p.
2
up
1 u

v vu-r
r. .
. ....

n
Cl
.«Jm

.y. .. .
.l. v.
. z-Ihua3u .n.
.Iltl}!

‘7.

Jv‘ . I. .Ytyvunv. .,.
1. uoldor.

. v- r.
.15.31%;5;§

« 1141...!“th . In
. 1 34.31.. Viv. ‘un

v. i..lv.h..uu0rk .. I! ‘ ‘ ‘ . . ‘ .. . » ,
.2111 an... . ...ll..~....3|? , . . ‘ . a .. . ‘ , . ‘ . v
. ‘rtvcll~" v“ . 3' . ‘ r ¢ ' ‘ I a -4

.0. I.‘. .v'

'A‘|
‘Oofl
5"

 

. . . .. , [111' v‘ .
0|||.u.ov71.t|1l.vlllu.'nhv. . .‘HHHLEH *7 II‘ it: .Wo r 1.!JA-u . .10.: It. .. ..

 

>p| ‘ 7%.. tcw I

 

‘ 1 t D .ofur . , . w: .
.HO.$.._I . ‘rumflullul.-n.» D. 5 I T . I; u .!.l‘ I u.|» v8. . » ‘ ‘ .. . . . .fyl . J .. qu Olv... .I v. .I‘ m 'u .75 n f i . ‘ w

THESS

Date

0-7 639

“Tamar“! llllllllllIIIHIIUHIIll(Hilllllllllllllllllllllll

Michigan State 301719 7355
Unlverslty

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

PERCEPTIONS OF PESTICIDE RISK:
AN ANALYSIS OF MICHIGAN FRUIT GROWERS
WHO USE ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF
PEST MANAGEMENT

presented by

Michelle R. Worosz

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M. 54 degree in Wavelopment

 

 

 

Major professor

(ékva‘f7

MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

PLACE IN REIURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINE return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

JmlmdmA U

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1!” WW“

 

PERCEPTIONS OF PESTICIDE RISK:
AN ANALYSIS OF MICHIGAN FRUIT GROWERS
WHO USE ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF
PEST MANAGEMENT

by
Michelle R. Worosz

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Resource Development

1 997

ABSTRACT
PERCEPTIONS OF PESTICIDE RISK:
AN ANALYSIS OF MICHIGAN FRUIT GROWERS

WHO USE ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF
PEST MANAGEMENT

by
Michelle R. Worosz

Considerable risks are involved in the transition from conventional to
alternative agricultural practices. This is particularly true for fruit growers who
face a substantial dilemma based on the notion that a marketable crop is one
that supports high yield, at low cost, while maintaining a superior cosmetic
appearance free of insect damage, blemishes and chemical residues. To explore
growers’ attitude-behavior construct of agrichemical use, a purposeful sample of
apple, tart cherry and blueberry growers was selected. Using multiple regression
it was found that growers who are willing to accept more financial risk adopt
more pesticide reducing techniques. Growers’ perceptions of environmental risk
influenced their adoption of alternative practices, but not significantly, while their
perceptions of personal risk had little or no effect. These results were supported
by follow-up face-to-face interviews. Understanding these results may make it
possible to formulate more effective policies for reducing pesticide use in the

future.

The balance of nature is not a status quo;

it is fluid, ever shifting, in a constant state of adjustment.
Rachel Carson, Silent Spring, 1962.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This thesis is one part of a much larger study called the North Central
Fruit Farm Research Project, which was funded by the United States Department
of Agriculture, Low-Input Sustainable Agriculture program and the Michigan
Agricultural Experiment Station. Subsequently, these funds contributed to the
work presented in this paper and the “beans” on my table. However, this paper
would not have come to “fruition” without the support and guidance of many
people.

First, many thanks to my friends and family for their support, especially my
husband, William Quackenbush. He kept my life together over the last few years
and he was understanding of the long hours that were required to see this
process through to its completion.

Next, my committee members, Drs. Tom Edens, Mark Whalon and Craig
Harris. Together they provided the foundation of my academic development. As
chair of my committee, Tom was particularly helpful in the conceptualization of
the problem and the development of the questions I sought to examine. Mark
was the backbone of the technical information. He guided me through the

extensive material that makes up the basics of fruit production. Tom and Mark

also contributed to the financial support necessary for me to attend professional
meetings in order to present my findings. As the lead investigator of this study,
Craig went above and beyond what is expected of a committee member. He
helped me though every stage of the process—developing the study, collecting
and analyzing the data, writing up the results, and preparing for conferences, as
well as my thesis defense. To each, I cannot say enough to express my
gratitude.

I also received a great deal of insight and encouragement from many
others. While it is not possible to mention all of them here, I would like to point
out a few who were particularly helpful. In the early conceptual stages Brent
Simpson and Jouni Paavola were sounding boards for my ideas. Debra Rusz
and Diane Garavaglia aided in the data analysis and interpretation. I completed
the writing with the guidance of Teri Swezey, Cindy Struthers, Deborah Safron
and Mike Tresca. Lisa Bohannan, Theresa Doerr and Tom Conner helped me
prepare for my defense presentation. In the final production stage, my editor
Lynn Ruehlmann, read the entire manuscript from cover-to-cover.

Finally, this thesis would not have been possible without the backing of
many Extension Agents, IPM consultants, and agricultural associations. Most
important, however, were the growers themselves. Without their willingness to

participate this research would not have been possible. Thank you.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables .......................................................... viii.
List of Figures ......................................................... x.
Chapter 1. Perceptions of Risk ....................................... 1
Mitigating Risk ....................................... 3

Pesticide Risk ........................................ 4

A New Paradigm ..................................... 9

Examining the Risks ................................. 12

The Problem ......................................... 14

Organization ......................................... 15

Chapter 2. Understanding the Risks of Pesticide Use ................ 16
Studying Risk ........................................ 16

Risk, Attitudes and Behavior ......................... 24

Risk Perceptions ..................................... 26

Amplification ......................................... 29

Risky Behavior ....................................... 31

Personal Risk .................................... 33

Financial Risk .................................... 35

Environmental Risk .............................. 37

Pesticide Use and the Alternatives ................... 40

Chapter 3. Calculating the Risk-Behavior Construct .................. 45
Sampling ............................................. 45

Data Collection ....................................... 47

Measurement ........................................ 51

vi

Dependent Variable .............................. 51

Independent Variables ........................... 52
Analysis .............................................. 54
Hypotheses .......................................... 56

Chapter 4. The Relationship Between Risk Perceptions and the

Adoption of an Alternative ................................ 59
Individual Demographics ............................. 59
Farm Characteristics ................................. 61

Farm Organization ............................... 61
Scale ............................................ 63
Production Strategies ............................ 64
Market Strategies ................................ 66
Labor ............................................ 68
Scales of Risk ........................................ 71
Personal Risk Acceptance ....................... 71
Financial Risk Acceptance ....................... 74
Environmental Risk Acceptance .................. 76
Input Practices ....................................... 78
Monitoring and/or Scouting for Insect Pests
and Disease ..................................... 78
Spray Applications .............................. 80
Elimination of Pest Habitats ...................... 82
Introduction of Pest Predators, Parasites and
Antagonists ...................................... 83
F ieId/Orchard Architecture ....................... 84
Biorational Controls .............................. 84
Findings ............................................. 86
Descriptives ..................................... 86
Zero.order Correlations .......................... 89
Regression ...................................... 9O
Hypotheses ...................................... 92
Grower Response .................................... 93

vii

Chapter 5. Living with Pesticides ..................................... 99
Summary ............................................ 99
Findings in Relation to Competing Paradigms ........ 101
Policy Implications ................................... 105
Limitations ........................................... 108
Sampling ........................................ 109
Data collection ................................... 109
Analysis ......................................... 1 10
Future Recommendations ............................ 111
Epilogue .......................................................... 1 14
Information Dissemination ............................ 1 18
Alternative Agriculture and the World WIde Web ...... 123
Who ............................................. 123
What ............................................ 124
How ............................................. 124
Access to lnfonnation and its Potential Impact ........ 127
Appendices

Appendix A. Introductory Letter .......................... 129
Appendix B. Summary ................................... 131
Appendix C. Survey Instrument .......................... 133
Appendix D. Cover Letter ................................ 148
Appendix E. Use of Migrant Labor ........................ 150
Appendix F. Complete List of Alternative Input Practices . 151

Appendix G. Examples of Information Resources
Available on the World WIde Web ........... 153
List of References ..................................................... 155

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1. Strategies and Techniques of Alternative Pest

Management ........................................... 8
Table 3.1. Survey Organization .................................... 48
Table 4.1. Age and Years in Farming .............................. 61
Table 4.2. Highest Level of Education ............................. 61
Table 4.3. Farm Acreage and Crop Diversity ....................... 62
Table 4.4. Farm Income ........................................... 63
Table 4.5. Farm Financial Security ................................. 64
Table 4.6. Personal Risk Scale .................................... 73
Table 4.7. Financial Risk Scale .................................... 75
Table 4.8. Environmental Risk Scale .............................. 77
Table 4.9. Monitoring and Scouting ................................ 80
Table 4.10. Spray Applications ...................................... 81
Table 4.11. Elimination of Pest Habitat .............................. 82

Table 4.12. Introduction of Pest Predators, Parasites and

Antagonists ............................................ 83
Table 4.13. Field/Orchard Architecture .............................. 84
Table 4.14. Biorational Control ...................................... 85
Table 4.15. Zero-order Correlations ................................. 90
Appendix E. Use of Migrant Labor ................................... 150
Appendix F. Complete List of Alternative Input. Practices ............. 151

Appendix G. Examples of Information Resources Available on the
World Wide Web ....................................... 155

Figure 2.1.

Figure 3.1.

Figure 4.1.

Figure 4.2.

Figure 4.3.

Figure 4.4.

Figure 4.5.

LIST OF FIGURES

Sociological Theories of Risk ...........................
Dimensions of Risk .....................................

The Number of Participants in Each Agroecological
Zone ...................................................

Distribution of Personal Risk Acceptance Scores ........
Distribution of Financial Risk Acceptance Scores .......
Distribution of Environmental Risk Acceptance Scores ..

Distribution of Alternative Input Practices ...............

xi

22

53

60

87

87

88

88

CHAPTER 1

PERCEPTIONS OF RISK

There are inherent risks in agriculture. On a daily basis growers contend
with various health and safety hazards (Rosenman, Brissett-Burns and Doss,
1993); agroecological threats (F leisher, 1990); international and domestic market
policies (Hallberg, 1992); and the supply, productivity and regulation of both
skilled (Pfeffer, 1992) and nonskilled labor (Duffield and Gunter, 1991). Michigan
farmers are not strangers to these risks. For example, Rosenman et al. (1993)
report that the most hazardous of the occupationally related risks are tractor
rollovers, causing an average of 22 deaths per year in the state.

While growers have at least some control over their environment, such as
retrofitting tractors with a rollover protective structure and wearing a seatbelt
during operation, to reduce the risk of a overturn death (Tilma and Doss, 1992),
they have even less control over some of the other risks such as the weather.
For instance, growers may change to climate tolerant enterprises and/or
varieties, and they may be able to make architectural changes to alter the
microclimate of an orchard or field, but in the end, they can not control nature.

The extreme cold conditions experienced in Michigan during the winter of 1994,

2

for example, killed most of the peach crop as well as entire orchards of well
established trees (Greenwood, 1994).

The market is another area outside an individual’s direct control (Bennett,
1976). According to Hallberg (1992), growers experience risk from both
sides—supply and demand. In terms of supply, the risk is overproduction.
Commercial fruit is inelastic because production rates cannot be altered within a
short period of time (Hallberg, 1992). When growers produce a surplus the
market is flooded and the prices decrease. As a case in point, the typical costs of
producing tart cherries in Michigan is about 25 cents a pound and growers
usually receive between 7.5 to 48 cents a pound (Young, 1995). However, due
to both current overproduction and to the 70 million pounds that were still frozen
and in storage from the previous growing season, growers received about 5
cents for the 1995 crop (be Vier, 1995). On the other side of the equation, the
risk is the lack of demand. Hallberg (1992) indicates that farm prices are directly
related to overall population growth and since it has continued to slow in the
US, farm incomes are not increasing.

Moreover, both federal and industry policies can greatly increase risks,
particularly in the market, for growers. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
and the US. Department of Agriculture (USDA), for instance, set limits of
acceptable insect damage while wholesalers, processors and retailers stipulate

cosmetic standards (Pimentel, Kirby and Shroff, 1993a).

Mitigating Risk

Growers attempt to lessen agriculturally related risks in a variety of ways
such as purchasing various types of insurance and adopting risk-reducing
technologies and/or practices. For instance, the Lansing State Jouma_| (“Apple
Farmer,” 1995) reported that a Michigan apple grower purchased an “anti-hail
machine” to combat one of the most devastating effects of weather. This grower
was reported as saying that while the cost of the machine is exorbitant, over time
the premiums for hail insurance are more so. Typically, as Mazur (1980)
indicates, insurance is a way that individuals maximize “expected utility” when
the probabilities of risks are known or predictable. In order to reduce the effects
of falling prices, growers often increase yield (Hallberg, 1992). This can be
accomplished by adoption of high density plantings, high yielding crop varieties,
monocropping and irrigation (Davidson, 1990). This often goes hand-in-hand
with the adoption of cost-reducing technologies (Browne, Skees, Swanson,
Thompson and Unneverhr, 1992) such as increased mechanization and the use
of agrichemicals (Pfeffer, 1992).

In the quest for “perfect” fruit, growers readily adopted synthetic pesticides
because their effectiveness was “scientifically” proven. They allowed many to
operate large scale enterprises (Goldstein, 1990), and “they were perceived to
be cheap [and] . . . easy to use” (Goodell and Zalom, 1993, p. 76). More
importantly, under the conventional paradigm, pesticides reduced the “risk” of

crop failure because they gave growers a set of tools to contend with insect

4

pests and disease pressure that lowered crop quantity and quality (Cartwright,
Collins and Cuperus, 1993). In fact, Hallberg (1992) estimated the gross benefits
of pesticides to be $3.00 to $5.00 for every $1.00 spent. Adoption of this
technology also had the added benefit of reducing the core work force to just the
primary operator and spouse (Pfeffer, 1992), thus lowering overhead costs. Jack
Laurie, the President of the Michigan Farm Bureau, illustrates (1994, p. 4) the
conventional myth stating “in 1940, each American farmer fed about 19 people.
Today, each farmer produces enough food and fiber to feed nearly 130 people at

home and abroad.”

Pesticide Risk

Regardless of the benefits of pesticide use, subsequent oversupply led to
flat or declining prices and dwindling incomes (Davidson, 1990; Gussow, 1991)
which increased the need, for many, to seek off-farm employment in order to
subsidize their farm operations (Pfeffer, 1992). Agrichemicals were also found to
be costly. When surveyed in 1991, fruit growers in Michigan indicated that
pesticides were 17 percent of their input costs (Flore et al., 1992), a significant
portion of the farm budget.

The actual risks of agrichemicals became evident when they were
identified as major contributors to pest resistance (Metcalf, 1987), water
contamination (National Research Council [NRC], 1989), ecological disruption
(Pimentel, et al., 1993a) and linked to human and animal health hazards

(Gunter, 1994). Furthermore, pesticide use was found to be a dialectical process.

In part, they made new agricultural practices such as monocropping possible,
allowing farmers to manage larger and less complex field/orchards. However, the
practice of monocropping included the use of specific crop varieties which
decreased genetic diversity causing crops to be more susceptible to pests
(Leslie and Cuperus, 1993) and, thus increasing the need for additional
chemicals.

It is Rachel Carson who is generally credited for bringing the issue of
pesticide risk into the public debate. Her book, Silent Spring (1962), highlighted
the effects of DDT on both wildlife and the environment. Gunter (1994, p. 125),
however, found that the New York Times began to run articles with negative
claims about DDT as early as the spring of 1945. Yet, it was not until 1972 that
the FDA, which was skeptical from the beginning, started to publicly question
DDT’S overall efficacy. Federal agencies finally acknowledged the extent of
these risks in 1983 when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published
a report about the Chesapeake Bay, attributing its nonpoint source water
contamination to 24,000 growers in Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania (Krebs,
1992).

Compounding the effects noted above is the issue of food safety. In 1987,
the EPA ranked pesticide residues on food as the third most important source of
cancer (Harris and Whalon, 1991, p. 1). In the same year, the “National
Academy of Sciences reported that in a study of 28 chemical poisons widely

used on fruit and vegetables 23 were found potentially carcinogenic and exceed

6

the EPA’s standard of acceptable risk” (Krebs, 1992, p. 87). A more recent
example that was brought to the public’s attention surrounds the use of Alar
(Daminozide)—a chemical used to delay ripening, increase reddening and
enhance the firmness of apples (Krebs, 1992). To illustrate, in February, 1989,
60 Minutes featured the Natural Resource Defense Council report, Intolerable
Risk: Pesticides in Our Children’s Food. This study highlighted the hazards of
pesticide use in fruit production (van Ravenswaay and Hoehn, 1991a; Krebs,
1992). The following month an article appeared in Iim_e stating that Alar, “a
chemical that penetrates the fruits skin, is the greatest cancer hazard” (Toufexis,
1989). It also reported that this chemical represents a particular risk to children,
“caus[ing] one case of cancer for every 4,200 preschoolers,” due to the ratio of
consumption to body weight.

Regardless of the potential risks of pesticide residue consumption, studies
have also found consumers to have conflicting beliefs about pesticide use. On
the one hand, van Ravenswaay and Hoehn (1991a) state that what has come to
be know as the “Alar incident” has had an immediate and dramatic effect on the
apple industry; sales were greatly reduced due to consumer concerns. On the
other hand, the apple industry is still ruled by cosmetic appearance—“produce
which exceeds 5 to 10% total defects . . . is usually rejected for sale in most
markets due to consumer preferences" (Cartwright et al., 1993, p. 152). While
both Bruhn, Peterson, Phillips and Sakovidh (1992) and Cartwright et al. (1993)

found many consumers to be concerned about agrichemicals, van Ravenswaay

7

and Hoehn (1991b) found that they “would accept only very minor amounts of
pest damage [on fruit] in order to obtain reductions in pesticide residues.”
Meanwhile, the most current statistics indicate that organic sales have increased
by more than 20 percent over each of the last six years, to a total of $2.8 billion
in 1995 (Henry A. Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture, 1996).

A change or shift toward alternative practices, however, is risky,
particularly for the individual grower. This is, in part, due to the fact that growers
must bear the bulk of the risks, as well as the costs, alone. In Michigan, 61
percent of the fruit growers surveyed plan to decrease pesticide use in the future
and wish to make the transition toward alternative strategies (Flore et al., 1992).
However, these growers, especially those who produce for the fresh market,
believe they do not have the “technological means to manage pests without
pesticides and to produce high quality fruits which are demanded by the market
and to provide a positive net return” (Flore et al., 1992, p.15). Consequently, only
one-quarter of the Michigan fruit growers use IPM methods (Harris and Whalon,
1991). For many of these growers, the perceived risk of finding insects, diseases
or their damaging effects on their produce outweighs the benefits of reducing
pesticides; therefore, it is easier to continue with conventional means of pest

management (Cartwright et al., 1993).

 

Table 1.1
STRATEGIES AND TECHNIQUES OF
ALTERNATIVE PEST MANAGEMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Approach
Strategies Purpose (Techniques or Products)
Monitoring To be more discriminating as 0 Count growing 0 Use weather data to
and to when pesticides are needed degree days (GDD) time sprays
Scouting by counting the actual pests o Pheromone traps o Foliar nutrient
trapped in the orchard, o Sticky traps testing
assessing the growth cycle of 0 Soil testing 0 Monitor Ladybird
insect pests and/or diseases, 0 Monitor predator Beetles
and testing nutrient levels. mites
Spray To increase the actual amount 9 Time sprays 0 Scouting/monitoring
Applications of pesticides that are released according to information used to
into the environment via three economic injury time or skip sprays
methods—timing and levels 0 Keep detailed record
frequency, reducing the 0 Use less than the of pest numbers
volume of agrichemical spray, recommended rate 0 Spot spraying
and targeting the spray to of a pesticide 0 Alternate row
areas with a specific need. 0 Ultra-low volume spraying
spraying o Perimeter spraying
0 Keep detailed record 0 Dilute spraying
of spray application 9 Low volume
spraying
Elimination To eliminate, or prevent from 0 Plant Endophytic 0 Remove broadleaf
of occurring, the environment Rye or Fescue as an weeds to control
Pest Habitat necessary for certain pests to insecticide insect pests
survive and reproduce in the o Till to reduce weed o Till to control pests
orchard or field. competition and diseases
Introduction To introduce beneficial 0 Release egg 0 Release Ladybird
of organisms into the parasites Beetles
Pest Predators orchard/field environment in 0 Release predator o Enhance
numbers sufficient to control mites endogenous
economically damaging pests 0 Establish predator predators
without the use of chemical populations
pesticides.
Field/Orchard To alter the structure of the 0 Use of insect barrier 0 Plant
Architecture environment so that pests will systems hedgerows/living
not enter the orchard/field. 0 Plant Wheeler or hedges
Annual Rye as an 0 Time mowing to
herbicide control Insect pests
Biorational To concentrate on using . Bt (Bacillus o Diatomaceous earth
Controls non-synthetic substances to thun'ngiensis) o Insecticidal soap
control pests. o Mating disruption o Seaweed or kelp
0 Mineral oil spray

 

 

o Pyrethrum
o Rotenone

. Herbal preparations
0 Fish oil

 

 

 

 

A New Paradigm

Squeezed by rising input costs as well as falling real prices, and by
consumer attitudes and perceptions, as well as their own concern and
uncertainty about chemical use, some growers have chosen to adopt alternative
practices (NRC, 1989; Harris and Whalon, 1991). However, those who wish to
replace conventional practices “must master the complex economic, social, and
psychological forces by which technologies are accepted and diffused” (Orr,
1992, p. 177). The NRC (1989) states that pesticide use reduction has been a
challenge to agriculturists because of conflicting federal policies, an increased
need for information, and a high demand for labor. In addition, university,
government and agribusiness research has been narrowly defined to focus
specifically on capital intensive, high production systems rather than those that
reduce costs (Batie and Swinton, 1994).

Critics of the dominant agricultural paradigm state that information
sources about alternative farming practices are often discredited by a coalition of
similar interests including agribusiness, universities and large farm commodity
groups (Johnson, 1990). This is a significant problem since the adoption of
alternative agriculture is thought to require increased time, money, education and
technology in order to deal with the complex nature of the agroecosystem (NRC,
1989). The complexity also means that there is not just one set of farming
practices. Alternative agriculture is a set of interrelated techniques that are

dependent upon each other for success—one size does not fit all; many of the

10

techniques and strategies have spatial-temporal dimensions (Metcalf, 1987) that
are specific to crop or livestock enterprise. For example, as defined by the
National Research Council (1989, p. 27), alternative agriculture is a set of
practices that incorporate:

0 the integration of natural processes such as nutrient cycles,
nutrient fixation and pest-predator relationships;

0 the reduction of external inputs that have the potential to harm
the environment, health of farm workers and consumers;

0 the increased use of biological and genetic potential of plant
and animal species;

0 the direct matching of crop patterns and the physical potential of
the land; and

0 profitable and efficient production, with an emphasis on

management and conservation of soil, water, energy and
biological resources.

The above definition includes a range of techniques, theories and
agendas under such titles as Integrated Pest Management (IPM), Low Input
Sustainable Agriculture (LISA), organic and regenerative or ecological/biological
management. Whereas conventional agriculture is associated with high inputs of
agrichemicals applied on an interval or calendar based schedule, IPM is a set of
strategies that growers use to reduce pesticide use by matching input to need.
This method emphasizes practices such as “crop rotations, scouting, weather
monitoring, use of resistant cultivars, timing of planting and biological pest

controls" (NRC, 1989, p. 4). IPM also promotes the “goals of reducing input

costs, preserving the resource base, and protecting human health” (NRC, 1989,

11

p. 3). LISA is usually synonymous with the term alternative or “reduced chemical
input” agriculture. Its primary goal is to decrease all agrichemicals used whether
they are synthetic or nonsynthetically derived.

