30 



range 4 to 10.4) received 28% and 20% fewer insecticide spray 

 applications, respectively, than check blocks (average 8.8 sprays, 

 range 4 to 12) (Table 4). Check blocks received no aphicide sprays. 

 Previous-Year IPM blocks averaged 0.2 aphicide applications and 

 First-Year IPM blocks averaged 0.4 such sprays. Miticide spray 

 applications were 32% and 43% lower in Previous -Year and First-Year 

 IPM blocks, respectively, than in checks, due in part to grower 

 interest in preserving and encouraging predatory mites. 



Dosage equivalents of pesticides that were used followed sim- 

 ilar patterns. DE of insecticide used in Previous-Year or First- 

 Year IPM blocks were 30% and 21% less than in the checks. DE of 

 miticide used were 17% and 9% less than those of the checks. DE of 

 aphicide used were 20% and 30% more than those of the checks, however, 



Table 4, Numbers of pesticide treatments and dosage equivalents of 

 pesticide applied for insect and mite pest control in IPM and 

 check blocks, 1982. 



Amount recommended in New England 

 Pest Control Guide 



Cost benefit analysis . 



Both Previous-and First-Year IPM blocks realized substantial 

 savings in insecticide spray materials and spray application costs 

 compared to check blocks (Table 5), However, cost inputs for oil, 

 aphicide and miticide materials were higher in both types of IPM 

 blocks compared to the checks. In addition, higher levels of fruit 

 injury resulted in $34.65 and $11.55 more fruit lost due to insect 

 injury compared to the checks in Previous -Year and First-Year IPM 

 blocks, respectively. Cost savings from IPM practices averaged 



