2009-2010 Turning Point™ Audience Participation Survey
Turning Point™ audience response system was used to survey participants of the Spanish language pesticide license recertification sessions conducted during several meetings during the winter of 2009-2010. The survey collected data on knowledge of AZM and other insecticide use, use of beneficial insects in IPM and pesticide safety by the session participants and was compared to similar data gathered in 2008-2009 from a similar meeting venue. The results of this survey can be viewed online here or you can download a pdf of the report.
Select desired tab heading to view result sections.
Summary of Results
Data were gathered on knowledge of insecticide use and orchard IPM among 788 participants in Spanish language pesticide license recertification classes in 2009-10. These data are presented in the left hand column of each page of this report, and are compared with similar data gathered in 2008-09 from 982 respondents, as presented in the right column. All data were self-reported using the Turning Point™ audience response system.
Because each recertification class presentation was allotted a different time slot and was part of a different larger context, some questions were asked in certain sessions but not in others, or in one year but not the next. These differences are noted above each question. Note too that the last two pages of this report focus on the WSU Decision Aid System and on knowledge of beneficial insects, questions asked only in 2009-10 and in particular sessions.
Comparing 2009-10 with 2008-09, responses were similar in many ways. Respondents worked primarily with tree fruit (79% and 73%, respectively), as pesticide applicators (38%, 36%) or supervisors (22%, 33%). Most applied pesticides as part of their jobs (73%, 71%) and many supervised people applying pesticides (43%, 47%). Most had worked with the pesticide Guthion (azinphosmethyl = AZM) (72%, 70%), and knew that it was being phased out (82%, 79%). Many knew how to manage crop production without Guthion (46%, 40%), a number that rose when including those who knew how to manage it “somewhat” (55%, 52%). When the analysis was restricted to only those who indicated that managing crop production was actually part of their job, the percentage who felt able to do so without Guthion rose (57%, 52%; or 69%, 68% when the “somewhat” respondents were included). Most had worked with pheromones (77%, 74%) and over half knew what IPM was (52%, 54%; this number rose to 68% when those who knew “somewhat” what IPM was were also included).
In 2009-10, a larger percentage knew that 2012 was the last year Guthion could be used (69% compared with 52% in 2008-09). In addition, more people had worked with the alternative insecticides Delegate (58% in 2009-10 compared to 47% in 2008-09), Altacor (42% compared to 25%), and Calypso (33% compared to 24%). The percentage of people who had worked with other new insecticides stayed constant (Assail 49-51%, Intrepid 41%, Rimon 28-29%, and Esteem 19-23%).
Pesticide safety data were fairly consistent from year to year (note that these questions were asked of relatively fewer respondents in 2009-10 than in 2008-09), with a few exceptions. In 2009-10, fewer respondents received pesticide information from their supervisors (31% compared with 49% in 2008-09) or took part in cholinesterase monitoring programs (43% compared with 57% in 2008-09). This may be in part because respondents in 2009-10 held slightly higher-level positions (19% were managers or growers in 2009-10 compared to 8% in 2008-09) in the orchard. Participants from both years’ sessions reported finding recertification classes useful and also enjoying using the Turning Point system.
In general, then, there is still room for participants to learn more about how to use IPM strategies to manage crops without Guthion, but this learning process has certainly already begun. Although some respondents didn’t know what IPM was, for example, they nevertheless had experience using IPM systems that included pheromones and alternative insecticides.
Note that because of the anonymous methods of data collection used, it is almost certain that some respondents participated in this survey exercise more than once, both from one year to the next and within the same year. As an indication, in 2009-10, 57% of respondents indicated that they had used Turning Point before, compared with 27% in the tail end of 2008-09 session). Nevertheless, data do provide a good sense of what participants in pesticide recertification classes know about the pest management transition and about pesticide safety, and indicate that information on these topics (the uses for which Turning Point has been employed thus far) has at least been reaching pesticide applicators and supervisors over the last two years.