Michigan State University Extension
Ag Experiment Station Research Report - 55398001
01/08/99
November 1997 Research Report 553 Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station Michigan State University
By: Michelle R. Worosz and Craig K. Harris Department of Sociology Michigan State University
Table of Contents
Methodology
Demographic background
Location
Entry
Age and experience
Education
General farm description
Organization
Tenure
Income
Methods of pest management used
Monitoring and/or scouting for pests and diseases
Spray application
Biorational control
Introducing pest predators, parasites and
antagonists
Eliminating pest habitats
Field/orchard architecture
Distribution
Attitudes and beliefs
Problems encountered in decreasing pesticide use
Government
Extension
Consultants
Associations
Growers
Consumers
Further information
Appendix A
References cited
In response to a survey in 1990, a significant number of Michigan fruit growers said they planned to decrease pesticide use and to make a transition from conventional to alternative pest management practices (4). However, USDA data reveals, for example, that insecticide and fungicide applications per acre on tart cherries in Michigan increased by more than 27 percent from 1991 to 1995(1). This suggests that there are considerable obstacles that must be overcome to accomplish this transition. The dilemma for most growers is that a marketable and profitable fruit crop is one with high yield and a superior cosmetic appearance that is free of insect damage or blemishes, but at the same time has low pesticide costs and no chemical residues.
(1) Computed from the National Agricultural Statistics Service data on agricultural chemical applications for 1991, 1993, and 1995.
This research report presents results of a study designed to examine how growers deal with this dilemma(2). The goals of this research are:
1) to examine how growers make decisions among alternative methods of pest control, and
2) to understand the factors which lead to, or interfere with, the adoption of alternative pest management practices.
(2) Financial support for the North Central Fruit Farm Research Project was received from the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station and the United States Department of Agriculture Low-Input Sustainable Agriculture program.
In particular, the focus of this study is on the decisions of growers to shift from one method to another; our aim is to identify the agricultural, economic, social and personal factors involved in that shift.
Methodology
A sample of apple, blueberry and tart cherry growers was selected because they represent the leading fruit commodities in Michigan in both acreage and estimated farm value (4). The sample group was derived from the input of various farm groups and organizations (e.g., Michigan Blueberry Growers, Cherry Marketing Institute, Michigan Agriculture Stewardship Association, Michigan Organic Growers Advancement Project, Organic Crop Improvement Association), extension agents, agricultural specialists (e.g., IPM scouts) and processors.
Participants received a questionnaire that asked how they felt about pesticide use; how they chose their pest management techniques; who and/or what were their sources of information about pesticides and alternative pest management practices; and how they perceived the personal, environmental and financial constraints of conventional pest management. On-site visits were also conducted with a sub-sample of growers who were asked about their farm history, agricultural enterprises, labor requirements and specific pest management techniques. A more detailed description of the methodology can be found in Worosz (1997), Perceptions of Pesticide Risk: An Analysis of Michigan Fruit Growers Who Use Alternative Methods of Pest Management (20).
Demographic background
Location.
Growers were selected from each of the major agroecological regions in the state--Northwest coastal, Southwest coastal and the Inland region. Agroecological zones were defined by the specific microclimate, soil types and farming practices (2) which directly influence fruit production. There were 25 participants from the Northwest, 21 from the Southwest and 14 from the Inland area (Vis. 1).
Entry. Fruit farming in Michigan tends to be multigenerational. Many of the participants in this study are third and fourth generation fruit growers. However, 10 percent of the participants were raised on a dairy farm. It is unknown whether this transfer to fruit production is connected to the dairy buy-out program of the early 1980s or if it reflects dissatisfaction with the time constraints involved in caring for livestock. A few of the participants are new entrants to farming with no prior agricultural background.
Age and experience. The average age of the growers in this study is 46 years, which is less than the average age (52 years) of all primary farm operators in Michigan (18). The participants' average years in farming, as a primary decision maker, is more than 15 years (Table 1). Most of the participants are married and have children.
Education. The growers in this study were found to be highly educated; more than 84 percent have taken course work beyond high school, and 56 percent completed a college degree program (Table 2). In a random sample of all Michigan farmers, only 48 percent had taken course work beyond high school and 19.8 percent completed a college degree (16).
General farm description
Organization. While most of the participants were primary owner/operators, many were in some type of a partnership arrangement with family members. Only a couple of growers were incorporated with non-family members, and one individual farmed for an absentee owner in addition to his own operation.
Tenure. The average number of acres in apple production is 77, while the average for blueberries and tart cherries are approximately 38 and 98 acres, respectively. Due to the type of sample selected, the average acres are somewhat higher than the state average. For example, the average blueberry operation in the state is less than 20 acres (18). Although most of the land is owned by growers, many rent or lease additional land for fruit production.
Income. As shown in Table 4 (Table 4), 69 percent of the growers received less than $20,000 in net farm income. Although this is higher than previously reported incomes, (4) a conclusion about the financial benefits of alternative agriculture cannot be made here due to the lack of appropriate data. On average, participants reported that 89 percent of their total farm income was from fruit. This indicates that, overall, fruit crops are a significant enterprise for the growers who participated in this study.
