Demographics

Although 122 responses were received, only 114 were usable. A large share of our respondents were responsible for advising growers in the Great Plains region of North America, which is characterized by a predominance of corn and soybean (USDA-NASS, 2024; Fig. 1). Thus, it should not be surprising that corn was the most frequently scouted crop among our respondents followed by soybean, wheat, alfalfa, dry bean, and sunflower (similar to the findings of Wright, DeVries and Kamble, Reference Wright, DeVries and Kamble1997; Table 1) with each respondent stating that he/she was responsible for 5.1 (±2.1 SD) different crops (N = 113) and approximately 5914 (±2945) hectares (N = 111).

Figure 1.

Number of crop advisors scouting each state (also 1 advisor in Ontario and 1 in Manitoba). AI-based software ‘RTutor2.00’ was used to compile the ‘R’ code that produced this figure.

Table 1.

Size of each crop (in hectares) that respondents advised on for nine selected categories (number of respondents; N = 114)

Of the top 10 crop categories, alfalfa, sunflower, and vegetables were relatively minor crops, with an average of fewer than 405 hectares (1000 acres) scouted by each advisor (Table 1). Most of the sunflower respondents in this survey (N = 29) scouted in North Dakota (17), Minnesota (five), or Colorado (six) with few representatives from Kansas (three), Manitoba (one), Nebraska (one), and South Dakota (four); thus, results should be interpreted with caution as significant pests like RSSW are currently more problematic in South Dakota (Cluever et al., Reference Cluever, Bradshaw, Varenhorst, Knodel, Beauzay and Prasifka2025).

The distribution of years of experience for survey non-retired respondents was left-skewed. Most respondents (N = 113) had over 20 years of experience with the distribution being: 4.2% 1–5 years; 7.1% 6–10 years; 15.0% 11–15 years; 7.1% 16–20 years; 15.9% 21–25 years; 15.0% 26–30 years; and 35.4% >30 years. A similar bias to very experienced (>20 years) crop consultants was reported by Archibald et al. (Reference Archibald, Bradshaw, Golick, Wright and Peterson2018). The CCA program (CCA, 2020) reports that the median age of its members has slightly declined from 50 (2013) to 48 (2020). However, as with the farmers they advise, a high median age (58 in 2022; USDA-NASS, 2024) has implications for the future supply of crop advisors (as many may be near retirement), which is supported by a comment from one of our respondents, ‘I employ seasonal crop scouting. It is getting harder and harder to find good help…’ Fortunately, technology such as sensors, drones, and artificial intelligence may ameliorate a future shortfall of crop advisors. For instance, unmanned aerial and ground systems may be used to detect plant stress (e.g., water stress, nutrient deficiency, insect feeding, and disease presence) and weed presence (Pinter et al., Reference Pinter, Hatfield, Schepers, Barnes, Moran, Daughtry and Upchurch2003; Hassler and Baysal-Gurel, Reference Hassler and Baysal-Gurel2019; Wilson, Reference Wilson2022).

Most respondents (N = 114) had at least a bachelor’s degree (65.8%), 19.3% had a graduate degree, 9.6% had some graduate education, 3.5% had a technical degree, and 1.8% had some college. The majority (57.9%) had a degree in agronomy or plant science, and only 6.1% had a degree in entomology or IPM (Table 2). The low frequency of CCAs with entomology degrees likely reflects the fact that few (16 of 57) of the 1862 land-grant universities offer undergraduate majors in entomology (ESA, 2025).

Table 2.

Self-described education (i.e., degree) of respondents

The entomological training of those who did not have a degree in entomology (N = 107) consisted of on-the-job training (82.2%) and a few college courses (79.4%). Other training (10.3%) included industry update meetings, seminars, university short courses, and life experience. Independent advisors tended to have more postbaccalaureate education (35.8%) than those working for a consultancy (8.6%), though data are insufficient for a formal analysis. Overall, while agronomy and plant science can provide a good foundation for CCA work, the low frequency of degrees in entomology or IPM suggests that some aspects of insect pest management may be a weakness for some advisors.

Unlike data collected by CCA (2020), over half (58.8%) of the respondents in our survey were independent crop advisors, which may be an artifact of the lists used to distribute this survey. The remainder were employed by a consultancy company (30.7%), a single producer (3.5%), industry (3.5%), or university extension/other (3.5%). Because of the greater representation of independent crop advisors, our respondents may be less likely to make insecticide recommendations than the broader population of CCAs, which includes more industry personnel (Ingram, Reference Ingram2008; Pedersen et al., Reference Pedersen, Nielsen, Christensen, Ørum and Martinsen2019).

