<<   back to Appendices

IPM Assessment Tool Survey: Summary and Results

May 22, 2000

Summary and Results compiled by :

John Vickery, Environment and Agriculture Program

IATP, Minneapolis, MN

Stephanie Lundeen, Environment and Agriculture Program

IATP, Minneapolis, MN

Thanks to all of you that replied to our survey.

Below is some background information and a summary of the results.

Cordially,

Stephanie Lundeen and John Vickery

IATP

_________

IPM Survey Results

PURPOSE

To identify the Integrated Pest Management assessment instruments or tools available in each state. These include: survey instruments, farmer self-assessment tools, and criteria for environmental marketing. Sometimes the terms IPM "guidelines," "protocol," "elements," are used.

Whenever any of us needs an IPM self-assessment tool or survey instrument, we will want to customize them to meet specific needs, but it is a great help to be able to start with a tool or survey instrument that has already been developed. For example, with Tom Green (IPM Works and IPM Institute), IATP is developing an IPM assessment tool for field corn. We previously knew about efforts in Ohio and New York, but now know that we need to contact folks in Illinois, Oregon, and Wyoming so that we can learn from their efforts.

METHODOLOGY

The IPM assessment tool survey instrument was sent via email from IATP to every state IPM coordinator (or similar individual) on April 28, 2000. John Vickery, Tom Green, and Mike Fitzner (IPM Program, USDA-CSREES) were identified as the senders—or surveyors! A deadline was given and a reminder email was sent prior to the deadline. The results of this first attempt resulted in 20 completed surveys. In an attempt to gather surveys from the states that did not respond, the IPM survey was sent a second time to a different contact person in each of those states. As a result, another 14 states responded. The total number of states that responded to the survey was 34. Below is a brief summary of the results

RESPONDING STATES WITH EXTENSION ASSESSMENT TOOLS

state: respondent 23 total

AK: Fred Sorensen **

CT: Richard A. Ashley

GA: Paul Guillebeau

HI: Ronald F.L. Mau

FL: Russ Mizell

IA: Jerald DeWitt

ID: Edward John Bechinski

IL: Michael Gray

KY: Doug Johnson

LA: Clayton A. Hollier

MA: Bill Coli ***

ME: Jim Dill

NJ: George Hamilton

NM: Carol A. Sutherland **

NY: Curt Petzoldt ***

OH: Joe Kovach

OK: Gerrit W. Cuperus

OR: Leonard Coop

TN: Karen M. Vail

UT: Diane G. Alston

VT: Lorraine P. Berkett

WI: Bryan Jensen

WY: Tom Whitson

**Based on available information, the materials from these states do not appear to be assessment tools, per se.

***More information for MA & NY is provided in the conference proceedings "Adding Value Through Environmental Marketing". NY -presentation summary and MA - appendix IV. A.

RESPONDING STATES LACKING ASSESSMENT TOOLS

state: respondent 14 total

AS: Fred Brooks (American Samoa)

AZ: John C. Palumbo

CA: Peter Goodell

CO: Bill Brown

CNMI: A. Lee Eavy (Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands)

DE: Joanne Whalen

KS: Douglas J. Jardine

MN: Kenneth Ostlie

ND: Marcia McMullen

NE: Robert J. Wright

RI: Richard Casagrande

SD: Darrell Deneke

VA: Ames Herbert

VI: Jozef Keularts (Virgin Islands)

NONRESPONDING STATES AND TERRITORIES

18 total

AL, AR, DC, GU, IN, MD, MI, MS, MO, MT, NV, NH, NC, PA, SC, TX, WA, WV

STATES THAT HAVE IPM ASSESSMENT TOOLS: a listing by crop

(Agricultural Crops & Other):

Agricultural Crops:

agronomic crops: CT

alfalfa: IA, OH, OK, NY, WY

apples: ME, MA, NJ, OR, VT

asparagus: NY

banana: HI

beans: NY, OR

beets: NY

blueberries: MA, NJ, NY

broccoli: OR

cabbage: OH, NY

carrot: OH, NY

cauliflower: NY, OR

chile: NM

cole crops: MA

field corn: IA, IL, OH, OR, NY, WY

cotton: GA, LA, NM, OK

cranberry: MA

cucumber: OH, NY

fruit: KY

lettuce: OH, NY

macadamia: HI

melons: NY

onions: ID

peaches: NJ

peanuts: OK

pear: OR

peas: NY, WI

pecans: NM, OK

peppermint: OR

peppers: FL, MA, NY, OH

pineapple: HI

potato: AK, ID, ME, MA, OH

radish: OH

raspberry: MA, NY

rice: LA

small grains: WY

snap beans: OH, WI

soybean: IA, IL, LA, OH

squash/pumpkin: MA, OH, NY

stored grain: OK

strawberries: ME, MA

sugarbeets: ID, WY

sugarcane: LA

sweet corn: ME, MA, OH, WI, NY

tomato: FL, MA, OH, NY

vegetables: CT

wheat: ID, KY, OH, OK

wine grapes: CA, MA

Other:

