Search

Supervised control programs were initiated by the Extension Service in the deciduous orchards of Upper Galilee and the Golan almost 20 years ago. The integrated pest management (IPM) project on fruit crops and vines, launched as a systematic state-wide program in 1991, covered 23% of the total acreage at the end of 1996. The program has reached a critical mass and generates a steady demand for this new kind of advisory service. The project has set the right pattern for intensive and continuous collaboration among research, extension and grower. The program has been successful in reaching out to growers with the help of a newly formed group of local and regional pest scouts; the field-level implementation is the responsibility of the extension system. A reduction of approximately 30% in the use of pesticides has been achieved. The project prepares the ground for environment-friendly and sustainable cropping systems, generating produce competitive on both the local as well as foreign markets. The program on indoor vegetables, flowers, herbs and spices initiated in 1992, had to address first the problem of the sweetpotato whitefly. The field program methodology relies on the establishment of model farms and plots. The model plots are used to examine supervised control scenarios which could, in turn, be diffused to all growers. A 30-50% reduction in the use of pesticides was achieved on the model farms. The program represents an integration of supervised control, fully fledged IPM, and biological control practices. The program on corn and cotton covers the entire acreage under these two crops. The cotton program is supported by an integrated resistance management component. Three area-wide pest management programs were initiated: in the Arava and Bet She’ an valleys, and in the Golan.

▪ Abstract The scarcity of literature in the realm of plant clinics operating in the developing world brought us to the decision to perform a survey in non-OECD countries in Africa, Asia and Oceania, Latin America and the Caribbean, and in central and southern Europe. Forty-one completed questionnaires that refer to 79 plant clinics were returned. The best-equipped clinics are operated by the international research bodies. By and large, this review shows that considerable progress has been achieved in the physical development of plant clinics in developing countries and in staffing them with well-trained personnel. Not surprisingly, however, many inadequacies and inconsistencies still need to be addressed before clinics can fully play their part in providing plant protection services to their clients. Success and constraining indicators in the diagnostic performance of the clinics are identified. A model of the‘ideal plant clinic’ is suggested.

Protection of crop and ornamental plants from noxious organisms — insects, nematodes, mites, pathogens and weeds — is indispensable to modern agriculture. Despite intensive control efforts, about 50% of the world's crops are lost to these organisms, at an estimated annual cost of about 400 billion dollars. Ever since the advent of synthetic pesticides in the 1940s, modern crop protection has been largely based on chemical control. Pesticide expenditures are about 20% of total farming input costs, although this figure varies substantially according to crop and region. Mounting environmental concerns and pest control failures have made It increasingly clear that the use of toxic pesticides In agriculture should be drastically reduced all over the world.

An appropriate way of evaluating agricultural extension systems is to study their end product or message. One would expect the ideal product to be professional, objective, practical, reliable, up-to-date, market-driven, environment-friendly, integrated and accessible. It should improve farmers’ managerial abilities and stimulate their use of knowledge (Ausher, 1996). Obviously such a message could be generated when all three components, namely growers, research and extension are involved in its formulation, diffusion and adoption. Extension’s particular niche in this context would be the identification of knowledge gaps, initiating ideas for technology development, responsibility for applied research, and disseminating technologies to producers. During the last two decades the performance and outcome of agricultural extension met with an unfortunate crisis in the generation and transfer of technologies in both industrialized and developing countries. By and large, agricultural extension systems are slow in adjusting to the changing environment, characterized by a proliferation of factors within the once much simpler farmer-extension-research relationship. Nowadays, agricultural extension has to cope with the challenges to intensify and diversify production and promote at the same time market-oriented, environment-friendly and sustainable production systems. Ausher, (1997) indicated that the technology development capability of extension is being depleted of its assets: the problem-oriented, empirical, pragmatic and “cheap and nasty” approach. Followed by the field-level expertise, a knack for integrative field diagnosis, field-centered interdisciplinary activity and accountability.