Organic agriculture has a somewhat different definition. As of April, 1995
the newly established National Organic Standards Board adopted a definition
which states that

[o]rganic agriculture is 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. (USDA, 1996)

This method places specific emphasis on soil quality and crop health as a means
of dealing with pest pressure and damage (Page and Smillie, 1995). Some
growers also claim to use “biological,”1 “ecological,” and/or “regenerative”
practices which are often synonymous with organic production (Page and
Smillie, 1995). However, they usually imply very low levels of, or no, chemical
use and do not differentiate between the nature of the products that are used.
Regardless of the name chosen, “alternative” methods primarily consist of IPM
and organic techniques. The technique or approach is a specific method or
system of implementation that is divided among several primary strategies which
reflect the plan of action or control. Those which are used in fruit farming are

shown in Table 1.1. While the differences between organic and IPM production

will not be emphasized here, it is recognized, albeit not uniformly accepted, that

1 The term biological, however, is used in Europe to specifically Identify organic production.

12

there are long-term implications in the choice between them. In the opinion of
Page and Smillie (1995, p.3):

[m]ost IPM programs rely upon some synthetic pesticides,
although they are used in reduced volumes. Choosing the
pesticides route, even with IPM practices, means that the grower
needs to study carefully the proper methods of handling, diluting,
applying, and disposing of pesticides. It means that the grower
must monitor the effects of her sprays on beneficial organisms so
as to disrupt as little as possible the natural balances in the
orchard. Finally, it means that the grower must accept that she is
using a Short-term solution to the problem, and that if the chemical

program is discontinued the problems will get much worse before
natural balances are restored.

Examining the Risks

“The issue of risk is just as much about what type of society we wish to
build [as it is about] the role to be played by various interests in the future” (II‘WII‘I,
1980, p.161). Therefore, in order to develop efficient, effective and ethical policy
it is necessary to understand how stakeholders define and make decisions about
risk (Covello, McCallum, and Pavlova, 1987). Risk experts tend to focus on
hazards using experimental studies and probabilistic analysis of injury and/or
death. However, nonexperts base risk assessments on their perceptions as well
as other considerations (Sherer, 1992). Sherer (1992) states that disputes
between these two views are really about the difference between conflicting
values.

In regard to the pesticide issue, Sauer (1990) states that the research and
extension agenda must be changed to one that emphasizes protection of human

health, consumer preferences, community well-being and incorporation of social

13

values into decision making. Pimentel et al. (1993a) adds to this by saying that it
should be driven by consideration of the fact that a) insect pests have been
reduced to such low levels that there is no longer a health risk from ingestion; b)
the public is not adequately aware of the connection between cosmetic
standards and pesticide use; c) the cost of pesticide use does not take into
account the social and environmental benefits of reduction, and d) it is the food
processors, retailers and wholesalers who not only continue to pressure growers
for perfection (“defect action Ievels” have not been reduced since 1976), but are
also responsible for the loss of othenlvise marketable crops for nothing more than
blemishes.

Although growers are only one element in the transition process from
conventional to alternative agricultural practices, emphasis on their risk
perceptions is especially important because they bear a disproportionate amount
of the risks (of, Flora, 1990). While some investigators state that political and/or
structural problems encourage growers to apply pesticides prophylactically,
others indicate that their use of such substances is related to their various
attitudes and beliefs (Cartwright et al., 1993; Pimentel et al., 1993a). However,
there is little in the literature that specifically links growers’ risk attitudes and their
actual behavior (cf., Vaughan, 1993). The literature does show that individuals,
in general, perceive various dimensions of risk—financial, performance, time,
psychological, social, physical (Stone and Mason, 1995)—which may be

associated with their behavior (Fazio, 1990). Therefore, in this context it can be

14

hypothesized that implementation of alternative pest management behaviors is
affected by growers’ perceptions of personal, financial and environmental risk of

pesticide use.

The Problem

Conventional pest management in agriculture is risky due to
environmental contamination, health hazards, insect resistance, costs and
consumer perceptions. However, alternative pest management strategies may
be even more risky due to the lack of information and support from agribusiness,
universities and the government; the complexity and expense of adoption; and
the potential decrease in crop quality and quantity. However, some fruit growers
in Michigan have learned how to decrease pesticide use and they have
proceeded through the transition to alternative agricultural practices while
maintaining profitable commodity production.

Therefore, the questions that will be addressed here are a) why are some
growers motivated to make this change in the face of such disincentives; b) how
do they perceive the environmental, personal and financial risks of conventional
and alternative production; and c) what other factors may have influenced their
behavior. One method of exploration is to examine growers’ perceptions of risk,
asking not only how does a grower define risk, but how do they assess risk and
use a risk assessment to make pest management decisions. In other words, do

gmwers’ perceptions of environmental, personal and financial risk affect their

15

behavior and what type of cultural practices do they actually use as a result of

this influence.

Organization

In the pages that follow, a description of the way risk is analyzed and
understood among various perspectives within the social sciences will be
presented. The second chapter includes the general theories of risk with
particular emphasis on the effects of attitude on behavior and the relationship
between risk and agricultural management. Chapter Three includes the
methodology; it states the hypotheses, operationalizes the concepts and defines
the variables. This chapter will also explain the sampling, data collection,
development of the indices and analysis. The findings and analysis are
presented in Chapter Four including demographics and general descriptives as
well as the statistical and qualitative data. In the last chapter the data is linked to
the theory; Chapter Five also discusses the study’s assumptions and limitations,

as well as the implications and recommendations.

CHAPTER 2

UNDERSTANDING THLRISKS
OF PESTICIDE USE

This chapter will begin with a brief overview of the biophysical approach
for determining the probability of a harm or hazard. These components are
relevant to both epidemiological and environmental studies of risk. More
attention is given to the approach used in the social sciences for examining
uncertainty and risk allocation as well as the macro-level analysis of risk
perceptions. Some of the components of this approach are also used to predict
the economic risks of agrichemical use. The remainder of the chapter will review
the underlying theoretical approach to individual risk—attitude, behavior,
perception, amplification—and conclude with a discussion of risk in agriculture,

emphasizing the personal, environmental and financial risks of pesticide use.

Studying Risk

Risk is most frequently operationalized as the likelihood or occurrence of
a certain harm or hazard (Renn et al., 1992). “Hazard refers to dangers or
threats that can produce adverse effects. Technological risk, therefore, refers to

the probability and magnitude of adverse effects of technological hazards on

16

17

human health and safety and the environment” (Dietz, Frey and Rosa, in press,
p. 1). As practiced and accepted by those denoted as experts in the physical and
life sciences, risk analysis is a unidimensional study of the linear effects of a
hazard, based on statistical predictions (Renn, 1992a).

An assessment of the human health risks of pesticide exposure, for
example, is based on i) hazard identification, the identification and quantification
of contaminants and forms of toxicity; ii) dose response assessment, the study of
the relationship between close and impact; and iii) exposure assessment, the
determination of population at risk as well as the association among routes,
duration (i.e., acute and cumulative), timing and the amount of exposure
(National Research Council [NRC], 1994). The fourth and final step of an
assessment is risk characterization of the “likelihood that any of the hazards
associated with the agent of concern will be realized in exposed people;” in this
step information from the first three are brought together (NRC, 1994, p. 26).

The biophysical approach tends to be considered “objective” or
extemalized; however, Wynne (1992) states that the scientific approach is built
on a foundation of social models which are framed by context, behaviors and
processes which lead to assumptions about validity. F reudenburg (1992) is
particularly concerned about how these assumptions bias risk estimates. He
states that experts assume that all modes of interaction, interdependence and
failure have been accounted for in estimates that rest on a generalized belief

about the accuracy of confidence intervals. Therefore, the assumption of linearity

18

and equivalence are in themselves subjective. On the other hand, the social
science approach tends to be viewed as a “subjective” measure of risk in that the
context involves individuals’ perceptions in place of the identification of “real”
risk. At the same time objective social science methods are used in measuring
these perceptions.

There are many perspectives for analyzing technological risks in the
social sciences. However, Golding (1992) states that the primary foci are
communication, acceptability and perceptions. Dietz et al. (in press) add the
management of risk which includes the direct and indirect regulation of
potentially risky events and/or activities. Underlying each of these is a risk
assessment, which is not necessarily linear, and an evaluation of both the costs
and benefits of risk preferences (of, Dietz et al., in press; Golding, 1992).

Most issues and problems surrounding risk are not related to the
biophysical/technical sciences, but instead, the intersection between risk and
society as well as the power of various interests within that society (lmin, 1980,
p.161). It is when individuals deny one side of the intersection that problems
occur. For instance, one group may say that it is the interactions among
individuals within society that cause a hazard whereas another group may
believe that hazards are caused by various technologies. This means that facts,
probabilities, estimates of hazards and levels of exposure can be variable
according to whose values take precedence (F ischhoff, Lichtenstein, Slovic,

Derby and Keeney, 1981). In essence, risk has an ethical dimension (Dietz et al.,

19

in press), and the way individuals think about it depends on whom it affects
(Himer, 1988). As Short (1984, p. 711) states, analysis of risk normally focuses
on things that people value most such as “their health, but not usually their
mental health; their lives, but not usually their lifestyles; . . . the physical
environment, but neither the social values associated with it nor ecological
scarcity.”

Consequently, under most circumstances acceptable risk represents a
choice among trade-offs in which one or more of the options are inevitably linked
to life, health or social well-being (Fischhoff et al., 1981). Decisions about these
choices are typically made in the political arena and tend to be formulated in
spite of uncertainties (i.e., without adequate understanding of the social
construction of harm or the various human influences that effect hazards). For
example, Starr (Short, 1984, p. 169) states that public acceptance of risk
depends on perceptions other than the quantitative estimates of the
consequences, probabilities and magnitudes. Therefore, in order to understand
the complexities of risk perceptions and the associated conflicts among social
groups, Renn (1992b) proposes an integrated framework of analysis.

Renn (1992a) outlines several perspectives among the social sciences
that are currently used to analyze risk perceptions. He suggests that each of
these may play a part in a framework of analysis. First, economic investigations
from the neoclassical school are generally based on utility functions, the degree

of satisfaction or dissatisfaction; or expected value, the average value of

20

weighted consequences (Fleisher, 1990). This perspective assumes actors
operate according to self-interest and are thus rational. Second, specialists in
psychology are usually interested in preferences, perceptions (cf., Himer, 1988)
and the context in which individuals formulate risk decisions and opinions (of,
Slovic, 1987). Renn (1992b, p. 66) states that this perspective “includes all
undesirable effects that people associate with a specific cause,” whether or not
the biophysical scientists have formed a consensus in regard to the actual
cause.

While the two preceding approaches are focused on the individual, both
the cultural (anthropological) and the sociological schools analyze risk
perceptions at the societal level. Among macro level perspectives, Renn ( 1992a)
states that the common interest is explication and/or prediction of social
injustices, distributional inequalities and perceived “social incompetence” as it
relates to policy development. More specifically, the cultural perspective (see
Figure 2.1) indicates that individuals choose levels of risk based on their cultural
bias. This means that cultural theory is primarily focused on the social relations
of and among organizations and social groups (Wildavsky and Drake, 1990; of,
Douglas and Calvez, 1990). As Renn (1992a, p. 73) indicates, these groups are
divided among:

0 the entrepreneurs who perceive risk as an opportunity;

0 the egalitarians who perceive risk as a threat to the public good;

0 the bureaucrats who mitigate risk with rules and procedures;

21

0 the atomized or stratified individuals who perceive risk as being
out of their control; and

0 the autonomous individuals who perceive risk as being
acceptable when others are not compelled to share its burden.

For the last perspective, Renn (1992a, p. 69) uses an XIY axis to locate
the six major sociological theories of risk. As shown in Figure 2.1, he separates
them into two dimensions. The first dimension, on the Y axis, is the
constructionist vs. objective dimension. In this dimension, risk theories are
divided into those that categorize hazards as social myths (inventions) and those
which see risk as concrete, observable events. These poles illustrate different
power relationships in that the constructionists demand mitigation of risk founded
on perceived biases while the objectivists do so based on “real” biases (e.g.,
class, religion). The individualistic vs. structural dimension, on the X axis, refers
to the unit of analysis, either a micro or macro approach. While the individualistic
theories of risk are focused on possible deviations from group interests, those in
the structural camp, again, look to the “real” causes of power relationships (e.g.,
inequity in resource distribution). Renn (1992a) describes these sociological risk
theories as follows’:

0 The rational actor concept, which is analogous to the

neoclassical economic definition (see above), examines how
the interests of individuals, or individuals representing groups
and/or institutions are pursued and protected.

0 The social mobilization theory examines the influence of

structure on group motivation and performance of an activity as

it relates to the events that initiate risk as well as the processing
of risk events.

 

‘ The cultural theory perspective is described above.

22

The organizational theory is used to investigate risk by focusing
on the quality of performance as well as the overall
responsibility for that activity.

The systems theory is a macro approach to risk analysis that
studies the influence of structure on the process of selection
and adaptation of knowledge among groups.

The nee-Marxist and critical theorists combine the rational actor
and structural models to explore how groups empower
themselves in order to determine acceptable risk for their
community.

The social constructionist model views the definition, analysis
and management of risk as an outcome of the conflict among
individuals within a society.

Figure 2.1 Sociological Theories of Risk (Renn, 1992a, p. 68).

 

 

T Cultural
Theory
‘aEConstructionist

 

 

 

 

<

 

oncepts
7g
'8
E
C
8 .
Individualistic {T i 1 Structural I
Social
Mqlailization
eo
W S terns
heory 0r ani-
za nd
Theory

 

 

 

Objective

LJ

Nee-Marxist &
V Critical Theory

Rational Actor
Concept

 

 

 

 

 

 

23

There are many critiques of the social science approach to risk analysis in
general. For instance, Otway (1980, p. 164) notes that even though studies of
risk have “achieved ‘legitimacy’ and funds are becoming available for risk-related
social science research, especially attitude and opinion surveys, . . . nobody
really knows what to do with the results.” Freudenburg (1988, p. 43) questions
the direction and emphasis of risk studies stating that the social sciences should
provide “not just an improved understanding of public perceptions, but also
significantly improved quantitative estimates of the probabilities as well as the
consequences of important risks.” In a review of the literature, Covello (1983)
presents several consistent problems across studies of risk perceptions:

0 most analyses use small samples;

0 structural variables (e.g., occupation, education, income) are
often neglected;

0 there are inherent problems in using questionnaires (e.g.,
insuring that the participants understand the question);

0 the relationship between perceived risk of certain technologies
and natural disasters has not been examined; and

0 there is little understanding of the relationship between rapidly
changing risk perceptions and policy lags.

Finally, Dietz et al. (in press, p. 21) critiques the literature saying that “the most
serious problem [in risk studies] is the virtual absence of research on whether

risk perceptions predict actual behavior.”

24
Risk, Attitudes and Behavior

Stone and Mason (1995) examine the measurement of attitudes and its
relationship to risk perceptions. They state that risk is inside one’s attitude/belief
sphere. However, they also found risk perceptions to be constructed separately
from attitudes, to significantly influence attitudes and to be grounded in beliefs.
Traditional definitions of attitudes usually involve a triangulation of thoughts,
feelings and behavior (Tesser and Schaffer, 1990). However, more
contemporary studies consider “its evaluative (pro-con, positive-negative)
dimension” (Ajzen, 1989, p. 241). Beliefs are the components of the thought
process which link attitudes to one another (Eagley and Chaiken, 1993).
Attitudes as well as beliefs are thought to be caused by values, which are
preferences for the way things are done or an end result (T esser and Schaffer,
1990). However, according to Eagley and Chaiken (1993), some authors do not
make a distinction between attitudes, beliefs and knowledge.

Fazio (1990) suggests that attitudes influence behavior either
Spontaneously or deliberately. When individuals act without contemplation of
either the attitude object or influences on their attitude (i.e., toward a particular
object or event) their behavior becomes spontaneous. WIthout the ability to act
spontaneously, everyday situations (i.e., a farmer driving a tractor) would involve
complex reasoning. The deliberative method is a result of an individual’s analysis
of both the costs and the benefits of action, as well as their assessment of

others’ expectations. In this instance the attitude-behavior relationship

25

necessitates reasoning. Calabresi (1985) states that a reasonable person is
often defined as one who “weights the costs and benefits of a behavior against
the costs and benefits of behaving differently.” This means that a reasonable
person is “expected” to be scientific, “devoid of beliefs” and bound to do
whatever necessary to mitigate injury (Calabresi, 1985, p. 50). Some behaviors
may start out as deliberate acts, but when repeated they become habitual.
Classic examples of habitual behavior are smoking and overeating. Research
shows these automatic behaviors are not determined by attitudes or beliefs
(Ronis, Yates and Kirscht, 1989). In fact, Schuman and Johnson (1976) refer to
spontaneous activity as being the same as behavior.

Ajzen and Fishbein’s theory of reasoned action, as they later developed
into the theory of planned behavior, is the most commonly used model to
examine deliberate behavior (Fazio, 1990). While this theory shows a causal
chain between belief and behavior, intention—motivation, willingness,
effort—operates as an intervening variable (Ajzen, 1989). More specifically, the
development of behavioral intentions consists of i) attitude, how the individual
views the behavior whether it be negatively or positively; ii) subjective norms,
“the perceived social pressure to perform” the behavior; and iii) perceived
behavioral control, the degree or ability to perform the behavior, influenced by
past experience, impediments and obstacles (Ajzen, 1989, p. 251). Of special

relevance to this thesis is that the planned behavior model shows that perceived

26

control over, or beliefs about having the necessary resources and/or

opportunities, influence one’s behavior (Fazio, 1990, p. 90).

Risk Perceptions

In Covello’s (1983) review of the literature he finds that risk perception
studies can be divided into three primary categories. Human intellectual
limitations, the first group, is a result of individuals’ use of heuristic
methodologies to estimate the probability of events. Heuristics are characterized
by the availability of information, the representativeness of what is already
known, and the anchor or base of one’s knowledge (Himer, 1988; Dietz et al., in
press). Himer (1988) states that each of the above heuristics biases decisions,
causing individuals to estimate incorrectly the degree of risk. However, the last
element, which is not truly a heuristic, is the mirage. In the case of a mirage,
individuals believe a range of choices to be available “when in fact they have
only one real option” (Himer, 1988, p. 496).
Based on a heuristic model, lay persons rank risks according to
(i) the hazard’s status on characteristics that have been
hypothesized to account for risk perceptions and attitudes (for
example, voluntariness, dread, knowledge, controllability), (ii) the
benefits that each hazard provides to society, (iii) the number of
deaths caused by the hazard in an average year, and (iv) the
number of deaths caused by the hazard in a disastrous year.
(Slovic, 1987, p. 281)

However, Covello (1983) states that heuristics are an inadequate method for

assessing risk because individuals are unable to conceptualize reasonably the

riskiness of low probability, high consequence events, and they are unable to

27

estimate the frequency of such events. This means that low frequency events
tend to be overestimated while high frequency events are underestimated.
Moreover, once people form their beliefs, individuals tend to distort “the
interpretation of new evidence and often resist disconfirrning information”
(Covello, 1983, p. 288). Research indicates that this may reflect the primacy
effect which means that individuals tend to be more heavily persuaded by the
first information they hear (Eagley and Chaiken, 1993).

Second, Covello (1983) finds that people are often overconfident in their
perceptions of risky events and/or activities. Individuals tend to believe they are
less likely than others in general, to be harmed by various hazards; “it won’t
happen to me.” This is particularly true of familiar activities. For instance, Bellaby
(1990) found some people to believe they are immune to certain hazards that
they are exposed to regularly, especially if the exposure begins early in life (e.g.,
living and working on a farm). In addition, these same individuals tend to believe
those who are inexperienced, in regard to the particular hazard, are more prone
to potential harm (Bellaby, 1990). Renn et al. (1992b) link these perceptions to
values, attitudes, social influences and cultural identity. Trafimow and Fishbein
(1994) expand this notion further by differentiating between attitudes and norms.
They find actions under low risk conditions to be attitudinally controlled and those
under high risk circumstances to be normatively controlled. While they do not
suggest that attitudes under high risk situations be ignored, they do indicate that

changing perceived norms (e.g., introducing legislation that proscribes a

28

particular behavior) may be a more effective approach to changing behaviors
(T rafimow and Fishbein, 1994, p. 9).

Third, Covello (1983) examines the findings related to expert and
nonexpert estimates of risk. He states that studies have found that risk
perceptions are founded on a perceived validity of information. “Experts” see
death rates of events where there are many victims over time as the most valid
bases for assessing riskiness; “nonexperts” see the number of losses at one time
as the most valid basis (Covello, 1983). Some research suggests that people
primarily perceive risk based on social and cultural influence from nonexperts,
primarily friends and family, and only secondarily from the media and public
figures who may represent the experts (Dietz et al., in press). The ability to
adequately assess this information assumes individuals to be rational actors.
Clarke (1989) critiques this assumption stating that the media distorts the
information which people use to formulate decisions. Additionally, he suggests
that individuals are only able to assimilate a limited amount of information.

Nevertheless, research does Show that individuals rank risks based on
outrage factors. For example, an event or activity is perceived more risky when it
is involuntary, catastrophic, uncontrollable, inequitable in the distribution of costs
and benefits, unfamiliar and complex (Covello, 1983; Slovic, 1987). The set of
outrage factors also includes immorality, dreadfulness, uncertainty and
untrustworthiness (Kamrin, Katz and Walter, 1995). Slovic (1987) uses a grid to

examine the nature of outrage factors by plotting risk on a horizontal scale of

29

“dread” and a vertical scale of “unknown.” He states that people demand more
regulation the further to the right a perceived risk is on the “dread” scale,

especially if there has been an accident that “signals” or amplifies the risk.

Amplification

Risk Is communicated through the transmission of information in what is
termed the social amplification of risk. This may be the result of either direct
experience or receipt of information about a risk object (Kasperson et al., 1994).
Kasperson et al. (1994) state that the purpose of this theory is to integrate both
the technical and the social aspects of risk. More importantly, they connect risk
perceptions to individuals’ subsequent risk behavior.

Dietz et al. (in press) indicate that risk amplification occurs when events
interact with intervening variables—infonnation, inStitutions, experience—to
accentuate risk perceptions and to alter behavior. The process of amplification,
as outlined by Renn et al. (1992, p. 140) starts with an initiating event (e.g., an
accident) in which the characteristics are interpreted and communicated (i.e.,
information). Both individuals and groups are stations of amplification. Individuals
amplify risk by filtering information subconsciously (i.e., they form risk
perceptions) while groups behave (i.e., they take action) in response to the
characteristics. Finally, the event’s impact “ripples” either positively for risk
amplification or negatively for risk attenuation (Renn et al., 1992). Secondary
impacts such as increased liability and insurance costs, loss of trust in

institutions, and/or alienation from a community are the result (Renn et al., 1992).

30

Both Short (1984) and Dietz et al. (in press) state that risk communication
is greatly influenced by the media and that the media exhibits bias; they present
an uncritical view of a technology until a dramatic event occurs (Gunter and
Harris, in press). Short (1984) claims that although little research has been done
to examine the relationship between the media and how risk is communicated, it
should be recognized that the media is an agenda setter that influences the
conflicts over risk. However, Dietz et al. (in press) indicates that it is unknown
whether a relationship exists between the media and individuals” concerns. An
example of this bias can be seen in Klaidman's (1990) argument in which he
indicates that it is only when the media increases its own expertise (i.e., employs
journalists with special training and/or advanced degrees in areas such as
toxicology and medicine) that it can report risks both accurately and
appropriately. This view is biased in a social constructionist context in that it
indicates that journalists must be socialized into the biophysical world of science
in order to “know” science (cf., Traweek, 1988).

Notwithstanding, in their study of amplification, Renn et al. (1992) found
media coverage of a hazard to be an intervening variable between the physical
consequences (e.g., human casualties, property damage) and the social impacts
(e.g., litigation, loss of sales). Second, the media was found to cover an event
proportional to its effect and to have a direct and positive influence on social
impacts; as the amount of news coverage increases, the hazard event receives

more political attention and generates more socioeconomic impacts (Renn et al.,

31

1992). Third, individual perceptions were found to be linked more closely to the
extent of exposure to the hazard than to the magnitude of the hazard (i.e., the
number of deaths at one time vs. the number of deaths over time). Renn et al.
(1992) indicate that this finding may be particularly important because it shows
that risk characteristics (e.g., dread, familiarity) do not fully explain the gap
between professional and Iayjudgments of risk (cf., Covello, 1983). Finally, they
found risk perceptions, primarily dread and blame, to be good predictors of
behavioral intentions (Renn et al., 1992, p. 156). This last finding is particularly

interesting when considering growers’ perceptions of agrichemicals.