Methods of pest management used.
The primary models of alternative pest management in Michigan are integrated pest management (IPM) and organic farming. Whereas conventional agriculture is associated with high inputs of agrichemicals applied on an interval or calendar based schedule (more that 44 percent of the participants indicated that they use this practice), IPM is a set of strategies that growers use to reduce pesticide use by matching inputs to a specific need. The IPM strategy is also focused on reducing input costs,preserving resources, and protecting human health.
An official definition of organic farming has been established recently by the National Organic Standards Board as being an ecological production management system that promotes and enhances biodiversity, biological cycles and soil biological activity. It is based on minimal use of off-farm inputs and on management practices that restore, maintain, and enhance ecological harmony. This method places specific emphasis on soil quality and crop health as a means of dealing with pest pressure and damage.
Both IPM and organic farming practices require a strategy (i.e., a general orientation toward control) and a specific approach (i.e., a technique, method or system of implementation).
Growers can pick and choose from several strategies that can be implemented by one or more specific techniques. While some of the techniques in each strategy can be used in more than one way (e.g., endophytic rye is used as an insecticide as well as a method for altering pest habitat), they have been separated here into six categories.
* Monitoring and scouting * Reducing spray applications and/or rates * Eliminating pest habitats * Introducing pest predators, parasites and antagonists * Field/orchard architecture * Biorational control
Three expert judges, representing different facets of knowledge about pesticide use reduction (i.e., cooperative extension, university research, commercial enterprise), evaluated a list of 42 techniques. Based on a 10 point scale of contribution toward decreasing pesticide use, they assigned a score to each practice.
Techniques which fall within the monitoring and the spray application categories were judged to be the most important strategies overall and also were found to be the most used by the growers surveyed (Table 5)and (Table 6). The judges ranked most of the practices within these two categories between six and nine points each. More than half of the specific approaches in these two categories were used by more than 80 percent of the growers (Appendix A).
1. Monitoring and/or scouting for pests and diseases. The focus of this strategy is to be more discriminating as to when pesticides are needed. This is accomplished by counting the actual pests trapped in the orchard, assessing the growth cycle of the insect pest or disease and testing nutrient levels of the soil and trees. The most frequently used practices in this strategy (Table 5) are the use of weather data to time sprays (91 percent) and the use of sticky traps to estimate pest population (84 percent). The practices in this category that are used by the least number of growers are keeping detailed records of pest numbers, monitoring for ladybugs (both less than 40 percent), and counting growing degree days (done by approximately half of the participants).
2. Spray application. The major emphasis of this group is geared toward decreasing the actual amounts of pesticides that are released into the environment. This is accomplished via three methods -- timing and frequency, reducing the volume of agrichemical spray, and targeting the spray to areas with a specific need. Use of scouting and/or monitoring information to time or skip sprays was judged to be potentially one of the most effective techniques for reducing the volume of pesticides (Table 6).
The actual use of this information to make decisions is what makes these practices "alternative"; nearly all of the growers (95 percent) surveyed use this technique. Keeping a detailed record of the sprays applied was used by 95 percent of the respondents, while approximately 83 percent of the growers spray alternate rows, 85 percent use less than the recommend application rate of a pesticide, and 91 percent use low volume spraying. Targeted spraying was done by fewer individuals; less than 65 percent do spot spraying and approximately 61 percent perimeter spray. The practice used by the least number of growers surveyed, less than 30 percent, is ultra-low volume spraying.
3. Biorational control. This strategy uses non-synthetic substances to control pests. Most of the practices in this group are used by less than a third of the participants (Table 7). Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) was judged to be one of the most effective techniques for reducing agrichemicals, but it is used by less than 40 percent of the growers. During the interviews it was found that growers who are the most interested in this strategy complain that the available options are limited. The kinds of techniques growers indicated they would like include pheromone ties for oriental fruit moth, plum curcullio traps, and orchard grass with allelopathic properties to control sucking insects which carry X-disease. More than 80 percent of the participants use pheromone traps but less than 25 percent use pheromone (mating) disruption (Table 10). Many growers indicated that they either have tried this practice or are interested in this practice but find it to be prohibitively expensive. One grower stated that disruption by itself is equal to the cost of all other inputs. The approach that was found to be used most frequently was insecticidal soap (approximately 40 percent). However, the judges gave it a mediocre rating.
4. Introducing pest predators, parasites and antagonists. The intent of this group of techniques is to introduce beneficial organisms into the orchard/field environment in numbers sufficient to control economically damaging pests without the use of chemical pesticides. This was the least likely strategy to be used by the growers: each practice was used by less than two percent of the participants. However, each approach was ranked fairly high by the judges (Table 8),(Table 17), and (Table 13). It is likely that growers' infrequent use of this strategy is linked to their lack of success with it in the past. As one participant stated, in blueberry production "there are no good beneficial predators; parasitic wasps won't be able to get to the egg and worm. Therefore, a control method would have to kill or repel."
