Integrated pest management for greenhouse vegetable producers

We created an on-line survey in Qualtrics to be distributed to CCE educators who cover a broad range of expertise areas. We included the 3 regional Extension teams that cover multiple counties – Eastern NY Commercial Horticulture Program, Capital Area Ag and Hort Team, and the Cornell Vegetable Program – which all include some vegetable specialists. We also included lists of county-based educators who work with commercial and consumer horticulture. In total, the survey was sent to 85 CCE educators (there may have been a few duplications).

With the survey, we sent a description of the project, the planned webinars, and the hands-on workshop.

Intro_survey

We started with the educators in NYS as we have better connections with them and thought they might be more likely to return the surveys. In the future, we will contact educators in neighboring states in the region to determine how we might provide the same information to them.

We received 24 responses, including educators from 16 counties and 2 regional teams. They reported a variety of areas of expertise or work – 5 in Consumer Hort, 3 in vegetable crops, 3 in Natural Resources, 2 in ornamentals, 2 in general agriculture or horticulture, and 3 in various areas. Seventy eight percent work with GH/HT growers of vegetables (7) or ornamentals (2), or both (9). An additional 6 said they don’t currently work with these growers but are interested in learning more.

The primary topics to be covered in the webinars and as part of creating an IPM plan are: vegetable crops produced in GH/HT, production factors for this type of production, and insect, disease and weed management in GH/HT vegetable production. While 46% of respondents said their knowledge of the crops was medium, the majority rated themselves as having low knowledge of the topics covered by the project:

            Production factors for GH/HT vegetable production      46%

            Insect management in GH/HT vegetable production      54%

            Disease management in GH/HT vegetable production    63%

            Weed management in GH/HT vegetable production        42%

At least 70% indicated each of these topics to be of potential interest to them:

            Basics of light, water, fertility, and media in a GH/HT                        87%

            Vegetable crop production in GH/HT                                                       75%

            Insect management in GH/HT vegetable production                           79%

            Disease management in GH/HT vegetable production                       75%

            Weed management in GH/HT vegetable production                           71%

            Case studies from successful growers                                                       75%

Other things suggested (some of which don’t fit into this project but that we can find resources for) were specialty crops, low tunnels, and business plans.

We asked what other information they felt they would need to be successful in assisting growers with pest management issues in GH/HT vegetable production. Their answers included: cover crops, pesticides labeled for use on edible crops in GH/HT and efficacy data, a definition of GH/HT in respect to pesticide use, fertigation basics, water management, economics – when is it worth it, other crops – small fruits, figs, ginger, and understanding differences in production under the different environments of field and GH/HT.

We asked for estimates of the number of GH/HT vegetable growers in their county or region, in order to determine if it would be likely they would have a grower to work with. Realizing that counties and regions vary dramatically in size and that those not already working in this area might not know the answer, the most common estimate was 2-10. The primary crops grown were (in order of frequency of mention and with the same caveats) tomatoes, cucumbers, greens, peppers, berries, brassicas, herbs, and vegetable transplants.

Ninety-two percent were definitely or possibly interested in participating in webinars. All were definitely or possibly interested in the hands-on training. Seventy-eight percent might have a grower to participate with them.

We created a list-serve (Greenhousevegipm) through the Cornell University list-serve system for Extension Educators interested in participating in the greenhouse/high tunnel vegetable IPM project. At first, it was only open to those in the project to allow freedom for discussion that might not occur if it was a more public list. However, the participants decided that making it a more public list was acceptable so participating growers and others interested in the topic have been added over time. There are currently 36 educators and Cornell faculty, and 19 growers on the list. As we hold trainings, others are invited to participate so the numbers will increase.

A Box folder, also through Cornell University, was created as a site to house resources related to IPM in vegetable greenhouse/high tunnel production. Currently, there are 70 Extension Educators and faculty on the editor list. While those outside the university system can be included on the list, we believe there are better options for housing this information, which we will look into. Currently there are 97 files in the Box, mostly relating to the webinar topics. Over time, resources presented at the grower meetings will also be added.

Based on the topics of interest to educators that were identified in the survey, we created a webinar series held every Thursday noon in February and March 2017 for approximately one hour. We identified speakers from the project team and Cornell faculty and requested resources from them for the Box file to support their topics.

