CoffeariumBeta
  1. Plant
  2. Farm
  3. Process
  4. Trade
  5. Roast
  6. Brew
  7. Cup
Farm management · Pest management

Integrated pest management

How coffee producers combine prevention, field monitoring, action thresholds and biological and cultural control, and keep pesticides as the last option. What integrated pest management means, and what studies measured on farms.

Across the chain: Sustainability · Science

Source-checkedby Coffearium verification pass· Last source-checked 23 Oct 2026· Prepared with AI assistance· 18 sources (18 tier A)· 1 contested· Updated 23 Oct 2026· Literature last searched 23 Oct 2026
Reading depth
Contents
  • The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) defines integrated pest management (IPM) as considering all available pest control techniques and integrating the appropriate ones, keeping pesticides to economically justified levels.1
  • EU law sets eight general IPM principles for professional pesticide users in the EU, from prevention and monitoring to thresholds, non-chemical methods first and evaluation.2
  • On eight Hawaiian farms, threshold-based sprays against the coffee berry borer needed about half as many applications as calendar sprays and had fewer infested berries.8
  • In a 2013–2015 full-sun field trial, pests and diseases cut the current coffee yield by 26% and the following year’s by 38%.12
  • Endosulfan, once the main insecticide against the coffee berry borer, was listed for elimination under the Stockholm Convention in 2011.4,18

What integrated pest management is#

Integrated pest management (IPM) is a way of deciding how to control pests, not a single method. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) defines it as follows: “Integrated Pest Management (IPM) means the careful consideration of all available pest control techniques and subsequent integration of appropriate measures that discourage the development of pest populations and keep pesticides and other interventions to levels that are economically justified and reduce or minimize risks to human health and the environment.”1 According to the FAO, IPM puts a healthy crop first and encourages natural pest control.1

“Pest” here covers insects, pathogens and weeds alike.3 A review of IPM history describes integration at three levels: one pest, several kinds of pest, and the whole cropping system.3 The term and its abbreviation entered English-language science in 1972.3

This entry draws its coffee examples mainly from the coffee berry borer, a beetle, and coffee leaf rust, a fungus. Their biology is covered in their own entries. Here the subject is the logic that links the methods.

From prevention to pesticides#

IPM is often drawn as a pyramid. The broad base is prevention; pesticides sit at the narrow top. European Union (EU) law sets out the steps as eight general principles.2

123456
  1. Prevention. Resistant varieties, suitable cultivation, balanced fertilisation, hygiene and protection of beneficial organisms.2
  2. Monitoring. Field observation, forecasting and early diagnosis, where tools exist.2 In coffee: berry samples and traps.8,9
  3. Decision. Whether and when to treat rests on monitoring results; sound threshold values are essential.2
  4. Cultural and physical control. In coffee, frequent picking and a final clean-up pass after harvest.7
  5. Biological control. Preferred to chemicals where it controls the pest well enough.2 In coffee: the fungus Beauveria bassiana and parasitic wasps.8,11
  6. Chemical control. Products as specific as possible, used no more than necessary, rotated against resistance.1,2
The tiers of integrated pest management, from prevention at the base to chemical control at the top; the decision tier (3) is highlighted. The EU text adds an eighth step: checking whether the measures worked. Schematic.1,2

Prevention keeps pests from building up in the first place. The EU list includes resistant varieties, crop hygiene and balanced fertilisation.2

Monitoring means counting pests or damage regularly. Forecasts and early diagnosis are part of it.2

Decision links monitoring to action. Under the EU text, the professional user decides whether and when to treat on the basis of monitoring results, and robust, scientifically sound threshold values are essential to that decision.2 In practice such a level is called the action threshold. A review of IPM history names the economic injury level and the economic threshold as the basic decision rules.3

Control follows an order. Biological, physical and other non-chemical methods are to be preferred to chemical methods if they give satisfactory control.2 For pesticides, the EU text asks for the most specific product and the smallest necessary use.2 A final step checks whether the measures worked.2

How it works on a coffee farm#

Coffee berry borer. The beetle lives hidden inside the coffee berry, which makes it hard to reach.5 Programmes therefore combine several tools: monitoring, harvest practice, biological control and insecticides.4,8 The main cultural tool is clean harvesting. Producers pick often and make a last pass for left-over fruit, called repase in Colombia.7 Colombian guidance aims for fewer than five fruits left per tree after harvest.7 Details of each tool are in the coffee berry borer entry.