beekeeping: TN

greenhouse: CT, OK

landscape: TN

livestock: FL

ornamentals: FL, GA

poincettia: MA

poultry houses: CA

schools: GA, TN

urban: OK

Summary of question #6. Purpose: those who ranked "incentives" as an important purpose and identified the type/s of incentive.

CT and OK: EQIP (USDA Environmental Quality Incentives Program)

MA: - not identified [environmental marketing; formerly, federal cost sharing, state public recognition program--editors]

NY: IPM Labeling

BLANK SURVEY RESPONSE FORM

Contact info. for respondent SAMPLE—for format Primary responsibility: 1. Crop(s) with assessment tools A. B. C. etc. 2. Status

3. Format A. multiple choice OR dichotomous/yes vs. no/checklist B. point system/quantitative OR qualitative ratings Includes sections or criteria on: (Assumed: sections or criteria on management of insects, weeds, diseases and/or nematodes) 4. Organizations involved, other than Extension

5. Who is the audience-the intended user-for the tool? ("*" denotes the primary audience) 6. Purpose (Rank order, starting with "1" for the most important purpose) - educational and/or motivational tool for farmers - identify crop production system weaknesses - characterize adoption of IPM practices - evaluate Extension programs - determine eligibility for incentive * - identify research needs - federal or state reporting requirements - other, specify

7. Primarily a survey instrument? 8. Primary contact person for the assessment tool (if different from respondent): 9. Website URL for info Assessment tools available on line?