Most respondents believed IPM to be very or extremely important (105 out of 110) and considered themselves very or extremely knowledgeable about IPM (93 out of 111). However, from 99 (open-ended text box) respondent definitions of IPM, a minority stressed the use of multiple tactics (45), that IPM is knowledge-based (21), or has a goal of reducing harm from pesticides (15). For instance, one respondent stated that IPM is ‘a science-based form of managing pests (including weeds, insects, pathogens, mollusks, mammals, etc) that reduced risk to envt [sic], human health, and economics’. Another said, ‘Make decisions that are beneficial for environment, productivity, and wellbeing [sic] of all people’. Seven respondents gave answers that were either meaningless or not in line with the principles of IPM. For instance, one respondent answered, ‘Reviewing alternates to improve crop health’, another stated ‘bugs, diseases, and weeds’, and yet another stated that IPM is ‘a process that has been eliminated by younger generations’. However, a sizable plurality (47) stressed the economic aspects of IPM. From the 26 responses specific to sunflower IPM, a minority of CCAs considered natural enemies to be very or extremely important (11), but over half (17) considered insect pollination in sunflower to be very or extremely important. Consequently, CCAs’ beliefs in the importance of pollinators to sunflower yields could help support the adoption of practices that would improve IPM quality.

Work habits and attitudes

Crop advisors working for a consultancy company were responsible for more hectares than independent advisors (t = 3.31; df = 49.453; P = 0.0017), which should not be surprising as they likely have more resources (i.e., field scouts) than independent advisors. Advisors (N = 108) stated they worked at least (69.8 h ± 28.3 SD) hours per week during the field season. Most of the time was spent scouting (36.2 ± 16.5 h), driving to field sites (10.9 ± 8.4 h), and communicating with growers (Table 3), with no statistical difference between independent advisors and those working for a consultancy for total hours worked (t = 1.29; df = 59.002; P = 0.202). Additionally, there was no difference for the time spent scouting (t = 0.21; df = 64.203; P = 0.836), driving to field sites (t = −0.02; df = 49.092; P = 0.982), or training (t = 0.51; df = 92.407; P = 0.609). However, the time communicating with growers was greater for advisors employed by consultancies (14.8 ± 8.2 h compared to 8.9 ± 5.8 h for independent advisors) (t = 3.71; df = 50.747; P < 0.001). Though training and scouting can be conducted simultaneously (as can driving and communicating with growers), the large difference in time spent communicating with growers between advisors employed by consultancies and independent advisors was unexpected and may warrant further investigation.

Table 3.

Time budget of respondents

Sunflower pests

Sunflower CCAs (N = 28) rated weeds (nine), birds (seven), and insects (seven) as their greatest production problems. For their second-greatest problem, advisors listed weeds (11), insects (10), and diseases (four). The focus on weeds is understandable, as weeds can dramatically decrease yields and are becoming more difficult to control. For instance, kochia, Kochia scoparia L. (Caryophyllales: Amaranthaceae), a common weed in sunflowers, can reduce yield by 61.9 kg ha⁻¹ for every plant row-meter⁻¹ (Durgan, Dexter and Miller, Reference Durgan, Dexter and Miller1990; Bortolon et al., Reference Bortolon, Nathew, Prasifka and Wagner2024). Additionally, herbicide resistance (e.g., Acetolactate synthase [group 2 herbicides] resistant kochia) is becoming more widespread, making adequate management more difficult (Lawrence and Beiermann, Reference Lawrence and Beiermann2018; Heap, Reference Heap2024). Herbicide drift and harvest issues (e.g., lodging) were rated among the top three by only one and three respondents, respectively. It seems possible that infrequent CCA concerns about harvest issues come from problems like lodging occurring later in the season after scouting is finished.

