Suchergebnisse

Negative externality impacts on environment and human health are the consequences of continuous and heavy use of chemical pesticides. It has also brought about adverse effects towards agricultural production since it was found that only 1 % of the inputs was absorbed by the plants, while the rest was left to the environment as poisonous waste. Realizing such serious problems the Indonesian government waived subsidy for chemical pesticides in 1989 and at the same time Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program was introduced. To see the superiority of IPM technology it is important to evaluate the program in two ways: (l) evaluating whether the IPM technology has successfully reduced the use of chemical pesticides, and (2) what incentives the IPM technology provides to the farmers in coping with the risk of crop loss due to the pest damage. The study found the IPM technology successfully reduced the application of chemical pesticides in Yogyakarta province without sacrificing the level of rice output for the farmers. The study concludes that IPM technology provides incentives to the farmers in the form of lower pest damage, lower crop loss, and better yield so that the farmers are willing to adopt this technology in their rice farming.

Zum Begriff 'Vorratsschutz' sind unterschiedliche Auffassungen möglich und gegenwärtig umgangssprachlich im Gebrauch. Für die Erstellung spezifischer Leitlinien des integrierten Pflanzenschutzes für den Sektor Vorratsschutz, so wie es der Nationale Aktionsplan zur nachhaltigen Anwendung von Pflanzenschutzmitteln der Bundesregierung vorsieht, eignet sich im Resümee jedoch der Begriff 'Vorratsschutz' gemäß seiner Begriffsbestimmung aus dem Pflanzenschutzgesetz im Vergleich zu der umfassenderen Wendung, 'Vorrats- und Nachernteschutz' am besten, weil es hier ausschließlich um den Schutz lagerfähiger Pflanzenerzeugnisse (z.B. Getreide) geht. In der vorliegenden Arbeit wird gezeigt, dass der Vorratsschutz eine spezifische Maßnahme zum Schutz von Erzeugnissen pflanzlichen Ursprungs, die nicht oder nur durch einfache Verfahren be- oder verarbeitet worden sind, ist. Der Begriff 'Nachernteschutz' sollte aus Sicht der Autoren im Sinne des englischen Sprachgebrauchs für den Schutz verderblicher Erntegüter, wie Obst und Gemüse verwandt werden. Die Nähe vieler Vorratsgüter pflanzlichen Ursprungs zum Lebensmittel und die Vielzahl an Bioziden mit Wirkstoffen, welche zum Teil auch für bestimmte Zweckbestimmungen im Vorratsschutz zugelassen sind, führen dazu, dass zukünftige Leitlinien des integrierten Pflanzenschutzes im Sektor Vorratsschutz auch die Biozidprodukte nicht unbeachtet lassen können. Insbesondere ein Resistenzmanagement, wie es die Grundsätze des Integrierten Pflanzenschutzes gemäß Anhang III der Richtlinie 2009/128/EG fordern, sollte diesem Sachverhalt Rechnung tragen. DOI:10.5073/JfK.2014.08.02, https://doi.org/10.5073/JfK.2014.08.02 ; The German term 'Vorratsschutz' i.e. 'stored product protection' is often similarly used for the corresponding but more overall term 'Nachernteschutz' i.e. 'post harvest protection'. This colloquial use does not identically match the meaning of the original word 'Vorratsschutz'. But when developing specific guidelines for integrated pest management in the matters of 'stored product protection' (see 'National Action Plan for the sustainable use of pesticides' by the Federal Government, 2013) the term 'Vorratsschutz' is the more suitable one according to its strict definition from the German Plant Protection Act, being a specific measure for the protection of products of plant origin in an unprocessed state or having undergone only simple preparation. In order to avoid confusions the authors suggest to distinguish 'Vorratsschutz' from 'Nachernteschutz'. The latter refers more to perishable crops. Because of applications for hygienic reasons and the great number and variety of biocides containing active substances also approved for plant protection products future guidelines for integrated pest management in stored product protection should consider these biocidal products as well. In particular, the resistance management as required by the general principles of Integrated Pest Management (IPM), laid down in the Directive 2009/128/EC Annex III, should be taken into account. DOI:10.5073/JfK.2014.08.02, https://doi.org/10.5073/JfK.2014.08.02

