May 1997
Farmers face risks from a variety of sources including weather, pests, and commodity prices. While some risks can be reduced through such programs as crop insurance and commodity dealings, others are always present. One source of risk over that farmers usually have a great degree of control is pest management. Therefore, when changes are proposed for conducting pest management, it is not surprising that they are viewed as an additional source of risk. The implementation of IPM on leased lands represents a tradeoff of the known risks of current pest management practices for the unknown risks of IPM practices.
Uncertainty associated with IPM methods is compounded by the fact that pest problems and solutions are very crop- and location-specific. Potato farmers on the leased lands face a different set of pest problems than do potato farmers in southeastern Idaho. There is a lack of examples of farmers using IPM while raising identical crops under comparable conditions. There is, however, a wealth of examples of production of both comparable and non-comparable crops grown under a wide range of conditions where IPM has been successfully implemented. These examples provide a consistent picture of IPM methods lowering costs and increasing crop yields.
The following discussion consists of three parts. In the first part, a brief review is presented of existing economic studies of IPM methods. Next, several examples of IPM implementation on NWR lands are discussed. Finally, a discussion is presented highlighting the use of the leased lands bidding process to reduce the perceived risk associated with IPM.
In 1994, researchers at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University completed a literature review of economic evaluations of pest management programs (Norton and Mullen 1994). These researchers examined 61 studies conducted on crops grown in over 25 states. While the majority of the crops studied are not grown on the Refuge leased lands, a review of the economic evaluations of IPM practices included in the Norton and Mullen report provides a compelling case that IPM provides reduced risk and greater returns on average when compared to conventional pest management practices.
Table 8 presents the summary results of all 61 IPM studies examined by Norton and Mullen (1994). The results of these economic evaluations are grouped by commodity type. It must be noted that acreages were not considered in the average percent changes presented in Table 8 for each commodity type. As such, Table 8 should be viewed as an indicator of the direction of changes in costs and yields rather than as a predictor of specific percentage changes resulting from adoption of IPM practices. Table 8 shows consistent increases in crop yields and net returns per acre, and consistent decreases in the level of economic risk associated with the adoption of IPM practices.
Tables 9 and 10 present the studies examined by Norton and Mullen for crop varieties grown on the leased lands. The two IPM studies on potato production show a consistent reduction in pesticide costs with the same or better crop quality. The savings associated with the reduction in pesticide use more than offset the cost of IPM in these studies.
Table 10 presents the results of three IPM studies conducted on alfalfa and alfalfa seed production. Again, these studies present a consistent picture of decreased risk and increased net returns per acre resulting from IPM.
IPM plans have been implemented by several NWRs that have associated leased or cooperatively farmed croplands. Conversations with Refuge managers at several of these NWRs have confirmed that pest management problems are very site- and crop-specific. Three Service personnel at three Refuge offices were contacted about their experiences implementing IPM practices on leased or cooperatively farmed Refuge lands. The experiences of the Refuge staff reflect the refuges' diverse settings and histories. A brief synopsis of these interviews follows.
Merritt Island NWR Located furthest both in distance and crop type from the Klamath area is the Merritt Island NWR in Florida. Merritt Island includes over 1000 acres of citrus groves, managed on contract by a number of "caretaker" farmers. In 1990, 10-year leases were signed for the management of these groves. In 1993, the IPM process at Merritt began. Since long-term leases were signed previous to the introduction of IPM at Merritt, Refuge personnel found it important to provide the caretakers with maximum flexibility in implementing IPM (Bob Adair, Kerr Center Citrus Station, personal communication, December 13, 1996). After 2 years of active IPM practices on the Refuge, the implementation appears to be quite successful. Implementation has been relatively inexpensive, the caretaker farmers appear to be using IPM techniques effectively, and IPM has gained acceptance from those implementing IPM and of the caretaker farmers (Bob Adair, pers. comm., December 13, 1996).
DeSoto Bend NWR DeSoto Bend NWR lies on the border of Iowa and Nebraska. In 1959, the federal government condemned the farmland at DeSoto Bend to form the wildlife refuge. This farmland was then leased back to the original landowners on a 2-year renewable lease. Leases at DeSoto Bend are let on a cropshare basis with the Refuge receiving one-third of the crop. The basic crop rotation used on the 2,300 leased acres is corn, soybeans, and sweet clover.
The adoption of IPM at DeSoto has not resulted in appreciable changes in pest management practices. No insecticides were used on Refuge lands prior to IPM, nor are they used now. The biological crop rotation used at DeSoto controls most insect pests. Additionally, Refuge personnel estimate that the adoption of IPM has not changed the total herbicide use on Refuge lands (Marco Buske, DeSoto Bend NWR, personal communication, January 3, 1997). DeSoto Bend provides an example of a Refuge that experienced little or no change in pest management practices due to the adoption of IPM.