Coffee leaf rust. Resistant varieties are considered the most effective and lasting option.14 Resistance can be lost, however, as new races of the fungus appear.14 Farm management also matters: a review of the 2008–2013 epidemics names low profits and poor farm care among its causes.15 Fungicide choice and timing are covered in coffee leaf rust.

Shade. A review of shade management describes shade as a possible IPM tool. More shade can raise some pests and diseases and lower others.17 The details are in shade and agroforestry.

Coffee berry disease, the coffee leaf miner, nematodes and coffee wilt disease each have their own entries, with the control methods used against them.

Working across farms#

Some programmes act across a whole area rather than plot by plot. A Colombian pilot of an area-wide biological control strategy ran from 2021 to 2022.11 Parasitic wasps were released across a 61-hectare farm against the berry borer.11 The authors judged the strategy effective in that pilot.11

The borer arrived in Hawaii in 2010.10 Growers there could claim 75% of the cost of the fungus Beauveria bassiana from 2014 to 2016.4 A 2017 review reports that a federal grant led to almost 80% of the coffee area on Hawaii Island and O‘ahu being treated.9

Pesticides as a last resort#

For decades, control of the berry borer relied mainly on synthetic insecticides.5 Endosulfan became the most widely used one in the 1960s, and a 2020 review reports growing evidence of resistance to it.4 In 2011 the parties to the Stockholm Convention listed endosulfan for elimination.18

IPM does not ban pesticides. It asks that treatment decisions rest on monitoring and thresholds, and that the product be as specific as possible.1,2 The EU text asks for anti-resistance strategies, such as products with different modes of action, to keep pesticides effective.2 Residue limits in green coffee are covered in contaminants and food safety. Worker safety and residues on the farm are planned for an entry on pesticide safety and residues.

Origins of the concept#

According to a 1998 review, the roots of IPM go back to the late 1800s, when ecology became the basis of plant protection.3 The earlier concept of integrated control combined biological and chemical control.3 Its most cited definition is that of Stern and co-workers.3 “Integrated pest management” and IPM entered the English literature in 1972.3

The review names the economic injury level and the economic threshold as the basic decision rules for arthropod pests.3 It describes three levels of integration: methods against one species (level I), impacts of several pest categories (level II), and all pests and methods within the cropping system (level III).3 Most coffee programmes described below work at level I, against one pest.

EU Directive 2009/128/EC sets out general principles of IPM in its Annex III.2 The annex lists eight principles: prevention, monitoring, threshold-based decisions, non-chemical methods first, target-specific pesticides, reduced use, anti-resistance strategies and evaluation.2 The list is cited here as a statement of the tiers, not as a rule for coffee-producing countries.

Monitoring and thresholds in coffee#

A threshold needs a sampling method. A 2020 review groups borer management into monitoring and sampling, and cultural, biological, chemical and physical control.4 In Hawaii, surveys sampled 30 trees per lot of 0.5–1.5 ha and used alcohol-baited funnel traps.9

Infestation thresholds. A Colombian review gives a threshold of 2% infested berries for the periods between harvests.6 In a Hawaiian study, threshold farms sprayed when infestation reached 3% or more and at least 25% of the females were in the exposed A/B positions; the authors based these thresholds on earlier field observations in Latin America.8 In positions A and B the female has not yet entered the seed, so sprays can still reach her.8 The same study states that infestation above 5% before harvest can cause economic damage to processed coffee.8 A 2017 review reports that economic injury levels for Hawaii were still under investigation.9

Harvest thresholds. Colombian work cited in a 2011 study rates post-harvest clean-up as highly effective when fewer than 5 ripe or dry berries per tree remain, and ineffective above 10.7 Hawaiian surveys use the same scale, for low to moderate borer densities: 5 or fewer is excellent, 6–10 good, more than 10 bad.9

