Jump to main content.

IPM/Biological Control Program for Greenhouse Production of Vegetables and Ornamental Plants: Education, Training and Technology Transfer to Pennsylvania Growers

Project Coordinator

Lyle B. Forer, Director
Bureau of Plant Industry
Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture
2301 North Cameron Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110-9408
717-772-5200
717-783-3275 (fax)

Project Duration: 18 months

Matching Funds
  Request Non-Federal Federal
First Year Funding 40,000 42,000
Total Funding Request 40,000 42,000  

Abstract

The focus of this project is to reduce worker exposure to pesticides in the greenhouse environment by implementing IPM/biocontrol. Growers in this rapidly expanding industry will be less dependent on pesticide use, thus delaying development of pesticide resistance, and will avoid phytotoxicity problems and physical damage to plants from spray equipment. Consumers of greenhouse-grown products also will face less potential of exposure to pesticides.

A statewide greenhouse Integrated Pest Management (IPM)/biocontrol program will be initiated in Pennsylvania with emphasis on technology transfer. A core group of growers in western Pennsylvania will receive one on one, hands on training in IPM/biocontrol concepts, selection and deployment of natural enemies, biological information on plant pests and their associated natural enemies, pesticide resistance, scouting, and record keeping. A scouting manual will be prepared that eventually will be used as core material in a greenhouse IPM/biocontrol scout certification program.

Participating greenhouses will serve as demonstration areas for other growers to observe. Plant Inspectors of the PDA will be trained so they can promote IPM/biocontrol throughout the state, and where possible, staff of Penn State University's Cooperative Extension program will assist in the promotion of IPM/biocontrol.

As a result of this cooperative effort, we expect to document an increase in the number of greenhouses adopting IPM/biocontrol programs and an overall interest among growers who want to consider adopting some aspect of IPM in their operations. Through monitoring of pesticide application records, we will be able to document reductions in numbers of applications and in the amount of active ingredient applied.

Project Title: IPM/Biological Control Program for Greenhouse Production of Vegetables and Ornamental Plants: Education, Training and Technology Transfer to Pennsylvania Greenhouse Operators

Greenhouse production of ornamental and bedding plants and vegetables has a great need for Integrated Pest Management (IPM) technology. Overall, little work has been done in this rapidly growing area, especially when compared to IPM in fruit and field crops. Horticultural IPM remains in its infancy in large part because of the traditional reliance on pesticides to produce marketable crops and reluctance of many growers to invest time and money in a more complex, alternate approach. The need to produce pest free, aesthetically pleasing plants and the heavy use of chemicals has lead to concerns over worker protection and pesticide residues. With only a small number of pesticides available for use in greenhouses (especially on vegetables), their continued and frequent use can lead to development of resistance, thus compounding problems. The recent formation of the Pennsylvania IPM Program by the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (PDA) and Penn State University has helped make greenhouse producers more aware of IPM and its benefits, thus providing a more receptive audience for implementation of the concept.

A research project sponsored by the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (PDA) in the early 1990s resulted in the development of an IPM-based biocontrol program for production of poinsettias and greenhouse-grown tomatoes. The participating poinsettia growers controlled whitefly populations by periodic releases of parasitic wasps and marketed plants that were aesthetically pleasing to consumers and in some cases were able to be sold as pesticide-free plants. A similar project was initiated with a greenhouse tomato producer who, prior to participating, was releasing parasites of whiteflies at the beginning of each week and following up with a pesticide application at the end of the week. This grower, who continues to use biocontrol, has decreased his use of pesticides by nearly 100%, relies on parasitic wasps for whitefly control, and because of nearly total elimination of pesticides, has been able to utilize bumblebees instead of human labor to pollinate tomato flowers. Use of these bees has enhanced pollination, providing an increase in yields, another economic benefit.

The IPM/biocontrol program allowed six poinsettia growers and the tomato grower an opportunity to substantially reduce pesticide application (in some cases, by 100%). The six poinsettia growers have formed a greenhouse IPM cooperative and hired a part-time scout so they can continue the biocontrol program. This documents the ability of our programs to fit into the production structure of private industry.

