Download - Gerber
Gerber
Status of a USDA NRCS Conservation Program:
Yes, there can be money for Implementing IPM
Financial Incentives for Implementing IPM
Ag productivity Nutrients, growing conditions
Pest control
Resource conservationEnvironmental/pesticide regulations
Resource conservation (soil, water, air, plants, animals)
Challenge: Implementing practices that achieves resource conservation and Ag productivity
Financial Incentives for Implementing IPM
Implementation barriers
Start up costs: Difficult to recover from near-term sales Need incentives for initial grower implementation
• Pest management:Monitoring / forecasting tools
Reduced risk pesticides
Reduced risk methods of application
Biological-based controls
Cultural controls
• Crop management practicesNutrient management
Incentives: Education (MSU), Financial (NRCS)
Financial Incentives
The goal: Increase implementation of IPM and other on-far, conservation practices to
Address resource concerns
Maintain good agricultural productivity
The opportunity: participation in a federal voluntary conservation program for ‘working lands’--EQIP
Objectives:
EQIP process: status of procedures and funding
Modifications: increase attractiveness for clientele
Partnering on-the-ground: partnerships with consultants, commodities, MSUE, and NRCS
Review EQIP
Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP)Provide financial incentives to demonstrate use of practices, like IPM, to conserve resources (3 yr contracts)
2000: $3.1 M (Mi)2002: $6.8 M (Mi)2004: $13.6 M (Mi)2005: $ 13.6 M (Mi)
Conservation Security ProgramAssist growers with continued maintenance of
conservation practices (5 yr contracts)
2004: $41 M nationwide, watershed (1 in MI) 2005: $200 M nationwide, watershed (4 in MI)
Review EQIP Practices
– Pest management
– Nutrient management
– Shelterbreak establishment
– Riparian buffer/Filter strips
– Heavy use area protection
– Irrigation water management
– Ag chemical containment facility
– Field border
– Residue management
– Cover crops
Resource Concerns– Groundwater– Surface water (riparian)– Soil quality/conservation– Air quality– Habitat protection
Review EQIP Fund allocation to pest management (97-02) Low percentage range: less than 0.2% for 19 states to 3.5% for one state—
0.77% national average 1.3% Michigan average
Legislative intent Increased funding in the new Farm Bill More participation expected by specialty crop grower Address pest and nutrient management
What’s needed Modifications to program: increase attractiveness
Partnering on-the-ground: partnerships with consultants, commodities, MSUE, and NRCS
Modify program NRCS advisory process
Ranking: application priority increased for IPM 2004/5: address 4 resource concerns (ground/surface
water, soil and air quality) 2003: address 2 resource concerns (ground/surface
water))
Modify program NRCS advisory process
Incentive rates: Incentive commitment to IPM 2005 fruit/nursery/Xmas tree/sod: $60/acre, up to $5,500/yr vegetables: $30/acre, up to $4,500/yr field crops: $4/acre, up to $3,500/yr 2004 fruit/nursery/Xmas tree: $20/acre, up to $2,000/yr
vegetables: $10/acre, up to $2,000/yr field crops: $3/acre, up to $2,000/yr 2002 long season crops: $5.00/acre short season crops: $2.50/acre
Partnering on-the-ground
Pilot counties: Oceana, Grand Traverse, Leelanau, Antrim 2005: expand to Ottawa
Goal: More fruit / vegetable participation in EQIP as a means to implement IPM and other practices as conservation tools
Partners: Grower groups and MSU Extension: organize grower meetings, education and awarenessConsultants: work with growers to collect farm data for applicationNRCS: complete application requirements for 2004
Partnering on-the-ground
46 EQIP applications submitted All approved (>2-fold increase)
Over $1.7 million contracted
Funds to support IPM increased (as high as 13 %, 10% average) Last Farm Bill: 0.77% (US), 1.3% (MI)
Gerber
Pest management incentive rates in the regionWisconsin: ~$2-3 per acreIndiana: ~$4 per acreMinnesota: ~$2 per acreIowa: ~$4 per acreMichigan: $4 to $60 per acre
Oregon: $7.50 to $27 per acre