the fruit, it might be possible to label EBDCs for limited 

 use. Toward this end we attempted to determine 

 which of the factors we examined might best predict 

 EBDC residue in this survey. Using the number of 

 applications and the total pounds per acre applied for 

 the season, we could account for about 44% of the 

 change in EBDC residue . If we looked at the number 

 of EBDC applications after July 23 and the pounds of 

 EBDC applied after July 23, we could account for about 

 69% of the change in EBDC residue. By using a 

 different type of equation (quadratic) with the pounds 

 of EBDC applied after July 23, 84% of the change in 

 EBDC residues could be predicted. This was as well as 

 we were able to do with the data (Figure 8). 



In conclusion, we see this as preliminary informa- 



tion indicatingthat concern over EBDC residue may be 

 managed by changing application timing and amounts. 

 We certainly do not advocate using crop protectants 

 which pose a threat to public health and the environ- 

 ment, regardless of benefits to production. However, 

 we suggest that it is worthwhile to re-examine costs 

 and benefits in the context of actual use patterns, 

 particularly within IPM programs. If information like 

 that presented here were true for a national sample 

 over several years, it would indicate that limited use of 

 EBDC fungicides would not be a health threat. In fact, 

 as we have argued elsewhere, keeping specific uses for 

 EBDC fungicides would in fact be a net benefit for food 

 safety and environmental pollution, because they 

 would benefit apple IPM programs. 



•!# «$# %1* %I# *% 

 #2* %"* *X* r i» *$* 



Massachusetts Apple IPM Program: 

 Observations in 1989 



Kathleen Leahy, Ronald J. Prokopy, and William M. Coli 



Department of Entomology, University of Massachusetts 



Daniel R. Cooley 



Department of Plant Pathology, University of Massachusetts 



Our thanks to the following growers who partici- 

 pated in the IPM monitoring program this year: Alex 

 Dowse, Tony Lincoln, Tony Rossi, Don Schlicke and 

 Bill Rose, Steve Smedberg, Mike and Tim Smith, Mike 

 Smolak, and Denis Wagner. 



IPM-Related Research 



Spray trials done at the Horticulture Research 

 Center in Belchertown, and with cooperating commer- 

 cial growers, included tests of the insect growth regula- 

 tor Dimilin™, Safers Soap™, sterol inhibiting (SI) 

 fungicides, and delayed, reduced fungicide applica- 

 tions. 



Two efforts were made to promote biological pest 

 control in orchards. First, we collected and released 

 200 adults, larvae, and pupae of the small black lady- 

 bird beetle Stethorus punctum, an important mite 

 predator in some parts of the Northeast, into two first- 

 stage IPM orchards. Second, we collaborated with Roy 



van Driesche (University of Massachusetts Biocontrol 

 Coordinator) and Chris Maier (Connecticut Agricul- 

 tural Experiment Station) in culturing and releasing 

 several hundred adults of Testaceipes holcothorax, 

 which parasitizes leafminer eggs. We will monitor the 

 populations of these predators to determine their effec- 

 tiveness and their survival in our conditions. 



The manufacturers of EBDC fungicides have 

 asked that the label for apples be suspended, in order to 

 allow them to develop data on dietary risk without the 

 hysteria which occurred regarding Alar™. As a result, 

 many of the most common apple fungicides now used 

 will not be available in 1990. We have taken two 

 approaches to this problem. 



First, with a group of New England growers, we 

 developed a profile of EBDC and Captan use patterns, 

 and correlated these data with residues on fruit. See 

 the article in this issue on the results of this survey. 



Second, in conjunction with David Rosenberger at 

 the Hudson Valley Laboratory and Wayne Wilcox at 



Fruit Notes, Winter, 1990 



27 



