The IPM evidence trail and recommendation record in one tool.
AgFieldScout connects weekly field reports, trap pressure, weather and crop context, active-ingredient review, environmental concern flags, lower-risk alternative documentation, and PCA rationale.
Weekly scouting reports make IPM recommendation fields credible.
AgFieldScout is viable for multi-state IPM evaluation because the treatment decision is not captured in isolation. The tool preserves dated field evidence before the recommendation, then adds structured prompts for threshold basis, alternatives considered, active ingredients reviewed, concern flags, and PCA rationale.
Pest pressure, incidence, severity, photos, GPS notes, block context, and prior reports create the decision history.
Trap counts and trap history can be reviewed with the report instead of living in a separate spreadsheet.
Growth stage, weather records, field history, and block structure help explain why action timing matters.
PCA rationale, threshold basis, alternatives considered, active ingredients reviewed, and selected treatments can be captured as part of the report.
Active-ingredient concern flags help reviewers see when higher-risk choices were avoided or justified.
AgFieldScout turns normal PCA field work into structured IPM evidence.
The tool is already built around recurring field reports, client/block context, pest observations, traps, recommendations, photos, and report history. The IPM workflow adds the evaluation fields needed to document pesticide-risk decisions without changing how PCAs work in the field.
Weekly and monthly field data can be collected in the same workflow PCAs use for scouting and reports.
Records threshold basis, alternatives considered, risk flags surfaced, and PCA rationale.
Links pest pressure, trap pressure, crop context, weather, photos, and report history.
Shows concern categories so higher-risk choices can be avoided or justified when required.
Partner exports should remove grower names, exact locations, company names, and raw notes.
Exports can summarize crop, pest/problem, broad region, practice type, active-ingredient category, risk flag category, and rationale.
Outputs can measure participation, record completeness, lower-risk alternatives, and cases where alternatives are unavailable.
How AgFieldScout supports IPM decision documentation in the field.
The workflow feels like normal PCA reporting, with added IPM and pesticide-risk prompts where they naturally belong: after field evidence is captured and before the recommendation record is finalized.
Record pests, severity, incidence, trap counts, photos, growth stage, location, weather, and crop context during the scouting pass.
Document the field evidence or economic-risk basis for treatment, continued monitoring, or no treatment.
Use active-ingredient efficacy groups and concern flags to compare viable options before the recommendation is finalized.
Record non-chemical practices, biological products, targeted treatment, delayed treatment, or no-treatment decisions.
Preserve the PCA reasoning when a lower-risk option is selected, rejected, unavailable, or insufficient for the field condition.
Export aggregate activity metrics that show monthly participation, crop coverage, pest categories, recommendation records, and risk flags reviewed.
Use active-ingredient flags to make pesticide-risk review visible.
AgFieldScout already has active-ingredient flag vocabulary that can support stewardship reporting without inventing a new classification system.
Decision-support value
Flags do not replace the label or PCA judgment. They create a documented prompt to consider environmental and human-health concerns, compare alternatives, and explain why the final recommendation was appropriate for the crop, pest, timing, and field risk.
- Groundwater contaminant
- Toxic air contaminant
- Reproductive toxin
- Carcinogen
- Fumigant
- Cholinesterase inhibitor
- Bee/pollinator concerns
- Label environmental hazards
- Biopesticide or lower-risk category
Aggregate reporting without exposing grower records.
AgFieldScout can report participation and stewardship outcomes in aggregate. The protected export route is built for counts and summaries, not raw grower names or field-level data.
AgFieldScout links the evidence before, during, and after a treatment decision.
Weekly field reports make the evaluation fields more defensible because they show what was observed before action was recommended. AgFieldScout can then summarize crop, pest/problem, broad region, practice type, active-ingredient category, risk flag category, lower-risk alternative status, and PCA rationale without exposing grower identity.
Weekly reports capture pest pressure, trap pressure, photos, crop context, weather context, and field history before the treatment decision is documented.
The PCA records the problem treated, threshold basis, non-chemical practices considered, active ingredients reviewed, lower-risk option status, concern flags, and rationale.
Exports remove grower names, exact coordinates, PCA/company names, and private notes while preserving the aggregate IPM decision data needed for evaluation.
Study users can be separated without changing normal AgFieldScout reporting.
Participants can be marked as study users and served the IPM report workflow, while standard users remain on the existing report page. This keeps the evaluation workflow focused without disrupting current customers.
Participants are routed to the IPM report workflow while standard users stay on the existing report workflow.
PCAs continue using AgFieldScout for recurring field observations, trap context, photos, and reports.
Track participation, records submitted, lower-risk options reviewed, and concern flags encountered.
Use aggregate exports and partner feedback to refine permanent fields, dashboards, and reporting metrics.