Risky Behavior

Agriculture in an of itself is a risky business. The actual risks include, but
are not limited to:

0 agroecological conditions such as weather (e.g., drought,
flooding, hail), insect infestation and geological events (e.g.,
earthquakes, landslides, volcanoes);

0 health considerations such as injury and/or death due to
mechanical causes, respiratory disease (e.g., asthma,
silo-filler’s disease), hearing loss, musculoskeletal disease (e.g.,
chronic lower back pain, arthritis) and repetitive motion trauma
(Rosenman et al., 1992);

0 economic contingencies such as input price and commodity
fluctuations that result from international and domestic policies,
competition in the market and the outlay of large capital
investments for conventional operation (Fleisher, 1990;
Hallberg, 1992);

32

0 access to labor, both specialized (e.g., IPM scouts) and
non-skilled workers (Duffield and Gunter, 1991; Pfeffer, 1992),
including the associated laws and policies;
0 access to information in regard to weather reports, marketing
trends, commodity indices, production techniques, et cetera
(Kranich, 1989).
However, the literature does not adequately address the specific attitudes,
perceptions and/or beliefs that influence growers’ behavior. Most of the risk
studies that do exist deal with the short term economic feasibility of the adoption
of a particular practice, technique or application (Mason and Halter, 1980; NRC,
1989; Cuperus, Johnson and Morrison, 1993; Sommers and Napier, 1993), while
less attention is given to the risks related to labor (cf., Diebel, Taylor, and Batie,
1993) and production barriers (Anosike & Coughenour, 1990; Pfeffer, 1992).
Pesticide use, in particular, is one element of the production process that
is becoming increasingly risky. AS outlined in the preceding chapter, pesticides
have been linked to false production and economic promises, environmental
degradation, personal safety and growing public concerns. Most of the relatively
few pesticide risk studies deal with the health and environment hazards of
exposure (Metcalf, 1987; NRC, 1989; Higley and Wintersteen, 1992; Elkind,
1993). Consequently, there is little in the literature that assesses the relationship
between growers’ attitudes and their behavior in terms of the personal, financial

and environmental risks of agrichemical use (cf., Fleisher, 1990; Vaughan,

1993).

33

Personal risk. For the grower, the grower’s family, the farm laborers and
their neighbors, personal risk is the result of agrichemical exposure from direct
application, leachate into ground water, residues and drift (Pimentel et al.,
1993a; Repetto and Baliga, 1996). However, assessing pesticide risk is difficult
due to incomplete epidemiological and clinical data. Studies which are available
have linked pesticide exposure not only to a 20 to 30 percent increase in cancer
deaths in agricultural regions (Flora, 1990), but also to approximately 45,000
human poisonings and 3,000 hospitalizations, annually (Metcalf, 1987).

More recent concerns have focused on immune system disorders.
Repetto and Baliga (1996, p. 49) state that

[ejxposure to many pesticides produces significant changes in

immune system structure and function, including reduced and

altered T cell populations, reduced lymphocyte proliferative

response, reduced cell killing activity, and altered antibody levels in

circulation.

Therefore, among farmers they found increases of melanoma and leukemia;
cancers of the stomach and prostate; infectious diseases of the gastrointestinal,
urinary and respiratory tracts, and allergic reactions such as dermatitis and
asthma. Their research supports Rosenman et al. (1993) who found an
association among farmers In Michigan and blood-related cancers such as
leukemia and lymphoma.

Newman (1993) states that many of these health problems can be

attributed to the organophosphate (OP’s) and carbamate families of

agrichemicals. For example, OP’S which were originally developed during World

34

War II for use as nerve agents (Edwards, 1993), have been linked to chronic
neuropsychological problems—anxiety, depression, cognitive impairments
(Mearns, 1994)—as well as a variety of other symptoms ranging from headaches
to potentially fatal muscle spasms and coma (Newman, 1993). This class of
chemical compounds includes substances such as Captan and lmmidan which
are commonly used on apples and cherries, two of the most chemically treated
foods (Pimentel et al., 1993a).

On the other side of the argument are those who believe that pesticides
cannot be scientifically linked to certain health related risks (e.g., cancer). For
example, in a textbook on farm safety and occupational health, Murphy (1992, p.
37) states:

[d]iseases and chronic health problems may neither appear, nor be

detected or diagnosed by physicians, until months or years after

pesticide exposure. It is often difficult, if not impossible, to precisely

attribute the disease or health problem to the pesticide exposure.

Confounding factors include smoking, alcoholism, other

occupational disease exposures, aging, poor personal hygiene

habits, a lack of medical care, and other conditions that contribute

to an unhealthy lifestyle.

Ames (1996) reports on the “scientific” analysis of the health hazards of
pesticides stating, first, that most chemical exposure is a result of naturally
occurring substances. Second, the extremely high doses at which any substance
must be tested is likely to show carcinogenic effects. Third, inferences from rat
studies, in which dosages are very high relative to body size and weight, to

humans, in which the same quantity is very low relative to body size and weight,

are problematic. Finally, humans have internal mechanisms that protect them

35

against low doses of toxins, which do not distinguish between naturally occurring
and synthetic pesticides.

Even so, Daniel (1996, p. 301) states that most experts agree that
pesticides can affect human health to some degree. Flora (1990, p. 107)
critiques these “scientific” studies claiming that they understate pesticide risks
because they i) use a limited criteria of costs and benefits; ii) ignore methods that
might show cause and effect, so there is inherent difficulty in “determining the . . .
relationship between any substance and a disease that it causes,” and iii) have
trouble assessing the severity and magnitude of agrichemicals “since many of
the costs of pesticides are long-term and become identified only long after
particular pesticides have been introduced.”

Financial risk. In fruit production, financial risk of agrichemical use may
be interpreted at least two ways. On the one hand, pesticides may be viewed as
risky since the registration of new agrichemicals has declined (U. S. Congress,
1995), the withdrawal of many current products is threatened (Specialty Crop
Pesticide Committee, 1995), the overall costs of agrichemical use continues to
increase (Pimentel, 1995), and their use promotes the technological treadmill as
described in Chapter 1 (Hallberg, 1992). However, reducing pesticide inputs also
involves the potential costs of decreased quantity and/or quality of the fruit
(Dabbert and Madden, 1986; Pimentel et al., 1993b) as well as the costs of
increased time, information (NRC, 1989; Harris and Whalon, 1991) and labor

(NRC 1989; Pfeffer, 1992).

36

Appearance is particularly important in fruit production. Wood (1990)
states that regardless of concerns over pesticide use, the market still demands
produce that is free of insect damage and disease. Based on current grades and
standards, Pimentel et al. (1993b) estimated crop loss in the absence of
pesticides between 80 and 90 percent. Kazmierczak, Norton, Knight, Rajotte and
Hull (1993) specifically examined the effects of OP withdrawal from the apple
industry and found financially devastating results from both insufficient control
and resistance. It is important to note that these financial risks are not
insignificant; they influence growers’ ability to compete in an ever increasingly
complex market (Fleisher, 1990). Nevertheless, research shows that despite
extensive investments in pesticides, crop loss from insect pests alone has gone
from 7 percent in the 1940’s to 13 percent currently (Metcalf, 1987; Pimentel et
al., 1993b). Pesticide use also involves indirect costs which are not part of
traditional economic analysis such as the loss of beneficials, ecotoxicity and
human poisonings (Metcalf, 1987). In fact, the social and environmental costs of
pesticide use are estimated to be $2.2 billion2 (Pimentel et al., 1993b). Research
also shows that practices which are either organic or low pesticide input can be
as profitable as conventional farms for certain crops, particularly grains (Cacek
and Langner, 1986), because there are fewer input costs (Dabbert and Madden,

1 986).

 

___..—___

 

2 The USDA estimates the US. agricultural chemical budget to be $5 billion and the farm gate
for all agricultural products to be $200 billion.

37

Pfeffer (1992, p. 348) states “the role of chemicals as a substitute for labor
is less visible than that of machines and is often overlooked.” However, it is
generally acknowledged that reduced pesticide practices have higher labor
requirements for management and/or field labor (NRC, 1989; Buttel, 1993).
Pfeffer (1992) reports this to be especially burdensome for smaller growers who
do not have the necessary social network to secure additional labor. Reducing
pesticides also requires increased information. Harris and Whalon (1991) found
the information that is available, in regard to pest management, to be sparse, not
equally accessible, effective only in clusters, and difficult to observe. Growers
who are unable to sift through it must rely on external mediators of information
such as extension and pest management professionals (cf., Harris and Worosz,
1995).

Environmental risk. The effects of increased pesticide use include
environmental contamination affecting both off-farm (off-target) avian and aquatic
life, and on-farrn (non-target) soil biota such as earthworms and beneficial
nematodes (Edwards, 1993). Pesticide use is also linked to the elimination of
both target pests and non-target beneficials, including pollinators; pest
resistance; outbreaks of secondary pests (Metcalf, 1987); and ecotoxicity
(Phleeger and Zobel, 1995). Many of these effects are connected to the
organochlorine class of compounds, most notably, DDT—
dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (Gunter and Harris, in press). Although DDT has

not been used in the United States since 1973, Edwards (1993) indicates that

38

many soils and rivers are still contaminated. He also claims that residues from
this class of chemicals are still found in wildlife. OP’s replaced many of the
organochlorines. However, OP’S are not only more toxic to mammals, they are
also systemic; in addition to the external residues they are taken up into the
plants (Edwards, 1993).

Pimentel et al. (1993b) state that the toxicity of these newer compounds
has increased 10 fold. As a result, growers are experiencing ever increasing
levels of resistance, as previously mentioned. For example, in the early part of
this century San Jose scale was the first pest found to exhibit resistance, by
1946 there were 11 resistant species and in 1984 up to 447 insect pests had
become resistant to the current pesticides. Metcalf (1987) claims that this pattern
is correlated with the introduction of new agrichemicals. This also includes
increases of both cross resistance which enables a species “to survive exposure
to chemically related insecticides,” and multiple resistance which “reflects the
past history of insecticide selection and precludes a return to those used
previously” (Metcalf, 1987, p. 18).

Literature supporting the link between environmental risk perceptions and
behavior does exist (Anderson, 1990), but growers do not have accurate or
complete information about the relative environmental risks of different pest
management techniques (Higley and WIntersteen, 1992). For example,
pyrethroids are biorationals and thus perceived as less hazardous to the orchard

environment (Edwards, 1993), but heavy use of this broad-spectrum substance

39

necessitates the use of additional substances—miticides—as a result of
secondary pest development (Metcalf, 1987).

Several Investigators, however, have developed ways to measure the
environmental burden of pesticides (Newman, 1995). Both Higley and
WIntersteen (1992) and Kovach, Petzoldt, Degni and Tette (1992) developed
ranking systems for growers to measure the environmental effects of pesticide
use. Each system is designed to establish the level of environmental risk of the
various pesticides in order for growers to make more environmentally sound
pesticide choices. Therefore, growers can calculate the environmental costs of
each pesticide within the various categories (e.g., water quality, effects on
nontarget organisms, and human health), incorporate these costs into the
economic injury levels and evaluate the different pesticide management
programs in terms of environmental impact. Higley and WIntersteen (1992) claim
that growers will accept 70-75 percent greater insect densities using their
methodology.

However, both of these measurement tools are published in locations
where growers may not find them. Higley and VIfintersteen’s (1992) article was
published in the American Entomologist, while Kovach et al. (1992) was
published in New York’s Food and Life Sciences Bulletin. Although the bulletin
may be known to growers in New York and possibly other Eastern states, It is
unlikely that it is distributed to growers nationwide. Distribution of the entomology

journal is even more selective because it is specifically geared to those in

40

academia. Furthermore, research shows that most growers consult trade
magazines for information about alternative practices (cf., Harris and Worosz,
1995) and base their decision to adopt these techniques on other growers

(Korsching and Hoban, 1990).

Pesticide Use and the Alternatives

Wernick and Lockeretz (1977) state the primary reasons growers adopt
organic techniques are that they experience i) a specific problem with
conventional production, ii) changes in ideology, and iii) contact with proponents
of organic farming. Consistent with this finding, factors that influence growers’
adoption of other alternatives (e.g., IPM) include their general social orientation
toward nature, knowledge and social order (Harris and Shepard, 1989); as well
as a commitment to growing “safe” food (Beus and Dunlap, 1993); to mitigate
actual and/or potential health problems (Buttel, Gillespie, Janke, Caldwell and
Sarrantonio, 1986); to reduce production costs; to enter new markets and to limit
the undesirable effects of conventional practices (NRC, 1989). However, Beus
and Dunlap (1994, p. 621) state that “research related to the potential link
between alternative-conventional agricultural attitudes and behavior is limited,
sketchy, and somewhat contradictory.”

One tool currently used to evaluate growers’ attitudes is the
Altemative-Conventional Agricultural Paradigm Scale (ACAP Scale). In their
development of this scale, Beus and Dunlap (1991, p. 441) found “alternative”

growers more likely to believe i) agriculture as a way of life is more important

41

than production; ii) successful systems imitate natural ecosystems and are in
harmony with nature; and iii) “[hligh energy use, soil erosion, water pollution, etc.
are evidence that US. agriculture is not nearly as successful as many believe it
to be.” More importantly, they found that “there is a significant relationship
between farmers’ production practices and their paradigmatic orientations” (Beus
and Dunlap, 1994, p. 632).

Nevertheless, there are reasons that growers choose not to adopt
alternative methods. Harris and Whalon (1991) state that the main reason is a
lack of useful information. Van Lenteren (1988) states that it is a disinterest on
the part of the industry and policy-makers as well as grower attitudes,
themselves, that preclude some from adopting low input practices.

The difficulty in accessing information about alternative methods of
production is related to its generation and distribution. Rogers (1983) indicates
that communication can be heterophilious, meaning that the language and/or
understanding of the new information is not common among individuals. For
example, despite the risks presented earlier, university research and the
cooperative extension—some of the major transmitters of agricultural
infonnation—tend to be critical of alternative systems (Stevenson, Posner, Hall,
Cunningham and Harrison, 1994). Their criticism of low pesticide techniques is
that it is expensive, it will decrease growers’ standard of living and it will lower
outputs (Beus and Dunlap, 1990). However, as previously noted these claims

have not been fully substantiated. In addition, Dearing, Meyer and Kazmierczak

42

(1994) state that the university extension model is no longer adequate because
the range of knowledge has broadened, the constituents have become more
differentiated, and the problems and/or issues that Specialists and stakeholders
are interested in are more complex than what the system is designed for.
Therefore, the current system only works well for “agreed-on problems,
incremental innovations, and those innovations that are embedded in physical
artifacts” (Dearing et al., 1994, p. 12).

In addition to research and extension programs, Sauer (1990, p.185)
found that federal initiatives influence a grower’s behavior with commodity
programs, trade policies, food grading standards, pesticide regulations, tax laws
and various other policies. For instance, Pimentel et al. (1993a) state that detect
action levels (DAL’s) were established by the Food and Drug administration
(FDA), based on “a guide to repulsiveness.” Originally, the DAL's were intended
to protect consumers from the health risks of ingesting insects; therefore, limits
were set on the number of insects and mites allowable in both fresh and
processed fruit. In their analysis spanning the last 40 years, Pimentel et al.
(1993a) found a positive relationship between the DAL’s and growers’ use of
pesticides.

Another reason growers may not change to alternative methods is the
assumption that consumers will not buy produce that is damaged by insects and
disease. However, van Ravenswaay and Hoehn (1991b) found consumers to be

particularly concerned about residues on fruits and vegetables. Their findings

43

show that consumers are not only willing to pay a modest amount for a
certification of either “no detectable residues” or “no residues above federal
limits,” they are also willing to pay a premium for those certified to be residue
trig. Using an informational video and both pre- and post-tests, Bruhn et al.
(1992) investigated consumers’ perceptions of integrated pest management
(IPM) and their awareness of how this particular practice addressed pesticide
concerns. They found the participants to be unaware of IPM prior to seeing the
video and to approve of this methodology after receiving information about it.
However, they also found the subjects to perceive pesticide residues as risky
based on outrage factors—“unequal distribution of benefits, involuntary
exposure, use of synthetic compounds, unknown risks, and a host of other
parameters” (Bruhn et al., 1992, p. 316).

Yet, research shows that most growers believe pesticides are necessary
to reduce production risks (Goodell and Zalom, 1993). One example of this is
from an apple grower who writes in the EPA Journal that a reduction in
agrichemicals is unnecessary because the environmental and health risks
reported are related to products already discontinued (e.g., DDT) and the
elimination of new products would decrease production and increase resistance
(Wood, 1990). He concludes by saying:

our entire society must learn to accept a broader concept of risk

and benefit. We must consider the dismal unintended

environmental consequences of our self-indulgent insistence on

absolute certainty about our health and safety. In the fervor over
pesticides and food safety, America has shown little sensitivity to

44

the many paradoxes of raising food for an overpopulated world.
(Wood, 1990, p.40)

CHAPTER 3

CALCULATING THE
RISK-BEHAVIOR CONSTRUCT

To examine growers’ behavior as it relates to their risk perceptions,
existing data from a USDA funded grant titled: The Adoption of LISA Techniques
of Pest Management by the North Central Fruit Growers (LISA) was used. The
LISA project is a longitudinal study that was designed to examine how
“alternative” fruit growers in Michigan made the transition from conventional
agricultural practices. The data was collected using a self-administered
questionnaire, a telephone interview, and an on-site interview. Due to financial
considerations, the complexity of the study and the time commitment of each

participant, a relatively small sample of growers was used.

Sampling

The LISA study involved a Specific, purposeful, sample of growers who
produce apples, tart cherries and blueberries which are the three largest fruit
crops in both acreage and estimated farm value in Michigan (Flore et al., 1992).
The original sample consisted of 96 commercial fruit growers from the three

major agroecological regions in the state—Northwest coastal, Southwest coastal

45

46

and the Inland area (see Figure 4.1). The agroecological zones were defined by
the specific regional differences that directly influence fruit production such as
climactic variations and soil types (cf., Edwards, Grove, Hanrvood and Pierce
Colfer, 1993).

It was assumed that fruit growers could be found along a continuum of
practices with conventional techniques at one end of the spectrum and varying
degrees of altematives—organic, LISA, ecological, IPM, blodynamic,
regenerative—at the other. However, inconsistencies in defining these methods
and the complexity involved in operationalizing existing definitions meant that it
was not possible to delimitate the alternative fruit grower population. Therefore, It
was necessary to rely on outside sources as well as growers’ perceptions of their
practices in establishing the sample. This included input from numerous
extension agents (e.g., IPM agents, horticulture specialists), university faculty
and/or researchers, agricultural professionals (e.g., soil testing firms, IPM
consultants), farm groups and organizations‘ and processors who assisted in the
identification of growers believed to be using alternative pest management
strategies. Thus, the sample is considered representative of the populationz.

A letter was sent to each grower identifying the study as the North Central

Fruit Farm Research Project (NCFFRP). This letter described the project, the

 

‘ The grower associations who were contacted included the Michigan Blueben'y Growers, the
Cheny Marketing Institute, the Michigan Agriculture Stewardship Association, the Michigan
Organic Growers Advancement Project, the Organic Growers of Michigan, and the Organic
Food CrOp Improvement Association.

2 While it is possible that growers who market themselves (e.g., roadside sales, u-pick) are not in
contact with any of the individuals mentioned above, it is unlikely that they produce quantities
substantial enough to be considered primary commercial enterprises.

47

investigators and what the participants could expect from the research process.
The letter also indicated that they would be contacted by a member of the
research team within a few days (Appendices A and B). This communication was
followed-up by telephone to verify that each grower met the criteria of inclusion
(i.e., a commercial apple, blueberry and/or tart cherry grower who uses
alternative agriculture practices) and that they were willing to participate.
Approximately 70 growers, who met the above criteria, agreed to take part in the

project.

Data Collection

A questionnaire was constructed using Dillman’s (1978) survey design
format. However, a few minor changes were made to accommodate the over all
complexity of the instrument. For example, a larger booklet (8 1/2“ by 11”) was
used to handle the size of the behavior charts. A replica of the questionnaire is
included in Appendix C.

The survey was divided into thirteen sections as indicated in Table 3.1.
lnterspersed within these sections are the questions that make up the risk scales
as well as the list of alternative agricultural practices. Based on the literature, the
scales were designed to assess growers’ perceptions of risk according to their
current knowledge and beliefs. The questions making up the scales were Likert
items, which means they are closed-ended with ordered choice (Babbie, 1990).
For each of these questions the subjects chose among five options between

completely agree and completely disagree.

48

 

Table 3.1
SURVEY ORGANIZATION

 

Section
I. General Pest Management
ll. Biological Control Practices
Ill. Attitudes Toward Pesticide Use
IV. Pesticide Use
V. Attitudes Toward Farming
VI. Pesticide Spray Practices

 

 

Vll. Attitudes Toward Resources
Vlll. Ground Cover Management
IX. Sources of lnforrnation
X. Use of Information
XI. Personal Background
XII. General Farm Information
XIII. Additional Comments

 

 

 

 

The list of behaviors (see Table 1.1) were divided into categories
according to biological control, pesticide application, ground cover management
and use of information. Using a closed-ended with binary choice method,
participants were asked to indicate, by circling yes or no, if they were aware of
the practice, if they had ever used the practice, and if they had used the practice
during the previous growing season.

The remainder of the survey included: 1) open-ended, 2) partially closed
and 3) closed-ended with an open follow-up question formats. Individual
demographics (e.g., age, education) and general farm characteristics (e.g., farm

acreage, crop diversity, farm income) were obtained using a mixture of these

49

three formats. The questions asked growers about their sources of information,
how they perceive the environment, and how they view the government and the
university. Finally, the participants were encouraged to provide additional
comments about the survey and/or their responses to the questions.

Due to time and financial constraints, a formal pretest and/or focus group
was not conducted. However, the survey was reviewed by various extension
agents, IPM consultants and individuals from commodity groups and processors.
These individuals made suggestions in regard to the wording of the questions,
the specific input practices to be addressed and the overall format of the
document.

Modifications were completed and the survey was mailed, including a
stamped and addressed return envelope, during May, 1994. Growers were
asked to respond to questions related to their experiences and attitudes about
the 1993 growing season (Appendices C and D). The initial mailing was
followed-up with a reminder letter approximately two weeks later and an
additional telephone call to the remaining non-respondents a few days after that.
Since the mailing occurred at the beginning of the growing season, growers were
given some latitude in the time frame for returning the questionnaire. A month
later another survey was sent with an additional reminder letter to the
nonrespondents as well as a telephone call, again, two weeks following.
Although two of the participants formally withdrew from the study, the survey

response rate was 84 percent (59 growers).

50

During the summer and early fall of 1994 appointments were arranged
with 42 growers (61 percent) for follow-up interviews. The interviews did not take
place with all participants in the study due to the time constraints for both the
growers and the research team. In addition, a couple growers refused to be
interviewed, some could not be reached during this time and a couple more did
not attend the scheduled appointment. The interviews were done almost
exclusively in the grower’s home, one of the farm structures (e.g., barn, market)
or the orchard and/or field. Each interview, lasting approximately one hour, was
conducted in an intensive (or unstructured) interview format. This consisted of an
open-ended free flowing discussion that permitted growers to provide detailed
descriptions of their practices, beliefs and attitudes (Lofland and Lofland, 1995).

As mentioned above, growers had contact with the research team on
several occasions prior to the interview. However, when the interview began the
growers were again reminded that the purpose of this discussion was to talk
about their specific pest management practices as well as their overall farming
strategies; all of which were too complex to be captured via survey format. To
begin the conversation, growers were asked to describe their farm in general
terms with questions such as “how long have you been farming,” “do you grow
any crops other than fruit or raise livestock” and “how do you market your fruit?”
For the remainder of the interview, growers were encouraged to lead the
discussion, but were prompted for information about their general farm history,

changes in pest management, labor requirements, non-farm contributions to their

51

family income, and their opinions about agricultural policy and related alternative

practices.

Measurement

The fundamental question posed here is why are some growers more
accepting of non-conventional agricultural methods and how are they able to
make the “leap of faith” necessary in the transition to alternative practices. It can
be hypothesized that those who are risk-takers are more likely to make the
transition to an alternative agriculture program because they are less risk averse.
In other words, the grower’s behavior, exhibited by their use of alternative
agricultural practices, is influenced by their willingness to take risks. These
concepts are defined below.

0 Behavior: the alternative agricultural practices used.

0 Risk: the undesirable effects that result from natural
or human activities (Renn, 1992a).

Dependent variable. The dependent variable (behavior) was measure at
the interval level and was computed using the weighted sum of the alternative
practices used during the 1993 growing year. Although there is no set pattern of
adoption, there are roughly six strategies used to decrease pesticide inputs in
fruit production (see Tables 4.8, 4.9, 4.10. 4.11, 4.12 and 4.13):

o monitoring and/or scouting for pests and diseases;

0 reducing spray applications and/or rates;

0 elimination of pest habitats;

52

0 introduction of pest predators, parasites and antagonists;

0 field/orchard architecture; and

o biorational controls.
As shown in Table 1.1, each strategy consists of a variety of practices and/or
techniques. While it is expected that growers would use a range of these
strategies, it is also known that it is not possible for any one grower to use every
approach. Nevertheless, those who are considered low-input, meaning reduced
chemical input, use more alternative practices than high-input growers.

