Concepts of Sustainability, Motivations for Pest Management Approaches, and Implications for Communicating Change

Abstract

Impact and relevance are valued by both plant pathologists and the supporters of research and extension. Impact has been characterized as the “So what?” of research results, and in applied research in agriculture typically involves some change in human behavior. This might involve, for instance, avoidance of broad spectrum pesticides, use of economic thresholds, or adoption of a new cultural practice in disease management. Changes in human behavior often are slow and difficult, even when the potential benefits of change seem clear. Research and extension personnel working with farmers have discussed for decades the apparent slow pace of adoption of integrated pest management (IPM) and other less-pesticide-intensive management practices. The reasons why change is slow are numerous, but one aspect that warrants consideration is how changes in farm practices are communicated to farmers. Effectively communicating changes in pest management practices at the farm level requires a system of research and extension management that differs from that to which most biological scientists are accustomed. What is the motivation for farmers to deviate from historical practices? How persuasive are concepts of environmental sustainability, integrated pest management, risk management, and economic gain in communicating the needs for change? In addressing these questions, it is useful to understand some of the basic determinants of farmers' decision processes and motivations to adopt practices. This article discusses these issues.

Risk and Maximum Residue Limits: A Study of Hops Production

“…Average yield loss estimated by growers to powdery mildew (2.71%), downy mildew (2.43%) and spider mites (1.14%) which totaled 6.3% with a maximum of 18% and minimum of 0% across growers. On average chemicals were sprayed 6-7 times per season to control powdery mildew, downy mildew and spider mites, in line with other pesticide survey data (Sherman & Gent, 2014). Revenue, costs, and other outcomes were consistent with Galinato et al (2011).…”

Distribution and Characterization of Podosphaera macularis Virulent on Hop Cultivars Possessing R6-Based Resistance to Powdery Mildew

“…Differences in disease levels and fungicide use patterns were detected among cultivars, suggesting differential susceptibility to powdery mildew. In Washington, Apollo and, to a lesser extent, Bravo received fungicide programs of an intensity approaching that typical of highly susceptible cultivars (Gent et al 2012;Sherman and Gent 2014). Millennium and Nugget were treated at an intermediate to low intensity (zero to four applications), depending on the production region and year.…”

Measuring the unmeasurable? A method to quantify adoption of integrated pest management practices in temperate arable farming systems

“…Currently, gaps exist between farmer perception of the value of IPM and their actual practice. While farmer attitudes towards IPM are often positive, the practicalities and perceived financial implications associated with IPM adoption can act as barriers . Gaps may also exist between actual and perceived practices i.e.…”

“…While farmer attitudes towards IPM are often positive, the practicalities and perceived financial implications associated with IPM adoption can act as barriers. 28,29 Gaps may also exist between actual and perceived practices i.e. farmers may believe they are practising IPM when in reality they are not, and vice versa.…”