Rust forecasting. In Brazil, fungicides against leaf rust are applied by decision rules that vary with the risk.16 The disease is usually less severe above 1,200 m there.16 The review of the 2008–2013 epidemics in Colombia and Central America found the main drivers to be economic and meteorological.15 It proposes early warning systems among its solutions.15

The berry borer programmes in numbers#

Colombia, cultural control. On a small Colombian farm, ripe and dry berries were picked every two to three weeks for two years, with one repase after each main harvest.7 Infestation of green berries stayed at 1–3.9%.7

Colombia, area-wide biological control. Released parasitoids reduced infested fruits per branch by 77.5% in 2021 and 51.1% in 2022, against a nearby experimental station without releases.11 The authors note that two years of data cannot give conclusive results.11 The same study states that chemical control is not traditionally used in Colombian plantations in their first and second harvests, because borer numbers there are usually low.11

Hawaii, thresholds against calendar sprays. A 2020 study compared eight farms in Kona and Ka‘u over 2016–2017. Some sprayed B. bassiana by calendar, others by threshold.8 The comparison was between farms as managed, without untreated controls. Threshold farms needed 4.4 applications a season, calendar farms 9.0.8 Seasonal infestation was 2.8% on threshold farms and 5.4% on calendar farms, a 48.2% difference.8 Corrected for yield, spray programmes cost 5.4% of gross yield on threshold farms and 11.8% on calendar farms.8 Defects in processed coffee were 8.5% and 10.4%, not significantly different.8

02468101214%Infested berries ·threshold2.8%8 Infested berries ·calendar5.4%8 Spray cost, share of grossyield · threshold5.4%8 Spray cost, share of grossyield · calendar11.8%8 Defects, processed coffee· threshold8.5% (n.s.)8 Defects, processed coffee· calendar10.4% (n.s.)8
Data table
%Source
Infested berries · threshold2.8%8
Infested berries · calendar5.4%8
Spray cost, share of gross yield · threshold5.4%8
Spray cost, share of gross yield · calendar11.8%8
Defects, processed coffee · threshold8.5% (n.s.)8
Defects, processed coffee · calendar10.4% (n.s.)8
Threshold-based against calendar-based Beauveria bassiana sprays on eight coffee farms in Hawaii, 2016–2017: infested berries, spray cost as a share of gross yield, and defects in processed coffee. Seasonal means on farms as managed (5 threshold, 3 calendar), without untreated controls; infestation and cost differed significantly, defects did not. Data: Hollingsworth et al. 2020.8

On threshold farms, 75% of applications fell in the early season, May to July.8 Early in the season, 20–70% of females were in the exposed A/B positions.8 The fungus infected 18.3% of borers on threshold farms and 10.8% on calendar farms.8

Leaf rust: an integrated approach#

No single tool controls leaf rust everywhere. Resistant varieties come first, but several Timor Hybrid derivatives have lost resistance to new races.14 Copper fungicides are preventive and systemic ones curative; a 2017 review advises using them combined or alternately.14 The biological agent Lecanicillium lecanii reduces spore viability and disease severity but cannot control the rust effectively.14

The review of the 2008–2013 epidemics found that low profitability had led to poorer farm management.15 Nutrition, fruit load and shade change how much rust develops; the evidence is set out in coffee leaf rust and shade and agroforestry. Fertilisation itself is covered in nutrition and fertilisation.

What pests cost, and what IPM saves#

Losses. A field trial measured primary losses (in the current year) and secondary losses (carried into the next year).12 On a full-sun plot in 2013–2015, pests and diseases caused 26% primary and 38% secondary yield losses.12 The authors found fruiting nodes and dead productive branches to be the best predictors of loss.12 Why damage carries into the next crop is explained in branching and fruiting wood.

A decision model. A 2017 decision-tree model of a typical Kona farm of 1.67 acres (about 0.68 ha, our calculation) weighed spraying against not spraying in each period.10 In the model, a plot always sprayed ended the season at about 6% infestation; one never sprayed at 25%.10 The most important factor for net benefit was a low infestation at the start of the season.10 Above an initial infestation of 12.6%, the net benefit turned negative.10 The subsidy for the fungus raised the model’s optimal net benefit for the typical farm by USD 947.17.10 These are model outputs, not field measurements.