Independent variables. Each independent variable (risk scale) was also
measured at the interval level. As described below, they were developed from
the questionnaire on theoretical grounds. The questions relating to growers’
perceptions of risk (see tables 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7) were assigned to the appropriate
risk scale—environmental, personal, financial—depending on how well they
measured a particular notion within the dimension (face validity). As can be seen
in Figure 3.1, the dimensions of risk are not discrete entities, but interrelated
concepts with undefined boundaries. Therefore, it is possible that a particular
question could have been analyzed as part of more than one dimension.
However, for the purposes of this study each dimension of risk was grouped as
follows:

0 The Personal Risk Scale is a measure of a grower’s

perception of health and safety as it relates to agrichemical
exposure. This includes the notion of voluntary and involuntary

risk as well as who is responsible for its mitigation.

0 The Financial Risk Scale is a measure of the risks that
specifically pertain to a grower’s management practices which

53

affect production costs such as labor, pesticide use and
efficiency.

0 The Environmental Risk Scale is a measure of the risks
involved in pest control such as the loss of beneficials, habitat
destruction and contamination.

The risk scales are intertwined in many ways. For example,
personal risk relates to financial risk in that there are economic
considerations for not only changing production techniques, but also
adopting exposure reducing mechanisms. Financial risk also includes the
risks involved in making decisions among income, lifestyle and future
security as well as their effect on the environment. And, it is the
intersection between environmental and personal risk where consideration

of the natural and the physical environment, that humans live and work in,

takes place.

Figure 3.1. Dimensions of risk.

 

Environmental ,'

 

 

 

 

54-

Due to the complexity of defining risk perceptions, the qualitative data is
an essential component of the analysis. Written notes collected during the
interviews were used to identify concepts, patterns and nuances of risk taking
behavior in pest management. Therefore, the interviews served to bring both
breadth and precision to the understanding of risk as well as its connection to

behavior.

Analysis

Each scale was tested for reliability using Cronbach’s alpha («1). Due to
the small sample size, each scale contained at least seven questions in order to
increase reliability and therefore, increase statistical power. As a consequence, a
relatively high alpha3 was expected (i.e., near 0.8). A risk value was calculated
for each case, for each risk scale, using the sum of the answer scores which
were divided by the number of questions answered in that scale. Thus, a mean
value was calculated for each. The value of a scale item was set as
“system-missing”4 for any case that was lacking 50 percent or more of the
needed data for scale construction (i.e., five questions in both the personal and
the environmental risk scales and three in the financial risk scale must be
answered).

Three judges, each representing a different facet of production—

university research, extension, private sector—reviewed the list of 42 pest

 

 

 

3 Cronbach’s alpha of reliability is a function of the number of items in the scale and the mean
inter-item correlation.
‘ SPSSO was the computer software used to conduct the statistical analysis.

55

management practices (behaviors). Independently, each expert assigned a score
ranging from 1 to 10, of increasing importance, to each behavior according to its
level of contribution toward decreasing chemical pesticide usage (Appendix F).
The scores were compared among the judges and those found to be more than
two or three points different were discussed jointly. Necessary adjustments were
made, the scores were averaged and the final weight assigned. A score of the
sum of the weighted behaviors was tallied for each participant and used in the
statistics. However, a limitation that should be noted is that strict usage of this
weighted sum does not account for individuals who may use a particular
practice, but not do so in conjunction with a second practice that is necessary in
order for the first practice to be considered alternative (i.e., monitoring is an
effective IPM technique if it is used to regulate pesticide application).

Although this data presents a few constraints as a result of the small,
non-random sample, it is theoretically appropriate to assume linearity. Therefore,
in addition to the general descriptive statistics—mean, skewness, bivariate
correlations—multiple regression is used to examine the relationship among the
variables. This means that growers’ adoption of alternative input practices is
regressed on their environmental, personal and financial risk perceptions in order
to test the hypotheses below.

Lastly, using qualitative methods", the interviews and additional

open—ended comments from the survey were used to support and extend the

 

 

5 Ethnograph’ was the computer software used for qualitative data management and analysis.

56

statistical findings. The data collected was reduced by coding passages in a
three step process. First, data was organized in categories by broad topic areas
(e.g., farm history, pest management practices). Next, it was classified according
to how well it fit each risk scale. Finally, the data was coded again in a more
precise manner (e.g., the types of chemicals used, how labor is utilized) to
determine the basis of decision making. Data was then extracted and

summarized for use In evaluating the hypotheses.

Hypotheses
On the basis of the risk literature (Covello, 1983), it is hypothesized that

implementation of alternative pest management behaviors is affected by
growers’ perceptions of personal, financial, and environmental risk. The personal
risk of pesticide exposure is whether the grower’s and/or the grower's family’s
health is compromised as a result of either its direct application, leachate into
ground water, residues, and/or drift (Pimentel et al., 1993b). Although there is
little in the literature that links the relationship between growers’ risk attitudes
and their actual behavior (cf., Vaughan, 1993), it is logical that growers who are
more accepting of personal risk will be less likely to adopt alternative techniques.
H,: Among fruit growers who utilize alternative agricultural

practices, a negative association will exist between a

grower’s personal risk acceptance and the alternative pest

management practices they use.

Financial risk in fruit production may be interpreted at least two ways.

First, following Mason and Halter (1980), the use of conventional practices may

57

be viewed as risky since the registration of new agrichemicals has declined (US.
Congress, 1995), the withdrawal of many current products is threatened
(Specialty Crop Pesticide Committee, 1995), and the overall costs of
agrichemical use continues to increase (Pimentel, 1995). Therefore, growers
who are not willing to accept these risks will adopt alternative practices, and a
negative association between risk acceptance and alternative practices is
expected. However, as indicated in Chapters 1 and 2, the adoption of alternative
practices is also risky. The financial risk of the adoption of alternative practices
involves the potential costs of decreased quantity and/or quality of the fruit
(Pimentel et al., 1993b) as well as the costs of increased time and access to
information and labor (Pfeffer, 1992). Therefore, growers who are willing to
accept these financial risks will adopt alternative practices; a positive association
between risk acceptance and alternative practices is expected. While the logic of
both arguments can be seen, the latter view is more appropriate in this context.
Even though conventional methods are threatened, this does not seem to pose a
clear enough reason for a grower to cease using them before they actually
become unavailable or ineffective.
H2: Among fruit growers who utilize alternative agricultural

practices, a positive association will exist between a

grower’s financial risk acceptance and the alternative pest

management practices they use.

Literature supporting the link between environmental risk and behavior

does exist, but growers do not have accurate or complete information about the

58

relative environmental risks of different pest management techniques (Higley and
Wintersteen, 1992). For example, because pyrethroids are biorationals they are
viewed as less hazardous to the orchard environment, but in fact, heavy use of
this broad-spectrum substance necessitates the use of miticides to control the
rise of secondary pests (Metcalf, 1987). Vlfith the exception of cases such as this,
alternative pest management techniques pose decreased risks to the
environment; thus growers with a high level of environmental risk acceptance will
be less likely to adopt alternatives.

H3: Among fruit growers who utilize alternative agricultural

practices, a negative association will exist between a

grower’s environmental risk acceptance and the alternative
pest management practices they use.

CHAPTER 4

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
RISK PERQEPTIQNS AND THEADOPTION
QF AN ALTERNATIVE

In the transition from conventional to alternative agriculture, the
relationship between growers” pesticide risk perceptions and their pest
management decisions is a small portion of a larger causal process that is
beyond the scope of this study. This investigation is primarily focused on
growers’ perceptions of the environmental, financial and personal risks of
pesticide use and their consequent alternative input practices. The questionnaire
is the quantitative basis for these findings, but the results are also grounded in
the qualitative data (Strauss and Corbin, 1990). To put this material into context,
standard descriptors—individual demographics, farm characteristics—will be

presented first. This data is from both the interviews and the survey.

Individual Demographics

The sample group consisted of 60 owner-operators, 25 from the
Northwest coastal zone, 21 from the Southwest coastal zone and 14 from the

Inland region (Figure 4.1). Most of the growers had parents in the fruit business,

59

60

although ten percent of the subjects were raised on a dairy farm. A few of the
participants are new entrants with no agricultural background (Table 4.1). The
average age of the growers is 46 years, less than the average 52 years of all
primary operators in Michigan (US. Department of Commerce, 1994). Their
average years in farming was found to be more than 23 years and more than 15
years of that as the primary decision maker. The participants were also found to
be highly educated; more than 67 percent have a college degree or more (Table
4.2). Most of the participants are married and have children. Only four of the

growers in the study were women, and there were no minorities.

Figure 4.1. The number of participants In each agroecological zone.

 

 

Northw_ .:..... ......................

nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

-----------

................
oas . . ...........
D 25. O ...........
...............
one . . . . ..........
Z ..............
.............
...............
.............
...............
..................
....................
......................
.......................
.......................

ooooooooooooooooooooooo
ccccccccccccccccccc
-----

Southwes3:33}:izfzf5255;533:231153135'3'

Coastal ; .................................
Zone 1211- .............................

..............
...............
................
..............
...............

 

..............
----------------
.............
nnnnn

 

 

 

61

 

Table 4.1

AGE AND 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
n = 58
Table 4.2
HIGHEST LEVEL OF EDUCATION
Level of Education Percent

Less 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

n = 58

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Farm Characteristics

There are many farm characteristics that have an effect on growers’ risk
decisions, most of which are interconnected. For the purpose of describing the
farm operations in this study, organization, scale, production, marketing and
labor will be examined.

Farm organization. Most farms in this study can be described as “family

farms” which means they are both operated and owned by the family members

62

who live on the premises‘. The “family farms” are usually intergenerational or
multi-household operations. While the majority of the participants were primary
owner/operators, many were also in some type of a partnership arrangement
with family members. Only a few growers were incorporated with non-family
members and one individual farmed for an absentee owner. Many growers also

rent or lease additional land for fruit production.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4.3
FARM ACREAGE AND CROP DIVERSITY
Mean Minimum Maximum

Participants‘ Acres Acres Acres
Tart Cherries 34 97.6 0.3 750.0
Apples 42 77.7 0.5 1 .0000
Sweet Cherries 24 44.2 1.0 300.0
Blueberries 18 37.3 0.3 245.0
Peaches I Nectarines 18 24.6 0.5 214.0
Grapes 7 19.8 0.5 57.0
Strawberries 9 9.1 1.0 20.0
Apricots 1 7.0 7.0 7.0
Plums 16 6.8 1.0 15.0
Brambles 4 4.4 0.5 10.0
Pears 15 4.2 1.0 20.0
‘ Thissias the number of growers in the sample who grow this fruit crop.

n =

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘ There is no standard definition of a family term, but most definitions incorporate control over

management and capital as well as varying degrees of labor by family members (cf., Rodefeld,
1978; Labao, 1990).

63

Scale. Since the target population of this sample was specific to certain
fruit crops—apples, blueberries, tart cherries—the average number of acres of
each is significantly higher than the state mean (Table 4.3). For example, the
average blueberry operation in the state is less than 20 acres (US. Department
of Commerce, 1994) while the average blueberry operation in this sample is
more than 37 acres.

Because fruit enterprises vary a great deal in intensity of land use, gross
receipts is a more representative variable of farm scale. Approximately 69
percent of the growers received at least $100,000 in total cash receipts. This
includes all crops, animals and animal products; and 69 percent received

$20,000“ or less in net farm income (Table 4.4).

 

 

 

Table 4.4
FARM INCOME
Total Receipts Percent Net Income Percent
"Less than $2,500 ................. 3.6 Lost more than $5,000 ........... 21.8
$2,500 to $4,999 ................. 0.0 Lost between $4,999 and $1 . .. 11.0
$5,000 to $9,999 ................. 1.8 Broke Even ....................... 5.5
$10,000 to $24,999 ............... 10.9 Made $1to $4,999 ................ 5.4
$25,000 to $49,999 ............... 9.1 Made $5,000 to $9,999 ........... 12.7
$50,000 to $99,999 ............... 5.5 Made $10,000 to $19,999 ........ 12.7
$100,000 to $174,999 ............ 32.7 Made $20,000 to $39,999 ........ 12.7
$175,000 to $249,999 ............ 9.1 Made $40,000 to $99,999 ........ 9.1
$250,000 to $499,999 ............ 16.4 Made $100,000 to $174,999 ...... 7.3
$500,000 and over ............... 10.9 Made $175,000 or more .......... 1.8

 

 

IE‘“

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 The poverty level in 1990 for a family of four is estimated to be $13,254 (Task Force on Rural
Poverty [Task Force], 1994).

64

On average, 89 percent of all cash receipts come from the sale of fruit
crop(s) or products made from fruit. This indicates that, overall, fruit crops are a
significant enterprise for the growers in this study. The debt to assets ratio
reflects the financial security of the farm (Table 4.5). While most growers do
carry substantial debt, at least 61 percent of the selling price of the farm would

be retained by more than 65 percent of the growers after all debts had been

paid.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4.5
FARM FINANCIAL SECURITY
Amount Retained After Debt is Paid Percent

100%—-currently debt free ................. 21.8
81% to 99% ............................... 20.0
II61 % to 80% ............................... 23.6
31% to 60% ............................... 27.3
1% to 30% ................................ 5.5
Zero percent—the debts would equal the

selling price ............................... 0.0
Less than zero percent—the debts are

greater than the selling price .............. 1.8
n = 58

 

 

 

 

 

Production strategies. Growers employ a variety of production strategies
to ensure a profitable crop is harvested. Some of these methods include, but are

not limited to, diversifying crops, various horticultural techniques and

65

agrichemical applications. Although it is not possible to present any of these in
detail, the following is a brief example of how each may affect production.

It was found that several participants diversify crop enterprises (e.g.,
vegetables, grains, cattle). However, many also choose to produce different
types of fruit crops (Table 4.3) and fruit cultivars (e.g., early and/or late harvest
varieties). This strategy has at least two purposes. Physiological differences in
fruit crops and cultivars may decrease susceptibility to weather extremes, insect
pests and disease, or provide a cushion during times of high supply. For
example, when cherry prices are low or a crop has become damaged (e.g.,
insect pest or disease, weather event) several growers indicated that they rely
more heavily on their apple crop.

In apple production, yield can be maximized by increasing tree density per
acre and both size and taste of the fruit can be enhanced through tree training
and pruning. It was found that many participants had some high density
plantings, but none of them relied on this method extensively. Likewise, some of
the growers practice tree training“, but only a few are fully committed to it due to
the time involved. All the growers stated that they prune at least a portion of their
farm every year, however, some continue to practice hedging“. In place of

specific pruning cuts, one grower stated that he only uses a chain saw. His “goal

 

3 Tree training or limb spreading is primarily used in apple and peach production. It serves
several functions, one of which is to increase the amount of carbohydrates that reach the fruit.
Photosynthesis breaks up the carbohydrates into simple sugars which increases fruit size and
sweetness (Stebbins, 1983).

‘ Hedging is a less intensive type of pruning in which the tops of the trees or bushes are cutoff
straight at the top. This procedure encourages the fruit to move into the tree whereas pruning
opens the tree to increase light exposure.

66

is tonnage of medium size apples for bagging, about 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 inches,” while
others state that they do extensive pruning in order to ship larger apples.

All the participants use agrichemicals, to some degree, and for numerous
purposes. Again, using apple production as the example, these products are
applied to thin the trees of excess fruit (i.e., increase fruit size), to increase tree
health (i.e., fertilizers), to increasing ripening (e.g., Alar) and to eliminate tree and
fruit pests. There are several types of pesticides that are used such as
fungicides, miticides and insecticides. Each of these products assists growers in
achieving a product that is free of stings, blemishes and holes. Growers who
produce for the fresh market state that quality is the key to success; the “outside
is the first thing people see.” Of course, these options are much more limited for
the organic grower. For instance, all the thinners currently available are synthetic
which means they cannot be used by growers wishing to be certified organic. In
addition, the non-synthetic products that they do use are unable to control some
of the most menacing pests (e.g., codling moth).

Market strategies. Due to the social and economic context, each
agroecological zone tends to have different market strategies. Participants in the
Inland zone, who are located near a relatively large urban population, usually
market directly to the consumer. These farms are mostly u-pick and oriented
toward entertainment and leisure activities (e.g., cider mills, haunted houses, hay

rides, festivals). They also tend to have either a market or a roadside stand. ln

67

some cases the market is a permanent structure that is highly developed with a
bakery, various groceries and craft items.

Many growers who participated in this project indicated that they do not
like the trend toward “entertainment,” but find it essential when faced with
increasing property taxes, decreasing farm prices and consumers’ environmental
and health concerns. For example, one grower stated that “customers do ask
about pesticides and their questions need to be taken seriously.” This grower
also conducts school tours, stating they are necessary in order to teach IPM and
to show customers the connection between consumption and production.
Several growers, in response to consumers’ concerns about pesticides use,
indicated that their goal is to get customers to come out and see what it takes to
grow fresh produce. Other growers are more financially motivated stating that the
point is to get children to the farm, now, so they will return with their children in
the future.

Incorporating u-pick as a survival strategy is workable for many in
metropolitan areass; however, growers in non-metro regions must use other
marketing alternatives. For example, growers in the Northwest coastal zone,
which is not metropolitan, tend to have more intense commercial operations
geared toward processing and/or packed for the fresh market. Tourists

vacationing in this region usually leave prior to the height of the apple harvest

 

5 A metro area is defined as a county that includes a city of at least 50,000 people or an
urbanized area of at least 50,000 people and a total population of at least 100,000 in the county
(Task Force, 1994).

68

season and there are simply too few year-round residents to make a u-pick
operation viable.

Labor. Of the growers interviewed, very few rely solely on the labor of the
primary operator, spouse and/or immediate family. Therefore, it is necessary to
hire workers from the local community as well as transients, migrants and
professional consultants (e.g., IPM scouts).

Excluding those who are owner-operators, women are not usually
involved in direct production activities“. However, it was found during the
interviews that they contribute significantly to the operation and survival of the
farm by providing income and benefits (e.g., health insurance) from oft-farm
employment (i.e.; typically as nurses, bus drivers and teachers) and serving as
the farm/household manager (e.g., bookkeeping, communication with processors
and co-operatives, errands, childcare). Nevertheless, there are exceptions. One
primary operator stated that his wife is “completely equal.” On this farm she is
entirely responsible for both tree training and pruning. In a few cases, the wife
serves as the IPM scout. Other daily activities that tend to be conducted by
women include responsibility for the farm markets and/or stores and the
“entertainment” activities‘. Yet, it is the wife’s off-farm work that many growers
appear to value most; as one stated, her job “keeps the farm together” by

providing both health insurance and retirement benefits.

 

° Flore et al., (1992, p. 22) found that “on average the grower‘s spouse spends 37 hours per week
during the peak season working in the farm business.” However, it is unknown whether these
women work in production activities or in roles that support production (e.g., managing a store)

7 This includes both family members and local workers; migrant women work exclusively in the
field.

69

Approximately 25 percent of the growers interviewed indicate that their
children also participate in farm activities. However, most of these growers state
that their children work seasonally and have little interest in continuing the family
business. The adult children who are active members in daily farm operations
tend to be the ones most interested in alternative agricultural practices. They are
'also the most willing to attend weekly IPM update meetings conducted by the
extension service. Only five of the growers stated that their parents continue to
actively participate in farm operations. Due to partnership arrangements, several
also have siblings, mostly brothers, who work on the farm and a small number
indicate that other non-immediate family members contribute, as well.

In addition to the non-production jobs (e.g., work in the store or bakery)
farm labor is also hired for production and harvesting as well as specialty tasks
and consultation. Growers distinguish four groups of laborers. Those which are
considered “transients” may or may not live in the area. They are strictly
temporary employees. “Teenagers” are usually from the local area and they are
hired seasonally. A member of the third group, migrants, is legally defined as any
individual “who works or seeks work in agriculture or a seasonal industry; and
moves away from his [or her] usual home to a temporary residence as a
condition of employment or because the distance from his [or her] usual home is
greater than 50 miles” (Michigan Department of Social Services, 1991). The
fourth group of employees are the IPM scouts which are hired on a contract

basis. They are independent business people who are hired for their expertise.

70

Most of the growers who hire additional labor indicate that in their
perception, the transient population as well the local teenagers are unreliable;
therefore, they rely more heavily on migrants to provide the bulk of the seasonal
labor (Appendix E). While most of the growers indicate that they are pleased with
the work that migrants do (i.e., they work quickly, for low wages, and they are
careful not to bruise the fruit), most also indicate that they are concerned about
various legal issues. One grower stated that “the laws are stacked against
growers who want to use migrants.”

Growers’ top two complaints about hiring migrant workers, which far
exceed their other concerns in regard to this group, are the labor camp rules
(Michigan Department of Public Health, 1989) and the Worker Protection
Standards (Environmental Protection Agency, 1992)”. Most growers state that
the housing codes which mandate conditions such as floor space, access to
water and electricity are far too strict. The feelings of those who must uphold
these standards were summed up in the comments of one who said “we couldn’t
put them up in the Holiday Inn ifwe wanted to; they don’t meet the code.” In
regard to the worker protection standards, growers are mandated to provide
various means of protection from agrichemical exposure for their employees.
This protection includes training on the risks of pesticide application, water and
waste facilities at the job site, site posting, enforcement of reentry times after

pesticide application, and the provision of personal protective equipment. The

 

° The Worker Protection Standards are specifically aimed at protecting hired workers; it does
not apply to the grower or the grower's immediate family.

71

participants indicated that they are concerned about being held liable for
pesticide exposure regardless of how well they meet the standards, and that
WPS will unduly increase both workers’ fears and consumers’ environmental
concerns (i.e., from the roadside postings).

Most growers hire an IPM scout which is most likely a reflection of the
purposeful sample selected. Scouts are usually hired on a consulting contract to
conduct weekly orchard/field inspections. They provide estimates of insect pest
numbers and disease inoculum as well as specific recommendations for
treatments. Some scouts also offer additional services such as weather
monitoring and nutritional analysis. Because the information they provide is
critical to reducing agrichemicals, scouts are one of the most important hired
employees. In fact, more than half of the growers state that their private

consultant is their most important source of information.

Scales of Risk

Each of the farm characteristics identified above are linked to growers’
perceptions of environmental, financial and/or personal risk. The risk dimension
was measured using the scales described in Chapter 3 and tested for reliability.
Cronbach’s alpha (or) was found to be acceptable for each scale.

Personal risk acceptance. The Personal Risk Scale ((1 = 0.702) consists
of ten items designed to examine growers’ perceptions of pesticide use in regard

to their health and safety, their exposure to pesticides and their responsibility for

72

its effects (Table 4.6). It is possible to increase the reliability of this scale to
0.805, but removing suspect questions did not improve the face validity.

Approximately 84 percent of the growers state that they 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. In addition, nearly 64 percent
of the respondents indicate that if large amounts of a chemical were found to
cause cancer after many repeated exposures, they would be concerned about
coming into contact with very small amounts of that chemical.

However, less than 60 percent of the respondents indicate that they
should act immediately to protect the public from pesticide risks. This may reflect
growers’ overall beliefs about residues. For instance, one grower stated that
“there are carcinogens in beer and other foods that are 10 times worse than
fruit.” Furthermore, it was found that almost 45 percent of the participants
believe most cancers are caused by substances that people choose to use;
growers are roughly split on whether people can avoid such substances. In both
of these cases there was a relatively high neutrality in growers’ responses,
indication that they are unsure whether pesticides are harmful to their health.

Finally, the participants appear to be in conflict over the role of the
government. More than 66 percent of the participants indicate that government
regulations about the use of pesticides and other chemicals on fruit crops are
inadequate. It is possible that this high level of agreement is a result of multiple

interpretations of the question. For instance, the regulations may be seen by

73

some growers as being too strict, while other regulations may be perceived as
being too weak. Yet, most growers are not interested in further government
intervention. It was found that less than 45 percent of the participants believe the
government should take action to protect the public and the growers if there is

any evidence of risk.

