1 / 87

Jim Jasinski 1 , Celeste Welty 2 , Jean Haley 3 , Brad Bergefurd 4

The Great Lakes Vegetable Working Group Regional Sweet Corn IPM Survey: What Did 407 Growers Say About IPM on This Crop?. Jim Jasinski 1 , Celeste Welty 2 , Jean Haley 3 , Brad Bergefurd 4 1 Ohio State University Extension, IPM Program 2 Ohio State University, Dept. of Entomology

uttara
Télécharger la présentation

Jim Jasinski 1 , Celeste Welty 2 , Jean Haley 3 , Brad Bergefurd 4

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. The Great Lakes Vegetable Working Group Regional Sweet Corn IPM Survey: What Did 407 Growers Say About IPM on This Crop? Jim Jasinski1, Celeste Welty2, Jean Haley3, Brad Bergefurd4 1Ohio State University Extension, IPM Program 2Ohio State University, Dept. of Entomology 3 Jean Haley, Haley Consulting Services 4OSU South Centers at Piketon

  2. What is the Great Lakes Veg. Working Group? • A group of university researchers and Extension educators specializing in vegetable production and pest management from the North Central States, North Eastern States and Ontario, Canada • Priorities of the GLVWG: • Increase communication and collaboration among specialists in the region • Address priority vegetable production and pest management issues within the region

  3. A GLVWG priority: Survey IPM adoption by fresh market sweet corn growers The survey results would allow extension and research specialists to: 1) Document management practices being used by growers 2) Determine which research and extension programs are needed 3) Raise awareness among growers of common production and pest management practices

  4. Survey Administration Details • From Fall, 2008 through Fall, 2009 • Survey accessible online to growers through SurveyMonkey • Hard copies of the survey were handed out at fall and winter vegetable meetings throughout the Great Lakes region • Growers who completed the survey online or at a meeting were given a free copy of the Sweet Corn Pest Identification and Management Pocket Guide

  5. Sweet Corn Pest Management & ID • Horticulture/Production/Fertility • Weed, Herbicide Injury, Insect, Disease ID • Vertebrate damage, more (105 pgs.)

  6. Survey Sections • Educational • Record Keeping • Pre-plant • At-plant • In-season • Post-harvest • Training • Demographics

  7. How the survey was scored • Survey questions were developed from the Sweet Corn IPM Element by a regional group of Extension specialists • Each question/practice was assessed a value • Low (5) – minor practice to overall crop IPM • Medium (10) – important practice to overall crop IPM • High (15) – significant and key practice, vital to overall crop IPM • Growers score points for each practice they currently perform

  8. How the survey was scored • Grower’s final score placed them into one of three IPM practitioner categories • Low IPM adopters = <335 points • Moderate IPM adopters = 336 – 670 points • High IPM adopters = >670 points • Total survey points = 1,005 • Results of 407 respondents were compiled and analyzed by Jean Haley, Haley Consulting Services • Charts shown are a combination of allrespondents and OH growers

  9. Sweet Corn Survey 2008 – 09Statistics & Demographics

  10. 2008 Fresh Market SC Statistics

  11. Overview - IPM Scores Categorized – All Respondents

  12. IPM Score Distribution

  13. Good job Ohio!

  14. Grower participation by level of adoption

  15. Sweet corn acreage in 2008

  16. Sweet corn acreage in 2008 – OH only

  17. What is your major market?

  18. What is your major market? – OH only

  19. Experience growing vegetables

  20. Experience growing vegetables – OH only

  21. Single most challenging aspect of raising sweet corn? All respondents

  22. Single most challenging aspect of raising sweet corn?

  23. Single most challenging aspect of raising sweet corn? OH only

  24. Ways pest management knowledge is maintained and updated Ordered High IPM High IPM Practice

  25. How do you receive updates? VegNet Newsletter?

  26. First source for information

  27. First source for information – OH only

  28. Kinds of records kept

  29. How records are kept

  30. Pre-plant IPM planning / activities 1/3

  31. Pre-plant IPM planning / activities 2/3

  32. Pre-plant IPM planning / activities 3/3

  33. Pre-plant IPM planning / activities – OH only H H H H H H H H H

  34. Pre-plant IPM planning / activities – OH only H H H H

  35. Corn Flea Beetle

  36. Corn Flea Beetle • Vector of Stewart’s bacterial wilt • Varies among varieties • Worst on early yellow varieties • Greatest effect if infection < 7-leaf stage • Worse after mild winter

  37. Corn Flea Beetle Index • Winter temperature model • Sum of mean temperatures Dec. + Jan. + Feb. • Used to predict severity of Stewart’s bacterial wilt

  38. Corn Flea Beetle Index: example of calculation

  39. Corn Flea Beetle Index

  40. Ohio Examples of Index

  41. Management ofCorn Flea Beetle & Stewarts bacterial wilt • Primary strategy • Host plant resistance • Secondary strategy • Insecticide

  42. Stewarts Wilt: Host Plant Resistance • Long term sweet corn disease rating program at Univ. Illinois • See listings on website • 674 varieties • Rated for 4 levels of resistance • R = Highly resistant (1-2) • MR = Moderately resistant (3-4) • MS = Moderately susceptible (6-7) • S = Highly susceptible (8-9)

  43. Stewarts wilt: resistant varieties

  44. Insecticides for Corn Flea Beetle • Systemic insecticide • Commercial seed treatment • Cruiser • Poncho • Gaucho • Hopper box seed treatment • Concur • Latitude • Soil treatment • (Furadan) • Counter • Thimet • Foliar insecticide (non-systemic) • Sevin, Pounce, Asana, Thiodan, etc.

  45. Interaction of Variety Selection & Insecticides • When to use seed treatment? • On varieties rated S or M (not R or MR) • In years after mild winter

  46. Practical Problem! • Constraints • Seed ordered in December? • No choice for seed treatment? • Mildness of winter not known until at least January • Solution • Make variety choice based on farm history • Make final plan on insecticide at winter’s end

  47. At-plant IPM planning / activities *

  48. At-plant IPM planning / activities H H

  49. In season IPM planning / activities 1/4

  50. In season IPM planning / activities 2/4

More Related