Environmental Stewardship
Environmental Stewardship
Integrated Pest Management
Introduction
IPM History
What is IPM?
IPM Basics
IPM is not Organic Agriculture
IPM Adoption
IPM Benefits in the Real World
Syngenta's Commitment to IPM
Precision Ag - A Big Lift for IPM
The Producer is Key to Success
The Future of IPM
IPM Resources on the Web
Stewardship Home
IPM Benefits – Putting It All Together in the Real World


IPM programs have brought benefits to growers through better pest management and higher quality production as well as to the public through reduced pest infestations and increased sustainability. Here are a few examples of how IPM programs have produced private and public benefits:

Apples in Pennsylvania
European red mite infestations in the rolling hills of Pennsylvania apple orchards can damage the foliage and greatly reduce apple yields. In the 1970's researchers at the Pennsylvania State University Tree Fruit Research Laboratory in Biglerville pioneered an IPM program based on preserving voracious mite predator, the black ladybird beetle (Stethorus punctum). The program used an array of practices that included a program to scout for Stethorus and mites, an economic threshold for treatment, the use of alternate middle spray applications, and the careful selection of pesticides that reduce damage to predators. The IPM program dramatically improved mite management, reduced costs, increased tree vigor and yields and created a more sustainable production system.

Cotton in Texas
Producers of the 5 million plus acres of cotton planted in Texas each year must manage nearly a dozen insect pests. Started in the 1970's, the cotton IPM program combines the efforts of county IPM agents, the Texas A&M IPM program, Texas Pest Management Association, and private consultants to sustain sound pest management and crop production. A key to the success of these IPM programs has been the eradication of boll weevil through the coordinated use of insecticides. The IPM program has also benefited from the introduction of effective selective pesticides that have increased the ability to control key pests such as aphids, which can dramatically reduce cotton yields and quality.

The Texas IPM program provides local scouting programs, field meetings, training programs, weekly pest updates during the growing seasons and a database of field conditions. Scouting is practiced on 89% of the Texas cotton crop to determine insect density and potential damage, with farmers and private crop consultants conducting 85% of the monitoring. As a result of these IPM programs, growers have estimated that they have netted economic benefits from $15 to $68 per acre.

Lettuce in California
The green fields that carpet the Salinas Valley in California account for more than 60% of the nation's lettuce. Growers in the region were faced in the late 1990's with a series of difficult pest problems. In response, the major vegetable companies and the University of California Cooperative Extension staff began an IPM program to identify ways to improve management of pea leafminers that had doubled pest control costs in previous years. Soon after the program was started, another damaging pest, the black lettuce aphid, was introduced and rapidly infested fields throughout the region. Using the foundation of the initial IPM program, a comprehensive scouting program was developed to track pest and beneficial organisms in the fields. The IPM program has enabled growers to combine scouting, the presence of beneficial organisms, and the introduction of new selective pesticides to manage pests to sustain the production of lettuce in the region.

Schools in Arizona
IPM programs in schools are providing a thoughtful approach to safe and effective control of insects, rodents and weeds. Using mechanical controls, habitat manipulation, cultural practices, biological controls and pesticides, these programs often start by improving hygiene standards and the exclusion of pests by using physical barriers and structural repair. Schools in Maricopa County, Arizona adopted a school IPM program to manage their pest problems including bark scorpions, Culex mosquitoes, southern fire ants and Turkestan cockroaches. Following a model developed at Indiana University, the Arizona schools set up education programs for the entire school community - school administrators, teachers, students and parents - to create understanding and support for the program, along with training for kitchen, maintenance and janitorial staff. The IPM program uses pest population monitoring to determine the need for control according to established guidelines and management practices that emphasize removing only the target organism, while preserving beneficial organisms. Pest control materials are selected and applied in a manner that minimizes risks to humans, non-target organisms and the environment.

This example from the Professional Products part of our business shows that the chemical component of a successful IPM program considers all options - not just the products that Syngenta makes.

Residences in California
An integrated approach to control of the Argentine ant seeks to change the current practice of power-spraying the perimeter foundation and all vulnerable areas of a residence and even foliage on a regular basis, to a combination of treatment strategies with the goal of keeping foraging ants out of the residence. The integrated treatment program does not try to remove all ants from the property. It recommends spraying only around the foundation perimeter with a power sprayer using an inexpensive insecticide formulation, which deposits readily out of the high volume applied by a power sprayer. Critical areas such as entries, windows, door frames, etc., and trunks and low branches are treated with a backpack sprayer using a more expensive capsulated suspension formulation in small volumes to prevent runoff. In addition, voids, such as wall voids at the sill plate, used by ants as entry points into the structure are treated using a foam application of a non-repellent insecticide. Further denial of access to structures includes pruning shrubs and trees early in the season so there is no direct contact with the structure. Harborage areas such as ground cover and heavy mulch are treated with a granular insecticide or bait to discourage nesting adjacent to the structure. By denying the ant access to food from honeydew-producing Homoptera and by reducing colony size near structures, the goal is to force the ant to forage somewhere other than around the structure.