 

Table 4.6
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

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 it 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 it 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 is 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
The government has adequate regulations for the use of

pesticides and other chemicals on fruit crops .................... 25.0 8.9 66.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

n = 58; a = 0.7015

 

 

 

74

Financial risk acceptance. The Financial Risk Scale (or = 0.684) used
seven items to look at growers’ perceptions of the financial impact of
agrichemical use (Table 4.7). Approximately 65 percent of the growers surveyed
indicate that the cost of chemical pesticides is not greater than the increase in
income that results from their use. This may actually reflect growers’ desire to
produce "high quality” fruit. Several growers stated that the outside appearance
of the fruit is their primary goal because it affects their success in the market. If
the growers interpreted “costs” more broadly, to include both environmental and
personal risks, it is possible that the perceived costs would be viewed as greater
than the return from pesticide use. Nevertheless, almost 70 percent of the
respondents feel that conserving resources is more important than increasing
profits and 66 percent indicate that, even given the economic realities, concerns
about environmental conservation are not carried too far. Yet, contrary to the
above, these growers also state that there is no point in adopting new practices
unless they are more profitable.

Approximately 85 percent of the participants indicated that a diversified
farming operation is necessary to protect them against a bad year. Although
there was no follow-up with those who disagreed, it is possible that they might
see scale as a way of protecting against a bad year. It is, also, possible that
some growers either interpret diversity differently or rely on insurance payments

and/or disaster relief during times of need”. Diversity is generally considered a

9 More than half of the participants did not receive a government payment during 1993 and
another 13 percent received $5,000 or less.

75

critical factor in mitigating the financial risks of production since it can serve as a

cushion against a damaging weather event or market failure (Anosike and

Coughenour, 1990). In fact, one grower stated that “specialization and poor farm

design are the root causes of pest and yield problems in fruit farming.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4.7
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
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
There is no point in adopting new practices unless they are more
profitable ........................................................ 64.3 16.1 19.7
Involving family members in farm work Is more important than
making more money ............................................. 43.6 27.3 29.1
Given the economic realities, concern with environmental
conservation is often carried too far ............................. 22.8 8.8 68.4
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

 

 

“n = 58; a. = 0.6843

 

 

 

Financial independence was found to be more important than increasing

profits for 66 percent of the growers. Only 44 percent state that involving family

members in farm work is more important than making more money. This seems

 

76

to indicate that many growers do not connect the importance of family labor to
achieving self reliance. In this case, the high neutrality that was found (27
percent) may be related to growers’ concerns about the future of the industry.
Several growers indicated that they do not encourage their children to continue
farming because it is has become increasingly difficult to make a living.

Environmental risk acceptance. The Environmental Risk Scale (or =
0.790) used 11 items to look at growers’ perceptions of the environmental issues
related to pesticide exposure (Table 4.8). It is possible to increase the reliability
of this scale to 0.825, but removing suspect questions did not improve the face
validity.

Most growers state that a good farm should provide a habitat for species
that help to control insect pests (e.g., birds, bats). They also agree that
pesticides can destroy the farm habitat by causing pollution, poisoning animals
and contaminating the air and the groundwater. Yet, only 66 percent of the
participants stated that all three—animals, beneficial organisms, physical
environment—can be damaged by agrichemical use. The interviews revealed a
particular concern about leachate into the groundwater. One grower, however,
went further, stating that he is concerned about the overall weather changes that
are occurring as a result of overbuilding in the area, destruction of the ozone and
contaminants in the air—all of which could be devastating to the fruit industry.

Nevertheless, it is the 91 percent who indicated that pesticides can be poisonous

77

to beneficial organisms that are the most sensitive to the potential environmental

nsks.

 

Table 4.8
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
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
Farmers do not use more chemicals than they have to ........... 32.8 6.9 60.3
Controlling most insect pests requires using chemical pesticides 31.1 5.2 63.8

 

 

n=58;a=0.7900

 

 

 

More than half of the participants indicated that not only are individual

growers too dependent on the use of chemicals, but that the industry is, also.

However, nearly half do not believe the chemical companies are encouraging

excessive use of such substances. In fact, several growers indicated that it was

 

78

the spray consultant who helped them reduce pesticide inputs. While they
appear to be split in their opinion between the seriousness of chemical hazards
and the potential crop loss due to pests, more than half of the participants
indicate that changes are needed in the way food is produced. Nearly two-thirds
of the growers surveyed suggest that decreasing agrichemical use is one of the
changes needed, indicating that they are not even required for controlling most

insect pests.

Input Practices

As mentioned in a previous chapter, each of the six strategies for reducing
pesticides can be implemented by one or more specific techniques (see Table
1.1). It should also be noted that many of these techniques could be interpreted
through more than one strategy. More than half of the approaches are used by
more than 80 percent of the participants (Appendix F). Of the six categories,
techniques which fall within the monitoring and spray application categories were
judged to be the most important overall (Tables 4.9 and 4.10). For example, the
judges ranked most of these approaches between nine and six points each. The
biorational control practices (Table 4.14) were judged to be the least effective in
decreasing pesticide use.

Monitoring and/or scouting for insect pests and disease. Some of the
monitoring and scouting practices are somewhat difficult. for the grower to adopt;
unless a grower hires a consultant, proper use of each technique requires both

increased time and education (Table 4.9). For example, 82 percent state that

79

they use sticky traps, but this practice is useful only if the grower is able to
identify both insect pests and beneficial species and calculate thresholds. In
addition, 95 percent indicate that they use scouting information (Table 4.10) and
91 percent use weather data to determine spray schedules. Again, the
significance of this data is contingent upon the grower’s ability to interpret the
results. Subsequently, several growers indicated that the most important thing
they learned from going to the extension-Sponsored IPM school was to hire or
contract for these services. In addition, several growers state that they follow the
scouts’ advice almost exclusively because, as one indicated, they are more
capable of recognizing insects and diseases since they are more thorough and
better trained.

Only 52 percent of the participants count growing degree days to assist
timing of sprays. This, no doubt, has become the responsibility of a hired scout
as it is difficult to time the application of a pesticide spray accurately without
biofixing‘ the life cycle of the pest or disease in question. Furthermore, of the 86
percent who use pheromone traps it was found that most do so based on a

scout’s recommendation.

 

‘ The life cycle of an insect pest is biofixed using growing degree days (GDD), insect trap
catches, and field inspection.

80

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4.9
MONITORING AND SCOUTING
% 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 60.7
Pheromone trap(s) .......................... 8.00 85.5
Sticky trap(s) (bait, visual) ................... 8.00 81.8
Use of weather data to time sprays .......... 8.00 91.2
Foliarnutrienttesting 7.67 60.0
Monitor Ladybird Beetles (Ladybugs) ........ 7.67 38.9
Soil testing .................................. 7.67 76.8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Spray applications. While the spray application practices are somewhat
easier for growers to adopt than those in the previous group, most were judged
to be less effective in reducing pesticides (Table 4.10). Use of scouting and/or
monitoring information to time or skip sprays was judged to be one of the most
effective techniques for reducing pesticides. Nearly all of the growers (95
percent) surveyed use this technique. The actual use of scouting infOrrnation to
make pest management decisions is what makes these practices “alternative.”
For example, 38 percent of the participants keep detailed records of pest
numbers (Table 4.9), but this practice in and of itself is useless if it is not used to

determine treatments. Surprisingly, almost 45 percent indicate that they still use

81

calendar or Interval spraying, the lowest ranked approach among all the

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

strategies.
Table 4.10
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
Time sprays according to the spray guide (calendar
or interval sprays) .................................. 1.00 44.4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One of the major techniques in this group is geared toward decreasing the
actual amount of pesticides that reach the trees/bushes. This is accomplished
via two methods; reducing the volume and targeting the spray. It was found that
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 a

82

low volume spray. Targeted Spraying was done by fewer individuals; less than 65
percent do spot spraying and approximately 61 percent perimeter spray.
Elimination of pest habitats. Four of the five approaches for reducing
pest habitats were ranked fairly high by the judges (Table 4.11). Only one of
these practices, the removal of broad leaf weeds, is used by any significant
number of the participants in this group (43 percent). However, it was also the
lowest ranked of the four. In fact, the highest ranked approach in the strategy,
planting Endophytic Rye, was used by only eight percent of the growers
surveyed. Planting Wheeler or Annual Rye as a herbicide was used by only 28
percent or the respondents. Several growers indicated that they tried to use Rye
in their orchard, but it was not successful under localized conditions. Despite its
low assessed efficacy (4.67 points), filling to reduce weed competition was used

by 64 percent of the participants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4.1 1
ELIMINATION OF PEST HABITAT
% 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
Plant Wheeler Rye or Annual Rye as a herbicide in your
orchard ................. _ ................................. 8.33 28.0
Till to control pests and diseases such as Mummybeny . 7.00 25.5
Remove broadleaf weeds to control pests such as
Tamish Plant Bug ....................................... 6.33 43.1
Till to reduce weed competition with bushes/trees ....... 4.67 64.2

 

 

 

 

83

introduction of pest predators, parasites and antagonists. The
various techniques within this strategy—introduction of pest predators, parasites
and antagonists—were the least likely to be used by the growers; each practice
was used by less than 2 percent of the participants (Table 4.12). However, all the
techniques were ranked fairly high by the judges since this is what is considered
to be classical biological control (U. S. Congress, 1995; Council for Agricultural
Science and Technology, in press). This may be a result of the lack of success
growers have had with this strategy. 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.” Other growers indicated that this strategy has not been successful

because the predictor insects “jump out of the orchard.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4.12 .
INTRODUCTION OF 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

 

 

 

 

84

Field/orchard architecture. The judges ranked each of the field/orchard
architecture strategies very high in importance (Table 4.13). The use of
hedgerows or living hedges received one of the highest rankings overall, but it
was found to be used by less than 35 percent of the participants. The only
practice that was used by any significant number of growers, 42 percent, is the
timed mowing. Insect barrier systems were found to be used by less than six

percent of the participants.

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4.13
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 Tamish
Plant Bug ............................................... 8.67 42.0
Use of insect barrier systems (screens, insect hardware
cloth, netting, etc.) ...................................... 8.33 5.9

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Biorational controls. Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) was judged to be one of
the leading techniques for reducing agrichemicals, but it is used by less than 40
percent. Most of the practices in the biological control category are used by less
than a third of the participants (Table 4.14). During the interviews it was found

that the growers who are the most Interested in this strategy complain that the

85

available options are limited. The techniques requested by growers include
oriental fruit moth ties, plum curcullio traps and orchard grass with allelopathic

properties to control sucking insects?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4.14
BIORATIONAL CONTROL
% who used
Approach this practice
(Techniques or Products) Weight in 1993

Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) ............. I 8.70 37.7
Mating disruption (pheromones) ...... l 8.33 21.2
Mineral oil ............................ . 6.50 22.2
Diatomaceous earth .................. I 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

 

 

 

 

 

Although most of the participants use pheromone traps (Table 4.9), less
than 25 percent use pheromone (mating) disruption. Many growers indicated that
they have either tried this practice with varying degrees of success, or are

interested in this practice, but find it to be prohibitively expensive. One grower

 

 

2 Sucking insects (e.g. leafhoppers) are the primary vectors for transmitting X-disease. The
insects feed on disease-infected weeds, and then transmit it primarily to cherry and peach trees.
Depending on the root stock, the infected tree goes through either a slow or a rapid decline, until
death (Michigan State University Extension, 1996).

 

86

stated that disruption by itself is equal in cost to the sum of all other inputs. In
addition, another grower stated that he no longer uses Rotenone because he
experienced numbing of his tongue. The approach that was found to be used
most frequently was insecticidal soap; however, the judges gave it mediocre

rating.

Findings

As described in Chapter 3, behavior was analyzed and regressed on each
of the above risk scales. First, however, an overall picture of the data will be
presented by evaluating general descriptive statistics and zero-order
correlations.

Descriptives. The frequency distribution of each scale can be seen in
Figures 4.2, 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5. None of the scales had a critical level of skewness;
therefore, the mean is a good measure of distribution. The risk figures show that
growers are approximately equally willing to accept personal risk (mean = 2.71)
and financial risk (mean = 2.67). The least amount of risk they are willing to
accept is that which is part of the environmental dimension (mean = 2.38).

Based on the judges’ scores, a grower could receive between 0 and
291.85 points on the alternative input scale. As it can be seen in Figure 4.5, the
participants were found to be on a continuum between 0 and 213.9, with a mean
greater than 130 points. Although the distribution of scores had a skew of -0.66

this was not considered sufficient enough to warrant transformation.

 

 

.68

86. M
Ilrbai=271

N=58m

 

.88 - m:
.Q-d - 8d
8.». - Ne
.83. - 8e
.84. - RM
.83” - 8d

 

End-mum

 

 

Emu-8w

 

87

188mg

 

Aka-8N

 

8N-NN

 

.mwN-BN

 

 

8N8:
.85. -8...
.84 AN...
.86 -86

 

HT 101

14

121
8-
4d

10'

 

Figure 4.2. Distribution of personal risk acceptance scores.

 

N=58m

Stl. Dev=.70
Mean=267

 

.895.
33.8...
84.5.
83.8...
.75

 

IBM-84”

 

8.88“”

 

hum-8w

 

8M-RN

 

.mnN-8N

 

PersonalRiskAcceptanoeScore

 

.888
62-93
.883
a: -83
.8. -5
.8. .83

 

14

12'

10-
8'
6'
4.
2.-

 

 

Figure 4.3. Distribution of financial risk acceptance scores.

 

 

 

I—‘rnandalRiskAcoeptanceScore

 

88

Figure 4.4. Distribution of environmental risk acceptance scores.

 

 

Stl.Dev=.69
lVeaI=238
N=58m

 

 

.88 - 86
15. - 8e
.88 - 8e
.86 - 8d
8d - 8...”
8m - 8d

 

.8888

 

88-88

 

8m-8N
88-8N

 

88-8N
8N-8N

 

8N8:
8.? .8;
.86 .8;
.86 .8...

 

12‘

 

Environmental RiskAmptanoeSoore

 

 

Figure 4.5. Distribution of alternative Input practices.

 

 

Sb.Dev=462
lVear=1iII26
N=58m

 

 

8.8 .88
8N8 -38
.38 -838
.838 - 8.38

85-3.3.
Ea. - :3

 

1.82 -88..

 

 

.88.. -88..

 

.88.. - Ed...
38: - 8.3

 

8.3 - 8E
.8.R - B8
.88 . 58
.58 - 8.2
.99 -8.o

 

 

 

 

 

14
124

10"

8:1

61

 

Oil

41
2:

InputPI‘acticeScore

 

 

89

Zero-order correlations. Each risk scale—personal, financial,
environmental—was found to be positively correlated, at a high level of
significance, with each of the others (Table 4.15). The strongest association (r =
0. 624, p = 0.001) was found between the personal and the environmental risk
scales. Therefore, growers who are willing to accept more personal risk are also
more willing to accept increased environmental risk of pesticides exposure. The
second highest association (r = 0. 585, p = 0.001) was found between the
personal and the financial risk scales. This means that growers who are willing to
accept more personal risk are also more willing to accept increased financial risk
of pesticides exposure. The lowest association (r = 0. 533, p = 0.001) among the
variables was found between the financial and the environmental risk scales.
However, this moderately high correlation still shows that growers who are willing
to accept more financial risk are also more willing to accept increased
environmental risk of pesticides exposure. Since a consequence of high
intercorrelation is multicollinearity, this will be discussed below.

At an alpha (or) level of 0.05, financial risk was found to be significantly
correlated with growers’ adoption of alternative practices (r = 0.354, p = 0.003)
while environmental risk was found to be less so (r = 0.268, p = 0.021). Personal
risk was not found to be significantly correlated, at the 0.05 level, with alternative

practices (r = 0.159, p = 0.116).

90

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4.15
ZERO-ORDER CORRELATIONS
Alternative Personal Financial Environmental
practices risk risk risk
Alternative

practices 1.000
Personal

05" 0.159 1 .000
Financial

05" 0.354° 0.585’ 1 .000

Environmental
”8" 0.268“ 0.624’ 0.533’ 1 .000
Significance: It = 0.02; O = 0.003; O = 0.001.

 

 

 

Regression. Since the risk scales are highly correlated, they were tested
for multicollinearity and found to be satisfactory. As shown in Table 4.15, the
bivariate intercorrelations among the predictors are less than 0.7. The variable
inflation factors (VlF’s) were found to be less than 2.0. Based on Berry and
Feldman (1985), each scale was also regressed on each of the others and found
to be acceptable; the coefficient of multiple determination (r2) for each was never
greater than 0.389.

The regression statistic is used to show the nature of the linear
relationship among the variables. The population equation and sample estimate
where AP = alternative input practices; PR = personal risk acceptance; FR =
financial risk acceptance and ER = environmental risk acceptance; are as

follows:

91

Population: YAP = a + [5,XPR + [32XFR + [33XER + 8

Sample: yAP = a + b,XPR + b2XFR + baxER + e

Examination of the residuals showed the error term to be zero; therefore,
it is removed from the equation. Since each of the independent variables was

measured in the same units, the unstandardized slope is used in the analysis.

yAp = 68.97 ' 10'67pr + 23'04XFR + 12'04XER

The coefficient of multiple determination (R2) is 0.147. Therefore, in the
population, nearly 15 percent of the variance of alternative input practices
adopted can be explained by growers acceptance of personal, financial and
environmental risk. The F test (p = .034) is significant at on = 0.05. This means
that the null hypothesis (Ho: [3, = [32 = [33 = 0; all slopes in the population are zero
and there is no correlation between the independent and dependent variables) is
rejected.

Examination of each slope shows that a grower who is not willing to
accept any risk is estimated to have an alternative input score of 68.97. The
slope of personal risk, controlling for financial and environmental risk, shows that
each increase in the acceptance score will decrease the alternative input score

by 10.7 points. However, since this equation is not significant at a = 0.05 (sig T

92

= 0.369), the null hypothesis (H,,: prFRER = 0) cannot be rejected. The slope of
financial risk, controlling for environmental and personal risk shows that each
increase in the acceptance score increases behavior 23.0 points. This equation
is significant (sig T = 0.034); therefore, the null hypothesis (H,,: bmmER = 0) can
be rejected. The slope of environmental risk, controlling for personal and
financial risk, shows that for each increase in the acceptance score, behavior
increases by approximately 12.0 points. Yet, this equation is also not significant
at the 0.05 level (sig T = 0.287) which means that the null hypothesis (H,,: bER
pm. = 0) cannot be rejected.

Hypotheses. Results of the above analysis show statistically that there is
no significant association between a grower’s acceptance of personal risk and
the use of alternative agricultural input practices during 1993. The hypothesis,
among fruit growers who utilize altemative agricultural practices, a negative
association will exist between a grower’s personal risk acceptance and the
altemative pest management practices they use, is not supported. While the
results were found to be in the predicted direction, they were not found to be
significant at the or = 0.05 level.

A positive association is found among growers” perception of financial and
environmental risk and the agricultural practices they choose. However, only the
former hypothesis, among fruit growers who utilize alternative agricultural
practices, a positive association will exist between a grower’s financial risk

acceptance and the pest management practices they use, is supported. The last

93

hypothesis, among fruit growers who utilize altemative agricultural practices, a
negative association will exist between a grower’s environmental risk acceptance
and the pest management practices they use, is not supported. Although the
results of the regression support the predicted direction, this third hypothesis was

not found to be significant at the a =0.05 level.

Grower Response

Growers who are more adverse to the personal and the environmental
risks of pesticides were expected to be more likely to adopt alternative practices.
Clearly, this was not shown, statistically, in the results above. It was found,
however, that growers’ perceptions of financial risk have a significant influence
on their pest management practices. Analysis of the interviews and the additional
comments from the survey not only confirm the findings above, but also show the
complexity and the interconnectedness of the issues that growers must cope
with.

As mentioned in an earlier chapter, growers are surrounded by
agricultural risks just by living and working on a farm. These risks include regular
exposure to both synthetic and non-synthetic pesticides. The interviews illustrate
that growers interpret this exposure in at least two ways—that which is related to
the application of pesticides, and that which is related to the consumption of
residues. Growers did not seem to have a framework for interpreting their
indirect exposure via groundwater consumption. While some growers state that

they changed practices due to concern over pesticide exposure to themselves

94

and their customers, it was also found that a majority are not overly concerned
about coming into direct contact (e.g., inhalation) with such substances; “if they
are used as directed they will not be a problem.” In most of these cases this
attitude is related to growers’ experience with pesticides. The participants
acknowledged this familiarity with comments such as “my grandfather sprayed
many pesticides . . . on an open cab tractor for nearly 50 years and still lived to
be almost 90 years old” or “my father sprayed truly dangerous chemicals like
DDT. . . and nothing happened to him.”

Personal risk in agriculture was found to be associated with hazards that
are more easily seen and quantified such as pruning tall trees or operating
equipment (cf., Rosenman et al., 1993). In contrast to this apparent disregard
about the application of pesticides, 80 percent of the growers show concern
about sun exposure and 70 percent do not use tobacco products, both of which
are well known to be hazardous to human health (Tosteson, Weinsteinm,
Vifilliams and Goldman, 1990; Greeley, 1993). Growers expressed some doubts
about residue consumption. Most claim that since they also eat the fruit they
grow, they do not use the pesticides that are most likely to leave harmful
residues. Although one grower stated that “no one has the right to pollute the
water,” most of those interviewed do not place particular emphasis on pesticide
leachate into the ground water. The growers indicated that since the pesticides
are sprayed into the trees rather than direct application to the ground (e.g., grain

production) their practices are not threatening to the drinking water supply.

95

Nevertheless, growers indicated more concern about the environment
stating that “farmers are on the same side as environmentalists.” However, their
concerns tend to be focused on utility, since the environment is the primary
building block of their livelihood; “if you have environmental contamination you
will decrease profit.” For example, they voiced a particular interest in the effects
of pesticides on beneficial organisms. Several growers state that they “limit
sprays” or use “softer” chemicals in order to build predator populations. At the
same time, the feelings of others were summed up in the statement of one who
said, “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." This means that many believe they must use toxic substances; “there
would be no fruit industry without chemical application.” In fact, one grower
stated that “even diehard organics will tolerate only so much cosmetic damage.”

While growers are aware of the public’s increasing attention to food
safety, most feel that consumers share some of the responsibility for pesticide
use reduction. Growers who market directly to the consumer mentioned that they
are often asked about their chemical usage, but feel that the messages they
receive are contradictory—on the one hand the produce must be cosmetically
perfect while on the other hand it must be free of residues. One grower stated
that “we need to educate the consumer to accept less than perfect quality for
increased safety.” Compounding this problem are the doubts of some growers

about their ability to compete in the global market without the necessary “tools.”

96

These individuals claim that regardless of how well they do at reducing pesticide
inputs, whether it be forced through legislation or on their own, the consumer
also demands cheap food and “do[es] not care were it comes from.” In essence,
it is the growers' financial considerations that drive their decision making.

Growers’ economic situation(s) should not be taken lightly. Most of the
participants state that they are squeezed by the rising costs of labor and
pesticides while fruit prices have failed to increase or have even fallen. As one
grower stated ,‘ “it is our objective to produce a healthy product in the safest
environment possible; however, the economic viability of the fruit industry is such
that today most of our decisions are based on economic survival.” The
increasing costs of agrichemicals was the impetus for many to adopt alternative
methods; several stated that they went to “the first IPM class because it sounded
like a way to save money.” Yet, some of the alternative practices are financially
unmanageable (e.g., mating disruption). The growers’ feelings were summarized
in the comments of one who stated “there are many plans and programs that I
would like to initiate [on] my farm; however, the expense is at this time
prohibitive.”

Some of the financial burden involved in decreasing pesticide use is also
related to the high degree of knowledge required to implement effectively
alternative strategies such as insect pest identification, disease morphology and
weather. Therefore, access to the appropriate information is at the heart of the

transition between conventional and alternative agriculture. Doubts about this

97

transition were expressed by one grower who stated, “there is an existing system
out there that works, the other system is unclear, it’s confusing and risky.”
Moreover, some growers are simply not aware of those practices showing the
most promising results. This lack of information was apparent in the response of
growers who indicated that IPM, as a set of pest management tools, has
reached its potential and further chemical reductions are unlikely.

Associated with the above is a generalized lack of support for organic
producers who, even with IPM practices, are left with few alternatives. Both
organic and IPM producers believe that the government needs to support an
alternative agenda and to provide grants to growers so they will be able to
further reduce chemical use. These growers believe that new technological
developments will limit risks in the future while “in the past, fear and emotion . . .
have prevailed over common sense and scientific fact.”

Currently, the participants get a majority of their technical information from
the university and the extension service; some of them learn “state of the art”
techniques by allowing investigators to conduct various research projects on
their farm. One grower stated that he keeps “close to the process because
growing fruit is a humbling experience.” Another, however, stated that it can be
overwhelming; “it becomes a challenge to screen out all the information.” At the
same time, several other participants state that the university is not providing

enough and is no longer in the forefront of advanced IPM or production

98

strategies; therefore, they must go to other agricultural institutions such as
“Cornell, Penn State, [and] Ohio.”

