Climate change impacts on agriculture have been intensifying in the Northeastern United States. In order to encourage the adoption of climate change adaptation and mitigation practices by farmers, it is critical to understand their perspectives on the risks they face and actions they are taking. However, very few empirical studies have considered how farmers are interpreting and responding to climate impacts, risks and opportunities in the Northeast. This study investigates farmer views and decisions related to climate change using data from six farmer focus groups conducted across New York and Pennsylvania. The study examined how farmers perceived climate impacts on their farms, the practices they are willing to adopt, and how perceived risks and vulnerability affect farmers’ decision-making related to adaptation and mitigation strategies. Although farmers articulated concern regarding climate impacts, they also made clear that other business pressures, such as profitability, market conditions, labor availability or government regulations were often more critical issues that affected their decision-making. Decisions about adopting climate change adaptation and mitigation practices vary widely, and personal experience with extreme weather and changing seasons affected decision-making. The findings from this study provide improved understanding of farmers’ needs and priorities, which can help guide land-grant researchers, extension and policymakers in their efforts to develop and coordinate a comprehensive strategy to address climate change impacts on agriculture in the Northeast.

Climate change impacts on agriculture have been intensifying in the Northeastern and Midwestern United States. Few empirical studies have considered how dairy farmers and/or their advisors are interpreting and responding to climate impacts, risks, and opportunities in these regions. This study investigates dairy farmer and advisor views and decisions related to climate change using data from seven farmer and advisor focus groups conducted in New York and Wisconsin. The study examined how farmers and advisors perceived climate impacts on dairy farms, the practices they are adopting, and how perceived risks and vulnerability affect farmers’ decision making related to adaptation strategies. Although dairy farmers articulated concern regarding climate impacts, other business pressures, such as profitability, market conditions, government regulations, and labor availability were often more critical issues that affected their decision making. Personal experience with extreme weather and seasonal changes affected decision making. The findings from this study provide improved understanding of farmers’ needs and priorities, which can help guide land-grant researchers, Extension, and policymakers in their efforts to develop and coordinate a comprehensive strategy to address climate change impacts on dairy in the Northeast and the Midwest US.

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is a critical strategy for sustainable agriculture, aiming to minimize risks associated with the use of chemical pesticides while managing pest populations effectively. This article compares agricultural IPM implementation strategies, evaluation, and monitoring mechanisms in the European Union (EU) and the United States, highlighting their strengths and challenges. The comparative analysis focuses on regulatory frameworks, implementation strategies, compliance, and enforcement, providing insights into refining global IPM practices for enhanced agricultural sustainability. However, with the recent withdrawal of the EU’s Sustainable Use of Pesticides Regulation, the future of pesticide reduction goals in the EU remains uncertain. This evolving policy landscape provides a timely opportunity to reassess IPM strategies in both regions.

Integrated pest management (IPM) programs help farmers manage pest risk, reduce unnecessary pesticide use, improve decision timing, and support economically viable production systems. Public IPM programs operate through research, extension, and online decision-support infrastructure. Their long-run contribution often appears across many crops, practices, years, and information channels. This study develops an economic analysis framework to estimate the documented program-linked agricultural benefits associated with the Cornell IPM Program in New York State from 1985 to 2025. The primary estimate is the inflation-adjusted value of documented crop-practice benefits from available New York evidence. Across 19 crop-practice observations, documented benefits total $143.7 million in 2024 dollars. Cumulative agricultural program funding totals $65.5 million. The full-attribution scenario gives a benefit–cost baseline of 2.19. The 75% attribution scenario gives a baseline of 1.65. The 50% attribution scenario gives a baseline of 1.10. The lower 25% and 10% attribution scenarios give baselines of 0.55 and 0.22. The adoption sensitivity analysis indicates that about 45.6% of the estimated potential benefit must be realized for documented benefits to equal cumulative agricultural program funding. We evaluate digital information resources separately as time-use proxies. Using a one-third New York wage assumption, 2025 use of Cornell IPM online resources and the Network for Environment and Weather Applications gives a time-use proxy of about $210,000. The full New York wage assumption gives an upper sensitivity of approximately $632,000. These digital estimates measure user engagement with IPM information resources. The results show that documented agricultural IPM benefits exceed public funding baselines under 50%, 75%, and 100% attribution scenarios. The benchmark depends on adoption, attribution, benefit overlap, and the available evidence base.