Feb 2: Introduction to the project – Betsy Lamb

Feb 9 Soilless media fertility/water management – Neil Mattson

Feb 16: In-ground fertility/water management – Judson Reid

Feb 23: Production factors for greenhouses and high tunnels that relate to IPM –     Amy Ivy

Mar 2: Disease management in greenhouses and high tunnels - Brian Eshenaur/Amy         Ivy

Mar 9: Insect management in greenhouses and high tunnels - John Sanderson

Mar 16: Weed management in greenhouses and high tunnels – Betsy Lamb

Mar 23: How to write/use an IPM plan – Betsy Lamb

Webinars were advertised through the project list-serve and also through another list-serve of Extension educators. They were accidentally advertised to the public, which was picked up by an international greenhouse list-serve, so we included approximately 40 others on a list to be alerted when the webinars were posted on the website.

The webinars were run using the Zoom system, which is supported by Cornell. It is a relatively easy system to use and participants did not seem to have problems connecting. It has a chat function for questions and we always had someone other than the speaker coordinate asking the questions during or after the webinar. At the end, we had the option of opening up the microphones for other comments and questions.

Of the 22 educators participating in the webinars, 12 attended at least half and the average attendance was 3.5. Because of educators’ busy schedules and varying experience with the topics, we didn’t expect that everyone would attend all of the programs. Therefore, we recorded all the sessions and posted them on the NYS Integrated Pest Management website with public access. They can be found at: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLoNb8lODb49u_mSvLTTZUGPfn-WTvERV3 This allows viewers to watch them again, but also allows us to use them more broadly. After each webinar was posted, it was advertised through a wider greenhouse IPM industry list-serve so the number of growers who have viewed them may be greater than we can measure. In the future, it would be interesting to have a pop-up survey question to know who is watching and their reasons for doing so.

Number of views as of 12/28/17

Introduction to the project - 200

Soilless media fertility/water management - 97

In-ground fertility/water management - 65

Production factors for greenhouses and high tunnels that relate to IPM - 114

Disease management in greenhouses and high tunnels - 69

Insect management in greenhouses and high tunnels - 131

Weed management in greenhouses and high tunnels - 28

How to write/use an IPM plan - 44

We surveyed the 20 attendees at the April 2017 workshop described below (20 responses) on their opinions on the webinars. This isn’t the entire group of educators who viewed the webinars and it could be considered a skewed population as they were interested enough (and had the time) to attend the workshop, but we think the answers are still relevant.

All respondents said the webinars were useful, and had information that was new to them. Most commented that they liked that the webinars were archived so they could review them later. Twenty-five percent participated in the webinars live, 56% on YouTube and 19% both. The fertility topics were considered most helpful, and they liked topics that included on-farm examples. All would like to continue the series, and 78% said they would use the archived versions as a resource for growers.

Webinar-Announcement

Since the list-serve was created, there have been at least 46 messages sent out to participants. This includes announcements of meetings that might be of interest to the membership, new resources, and answers to questions posed by the group. We need to encourage use of the list-serve multi-directionally so questions, answers, and resources are posted by a wider group. We will continue working on this in 2018.

As of June 2019, there are 62 members of the list serve - 33 are Extension-educators and Cornell faculty. There were 44 messages sent out in 2018 and, to date, in 2019, 21 messages, primarily pest alerts and relevant webinars and meetings.  The most common use is to broadcast information.  Occasionally there are questions sent in or comments on posts.  Other Extension educators have requested that messages be sent out on the list to advertise programming.

The workshop was held April 26-27, 2017 with the primary intent being to develop connections between Extension educators, growers, team leaders, and other resource people.   We met in Geneva at the NYS Agricultural Experiment Station, which allowed us to interact with some of the local faculty working on high tunnel crops and to visit their high tunnels. In addition to an overview of the project and IPM in high tunnel vegetables, there was an open-ended group discussion on the ‘Writing an IPM plan’ document. We had asked the participants to watch the webinars if they hadn’t attended ‘live’ so that everyone would have a similar basis of knowledge. The group also toured greenhouses in Penn Yan (Hoover) and Phelps (Fellenz) to see how IPM works in a commercial system.

Not including the project team and the Cornell faculty, 10 Extension educators, 1 Master Gardener and 9 growers attended the workshop.

From the survey, we learned that attendees favorite parts were the ability to interact with each other, having growers attend the workshop, touring farms with the owners available for questions, discussion of the IPM planning procedure, and the accessibility of Cornell staff. Some of the ‘Aha!’ moments were: the differences between high tunnel and greenhouses and other growing systems, how much work it is to be a farmer, greenhouse/high tunnel construction issues, and water pH and alkalinity. Everyone liked the farm tours because of the benefit of seeing what we were discussing, having the grower viewpoint, the diversity of systems we visited, and the practical application of information. Everyone also appreciated the discussion of the IPM planning document because it allowed for a variety of experience and viewpoints to be applied to the issue, there was an exchange of ideas and lots of input, and because they appreciate peer learning. The educators all liked having the growers participate in the workshop because of their practical knowledge and insights, because of suggestions of topics that would be useful to them, and because it allowed educators and growers to get on the same page. The growers appreciated the ability to attend because of the awesome support, and the wealth of experience and knowledge.

