Massachusetts, Joe Sincuk (Uni- 

 versity of Massachusetts Horti- 

 cultural Research Center, 

 Belchertown); Connecticut, Ken 

 Shores (Johnny Appleseed's 

 Apple Orchard, Ellington); Rhode 

 Island, Randy McKenzie (Phan- 

 tom Farms, Cumberland); New 

 Hampshire, Ben Ladd and 

 Melanie Stephens (Great Brook 

 Farm, Canterbury), Steve 

 Gatcomb (Manager of Upland 

 Farm, Peterborough); and Maine, 

 Reed Markley (Lakeside Or- 

 chards, Manchester). 



Original plans called for each 

 cooperator to demonstrate the state IPM 

 system, and compare results to a "convention- 

 ally managed" block. However, given that all 

 cooperators had been identified because of their 

 knowledge and use of IPM, none were willing to 

 "go backward" (i.e., apply pesticides on a 

 preventative basis), even when funds to 

 purchase extra chemical were offered. Al- 

 though this development compromised the 

 original project design somewhat, it provided 

 testimony to the level of commitment to IPM 

 common in the region. 



Hence, only the demonstration at the 

 University of Massachusetts Horticultural 

 Reserch Center (HRC) included both an IPM 

 block, and a conventional (i.e., modified 

 preventative spray program) block. The HRC, 

 while a University research facility, is also a 

 commercial orchard, with support for the farm 

 dependent almost completely on fruit sales, just 

 as with a private-sector orchard. The site has a 

 long history of IPM adoption. 



Pesticide application results in HKC 

 IPM and "conventional" blocks. IPM 

 blocks received regular monitoring and spray 

 recommendations by University-affiliated staff. 

 The sole comparison block was designed to 

 reflect the number of sprays that could be 

 applied if a grower were inclined to use a 

 preventative spray program. In actual fact, the 

 "conventional" program was very conservative, 

 using as it did only one spray for apple maggot 



Table 1. Number of spray events in traditional and IPM 

 blocks, University of Massachusetts Horticultural 

 Research Center, 1995. 



Conventional 



IPM 



Acaricides 

 Fungicides 



Insecticides (incl. 2 oil) 

 Herbicides 



TOTAL 



3 



10 

 7 

 1 



21 



4 

 6 

 5 

 1 



16 



fly, not the 2 to 3 that might normally be 

 applied. 



As shown in Table 1, weekly monitoring of 

 the IPM block and use of appropriate action 

 thresholds resulted in 24% fewer spray 

 application events compared to the modified 

 preventative spray program. While this 

 represents a savings in labor and other costs 

 associated with spray application (e.g., fuel, oil, 

 wear and tear) and one can hypothesize a 

 reduced potential impact on the environment, 

 the number of spray events alone gives no 

 information on potential environmental im- 

 pacts of IPM use. 



One measure of potential environmental 

 benefit from IPM, calculation of the Environ- 

 mental Impact Quotient (Kovach, et al., 1992), 

 which takes into account toxicity of individual 

 pesticides, is reported on elsewhere for all 

 participating demonstration sites. A second 

 measure, the dosage equivalent (DE), which 

 reflects the rate of pesticide used as a 

 percentage of the recommended rate, was 

 completed for the HRC (Table 2). From Table 2, 

 it can be seen that the IPM block received 

 nearly 32% fewer pesticide DE's than the 

 traditionally managed block. We believe this 

 difference represents a typical situation in a 

 grower orchard, where full recommended rates, 

 which are known to have a wide margin for 

 error, are rarely used. The implication of using 

 dosage equivalents rather than spray events is 



Fruit Notes, Volume 62 (Number 2), Spring, 1997 



11 