10. Publications, reports 11. Project description—narrative or other explanation

SURVEY RESULTS

ALASKA Fred Sorensen IPM Coordinator University of Alaska—Fairbanks 2221 E. Northern Lights Blvd #118 Anchorage, AK 99508 907 786-6300 Fax 786-6312 dffes@uaa.alaska.edu 1. Crops A. potato	2. Status A final version completed 3. Format A. B. Includes sections or criteria on: - education	4. Other organizations involved 5. Audience - farmers - publics sector ag. professionals - other specify: general public 6. Purpose (rank order) - 1 educational and/or motivational tool for farmers -2 characterize adoption of IPM practices -3 identify crop production system weaknesses	7. Primarily a survey instrument? No The guide deals with Potato Late Blight and prevention. It is a guide and information pamphlet directed to producers and the general public about the disease and information on how to identify, prevent, and eradicate. 8. Primary contact person for the assessment tool (if different from respondent): 9. Website URL for info None Assessment tools available on line? No	10. Publications, reports 11. Project description--narrative Alaska has a disease-free seed potato market internationally and the threat of Potato Late Blight has the potential of causing major damage to that market. We have had a seasonal scouting program in the potato fields and have published a pamphlet on IPM for the disease for use by the producers and homeowners. The latter, we feel, need the information as well, since the introduction of the disease may be from seed potatoes brought in by the general public. Knowledge of the potential problems may prevent it occurring in the future.
CALIFORNIA Peter B. Goodell, PhD IPM Extension Coordinator UC Statewide IPM Project Kearney Ag Center, 9240 So Riverbend, Parlier Ca 93648 559/646-6515 Fax: 559/646-6593 1. Crops A. Grapes Lodi Woodbrodge Central Coast Sun Maid Raisin (?) B. IPM in Poultry Houses	2. Status Unanswered 3. Format Unanswered Includes sections or criteria on:	4. Other organizations involved Woodbridge/Lodi - Cliff Omart Central Coast Vineyard Alliance - Mary Bianchi Sun Maid Raisins - Joe Kretsch Poultry House IPM - Lesley Hinkle See notes for contact info on the above organizations.	5. Audience Unanswered 6. Purpose (rank order) Unanswered 7. Primarily a survey instrument? Unanswered 8. Primary contact person for the assessment tool (if different from respondent): 9. Website URL for info Unanswered Assessment tools available on line? Unanswered	10. Publications, reports Unanswered 11. Project description--narrative See notes/clarification/comments section.
CONNECTICUT Richard A. Ashley IPM Coordinator University of Connecticut Dept. of Plant Science, U-67 Storrs, CT 06269-4067 860-486-3438, FAX 486-0682 1. Crops A. vegetables B. agronomic crops C. greenhouse	2. Status C draft version available A,B final version completed 3. Format A. B,C dichotomous/yes vs. no/checklist B. A point system Includes sections or criteria on: A,B,C soil conservation or management A,B,C nutrient and/or soil quality management C water conservation or irrigation management	4. Other organizations involved None 5. Audience - farmers - *** other specify: IPM Coordinator 6. Purpose - 1 evaluate Extension programs - 2 federal or state reporting requirements - 3 characterize adoption of IPM practices - 4 educational and/or motivational tool for farmers - 5 identify crop production system weaknesses - 6 identify research needs - 7 determine eligibility for incentive * *EQIP	7. Primarily a survey instrument? No 8. Primary contact person for the assessment tool (if different from respondent): 9. Website URL for info No Assessment tools available on line? No	10. Publications, reports None 11. Project description--narrative Program leaders use pre- and post- training surveys to determine impacts on participating growers. IPM coordinator uses evaluation forms developed by program leaders to assess the level of adoption and use of IPM practices by a ramdom sample of growers.
FLORIDA Russ Mizell Professor and IPM coordinator U of Florida Rt. 4, Box 4092 Monticello, FL 32344 850-342-0990 rfm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu 50% research/extension, 50 administration- IPM coordinator 1. Crops A. Tomato B. Ornamentals C. Livestock D. Peppers and other vegetables	2. Status A-D Final version completed 3. Format unanswered Includes sections or criteria on:	4. Other organizations involved 5. Audience - regulators 6. Purpose (rank order) - 1 characterize adoption of IPM practices - 2 federal or state reporting requirements	7. Primarily a survey instrument? Yes 8. Primary contact person for the assessment tool (if different from respondent): O. Norman Nesheim, Pesticide Information Coordinator 9. Website URL for info Unanswered Assessment tools available on line?	10. Publications, reports Contact N. Nesheim 11. Project description--narrative PIAP assessment and impact surveys with IPM questions; no other IPM tools
GEORGIA Paul Guillebeau IPM/Pesticide Coordinator University of Georgia. Department of Entomology Athens GA 30602 706-542-9031 FAX 542-3872 pguillebeau@bugs.ent.uga.edu Coordinate/facilitate IPM and pesticide programs 1. Crops A. cotton B. ornamentals C. schools	2. Status A final version completed B, C draft version available 3. Format A. A-C, multiple choice B. A-C point system Includes sections or criteria on: A - soil conservation or management A - nutrient and/or soil quality management A-C - education	4. Other organizations involved 5. Audience - farmers -other, specify: school personnel, PCOs, and school administration 6. Purpose (rank order) - 1 educational and/or motivational tool for farmers - 2 identify research needs - 2 characterize adoption of IPM practices - 2 evaluate Extension programs - 3 identify crop production system weaknesses - 3 federal or state reporting requirements - 4 determine eligibility for incentive * *Not identified	7. Primarily a survey instrument? No 8. Primary contact person for the assessment tool (if different from respondent): 9. Website URL for info No Assessment tools available on line? No	10. Publications, reports Guillebeau, Paul, Gretchen Van De Mark. 1999. Cotton IPM. Georgia Farm*A*Syst/ Cotton*A*Syst. University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service, Bulletin 1152-19 11. Project description--narrative