Adoption. A study of Colombian coffee farms found that adoption of IPM recommendations against the borer varied with social, economic, environmental and institutional factors.13 Education and wealth were linked to which recommendations producers chose. Poorer farmers chose those that needed little money up front.13 In Hawaii, only 30.3% of 36 surveyed harvest rounds met the good or excellent standard for berries left per tree.9 On average, 13.9 berries per tree remained after the 2016 harvest (range 2.5–31.4).9 In Puerto Rico, about 20% of farmers applied B. bassiana.9 The 2017 review concludes that not all growers in Hawaii and Puerto Rico adopt IPM.9 The 2020 study names the high cost of field labour in Hawaii as a limit for cultural control.8

Pesticide rules in brief#

Endosulfan became the most widely used chemical control against the berry borer in the 1960s; a 2020 review reports growing evidence that the borer is resistant to it.4 At its fifth meeting in 2011, the Conference of the Parties to the Stockholm Convention listed technical endosulfan and its isomers in Annex A (decision SC-5/3).18 By 2013 it was banned in at least 70 countries, according to a 2020 review.4 The same review reports chlorpyrifos as the only pesticide in use against the borer in Papua New Guinea.4 Rules on residues are summarised in contaminants and food safety; a separate entry on pesticide safety and residues is planned. Coffearium names active ingredients only as the sources do and gives no dose advice.

Reference values#

Parameter Value reported Source
FAO definition All available techniques combined; pesticides kept to economically justified levels FAO1
EU general principles 8 (prevention to evaluation) Directive 2009/128/EC, Annex III2
Term in English 1972 Kogan3
Borer threshold, Colombia 2% infested berries between harvests Bustillo6
Borer threshold, Hawaii (study) ≥3% infestation and ≥25% of females in A/B position Hollingsworth et al.8
Economic damage, Hawaii Infestation > 5% before harvest Hollingsworth et al.8
Berries left per tree ≤5 excellent, 6–10 good, > 10 bad Aristizábal et al. 20117; 20179
Hawaiian survey sample 30 trees per lot of 0.5–1.5 ha Aristizábal et al. 20179
Sprays per season, threshold vs calendar 4.4 vs 9.0 Hollingsworth et al.8
Infested berries, threshold vs calendar 2.8% vs 5.4% Hollingsworth et al.8
Spray cost, share of gross yield 5.4% vs 11.8% Hollingsworth et al.8
Yield losses to pests and diseases 26% primary, 38% secondary (full sun, 2013–2015) Cerda et al.12
Break-even initial infestation (model) 12.6% Woodill et al.10
Rust less severe (Brazil) Above 1,200 m Zambolim16

Open questions#

  • Economic injury levels. A 2017 review reports that economic injury levels based on infestation, borer position and trap catches were being investigated in Hawaii.9 The 2020 study took its spray thresholds from earlier Latin American observations.8
  • Region-wide evidence. The area-wide parasitoid pilot covered one 61-hectare farm11; no study consulted for this entry measured a whole region before and after an IPM programme.
  • Adoption rates. No study consulted for this entry gives current adoption rates of IPM across a coffee-producing country.
  • IPM beyond one pest. The programmes described here mostly work against one pest at a time (level I).3 No study consulted for this entry tests a whole-farm programme against several coffee pests and diseases at once.
  • A Colombian programme review. A 2012 book chapter by Cenicafé researchers on the Colombian borer programme could not be accessed for this entry, so its figures are not used.

Key studies#

Hollingsworth et al., 2020 – Threshold sprays in Hawaii. Compared eight coffee farms that sprayed Beauveria bassiana by calendar or by an infestation threshold. Threshold farms used about half as many sprays, had fewer infested berries and spent a smaller share of their yield on control.

Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 4, 22 · doi:10.3389/fsufs.2020.00022

Aristizábal et al., 2017 – IPM of the borer in Hawaii and Puerto Rico. Reviewed monitoring, sanitation, biological control and adoption after the borer arrived in Hawaii. Most harvest rounds surveyed left too many berries per tree, and the authors conclude that not all growers adopt IPM.