Specific project activities at work on the Desoto Refuge are crop scouting, soil and water testing, comparing crop yields and profitability of conventional and biological crop rotation, and establishing an alfalfa weevil parasite nursery. Results of these IPM activities add to the knowledge of the farming industry. Farming cooperators are actively participating in the IPM practices occurring on this national wildlife refuge.
Umatilla and McNary NWR Umatilla and McNary NWRs have about 2000 (combined) acres of cooperative farmlands and are located in northcentral Oregon. The primary crops grown on these Refuge lands are small grains (wheat and barley), and forage crops, such as alfalfa. Cooperative lands are currently farmed by five operators under an ongoing agreement on a 25/75 cropshare basis (Charles Stenvall, Service, Umatilla, OR, personal communication, January 6, 1997). Development of an IPM plan for the Umatilla and McNary NWRs was simplified because minimal chemical pest control is used on these refuges. IPM represented little change from the status quo. The Umatilla and McNary IPM proposals have been submitted and are awaiting approval (Charles Stenvall, pers. comm., January 6, 1997).
Umatilla and McNary NWRs offer another example of IPM implementation on farmed Refuge lands where significant changes in chemical applications to control pests are unlikely.
Summary of IPM Experience Specific to NWR Lands The four refuges discussed above point up some difficulties in comparing IPM experiences across refuges. The croplands at Merritt, DeSoto, and Umatilla vary in many respects: lease arrangements, crops grown, legal setting and history, and pest problems. Two Refuge areas, DeSoto and Umatilla seemed to have had little trouble drafting IPM plans. These two areas also reported the least problems with pests. On Merritt Island, where an IPM plan has been in place for 2+ years, more time and effort was spent developing an IPM plan for its citrus groves. This Refuge successfully implemented a controversial IPM plan by giving caretaker farmers a maximum of flexibility during the adoption of IPM practices, both to reduce their perceived risk level and to facilitate a cooperative spirit between agency personnel and farmers. The result has been a successfully implemented IPM plan that appears to have satisfied needs from both the Service's and farmers' standpoints.
Lower Klamath and Tule Lake leased lands are unique among the refuges because the diversity of crops cultivated significantly increases the complexity of developing an IPM Plan.
Although adoption of IPM on Refuge lands is likely to introduce a degree of economic uncertainty to leaseholders, economic evaluations of IPM and applications of IPM on Refuge lands presents considerable evidence that financial risk from IPM is unlikely to increase, and often decreases. Because many of the studies and experiences cited previously have not involved crops and climates identical to those found on the Tule Lake and Lower Klamath refuges, leaseholders on these lands are likely to perceive a degree of risk associated with IPM. The following discussion examines the mechanism by which leased-land growers and the Agencies could use lease bid process to share possible economic risk associated with IPM.
On the Tule Lake and Lower Klamath refuges, leases are signed on an annual basis, with farmers having renewal options for up to 5 years. The average lease payment per acre (as shown in Table 3) has varied dramatically over the time period from 1980 to the present. A comparison of lease rates between individual parcels for a given year shows even greater variation. There are many factors that influence the amount farmers are willing to bid on an individual parcel. Farmers could shift some of the economic risk associated with IPM to the leasing agency by placing a low bids.
It is assumed that this type of risk shifting already goes on to some degree on leased lands. While the overall quality of the soil on the Refuge lands is generally considered to be at least comparable to that of non-Refuge farmland in the basin, the average lease rate for the Refuge lands is generally lower than that for nearby privately leased farmland ( Laura Allen, pers. comm., December 3, 1996). Conversations with individuals familiar with the Refuge leasing program suggest that this difference in lease rates likely has two primary causes: 1) crop types are restricted on Refuge lands (specifically seed potatoes cannot be grown), and 2) a restricted list of approved pesticides on Refuge lands increases the risk of reduced yields or crop quality (Laura Allen, pers. comm., December 3, 1996). Farmers on the Refuge lands, therefore, already pay lower lease fees when compared to surrounding privately held leased farmland.
Short-term Effect on Lease Rates The perceived increases in risk and production costs will likely cause some farmers to place lower bids on leased lands in the short term. The degree to which the 1998/1999 bids would be lower would depend on the costs and benefits associated with IPM practices. Initially, it is likely that the out-of-pocket costs of increased crop scouting and the perceived risks associated with IPM would dominate the cost-benefit considerations of farmers when deciding on bid levels. While all lease bids may decrease initially (other production and market factors being equal), the long-term effect of IPM on lease bids will depend on the effect IPM practices have on total production costs, total yield, and crop quality.
