-13- 



Insecticide, aphicide and miticide use . IPM blocks received 46^ 

 fewer insecticide sprays (average 6.0, range 4-7) than the checks 

 (average 11.0, range 6-12) (Table 1). Same orchard non-IPM blocks 

 received an average of 9.1 sprays, suggesting that growers applied 

 some information from IPM block scouting to the rest of their or- 

 chard. The average numbers of aphicide sprays was identical in 

 IPM, check, and same orchard non-IPM blocks (Table 1). Fewer 

 miticide sprays (e.g., Plictran* and/or Omite*) were applied to 

 IPM blocks (average 0.6) compared to checks (average 1.1) [Table 

 2] or same orchard non-IPM (average 1.0) [date not shown]. 



In contrast, use of oil as an ovicide was about equal in 

 IPM and check blocks. 



In addition to the substantial reduction in spray application 

 dates, there was also a reduction in dosage equivalents for insecti- 

 cides (42% reduction), aphicides (60'o reduction) and miticides 

 (76% reduction) in IPM compared to check (Table 3) . 



Cost and benefit comparison . Table 3 summarizes the cost benefit 

 analysis of IPM vs. check blocks. Average costs per acre for 

 insecticide and miticide materials, respectively, were $51.64 and 

 $14.59 lower in IPM blocks, while aphicide costs were nearly 

 identical with the checks. IPM spray material application costs 

 were also lower due to the reduction in number of spray dates. At 

 harvest, IPM blocks had 23% less fruit injury due to insects, 

 resulting in an average of $40.46 less fruit loss per acre than 

 check blocks. As a consequence, compared with check growers, IPM 

 growers realized an average net benefit of $122.83 per acre from 

 the IPM program. This finding, coupled with a $71.00 net benefit 

 from the IPM program in 1978, indicates the potential economic 

 value to Massachusetts fruit growers of implementation of an IPM 

 program on apples. 



Trade Name 



