9 August 2016

Needs analysis for IPM

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) can mean different things to different people. Ultimately, it’s an effective combination of chemical, cultural and biological methods to control both insect pests and diseases in apples and pears. It aims to minimise the environmental impact through reduced pesticide use, while combining knowledge of orchard production and beneficial organisms (including insects, mites and microbes) in a whole-of-system approach.

The purpose of this project – A needs analysis for IPM R&D in the Apple and Pear Industry (AP15014) – was to better understand the current use of IPM within the apple and pear industry and the efficacy of the current IPM Manual in guiding practice. A key component of the review was to investigate whether IPM is an enabler or impediment to market access. The needs analysis will inform any required improvements to the IPM Manual and provide recommendations on the future direction of research, development and extension (RD&E) for the industry, which aims to ultimately improve market access of product both domestically and internationally.

Key findings

Adoption of true IPM is low

The elements that can be used to form an IPM strategy in apples and pears are available in Australia, and these are known to be effective when used correctly. Proof of this was presented in the survey and interviews conducted in this project where some growers were using IPM very effectively and had been doing so for many years. Awareness of IPM is high and the perception that the industry is using IPM is common among sectors of the industry, but actual adoption of IPM across the industry is low.

The proportion of interviewed growers reporting they use IPM, and providing substantial evidence to suggest they really are using an integrated approach was high (75%). Although 66% of these growers suggested that they are not typical in this regard. The majority (86%) of grower survey respondents claimed that they use IPM. However, further investigation to validate whether growers were truly using an integrated approach found only 25% actually used IPM.

It is important to reiterate that the ‘I’ in IPM stands for ‘integrated’, which means integrating pesticide use with biological and cultural controls. Where pesticides are being used that are incompatible with biological controls when softer options are available, then IPM is not being implemented. This is not to say that such an approach is not valid, it is just not technically IPM.

IPM Manual is moderately useful but should be updated

The current IPM Manual provides a good reference tool for information regarding the major pests although more pests should be added. However, the information regarding beneficial species is less thorough and could be improved by providing a similar level of detail to that provided on the pests. The information on pesticides is out of date and in one important section – the information regarding effects of certain pesticides on beneficials – appears to be wrong or could be misleading. More precise information, including data on sub-lethal effects of pesticides and not just acute tests, is required for growers or advisors to make good decisions on pesticide use.

Over half (62%) of growers are aware of and use the existing IPM Manual while 91 per cent of advisors are aware that it exists, but of these only 60 per cent use it. However, growers and advisors are predominately using the IPM Manual as an identification guide rather than to inform the development of an IPM strategy. Researchers surveyed identified the technical content as the most important (100%) aspect to update, followed by improved information for facilitating decision-making by growers (75%), and better accessibility and ease of use (50%).

Extension is a key gap to IPM adoption and advice

There was agreement from many growers, advisors and researchers that one of the best ways to improve confidence in IPM for all involved is through on-farm demonstration. This has been proven in many types of crops (see Changing to Minimal Reliance on Pesticides and When will IPM strategies be adopted?). Other measures to improve IPM adoption and advice include:

• Broader regional extension programs, with 77% of growers and 67% of advisors requesting additional farm walks as part of the Future Orchards® program.
• Improving the capacity of advisors to provide reliable and independent advice, which was identified by 77% of growers and 56% of advisors.
• Increased information sharing and integration among growers and advisors either through groups, on-farm events or district-level resources. Further information and/or resources on the costs and benefits of an IPM approach was identified by 69% of growers, 44% of advisors.
• Whole-of-orchard system approach to insect pest and disease management by growers and advisors.
• Appropriate market signals that lowered chemical residue on fruit and/or accepted superficial skin marks on otherwise quality product.
• Improved communication to growers and industry of the benefits of implementing an IPM approach.

Protocols are needed to align IPM with market access

IPM in itself will not provide market access but should be used as a tool to ‘value add’ and facilitate the expansion of export trade. IPM naturally aligns with the marketing of product from Australia in that it results in a product that has been grown in an environmentally sustainable way with reduced pesticide application. In order for IPM to be effectively used as a tool for facilitating market access the approach needs to be:

• A component of the appropriate industry-driven protocols and certification processes.
• Communicated to growers.
• Incentivised by markets and retailers.
• Supported by the availability of appropriate pesticide products.