Since PDA's sponsorship of the IPM/biocontrol program ended, the need for continued technology transfer of the program has been apparent. Several growers in western Pennsylvania are very interested in adopting this technology, but a lack of trained scouts and lack of an agency (and qualified individual) to spearhead such an effort has hindered progress. The failure of most IPM education programs is that the concepts are not carried out beyond the training session. The need for developing a program infrastructure and implementing the initial IPM concepts will result in IPM adoption.

We propose to use PESP funds to hire Cathy Thomas, the researcher who developed the IPM/biocontrol project sponsored by PDA in the early 1990s, to accomplish the technology transfer to the horticultural industry, beginning with those interested growers in western Pennsylvania. Ms. Thomas will be receiving her Master's Degree from Penn State University in Summer, 1999, and will be available for this work. Her degree work involved IPM/biocontrol research, making her well qualified to coordinate this project.

In addition to the technology transfer, Ms. Thomas will develop a scouting manual and begin work on a certification program for IPM scouts. She also will serve as a support person for PDA Plant Inspectors who annually visit all greenhouses in the state and will have opportunities to promote IPM/biocontrol to growers.

The project can be promoted by both PDA field inspection staff and the Cooperative Extension staff of Penn State University, making IPM adoption a cooperative effort by both agencies. Such an initiative will allow for both groups to continue their efforts to make the agricultural community aware of IPM and to facilitate adoption of this technology. Additional benefits include development of a scouting manual, a certification program for IPM scouts, development of new IPM techniques, and the potential for eventual expansion of this work to include similar objectives for nursery-grown ornamentals and Christmas trees. Program deliverables will represent transferable technologies that could easily be expanded statewide and to other states as well.

Objectives

  1. Hire a person with experience in greenhouse IPM/biocontrol to respond to growers requests for education, training and the technology transfer necessary for them to adopt and implement an IPM/biological control program in their greenhouses.
  2. Conduct meetings with growers to determine level of interest in IPM and make arrangements to enroll them in a trial program.
  3. Conduct the technology transfer and train growers in the use of IPM/biocontrol for use on poinsettias and/or tomatoes in greenhouses.
  4. Work with PDA Plant Inspection staff, either in the field or in training sessions, to expose them to IPM/biocontrol tactics so they can promote and explain the concept to other interested growers and therefore create opportunities for additional technology transfer.
  5. Work with Penn State Cooperative Extension staff to incorporate new IPM concepts into the program.

Justification for Objective

  1. A critical part of this proposal is a person with expertise in greenhouse biocontrol programs. We have such a person in mind, one who basically did virtually all the hands on work associated with a project that the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture funded from 1989-1992. This person worked with about a half dozen growers most of whom produced ornamentals and one who grew tomatoes. She introduced them to the concept of IPM/biocontrol, acquainted them with the parasite used, demonstrated and conducted the actual weekly scouting, evaluated quality of parasites the growers received, and made recommendations as to when any chemical controls were necessary. In addition, she also kept records on pest thresholds and pesticide use and provided information to growers the economic benefits of reduced pesticide usage during the project.
  2. The next critical step is expanding this project from a small group of greenhouses to a statewide program embraced by the industry. We feel this can be accomplished rather easily with one group of about six growers in the Pittsburgh area, who have expressed interest in the technology transfer but have no one to develop the program. We will target this area as the primary one for development of the program. These six growers have already learned of the success of the previous biocontrol work that PDA funded in Lancaster and Lebanon counties in the eastern part of the state, where implementation of the biocontrol work resulted in the formation of a private greenhouse IPM cooperative.
    After the project is initiated in the Pittsburgh area, non-participating growers can be invited to observe the biocontrol work as a demonstration project, thus giving them an educational opportunity to talk with the growers involved. If the participating growers are supportive of the project, we feel that this will make it easy to promote to growers in other areas of the state.
  3. Training of growers will be accomplished through initial educational sessions followed by intensive one-on-one, hands on type training in the greenhouse setting. Growers will be educated/trained on scouting techniques, pest and parasite biology, release of parasites, population assessment of both parasitized and non-parasitized whiteflies, determining economic thresholds for problem pests, and record keeping. A resource person can guide a grower through times of indecision and unforeseen problems, and as growers gain confidence, they will become more independent. This person also can train greenhouse employees to assist with the scouting. Preparation of a greenhouse scouting manual will be one of the benefits resulting from the hands on approach by the principal investigator.
  4. PDA has a staff of 18 people trained in plant inspection who also will promote this project to other growers. The inspectors' duties include visiting all state greenhouses annually to inspect and examine plant material and to identify pest problems. Information gained from the project and passed on to the Plant Inspectors can assist them in promoting the program and educating non-participating growers in the advantages of biocontrol.
  5. This project represents an opportunity not only to educate growers but also to make Cooperative Extension staff aware of the project and its benefits. Local Extension staff will be invited to training sessions to familiarize them with the goals of the project.

