20 



We also wish to express our thanks to the 88 Massachusetts apple 

 growers who participated in the study. 



Here we present the results of an analysis of survey data comparing 

 responses of growers grouped according to their level of adoption of IPM. 

 It should be noted that although sample biases were minimized to as great an 

 extent as possible, some may have occurred due to non-response. It is 

 possible that there could be differences between the respondents interviewed 

 and those of the sample population whom we were unable to reach. In many 

 cases there were no substantial differences between the two groups; if 

 responses are detailed in the earlier paper and not here, it is because the 

 overall response accurately reflected the responses of both groups. Here we 

 will concentrate on those questions where the differences were substantial. 



IPM Versus Non-IPM Growers 



Inasmuch as a goal of the survey was to determine the extent to which 

 the state's apple growers are using IPM, and whether there were significant 

 differences in practices, costs, or production between growers who used IPM 

 and those who did not, the first step in this analysis was to distinguish 

 between the two groups. We decided to follow VP I ' s lead and define IPM 

 growers as those who scout more than 50^ of their acreage weekly. 

 Conversely, those who do not scout at all and those who scout less than 50^ 

 were considered non-IPM growers. There is no perfect criterion which would 

 place all growers in the proper category, and we realize that some growers 

 who say they "scout" are merely taking a walk through the orchard at con- 

 venient times, while others may scout only 25? of their acreage but use 

 traps, careful examination of foliage and fruit, and economic threshold 

 levels in their decision-making. Nonetheless, the correlation between 

 scouting 50 percent or more of the orchard weekly and use of other 

 IPM-recommended practices was quite strong, so we feel justified in having 

 made this choice. 



The two groups were fairly evenly divided; ^6 respondents (52% of the 

 total) said they scouted 50? or more of their acreage weekly, while k2 

 respondents {^8% of the total) said they did not. (Twenty-six percent of 

 the non-scouting growers said they did not scout at all.) The scouting was 

 done in most cases by the grower, a family member, or an employee of the 

 farm, but scouting was also performed by private consultants, pesticide 

 fieldmen, and Extension personnel. Unilike the analysts at VP I , we did not 

 place a grower in the "non-IPM" group if scouting was performed by pesticide 

 fieldmen, who may not practice or support IPM. 



Grower Demographics 



Few large differences were seen between IPM and non-IPM grower popula- 

 tions. There was a tendency for IPM growers to be younger and have fewer 

 years experience farming than non-IPM growers; '♦I? of IPM growers were under 

 40 as compared with 25? of non-IPM growers, and only 26? of IPM users had 

 been farming for more than 30 years as compared to 38? of non-IPM growers. 

 The percentage of growers in both groups having finished and gone beyond 

 college level was nearly identical. There were no substantial variations 