HAWAII Ronald F.L. Mau Assoc. Dean/ Assoc. Director for Cooperative Extension Univ of Hawaii College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources 3050 Maile Way, Room 203B Honolulu, Hawaii 96822-2271 808-956-8397 Fax: 956-9105 Mobile 808-265-4554 Former Extension IPM Coordinator. 1. Crops A. Pineapple B. Banana C. Macadamia	2. Status A,B,C final version completed 3. Format A. unanswered B. point system Includes sections or criteria on: - nutrient and/or soil quality management	4. Other organizations involved All protocols were developed by Univ of Hawaii and industry field men. The pineapple protocol involved the Maui Pineapple Company. The banana and macadamia protocols were approved by state industry organizations and recommended for use by the organizations. 5. Audience - farmers* - regulators 6. Purpose (rank order) - 1 educational and/or - -motivational tool for farmers - 1 characterize adoption of IPM practices - 1 federal or state reporting requirements	7. Primarily a survey instrument? Yes. The instrument is used to verify level of adoption of IPM Practices 8. Primary contact person for the assessment tool (if different from respondent): Dr. Arnold Hara, Extension IPM Coordinator arnold@hawaii.edu 9. Website URL for info http://www.extento.hawaii.edu/IPM/ Assessment tools available on line? Yes	10. Publications, reports 11. Project description--narrative The pineapple IPM protocol were patterned after the New York and Mass. elements/ guidelines. The macadamia and banana guidelines were modeled after the national potato IPM program. If further information is needed it might be available in our plan of work at the USDA IPM Website.
IDAHO Edward John Bechinski Extension IPM Coordinator University of Idaho 236 Ag. Sci. Bldg Moscow, ID 83844 208.885.5972 FAX .885.7760 l ed_bechinski@uidaho 1. Crops A. potatoes B. sugarbeets C. wheat D. onions	2. Status A -D final version completed 3. Format A. A-D_multiple choice B. Unanswered Includes sections or criteria on:	4. Other organizations involved Financially co-sponsored by state commodity commissions 5. Audience - farmers - private sector ag. professionals - publics sector ag. professionals 6. Purpose - 1 characterize adoption of IPM practices - 2 evaluate Extension programs - 3 identify research needs - 4 educational and/or motivational tool for farmers	7. Primarily a survey instrument? Yes 8. Primary contact person for the assessment tool (if different from respondent): 9. Website URL for info agweb.ag.uidaho.edu/ipm Assessment tools available on line? Yes	10. Publications, reports 11. Project description--narrative
ILLINOIS Michael E. Gray Professor & Extension IPM Coordinator Institution University of Illinois Department of Crop Sciences Address 2 S-320 Turner Hall, 1102 S. Goodwin Avenue Urbana, IL 61801 217-333-6652; FAX 333-5245 m-gray4@uiuc.edu 1. Crops A. corn B. soybean	2. Status A -D final version completed 3. Format A. A-D multiple choice B. Unanswered Includes sections or criteria on: -education (attends training, receives newsletters, etc.)	4. Other organizations involved Not aware of any others. 5. Audience - farmers - private sector ag. professionals (summaries in preparation) 6. Purpose (rank order) - 1 characterize adoption of IPM practices - 2 educational and/or motivational tool for farmers -3 identify research needs - 4 identify crop production system weaknesses -5 evaluate Extension programs - 6 determine eligibility for incentive * -7 federal or state reporting requirements * No incentive programs have been created.	7. Primarily a survey instrument? Yes 8. Primary contact person for the assessment tool (if different from respondent): 9. Website URL for info www.aces.uiuc.edu/ipm/field/com/imr/wcrscout/wcrscout.html Assessment tools available on line? Yes	10. Publications, reports In 1995 the following paper concerning the adoption of IPM practices on central Illinois farms was published. Czapar, G.F., M.P. Curry, and M.E. Gray. 1995. Survey of integrated pest management practices in central Illinois. Journal of Production Agriculture, Volume 8, no. 4: 483-486. 11. Project description—narrative See notes/clarification/comments section for more information.
IOWA Jerald DeWitt, Professor Pest Management and the Environment Program Coordinator Iowa State University Department of Entomology Room 8 Insectary Ames, IA 50011-3140 515-294-1101 FAX 515-294-8027 jdewitt@iastate.edu Your primary responsibility: Coordinator of the Pest Management and the Environment Program. This program includes Integrated Pest Management for field crops and urban settings; also pesticide applicator training and educational programs for private and commercial pesticide applicators. 1. Crops A. corn B. soybean C. alfalfa	2. Status A,B draft version available A-C final version completed We have just mailed the final version of the IPM survey to growers in Iowa for corn and soybean. The alfalfa survey is as separate survey instrument for alfalfa growers that was used earlier this year. In addition, we ask questions of producers for our pesticide applicator training programs. 3. Format A. A-C multiple choice and A,B dichotomous/yes vs. no/checklist Includes sections or criteria on: - nutrient and/or soil quality management - education	4. Other organizations involved Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, Natural Resources and Conservation Service, Certified Crop Advisors, Agribusiness Association of Iowa, National Foundation for IPM Education, Texas A&M University, Texas Pest Management Association 5. Audience - farmers - private sector ag. professionals - publics sector ag. professionals 6. Purpose - 3 educational and/or motivational tool for farmers (and/or other audience) - 1 identify crop production system weaknesses - 1 characterize adoption of IPM practices - 4 evaluate Extension programs - 7 determine eligibility for incentive * - 6 identify research needs - 5 federal or state reporting requirements	7. Primarily a survey instrument? Yes 8. Primary contact person for the assessment tool (if different from respondent): Carol Pilcher 325 N Union St Good Hope, IL 61438 phone 309-456-3513 email csimmons@iastate.edu 9. Website URL for info No Assessment tools available on line? No	10. Publications, reports Contact Carol Pilcher Reports will be generated when IPM survey is completed. 11. Project description--narrative The primary objective of the IPM survey was to take an important step towards developing a standardized measurement tool for the adoption of IPM that can be utilized by multiple agencies across different commodities. This research evaluated existing measurement devices to develop an appropriate tool with field level applicability. We are currently in the process of demonstrating the use of this tool across state lines with corn, cotton, and soybean production. The alfalfa survey was designed to reveal specific management techniques that are used in alfalfa production in Iowa. From these data, we can better estimate client needs and develop educational materials that answer producer needs.