Consideration of protocols and regulations are essential in ensuring that future RD&E aligns IPM with market access requirements. Survey respondents felt that in order for IPM to facilitate market access, future RD&E needed to be:

• Aligned with target export market phytosanitary requirements (56% of growers, 100% of advisors).
• Address national interstate trade requirements (33% of growers, 57% of advisors).
• Better linked with Commonwealth Department of Agriculture and Water protocols (44% of growers, 14% of advisors).

Conclusions

Current status of IPM:

• The current level of adoption of IPM in Australian apples and pears is low, despite a perception by many that it is high.
• The most commonly practiced elements of an IPM approach are monitoring and mating disruption technology. Typically it is the use of harsh chemicals, that are disruptive to key beneficials, that undermine what many growers call an IPM approach.
• All the tools required to allow growers to use IPM effectively are available and are being used by some, but grower and advisor confidence in IPM needs to be increased across the industry.
• Pesticide resistance is not currently a major concern, but has the potential to cause a significant industry wide issue if a spray-based strategy is relied upon.
• The industry needs to shift to an IPM approach in order to avoid (or deal with) pesticide resistance issues and to improve export potential.

Use and value of the current IPM Manual:

• Awareness of the manual is generally high amongst small to medium growers, however this is not the case with larger growers.
• Usefulness is moderate amongst those industry segments that are aware of the manual.
• The manual is not being used to inform the development and implementation of an IPM approach on orchards, rather as an identification guide for insect pests, beneficials and compatible ‘softer’ chemicals.
• The main weakness of the manual is that there is no integration of the information in the manual and a lack of support on how to integrate management approaches.

Recommendations

The recommendations to improve IPM best practice, advice and adoption are:

• While further research and development would benefit the effectiveness of IPM within the apple and pear industry, the major requirement to improve the adoption of IPM is further extension.
• A key gap identified during industry consultation was the availability of appropriate, independent support and district level information to assist IPM decision-making. Therefore key extension approaches should:

â—¦                     Develop regional extension programs that include demonstrations of IPM in commercial orchards;

â—¦                     Improve the capacity of advisors to provide reliable and independent advice, for example through training and accreditation; and

â—¦                     Improve communication to growers and industry of the benefits of implementing an IPM approach.

• Key recommendations on how to update the current IPM manual to make it a more effective and useful document include:

â—¦                     Maintaining the currency of pesticide information by housing content online, enabling regular updates;

â—¦                     Ensuring coverage of all pest, diseases and weeds relevant to the apple and pear industry, as there are currently gaps. For example, harlequin bug is becoming a more significant secondary pest and it is not included in the manual;

â—¦                     Providing a guide on how to integrate control measures; and

â—¦                     Improving accessibility by having section(s) online that are more readily used by growers and advisors as a decision support tool, which would also make that manual more adaptable and easy to update when necessary.

• All segments of the apple and pear industry need to be supportive of an integrated approach to pest management in order to increase the implementation of IPM within industry. This needs to include:

â—¦                     Incentivising growers to produce fruit with minimum pesticide usage and educate consumers on appropriate quality levels;

â—¦                     Improving the timeliness and information flow of the registration processes for new pesticide products; and

â—¦                     Promoting a coordinated and consultative approach between growers (industry association), researchers and regulators so that future RD&E is designed to promote market access and that trade protocols are developed that incorporate and support an IPM approach.

To  align IPM with, and facilitate, market access, industry should:

• Continue to promote IPM as an approach which provides a natural fit within production systems focussed on market access in that it results in reduced pesticide usage and improved product quality.
• Use IPM as a tool to leverage market access, demonstrate industry best practice and demand a premium for product (recognising that in itself IPM does not provide market access).
• Incorporate IPM into trade access protocols as part of a consultative approach between regulators and industry. Any IPM approach incorporated into trade protocols needs to be:

â—¦                     Auditable and follow a risk based approach such as Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP);

â—¦                     Designed to ensure market access (rather than restriction); and

â—¦                     Promote a truly integrated management approach rather than just monitoring protocols.

Acknowledgements

This project was undertaken by RM Consulting Group and IPM Technologies for Hort Innovation, and was funded by the apple and pear levy paid by growers with matched funds from the Australian Government.

About the author

Kristen Stirling is a Senior Consultant with RM Consulting Group; Paul Horne is Director/Entomologist at IPM Technologies; Carl Larsen is a Senior Consultant with RM Consulting Group; and Angelica Cameron is a Consultant/Entomologist at IPM Technologies.

Source: APAL