Marty Jungman EA – IPM
Relevance
This program provides crop producers with environmentally and economically sustainable options. Cotton producers in Hill and northern McLennan Counties are confronted with reduced income therefore creating a greater need for IPM practices. Approximately ten thousand acres of cotton are planted in Hill and northern McLennan Counties. Adoption of new technologies is vital for producers to maintain economic competitiveness. Hill/McLennan IPM Steering Committee sets the guidelines for the IPM Cotton Scouting Program, recommends result demonstration/applied research trials and educational meetings. IPM practices will enable cotton producers to minimize expenses and maximize profits.
Response
Extension activities were designed to educate producers on the importance of IPM tactics and strategies, economic thresholds and other management practices to reduce input costs and maximize yields. A post survey was sent to IPM Cotton Scouting Program participants to monitor the value of the IPM Program. Post surveys were conducted at the Cotton Production Meeting in August and the Cotton Production Meeting in November to evaluate participants’ increase in knowledge and adoption of practices at these educational activities.
IPM Cotton Scouting Program Survey was conducted with 30 producers participating in the program with 24 responding to the post survey.
Cotton Production Meeting in August was conducted with 47 producers attending the program with 41 responding to the post survey.
Cotton Production Meeting in November was held with 46 producers attending the program with 33 responding to the post survey.
Results
IPM Cotton Scouting Program participants were sent a post survey to evaluate the IPM Cotton Program. Twenty four of thirty participants responded to the survey. Participants were asked: Does IPM usually maintain or increase yields while reducing input costs resulting in increased net profits? 23 responded yes, 1 responded no. If yes, by what dollar amount per acre? Respondents indicated an average of $48.95 per acre. Participants were asked to assign a dollar figure to represent a value of the IPM Program to their operation including monitoring crop development, pest and natural enemies, conducting applied research and demonstrations and providing educational programs, what would the value per acre be? Respondents indicated an average of $64.09 per acre.
Twenty‐one respondents indicated that IPM was instrumental in their decision to adopt new technology on their farm.
Cotton Production Meeting – August was conducted with a post survey to measure the effectiveness of this educational program including a customer satisfaction section. Participants had the following increased level of understanding on these topics.
* 79% ‐ cotton plant harvest‐aids.
* 76% ‐ the current status of boll weevil eradication.
When asked their intentions to adopt a specific practice or technology, participants responded:
* 53% ‐ definitely will take actions or make changes based on the information from this activity.
* 33% ‐ definitely will adopt recommendation for harvest aid.
* 23% ‐ definitely will adopt harvest aid information presented
Cotton Production Meeting – November was held with a post survey conducted to measure the effectiveness of the educational program. Participants had the following increased level of understanding on these topics.
* 62% ‐ leaf grade problems and solutions on cotton.
* 59% ‐ lint quality measurements.
When asked their intentions to adopt a specific practice or technology, participants responded:
* 30% ‐definitely will adopt information presented to select cotton varieties.
In summary, an average dollar value of $64.09 per acre for the IPM Program and 7,600 acres scouted in the Hill and McLennan Counties Scouting Program the total dollar value would be $487,000.
FUTURE PLANS
Maintain a viable IPM Cotton Program that includes educational activities, adoption of new technologies and best management practices.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Hill/McLennan IPM Steering Committee members; Josh Birdwell, Jason Hejl, Josh Gerik, Ronnie Gerik, Richard Holy, Thomas Holy, Clyde Nowlin, Kennie Nowlin, Barney Pustejovsky, Phil Pustejovsky, Blair
Russell, John Sawyer, James Ray Schronk, Rodney Schronk and Chase Yankie for providing direction and
support for the IPM Wheat Program. Dr. Gaylon Morgan and Mr. Dale Mott for providing technical support.