Grower-perceived Value of 

 Second-level Apple IPM 



Ronald J. Prokopy, Daniel R. Cooley, Wesley R. Autio, 

 and William M.Coli 

 University of Massachusetts 



At our most recent meeting of the Apple IPM 

 Project Advisory Committee in November of 1994, 

 we asked Committee members to voice their per- 

 ception of the value of apple IPM to stakeholders. 

 The assembled Committee, comprised of seven grow- 

 ers, two private consultants, two environmental 

 health specialists, and one product market advisor, 

 generally agreed that to date perhaps the greatest 

 value of first-level IPM to growers has been reduc- 

 tion in the amount (and therefore the cost) of pesti- 

 cide use plus psychological assurance that pests are 

 unlikely to get out of hand before the beginning of 

 an attack has been detected. First-level IPM em- 

 phasizes monitoring pests and weather and spray- 

 ing a selective pesticide based on monitoring infor- 

 mation. 



The next question put forward to the Commit- 

 tee focused on possible benefits of second-level IPM, 

 which, as presently construed, offers little or no 

 overall reduction in pest-management costs com- 

 pared with first-level IPM, because several of its 

 practices call for substituting pesticide use and cost 

 with labor use and cost. Second-level IPM calls for 

 substituting behavioral, biological, and cultural con- 

 trol methods for pesticide wherever possible but par- 

 ticularly after mid-June. The Committee put for- 

 ward several suggestions regarding the potential 

 value of second-level IPM to stakeholders. Inher- 

 ent in these suggestions was the assumption that 

 second-level IPM controls pests just as well as first- 

 level IPM does. 



At three twilight meetings of apple growers in 

 May of 1995 (one each in western, central, and east- 

 em Massachusetts), we conducted a written sur- 

 vey of grower response to the Committee's ten sug- 

 gested potential values of second-level IPM. We 

 asked that only those who owned or operated an 

 apple orchard reply and that the ten suggested val- 

 ues of second-level IPM be ranked in order of per- 

 ceived importance. We also asked growers to indi- 

 cate if they perceived no potential value for second- 

 level IPM on their farms in the foreseeable future. 



Results of the survey, presented in Table 1, show 

 that the greatest perceived potential value of sec- 

 ond-level IPM lies in creating a positive image with 

 the general public and legislators that apple grow- 

 ers are doing their very best to minimize pesticide 

 use. The second, third, and fourth greatest per- 

 ceived potential values concern the positive effect 

 of greater buildup of beneficial natural enemies, 

 reduction in pesticide residue on fi"uit at harvest, 

 and reduction in rate at which pests become resis- 

 tant to pesticides. The fifth-place perceived value 

 involves educating customers coming to roadside 

 stands that growers are being very environmentally 

 responsible in their pest-management practices. 



If the greatest perceived value of second-level 

 IPM is one of building a more positive image of 

 apple-growing practices with the general public and 

 legislators, then apple growers in Massachusetts 

 and we in UMass Extension ought to be thinking of 

 concrete ways to advance image building. One ex- 

 cellent suggestion along this line was made by a 

 respondent to our questionnaire. The suggestion 

 was that growers who sell apples retail from orchard 

 or roadside stands make a display case showing the 

 risk of growing apples without any pesticide to- 

 gether with some of the tools of second-level IPM. 

 Risk is perhaps best demonstrated by displaying a 

 few gnarly infested apples from an unmanaged tree 

 — the consequences of no pest-management prac- 

 tices whatsoever. The tools might consist of an ar- 

 ray consisting of a weather monitor for tempera- 

 ture and leaf wetness used for timing apple scab 

 sprays, white rectangle traps for monitoring plant 

 bugs and sawflies, red rectangle traps for monitor- 

 ing leafminers, an optivisor for magnifying pests 

 and beneficials, a color close-up picture of an aphid 

 predator or a mite predator, a saw that symbolizes 

 the cutting down of wild apple trees, brambles, and 

 rose bushes within 100 yards of the orchard perim- 

 eter to reduce pest immigration, and an odor-baited 

 pesticide-treated red sphere for behaviorally con- 

 trolling apple maggot flies. Possibly a press 



Fruit Notes, Fall, 1995 