For insects, respondents (N = 28) consistently rated RSSW as the greatest insect problem (13), followed by the sunflower moth (Hulst) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) (five) and the banded sunflower moth, Cochylis hospes (Walsingham) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) (three). Advisors stated that the second-greatest pest was the banded sunflower moth (10), grasshoppers (seven), and RSSW (five). There was a general trend toward considering RSSW as more of a pest in the Dakotas (16 out of 19) than in Colorado and Kansas (three out of eight), though this should be interpreted with caution because of the small sample size. It should come as no surprise that the RSSW ranks among the top insect pests, as issues with management have arisen in the Dakotas (Cluever et al., Reference Cluever, Bradshaw, Varenhorst, Knodel, Beauzay and Prasifka2025). Pests like the dectes stem borer, Dectes texanus LeConte (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae), and the sunflower beetle, Calligrapha exclamationis (Fab.)(Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), may be considered minor pests as they were only rated among the top three by three and one advisor, respectively. Though crop advisors identified RSSW as the top sunflower insect pest, acknowledgment of several other insects as primary or secondary concerns has implications for management. Specifically, though early planting is being recommended for management of RSSW, there are several insect pests for which late planting is a suggested cultural method to reduce frequency or severity of damage (e.g., stem-boring insects [Rogers, Reference Rogers1985; Charlet et al., Reference Charlet, Aiken, Meyer and Gebre-Amlak2007] and banded sunflower moth [Oseto, Charlet and Busacca, Reference Oseto, Charlet and Busacca1989]). Thus, in areas where RSSW is severe and resistance to pyrethroid insecticides is present (Cluever et al., Reference Cluever, Bradshaw, Varenhorst, Knodel, Beauzay and Prasifka2025), early planting should be the first option to limit damage and reduce weevil populations as RSSW is likely to cause more damage than stem-boring insects or banded sunflower moth (Prasifka et al., Reference Prasifka, Varenhorst, Simons, Cluever, Wagner and Ireland2024).

Scouting

In sunflower (N = 28), advisors scouted for an average of (4.5 ± 1.6) different insect pests. The most frequently scouted pests were the banded sunflower moth, followed by RSSW, and grasshoppers (Table 4). Some of those who did not scout for RSSW indicated that ‘Red sunflower seed weevil is never an issue’ or ‘Very little problem here’. For RSSW scouting, the majority of advisors (N = 23) scouted each field, began scouting at the R4 stage and continued every 5-7 days, examined at least five heads at five locations within each field, and used a DEET-based repellent to aid in scouting (Table 5). However, only a minority (10) walked at least 23 meters into the field before scouting, which may cause the threshold to be reached artificially as RSSW tend to be more concentrated at the field edges (Charlet and Oseto, Reference Charlet and Oseto1982). One of those who did not walk at least 23 meters into the field stated that he checks the headlands of the field before going to the center, and another stated that he checks the margins and if no weevils are found, he moves to the next field. Only a few (five) took samples in an ‘x’ or ‘z’ pattern. Similarly, Archibald et al. (Reference Archibald, Bradshaw, Golick, Wright and Peterson2018) noted that crop advisors in Nebraska tended to use most of the recommended scouting practices for western bean cutworm; however, most did not use pheromone traps to time the start of scouting as is recommended (Archibald et al., Reference Archibald, Bradshaw, Golick, Wright and Peterson2018; Smith et al., Reference Smith, Difonzo, Baute, Michel and Krupke2019). Of those who scouted for RSSW (N = 23), a plurality (10) indicated that they used a threshold of 2–5 weevils per head; two advisors indicated that they recommended application regardless of population, two used a threshold of one weevil or a threshold of 6–10 weevils. Of those who indicated ‘other,’ three indicated that the timing of another pest/disease dictates application, which may indicate that there is a philosophy of ‘let us just throw it in’. This contrasts with a western bean cutworm survey where many advisors used a lower threshold than recommended (Cluever, unpublished). Three others specified that the threshold for confection is one per head, likely due to the low tolerance for injury. However, there is no threshold for confection sunflowers as contracts often dictate that confection flowers be sprayed regardless of pest pressure (Cluever et al., Reference Cluever, Bradshaw, Varenhorst, Knodel, Beauzay and Prasifka2025). Overall, crop advisors working in sunflowers showed an incomplete adoption of recommended scouting practices, suggesting that insecticide applications may be made against IPM guidelines. For instance, RSSW populations may be overestimated as they are more concentrated at field edges (Charlet and Oseto, Reference Charlet and Oseto1982).

Table 4.

Sunflower insect pests scouted for by respondents

Table 5.