This review focuses on the process of adapting the original concept of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) to the wider conception of the Integrated Fruit Production (IFP) implemented in Europe. Even though most of the pest management strategies still rely on the use of synthetic pesticides, a wide array of innovative and environmentally friendly tools are now available as possible alternative to the pesticides within the modern apple production system. We also highlight how recent pest management strategies and tools have created an opening for research towards IPM improvement, including the use of biorational pesticides, semiochemicals and biological control. Forecasting models, new tree training systems and innovative spray equipment have also been developed to improve treatment coverage, to mitigate pesticide drift and to reduce chemical residues on fruits. The possible threats that jeopardize the effective implementation of IPM and particularly the risks related to the development of the pesticide resistance and the introduction of new invasive pests are also reviewed. With the directive 128/09, the European legislation recognizes IPM as a strategic approach for the sustainable use of pesticides. Within this context, IPM and related guidelines is called to meet different areas of concern in relation to the worker and bystander safety. Beside the traditional economic criteria of the market-oriented agriculture, sustainable agriculture includes the assessment of the environmental impact of the agronomic practices within the societal context where they take place. As a consequence of the raising consumer concerns about environmental impacts generated by the fruit production, IFP certification over product standards, including process aspects, are frequently required by consumers and supermarket chains.

Integrated Pest Management implementation continues to be an important topic among growers. Although the continuing concerns over the residual effects of pesticides have prompted government regulations to encourage environmentally friendly approaches to pest management, adoption levels remain stagnant. The study reported here investigates the perceptions and IPM adoption practices of corn growers in West Virginia. Respondents agreed that repeated use of herbicides and insecticides with the same mode of action leads to herbicide-resistant weeds and insecticide-resistant insect pests. Additionally, scouting was the most commonly used IPM practice for insect, disease, and weed control. Recommendations for practice are also discussed.

Setting up an integrated pest management network for the Caribbean is the proceedings of a seminar held in Barbados from 16-19 October 1994 (see Spore 55 p9). Published by CTA, and available from CARDI in the Caribbean, or from CTA. This publication has specific relevance to the Caribbean region. ; Based on an analysis of the national IPM programmes in 12 Caribbean countries, workshop participants discussed the objectives of a Caribbean IPM network involving government institutions, NGOs, universities and research centres.

Metadata only record ; Integrated Pest Management (IPM) programs based on the Farmer Field School approach are being implemented in many countries. Their benefits have been recognized by a broad range of stakeholders, including farming communities, local and national governments, NGOs and donors, who are now supporting such programs. Substantial investment in this approach calls for comprehensive documentation of its impact and sustainability. This study reviews twenty-five impact studies and discusses the overall results. Most of the ongoing programs have conducted impact evaluations of a kind. These varied in focus, approach, methodology and robustness. Results, however, commonly remained buried in project reports. Impact evaluation of the IPM Farmer Field School has proven to be complex because of methodological obstacles, because of the range of immediate and developmental impacts, and because of different perspectives of stakeholders. Consequently, there is no agreed conceptual framework for measuring impact. ; Available in SANREM office, FS

The use of pesticides made it possible to increase yields, simplify cropping systems, and forego more complicated crop protection strategies. Over-reliance on chemical control, however, is associated with contamination of ecosystems and undesirable health effects. The future of crop production is now also threatened by emergence of pest resistance and declining availability of active substances. There is therefore a need to design cropping systems less dependent on synthetic pesticides. Consequently, the European Union requires the application of eight principles (P) of Integrated Pest Management that fit within sustainable farm management. Here, we propose to farmers, advisors, and researchers a dynamic and flexible approach that accounts for the diversity of farming situations and the complexities of agroecosystems and that can improve the resilience of cropping systems and our capacity to adapt crop protection to local realities. For each principle (P), we suggest that (P1) the design of inherently robust cropping systems using a combination of agronomic levers is key to prevention. (P2) Local availability of monitoring, warning, and forecasting systems is a reality to contend with. (P3) The decision-making process can integrate cropping system factors to develop longer-term strategies. (P4) The combination of non-chemical methods that may be individually less efficient than pesticides can generate valuable synergies. (P5) Development of new biological agents and products and the use of existing databases offer options for the selection of products minimizing impact on health, the environment, and biological regulation of pests. (P6) Reduced pesticide use can be effectively combined with other tactics. (P7) Addressing the root causes of pesticide resistance is the best way to find sustainable crop protection solutions. And (P8) integration of multi-season effects and trade-offs in evaluation criteria will help develop sustainable solutions.

