This 2024 Better Cotton Large Farm GIF project evaluated six highly hazardous pesticides (HHPs) used in U.S. cotton and advanced integrated pest management (IPM) strategies to reduce reliance on broadly toxic insecticides. Through key informant surveys representing over 10 million cotton acres, pesticide use analyses, and regulatory risk assessments, we assessed current use patterns, pest targets, and barriers to phase-out. Five of the six HHPs were used on less than 5% of acres on average, with no predicted yield losses if discontinued. Fenpyroximate showed minor potential impacts (<0.1%) under specific mite resistance scenarios. Chlorpyrifos presented comparatively greater ecological and occupational risks, supporting accelerated phase-out. We also recommend transitioning from aggregate annual pesticide reporting to field-level spray records to better measure progress in pest management. Commercial-scale on-farm demonstrations in Arizona showed that predator-based thresholds eliminated the need for whitefly sprays without economic loss, demonstrating that conservation biological control can reduce pesticide inputs while sustaining productivity.

El registro reciente de Vertento® (isocicloseram; Grupo 30 de IRAC) introduce un nuevo modo de acción para el manejo de Lygus en el algodón de Arizona. Estudios de campo muestran un control excelente y consistente a una dosis de 1.6 onzas por acre (≈120 mL/ha), con actividad residual de dos semanas o más. Vertento se clasifica como un insecticida parcialmente selectivo (“caja amarilla”) dentro del sistema MIP de base biológica de Arizona, con efectos intermedios sobre organismos benéficos no objetivo. Sus impactos sobre depredadores son menores que los de insecticidas organofosforados, lo que lo convierte en una opción eficaz para el manejo de Lygus que apoya el manejo de la resistencia y reduce el riesgo de brotes secundarios.

This two‐page guide offers a concise, practical overview for cotton growers and pest management professionals on how to select insecticides that balance effective pest control with environmental, human, and ecological safety. It presents a rating system that scores products for their efficacy against target pests (such as whiteflies and lygus bugs) and for their risks to beneficial organisms like predatory insects, pollinators, and other wildlife, as well as potential hazards to human bystanders and aquatic life. The guide emphasizes that no product is completely without risk and that informed decisions require weighing factors such as pest control performance, resistance management, cost, and broader environmental impact. Developed by experts from the University of Arizona and USDA-ARS, this IPM (Integrated Pest Management) short serves as a user-friendly reference to help growers choose insecticides that support sustainable cotton production while minimizing unintended consequences.

This qualitative research study shows that grower-centered, evidence-based stakeholder comments significantly influenced EPA pesticide registration reviews, improving the accuracy and practicality of federal pesticide policy while protecting human health, the environment, and agricultural viability.

This article in the VegIPM Newsletter (Vol. 16, No. 25) summarizes biological insecticide performance for managing Bagrada bug in organic broccoli. M-Pede and the M-Pede + Entrust tank mix provided the strongest suppression (≈60%), while Captiva Prime and Neemix reduced populations by nearly 50%. Products like Aza-Direct, Entrust, and Botanigard delivered more moderate reductions (≈30%), with none offering rapid knockdown. Results highlight the limited but promising tools available for organic growers seeking selective options for Bagrada bug control.

This article in the VegIPM Newsletter (Vol. 16, No. 24) summarizes organic insecticide performance against major lepidopteran pests in Brassicas and lettuce. Across three seasons of trials, XenTari and Entrust provided the most consistent suppression, while other biological products showed more variable results.

This instructional booklet provides a concise, field-ready guide to the Proactive Resistance Management (PRM) web tool, a community-based decision-support system developed by the Arizona Pest Management Center to promote proactive insect resistance management. Through short explanatory panels and annotated screenshots, the booklet introduces key concepts such as temporal refuge and Mode of Action (MoA) color families, explaining how users can interpret and apply PRM outputs to support sustainable insecticide stewardship across crops and regions. Designed for one-on-one or small-group teaching in the field, this resource complements the online tool available at PRM.extension.arizona.edu.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must ensure that the use of a pesticide will not jeopardize federally listed threatened or endangered species, nor damage their critical habitats. For certain pesticides where runoff or soil erosion may pose threats to listed species, EPA may require users to ensure that protections are in place that will limit the potential for pesticide exposure. This is done through a system of “mitigation points” or “credits” that are obtained by users through adopting mitigation practices or documenting existing conditions that reduce risks of runoff and erosion. If points are needed to apply a pesticide, this requirement will be listed on the pesticide label and/or on an Endangered Species Bulletin. Arizona has many common field conditions, including a low to very low potential for runoff, that should make it easy for most growers in most situations to comply with mitigation requirements. This piece outlines situations where fields may be completely exempt from point requirements and identifies the most common conditions and practices in Arizona agriculture that can earn mitigation relief points. A link is provided to EPA’s Mitigation Menu website where definitions and additional mitigation practices are listed.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must ensure that the use of a pesticide will not jeopardize federally listed threatened or endangered species, nor damage their critical habitats. When required on a pesticide label, online Endangered Species Bulletins provide geographic-specific protections for listed species while allowing full labeled use of the pesticide in other areas. They are obtained through EPA’s Bulletins Live! Two, an interactive web-based app. An increasing number of pesticide products, though not all, require users to view and download Endangered Species Bulletins prior to making an application. Part 1 in this series explains how to determine when an Endangered Species Bulletin is required, where and how to obtain a bulletin, and what type of information is provided.

This article, published in the Vegetable IPM Newsletter (Vol. 16, No. 22), highlights how healthy root systems support water and nutrient uptake, soil health, and overall plant vigor. It explains root structure, function, and maintenance for optimal crop growth.