KENTUCKY Doug Johnson Extension Entomologist University of Kentucky Research and Education Center P.O. Box 469 (1205 Hopkinsville St.) Princeton, KY 42445-0469 270.365.7541 x214; FAX 365.2667 djohnson@ca.uky.edu IPM: http://www.uky.edu/Agriculture/IPM/ipm.htm ENTOMOLOGY: http://www.uky.edu/Agriculture/Entomology/enthp.htm Extension Entomologist 1. Crops A. Wheat B. Fruit

2. Status A, B revised/updated version will be available (date/year?) 3. Format A. Unanswered B. A, B Point system Include(s) sections or criteria on: A, B soil conservation or management A, B nutrient and/or soil quality management B organic amendments A, B education

4. Other organizations involved See 11. 5. Audience farmers private sector ag. professionals publics sector ag. professionals 6. Purpose (rank order) - 1 educational and/or motivational tool for farmers -2 identify crop production system weaknesses - 2 characterize adoption of IPM practices - 2 evaluate Extension programs - 2 identify research needs - 3 federal or state reporting requirements - NA determine eligibility for incentive *

7. Primarily a survey instrument? Yes 8. Primary contact person for the assessment tool (if different from respondent): 9. Website URL for info Not yet available. Assessment tools available on line? No, but will be as time and support permits

10. Publications, reports Annual reports available on USDA IPM site. 11. Project description--narrative IPM programs utilize expertise and participation from: Entomology, Plant Pathology, Agronomy, Horticulture, Agricultural Engineering, Agricultural Weather, and Agricultural Communications. Additionally, IPM will share personnel teaching materials, programs, and ideas with efforts in Pesticide Applicator Training (KYPAT), Pesticide Impact Assessment, and Food Safety, Water Quality, and Sustainable Agriculture Working Groups. See notes/clarification/comments section for more information.