Tremendous increases in pesticide use in cotton growing areas
have severely affected the health of peoples and degraded environment
[Poswal and Williamson (1998); Ahmad and Poswal (2000); Orphal 2001 and
Khan (2000)]. Farmer Field School (FFS) based IPM implemented in the
world to reduce dependence on pesticides and promote environmentally
safe plant protection practices. An FFS-led Integrated Pest Management
(IMP) model implemented in Pakistan during 1996—popularly known as
"Vehari Model", clearly demonstrated that IPM could be implemented on a
large scale at the farm level. UNDP-FAO Policy Reform Project provided
required policy level support to scale up the Farmer-led IPM in the
country. Implementation of pesticide policy project in Pakistan
highlighted that pesticide consumption increased from 665 metric tons in
1980 to 78,132 metric tons in 2003-4. The role of private sector in
promoting the production and use of pesticides was found tremendously
high. The private sector also took full advantage of government's
pesticide import liberalisation policies. One of the key components of
dramatic increase in pesticide use in Pakistan is related to very soft
import and registration at that time, which allowed the generic
compounds registered elsewhere, to be imported without
fieldtesting.

The use of pesticides made it possible to increase yields, simplify cropping systems, and forego more complicated crop protection strategies. Over-reliance on chemical control, however, is associated with contamination of ecosystems and undesirable health effects. The future of crop production is now also threatened by emergence of pest resistance and declining availability of active substances. There is therefore a need to design cropping systems less dependent on synthetic pesticides. Consequently, the European Union requires the application of eight principles (P) of Integrated Pest Management that fit within sustainable farm management. Here, we propose to farmers, advisors, and researchers a dynamic and flexible approach that accounts for the diversity of farming situations and the complexities of agroecosystems and that can improve the resilience of cropping systems and our capacity to adapt crop protection to local realities. For each principle (P), we suggest that (P1) the design of inherently robust cropping systems using a combination of agronomic levers is key to prevention. (P2) Local availability of monitoring, warning, and forecasting systems is a reality to contendwith. (P3) The decision-making process can integrate cropping system factors to develop longer-term strategies. (P4) The combination of non-chemical methods that may be individually less efficient than pesticides can generate valuable synergies. (P5) Development of new biological agents and products and the use of existing databases offer options for the selection of products minimizing impact on health, the environment, and biological regulation of pests. (P6) Reduced pesticide use can be effectively combined with other tactics. (P7) Addressing the root causes of pesticide resistance is the best way to find sustainable crop protection solutions. And (P8) integration of multi-season effects and trade-offs in evaluation criteria will help developsustainable solutions.

The use of pesticides made it possible to increase yields, simplify cropping systems, and forego more complicated crop protection strategies. Over-reliance on chemical control, however, is associated with contamination of ecosystems and undesirable health effects. The future of crop production is now also threatened by emergence of pest resistance and declining availability of active substances. There is therefore a need to design cropping systems less dependent on synthetic pesticides. Consequently, the European Union requires the application of eight principles (P) of Integrated Pest Management that fit within sustainable farm management. Here, we propose to farmers, advisors, and researchers a dynamic and flexible approach that accounts for the diversity of farming situations and the complexities of agroecosystems and that can improve the resilience of cropping systems and our capacity to adapt crop protection to local realities. For each principle (P), we suggest that (P1) the design of inherently robust cropping systems using a combination of agronomic levers is key to prevention. (P2) Local availability of monitoring, warning, and forecasting systems is a reality to contendwith. (P3) The decision-making process can integrate cropping system factors to develop longer-term strategies. (P4) The combination of non-chemical methods that may be individually less efficient than pesticides can generate valuable synergies. (P5) Development of new biological agents and products and the use of existing databases offer options for the selection of products minimizing impact on health, the environment, and biological regulation of pests. (P6) Reduced pesticide use can be effectively combined with other tactics. (P7) Addressing the root causes of pesticide resistance is the best way to find sustainable crop protection solutions. And (P8) integration of multi-season effects and trade-offs in evaluation criteria will help developsustainable solutions.