In general, attendees like the session on creating an IPM plan. They loved the format of a written plan and the fact that all the facets were in one piece, and that they could take it home to think about it. They thought having growers and educators brainstorming together made a difference, especially because it was a lot of information and might need specific situations to be able to work through it all. Everyone felt more confident in handing high tunnel pest management questions because they now have resources.

We asked what we could offer to help them in holding regional meetings. They would like help with identifying speakers and collaboration with local agencies, covering some of the costs, helping to coordinate with other regional Extension offices, and our presence as moral support.

Workshop-Agenda

Educators organized five grower training programs in 2017 and 2018. Two others were scheduled but canceled because of the low numbers signing up. We are working on some additional measures to reduce this problem as we continue to work with the educators on planning. Many of the educators that went through the training don’t have specific responsibilities for training growers – although they are interested in knowing more about it because the need is there and the county has no specific agriculture educator. So they may not know the growers, or know the best time to hold a meeting. For example, in Wyoming County, many of the high tunnel growers also hay and the date chosen happened to have good weather for haying.

In Oneida County, the program was held August 7, 2017 with 25 attending. The group was mostly growers, but a group of agriculture students and their advisor from the local high school also attended. The agenda is appended below. Steve Adamkowksi led a tour of his vegetable and ornamental high tunnel at Freedom Farm Market. In addition to Holly Wise and Terri Harrison, who are educators in the county, Lilly Calderwood from the Capital District Extension program also attended.

Of the 12 responses on the evaluation, 8 already owned some type of protected growing structure. Tomatoes and cucumbers were the most commonly produced vegetable but growers also produced lettuce, herbs, Asian greens and peppers. One grower already had an IPM plan, 6 use IPM but didn’t have a specific plan, 1 used IPM practices but didn’t know it was IPM and 2 said they don’t use IPM practices. Six indicated they had learned something new about IPM. Seven indicated that there are changes they will make in their production based on what they learned. Most common responses were improved organization and record keeping, using the IPM planning document to create a formal IPM plan, increasing the use of soil and water testing, and increasing scouting and identification of plant diseases. Ten would be interested in participating in a webinar series.

In Tioga County, the program was held October 2, 2017 with 12 attending. Barb Neal, Elizabeth Lamb, Judson Reid and Brian Eshenaur presented. Most attendees were growers but the local NRCS representative also attended. We toured Our Green Acres with Keith Slocum, one of the growers who attended the workshop.

Of the 8 evaluation respondents, 6 have some sort of protected production. Tomatoes were the most commonly produced crops, with herbs, peppers and ornamentals following. One grower already had an IPM plan, 2 use it although without a specific plan, 1 used IPM without knowing what it was, and 1 did not use IPM methods. Five noted knowledge gained, including how to make an IPM plan, biocontrol options, disease resistant varieties and managing plant environment for disease management. Six growers plan on making changes based on what they learned, including better scouting, better record keeping, improving ventilation, and increasing use of beneficials for insect control. All would like to participate in a webinar series.

In Putnam County, the program was held October 31, 2017. County educator Jennifer Lerner did a survey of attendees before they arrived. Seven of the 13 attendees already have high tunnels and 4 didn’t know what IPM is. Growers produce, or wish to produce, tomatoes, cucumbers, a variety of greens and ornamentals and mentioned a variety of production issues. The program was held at Yarrow Hollow Farm, sponsored by Sarah Lucas, who was a workshop attendee. Both the Putnam County Soil and Water Conservation District and the Natural Resource Conservation Service were involved in the program.

Of the 8 evaluation respondents, 1 grower already had an IPM plan, 3 are very likely to write one, and 4 might give it a try. The 2 grower who didn’t already have high tunnels are now more likely to get one. All 8 learned something that can help them extend their harvest season, diversify their crops and better plan for pests. Several mentioned the importance of environmental control. Seven are very likely to use concepts they learned and 1 might give it a try.

Two more educational programs were held in 2018.  The first, in Chenango County on July 10 was requested by a greenhouse grower after attending the program in Oneida County.  In addition to the IPM Plan presentation, there was an emphasis on applying beneficial insects.  Debbie Palumbo-Sanders from Bioworks presented and Carol Glenister from IPM Labs participated in the greenhouse tour portion at Pires Flower Basket.  Bioline provided a sample pack of beneficial insects for growers to examine and to demonstrate appropriate methods of application. There were 8 attendees

The second program was held in Riverhead NY on September 20 with 22 attendees.  I collaborated with Nora Catlin and Sandy Menasha from Cornell Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County to invite growers, find a greenhouse to tour and organize the meeting.  In addition to the IPM Plan presentation Teresa Rusinek (Eastern NY Commercial Horticulture Program) spoke on the major pests of cool season vegetable high tunnel production, and Greg Bryant from Bioline spoke on biological control.  We visited Sang Lee farms to demonstrate application of biocontrols.  Sandy Menasha reported "really great feedback from the workshop” and is planning something similar for January 2020.

