agriculture of increased adoption and consumer 

 awareness, successful IPM strategies demon- 

 strated in one state have not always been 

 adopted regionally. This is partly due to a 

 tendency of growers to emphasize uncertainty 

 associated with farm-to-farm or state-to-state 

 differences in pest complexes, weather, normal 

 cultural practices, intended markets, etc. Since 

 IPM adoption has not been universal, there 

 remains a need for regionally-consistent 

 systems to evaluate progress toward the 

 Federal-policy goal of IPM implementation on 

 75% of managed acres by the year 2000. 



One possible way to measure extent of 

 grower IPM adoption is by use of commodity- 

 specific IPM definitions, known as IPM 

 Guidelines, originally developed in Massachu- 

 setts. These guidelines, in the form of 

 checklists and a related point system, have 

 been used since 1990 as the basis for successful 

 implementation of the state Farm Services 

 Agency (formerly ASCS) cost-sharing program 

 in Integrated Crop Management (ICM) and a 

 related state-endorsed consumer education and 

 marketing effort known as Partners With 

 Nature. 



With this background in mind, in 1994, a 

 small group of New England Extension and 

 research specialists successfully acquired a 

 Region I USEPA Pollution Prevention Incen- 

 tives to the States (PPIS) grant which sought to 

 address some of the issues identified above. 



The principal goals of the project, for which 

 the University of Massachusetts served as lead 

 unit, were: to develop consistent, well-defined, 

 and quantifiable apple IPM guidelines for each 

 New England state; to test state IPM 

 guidelines as a pollution prevention methodol- 

 ogy at the state and regional level; and to 

 educate the media and the general public about 

 IPM and its benefits. 



Our specific objectives were: to involve 

 University research and extension staff, 

 growers, and private-sector IPM professionals 

 in the design of apple IPM Guidelines for each 

 of the New England states; to demonstrate the 

 resultant state guidelines on one 5-to-lO-acre 

 block in each state, and compare results to a 

 similar sized check block managed with a 



calendar-based spray program without pest 

 monitoring; to calculate and compare the 

 Environmental Impact Quotient (Kovach et al., 

 1992) for each block, as a measure of pollution 

 prevention; and, to hold a field day in each state 

 on the farm of the demonstrating grower to 

 which the press and general public are invited. 



To the best of our knowledge, until this 

 project, no successful attempt had been made 

 within Region I to develop consistent IPM 

 guidelines for several states in a region, to carry 

 out an extensive and regionally-coordinated 

 IPM demonstration for any crop, nor to use the 

 results to educate the general public about 

 environmentally-sound agricultural practices. 



An initial project planning meeting of 

 several state collaborators was held in 

 conjunction with the New England Fruit 

 Meetings in January, 1995. Due to delays in 

 getting the project organized, no growers 

 participated in this meeting. Subsequently 

 (Spring 1995), however, ME, CT, RI, and NH 

 formed a Guideline Design Committee (GDC) 

 consisting of 6-14 members, and each 

 committee met at least once. The University of 

 Massachusetts investigators participated in 

 the ME and RI meetings. Each committee 

 reviewed the University of Massachusetts 

 guidelines template, and elected to modify it to 

 fit the pest-management situation in that 

 state. Modifications included: elimination and 

 addition of some practices in the MA guidelines 

 and changes to the point system used. 



In Massachusetts, an IPM Certification 

 Study Committee was formed by the Massa- 

 chusetts Fruit Growers' Association late in 

 1994, and this group solicited input on 

 guideline modifications from growers, private 

 IPM consultants, and University staff indepen- 

 dently of the EPA-funded project. Modified 

 guidelines were compiled by the University of 

 Massachusetts investigators. Development of 

 all state-specific apple IPM guidelines was 

 completed by June, 1995. 



Each state identified one or more demon- 

 strating growers (DG) who implemented the 

 farm-specific IPM system, and conducted other 

 planned activities. Cooperating growers who 

 agreed to demonstrate the IPM system were: 



10 



Frait Notes, volume 62 (Number 2), Spring, 1997 