At the same time, some participants find the current research process
questionable. One grower stated that he believes “university statistics are
skewed to meet the agenda du jour,” or, in other words, the predominant

paradigm. This was also supported by the grower who stated that

[510 many times we’re told that what we are doing is going to cause

major harm and we better take steps to change quickly. Then, a

few years later a new study comes out to contradict that earlier

information. . . . [such as] global warming, margarine vs. butter,

drinking coffee, [and] taking aspirin.
Therefore, while one grower stated, “I am willing to do some things just based on
the potential of harm,” the opinion of many others is 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.”

CHAPTER 5

LIVING WITH PESTICIDES

In previous chapters it was shown that there are compelling reasons to
change agricultural production practices including decreased pesticide
availability, production costs and risks to human and animal health. However, the
alternatives have problems as well, such as increased time, labor, and most
notably, a potential decrease in fruit quality and yield. This study, which covers
only a small piece of the transition process, has been focused, specifically, on
growers’ perceptions of pesticide risks and whether or not these affect their
adoption of alternative techniques. In this last chapter, a summary of the findings
will be presented as well as the findings in relation to competing paradigms,

policy implications, limitations and future recommendations.

Summary

A sample of fruit growers who practice alternative methods of pest control
was surveyed. The survey asked about the use of more than 40 pesticide
reducing techniques that were judged and weighted by experts. The weighted

behavior score was regressed on scales of personal, environmental and financial

99

100

risk perceptions, which were also developed from the questionnaire. Follow-up
interviews were conducted and used to clarify and to support the results.

It was found that growers who are willing to accept more financial risk will
adopt more alternative pest management approaches. However, the survey
reveals that they will only do so if they are profitable; “you have to make enough
profit to afford to keep up with change and to improve practices.” In essence,
growers’ financial considerations take precedence over their perceptions of
personal and environmental risks of agrichemical exposure.

Most growers perceive their financial success as being directly linked to
the consumer, believing that they buy with their eyes. They are also aware of
consumers’ concerns about residues, as amplified by the 1989 Alar incident. In
fact, one participant stated that “it was Alar that woke [me] up to the need to
learn how to grow fruit with [reduced] chemicals.”

While growers were found to be aware of certain general health risks in
agriculture (i.e., mechanical injury, u-v radiation from the sun), they are not
overly worried about direct exposure to pesticides (e.g., contact, inhalation).
They expressed more concern about residue consumption, but no association
was found between personal risk acceptance and the adoption of alternative
practices. Analysis of the interviews indicated that for many this is related to their
long term exposure to such risks. This was voiced primarily in two ways; either
the grower is fatalistic, “everything causes cancer,” or overconfident (cf., Covello,

1983) and denies any real risk, “nothing happened to my father.”

101

Less than half of the respondents feel the need for government
intervention in order to eliminate the personal risks of pesticide exposure. It is
likely that this attitude is linked to their general dissatisfaction with policy
initiatives (e.g., housing requirements, Worker Protection Standards). In regard
to environmental legislation, many growers state that they “face the brunt of the
. . . regulations; if the product is legal that shouldn’t happen.” Yet, they do show
concern about the environment and its connection to their farm, especially as it
relates to beneficial organisms. Nevertheless, no significant relationship was
found between environmental risk acceptance and the adoption of alternative

practices.

Findings in Relation to Competing Paradigms

As noted earlier, the literature is weak in dealing with growers’
attitude-behavior construct as it relates to the risks of agrichemical exposure.
Therefore, while it is not possible to compare these result with previous findings,
it is still possible to make inferences from what is known. It should be noted,
however, that no one theory has the robustness necessary to describe the
complexity of the issue raised here, yet many have elements or components that
are essential for analysis.

As a group, the growers could be described as rational actors (Renn,
1992a). They act in self-interest, primarily for economic survival, and base their
pest management practices on scientific evidence of performance and

profitability (Calabresi, 1985). For most of these growers, self interest also

102

includes the environment and personal health, but these dimensions are
secondary to the financial position of their farm. Regardless, analysis from a
rational actor perspective does not give a complete picture of growers’ decision
making. In the neo-classical sense, it is assumed that rational actors have
complete information on which to base their decisions about pesticides (Covello,
1983). However, not only is the information about the risks (Higley and
\Mntersteen, 1992) as well as the alternatives unavailable (Harris and Whalon,
1991), most growers in this study learned about pesticides from being around
them. This familiarity (Bellaby, 1990) is both the anchor or base of what they
know (Heimer, 1988) as well as the “primary” way they come to know it (Eagley
and Chaiken, 1983). In addition, growers who are raised in households and/or
communities where conventional agriculture is the predominant paradigm are
likely to be influenced by its norms (Ajzen, 1989). This, of course, includes
pesticide usage. As might be guessed, those who are new entrants to the
business were found to be the lowest input growers.

According to Slovic (1987), growers should rank pesticide risks based on
outrage factors. This theory is not supported by the findings presented. Although
the growers show that they are at least somewhat aware of the hazards and
have doubts about pesticide use, most indicate that pesticides are an acceptable
risk (Fischhoff et al., 1981). Moreover, science tends to be used as a “reason” to
reject new or additional information about these risks. Therefore, science effects

growers’ perceptions (Covello, 1983). For instance, since traditional research

103

methods cannot link pesticides directly and conclusively with certain harmful
effects (e.g., cancer) in humans (Flora, 1990), growers are able to use this
absence of compelling evidence to justify their own lack of concern about direct
exposure (i.e., contact with the skin, inhalation). The notion of scientific validation
is, also, used to reject the alternatives. This is confirmed by various comments
such as “organics is crap” or in regard to the “off-the-wall products,” “I would use
molasses and garlic if there was proof that it worked.”

Harris and Worosz (1995) found the extension service to be an extremely
important source of information about the alternatives. However, many
participants, especially the organic farmers, complain that the information
provided is not broad enough and thus does not reduce the uncertainty (Rogers,
1983). In fact, extension only disseminates that which is fully warranted. For
example, when growers were asked how they would produce fruit without OP’s
one grower stated that he will do whatever the spray calendar says, while
another indicated that he will “have to" call the extension service. Therefore,
extension promotes dependency.

The shortage of appropriate information also precludes growers’

assessment of environmental risks (Higley and Wintersteen, 1992) as well as the
financial and personal risks of pesticide application. However, Elkind (1993, p.
178) who is of the structural camp, states that “the assumption that one only
needs to provide information and develop knowledge which, in turn changes

attitudes in order to change behavior. . . [is] simplistic and perhaps invalid.” She

104

continues, stating that “such assumptions merely blame the person for their
illnesses and accidents, which are likely caused by a multiplicity of societally
based variables.”

Considering the market issues that most growers face, their use of
pesticides could also be viewed through a systems/structural lens. As capitalists
or petty bourgeoisie (Mooney, 1983), growers may appear to have both choices
and decision making power over the management of their farm operation. Yet,
these individuals exist in a system of varying interests—environmental
regulations, occupational health and safety standards, pesticide legislation, food
safety policies—over which they have less and less control. One grower
conveyed the feelings of many stating “now you buy land, but can’t do what you
want; there’s more government and less rights.”

Pressure also comes from other sources such as consumers and
processors. However, it is the processors who can have the most direct effect on
growers’ practices because they can mandate what products can and cannot be
used on a seasonal basis. This means that neither the costs nor the risks are
distributed equally (Slovic, 1987). One grower stated that he would be willing to
reduce his pesticide use further, if the major processor in the area would accept
more “damage.” However, others commented that this same processor will not
allow “their” growers to use some of the more effective products that have the
lowest preharvest interval. Even though the produce is to be sliced, juiced or

pureed, this processor requires nearly perfect cosmetic appearance, and at the

105

same time, limits the “tools” which growers perceive as being necessary to
achieve the quality demanded. Growers also believe that this company is setting
the industry standard.

Assuming that perceptions of risk are, in fact, inside one’s attitude
construct (Stone and Mason, 1995), growers’ lack of control over the necessary
resources (Ajzen, 1989), which in this case includes both economic and political
power, also affects their adoption of reduced pesticide techniques. Consistent
with earlier findings (Wernick and Lockeretz, 1977), the participants indicated
that they adopted alternate methods because of a production problem, “a
change of heart” or a meeting with proponents of an alternative method (cf.,
Madden, 1983; Powers and Harris, 1980). Others claim that they were simply
interested in producing “safe food” (cf., Beus and Dunlap, 1990). Each of these
reasons indicate that growers experienced changes in their beliefs (Ajzen, 1989).
But, more importantly, they also had a willingness or intention to adopt an

alternative approach to pest management (Ajzen, 1989).

Policy Implications

Slovic (1987) states that advanced technologies can be difficult to
evaluate and to understand, and as citizens demand increased safety, policy
makers need to understand how people perceive risks, how to direct education
and how to predict public response to new technology. In regard to pesticide
use, law makers also need to understand the complexity of the food system at all

levels—individual growers, grower associations, consumers, producers,

106

agribusiness as well as environmental and conservation groups. Elkind (1993)
implies that there has been an assumption that mitigating risk is the growers’
responsibility, which is linked to the romantic view of the yeoman farmer. Yet,
some growers do not concur; one such respondent indicated that it is the state
who “is responsible for informing the growers about risks.” In fact, some of the
past initiatives that were intended to alleviate certain risks have made things
worse for the growers.

For instance, most government policies are orientated primarily to
environment and consumer protection and secondarily to workers and lastly to
the health of farmers and their family (Bosso, 1987; Perkins, 1982). The
development of the Worker Protection Standards (WPS) have lead to several
significant concerns. First, WPS increases overhead costs (e.g., personal
protective equipment, education and training), which cannot be recouped in such
a competitive market. Second, the growers feel this policy penalizes them
because they are the ones responsible for protection now, and possibly liable for
injury in the future. In contrast, if the worker owned the liability themselves, they
would purchase their own personal protective equipment, pesticide safety
training, et cetera. Other arrangements might include or be a combination of the
pesticide company providing these services with the purchase of applicable
hazardous substances or the government being the supplier of equipment and

complete training services.

107

Renn (1992a, p. 66) states that risk perceptions cannot be translated
directly into policy. Instead, they can “reveal public concerns and values; serve
as indicators for public preferences; document desired lifestyles, help to design
risk communication strategies; and represent personal experiences in ways that
may not be possible in the scientific assessment of risk.” However, as the
literature review has shown, pesticide use is a matter of conflicting societal
beliefs, and the only way to change norms throughout society is to change
attitudes. According to Trafimow and Fishbein (1994) this is accomplished
through legislation requiring certain behaviors. This might include mandating the
use of hedgerows, a specific type of orchard architecture, or when a spray can
be applied. Yet, based on the findings presented here, it is also clear that some
of the changes needed should be focused on reducing the costs of alternatives
such as:

0 increased public support for research on alternative practices
including techniques that are considered “organic;”

0 increased funding for extension to assist in the dissemination of
information in a more accessible manner such as alternative
media sources and systematic guidelines for change;

0 expanding the mission of extension so that it disseminates all
sources of information, including that which is part of the fugitive
and/or nontraditional literature;

0 programs to make information gathering for growers easier,
such as the development of buying groups that could purchase
fax machines, weather stations and computer prediction models
at a reduced cost;

0 providing equitable access for all growers or grower
associations to all policy setting bodies that affect the

O

108

production, processing and distribution of agricultural products;
and

focusing the educational agenda, in regard to the relationship
between pesticide use and cosmetic damage, on all levels of
consumers, including those who are part of agribusiness (e.g.,
packers, distributors, processors) and the policy making
process.

The results of this study might be useful if applied toward the development

of successful models of transition, particularly those that would be more holistic.

For example, it has been shown that perceptions of risk are multifaceted.

Therefore, instead of focusing specifically on pesticide reduction it may be more

helpful to target things that would make growers’ overall operation more

manageable such as:

O

0

developing grower networks that would promote communication
among them not only locally, but also globally;

developing a labor database that could be searched on the
world wide web or accessed via a toll-free phone number in
which growers could input their needs (e.g., crop, date needed,
number of workers, skills desired, etc.) and be matched to a
pool of potential employees; and/or

funding grower-run workshops aimed at reducing the time and
energy of various farm related management requirements (e.g.,
paperwork), or at showing growers how to expand market
opportunities or how to conduct test plots on their farm that are
more efficient and effective.

Limitations

Research projects typically have limitations of one sort or another. Some

of the constraints in this study are connected to sampling, data collection and

109

analysis. It is not possible to address all of these limitations in great detail, but a
few of the more important issues are noted below.

Sampling. As mentioned in the methodology, determining the actual
population of alternative fruit growers was not possible. One reason is that there
is no census of alternative (i.e., IPM and organic) growers from which to draw a
random sample. In addition, there is no agreed-upon definition that exists across
areas of expertise—extension agents, processors, scouts, growers—so it was
necessary to rely on the cooperators’ own definitions when the sample list was
compiled.

Furthermore, the sample was particularly limited in terms of organic
commercial fruit growers in Michigan. None of the organic growers located
produce tart cherries and only a couple grow blueberries. This means that an
equal distribution of organic growers, for each of the three fruits in each of the
agroecological zones to compare to the IPM producers was not possible. This
also accounts for the relatively small sample size. Nevertheless, every grower
who claimed to meet the organic definition and who was willing to participate was
included.

Data collection. Surveys, in and of themselves, require certain
assumptions in order to be useful research tools. The standard
assumptions—the questions were answered honestly; the questionnaire was
completed in one sitting; the respondents were not influenced by a recent,

unusual event—apply in this situation, as well (Schuman and Presser, 1981).

110

Each of these elements are thought to have the potential to influence
participants’ responses and thus, to affect the results of the analysis. It must also
be assumed that the participants conceptualize risk in the same way and that
their perceptions can be identified, measured and understood. Be that as it may,
unlike most statistical analysis, this study did include qualitative data, bringing
meaning to the survey. The method of multiple measure used here also satisfies
one of the complaints about risk studies in the literature (cf., Covello, 1983).

The interviews also have limitations, some of which specifically pertain to
my participation in collecting the data. Based on standpoint theory (Harding,
1991), this includes consideration of gender, class, lack of agricultural
experience and age. The growers tend to be highly educated, and on average, of
similar income; therefore, class is not seen as a significant problem. In fact, since
almost all of the growers own the means of production, they could be considered
much higher status. Many growers, however, seemed concerned about my
apparent age and non-farm background. When they discovered that the author
had been in the Military their comments became much less reserved. The actual
reason for this is unknown, but it is believed that the participants simply became
more respectful. This interpretation is consistent with literature that suggests
farmers tend to be conservative and patriotic (Davidson, 1990).

Analysis. Sticking with the strict rules of regression (e.g., probabilistic
sampling) is not a viable way of doing analysis for most studies in the social

sciences. In this case, while the sample was purposeful, it is also believed to be

111

representative of the population of alternative fruit growers in the state.
Furthermore, in addition to understanding that the cooperators may have defined
the methods of pest management differently, it is also recognized that they may
have been biased in their initial selection. Consequently, the regression results
should be considered with some degree of caution.

Results of this study show a low coefficient of multiple determination.
There are several factors that may have led to this result. While the reliability test
indicates that each scale was internally valid, it is possible that they did not
measure the nuances of the risk dimensions. Therefore, this study may have
benefited from a focus group and/or formalized pretest. Second, the behavior
score would have been more representative of the growers’ practices if it had
been recalculated to count multiple, interrelated approaches as one technique.
For instance, participants would only get the points for scouting if they also
indicated that it was used to time sprays. Third, it is likely that more of the
variance of growers’ behavior would have been explained if the analysis
controlled for other variables such as growers’ age and education (Rogers,

1983).

Future Recommendations

Social scientists have an important role in the transition to alternative
techniques, precisely because it is more than just a question of production
practices. As practitioners they must communicate with growers, discover their

constraints and relay the necessary information to policy makers. It is only with

112

this information that effective legislation, directed toward pesticide-use reduction
and the adoption of alternative agriculture, can be realized.

The intent of this research was to increase understanding about growers’
behavior as a result of their risk perceptions of pesticide use. It should be
considered a preliminary investigation or an extensive “pre-test.” Strengthening
the analysis would not only require a larger random sample, but also determining
whether growers’ beliefs about risk, and aversion to or acceptance of risk, are
determined by different sets of causal variables than those analyzed here. This
data suggests that there are three primary areas for future research on growers’
risk-behavior construct.

First, to gain further understanding of how growers perceive the risks
associated with IPM, it is important to understand more about how they gather
information and how they assess and use that material in order to develop
appropriate programs. Studies are also needed to explore how they formulate
their beliefs about pesticide safety and the extent to which they are reinforced by
the pesticide representatives.

Second, future investigations should examine the role of risk aversion in
general farm management decisions. This should include an examination of
growers over time, through several growing seasons, to evaluate how each
reacts to various socioeconomic situations and events. These studies should
also address the differences among men and women; the primary operators and

their significant others; the intergenerational differences between the growers,

113

their parents and their children; and an assessment of their perceptions of home
and/or farm related injuries/illnesses.

Finally, subsequent research should consider how growers’ attitudes and
beliefs toward risk affect their behavior compared to other individuals who work
in risky occupations (Covello, 1983; Dietz et al., in press). This analysis should
also consider growers’ more general behavior such as frequency of speeding,
wearing a seat belt, airline travel, skydiving. In other words, are farmers by

nature risk takers?

EPILOGUE

During the defense of this thesis one of my committee members, a
biophysical scientist, asked: “What’s the point, what is the impact of your
research?”. Recently, a series of editorials in the Chronicle of Higher Education
addressed just this issue. Both Lane (1996) and Ferris (1997) focused on the link
between the “sciences” and society. They point specifically to the biophysical
scientists stating that it is their responsibility to inform the public about the use
and importance of their work. Lane (1996) and Ferris (1997) argue that while
society, in general, has little understanding of basic scientific principles, it is the
taxpayers’ dollars which support their work. Nichols (1997, p. 6) goes further,
stating that the “scientists cannot expect public funding for research unless they
demonstrate practical application for their work.” This has obvious implications
for researchers in both the biophysical and the social sciences.

It is generally accepted that the biophysical sciences have contributed to
society’s well-being (Nichols, 1997). This contribution includes everything from
medical devices to computers. In agriculture, the perceived benefits include
increasing crop production per acre with high yielding varieties (Lane, 1996),

decreasing labor requirements per unit of output with advances in mechanization

114

115

(Pfeffer, 1992), and ensuring a food supply that is free of harmful insects and
diseases with improved methods of pest control (cf., Pimentel, 1993a). Formal
testing after development is required in only a few specific areas (e.g.,
pharmaceuticals, pesticides). Most others are marketed directly after
development (cf., Beck 1992) based on only those grades and standards that
are clearly defined, whether they are formal or informal requirements. The
economic system, and its incentives that are currently in place, motivate and
facilitate the implementation of these technologies.

In contrast, the social sciences operate in the sociopolitical world which is
dominated by partisan politics, an adversarial legal system (Freudenburg, 1989)
and the unequal distribution of power. The implementation of social innovations
requires extensive debate, testing and experimentation before widespread use.
The state of Michigan, for example, is one of the experimental sites for welfare
reform, a very hotly contested proposal.

Nevertheless, in an attempt to contextualize the question posed above,
my search through the literature did reveal several clear instances of the impact
of social science research on society. A well-known example of the application of
social psychology comes from Samuel Stouffer’s (1962) The American Soldier.
As a result of his research, conducted during World War II, the Army changed
their promotion system from one that varied among the branches—Military
Police, Air Corps—to one that is more equitable across the various branches of

that service. Another classic, primarily the work of agricultural economists, was

116

the extensive effects that social scientists had on Roosevelt’s New Deal
programs. They promoted, among other things, “higher incomes for commercial
farmers, retirement of submarginal lands, and soil conservation.” Kurkendall,
(1966, p. 256) states that by 1946 social scientists had become a fixture in
national politics and subsequently one of the major influences on American life.
In a more recent and more local example, Laura Delind’s anthropological
research on local food systems (cf., 1994, 1997) led her to spearhead a
community supported agriculture (CSA) project in Mason, Michigan (cf., DeLind
and Ferguson, 1997). This project, called Growing In Place (GIP), brings
together people of varied backgrounds, interests and economic status with those
who produce food. Similar to other CSA’s, members of GIP assist a farmer in the
production of organic food and thus share in the risks. The goals of the
organization are not only to teach members how to grow food, but also to
establish a more equitable and a more democratic relationship with the primary
growers of their food.

According to Albak (1995), however, the most important function of social
science research, particularly in the policy arena, is discourse, which
subsequently affects our understanding of the world around us. He summarizes
his argument by stating:

[t]o understand the complex interfaces between social science

research and the political-administrative decision-making process,

it is necessary to be aware that research is transferred to, and

becomes part of, a discourse of action, in the philosophical as well

as the everyday practical sense — a discourse in which
(selflreflecting participants deliberate on and debate norms and

117

alternatives with a view to concrete action. This makes the

contribution of [social] science to policy making both less tangible

and potentially more influential than is usually assumed. (Albaek,

1995,p.79)

Based on the results of my research, I concluded that the financial risk of
adopting alternative practices is the most salient dimension of risk for growers in
their decision-making about agrichemical usage. However, I also found that they
do not have sufficient information about the environmental or the human risks of
agrichemical exposure, nor do they have adequate information about the
alternatives. These results, alone, do not impact growers directly, or society for
that matter, for they are more basic to our understanding of risk. Covello,
McCullum, and Pavlova (1987) suggest that understanding perceptions of risk
can lead to better communication about those risks. What this means for the
participants in this study is that the information that is communicated, in general,
must go beyond simply treating pests (cf., Kidd, Scharf, and Veazie, 1996;
Pannell, 1991). It should facilitate not only efficient application timing and record
keeping, as well as increasing growers’ understanding of various policy
requirements and potential marketing strategies; it should also enhance their
knowledge about the range of alternatives and the specifications of use. This is
not to suggest that increasing growers’ access to various types of information
alone will change their attitudes (cf., Elkind, 1993), but it may spark interest in

alternative production systems, show them examples of the various tools

available, and reduce their uncertainty about these techniques.

118

While my research may not have the impact of the scholars noted above,
there is evidence that it has impacted local discourse as well as emergent praxis.
My own experience with this project, for example, has led me to consider the
influence and importance of university research and extension in the
development and dissemination of information about alternative practices (Harris
and Worosz, 1997). In addition, conversations with local practitioners indicate

that these concepts have been embodied in several grant proposals such as

Developing a database of pesticide use on Michigan specialg crops (Bingen and

 

Harris, 1997) and the Great Lakes Apple Integrated Crop Management
Wion Delivery System for the World Wipe Wep (Landis, Harris, Worosz,
Schwallier, and Olsen, 1997). Below, I will elaborate and expand on the
application of the latter, as one possible strategy for communicating and

disseminating information to Michigan fruit growers.

Information Dissemination

A random sample found that Michigan farmers believe that they require
several types of information: i) marketing and business management, including
computer usage; ii) agrichemical science including the laws and regulations of
use; and iii) environmental issues, including sustainable agriculture and organic
farming (Suvedi, 1996). According to Lawrence (1994), some of the major
barriers to expanding growers’ access to information include the limited number

of resources (e.g., libraries, schools, bookstores, newspapers) and the low

119

population density in rural areas. Both of these barriers can be overcome with
changes in the methods of transmission.

Information is typically transmitted through television, radio, personal
communication, and the print media. Television and radio are the most
commonly used communication devices for agricultural audiences, but these
methods require a short message (McCulIum, 1994). Interpersonal
communication runs the “risk” of being misunderstood as a result of the
subsequent person-to-person re-transmission and translation. This makes
printed material, which can be read over and over, more desirable. However, in
order to implement new research findings and/or to use certain pest data
appropriately (e.g., weather data) it is important that growers have timely access
to it (McCullum, 1994). This can be accomplished through computer-mediated
communication via the internet such as Iistserves, e-mail, IRC (internet relay
chat), FTP (file transfer protocol), usenets, Gopher and the World Wide Web
(also known as W or the web). These types of internet communication
enable groups of users to share in discussions, to send and receive personal
mail, to communicate in “real-time,” to transfer data from one computer to
another, to post news at specific sites, and to search and retrieve both
text-based and graphic information (van Dyke, 1995; Gilmore 1996).

While Dillman states that “[wjorking on a computer workstation at a
remote site and accessing information and market opportunities . . . [are]

strikingly unusual behaviors for most rural people” (quoted in Lawrence, 1994, p.

