Share

PIPE Legume Workshop Report

Legume Pest Information Platform for Extension and Education (PIPE) Workshop on 6-7 April 2006 at Adam’s Mark Hotel, St. Louis, MO

Objective

The 2005 USDA Soybean Rust Information System is transitioning to the USDA Legume PIPE for 2006. The national platform has been expanded to include additional leguminous crops and an array of legume pests and diseases. Beginning in 2006, the PIPE will also enable growers to document their good management practices for insurance purposes. A prototype of the new USDA Legume PIPE has been constructed to accommodate these additions with new monitoring protocols and electronic (Internet and PDA) forms for collecting data on soybean rust and soybean aphid in sentinel plots and Internet forms to allow growers to document their management practices as they relate to commentary provided by state extension specialists. The initial prototype of the 2006< PIPE was evaluated at a similar workshop sponsored by the USDA in February. Many of the suggestions from that meeting were incorporated into a new prototype. The plan for this second workshop is to evaluate the current prototype of the 2006 PIPE and suggest further improvements. Participants included State Extension Specialists, researchers, USDA administrators, and others. A special effort was made to include extension entomologists and crop consultants in the workshop.

Participants

Annalisa Ariatti, aua15@psu.edu
John Ayers, jea@psu.edu
Wayne Bailey, baileyw@missouri.edu
Heyward Baker, heyward.baker@rma.usda.gov
Tracey Baute, tracey.baute@omaf.gov.on.ca
Susan Bellman, sbellman@greatlakesag.com
Adam Bols, abols@mowersplus.com
Jason Bond, jbond@siu.edu
Carl Bradley, cbradley@ndsuext.nodak.edu
Ruden Bradley, Bradley.Ruden@SDSTATE.EDU
Tracy Cameron, tcameron@debruce.com
Kitty Cardwell , KCardwell@csrees.usda.gov
Phillip D. Cochran, cochran@agronomics.com
Dean Coleman , dcoleman@ncn.net
Ted Cremers, Ted.Cremers@naucountry.com
Anne Dorrance, dorrance.1@osu.edu
Martin Draper, Martin.Draper@sdstate.edu
Loren Giesler, lgiesler1@unl.edu
Julie Golod, golod@zedxinc.com
Arv Grybauskas, arvydas@umd.edu
Mark Grundmeier, markg@lathamseeds.com
Carrie Harmon, clharmon@ufl.edu
David J. Harms, cpt@cropprotech.com
Chad Hartzler, chadh@westcentral.net
Don Hershman, dhershma@uky.edu
Amenda Hodges, achodges@ufl.edu
David Holshouser, dholshou@exchange.vt.edu
Scott Isard, sai10@psu.edu
Doug Johnson, doug.johnson@uky.edu
Virgil L. Jons, soilismylife@yahoo.com
Janet Knodel, jknodel@ndsuext.nodak.edu
Brian Lang, bjlang@iastate.edu
Daren Mueller, dsmuelle@iastate.edu
Melvin Nicholson, melvin@nicholsonconsultingLLC.com
Ed Ready, EREADY@smithbucklin.com
Kevin Rothzen, krothzen@mowersplus.com
Virgil Schmitt, vschmitt@iastate.edu
Albert Tenuta, albert.tenuta@omafra.gov.on.ca
Mike Weber, michael.weber@bayercropscience.com
David Wright, dwright@iasoybeans.com

Introductions

Scott Isard & Kitty Cardwell welcomed participants, reviewed the agenda and the objectives of the workshop. Participants introduced themselves.

General Session

Scott Isard presented the vision and function on the 2006 PIPE. He introduced the new “look” of the public web site explaining how it was organized. The rust and aphid Observation and State Update maps were presented. Isard ended with a presentation of the Good Management Practice (GFP) form. Heyward Baker then explained how growers would use the GFM form and that the underlying purpose of the GFM form was to educate growers regarding the types of information that they must record for crop insurance purposes. A lively discussion ensued.

Breakout Sessions

Participants were divided into two groups with plant pathologists in one and entomologists in the other. Crop consultants and other participants were divided among the groups. The plant pathology group was charged with revising the Management Guidelines for soybean rust as they related to the GFP form. The entomologist group was charged with discussing how to represent soybean aphid data on the public map and with revising the Management Guidelines for soybean aphid. The breakout sessions were led by the Loren Giesler, and Don Hershman. Many ideas for improving the PIPE were suggested and discussed by participants. Some of the more notable are included in the Outcomes section below. The groups concluded their discussions around 6 p.m.

General Session

Scott Isard and Amanda Hodges reviewed the progress that had been made the previous afternoon. Kitty Cardwell presented plans for the education component of the PIPE and participants added numerous suggestions in the ensuing discussion (see Outcomes section below). Scott Isard asked participants to return to their groups and finish the work on the Management Guidelines that they had initiated the previous afternoon.