Insects 8(4), 123 · doi:10.3390/insects8040123

Woodill et al., 2017 – To spray or not to spray. Modelled the spray decision for a typical Kona farm with a decision tree. In the model, a low infestation at the start of the season mattered more for net benefit than a full pesticide subsidy. Model outputs, not field measurements.

Insects 8(4), 116 · doi:10.3390/insects8040116

Cerda et al., 2017 – Primary and secondary yield losses. Ran a three-year trial on a full-sun plot with six sequences of pesticide applications to separate this year’s losses from next year’s. Pests and diseases cost 26% of the current yield and 38% of the following one.

PLoS ONE 12(1), e0169133 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0169133

Chaves and Riley, 2001 – Why producers adopt IPM. Studied the adoption of four borer recommendations on Colombian farms. Education and wealth were linked to the choice, and poorer farmers chose measures with low cash outlay.

Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 87, 159–177

Contested
  • Action thresholds for the coffee berry borer: a Colombian review gives 2% infestation for the periods between harvests6; a Hawaiian study sprayed at 3% or more when at least 25% of females were in the exposed positions8; a 2017 review states that economic injury levels for Hawaii were still being investigated.9 The values come from different climates, prices and sampling methods and are not interchangeable.
Share or cite this entry

Change log

  • – FAO definition now quoted exactly; summary changed from "combining all suitable control methods" to "considering all available techniques and integrating the appropriate ones". Reason: The paraphrase was stronger than the FAO text (s1).
  • – EU Annex III decision and anti-resistance statements reworded to what the annex says (decision rests on monitoring and sound thresholds; anti-resistance strategies to keep products effective); scope stated as professional users in the EU. Reason: The text said producers treat only above a threshold and that rotation slows resistance, which the annex does not state (s2).
  • – Endosulfan resistance softened to "growing evidence of resistance"; chlorpyrifos in Papua New Guinea described as the only pesticide (not insecticide) in use. Reason: Wording of Johnson et al. 2020 (s4).
  • – Hawaii threshold study – brief now says fewer infested berries (significant) instead of "equivalent control"; caption adds farms as managed, no untreated controls and significance; thresholds attributed to earlier Latin American observations; Open questions no longer cites the 2020 study for economic injury levels. Reason: Results of Hollingsworth et al. 2020 (s8) and Aristizábal et al. 2017 (s9).
  • – Parasitoid pilot compared with a separate experimental station without releases, and the authors' caveat that two years are not conclusive added; Woodill subsidy value stated as the rise in the model's optimal net benefit; Lecanicillium also reduces disease severity. Reason: Wording of Benavides et al. 2023 (s11), Woodill et al. 2017 (s10) and Talhinhas et al. 2017 (s14).

