Sun and field logo Worm logo cornucopia Organic Agriculture at Cornell
Geneva Experiment Station
Berry logo Cow logo Corn logo
Organic at
Cornell Home

 		Geneva, N.Y.
Organic researcyh stablished 1994
2 acres
Contact Curt Petzoldt 315-787-2206

The Vegetable Pest and Crop Management Systems Evaluation Project was established in 1995 at the New York State Agricultural Experiment Station Vegetable Crops Research Farm in Geneva. Eight acres of land were dedicated to the project. Two acres each were assigned to one of four pest and crop management systems (Organic, IPM/Present, IPM/Future, and Conventional) that were defined and implemented at the site. Management of the two acres dedicated to organic production actually began in 1994 with the planting of a buckwheat crop intended to smother an infestation of quackgrass.

In general the four systems were defined based on the following criteria:

  • Conventional - Those practices which were thought by Extension staff and faculty to be commonly used by growers.
  • IPM Present - Those practices which follow IPM Elements.
  • IPM Future - IPM Present practices plus those practices that may still be under research or may be expensive to implement.
  • Organic - Following NOFA-NY guidelines.
The systems are evaluated on the basis of economics, pest control efficacy and environmental impact. The economics of each of the systems were evaluated by defining a typical fresh market vegetable farm profile. Surveys were sent out to approximately 24 growers during the 1997 growing season with 9 growers responding. A "typical" fresh market farm has 275 total production acres with 100 acres planted to field crops and 175 acres to other vegetables.

To determine ownership costs, repair costs and estimated life expectancy for each farm implement, the frequency of use on all production acres was calculated and general assumptions were made about practices based on advice from Dr. Gerry White at Cornell. A 30% premium price was used for Organic system calculations. Pest control efficacy has been evaluated using scouting data and end of season evaluation of crops for pest damage. Environmental impact has been evaluated by means of the Environmental Impact Quotient, pesticide use, beneficial insect assessments, and synthetic fertilizer use.

The site at NYSAES contains all four systems and allows for a two year rotational component to be introduced. From 1995 through 1999 the focus crop of the project was fresh market sweet corn. From 2000 through 2004 the focus is on cucurbit crops (melon, cucumber, zucchini, and pumpkin). Various rotational and cover crops are also used but because of resource limitations most data is collected relative to the focus crops.

There are three major emphases of the project:

  1. Evaluate the annual results of the four systems on the basis of economics, efficacy, and environmental impact.
  2. Identify any pest or crop management weaknesses of any of the systems to encourage future research in those areas.
  3. Evaluate the long-term effects of the systems on soils in the fields from a chemical, physical and biological perspective.
Funding of the project:

  • 1995-1996: New York State IPM Program
  • 1997-1999: Northeast Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education program (NE SARE)
  • 2000-2001: New York State IPM Program
  • 2002-2004: USDA Risk Avoidance and Mitigation Program (RAMP)
During the years of NE SARE (1997-1999) and USDA RAMP (2002-2004) funding several of the systems have been demonstrated and evaluated on growers' farms. Grower sites vary in size from 1 to 5 acres. Each farm had either one or two of the systems present in a field with the intent to represent all four systems on a number of farms each year. The Organic system can only be located without comparison to the other systems since using the other systems would damage future certifiability of the growers' farms. Data is collected on these farms and to date has been largely consistent with the results obtained at the Geneva site.

So far results in each area of emphasis are as follows:

1) Evaluate the annual results of the 4 systems on the basis of economics, efficacy, and environmental impact.

For sweet corn 1995-1999: All four systems were profitable for the production of fresh market sweet corn. Contrary to some popular mythology, it is possible to grow profitable Organic sweet corn with quality comparable to Conventional in New York. However, in general the Conventional sweet corn was the most profitable followed by the IPM Future, IPM Present and Organic systems.

Pest control efficacy was more difficult to make an overall assessment since each system had strengths and weaknesses with regard to different pests. However, IPM Future generally had the lowest level of infestation of the major ear infesting corn pests followed by IPM Present, Conventional and Organic. Organic however had the lowest aphid populations -- probably due to the higher level of beneficial insects observed in the Organic field as a result of making insecticide applications only with Bt materials.

Environmentally the Organic system was superior to the other three systems although IPM Future was not far behind. IPM Present ranked third and Conventional was considerably less desirable environmentally than the other three systems. It is too soon to offer a similar analysis for cucurbit crops.

2) Identify any pest or crop management weaknesses of any of the systems to encourage future research in those areas.

There were two pests that significantly reduced yield and quality of the Organic system -- seed corn maggot and corn earworm. Other pests could generally be controlled using identified Organic techniques. Seed corn maggot infestation reduced the stand of early-season plantings of the Organic field. This was likely exacerbated by the attractiveness of plowed down cover crops (used as a nitrogen source for the corn) to seed corn maggots.

Corn earworm was a major challenge for the Organic system but during the last two seasons of the trial the "Zea Later" application equipment from Massachusetts greatly improved control of the corn earworm in the Organic field. However, the use of the "Zea Later" is probably limited to small plantings.

Other systems also had weaknesses. The Conventional field had far more serious aphid problems than the other three. The Conventioanl field also had more ear-infesting pests probably resulting from less-than-optimal timing of insecticide applications. The IPM Future field was weaker on weed control than the IPM Present or Conventional but it is not yet clear if this had an adverse effect on the crop in the short term or long term.

3) Evaluate the long term effects of the systems on soils in the fields from a chemical, physical and biological perspective.

Soil analyses have been conducted each year on all four fields. Also weekly pre-sidedress nitrogen tests (PSNT) have been conducted on all four fields for the life of the trial. We are finding that the Organic field is maintaining or increasing in organic matter while the Conventional field is decreasing in organic matter. In general the Conventional and IPM fields are higher in nitrogen throughout the season but we are not sure this is providing any crop advantage over the Organic field and may be causing an environmental disadvantage. The Organic field has maintained above the recommended PSNT threshold to grow a crop. Researchers think that in the early season nitrogen availability may be delayed in the Organic field and that this may hurt eventual crop yield.

After eight years, researchers think they observe soil structural differences developing among the fields in terms of their ability to withstand a rain without crusting and their ability to handle water without ponding with the advantage going to the Organic and IPM Future fields. Researchers think they see advantages in our ability to take equipment on the Organic and IPM Future fields in adverse weather with less soil damage. However they have not quantified these data as of yet. The Geneva Experiment Station is working with the Cornell Soil Health Program Work Team (PWT) to identify ways to quantify these observations.

Also, in cooperation with the Soil Health PWT and Cornell faculty, the Geneva team is beginning to assess the biological activity in the fields. They are still testing some techniques for this assessment and have some preliminary analysis in progress without reportable results as of yet.

© Copyright, Department of Horticulture, Cornell University.
Logo graphics by Rachel Kennedy.
Design by Craig Cramer.
Mention of trade names and commercial products is for educational purposes; no discrimination is intended and no endorsement by Cornell Cooperative Extension or Cornell University is implied. Pesticide recommendations are for informational purposes only and manufacturers' recommendations change. Read the manufacturers' instructions carefully before use. Cornell Cooperative Extension and Cornell University assumes no responsibility for the use of any pesticide or chemicals. Some of the links provided are not maintained by Cornell Cooperative Extension and Cornell University. Cornell Cooperative Extension and Cornell University are not responsible for information on these websites. They are included for information purposes only and no endorsement by Cornell Cooperative Extension or Cornell University is implied. Cornell Cooperative Extension provides equal program and employment opportunities.