In regard to future IPM practices, particularly 

 second-stage IPM practices, Alar (or another compound 

 that is equally effective) must play a major role or else most 

 second-stage practices will come to naught. In nearly all 

 orchards treated with Alar, few pests can survive within the 

 orchard itself because the fruit (and any pests the fruit may 

 harbor) are picked before they drop. Thus, the pests are 

 taken away with the fruit. When the fruit drop, however, 

 pests may remain in the orchard, overwinter there, and 

 pose an immediate threat to the crop next summer. The 

 low price paid for dropped apples does not usually warrant 

 investment of labor to pick them up, so many are left on the 

 ground to rot. Such a situation is not amenable to manage- 

 ment by a second-stage IPM approach of intercepting pests 

 at the orchard border, before they enter the orchard. Thus, 

 without Alar, growers are denied the opportunity of reduc- 

 ing pesticide use against pest insects and mites by using a 

 second-stage IPM approach, and are denied the opportu- 



nity of producing healthier, more pesticide-free apples. 



We feel the EPA and the Massachusetts Depart- 

 ment of Public Health did not consider the multiple bene- 

 fits of Alar to fruit growers and the environment when it 

 announced in 1985, without good evidence, that Alar was 

 a dangerous chemical. In truth, the EPA's decision not only 

 has caused a great economic hardship to fruit growers, but 

 also has been counter-productive to the EPA's own best 

 interest in providing for a healthier environment. The 

 EPA's 1985 announcement has and will continue to cause 

 greater use of more toxic (but nevertheless legally used) 

 pesticides than otherwise would be necessary with Alar. 

 We hope that the EPA and the Massachusetts Department 

 of Public Health in the future will consider more fully the 

 positive benefits of an orchard chemical when making a 

 cost/benefit analysis of the future use of a compound. 



* * * 



RESULTS OF THE FIRST YEAR OF SECOND-STAGE APPLE 

 IPM PRACTICES 



Mary T. O'Brien and Ronald J. Prokopy 

 Department of Entomology, University of Massachusetts 



Since 1978 we have conducted a program of 

 integrated pest management (1PM) in Massachusetts 

 apple orchards. The first-stage of this program, from 1978 

 through 1982, was funded by a 5-year federal Cooperative 

 Extension Service pest management grant to initiate a pilot 

 IPM program. A maintenance phase followed the pilot 

 program and has been ongoing since 1982. 



Initially, there were 3 major objectives: to pro- 

 mote the buildup of natural populations of beneficial 

 predators, to reduce pesticide use, and to maintain or 

 increase the quality and quantity of fruit produced. The 

 overall entomological approach to achieving these objec- 

 tives was to intensively and carefully monitor abundances 

 of pests and beneficial natural enemies in participating 

 IPM orchards and to give advice to IPM growers as to the 

 need for, optimal timing of, and type of pesticide to be 

 applied. 



The results of this pilot program were highly 

 encouraging. Compared with pesticide use before 1978, 

 there was a 37% reduction in insecticide use and was a 61% 

 reduction in miticide use during the pilot program, along 

 with a reduction in the loss of fruit due to insect damage. 

 The results were so encouraging, in fact, that 2 persons 

 trained in the program formed "New England Fruit Con- 

 sultants". Over the past 5 years (1983-87) they have been 

 hired by commercial growers to provide IPM scouting and 

 advisement services on more than one-third of the apple 

 acreage in Massachusetts. 



Results of a recent survey indicated that about 

 two-thirds of Massachusetts apple growers now employ 

 IPM practices. Thus, over the past decade, this first stage 

 of IPM in Massachusetts apple orchards can be considered 

 a success, although this success must be tempered by the 

 knowledge that the uses of miticides as well as non- 

 selective insecticides directed against apple blotch leafmin- 



