Joel DeJong, Northwest Iowa
Crops Specialist
Problem
Continuing instruction for pesticide applicators is an on-going need and
requirement. Since
it is a "mandatory" program for those who want to continue to use restricted
use pesticides, and these people need to attend yearly, the verbal attitudes
expressed by participants aren't always positive. However, a large percentage
continues to choose this method of certification instead of testing every 3 years. Can
we make these programs educational for participants? Can we make an impact
on their operations as a result of information presented to participants? I
wanted to review our impact and determine if there are obvious needs for improvement,
and try to determine if the information provided actually changed their management
of pesticides and pests.
Response
Pesticide applicator continuing education programs were scheduled in all
7 counties served by the crop specialist in northwest Iowa during 2004-2005. Twenty-seven
face-to-face sessions were held in these counties. Particular time was
spent planning for the Integrated Crop Management parts of the program, in order
to make these sessions as useful as possible for participants.
Impact
There were 2,204 participants at these sites in the northwest 7 counties of Iowa
(about 130 less than we had attend in the 1998-1999 season). An evaluation
form was handed out at several of the meetings to gauge how we were doing, and
what impact these meetings were having. Responses from these evaluations
(N = 445) were very positive. 99% of participants gave the program an overall
rating excellent (57%) or good (42%). When asked if they agreed with the
statement, "Was the information presented today useful on your farm operation?" 98%
agreed that this statement was true. 99+% considered the presenters were
prepared and knowledgeable.
The first segment of the survey asked if, as a result of the training session,
they would adopt certain practices on their farm. Here are the percentage
responses:
Practice Adopted:
Prior
to Mtg: Because
of Mtg.
1. Update required information restricted use pesticide information applications
in their records:
39% 51%
2. Consider Ag Health Study information and how it pertains to their safety
and pesticide use practices:
40% 55%
3. Select herbicides and application rates based on soil properties:
62% 33%
4. Review label for precautions to be observed when handling treated seed:
70% 28%
5. Test new tank mix combinations before applying to a large number of
acres to avoid chemical phytotoxicity:
33% 42%
It is also nice to see what impacts occur as a result of previous training sessions,
so some questions were asked about changes made because of the same program last
year. As a result of the 2003-2004 PAT CIC program, 66% made sure that
copies of section 18 or 24(c) labels were in their possession at the time of
application, 87% review the label requirements to determine proper personal protective
equipment needed during handling and application of pesticides, 64% keep a clean
set of personal protective equipment in the cab of their tractor, and 75% adopted
an insect resistance management plan for insect protected corn traits (most of
the remainder do not need this plan).
Obviously, this program has a large impact on farming practices in northwest
Iowa. As the data shows, the vast majority of farmers do feel these are
valuable sessions. Additional time preparing and refining presentation
material and skills can pay off. A lot of farmers are exposed to Extension
with this program, which can be a great "gateway" for them and other
Extension opportunities available to them. We need to be creative and positive
when offering these programs - the impacts can be tremendous!
2005
142 -- Integrated Pest and Crop Management
Page last updated:
July 9, 2006
Page maintained by Linda Schultz, lschultz@iastate.edu