120

75), there is evidence to suggest that this statement is becoming more and more
inaccurate. In fact, Audirac and Beaulieu (1986) argue that growers, particularly
those with larger and more complex farming operations (i.e., as a result of their
marketing strategies, analysis practices, record keeping) will adopt computer
technology as networks are put in place. Moreover, the internet is changing so
quickly that assumptions about the demographics of users today will be
inaccurate tomorrow (Maddox, 1996). For instance, in their article “Net helps
farmers plow a leveled field,” Cervokas and Watson (1997a) state that farmers
are plugged into e-mail in greater numbers than ever before. E-mail allows them
to communicate with others at “their” convenience. This means that a grower can
send a message directly to an expert and come back later for a response; the
grower does not need to place the call during certain business hours, wait for a
return call or waste time with busy signals.

PC Magazine (“Dad-dy,” 1997) reports that 40 percent of US households
own a computer. Approximately 22 percent have internet access (“Market Size,”
1997), which is consistent with a random sample of Michigan farmers (Suvedi,
1996). In addition, Suvedi (1996) found that 27 percent of the growers in the
state subscribe to DTN (Data Transmission Network) or FarmDayta Services,
which are electronic data sources that can be purchased by subscription. DTN
and FarmDayta Services primarily offer marketing information, but also provide

technical advice, basic weather forecasts, and advertising”. Growers access this

 

‘ Information about DTN and FarmDayta Services can be found on AgnVisorQ Services’ web site
(http://www.mcfb.orgl agrivisrlfd.htm and http:/lwww.mcfb.org/agrivisrldtn.htrn).

121

information from a dedicated (or “dummy”) terminal. This means that they can
receive programmed information, but they cannot put their own data into the
system or search the internet.

The internet can not only make new pest management tactics available to
a wider audience, it can also facilitate access to a larger number of sources and
subsequently a wider variety of information. Cervokas and Watson (1997b) quote
a farmer as stating that information from the web is “fast, accurate and
inexpensive” compared to services such as DTN. The response of another
farmer shows the vast options of information sources available: “I sought some
info concerning fertilizer placement. . . . The best data came from Canada and
Australia” (Cervokas and Watson, 1997a). The importance of the web for
Michigan fruit growers was recognized in an IPM needs assessment that was
conducted by the Extension Service. According to Olsen, Landis and Edson
(1996), apple growers need timely information delivered over the World Wide
Web in order to continue adopting alternative practices.

Although the advantages of disseminating information over the W are
obvious, I believe that the web will only be used if growers feel that it is a
valuable resource. Therefore, in order to present the risks of pesticide exposure
to them it will be necessary to design a site that will attract their attention (cf.,
McCullum, 1994). This may include, for example, information that addresses the

financial risks of fruit production such as marketing and labor strategies.

122

lnfonnation about the environmental and personal risks of agrichemical exposure
can be linked to these sites.

The significant changes that have occurred over the last 10 years have
made computer technology more user friendly and less expensive than ever
before. Whereas Audirac and Beaulieu (1986) may have been right a decade
ago in their comments about the size and complexity of farms that adopt
computer technology, these changes mean that it is now an ideal tool for even
the smaller farmer who must compete in traditional markets with larger corporate
ventures in the state, in other states, and in the global market place (cf.,
Cherbokas and Watson, 1997a). Growers can also use the web to find
appropriate niche markets for their products. The Ag Internet Club of Madison
County Nebraska is one such example. This group includes growers who use the
internet to “learn about alternative farming methods and to expand their markets
for locally produced products” (Fraas, 1997, p. 3).

It should be noted, however, that the internet—World Wide Web, e-mail,
Iistserves, usenet—is not the answer to all the information access problems.
First, growers must have sufficient hardware and software in order to tap into this
data source. Second, this new information source will not transmit information
that has not been posted, whether it is due to a lack of research on alternative
methods or a lack of funding to support and/or maintain an internet site. Third,
the volume of data that is and will be available in the future may be

ovenrvhelming to many individuals. Links between web sites, for instance, are

123

often constructed with no way to determine whether or not the site is useful or
reliable, and sifting through this data to assess its value can be a complex and

time consuming endeavor, especially for beginners.

Alternative Agriculture and the World Wide Web

Information can be transmitted and received over the W in a wide
variety of formats including text and tables; diagrams, figures and graphs; audio,
and video recordings (e.g. photographs, satellite images, movie clips). Although
graphics can be sent and received through various internet tools (e.g., Gopher,
FTP), the web is the only type of internet access that uses a “browser” which
facilitates searching and viewing? These features make it a very effective tool for
technology transfer, particularly as a time and money saving device (Snow,
1995). Therefore, I will address several issues related to the dissemination of
information over the WWW: who provides the information and who has access to
it, what types of information are available, and how this information can be used.

Who. A good deal of information is already available over the web. Many
commercial suppliers, trade journals, grower associations, professional societies,
government agencies, and specialists both within and outside the land grant
university system have begun to offer and support web sites. Individual growers
are beginning to put up web sites for their farms, as well. Examples of these sites

can be found in Appendix G. Vlfith the appropriate hardware and software these

 

2 Searching over the World Wide Web is done with a search engine such as Yahoo!” or
AltavistaT". The graphics are displayed with web client software (browser) such as Mosaico,
Netscape, or lntemet Explorer (Burger et al., 1995).

124

web sites can be accessed by virtually any stakeholder—agricultural labor
organizers and leaders; shippers and packers; buyers; producers; university
students, staff and faculty; other growers (e.g., organic growers, non-commercial
fruit growers) and commodity groups; as well as consumers and growers’
non-agricultural neighbors.

What. WWW sites are used to provide both general and specific
information including material about pesticide applications, education programs
for children, and even more personal things like special recipes (Cervokas and
Watson, 1997b). Web sites for conferences, trade shows and special events are
also becoming more common. These sites can also be used to advertise and/or
to sell merchandise, as well.

How. A World Wide Web page can be used by growers in their
decision-making processes by facilitating access to the most current
recommendations and strategies for decreasing the risks of production, for
dealing with uncertainty in the market, and for learning about alternative
techniques and markets. These functions can be achieved with access to
diagnostic tools, real-time information, and interactive dialogue.

Identification of a potential orchard/field pest and accessing the
significance of it requires both quantitative and qualitative judgments. These
judgments may mean counting the economically damaging insects caught in a
trap, examining spots on a leaf, or inspecting marks on the trunk of a tree. In

order for growers to diagnose pest problems they need diagrams and color

125

plates for comparison—the wing patterns of the various fruit flies, the different
types of tree defoliation, the symptoms of nutritional deficiencies. One strength of
the web is its ability to assist growers in accessing a wide range of these images.
More importantly, a web site can also provide the real-time weather data
necessary for growers to keep track of growing degree days, irrigation
scheduling, crop protection, and pest management (Ley, Willett, Boyer, Wright,
Muzzy, and Graves, 1992). This was identified as a particularly important feature
for Michigan fruit growers in the Michigan Plant Industries’ 1995 report,
Generating Resegch and Extension to Meet Economic and EnvirpnmentaJ
NMflGREEEN). This report states that the lack of up-to-date, site specific,
weather information is one of the major production factors that limits growers’
adoption of alternative pest management practices.

Furthermore, to be effective, the transmission of information must also
provide an opportunity for discussion and user feedback. This may include both
chat and discussion groups on specific and/or general issues with each of the
various stakeholders in an interactive dialogue. This idea can be carried farther
with on-line conferences and workshops. Environment973 is one such example.
This conference is billed as “the world’s first environmental conference to be
held entirely on the internet.” Its goal is to facilitate “discussion between

engineers, scientists and the general public.”

 

 

3 “Environment97” can be found at httpll:www.environment97.org.

 

126

Since individuals tend to simplify when they are faced with information

overload (Kasperson and Palmlund, 1987) a useful web site for Michigan fruit

growers should help them manage their operation by organizing the vast

amounts of information into a useful format. Kasperson and Palmlund (1987, p.

148) state that “[pleople cannot readily detect omissions in the evidence they

receive;” therefore, it is also important to provide alternatives. One of the ways to

do this is to develop a decision (logic) tree that asks a series of questions—what

are the number of degree days, what is the stage of tree growth, what are the

pest symptoms, what is the pest history for that orchard—that will lead a grower

to an appropriate topical database or group of databases such as the following

(Snow, 1995):

O

a horticultural practice and risk reduction database that includes
information about caring for the trees/bushes such as the types
and timing of pruning, frost protection, irrigation, and the
characteristics of rootstocks, varieties and cultivars;

a production management database that would include
pesticide trade names and active ingredients, EPA record
numbers, safety data material, reentry intervals and tree/row
volume charts;

an occupational health and safety database that would provide
information that is particular to the hazards of the farm
environment including specific concerns of the various types of
machinery and the symptoms of agrichemical exposure;

a farm management database that would include general
information about the laws and regulations of pesticide
application, wages, taxes, and housing; and

a marketing database that would include advertising strategies,
expected yields, current and average prices in the local,

127

national and international market as well as information about
niche markets.

Access to Information and its Potential Impact

Access to information about alternative methods of pest management
does not guarantee a reduction in the risks of pesticide exposure (cf., McCallum,
1994). Yet, access to certain types of information will provide growers with the
material necessary to i) reduce their uncertainty about alternative pest
management practices and ii) evaluate claims about the actual as well as the
suspected risks of agrichemical use. Nevertheless, I believe that the potential
impact of these findings, as a whole, is dependent upon the extent to which it
can be embedded into public policy and/or communication methods and
programs that support pesticide reduction (cf. McCullum, 1994).

The development of a web site, as described above, is just one way to
increase growers’ access to these various sources of information. I am not
suggesting that the use of World Wide Web is the only strategy; it will not
eliminate the fear of trying new things, the costs of time and energy to adopt new
techniques, or even the potential decrease in production yield and quality. At the
same time, it is suggested that the internet can also promote democracy and
empower individuals (cf., Sclove, 1995), and therefore, it can provide resistance
to the conventional “truth claims” of industrialized agriculture. McCullum (1994)
reminds us that consumers are also part of the debate about the risks of

agriculture (e.g., environment, health) and that adequate information will improve

128

such debates in society. For me, however, the lntemet is another way that social
scientists can share data among themselves, with other scientists, growers and

society as a whole.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A

MICHIGAN STATE

UNIVERSITY

 

 

NORTH CENTRAL
FRUIT FARM
RESEARCH
PROJECT

MICHELLE Woeosz
3110 Natural Resources
East Lansing, MI
48824-1222
517/336-2396

Fax: 517/353-8994

CRAIG HARRIS
429 Berkey Hall
East Lansing, MI
48824-1111
517/355-5048
Fax: 517/336-2856

Torr Eoeus

325 Natural Resources

East Lansing MI 48824-1222
517/353-0762

Fax: 517/353-8994

MARK WHALON
B11 Pesticide Research
East Lansing, MI
48824-1311
517/353-9425

Fax: 517/353-5589

MSU is an affirmative-action,
equal-opportunity institution.

September 17, 1997

<FIRST_NAME> <LAST_NAME>
<FARM_NAME>

<ADDRESS>

<CITY,_ST__ZIP>

Dear <FIRST_NAME> <LAST_NAME>:

One of the comments we hear most frequently from fruit growers is
"what are we going to do about pest management?". In order to
provide assistance to growers in dealing with pest problems, we
have initiated a research project about growers' decisions among
alternative methods of pest control. The goal of this research is to
understand the factors which can lead to or interfere with the
adoption of methods which are not harmful to the environment in
the long-term. We are especially interested in a grower's decision to
shift from one method to another; to identify the agricultural,
economic and social factors involved in those shifts.

We began our research by contacting grower associations, extension
agents, and pest management professionals. You have been
suggested to us as a good source of information about pest
management in fruit production in your region of Michigan, and as a
grower who is committed to the continued progress of the fruit
industry in Michigan and to the process of agricultural research and
education. Therefore, we would like to enlist your participation in
our research. For the project to be successful, it is very important
that we have a sample of growers from different areas of the state,
producing a variety of fruit crops, and using different techniques of
pest management.

129

130

The research will be conducted over a period of two years. It will involve both mail and
telephone surveys and on-site interviews with you and other members of your family who
are involved in the fruit operation. While we will make some measurements of the
biological activity in your soil and orchards, we will not ask you to

set up a demonstration plot or to apply a particular practice to your orchard or field. All
of the information which we collect about your farm and about you and your family will
be strictly confidential; none of the information about any individual grower will ever be
publicly revealed.

Enclosed is a brief description of the research project and a short sketch of each of the
researchers. We will call you in a few days to answer any questions you have about the
project and to find out if you are willing to participate. We wish that we could offer you
and your family some direct compensation for your time involved in the research, but
research budgets are not faring any better these days than farm budgets. At any time
during the project we will be happy to discuss the significant things we see in the
information we have collected about your farm, and at the end of the project we will
provide you with a copy of the results of the research. In addition, we will be happy to
try to answer any questions you may have about different methods of pest management.

If you wish to contact us with any questions, feel free to call us at the numbers listed.
Otherwise we look forward to talking with you.

Yours truly,

Craig K. Harris Thomas L. Edens
Associate Professor Professor

Rural Sociology Resource Development
Mark E. Whalon Michelle R. Worosz
Professor Research Associate

Entomology Resource Development

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX B

The Adoption of LISA (Low Input Sustainable Agriculture)
Techniques of Pest Management by
North Central Fruit Growers

Summafl and Participants

The transition from conventional techniques to low input sustainable agriculture (LISA)
production practices is a considerable challenge. It requires a grower to overcome several
problems that may cause a decrease in production, a rise in pest losses, and a reduction in
income, all of which tend to make a grower reluctant to move toward alternative
agricultural methods. The two general models of alternative methods which are currently
available to growers are integrated pest management (IPM) and organic farming. The
purpose of this research project is to examine the actual transitions of Michigan fruit
growers from conventional pest control methods to LISA methods, to describe the current
practices which growers are using in terms of the IPM and organic models, and to
forecast the future state of LISA techniques.

The lack of information about the implementation of LISA is one of many problems that
growers face. Area and/or crop specific techniques are not available; neither are specific
methods of transition. The result is that farmers seeking to adopt alternative methods
tailor general guidelines in such a way that they are less than fully effective or can no
longer be classified as LISA. These problems arise because models of successful
transition are not available to the grower. Therefore, this project will identify transitional
models for fruit production and will collate them into printed materials to be disseminated
to the cooperators for evaluation. After revisions, these materials will be made available
both to project cooperators and to other growers in the state.

We view sustainability as a continuous, integrated, system consisting of three
dimensions: economic, social, and biological. A sample of growers of apples, tart
cherries, and blueberries in the Northern, Southern, and Inland regions of Michigan will
be selected to participate in the study. Their past, current and desired future production
practices will be described. The research process will collect data on the farm operation
by a holistic approach consisting of mail and telephone surveys and personal interviews.
The data collected will assess the ecological conditions of the system including resiliency
and diversity, farm budgets and energy subsidy, and attitudes towards resource
conservation and levels of satisfaction.

131

132

Craig Harris is an associate professor in the Department of Sociology concentrating on
attitudes and behavior in organic and conventional production systems. He will be the
overall coordinator for the project, lead the development of the interview protocols, and
supervise the data collection.

T om Edens is a professor in the Departments of Resource Development and Entomology,
emphasizing resource economics and sustainable agriculture. He will lead the
development and analysis of the protocols to collect information on farm budgets and
energy subsidies and will serve as the primary liaison between the campus researchers,
extension personnel, and growers.

Mark Whalon is a professor in the Department of Entomology concentrating on
integrated pest management. He will lead the identification of grower cooperators, the
development and analysis of the protocols on pest management techniques, and the
development of the extension materials to disseminate the transition guidelines.

Michelle Worosz is a graduate student in the Department of Resource Development
concentrating on pesticide use reduction and public policy and legislation of
environmental issues. She is the research assistant assigned to this project to collect and
collate data and maintain correspondence with growers.

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX C

 

' NORTH CENTRAL
FRUIT FARM
RESEARCH

PROJECT

 

MICHIGAN STATE

UNIVERSITY

College of Social Science
Department of Sociology

 

College of Agriculture and
Natural Resources
Departments of Entomology and
Resource Development

 

 

 

133

134

SECTION I: GENERAL PEST MANAGEMENT. Please circle one number.

A.

In 1993, did you practice Integrated Pest Management (IPM) on your fruit

crop(s)?

1. No

2. Yes, on some of my fruit crop(s).
3. Yes, on all of my fruit crop(s).

In 1993, did you produce any of the fruit you grow organically?

1. No
2. Yes, some of my fruit crop(s).
3. Yes, all of my fruit crop(s)

In 1993, did you monitor your fruit crop(s) for pests?

1. No
2. Yes, some of my fruit crop(s).
3. Yes, all of my fruit crop(s).

Which one of the following do you feel is the best response to the appearance of insect
pests in fruit crop(s)?

1. Take no action.

2. Tolerate pests but try to work out healthier production practices.

3. Observe pest outbreaks and treat them in proportion to the threat they pose.
4. Try to exterminate pests as soon as they appear.

In 1993, which of the following were monitored on your farm? (Please circle all that

apply.)
. None

Diseases

Mites

Insects

Nematodes

Weeds

Other (Please specify):

NQQPWN‘

 

In choosing pest management methods, it is sometimes necessary to make difficult
choices between alternatives that have both good and bad effects. In your opinion,
which one of each pair below would be the more desirable method to use on your fruit
farm?

Example: Doesn't cost very much. Y or @ Costs a lot of money.

(Please circle one letter from each pair of alternative choices.)

Increases consumer safety, A. or B. Increases fruit quality, but
but decreases fruit quality. decreases consumer safety.

135

Decreases the risk of C.
environmental contamination,
but decreases profits.

Increases yield, but increases E.
pesticide residues.

' Incmases consumer safety, G.
but decreases yield.

Increases grower's safety, I.
but decreases yield.
Decreases pesticideresIdUes, K.
g ' - but. decreasesgprofits. ~
Increases yield, but increases M.

the risk of environmental
contamination.

Increases fruit quality, but 0.
decreases grower’s safety. ‘
Increases fruit quality, but Q.
increases pesticide residues.

Increases grower'ssafety, S.
but decreases. profits.

Increases fruit quality, but U.
increases the risk of
environmental contamination.

Increases Consumer safety ' w,
” . but decreases profits

SECTION II:

biological control practices and products.

Of

Of
Of
or
or '

or

or
Of
Of

Of

0"

Increasesprofits,

but increases the; risk of _
environmental contamination.
Decreases pesticide residues,
but decreases yield.
Increases yield, but _
decreases consumer safety.
Increases yield, but
decreases grower's safety.

Increasesprofits, but ‘ I f‘ j s . '

~ increaSeS‘pestIcide residues. _

Decreases the risk of
environmental contamination,
but decreases yield.
Increases grower‘ssafetyg"
but decreases fruit quality.
Decreases pesticide residues,
but decreases fruit quality.

Increases profits, but °
decreases grower's safety. _' _
Decreases the risk of
environmental contamination,
but decreases fruit quality.
Increases profits, but: 1
decreases consumersa’fery.

BIOLOGICAL CONTROL PRACTICES. Below is a list of
For each one, please circle the

response that indicates: 1) if you are aware of it, 2) if you have ever used it, and
3) if you used it during the 1993 growing season.

 

 

 

 

Dld you use this
Are you aware of Have you ever practice last year
this practice used this practice (1993)

Biological Practices and Products Yes T No Yes I No Yes I No

Purchase and release predator

mites .............................. Y N Y N Y N

Purchase and release Ladybird

Beetles (Ladybugs) ............... Y N Y N Y N

Purchase and release egg

parasites (Trichogramma minutum

Riley) ............................. Y N Y N Y N

Use of insect barrier systems

(screens, insect hardware cloth,

netting, etc.) ....................... Y N Y N Y N

2

136

 

 

Did you use this
Are you aware of Have you ever practice last year
this practice used this practice (1993)

Biological Practices and Products Yes I No Yes I No Yes I No

E. Use of hedgerows (or living
hedges) in your orchard ........... Y N Y N Y N
F. Mating disruption (pheromones) ... Y N Y N Y N
G. Pheromone trap(s) ................ Y N Y N Y N
H. Sticky trap(s) (bait, visual) ......... Y N Y N Y N
l. Bt (Bacillus thurengiensis) ......... Y N Y N Y N
J. Diatomaceous earth ............... Y N Y N Y N
K. Herbal preparations ............... Y N Y N Y N

 

 

SECTION III: A TTITUDES TOWARD PESTICIDE USE. Please circle one
answer for each question.

Agree Partly Partly Disagree
Completely Agree Neutral Disegme Completely

A. Agriculture today is too

dependent on the use of

agricultural chemicals ............ 1 2 3 4 5
B. Controlling most insect pests

requires using chemical

pesticides ........................ 1 2 3 4 5
C. Farmers do not use more

chemicals than they have to ...... 1 2 3 4 5
D. 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 ......... 1 2 3 4 5
E. The pesticides I use can be

poisonous to animals ............. 1 2 3 4 5
F. 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 .................. 1 2 3 4 5

G. The pesticides I use can be
harmful to the physical
environment including the air and
groundwater ..................... 1 2 3 4 5

137

Excessive use of chemical
fertilizers can cause serious
pollution problems ...............

The pesticides I use can be
poisonous to beneficial
organisms ........................

Outbreaks of farm pests are a
more serious threat to society
than pollution from farm
chemicals ........................

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 . ..

Most cancers are caused by
substances that people cannot
avoid .............................

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 ...

Given the economic realities,
concern with environmental
conservation is often carried too
far ...............................

Most cancers are caused by
substances that people choose
to use ...........................

The government should not wait
for absolute proof that a chemical
is harmful, but should act
immediately to protect growers if
is there is any evidence of risk ...

For the average fruit grower, the
cost of chemical pesticides is
greater than the increase in
income that results from their use

I worry about the possibility that
the methods I use to control
pests may cause health
problems for me and my family . . .

To protect the environment, we
must change the way we
produce our nation's food ........

Agme Partly
Completely Agree

1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2

Neutral

Partly Disagree
Disagree Completely

4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5

138

Agree Partly Partly Disagree
Completely Agree Neutral Disagree Completely
Chemical companies encourage
growers to use more chemicals
than are safe for the environment 1 2 3 4 5

The government has adequate
regulations for the use of
pesticides and other chemicals
on fruit crops ..................... 1 2 3 4 5

SECTION IV: PESTICIDE USA GE. Please circle one number.

NOTE: for the purposes of this survey, "pesticides" include both synthetic
(manufactured) and nonsynthetic (natural) insecticides, herbicides,
fungicides, and miticides.

During 1993, were any pesticides applied to your fruit crop(s)?
1. No a» please skip to question F

2. Yes, on some of my fruit crop(s).

3. Yes, on all of my fruit crop(s).

During 1993, did you APPLY any of the pesticides that were used on your fruit crop(s)

yourself?

1. No ==> please sklp to question C
2. Yes, some of the applications.

3. Yes, all of the applications.

B2. When you were applying pesticides, did you at any time wear protective

equipment?

1. No

2. Yes, some of the time.

3. Yes, all of the time.

4. Not applicable, the tractor I use for spraying has a cab with a ventilation

system.

During 1993, did you MIX any of the pesticides that were applied to your fruit crop(s)
yourself?

1. No ==> please skip to question D
2. Yes, some of the applications.
3. Yes, all of the applications.
CZ. When you were mixing pesticides, did you at any time wear protective
equipment?
1. No
2. Yes, some of the time.
3. Yes, all of the time.

139

During 1993, did someone other than yourself APPLY pesticides to your fruit crop(s)?

1. N ==> please skip to question E
2. Yes, some of the time.
3. Yes, all of the time.

Dz. Who applied the pesticides to your fruit crop(s) during 1993? (Please circle all
that apply.)

. Other family member

Contracted spray service (contracted aerial spraying, etc.)

Agricultural specialist (IPM scout, etc.)

Regular full-time hired labor

Seasonal (full-time & part-time) hired labor

Other (Please specify):

ewewwe

 

During 1993, did someone other than yourself MIX the pesticides that were applied to
your fruit crop(s)?

1. No ==> please skip to question F
2. Yes, some of the time.
3. Yes, all of the time.

E2. Who mixed the pesticides that were applied to your fruit crop(s) during 1993?
(Please circle all that apply.)

Other family member

Contracted spray service (contracted aerial spraying, etc.)

Agricultural specialist (IPM scout, etc.)

Regular full-time hired labor

Seasonal (full-time & part-time) hired labor

Other (Please specify):

P’S’IRWN.‘

 

During 1993, were any fertilizers applied to your fruit crop?

1. No ==> please skip to section V.
2. Yes, on some of my fruit crop(s).
3. Yes, on all of my fruit crop(s).

F2. What type(s) of fertilizer products were applied to your fruit crop? (Please circle
all that apply.)

