through cooperatives and 24% sold wholesale. 

 Retail sales were the principal marketing 

 means used by 85% of the small-fruit growers. 

 Vegetable growers marketed through wholesale 

 (46%), retail (62%), and cooperative ( 14%) chan- 

 nels. 



Nine percent of the growers had gross sales 

 over $500,000; 29% between $100,000 and 

 $500,000; 15% between $50,000 and $100,000; 

 14% between $25,000 and $50,000; 16% be- 

 tween $10,000 and $25,000; and 18% less than 

 $10,000. 



Six percent of the growers had not completed 

 high school, 24% had completed high school, 

 24% had some college education, and 43% had 

 obtained a college degree. 



In response to survey questions, 96% of 

 growers had heard of IPM before receiving the 

 survey, and 77% claimed to know a moderate to 

 an extensive amount about IPM. This result is 

 not surprising, as IPM education has been a 

 major focus of the Cooperative Extension Sys- 

 tem in Massachusetts since the late 1970's. 



Eighty percent of growers indicated that 

 they practiced IPM in 1991. A high percentage 

 of growers indicated that they practiced IPM on 

 a variety of crops (Table 1 ), many of which do not 

 have formal IPM programs in the state. While 

 we have no direct evidence that this high propor- 

 tion of growers are not practicing IPM, the level 

 of reported practice is much higher than we 

 expected. No specific IPM standards were pro- 

 vided in the survey, so, the high reported propor- 

 tion of IPM practice may be due to growers 

 assessing their performance according to their 

 own definitions of IPM. It seems likely that 

 many of these growers use some practices in- 

 cluded in IPM, but may not follow a complete 

 IPM program. 



IPM practitioners were asked to list two 

 major reasons why they practiced IPM. Re- 

 sponses were grouped into categories: 77% 

 indicated economic benefits or time savings; 

 22% indicated environmental reasons; 13% 

 cited improved information; 10% indicated pes- 

 ticide safety reasons; 9% indicated other pesti- 

 cide issues; and 6% indicated food safety. 

 Cranberry growers placed more emphasis (21%) 

 on the improved information aspect of IPM. 



The growers (n=58) who did not practice IPM 

 were asked for reasons why they did not. Their 

 reasons were placed in general categories: lack 

 of information, 50%; increased cost or effort, 

 24%; lack of trust or a bad experience, 14%; and 

 other, 16%. 



Growers were asked a series of questions to 

 determine their opinions on pesticides and IPM 

 (Table 2). Over half of the growers acknowl- 

 edged that pesticides cause harm to the environ- 

 ment, evidence that growers are aware of previ- 

 ous problems caused by pesticides in certain 

 situations (e.g., EDB and aldicarb). A number of 

 growers felt, however, that pesticides have no 

 impact on the environment. Over eighty percent 

 of growers indicated that IPM was beneficial to 

 the environment. Interestingly, 4% of growers 

 felt that IPM harms the environment, perhaps 

 in recognition of the use of pesticides in IPM 

 programs. 



Most growers (69%) felt that IPM does not 

 affect market quality. While most growers felt 

 that IPM does not increase the risk of crop 



8 



Fruit Notes, Fall, 1992 