5. Eliminating pest habitats. The purpose of this strategy is to eliminate, or prevent from occurring, the environment necessary for certain pests to survive and reproduce in the orchard or field. Three of the four approaches for reducing pest habitats were ranked fairly high by the judges (Table 9). Only one of these practices, the removal of broadleaf weeds, is used by any significant number of the participants in this group (43 percent). However, it was also the lowest ranked of the three. The highest ranked approach, planting endophytic rye, was used by only eight percent of the growers surveyed. Despite its low assessed efficacy (4.67 points), tilling to reduce weed competition was used by 64 percent, which may be a reflection of growers who till to reduce water and nutrient competition.
6. Field/orchard architecture. This category is focused on altering the structure of the environment so that pests will not enter the orchard/field. However, it is also closely linked to the elimination of pest habitat. The judges ranked each of the field/orchard architecture strategies very high in importance (Table 10). The use of hedgerows or living hedges received one of the highest rankings overall, but it was found to be used by less than by the largest number of growers, 42 percent, is timed mowing. Insect barrier systems were found to be used by less than six percent. Planting wheeler or annual rye as a herbicide was used by only 28 percent, although it was judged fairly high on the scale. Several growers indicated that they tried to use rye in their orchard, but it was not successful under localized conditions.
Distribution. Based on the judges' scores, a grower could receive between 0 and 291.85 points on the alternative input scale. As shown in (Vis. 2), the participants were found to be on a continuum between 0 and 213.9, with an average just above 130 points. In this sample, the average grower is about in the middle of the spectrum of "alternatives."
Table 1. YEARS IN FARMING
Mean Minimum Maximum
Age 46.0 22.0 67.0
Years in farming 23.3 3.0 58.0
Years as primary operator 15.5 3.0 45.0
Figure 1. Agroecological zones of fruit production. (Vis. 1)
Table 2. HIGHEST LEVEL OF EDUCATION
Level of Education Percent
Fewer than twelve years 3.4
High school graduate 12.1
Technical training beyond high school 1.7
Some college 15.5
College graduate (AA, Agr. Tech.) 10.3
Bachelors degree 34.5
College work beyond a bachelors degree 22.4
Table 3. FARM ACREAGE
Mean Minimum Maximum
Apple 77.0 0.5 1,000.0
Blueberry 37.3 0.3 245.0
Cherry (tart) 97.6 0.3 750.0
Table 4. NET FARM INCOME
Income Percent
Lost more than $5,000 21.8
Lost between $4,999 and $1 11.0
Broke even 5.5
Made $4,999 or less 5.4
Made $5,000 to $9,999 12.7
Made $10,000 to $19,999 12.7
Made $20,000 to $39,999 12.7
Made $40,000 to $99,999 9.1
Made $100,000 to $174,99 7.3
Made $175,000 or more 1.8
Table 5. MONITORING AND/OR SCOUTING FOR PESTS AND
DISEASES
% who used
Approach This
practice
(Techniques or Products) Weight in 1993
Count growing degree days
(DD) to assist monitoring or
to time sprays 8.67 51.9
Keep a detailed record
of pest numbers 8.67 37.7
Monitor predator mites 8.33 61.8
Pheromone trap(s) 8.00 81.0
Sticky trap(s) (bait, visual) 8.00 83.6
Use of weather data to time sprays 8.00 91.2
Foliar nutrient testing 7.67 60.0
Monitor ladybird beetles (ladybugs)7.67 38.9
Soil testing 7.67 76.8
Table 6. SPRAY APPLICATIONS
% who used
Approach this practice
(Techniques or Products) Weight in 1993 Time sprays according to pest thresholds(economic injury levels) 9.00 92.9 Use scouting (monitoring) information to time or skip sprays 8.67 94.6 Spot spraying 8.00 64.3 Perimeter spraying 7.33 60.7 Alternate row spraying 7.00 82.5 Ultra-low volume spraying (less than 20 gal/acre) 6.33 28.3 Dilute spraying 6.00 70.2 Use less than recommended rate of a chemical pesticide product 6.00 85.2 Low volume spraying (less than 100 gal/acre) 5.67 91.2 Keep a detailed record of the sprays applied 5.67 94.6
Table 7. BIORATIONAL CONTROLS
% who used
Approach this
practice
(Techniques or Products) Weight in 1993
Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) 8.67 37.7
Mating disruption (pheromones) 8.33 23.1
Mineral oil 6.50 22.2
Diatomaceous earth 6.33 11.5
Insecticidal soap 6.33 39.3
Seaweed or kelp spray 6.00 30.4
Herbal preparations 5.00 19.2
Fish oil 4.00 18.2
Rotenone 3.67 16.7
Pyrethrum 3.33 25.5
Table 8. INTRODUCING PEST PREDATORS, PARASITES AND
ANTAGONISTS
% who used
Approach this
practice
(Techniques or Products) Weight in 1993
Purchase and release egg parasites
(Trichogramma minutum Riley) 7.67 1.9
Purchase and release predator mites 7.33 1.9
Purchase and release Ladybird Beetles
(Ladybugs) 5.67 1.9
Table 9. ELIMINATING PEST HABITATS
% who used
Approach this practice
(Techniques or Products) Weight in 1993 Plant endophytic rye or fescue as an insecticide in your orchard 8.67 8.3 Till to control pests and diseases such as mummyberry 7.00 25.5 Remove broadleaf weeds to control pests such as tarnished plant bug 6.33 43.1 Till to reduce weed competition with bushes/trees 4.67 64.2