Literature Review

The use of biological control in greenhouses was triggered by epidemic populations of whiteflies in spite of heavy pesticide use. Biological control is predicted to increase due to the high selective pressure that exists in greenhouses from limited pesticide availability (Van Lenteren and Woets1988, Dittrich et al. 1990).

The natural enemy-pest interaction (Hussey and Scopes 1985) of the greenhouse whitefly, Trialeurodes vaporarium (Westwood) and its parasitoid Encarsia formosa (Gahan) has been used successfully in Europe (van Lenteren and Woets 1988, Tittanen and Markkula 1989), and reports in the United States indicate various degrees of success (Parella et al. 1991, Lindquist 1989, Harbaugh and Mattson 1976). With the loss of certain insecticides, progressive Pennsylvania growers became interested in utilizing biological control, and a three year research study was initiated in 1989 with funds from the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, Research Grant ME 449222 and 449260, and the Pennsylvania Vegetable Growers Association. The research was designed to evaluate integrated pest management techniques using natural enemies.

Seven growers participated in this IPM study, and six were able to reduce pesticide applications. Five growers reduced pesticide usage by more than 50%, three were able to eliminate all pesticide applications by using only biological controls. One grower documented the elimination of 47 pesticide applications in a six month period. The growers involved in this project felt that the costs of using biocontrol were comparable to synthetic insecticides and offered the added benefits of increased worker safety and pesticide free fruit (Michael 1991).

Approach and Methods

The methods for this type of work already have been developed. A horticultural IPM specialist works closely with growers and introduces them to the concept of IPM/biocontrol. Pest recognition and biology, scouting, record keeping, pesticide usage, resistance, etc. are all topics the specialist discusses with the grower, who learns how to scout. Parasites are released weekly in an effort to keep whitefly numbers below a threshold. Pesticide intervention may be necessary if whitefly numbers increase, but where possible, insect growth regulators, which are non-toxic to beneficials, are emphasized. IPM/biocontrol is radically different from adopting a preventive program based on pesticide applications, and grower education becomes extremely important.

The approach will center around the Pittsburgh based growers because of their interest in establishing a greenhouse IPM cooperative. Because of the short-term nature of this project, we feel that the person we hire can train and work with growers individually and as a group so that a biocontrol program can be established. Our long term goal is to have greenhouse IPM/biocontrol adopted as a statewide program. The success of the biocontrol work in Lancaster and Lebanon counties has sparked interest in the Pittsburgh area, and we feel that once growers know that a person is available to assist them in establishing such a program that much interest will be generated.

Once the project has been completed, we feel the demand will still be there. As a result, PDA would like to then hire this person and make this program available on a permanent basis for growers. PDA would supply the resource person and support from our Plant Inspectors to assist growers in adopting this new technology. Since the project also involves working on a scouting manual, we feel that as scouts become available, our resource person can move on to assisting other groups of growers with the technology transfer. We also would hope that IPM concepts can be further developed and made available to nurserymen and Christmas tree growers.

Impact Assessment

The number of insect species found in greenhouses in Pennsylvania is small; however, most of them are major pests. Historically, greenhouse operators have relied heavily on pesticides to solve pest problems. Weekly or more frequent applications are not uncommon where whiteflies occur, especially with high dollar value crops such as poinsettia. Growers must maintain records of pesticide applications, and these records will allow documentation of any reduction in pesticide use.

Less use of insecticides has far reaching effects. Worker safety is a major concern to growers, and a biocontrol program provides a considerably safer environment for workers and growers alike. We can document and compare any worker safety incidents during the biocontrol project with any such previous occurrences. Participating growers also can publicize their use of biologicals for the benefit of customers who walk through sales areas, a prime place where people could be exposed to residues. Growers who produce tomatoes also could initiate public education efforts on biocontrol. These initiatives, although simple to do, would challenge us on how to document their effects; our principal investigator will develop a survey form that could be placed in the participating greenhouses.

