- 13 - 



tained to what they knew of 1PM, a category 5 (disagree) was added. 

 Although this category was little used (only 9 respondents disagreed with 5 

 of the points), it gives an indication that tlie growers were really consi- 

 dering their answers to these points, not just giving the expected response. 



Results are given in Table 1. The mean response is obtained by adding 

 the numerical response (I-**) and dividing the number answering each 

 question. A mean of from 1.0 to 2.5 indicates a positive overall response; 

 2.5 to k.O would be negative. In this survey, all the selling points fell 

 in the positive range. 



Table 1. On a scale of 1 to '«; 1 = very important, '4 = not important (5 = 

 disagree), please rate the following "selling points" of IPM. Points 

 are ranked by the mean of the responses. Since "very important" = 1, 

 the lower the mean, the more positive the response. 



'Selling point" Mean response 



Reduces damage to the environment 



Involves the safe use of pesticides 



increases farm profits by decreasing pesticide use 



Has a more positive image with neighbors/consumers 



Gives an unbiased opinion of pest problems 



Involves the use of natural enemies 



Controls yield and quality loss 



Frees you to use management skills elsewhere 



It is clear that reducing environmental damage, using pesticides 

 safely, and increasing profits are the most commonly cited reasons for 

 adopting IPM. The next four points are not quite so important. The last 

 was closest to being a negative response. Many growers said they felt that 

 1PM took more time, an accurate comment based on requirements for scouting, 

 training, weather monitoring, sprayer calibration, etc. It is interesting 

 to note that, in general, respondents did not feel that "public relations" 

 played an important part in their adoption of IPM. Many pointed out that 

 the public knows very little about pesticide use or about the program. Some 

 suggested that we should publicize it more, although a few thought Chat 

 publicity would not be useful, or could even be counterproductive. 



Use of IPM-related Practices 



Most growers said they scout their acreage regularly. Fifty-four per- 

 cent of respondents said they scout more than 50^ of their acreage weekly. 

 Twelve percent said they do not scout regularly. The questions on scouting 

 did not directly address the issue of use of traps, etc., which were covered 

 under "methods most frequently used," so that it is possible that some 

 growers' definition of scouting may not be as intensive as others. Of the 

 growers who do scout, 86% said they scouted their acreage themselves, or 

 assigned an employee to scout. Only 7% used private scouts, possibly a 