Table 9. ELIMINATING PEST HABITATS
% who used
Approach this
practice
(Techniques or Products) Weight in 1993
Use of hedgerows (or living hedges)
in your orchard 9.00 34.6
Timed mowing for control of pests
such as tarnished plant bug 8.67 42.0
Plant wheeler rye or annual rye
as a herbicide in your orchard 8.33 28.0
Use of insect barrier systems
(screens, insect hardware cloth,
netting, etc.) 8.33 5.9
Table 10. FIELD/ORCHARD ARCHITECTURE
% who used
Approach this
practice
(Techniques or Products) Weight in 1993
Use of hedgerows (or living
hedges) in your orchard 9.00 34.6
Timed mowing for control of pests
such as tarnished plant bug 8.67 42.0
Plant wheeler rye or annual rye
as a herbicide in your orchard 8.33 28.0
Use of insect barrier systems
(screens,insect hardware cloth,
netting, etc.) 8.33 5.9
Figure 2. Distribution of Alternative Input Scores. (Vis. 2)
Attitudes and Beliefs
There are compelling reasons to change pest management practices-decreased pesticide availability, production costs, risks to human and animal health--but the alternatives have problems as well, such as increased time and labor and, most notably, a potential decrease in fruit quality and yield. To understand the process of transition it is important to examine how growers perceive these risks (20). A more detailed treatment of growers perceptions of risk can be found in Worosz (1997) (20). The personal risk of pesticide exposure is whether the health of growers, their families and their employees is jeopardized as a result of direct exposure (e.g., inhalation, skin contact), leaching into well water, residues (e.g., on clothing or fruit consumed) and/or drift (11). The Personal Risk Scale was used to measure a grower's acceptance of these risks. The scale included the notion of voluntary and involuntary risk and who is responsible for the mitigation of risk (Table 11).
It was found that most growers are concerned about residues. Although less than half of the respondents believe that government intervention is necessary to eliminate risks, most growers favor government support for agricultural research and development, and growers do favor scientific research on aspects like residues. Unfortunately, since conventional laboratory experiments that would be necessary to estimate risks cannot be done with humans, and since animal models for the effects on humans are not definitive, and since epidemiological studies are logistically complex and financially prohibitive, conventional scientific research has not provided clear answers about the harmful effects (e.g., cancer, endocrine modification) in humans (3). This may explain growers' uncertainty in regard to the potential health risks of direct exposure (e.g., contact, inhalation).
Financial risk associated with chemical use in fruit production may be interpreted at least two ways. First, the use of conventional practices may be viewed as risky since the registration of new agrichemicals has declined (17, 13), the withdrawal of many current products is threatened (15), and the overall costs of agrichemical use continue to increase (12). In addition, a grower using conventional chemicals runs the risk of an outbreak of public concern about a particular chemical such as Alar (19). Therefore, growers who are not willing to accept these risks will adopt alternative practices. However, as indicated earlier, the adoption of alternative practices involves the potential opportunity costs of decreased quantity and/or quality of fruit (11) as well as the costs of increased time, information and labor (10). Therefore, growers who are not willing to accept these financial risks will not adopt alternative practices.
While it is evident that there is logic to both arguments, the latter view is more probable (9). Even though the uses of many agrichemicals are threatened, in part by pest resistance, this does not seem to pose a reason for growers to cease using them before they actually become unavailable or ineffective. The Financial Risk Scale was used to measure acceptance of these risks, as they relate to a grower's management practices (Table 12). This scale includes the risks that are involved when making decisions between income and lifestyle as well as those associated with long-term environmental quality of the land.
The Financial Risk Scale shows several things. First, most growers view the financial benefits of pesticide use as greater than the monetary costs; if the costs were interpreted more broadly, then it is expected that the risks would be viewed as more costly than the return from pesticide use. Second, while approximately two-thirds believe that conserving resources is more important than increasing profits, they also indicate that there is no point in adopting new practices unless they are profitable; "you have to make enough profit to afford to keep up with change and to improve practices." Finally, two-thirds believe that financial independence is more important than increasing profits, yet less than half feel it is important to include family members in farm operations.