Long-term Effect on Lease Rates After a few years of production, much of the uncertainty about per acre net returns using IPM will be eliminated. At that point, lease bids will reflect the actual positive or negative economic effects of IPM. Where IPM has been adopted, it commonly has been found that the additional associated costs, such as for intensive crop scouting, are more than compensated for by increased returns, especially for high value crops with a complex production process. For lower value crops, such as many small grains, the costs of crop scouting may exceed the economic benefits of IPM (Dr. Larry Olson, Dir. of Michigan State University IPM program, personal communication, January 1, 1997).
Experience suggests, therefore, a long-term decrease in lease bids for acreage on which grain is grown, all other things being equal. On the other hand, lease bids for row crop land could remain stable or increase in the long term, all other things remaining equal.
Information on the cost-effectiveness of intensive crop scouting is based on 20 interviews conducted with university staff across the country, Agricultural Extension Service personnel, county agents, commodity buyers, and professional crop consultants (crop scouts) from California, Oregon, Idaho and Washington. For more detailed analysis and citations, please refer to the project file entitled, "Analysis of Cost-Effectiveness of Crop Scouting."
Continuous and detailed crop scouting is central to the success of IPM. The following discussion focuses on the likely impacts of crop scouting on the profitability of Tule Lake and Lower Klamath farm operations.
Detailed scouting is proving to be cost-effective for several of the crops grown on the Tule Lake and Lower Klamath refuges. California, Oregon, Idaho and Washington growers employing scouting for IPM are increasing their profits. Detailed scouting can result in less overall expenditures for chemical pest control. More importantly, because crop scouting is helping growers to make optimal pest control and related cultural practice decisions, yields and crop quality are enhanced.
In most instances, higher quality scouting information is reducing grower chemical applications. However, chemical reduction is not guaranteed. Interviews with agricultural faculty, service agencies, and consultants revealed instances where improved scouting actually contributed to increases in the use of agricultural chemicals. An example of this is occurring in the State of Washington, where timely recognition of late blight problems is resulting in a doubling of fungicide application. Detailed scouting also allows for more precise selection and application of pest control chemicals, which can both lessen the amount chemical use while and improve the effectiveness of pest control.
The university and nation-wide agricultural specialists interviewed expressed concern over current chemical use for pest control. Agricultural authorities cite unnecessary pesticide, fungicide, and herbicide applications, failure to apply chemicals when needed, and field-wide rather than sub-area chemical use as contributing to unnecessary grower expenditures, and/or reductions in crop values. Agriculture professionals are particularly distressed by continued use of "calendar spraying" and applications of ineffective chemicals. They also express concern over the adverse effects inappropriate chemical use is having on beneficial insect populations. The loss of beneficials can foster more intensive development of other pest problems, and can ultimately increase grower expenditures for chemical controls and reduce yields.
Each crop and agricultural region contends with a different mix of growing conditions and pest problems. Even within sub-areas of the Tule Lake and Lower Klamath refuges, growing conditions and pest problems vary from lease to lease, as do the farming practices of individual growers. IPM scouting services will need to be tailored to the attributes of each Refuge farming area and individual grower.
Only if fees are kept low is crop scouting likely to be cost-effective for lesser value crops such as grain. Fortunately, grain crops are generally less vulnerable to pest problems and scouting protocols will be less intense (and less expensive) than for the highly vulnerable row crops. Furthermore, it is most economical for crop consultants to scout multiple fields during a single visit to a farming area. The fact that scouting will be required on all Refuge farmlands will create economies of scale for scouting services.
University and agricultural agencies, and Reclamation and the Service can help to make scouting more efficient and affordable to growers. Scouting should build on field history information (where pest outbreaks have started in the past), and analyses of field geographic characteristics (identifying field conditions and locations most conducive to pest development). University staff and agencies can provide access to information, and contribute their expertise in monitoring and analyzing regional and localized environmental factors (e.g., weather, soil moisture, and other considerations) favorable/unfavorable to pests and beneficials. If the Agencies require that crop consultants publicly share scouting data, this information also will assist growers and other scouts in knowing what, when, where pests should be scouted for.
To be effective, crop scouting consultants must be able to effectively convey information to growers. As growers become familiar with the services and financial payback of detailed scouting, they tend to develop increasing confidence in and reliance on their crop consultants. Continuous monitoring, along with long-term, detailed scouting information, will allow growers to more thoroughly understand the nature of pest problems. Scouts help growers to:
The available evidence suggests that IPM practices, such as intensive crop scouting and alternative pest control measures, generally increase net returns per acre and decrease economic risk associated with crop production. Researchers further suggest that increases in net returns per acre are more likely to be associated with production of high value crops with complex production processes than for small grains. From the perspective of leaseholders on the Refuge lands the review of IPM presented here should offer two sources of reassurance:
Given the economic track record of IPM and the possibility to use lease bid levels as a mitigating measure to absorb increased costs, farmers appear to face little long-term financial risk from a well designed and implemented IPM plan on Refuge lands.
Return to the IPM Plan Table of Contents or continue on to Literature Cited