quite effective on whitefly for 2 weeks this could be valuable for a tomato grower.

And specific to our discussion on mites and tomatoes, AgriMek (Avid) is registered and recommended for use on field tomatoes.

The primary concern I have is that a number of the biopesticides/ reduced risk/ new novel synthetics could be perceived by greenhouse vegetable growers as unavailable for them to use, when in fact they are OK to use.

I look for some feedback from you on how we might best proceed on this issue.

James Quinn- Research Associate
Department of Horticulture
1-87 Agriculture Building
University of Missouri
Columbia, MO 65211-7140
573-882-7514
QuinnJa@missouri.edu
http://www.hightunnels.org/

C. Project Objectives

Organize 8-10 greenhouse businesses to conduct trial greenhouses where reduced risk products and IPM control would be incorporated into that spring season of 2003 production.
Formulate a plan for each greenhouse that would specifically address their typical pest problems incorporating beneficial insects, reduced risk pesticides, and reduced pesticide use techniques.
Summarize the results from the various businesses at the seasons end.
Develop the summary results into guides or recommendations utilizing an IPM system approach for commercial greenhouse courses and general distribution.
Educate commercial growers though two courses offered to growers at Univ. of Missouri (yearly), involvement in industry trade shows (specifically the Western Nurseryman’s Annual Meeting and Trade Show), and making information developed to surrounding states, such as Kansas, Iowa and Nebraska.
Determine if the participating greenhouses changed any of their pest control practices with a follow-up survey in spring of 2004.
Verify through the survey that pesticide usage either was reduced, or if the pesticides employed were reduced risk.