The Environmental Risk Scale was used to measure acceptance of the risks involved in pest control such as the loss of beneficials, habitat destruction and environmental contamination (Table 13). This index is related to personal risk because it considers the biotic and abiotic components of the environment of which humans are a part, and it is related to financial risk because it considers the monetary costs of environmental protection. This scale indicates that while two-thirds of the participants recognize the extent of potential problems caused by agrichemical use, they are most concerned about the harmful effects on beneficial organisms. However, the feelings of many were summed up in the comments, "I am very concerned about my environmental impact, but I also need to make a profit and satisfy the consumer and the consumer wants high quality fruits." Yet, at the same time, they not only view individual growers as well as the industry as being too dependent on chemical pesticides, they also believe that these substances are not required for control of most insect pests.
Problems encountered in decreasing pesticide use
At the heart of the pesticide dilemma is access to appropriate kinds of information (5). Some growers do not have accurate or complete information about the relative personal, financial or environmental risks of different pest management techniques (6). This is reflected in the comment of a grower who stated that "farmers can use all of the existing guidelines, scouts, extension agents, IPM practices, etc., and still not be sure that the consumer, growers as well as the environment remain unaffected." Whereas information required for conventional pest management practices is minimal, usually centered on prophylactic treatments and aggressive management, alternative practices require an intimate knowledge of the agricultural system, insect pest identification and disease morphology, and weather, to name a few. While growers are aware of most of the alternatives, they have not tried many which appear to be the most promising such as planting endophytic rye as an insecticide or insect barrier systems (see Appendix A). This is most likely a result of a lack of information about the effectiveness and/or the costs and benefits of adoption. This was apparent in the response of growers who indicated that IPM, as a set of pest management tools, has reached its potential and that further production changes in the future are unlikely (8). Nevertheless, the dilemma remains and growers feel they need assistance in making the transition, especially from government, extension, consultants, and consumers as well as themselves and other growers.
Government.
Overall, the growers expressed mixed feelings about the government's effectiveness in providing information about alternative techniques (22). On one hand, some growers spoke positively about programs like Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas (ATTRA) and the efforts of district soil and water conservation offices, both of which provide information about more sustainable techniques for pest management. On the other hand, some growers felt that the government should take more responsibility for providing them with information about the environmental and health risks of pesticides (5). One farmer complained, "The growers face the brunt of the environmental regulations . . . if the product is legal, that shouldn't happen."
Extension.
One of the major conduits of information is the state Cooperative Extension Service. Michigan State University Extension (MSUE) is consulted by more farmers than any other source of information (5). The information growers receive from MSUE includes various books and bulletins, the fruit Code-A-Phone, and seminars. More than 40 percent of the growers consult the extension service four times per year or more (Table 14), and about three-quarters of the growers say they consult the extension service at least once a year. Extension offers a variety of information services that extends far beyond even a specialized agent. These include the annual Fruit Spraying Calendar which recommends the application of pesticide sprays appropriate for particular stages of pest development; the Fruit Crop Advisory Team (CAT) Alerts, sent to growers who subscribe, that warn about imminent pest outbreaks; and the Code-A-Phone messages which tell growers which pests are present. Nevertheless, Extension does not make available much information about a wide range of nonconventional practices. They present what comes from university and government research, primarily that which is replicated in Michigan, and is considered or assumed to be fully warranted (21).
Consultants.
Private consultants were identified most frequently by the growers as "the most important source" of information (Table 15), and many growers say they follow their advice closely. One grower said he follows the scout's advice "100 percent"; another said he "does not second guess" the scout; the operator of one of the larger farms trusts the scout to "put together the spray program" and give it to the workers who do the spraying. Given the importance of the information scouts provide, it is not surprising that some growers hire a full-time employee with scouting knowledge or that a grower will get the training necessary to do his/her own scouting. Some growers are able to defray part or all of the cost of their scouting through special programs or grants (e.g., a Soil Conservation Service energy grant) or are able to hire a scout through their commodity association at a reduced rate (e.g., MBGA).
Associations.
Although fruit producers often do not list other growers as their most important source of information, they do see the information they get from them as valuable. Often this information makes them aware of new products or techniques (14). Several growers mentioned that they first heard of scouting by "word of mouth"; others said they were led to investigate IPM when they "heard it through the grapevine." One grower said he gets information by "listening to others and picking up tidbits." Several growers who are new to fruit production made arrangements with the previous owner "to guide them" during the first couple of years; another grower said that when he began raising fruit he "relied on other people's advice a lot because (he) didn't know much." For some fruit producers, older growers are seen as sources of information about nonchemical techniques; one grower said that he gets information from his neighbors, "especially the elderly who were around before the (conventional) system started."
Growers.
Ultimately, growers rely on themselves for information, on their own expertise-investigation and experimentation (Table 16). Only one grower disagreed with the statement, "Experience and careful observations are as important as scientific testing." Their own expertise comes both from experience and from more formal and/or continuing education. Growers also indicated that agents and researchers were very helpful with information on modifying existing techniques (e.g., new sprays, lower spray rates), while books and magazines were helpful with information about nonconventional techniques. Almost 90 percent of the growers agreed with the statement, "One has to keep up with the latest advances in science and technology."