Red sunflower seed weevil, Smicronyx fulvus, scouting practices of respondents

Competence and networks

All crop advisors (N = 27) correctly identified an RSSW in (37.0 ± 37.3) seconds. This is in line with Archibald et al. (Reference Archibald, Bradshaw, Golick, Wright and Peterson2018), who found that most CCAs successfully identified the western bean cutworm, Striacosta albicosta ((Smith); Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Of 26 respondents, a plurality (11) believed that early planting is an effective means of reducing RSSW damage, eight believed insecticides were the only effective tool, and one believed there were no effective tools (Table 6). Most crop advisors (14) stated that comparable yield data would make them more likely to recommend a modified planting date, followed by reduced RSSW damage (13), and reduced bird damage (10) (Table 7). This suggests that these key points should be included in messaging to CCAs regarding the recommended, but largely unused (Prasifka, Pers. Obs.), cultural control practice of early planting to manage RSSW. Two respondents stated that they would never recommend early planting. This reticence may stem from a lack of willingness on the part of the grower, as noted by one of our respondents: ‘The best you can do with farmers is to convince them to use all tools available to them. They will not spend extra money… Nor will they try things like cover crops without being paid. You just have to get them to consider all the options and point them the right direction’.

Table 6.

Management tools that advisors believed are effective for the red sunflower seed weevil, Smicronyx fulvus

Table 7.

Situations that would make the recommendation of early planting (of sunflowers) more likely among respondents

Information sources most used by survey respondents were other crop advisors, extension publications, university extension personnel, Continuing Education Units (CEU), and field days. Trial and error and federal government personnel were the least used (Table 8). Responses suggest that crop advisors rely heavily on their own networks to acquire information. It also indicates that while extension services are still a trusted source of information, their perceived value may be declining, as evidenced by a comment from one of our respondents, who noted, ‘20 years ago academia was very important in agriculture but to day there [sic] a very limited source of information’. This is further supported by Iowa State University studies, which indicated that extension was the first information source for 42% of farmers in 1985 and only 12% in 2005 (Al-Kaisi et al., Reference Al-Kaisi, Elmore, Miller and Kwaw-Mensah2015). This sentiment that academia (which includes land-grant universities and extension programs) may be less relevant than in the past and the near total absence of USDA/Ag Canada personnel as CCA resources is concerning, as new techniques and updates to existing practices are more likely to come from research specialists than from generalists.

Table 8.

Information sources used by respondents

This declining relevance could be due to funding and staffing cuts (Serenari et al., Reference Serenari, Peterson, Bardon and Brown2013; Wang, Reference Wang2014). For instance, the number of extension faculty at University of Illinois dropped from 92 to 16 between 1986 and 2013 (Al-Kaisi et al., Reference Al-Kaisi, Elmore, Miller and Kwaw-Mensah2015). Similarly, before 1992, Iowa had an extension educator trained in agriculture in all 99 counties; whereas today there are only 20 regional directors, 12 of whom are trained in agriculture (Al-Kaisi et al., Reference Al-Kaisi, Elmore, Miller and Kwaw-Mensah2015). Overall, the number of FTEs per 1000 farms is highly variable with over 20 in North Dakota and fewer than five in Minnesota and South Dakota (Wang, Reference Wang2014). Additionally, a shift to larger farming and agribusiness operations may have facilitated a move to private information sources (Al-Kaisi et al., Reference Al-Kaisi, Elmore, Miller and Kwaw-Mensah2015).

Overall, CCA communication in this study appeared to have homophilous and heterophilous elements (Rogers, Reference Rogers2003). As to the former, crop advisors in this study appear to be little different from farmers who are heavily influenced by their own peer networks (Lubell, Niles and Hoffman, Reference Lubell, Niles and Hoffman2014; Skaalsveen, Ingram and Urquhart, Reference Skaalsveen, Ingram and Urquhart2020), which should come as no surprise, as most communication is homophilous in nature (Rogers, Reference Rogers2003). As to the latter, university extension is still among advisors’ top information sources in this study and that of Tylka et al. (Reference Tylka, Wintersteen and Meyer2005). Thus, extension services could exploit CCA peer networks in a ‘train the trainer’ approach with the intent of creating a multiplier effect (Lubell et al., Reference Lubell, Niles and Hoffman2014; Warner et al., Reference Warner, Harder, Wichman and Dowdle2014). This approach has already been adopted by Iowa State University (Tylka et al., Reference Tylka, Wintersteen and Meyer2005), Nebraska’s Urban Tree Care Workshops (Skelton and Josiah, Reference Skelton and Josiah2003), and Florida’s Master Gardener Program (Warner et al., Reference Warner, Harder, Wichman and Dowdle2014). Potential limitations of this study include coverage errors and geographic limitations. Our choice of listservs may have biased the results to independent crop consultants at the expense of those working for the industry. Additionally, full-time agronomists employed by large farming operations may have been excluded. Lastly, the results were more biased toward the Great Plains region of North America, which is dominated by row crop agriculture. Results may not be transposable to regions like California that are dominated by smaller fruit and vegetable operations.