growers reported that they used IPM in an earher 

 question, almost 18% of the same group left blank 

 the question on use of insect monitoring traps, a 

 key component of IPM (Figure 1). Evidently, large 

 growers felt that they were using other strategies 

 consistent with an IPM approach, even though they 

 were not monitoring insects with traps. Internal 

 consistency of the data from this question and the 

 previous one (asking which general sorts of IPM 

 techniques were used) is demonstrated by the find- 

 ing that the percentage of large growers respond- 

 ing that they do no use insect traps is identical to 

 the percent who left blank the same choice previ- 

 ously. 



Use of Direct Observation of 

 Pests and Beneficials 



Across all farm sizes, the most frequent use of 

 direct observation was to locate and assess plum 

 curculio (PC) injury (67% of respondents). This was 

 followed by mites (63%), leafminer mines (61%), 

 aphids (60%), leafhoppers (51%), leafhopper dam- 

 age (42%), and leafroller/green fruitworm foliar or 

 ftiiit injury (31%). Over one third of all respon- 

 dents reported observations for aphid predators 

 (37%) and mite predators (36%). 



A similar correlation between farm size and use 

 of particular techniques reported earlier was again 

 noted in this question. Overall pests and beneficials, 

 86% and 89% of medium and large growers, respec- 

 tively, used direct observation to monitor levels; 

 whereas, only 61% and 80% of very small and small 

 growers, respectively, used direct observation (Fig- 

 ure 2). For medium and large growers, mites and 

 leafminer mines were tied for first place (86% and 

 89% for respective farm sizes) in direct observations 

 used, replacing PC (used by 79% of both sizes). 

 Observations of aphids (82% of large farms, 75% of 

 medium) and leaflioppers also was used frequently 

 (75% of both medium and large farms). It is also 

 clear that larger growers apparently find more value 

 in monitoring for mite predators (used by 64% of 

 large, 54% of medium) and aphid predators (82% of 

 large, 75% of medium) than do small or very small 

 growers. 



Who Conducts Disease Monitoring? 



Regardless of farm size, the person who most 

 often conducts disease monitoring is the survey re- 

 spondent (46% of all farms), followed by private con- 

 sultants (16%), some other farm employee (8%), or 

 some unspecified other person (3%). Not surpris- 



ingly, use of a private consultant for disease moni- 

 toring was largely restricted to large (36%) and 

 medium (32%) farms, rather than small (13%) or 

 very small (2%) ones. 



Source of Pest Thresholds 



The University was the most commonly reported 

 source for action thresholds (50% of all farms), fol- 

 lowed by the grower's own threshold (18%) and those 

 provided by private consultants (16%). Consistent 

 with earlier responses, private consultant-provide 

 thresholds were more commonly used on medium 

 and large farms than small or very small farms. 



Determining the Need for and 

 Timing of Sprays 



Ultimately, all the monitoring methods described 

 above are conducted for one purpose: to provide 

 knowledge to the decision-maker, and help him or 

 her make better pest-management decisions. Con- 

 sequently, we were surprised that the choice "when 

 traps or observations indicate pests reach thresh- 

 olds" only ranked fourth in importance for making 

 pest-management decisions across all farm sizes 

 (used by 55% of respondents). Most important was 

 "the New England Pest Management Guide'' (68%), 

 which is a source of a large amount of information 

 related to IPM. In second and third place, respec- 

 tively, were "my own experience and knowledge of 

 the orchard" (67%) and "Extension pest messages" 

 (61%). Further down on the list were "general or- 

 chard observations" (46%), "IPM scout/consultant 

 recommendations" (26%), "time of year" (20%), 

 "chemical company field man recommendations" 

 (20%), "pest sampling other than traps" (17%), 

 "weather monitoring devices" (19%), and "label di- 

 rections" (14%). 



Our Conclusions 



Based on the data presented here and other di- 

 rect contact with growers and private-sector IPM 

 consultants, we are confident that the tree fruit in- 

 dustry in Massachusetts, especially the medium and 

 large farms representing the largest total acreage, 

 has already achieved the USDA goal for 2000 (Fig- 

 ure 3). We will continue our efforts to document 

 the extent of IPM use in the Commonwealth, and 

 do our best to see that the actual practitioners are 

 recognized for their outstanding levels of adoption. 

 However, given the continued loss of important crop 

 protection chemicals, the increasing difficulty and 



Fruit Notes, Summer, 1996 



17 