Wrap Up

The participants came back together after finishing the Management Guidelines. Kitty Cardwell thanked all participants for their time and effort at the workshop indicating that in her opinion the group had made a lot of headway. Scott also thanked participants indicating that their suggestions would be incorporated into the 2006 protocol as rapidly as possible. He promised that the work would be completed on the web site over the ensuing two weeks.

Summary of Workshop Outcomes.

Representation of Soybean Aphid Data on Public Observation Map.
The entomologist led group requested that aphid data be represented as point data with the following color coded legend: 0, 1-39, 40-149, 150-500, and >500 aphids/plant. Tools should be constructed to allow specialists to transfer all points from the raw data map to the public map, to transfer specific points, and only points associated with sentinel plots. After transfer and before saving, specialists desire the option to remove specific points from the public map. On the raw data map, observations from different data sources should be represented by different symbols. In addition the term “threshold” should be defined on the public site legend.

Management Tactics Documentation.
A Management Tactics button should be inserted on the top of main web page. A user would click the button and then click on the geographic unit of interest from Update or Observation maps to navigate to the Management Tactics information. The tactics would be presented in table, text, or pdf style. State specialists will be responsible for uploading a single tactics document for each pest. If no tactics are uploaded for a state, the set of national tactics composed in the breakout session and approved by the appropriate committee of specialist and researchers (e.g., S1010) should be used as a default. The document should contain information on appropriate management tactics including pesticide use and scouting techniques.

Good Farm Practice Documentation tool.
A Good Farm Practice (GFP) Documentation button should be inserted on the top of the main web page adjacent to the Management Tactics button. A user would click on the button and then click on the country of interest. A user might click on either the Update or Observation maps to navigate to the GFP Documentation tool. The tool would be an html page with links to items on a check list of documents that the RMA would like growers to save for insurance claims. At the bottom of the RMA list, two items should be added. The first is a Commentary Chronology with an option for users to choose dates and states of interest. The chronology would contain commentary on all pests associate with the crop and would have an option to export to a pdf file or to print. The second item should be the GFP form as presented at workshop with revisions to the associated Management Guidelines (see below).

Revisions to Management Guidelines.
The following national Management Guidelines for soybean rust and soybean aphid were developed by the working groups. Each state specialist may provide his or her own Management Guidelines; the national guidelines will be use where State Specialists do not provide alternatives. Management Guidelines are intended to be more general than Management Tactics. They must organized by crop growth stage.

  1. Management Guidelines For Soybean Rust.
    1. Vegetative Growth Stages
      Current data indicate that fungicide applications for soybean rust control are not needed in the early vegetative soybean growth stages. Spraying just prior to crop flowering (R1) may be prudent if the disease is increasing in the field. This is especially true for late-planted crops and/or very late-maturing varieties that may develop a large canopy before flowering.
    2. R1-R6 Flowering Stages
      Soybeans are most susceptible to soybean rust during their reproductive growth stages. Fungicide applications must be initiated before rust reaches the mid crop canopy to be effective for disease control. One, two, or three applications may be needed, depending upon the growth stage at which the disease is first detected. Consecutive applications of either Strobilurins or Triazoles alone should never be made due to resistance concerns. Refer to fungicide labels for specific directions and restrictions.
    3. R6 Growth Stage and later
      Fungicide applications at late soybean growth stages are not recommended due to lack of yield response. In addition, many fungicides have days to harvest (preharvest intervals) or growth stage restrictions. Refer to fungicide labels for specific directions and restrictions.
  2. Management Guidelines For Soybean Aphid.
    To be supplied by Amanda Hodges shortly.

Suggestions for the Education Component of the PIPE.
Kitty Cardwell indicated that additional copies of the “Scout Before Spray” CD will be made for distribution. A CD with similar content will be made for the soybean aphid. A CD on how to use the PIPE website and Good Farm Practice Documentation tool will also be constructed. Teletraining (telephone conversation with participants working on their desktop computers) for CCA and others will be conducted. A similar type of teletraining and/or CD targeted at insurers and RMA personnel will be developed. Specialist will receive teletraining in a manner similar to last year. It was generally agreed that the emphasis of the training materials should be shifted from CD format to print and that distribution of materials during the planting season should be avoided. Ed Ready volunteered the USB to help with distribution. A program to hold training sessions at grower meetings was suggested. It was strongly suggested that all educational materials be passed through the State Specialists before distribution so that the experts would be prepared for questions from their constituents. Marty Draper volunteered to coordinate the education material distribution effort with Sue Raticliffe.

Miscellaneous Suggestions.
There was a request for an option to include an agronomist in the signature section of the commentary page. It was suggested that a meeting to review the 2006 PIPE website be held prior to the November APS Soybean Rust Symposium. A similar review was proposed for the Entomological Society of America meetings to be held in winter 2006