The use of pesticides made it possible to increase yields, simplify cropping systems, and forego more complicated crop protection strategies. Over-reliance on chemical control, however, is associated with contamination of ecosystems and undesirable health effects. The future of crop production is now also threatened by emergence of pest resistance and declining availability of active substances. There is therefore a need to design cropping systems less dependent on synthetic pesticides. Consequently, the European Union requires the application of eight principles (P) of Integrated Pest Management that fit within sustainable farm management. Here, we propose to farmers, advisors, and researchers a dynamic and flexible approach that accounts for the diversity of farming situations and the complexities of agroecosystems and that can improve the resilience of cropping systems and our capacity to adapt crop protection to local realities. For each principle (P), we suggest that (P1) the design of inherently robust cropping systems using a combination of agronomic levers is key to prevention. (P2) Local availability of monitoring, warning, and forecasting systems is a reality to contendwith. (P3) The decision-making process can integrate cropping system factors to develop longer-term strategies. (P4) The combination of non-chemical methods that may be individually less efficient than pesticides can generate valuable synergies. (P5) Development of new biological agents and products and the use of existing databases offer options for the selection of products minimizing impact on health, the environment, and biological regulation of pests. (P6) Reduced pesticide use can be effectively combined with other tactics. (P7) Addressing the root causes of pesticide resistance is the best way to find sustainable crop protection solutions. And (P8) integration of multi-season effects and trade-offs in evaluation criteria will help developsustainable solutions.

The use of pesticides made it possible to increase yields, simplify cropping systems, and forego more complicated crop protection strategies. Over-reliance on chemical control, however, is associated with contamination of ecosystems and undesirable health effects. The future of crop production is now also threatened by emergence of pest resistance and declining availability of active substances. There is therefore a need to design cropping systems less dependent on synthetic pesticides. Consequently, the European Union requires the application of eight principles (P) of Integrated Pest Management that fit within sustainable farm management. Here, we propose to farmers, advisors, and researchers a dynamic and flexible approach that accounts for the diversity of farming situations and the complexities of agroecosystems and that can improve the resilience of cropping systems and our capacity to adapt crop protection to local realities. For each principle (P), we suggest that (P1) the design of inherently robust cropping systems using a combination of agronomic levers is key to prevention. (P2) Local availability of monitoring, warning, and forecasting systems is a reality to contendwith. (P3) The decision-making process can integrate cropping system factors to develop longer-term strategies. (P4) The combination of non-chemical methods that may be individually less efficient than pesticides can generate valuable synergies. (P5) Development of new biological agents and products and the use of existing databases offer options for the selection of products minimizing impact on health, the environment, and biological regulation of pests. (P6) Reduced pesticide use can be effectively combined with other tactics. (P7) Addressing the root causes of pesticide resistance is the best way to find sustainable crop protection solutions. And (P8) integration of multi-season effects and trade-offs in evaluation criteria will help developsustainable solutions.

The use of pesticides made it possible to increase yields, simplify cropping systems, and forego more complicated crop protection strategies. Over-reliance on chemical control, however, is associated with contamination of ecosystems and undesirable health effects. The future of crop production is now also threatened by emergence of pest resistance and declining availability of active substances. There is therefore a need to design cropping systems less dependent on synthetic pesticides. Consequently, the European Union requires the application of eight principles (P) of Integrated Pest Management that fit within sustainable farm management. Here, we propose to farmers, advisors, and researchers a dynamic and flexible approach that accounts for the diversity of farming situations and the complexities of agroecosystems and that can improve the resilience of cropping systems and our capacity to adapt crop protection to local realities. For each principle (P), we suggest that (P1) the design of inherently robust cropping systems using a combination of agronomic levers is key to prevention. (P2) Local availability of monitoring, warning, and forecasting systems is a reality to contend with. (P3) The decision-making process can integrate cropping system factors to develop longer-term strategies. (P4) The combination of non-chemical methods that may be individually less efficient than pesticides can generate valuable synergies. (P5) Development of new biological agents and products and the use of existing databases offer options for the selection of products minimizing impact on health, the environment, and biological regulation of pests. (P6) Reduced pesticide use can be effectively combined with other tactics. (P7) Addressing the root causes of pesticide resistance is the best way to find sustainable crop protection solutions. And (P8) integration of multi-season effects and trade-offs in evaluation criteria will help develop sustainable solutions.