Many growers stated that they experiment by making various modifications to their practices (e.g., reduced spray rates, alternative substances). For some, trying new techniques is almost continuous (7). In general, their experiments tend to be informal; often they will try a new technique on their entire farm for a year to see if it works, rather than using strategically located test plots. Frequently they hear about an alternative technique and decide to try it without seeking much information about the technique; this leads to a continual process of trial and error.
Three-quarters of the respondents agreed that a grower "can no longer afford to be so independent and rely only on his/her own judgment" (Table 16). Time is an important factor here (1); most growers indicated that they have no time available to allocate to searching the literature for reports on experiences and research with alternative techniques. Even if time were available, the searches would be very difficult; little information on alternative techniques is available in the standard literature and that which is available is not organized in an efficient way for searching.
Consumers.
Growers feel that consumers need to understand that cosmetic quality standards drive the use of pesticides; as one grower said, "even diehard organics will tolerate only so much cosmetic damage." They feel that while some consumers may be aware of production costs and the cost-price squeeze, most do not know just how high production costs are or how tight the cost-price squeeze is. They are concerned that consumers do not understand how significant pest management is in the production process. Some growers attempt to provide information to consumers on these topics. In addition to contact with consumers in the course of direct marketing and u-pick operations, many growers offer farm tours for school groups; some even give schoolchildren IPM coloring books or badges. Many u-pick growers add a dimension of entertainment to their operations; this includes wagon or hay rides, nature trails, animal farms, pumpkin patches, bonfires and haunted houses as well as cider and doughnuts. Several growers said that the tours and entertainment were an important means of educating the public about the things they do to produce a quality product. As one grower summed it up, the tours and entertainment are "good because people need to see agriculture."
Further information
If you have any questions or comments about this report please contact Michelle Worosz E-mail - woroszmi@pilot.msu.edu or Craig Harris E-mail - 13620CKH@msu.edu, Department of Sociology, Michigan State University, 429 Berkey Hall, East Lansing, 48824-1111, phone: 517/355-5048; fax: 517/432-2856.
Table 11. PERSONAL RISK SCALE
Percent Percent Percent
Agree Neutral Disagree
Growers should not wait for absolute proof that a
chemical is harmful but should act immediately to
protect themselves if there is any evidence of risk.
83.9 5.4 10.8
In this day and age, a person can no longer afford to be so independent and rely only on his/her own judgment in making decisions. 75.4 7.0 17.5
The government has adequate regulations for the use of
pesticides and other chemicals on fruit crops.
25.0 8.9 66.1
If large amounts of a chemical were found to cause cancer after many repeated exposures, then I would be concerned about coming in contact with very small amounts of the chemical. 63.8 6.9 29.3
Growers should not wait for absolute proof that a
chemical is harmful but should act immediately to
protect the public if there is any evidence of risk.
56.9 20.7 22.4
I worry about the possibility that the methods I use to control pests may cause health problems for me and my family. 45.4 9.1 45.5
The government should not wait for absolute proof that a
chemical is harmful but should act immediately to
protect the public if there is any evidence of risk.
44.8 12.1 43.1
Most cancers are caused by substances that people choose to use. 42.9 41.1 16.0
The government should not wait for absolute proof that a
chemical is harmful but should act immediately to
protect growers if there is any evidence of risk.
41.4 20.7 37.9
Most cancers are caused by substances that people cannot avoid. 39.3 30.4 30.3
a = 0.702
Table 12. FINANCIAL RISK SCALE
Percent Percent Percent
Agree Neutral Disagree
A diversified farming operation is necessary to protect
the farmer against a bad year.
84.5 10.3 5.2
Given the economic realities, concern with environmental
conservation is often carried too far.
22.8 8.8 68.4
In farming, conserving resources is more important than increasing profits. 65.5 14.5 20.0
In farming, financial independence is more important than increasing profits. 65.5 14.5 20.0
Involving family members in farm work is more important than making more money. 43.6 27.3 29.1
For the average fruit grower, the cost of chemical pesticides is greater than the increase in income that results from their use. 20.4 14.8 64.8
There is no point in adopting new practices unless they are more profitable. 64.3 16.1 19.7
a = 0.684
Table 13. ENVIRONMENTAL RISK SCALE
Percent Percent Percent
Agree Neutral Disagree
A good farm should provide a habitat for species that
help to control insect pests (birds, bats, etc.).
94.9 1.7 3.4
The pesticides I use can be poisonous to beneficial organisms. 91.2 1.8 7.1
Excessive use of chemical fertilizers can cause serious pollution problems. 89.4 7.0 3.6
The pesticides I use can be poisonous to animals.
85.9 5.3 8.8
The pesticides I use can be harmful to the physical
environment including the air and groundwater.
78.4 10.5 14.0
Agriculture today is too dependent on the use of agricultural chemicals. 64.2 14.3 21.5
Controlling most insect pests requires using chemical pesticides. 31.1 5.2 63.8
Farmers do not use more chemicals than they have to.
32.8 6.9 60.3
To protect the environment, we must change the way we produce our nation's food. 51.8 14.3 33.9
Chemical companies encourage growers to use more
chemicals than are safe for the environment.