Sources

  1. AFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2026). Plant Production and Protection Division: Integrated Pest Management. FAO (undated web page, consulted October 2026).
  2. AEuropean Parliament; Council of the European Union (2009). Directive 2009/128/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for Community action to achieve the sustainable use of pesticides, Annex III: General principles of integrated pest management (as adopted). Official Journal of the European Union L 309, 24 November 2009 (text read on legislation.gov.uk).
  3. AKogan, M. (1998). Integrated pest management: historical perspectives and contemporary developments. Annual Review of Entomology 43, 243–270. doi:10.1146/annurev.ento.43.1.243 · other copies
  4. AJohnson, M. A.; Ruiz-Diaz, C. P.; Manoukis, N. C.; Verle Rodrigues, J. C. (2020). Coffee berry borer (Hypothenemus hampei), a global pest of coffee: perspectives from historical and recent invasions, and future priorities. Insects 11(12), 882. doi:10.3390/insects11120882 · other copies
  5. AInfante, F. (2018). Pest management strategies against the coffee berry borer (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae). Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 66(21), 5275–5280. doi:10.1021/acs.jafc.7b04875 · other copies
  6. ABustillo Pardey, A. E. (2006). Una revisión sobre la broca del café, Hypothenemus hampei (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae), en Colombia. Revista Colombiana de Entomología 32(2), 101–116.
  7. AAristizábal, L. F.; Jiménez, M.; Bustillo, A. E.; Arthurs, S. P. (2011). Monitoring cultural practices for coffee berry borer Hypothenemus hampei (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) management in a small coffee farm in Colombia. Florida Entomologist 94(3), 685–687. doi:10.1653/024.094.0334 · other copies
  8. AHollingsworth, R. G.; Aristizábal, L. F.; Shriner, S.; Mascarin, G. M.; Moral, R. A.; Arthurs, S. P. (2020). Incorporating Beauveria bassiana into an integrated pest management plan for coffee berry borer in Hawaii. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 4, 22. doi:10.3389/fsufs.2020.00022 · other copies
  9. AAristizábal, L. F.; Johnson, M.; Shriner, S.; Hollingsworth, R.; Manoukis, N. C.; Myers, R.; Bayman, P.; Arthurs, S. P. (2017). Integrated pest management of coffee berry borer in Hawaii and Puerto Rico: current status and prospects. Insects 8(4), 123. doi:10.3390/insects8040123 · other copies
  10. AWoodill, A. J.; Nakamoto, S. T.; Kawabata, A. M.; Leung, P. (2017). To spray or not to spray: a decision analysis of coffee berry borer in Hawaii. Insects 8(4), 116. doi:10.3390/insects8040116 · other copies
  11. ABenavides, P.; Gil, Z. N.; Escobar, L. E.; Navarro-Escalante, L.; Follett, P.; Diaz-Soltero, H. (2023). Pilot testing of an area-wide biological control strategy against the coffee berry borer in Colombia using African parasitoids. Insects 14(11), 865. doi:10.3390/insects14110865 · other copies
  12. ACerda, R.; Avelino, J.; Gary, C.; Tixier, P.; Lechevallier, E.; Allinne, C. (2017). Primary and secondary yield losses caused by pests and diseases: assessment and modeling in coffee. PLoS ONE 12(1), e0169133. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0169133 · other copies
  13. AChaves, B.; Riley, J. (2001). Determination of factors influencing integrated pest management adoption in coffee berry borer in Colombian farms. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 87, 159–177.
  14. ATalhinhas, P.; Batista, D.; Diniz, I.; Vieira, A.; Silva, D. N.; Loureiro, A.; Tavares, S.; Pereira, A. P.; Azinheira, H. G.; Guerra-Guimarães, L.; Várzea, V.; Silva, M. C. (2017). The coffee leaf rust pathogen Hemileia vastatrix: one and a half centuries around the tropics. Molecular Plant Pathology 18(8), 1039–1051. doi:10.1111/mpp.12512 · other copies
  15. AAvelino, J.; Cristancho, M.; Georgiou, S.; Imbach, P.; Aguilar, L.; Bornemann, G.; Läderach, P.; Anzueto, F.; Hruska, A. J.; Morales, C.; et al. (2015). The coffee rust crises in Colombia and Central America (2008–2013): impacts, plausible causes and proposed solutions. Food Security 7, 303–321. doi:10.1007/s12571-015-0446-9 · other copies
  16. AZambolim, L. (2016). Current status and management of coffee leaf rust in Brazil. Tropical Plant Pathology 41(1), 1–8. doi:10.1007/s40858-016-0065-9 · other copies
  17. ABeer, J.; Muschler, R.; Kass, D.; Somarriba, E. (1998). Shade management in coffee and cacao plantations. In: Directions in Tropical Agroforestry Research, Springer Netherlands, pp. 139–164. doi:10.1007/978-94-015-9008-2_6 · other copies
  18. ASecretariat of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (2011). Endosulfan: overview. Stockholm Convention (UNEP), web page.

Tier A · authoritative · B · trade and expert · C · general. Supporting quotes for every source are in the data version of this entry. If a publisher’s site refuses access, try the doi link or “other copies”.

The literature for this entry was last searched on 23 Oct 2026. A statement that no source consulted for this entry shows something refers to the sources above; newer or missing work may exist.

Suggest a change

On Integrated pest management. Tell us what you would change and why. A source that supports it helps most.