most noticeable in the case of herbicide, where 

 both blocks received a single application, but 

 52% less actual pesticide was applied in the 

 IPM block. 



In spite of the lower dosage equivalents of 

 pesticide use, pest damage appeared to be no 

 different among the two blocks. No harvest 

 survey data are presented because the entire 

 crop was heavily damaged (over 80% injury) 

 from a hail storm in late May. As a consequence 

 of this extensive damage, normal harvest 

 surveys could not be conducted easily. 



Pesticide residue analysis, HRC. Al- 

 though not originally proposed as a project 

 activity, location of the Massachusetts Pesti- 

 cide Analj^ical Lab (MPAL) at Amherst, 

 presented an opportunity to conduct a 

 comparison of pesticide residues in the IPM and 

 traditional blocks at the HRC. Such 

 comparative residue data largely are lacking, 

 and should provide useful baseline information 

 for gauging the true environmental and public- 

 health impacts of IPM use. Fruit samples were 

 collected from each block type and frozen for 

 later analysis during fall and winter. The 

 authors would like to offer special acknowledg- 

 ment for the cooperation and assistance offered 

 to us by John Clark, Lab Director, and his staff, 

 Dan Tessier and Andy Curtis. 



Table 3 shows results of residue analysis 



performed for 9 of 11 pesticides applied. No 

 data are presented for azinphosmethyl 

 (Guthion"") due to applicator error, and no 

 analysis was attempted for the acaracide 

 fenbutatin oxide (Vendex'*"). It is important to 

 note that no residues were detected at a limit of 

 detection of 0.2 ppm for seven of the materials 

 applied in either the IPM or Conventional 

 block. This finding is consistent with residue 

 test results in the literature, which t5Tjically 

 show that a minimum of 50% of all produce 

 samples tested contain no detectable residues. 

 Unfortunately, it is often assumed that the 

 percent of produce containing pesticide resi- 

 dues is much higher than it actually is. This 

 discrepancy offers further compelling evidence 

 of the need to educate the media and the 

 general public about the realities of agricul- 

 ture. 



For the benzimidazole fungicide benomyl, 

 residues were no different in IPM and 

 conventional blocks, but both showed residues 

 in the parts per billion (ppb) range, orders of 

 magnitude below the allowable tolerance. 

 Residues of propargite, registration of which 

 was recently canceled voluntarily by the 

 registrant, also were well below tolerances, and 

 represented the sole example of significantly 

 lower residues in response to an IPM strategy. 

 In this case, although more propargite 



12 



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



