1 1 



A TELEPHONE SURVEY OF EXTENSION IPM PROGRAM IMPACTS 

 ON COMMERCIAL APPLE GROWERS IN MASSACHUSETTS 



Kathleen Leahy, Wiilliam M. Col i , and Ronald J. Prokopy 

 Department of Entomology 

 University of Massachusetts 



History a nd Devel opment of the Survey 



in 198^, USDA, as part of an ongoing process of program evaluation, 

 chose the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (VPl) to 

 design and help states administer a national IPM program impact survey. 

 Several important agricultural commodities were chosen, including cotton, 

 peanuts, and apples, among others. Although Massachusetts was not chosen to 

 be a participant in the study. Dr. Edwin Rajotte and later Dr. Richard 

 Kazmierczak, survey project leaders at VPl, indicated a willingness to 

 supply non-par t i: i pa t i ng states with the appropriate professionally-designed 

 survey instrument, as well as lielp in sample selection and with later analy- 

 sis of data . 



Consequently, we received a draft questionnaire which was intended to 

 be given to apple growers in New York State, a particpant in the national 

 study. After review by several tree fruit specialists at the University of 

 Massachusetts, a draft which was more appropriate to our conditions was 

 developed and approved by VPl. 



Methods and Materials 



Our sample of Massachusetts apple growers was obtained from a list com- 

 piled by the 3 regional fruit extension agents, and included most or all of 

 the larger operations in the state, and gave adequate representation from 

 smaller ones as well. An extensive sample was needed so that we could 

 accurately represent the total apple-growing population. Although the ori- 

 ginal ragional agent tree fruit mailing lists contained over 200 names, a 

 number of the growers said they were "too small" to be included, leading to 

 a revised estimate of 176 growers with 3 acres or more in the state. 



We drew a random sample from tiie list of Massachusetts apple growers 

 arranged in Zip-Code order. This was designed to l) eliminate bias in the 

 sample and 2) allow us to break the list down into the three major fruit- 

 growing regions of the state. These randomly selected growers received 

 letters informing them of the survey and its purpose and requesting their 

 par t Ic i pat ion . 



Interviews were conducted on the telephone and lasted about one half 

 hour eacli on an average, slightly more than had been expected. Growers 

 often had a great many comments to make about the questionnaire or the 

 program. An effort was made to record these comments in addition to survey 

 responses, which we coded directly onto Opscan forms during the interview. 

 In all, 88 growers answered the survey--half of our estimate of the total 

 number of growers in Massachusetts with 3 acres or more, and a number which 