41.1 10.7 48.3
Outbreaks of farm pests are a more serious threat to
society than pollution from farm chemicals.
36.2 20.7 43.1
a = 0.790
Table 14. CONTACT WITH A COUNTY EXTENSION AGENT
How many times have you personally contacted a county
Extension agent (including regional and district agents)
during the last year in connection with a pest
management question?
Percent
None 25.90
1-3 times 32.80
4-6 times 17.20
7-9 times 12.10
More than 9 times 12.10
Table 15. INFORMATION SOURCES
% Most
Source Who Use Important
Books/articles 67.1 11.3
Seminars 60.0 9.4
County/district Extension agent 58.6 3.8
Private consultant 52.9 37.7
Fruit CAT Alert 50.0 3.8
Sales representative 44.3 5.7
Fruit Code-A-Phone 44.3 9.4
Unrelated grower 38.6 1.9
Organizations 25.7 5.7
Relative 20.0 --
District Soil Conservationist 18.6 --
IPM updates & meetings 2.9 7.5
Computer pest management programs 1.4 --
None 1.4 --
Table 16. SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Percent Percent Percent
Agree Neutral Disagree
In this day and age, a person can no longer afford to be so independent and rely only on his/her own judgment in making decisions. 75.4 7.1 17.5
To survive in farming today one has to keep up with the
latest advances in science and technology.
87.5 7.1 5.4
In farming, experience and careful observations are as
important as scientific testing.
95.5 2.7 1.8
There is no point in adopting new practices unless they are more profitable. 19.7 16.0 64.3
Appendix A
ALTERNATIVE INPUT PRACTICES
% who % who % who
Approach are have used
(Techniques or Strategy Weight aware ever this
Products) of used practice
this this in 1993
pract- pract-
ice ice
Time sprays
according to pest
thresholds
(economic
injury levels) Spray apps. 9.00 100.0 94.6 92.9
Use of hedgerows (or living hedges) in your orchard Architecture 9.00 61.4 32.1 34.6
Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) Biorational 8.67 85.7 51.8 37.7
Count growing degree days (DD) to assist monitoring or to time sprays Mon. /Scout. 8.67 98.2 56.4 51.9
Keep a detailed record of pest numbers Mon./Scout. 8.67 91.1 37.5 37.7
Plant endophytic rye or fescue as an insecticide in your orchard Red. habitat 8.67 50.9 13.7 8.3
Timed mowing for control of pests such as tarnished plant bug Architecture 8.67 54.4 47.1 42.0
Use experimental plots Misc. 8.67 94.7 63.0 53.8
Use scouting (monitoring) information to time or skip sprays Spray apps. 8.67 100.0 98.2 94.6
Mating disruption (pheromones) Biorational 8.33 89.5 28.6 21.2
Monitor predator mites Mon./Scout. 8.33 97.4 63.2 60.7
Plant wheeler rye or annual rye as a herbicide in your orchard Architecture 8.33 68.4 49.1 28.0
Use of insect barrier systems (screens, insect hardware cloth, netting, etc.) Architecture 8.33 80.7 9.1 5.9
Pheromone trap(s) Mon./Scout. 8.00 98.3 87.7 85.5
Spot spraying Spray apps. 8.00 94.8 71.9 64.3
Sticky trap(s) (bait, visual) Mon./Scout. 8.00 98.3 89.5 81.8
Use of weather data to time sprays Mon./Scout. 8.00 98.2 93.0 91.2
Foliar nutrient testing Mon./Scout. 7.67 100.0 82.1 60.0
Monitor ladybird beetles (ladybugs) Mon./Scout. 7.67 94.7 43.6 38.9
Purchase and release egg parasites (Trichogramma minutum Riley) Predators 7.67 70.7 3.6 1.9
Soil testing Mon./Scout. 7.67 100.0 98.2 76.8
Perimeter spraying Spray apps. 7.33 93.0 70.2 60.7
Purchase and release predator mites Predators 7.33 86.0 6.9 1.9
Alternate row spraying Spray apps. 7.00 94.8 82.5 82.5
Till to control pests and diseases such as mummyberry Red. habitat 7.00 57.9 38.5 25.5
Mineral oil Biorational 6.50 77.6 26.8 22.2
Diatomaceous earth Biorational 6.33 60.7 17.9 11.5
Insecticidal soap Biorational 6.33 84.5 43.1 39.3
Remove broadleaf weeds to control pests such as tarnished plant bug Red. habitat 6.33 59.6 46.2 43.1
Ultra-low volume spraying (less than 20 gal/acre) Spray apps. 6.33 91.2 39.3 28.3
Dilute spraying Spray apps. 6.00 94.8 82.5 70.2
Seaweed or kelp spray Biorational 6.00 91.4 35.1 30.4
Use less than recommended rate of a chemical pesticide product Spray apps. 6.00 98.2 89.3 85.2
Keep a detailed record of the sprays applied Mon./Scout. 5.67 100.0 94.6 94.6
Low volume spraying (less than 100 gal/acre) Spray apps. 5.67 98.3 89.7 91.2
Purchase and release ladybird beetles (Ladybugs) Predators 5.67 93.1 8.6 1.9
Herbal preparations Biorational 5.00 58.9 21.4 19.2
Till to reduce weed competition with bushes/trees Red. habitat 4.67 89.7 73.2 64.2
Fish oil Biorational 4.00 89.7 26.3 18.2
Rotenone Biorational 3.67 75.9 25.0 16.7
Pyrethrum Biorational 3.33 81.0 39.3 25.5
Time sprays according to the spray guide (calendar or interval sprays) Spray apps. 1.00 98.2 65.5 44.4
References Cited
1. Bennett, J. W. 1982. Of Time and the Enterprise. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
2. Edwards, C. A., T. L. Grove, R. R. Harwood, & C. J. Pierce Colfer. 1993. "The role of agroecology and integrated farming systems in agricultural sustainability." In C. A. Edwards, M. K. Wali,D. J. Horn & F. Miller (Eds.), Agriculture and the Environment (pp. 99-121). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publications.