We were not as successful at encouraging Extension Educators to schedule grower programming on IPM for high tunnels/greenhouses as we had hoped.  Even the offer of funds to cover costs and providing speakers for the programs was not sufficient enticement.  Indications are that time is more valuable than funding. Even many of the educators who had gone through the training did not hold grower events.  It may also be that, since they did not already have a list of growers to invite, having to create a clientele group was too much of a barrier when they have existing clientele groups and not enough time to support them.

Across the 5 programs, 62 growers (Oneida-18, Tioga-11, Putnam-11, Chenango-3, Suffolk-19), 9 ag service providers (Oneida-1, Tioga-1, Putnam-2, Chenango-3, Suffolk-2), and 7 others (Oneida-6 including students, Suffolk-1) participated. 

We ran a survey in April/May 2019 to determine how Extension Educators have been using what they learned from the project.  We sent the survey to the apparently relevant Educators in all counties (46 – which does not include the 10 counties with no relevant horticulture Educator).  

Twenty-two educators responded to the anonymous on-line survey.  Of those, 14 work with commercial horticulture audiences.  Eight respondents had participated in at least one aspect of the program - 7 in the listserve, 6 in the webinars, 1 in the training program, and one held a grower workshop although didn't participate in the other activities. It is a bit interesting that so few of those who actively participated responded to the survey.

Fewer shared information they learned with growers, which is perhaps understandable as many who participated in the various aspects of the program did not previously work with growers.  I have found that growers will give up on an Extension office if they don't find help there, so that may limit the potential for interactions. One respondent participated in all 3 activities and shared information with at least one grower (the survey did ask for grower numbers by type of information provided but there were very few responses) from each, and also held a program with some follow up with at least one grower. Three respondents participated in both the list-serve and the webinar series, and shared information from both with at least one grower.  An additional respondent participated in the list-serve only and shared information with at least one grower. The person who only held the grower workshop also sent information to 5 growers.  Most of the information relayed to growers related to pest management, which suggests it was the information provided in the list-serve, webinars, or training.

The ranked preference for how to receive information was (from highest to lowest):

• Training in person
• Assistance with grower meeting in county
• Live webinars
• On-line archived webinars
• List-serve

This is based on very few responses but is similar to what we have seen in other situations.  However, it does not correspond all that well to participation numbers from this project.

The initial steps in developing a cadre of county-based Extension educators who work directly with high tunnel/greenhouse growers to improve their use of IPM have been taken but more work needs to be done to make this a long-lasting group.

There are several indirect benefits of this project, which hopefully will enable us to continue to reach both Extension Educators and growers with additional IPM information. 

• The IPM plan document is adaptable to a variety of situations and will continue to be used with growers.
• We have gained additional expertise with the webinar function of Zoom and will continue to create and archive webinars with information relevant to high tunnel/greenhouse producers. This will require a planned production cycle so people come to expert new information.
• The list-serve and Box file are continuing resources. They require planned, consistent and continued input, as well as advertising to growers, to be valuable.  The Box file needs to be transferred to a platform that is more publicly available
• We have developed relationships with a broader base of Extension Educators. This allows us to both answer any questions that come up and to get input on what types of information are needed .  Also, the connection allows us to include local Educators in our programming so that grower/Educator networking can develop.

Some of the trained educators went on to provide education to farmers (see milestone 8), however, the project was unable to obtain data from educators to verify how growers implemented IPM information learned. This was a disappointment because our initial survey led us to believe there was a sufficient group of educators who wanted to work with high tunnel/greenhouse growers on pest management.

We believe there may be multiple reasons for fewer educators that expected teaching growers and for educators’ inability to report grower actions. Reasons include educators being extremely busy, high tunnel/greenhouse growers being a new clientele for some educators, and some high tunnel/greenhouse growers may not be accessing Extension for their information. Hence, educators don’t know growers and vice versa and neither the push nor pull for creating programming on high tunnel/greenhouse IPM was strong.

We will continue to look for opportunities to work with high tunnel/greenhouse growers on IPM and will involve local Educators in our programs to continue encouraging the development of a network for information exchange.  The fact that we have had a few requests for additional programs is a sign that success is possible.