23 - 



From Table ^, it is clear that the IPM growers were spending less, 

 applied fewer insecticides and miticides, and achieved somewhat better pro- 

 duction than non-iPM growers. In the survey we asl<ed only the number of 

 pesticide applications, so we do not have any information on dosage equiva- 

 lents, a measure of pesticide rates. However, the cost per application of 

 pesticide was also slightly lower for IPM growers, possibly indicating that 

 such growers were using reduced rates of pesticide. 



Table h. Average pesticide cost, number of applications, and production per 

 acre. 



1PM Grower Non-IPM Grower 



Pesticide Cost per Acre $171.11* $233.^'*' 



Number of Insecticdes 8.2 9.8 



Number of Miticides 1.8 2.1 



Number of Fungicides 12.4 }] .k 



Number of Herbicides 0.9 0.9 



Bushels per Acre Production 386. 2^* 377.03 



*Average response in each category. 



When asked to rate various "selling points" of IPM, both IPM and 

 non-IPM growers responded fairly positively to most of the points. As one 

 might expect, the IPM group were more apt to give responses of "very useful" 

 and "useful," but it was possible to see trends in both groups. It is espe- 

 cially interesting to note that the non-IPM group rated "increases farm pro- 

 fits" and "control yield and quality loss" relatively poorly, whereas the 

 IPM growers regarded them as among the strongest reasons for using 

 integrated pest management. Again, as we noted in the earlier paper, IPM 

 growers' lower rating of "free management skills for use elsewhere", pro- 

 bably indicates a recognition of the somewhat complex nature of the IPM 

 system and an awareness that the grower still has the ultimate management 

 responsibility for spray decisions. 



Growers also were asked to rate the usefulness of a variety of sources 

 of pest control and pesticide information. The two groups tended to be 

 fairly similar in rating most categories "very useful" or "useful," with the 

 exception that IPM growers were twice as likely to rate scouts highly (20^ 

 and 10^ respectively) and non IPM growers were more likely to rate agri- 

 chemical salespeople highly (60% for non IPM, kQt for IPM) (data not shown). 

 Non-IPM growers also showed a tendency to use newspapers, agricultural maga- 

 zines, and neighboring farmers for pest control information, whereas the 

 percentage of IPM growers using these sources was close to 0. 