3. Flora, C. B. 1990. "Pesticide risk: making decisions." Plant Disease, 74, 105-108.
4. Flore, J., D. Ricks, C. Harris, M. Whalon, D. Guyer, J. Hull, & J. Cash. 1992. Michigan Fruit Industry Survey (Report No. 524). East Lansing: Michigan State University Agricultural Experiment Station.
5. Harris, C. K. & M. R. Worosz. October, 1995. The politics of sustainable information. Paper presented at the conference on The Politics of Sustainable Agriculture, University of Oregon at Eugene.
6. Higley, L. G. & W. K. Wintersteen.1992. "A novel approach to environmental risk assessment of pesticides as a basis for incorporating environmental costs into economic injury levels." American Entomologist, 38, 34-38.
7. Kloppenburg, J. 1991. "Social theory and the de/reconstruction of agricultural science: Local knowledge for an alternative agriculture." Rural Sociology, 56, 519-548.
8. National Research Council. 1996. Ecologically Based Pest Management: New Solutions for a New Century. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
9. Owens, N. N., S. S. Swinton, E. O. van Ravenswaay. 1996. Farmer demand for safer corn herbicides: Survey methods and descriptive results. Unpublished manuscript.
10.Pfeffer, M. J. 1992. "Labor and production barriers to the reduction of agricultural chemical inputs." Rural Sociology, 57, 347-362.
11.Pimentel, D., H. Acquay, M. Biltonen, P. Rice, M. Silva, J.Nelson, V. Lipner, A. Giordano, A. Horowitz, & M. D'Amore. 1993."Assessment of environmental and economic impacts of pesticide use." In D. Pimentel & H. Lehman (Eds.), The Pesticide Question: Environment, Economics and Ethics (pp. 85-105). New York: Chapman and Hall.
12.Pimentel, D. 1995. "Ecological theory, pest problems, and biologically based solutions." In D. M. Glen, M. P. Greaves, & H. M. Anderson (Eds.), Ecology and Integrated Farming Systems (pp. 69-82). Bristol: John Wiley & Sons.
13.Report of the Task Force on Biological Pest Management. (in press). Ames, IW: Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST).
14.Rogers, E. M. 1962. Diffusion of Innovations (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press.
15.Specialty Crop Pesticide Committee. 1995. The Assessment of Pesticides at Risk in the Future of Michigan Food and Feed Plant Agriculture. East Lansing: Michigan State University.
16.Suvedi, M. 1996. Farmer's Perspectives on Michigan State University Extension. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Extension.
17.U. S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. 1995. Biologically Based Technologies for Pest Control (OTA-ENV-636). Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.
18.U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration. April 1994. 1992 Census of Agriculture, Vol. 1,Geographic Area Series, Part 22 Michigan State and County Data. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Service.
19.van Ravenswaay, E. O. & Hoehn, J. P. 1991. "The impact of health risk information on food demand: A case study or Alar and apples." In J. A. Casewell (Ed.), Economics of Food Safety. Economics of Food Safety (pp. 155-174). New York: Elsevier Science.
20.Worosz, M. R. 1997. Perceptions of Pesticide Risk: An Analysis of Michigan Fruit Growers Who Use Alternative Methods of Pest Management. M. S. Thesis Michigan State University, Department of Resource Development.
21.Worosz, M. R. 1997. Technology meets the grower. Unpublished manuscript.
22.Worosz, M. R. & Harris, C. K. 1995."Politics, production and sustainability: Whose job is it?" In Agrarian Questions Proceedings: Vol IV (pp. 1795-1806). Wageningen: World Congress for Agrarian Questions.
The Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station is an equal opportunity employer and complies with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. New 11:97 - TCM - 1M
| Visual title - Visual size | Visual title - Visual size |
|---|---|
| Agroecological Zones of Fruit Production - 45K | Distribution of Alternative Input Scores - 28K |