LOUISIANA Clayton A. Hollier Division Leader (Plant Science) & Specialist (Plant Pathology) Louisiana Cooperative Extension Service P. O. Box 25100 Baton Rouge, LA 70894-5100 225-388-2186 FAX 388-2478 chollier@agctr.lsu.edu 1. Crops A. Sugarcane B. Rice C. Cotton D. Soybeans	2. Status A – D final version completed 3. Format A. A –D dichotomous/yes vs. no/checklist B. Quantitative/Population Density/Unit Area Include(s) sections or criteria on: A soil conservation or management A nutrient and/or soil quality management A organic amendments A – D water conservation or irrigation management A – D education	4. Other organizations involved Consultants associations Commodity associations NRCS Farm Bureau 5. Audience farmers private sector ag. professionals publics sector ag. professionals regulators other, specify: Agricultural Extension Agents 6. Purpose (rank order) - 1 educational and/or motivational tool for farmers - 1 evaluate Extension programs - 1 identify research needs - 2 identify crop production system weaknesses - 2 characterize adoption of IPM practices - 3 federal or state reporting requirements	7. Primarily a survey instrument? No 8. Primary contact person for the assessment tool (if different from respondent): 9. Website URL for info Yes www.agctr.lsu.edu/wwwac (then go to Commodity Pages) Assessment tools available on line? (No, not yet, still in planning stage)	10. Publications, reports LCES Publication no. 1083, 1118, 1261, 1565, 1606, 1802, 1838, 1982, 2211, 2241, 2284, 2067, 2147, 2307, 2321, 2341, 2377, 2314, 2496, 2513, 2521, 2554, 2620, 2746 Annual reports available on USDA IPM site. 11. Project description--narrative
MAINE Jim Dill Pest Management Specialist University of Maine UMCE PMO 491 College Ave. Orono, ME 04473-1295 207-581-3870 FAX 581-3881 jdill@umext.maine.edu 1. Crops A. Potatoes B. Sweet corn C. Apples D. Strawberries	2. Status A,B,C,D: final version completed (for program evaluation only)* 3. Format unanswered Includes sections or criteria on:	4. Other organizations involved 5. Audience farmers 6. Purpose (rank order) - 1 characterize adoption of IPM practices - 1 evaluate Extension programs - 2 educational and/or motivational tool for farmers - 3 identify crop production system weaknesses - 3 identify research needs - 4 federal or state reporting requirements	7. Primarily a survey instrument? Yes 8. Primary contact person for the assessment tool (if different from respondent): 9. Website URL for info No Assessment tools available on line? No	10. Publications, reports 11. Project description--narrative *These are strictly program evaluation surveys— not a point system like National Potato Council's IPM Protocol
MASSACHUSETTS William M. Coli Extension Educator Department of Entomology Agricultural Engineering Bldg. University of Massachusetts Amherst MA 01003 413-545-1051 Fax 545-5858 wcoli@umext.umass.edu 1. Crops A. Apple B. Cranberry C. Cole crops D. Field tomato E Greenhouse tomato F. Highbush blueberry G. Peppers H. Poinsettia I. Potato J. Pumpkin and winter squash K. Raspberry L. Strawberry M. Sweet Corn N. Wine grapes	2. Status ALL CROPS final version completed 3. Format A. Unanswered B. ALL point system Include(s) sections or criteria on: ALL soil conservation or management ALL nutrient and/or soil quality management B water conservation or irrigation management ALL education	4. Other organizations involved Various grower associations Private IPM Consultants Dept. of Food and Agriculture 5. Audience -farmers -private sector ag. professionals -publics sector ag. professionals -auditors, certifiers -regulators -other, specify: environmental advocacy groups & consumers 6. Purpose (rank order) - 1 educational and/or motivational tool for farmers - 1 characterize adoption of IPM practices - 2 identify research needs - 2 federal or state reporting requirements - 3 evaluate Extension programs - 4 determine eligibility for incentive * *not identified [environmental marketing; formerly, federal cost sharing--editor]	7. Primarily a survey instrument? No 8. Primary contact person for the assessment tool (if different from respondent): 9. Website URL for info http://www.umass.edu/umext/programs/agro/ipm/IPM_guidelines/ Assessment tools available on line? Yes	10. Publications, reports ~ Hollingsworth, Craig and the University of Massachusetts Extension IPM Program. Amherst, MA, USA for Integrated Pest Management, Massachusetts Guidelines: Commodity Specific Definitions for sweet corn and potatoes ~ Hollingsworth, C.S. 1994. Integrated Pest Management certification: a sign by the road. American Entomologist. 40(Summer):74–75.) ~ Coli, W.M., and C.S. Hollingsworth. 1996. IPM: defining the ambiguous. The Grower. (April):48,49,58 11. Project description--narrative See notes/clarification/comments section for more information.
NEW JERSEY Dr. George Hamilton Associate Specialist in Pest Management Dept. of Entomology Rutgers University 93 Lipman Drive New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8525 732-932-9801 FAX 932- hamilton@aesop.rutgers.edu IPM, PAT, PIA 1. Crops	2. Status Many more veggies: in planning ALL: final version completed - Apples, peaches and blueberries: revised/updated version will be available: 7/00 3. Format A. Unanswered B. point system AND qualitative ratings Includes sections or criteria on: - soil conservation or management nutrient and/or soil quality management - organic amendments - water conservation or irrigation management - education	4. Other organizations involved Wegman's New Jersey Department of Agriculture 5. Audience - farmers 6. Purpose (rank order) - 1 determine eligibility for incentive * - 2 characterize adoption of IPM practices - 3 educational and/or motivational tool for farmers - 4 identify crop production system weaknesses