Appendix A. Literature Cited

Dittrich, V., S. Uk, and G.H. Ernst. 1990. Chemical control and insecticide resistance of whiteflies, pp. 263-285. In D. Gerling (Ed.), Whiteflies: their bionomics, pest status and management. Intercept, Andover, U.K.

Harbaugh, B.K. and R.H. Mattson. 1976. Interaction of the greenhouse whitefly, Trialeurodes vaporariorum Westwood, and its parasite, Encarsia formosa Gahan, on tomato cultivars. HortScience 11:218-219.

Hussey, N.W. and N. Scopes. 1985. Biological pest control. The glasshouse experience. Cornell University Press. Ithaca, N.Y.

Lindquist, R.K. 1989. Whiteflies: avaoiding late-season problems with poinsettia. Ohio Florists' Association Bulletin 717, pp. 1-3.

Michael, A.H. 1991. Biocontrol of whitefly. Greenhouse Grower 9(9):61-63.

Parella, M.P., T.D. Paine, J.A. Bethke, K.L. Robb, and J. Hall. 1991. Evaluation of Encarsia formosa (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae) for biological control of Sweetpotato whitefly (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) on poinsettia. Environmental Entomology 20:713-719.

Tittanen, K. and M. Markkula. 1989. Biological control of pests on Finnish greenhouse vegetables. Acta Entomologica Fennica 53:57-59.

van Lenteren, J.C. and J. Woets. 1988. Biological and integrated control in greenhouses. Annual Review of Entomology 33:239-269.

Appendix B. Timetable

July, 1999: Objective 1. Principal investigator will be hired, introduced to PDA headquarters and regional staffs and to Penn State Cooperative Extension staff. General orientation.

August, 1999: Objective 2. Principal investigator meets with growers, explains program. Project organization occurs.

Sept., 1999 - Dec., 2000: Objectives 3-5. These objectives will be worked on simultaneously. Our goal is to find funds to employ the principal investigator on a permanent basis as a horticultural IPM specialist and use the position to initiate IPM programs in other areas of horticulture, with continued emphasis on greenhouse IPM/biocontrol.

Appendix C. Major Participants

PDA, Bureau of Plant Industry Staff

Employes of the Bureau of Plant Industry will serve in an advisory and technical support capacity for the principal investigator. The staff includes the following:

Interested Growers
  1. Mark Guffey
    Johnston's Nursery
    14179 Lincoln Way
    North Huntingdon, PA
    Grower has 185,000 sq. ft. of greenhouse space and produces flowers and bedding plants. He is interested in scouting, biocontrol and IPM in general.
  2. Neil Tolan
    The Tree House Garden Center
    4734 William Penn Highway
    Monroeville, PA
    Grower has 15,000 sq. ft. of greenhouse space and produces flowers and bedding plants. He is interested in scouting and biocontrol.
  3. Annette Weaver
    Iannetti's Garden Center
    728 Steubenville Pike
    Burgettstown, PA
    Grower has 45,000 sq. ft. in flower and bedding plant production. She is interested in IPM scouting and general information pests, label reading, etc.
  4. Dan Janoski
    Janoski's Farm & Greenhouse
    1714 Route 30
    Clinton, PA
    Grower has 100,000 sq. ft. devoted to flowers and bedding plants. His interests include scouting and general training in greenhouse IPM.
  5. J. E. Mussig Greenhouse
    103 Evans Road
    Zelienople, PA
    Grower has 100,000 sq. ft. in flower and bedding plant production. His interests include IPM scouting and biocontrol.
    These growers are officers of the Pennsylvania Flower Growers, Region 4 area. All of them have had an interest in IPM and need help in implementing a program.

Project Budget

Project Period: July 1, 1999 - December 31, 2000

Budget Category

Grant Funding

 Other Funding Total Funding
Personnel
35,000
 20,000 55,000
Fringe Benefits 5,000 5,000 10,000
Travel   7,000 7,000
Equipment   2,000 2,000
Supplies   8,000 8,000
Contractual      
Other:      
Total 40,000 42,000 82,000

 

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.