Synthetic fertilizer (manufactured)
Non-synthetic fertilizer (natural)
Other (Please specify):

1 Foliar nutrients

2. Green manure (such as rye or clover that is plowed under)
3. Animal manure

4. Sewage

5. Mulch

6. Compost

7.

8.

9.

 

140

SECTION V: ATTITUDES TOWARD FARMING. Please circle one answer for
each question.

Agree Partly Partly Disagree
Completely Agree Neutral Disagree Completely

A. In farming, conserving resources
is more important than increasing
profits ............................. 1 2 3 4 5

B. It is more important to be flexible
and respond to opportunities than
to plan everything carefully ........ 1 2 3 4 5

C. A diversified farming operation is
necessary to protect the farmer
against a bad year ................ 1 2 3 4 5

D. Involving family members in farm
work is more important than
making more money .............. 1 2 3 4 5

E. In farming, financial independence

is more important than increasing

profits ............................. 1 2 3 4 5
F. The agricultural practices I use on

my farm will not be capable of

maintaining productivity of the

land over the next 25 years ....... 1 2 3 4 5
G. In farming, financial independence

is more Important than involving

family members in farm work ...... 1 2 3 4 5
H. A good farm should provide a

habitat for species that help to

control insect pests (birds. bats,

etc.) ............................... 1 2 3 4 5

SECTION VI: PESTICIDE SPRAY PRACTICES. Below is a list of pesticide
products and spray practices. For each one, please circle the response that
indicates: 1) if you are aware of it, 2) if you have ever used it, and 3) if you used
it during the 1993 growing season.

 

 

 

 

Did you use this
Are you aware of Have you ever practice last
this practice used this practice year (1993)
Spray Practices and Products
Yes I No Yes I No Yes I No
A. Dilute spraying ............................ Y N Y N Y N
B. Low volume spraying (less than 100
gal/acre) .................................. Y N Y N Y N
C. Ultra-low volume spraying (less than 20
gal/acre) .................................. Y N Y N Y N
D. Perimeter spraying ............. . ......... Y N Y N Y N

7

141

 

 

Did you use this
Are you aware of Have you ever practice last
this practice used this practice year (1993)
Spray Practices and Products

Yes I No Yes I No Yes I No

E. Alternate row spraying .................... Y N Y N Y N
F. Spot spraying ............................. Y N Y N Y N
G. Rotenone ................................. Y N Y N Y N
H. Insecticidal soap .......................... Y N Y N Y N
I. Fish oil ................................... Y N Y N Y N
J. Seaweed or kelp spray ................... Y N Y N Y N
K. Mineral oil ................................ Y N Y N Y N
L. Pyrethrum ................................ Y N Y N Y N

 

 

SECTION VII: ATTITUDES TOWARD RESOURCES. In the next three
questions, we will ask you to tell us how you feel about the use of the earth's
resources and its use by future generations. Each question asks you to tell us
how you balance your use of natural resources with other considerations.
Please circle the response that best reflects your opinion.

A. This first question asks you to tell us how you balance the financial costs and moral
obligations of resource conservation. (Please circle one number.)
1. I do not believe that I have a moral obligation to maintain soil and water

resources.

2. I believe that I have a moral obligation to maintain soil and water resources even
if it costs me $500 a year.

3. I believe that I have a moral obligation to maintain soil and water resources even
if it costs me $2,500 a year.

4. I believe that I have a moral obligation to maintain soil and water resources even
if it costs me $5,000 a year.

5. I believe that l have a moral obligation to maintain soil and water resources

regardless of the costs.

B. This second question asks how you balance obligations to others and resource use.
(Please circle one number)
1. The land I own is mine and I should not have to answer to anyone on how I use it.

2. The land I own is mine and I can treat it anyway I want as long as I do not
interfere with my neighbors.

3. Even though I own this land, I have to take into consideration the rights of my
neighbors and fellow citizens in how I use it.

4. Even though I hold a legal claim to this land, I realize that there is no such thing
as absolute ownership when it comes to soil and water resources.

5. Ownership of the land is a relative matter and I will be held accountable to a

higher authority for any misuse or abuse of these resources.

142

C. This third question asks you to tell us how you balance your use of natural resources and
your feelings toward future generations. (Please circle one number.)

1.

2.

I only have one consideration in farming and that is to make a profit regardless of
any long term consideration to the land and future generations.

I believe that l have an obligation to maintain the land for future generations as
long as it does not interfere with my ability to generate a profit.

I believe that it is important to find a balance between making a good living at
farming and still maintaining the land for future generations.

Profitability isn't everything; it is also important that l nurture the land for future
generations so that I can pass it on in a better condition than I obtained it.
Nurturing and maintaining the land for future generations is one of the major goals
in my farm operations.

SECTION VIII: GROUND COVER MANAGEMENT. Below is a list of ground
cover management practices. For each one, please circle the response that
indicates: 1) if you are aware of this practice, 2) if you have ever used this
practice, and 3) if you used this practice during the 1993 growing season.

 

 

Did you use this
Are you aware of Have you ever practice last year
this practice used this practice (1993)
Ground Cover Management Yes I No Yes I N 0 Yes I N o

A. Remove broadleaf weeds to control

pests such as Tamish Plant Bug ....... Y N Y N Y N
8. Timed mowing for control of pests

such as Tamish Plant Bug ............. Y N Y N Y N
C. Plant Wheeler Rye or Annual Rye as

a herbicide in your orchard ............ Y N Y N Y N
D. Plant Endophytic Rye or Fescue as an

insecticide in your orchard ............. Y N Y N Y N
E. Till to control pests and diseases such

as Mummyberry ....................... Y N Y N Y N
F. Till to reduce weed competition with

bushes/trees ........................... Y N Y N Y N

 

 

143

SECTION IX: SOURCES OF INFORMA TION. Please circle one answer for
each question.

Agree Partly Partly Disagree
Completely Agree Neutral Disagree Completely

A. 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 ........ 1 2 3 4 5

B. To survive in farming today one has
to keep up with the latest advances in
science and technology ............... 1 2 3 4 5

C. In farming, experience and careful
observations are as important as
scientific testing ...................... 1 2 3 4 5

D. There is no point in adopting new
practices unless they are more
profitable ............................. 1 2 3 4 5

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.

PIPP’N.‘

None

1-3 times

4-6 times

7-9 times

more than 9 times

What sources of information do you use when you are making a decision about pest

management practices. (Please circle all that apply.)

None

Unrelated grower
Relative

Private Consultant
Sales representative
District soil conservationist

County Extension Agent (including Regional and District Agents)
Fruit CAT Alerts

Fruit Pest Management Code-a-phone

Books or articles

Organizations (Farm Bureau, Cherry Marketing Institute, etc.)
Seminars

Other (Please specify):

 

Please WRITE the number of the one

information source from the above list that
is the most Important source of lnfonnation for you.

10

144

SECTION X: USE OF INFORMATION. Below is a list of uses of information.
For each type of lnfonnation, please circle the response that indicates: 1) if you
are aware of this use of information, 2) if you have ever used this information,
and 3) if you used this type of information during the 1993 growing season.

 

 

 

 

Did you use this
Are you aware of Have you ever practice last
. this practice used this practice year (1993)
Information Yes I No Yes I No Yes I No
A. Use of weather data to time sprays .. .. Y N Y N Y N
B. Use scouting (monitoring) information
to time or skip sprays .................. Y N Y N Y N
C. Keep a detailed record of the sprays
applied ................................ Y N Y N Y N
D. Count growing degree days (DD) to
assist monitoring or to time sprays ..... Y N Y N Y N
E. Time sprays according to the spray
guide (calendar or interval sprays) ..... Y N Y N Y N
F. Time sprays according to pest
thresholds (economic injury levels) . . .. Y N Y N Y N
G. Use experimental plots ................ Y N Y N Y N
H. Keep a detailed record of pest
numbers ............................... Y N Y N Y N
I. Monitor predator mites ................. Y N Y N Y N
J. Monitor Ladybird Beetles (Ladybugs) .. Y N Y N Y N
Use less than recommended rate of a
chemical pesticide product ............. Y N Y N Y N
L. Foliar nutrient testing .................. Y N Y N Y N
Soil testing ............................. Y N Y N Y N
SECTION XI: PERSONAL BACKGROUND.
A. What is your age? years
8. What is the highest level of education you attained? (Please circle one number.)
1. Less than twelve years
2 High school graduate
3. Technical training beyond high school
4. Some college
5. College graduate (Associates degree, Agricultural Tech. degree, etc.)
6. Bachelors degree
7. College work beyond a bachelors degree

C. How long have you been a principal farm operator on this farm? years

11

145

How long have you been actively engaged in farming? years

What are your current farming plans (barring unforeseen things, such as poor health)?
Definitely plan to farm full-time until retirement

Probably will farm some or full-time until retirement

Undecided

Probably will enter a different full-time occupation

Definitely plan to enter a different full-time occupation

Other (Please specify):

9’9”?pr

 

Do you use a full-brimmed hat, sunscreen, or a long sleeve shirt to protect yourself from
the sun?

1. No
2. Yes, some of the time.
3. Yes, all of the time.

Do you smoke or chew tobacco products?
1. No
2. Yes, occasionally.

3. Yes, regularly.

SECTION XII: GENERAL FARM INFORMATION.

A.

Please circle each fruit crop you presently grow and state the number of acres on which
you grow that crop, Including rented.

 

 

 

Other Fruit (Please Specify):
fliUfl m Efllfl ACRES
Apples __
Blueberries __
Tart Cherries

 

What was the approximate total value of all cash receipts for your farm in 1993 including
crops, animals, and animal products?

1. Less than $2,500 6. $50,000 to $99,999
2. $2,500 to $4,999 7. $100,000 to $174,999
3 $5,000 to $9,999 8. $175,000 to $249,999
4. $10,000 to $24,999 9. $250,000 to $499,999
5. $25,000 to $49,999 10. $500,000 and over

12

146

What was the approximate total value of all government program payments (including
disaster payments) for your farm in 1993?

None

less than $5,000

$5,000 to $9,999

$10,000 to $14,999

$15,000 to $19,999

$20,000 to $29,999

$30,000 to $49,999

$50,000 and over

@NP’S’IPP’N.‘

In 1993, approximately what percent of all
the cash receipts from your farm came from
the sale of fruit crop(s) or products made from fruit? percent

What was the net farm income for this farm unit in 1993?

1. lost more than $5,000 7. Made $5,000 to $9,999

2. Lost between $2,500 & $4,999 8. Made $10,000 to $19,999

3. Lost between $1 and $2,499 9. Made $20,000 to $39,999
4. Broke even 10. Made $40,000 to $99,999

5. Made $2,499 or less 11. Made $100,000 to $174,999
6. Made $2,500 to $4,999 12. Made $175,000 or more

What is the total value of your farm assets (the market value of all farm real estate
including farm house, machinery, crops in storage, etc.)?

1. Less than $10,000 7. $150,000 to $199,999

2. $10,000 to $19,999 8. $200,000 to $299,999

3. $20,000 to $39,999 9. $300,000 to $499,999

4. $40,000 to $69,999 10. $500,000 to $999,999

5. $70,000 to $99,999 11. $1,000,000 to $1,999,999
6. $100,000 to $149,999 12. $2,000,000 or more

If you sold your farm today, what percent of the selling price would you be able to retain
after all debts had been paid?

100% - currently debt free

81% or 99%

61% to 80%

31% to 60%

1% to 30%

Zero percent - the debts would equal the selling price

Less than zero percent - the debts are greater than the selling price

NP’QPP’N.‘

13

147

SECTION XIII: ADDITIONAL COMMENTS. Thank you very much for your time
and participation in this survey. Your responses will be very helpful in
understanding the problems confronting Michigan fruit farmers. If there are any
additional comments you would like to make, either about the content of this
survey or about the future of the fruit industry, please feel free to include them
here.

MSU is an affirmative-action,
equal-opportunity institution.

14

APPENDIX D

fills

NORTH CENTRAL
FRUIT FARM
RESEARCH
PROJECT

Michelle Worosz
3110 Natural Resources
East Lansing, Michigan
48824-1222
517/336-2396

Fax: 517/353-8994

Craig Harris
429 Berkey Hall

East Lansing, Michigan
48824-1111

Tom Edens

325 Natural Resources
East Lansing. Michigan
48824-1222

Mark Whalon

811 Pesticide Research
East Lansing, Michigan
48824-131 1

MSU is an affirmative-action,

APPENDIX D

MICHICAN STATE
U N l V E R S | T Y
September 4, 1997

 

Dear Grower:

Thank you for agreeing to participate in our survey. You are one of
a very small group of specialized fruit growers, and we are looking
forward to working with you on this project. As we mentioned
during our previous correspondence, your responses will be kept
strictly confidential. Although the four of us will have access to
your completed survey, your responses will not be revealed to
anyone else. Completion of this survey indicates your voluntary
consent to participate in the study. If you have any problems or
concerns about this questionnaire please feel free to call Michelle
Worosz at 51 7/336-2396 and leave a message, if necessary.

On the following pages you will find questions about your farming
activities. This survey will take you approximately 30 minutes to
complete and most of the questions have answers provided for you.
We have designed the questions to be answered by the principal
farm operator, the person who is most involved in major farm
decisions. This survey will not involve other family members or
minors.

Please circle the number in front of the word or phrase that best
answers the question (see the example below). Some questions may
not have the answer you would like to give; in that case use the last
answer marked "Other (Please specify): " and fill in
the blank as in answer 4 in the example below.

 

EXAMPLEzBelow is a list of farm products. Please circle the
number(s) in front of those fruit crop(s) you
produce.

? Apples
. Blueberries
3. Tart Cherries

G1) Other (Please specify): _p1ums_

148

149

When you are finished, please return the survey in the enclosed envelope. We thank you
very much for your trouble and cooperation.

Yours truly,

Michelle, Craig, Tom, & Mark

APPENDIX E

APPENDIX E

 

 

 

USE OF MIGRANT LABOR
Fruit Zone Season Task Payment
Apples All Mid-August - Pruning, Training, Piece

Mid-November. Thinning, Harvesting, rate/hourly
Pruning Fed - April Packaging, Loading

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Blueberry Not in Mid-July - Late Harvesting, Piece rate
the NW August Packaging and
Shipping
Cherry (tart) Not in Early July - Mid Harvesting, Pruning, Piece rate
the Inland August. Pruning, Processing
Feb. - April

 

 

150

 

 

APPENDIX F

APPENDIX F

 

COMPLETE LIST OF

ALTERNATIVE INPUT PRACTICES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% who used
Approach this practice
(Techniques or Products) Strategy Weight in 1993
Time sprays according to pest thresholds (economic
injury levels) .............................................. Spray apps. 9.00 92.90
Use of hedgerows (or living hedges) in your orchard ..... Architecture 9.00 34.60
Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) ................................. Biorational 8.67 37.70
Count growing degree days (DD) to assist monitoring or
to time sprays ............................................ Mon. IScout. 8.67 51.90
Keep a detailed record of pest numbers .................. Mon/Scout. 8.67 37.70
Plant Endophytic Rye or Fescue as an insecticide in your
orchard ................................................... Red. habitat 8.67 8.30
Timed mowing for control of pests such as Tamish Plant
Bug ...................................................... Architecture 8.67 42.00
Use experimental plots ................................... Misc. 8.67 53.80
Use scouting (monitoring) information to time or skip
sprays .................................................... Spray apps. 8.67 94.60
Mating disruption (pheromones) .......................... Biorational 8.33 28.60
Monitor predator mites ................................... Mon/Scout. 8.33 60.70
Plant Wheeler Rye or Annual Rye as a herbicide in your
orchard ................................................... Architecture 8.33 28.00
Use of insect barrier systems (screens, insect hardware
ncloth, netting, etc.) ........................................ Architecture 8.33 5.90
Pheromone trap(s) ....................................... Mon/Scout. 8.00 85.50
Spot spraying ............................................ Spray apps. 8.00 64.30
Sticky trap(s) (bait, visual) ................................ Mon/Scout. 8.00 81.80
Use of weather data to time sprays ....................... Mon/Scout. 8.00 91.20
Foliar nutrient testing ..................................... Mon/Scout. 7.67 60.00
Monitor Ladybird Beetles (Ladybugs) ..................... Mon/Scout. 7.67 38.90
Purchase and release egg parasites
(Trichogramma minutum Riley) ........................... Predators 7.67 1.90
Soil testing ............................................... Mon/Scout. 7.67 76.80
Perimeter spraying ....................................... Spray apps. 7.33 60.70
Purchase and release predator mites ..................... Predators 7.33 1.90

 

 

151

 

 

152

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% who used
Approach this practice
(Techniques or Products) Strategy Weight in 1993
Alternate row spraying ................................... Spray apps. 7.00 82.50
Till to control pests and diseases such as Mummyberry .. Red. habitat 7.00 25.50
Mineral oil ................................................ Biorational 6.50 22.20
Diatomaceous earth ...................................... Biorational 6.33 11.50
Insecticidal soap ......................................... Biorational 6.33 39.30
Remove broadleaf weeds to control pests such as
Tamish Plant Bug ........................................ Red. habitat 6.33 43.10
Ultra-low volume spraying (less than 20 gal/acre) ........ Spray apps. 6.33 28.30
Dilute spraying ........................................... Spray apps. 6.00 70.20
Seaweed or kelp spray ................................... Biorational 6.00 30.40
Use less than recommended rate of a chemical pesticide
product ................................................... Spray apps. 6.00 85.20
Keep a detailed record of the sprays applied ............. Mon/Scout. 5.67 94.60
Low volume spraying (less than 100 gal/acre) ............ Spray apps. 5.67 91.20
Purchase and release Ladybird Beetles (Ladybugs) ...... Predators 5.67 1.90
Herbal preparations ...................................... Biorational 5.00 19.20
Till to reduce weed competition with bushes/trees ........ Red. habitat 4.67 64.20
Fish oil ................................................... Biorational 4.00 18.20
Rotenone ................................................ Biorational 3.67 16.70
Pyrethmm ................................................ Biorational 3.33 25.50
Time sprays according to the spray guide (calendar or
interval sprays) ........................................... Spray apps. 1.00 44.40

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX G

APPENDIX G

 

EXAMPLES OF INFORMATION RESOURCES
AVAILABLE ON THE WORLD WIDE WEB1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Type of Universal Resource Locator
Information Page Author (URL)
IPM products The IPM Supplier Directory http:llwww.mes.umn.edul
and safety ~vegipmlintrolsupplier.htm
equrpment Gempler’s http:llwww.gemplers.coml
Sierra Ag http:llwww.sierraagcoml
AgriQuest http:llwww.agraquest.coml
Trade journals The Great Lakes Fruit Growgrs News http:l/orchard.uvm.edulglfgnl
defaulthtml
@griculture On-line, supported by http:llwww.agriculture.coml
Successful Farming
Central Valley POSTHARVEST Newsletter http:llwww.uckac.edulpostharvl
Good Fruit Grower OnliLe http:llwww.goodfruit.coml
index.html
Grower The Cherry Marketing Institute http:llwww.cherrymkt.orgl
assoclatlons Michigan Blueberry Growers http:llwww.blueberries.coml
Michigan Apple Committee http:llmichiganapples.coml
Fruit farms Murphy Orchards: Buffalo, NY http:llwww.murphyorchards.
com/index.html
King's Orchard: Todd Mission, TX http:llwww.kingsorchard.coml
Mixon Fruit Farms, Inc.: Bradenton, FL http:llwww.mixon.coml
Professional The American Chemical Society http:llwww.acs.orgl
socretles American Phytopathological Society http:llwww.scisoc.org
Entomological Society of America http:llwww.msstate.edul
Entomology/esa.html
American Society for Horticultural Science http:l/ashs@ashs.orgl
Specialists Michigan Integrated Food and Farming http:llwww.css.msu.edulusersl
outside the Systems salmiffshtm
“"‘Vels'ly Michigan Organic Food and Farm Alliance http:llfreenet.macatawa.orglorgl
system ogmlogmhtml

 

 

153

 

 

154

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Type of Universal Resource Locator
lnfonnation Page Author (URL)
Specialists Michigan State University, Clarksville http:llwww.canr.msu.edulwchrs/
within the Horticultural Experiment Station
universrty Ryerson Polytechnic University Library: http:llwww.library.ryerson.cal
System pesticide citation MOLNDX?key=pesticide&ind=S
Michigan State University, Department of http:l/saylor.hrt.msu.edul
Horticulture
University of Vermont, Plant and Soil http:llorchard.uvm.edul
Science Department and Rutgers defaulthtml
Cooperative Extension of Hunterdon County
(Wtual Orchard)
Government The National Agricultural Library http:llwww.nalusda.govl
agencies

Michigan Department of Agriculture,
Climatology

http:llclimate.geo.msu.edul

 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances

http:llwww.epa.gov/docsl
PestToxics.htmI

 

 

US. Department of Agriculture - Agriculture
Research Service Tree Fruit Research
Laboratory

 

http:llwww.tfrl.ars.usda.govl

 

 

1

'T here are over 1,000,000 Web-site names in common usage; the lntemet Archive estimates there were 80
million HTML pages on the public Web (pages you can reach without a password) as of January 1997'

(CyberAtlas, 1997).

 

 

 

LIST OF REFERENCES

LIST OF REFERENCES

Ajzen, I. (1989). Attitude structure and behavior. In A. R. Pratkanis, S. T.
Breckler & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Attitude Structure and Function (pp.
241-274). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.

Albak, E. (1995). Between knowledge and power: Utilization of social science in
public policy making. Policv Science. 28, 79-100.

Ames, B. (1996). Too much fuss about pesticides. In E. L. Daniel (Ed.), Taking

Sides: ClashingViews on Controversial Issues in Health and Society (2nd
ed.) (pp. 296-299). Guilford, CN: Dushkin Publishing Group.

 

Anderson, M. (1990). Farming with reduced synthetic chemicals in North
Carolina. American Journsl of Alternative Agriculture, 5(2), 60-68.

Anosike, N. & Coughenour, C. M. (1990). The socioeconomic basis of farm
enterprise diversification decisions. Rursl Sociology, 55(1), 1-24.

Apple farmer buys tool to thwart hail. (1995, June 18). Lansing State Journal.

Audirac, l. & Beaulieu, L. (1986). Microcomputers in agriculture: A proposed
model to study their adoption/diffusion. Rural Sociology, _5_1(1), 60-77.

Babble, E. (1990). Survev Research Methods (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.

Batie, S. S. & Swinton, S. M. (1994). Institutional issues and strategies for
sustainable agriculture: View from with-in the land-grant university.
American Journal of Ajtemative Agriculture, _9_(1 and 2), 23—27.

Beck, U. (1992). Risk Socieg: Towards a New Modemitv (M. Ritter, Trans).
London: Sage. (Original work published 1986)

Bellaby, P. (1990). To risk or not the risk? Uses and limitations of Mary Douglas
on risk-acceptability for understanding health and safely at work and road
accidents. The Sociological Review. 3_8_(3), 465-483.

155

156

Bennett, J. (1976). The Ecological Transition: Cultural Anthropolpgy and Human
Adaptation. New York: Pergamon Press.

Berry, W. D. & Feldman, S. (1985). Multiple regression in practice. Sage
Universltv Paper Series on Quantitative Applications_in the 504181
Sciences, 5_0. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Beus, C. E. & Dunlap, R. E. (1990). Conventional versus altemative agriculture:
The paradigmatic roots of the debate. Rural Sociology, QM), 590-616.

 

. (1991). Measuring adherence to alternative vs. conventional
agriculture paradigms: A proposed scale. Rurfial Sociology, 56(3),
432-460.

 

. (1993). Agricultural policy debates: Examining the alternative and
conventional perspectives. Amerisan Journgj of A_Iternative Agriculture,
_8_ (3), 98-1 06.

 

. (1994). Agricultural paradigms and the practice of agriculture. Rural
Sociology. 5_9,(4), 620-635.

be Vier, T. (1995, July 7). Cheny surplus cuts into growers’ financial pie. Ih_e_
Detroit News, p. 40.

Bingen, R. J. & Harris, C. K. (1997). Developing a database of pesticide use on
Michigan specialg crops. A Plant Industry Coalition proposal submitted

for funding in support of GREEEN - the MSU Plant Initiative.

Bosso, C. J. (1987). Pesticides & Politisss The Life Cvcle of a Publip Issue.
Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Browne, W. P., Skees, J. S., Swanson, L. E., Thompson, P. B., & Unnevehr, L.
J. (1992). Sacred Cows and Hot Pot_a_toes: Agrarian Mflhs in Agricultural
Policy. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Bruhn, 0., Peterson, 8., Phillips, P., & Sakovidh, N. (1992). Consumer response
to information on integrated pest management. Journal of Food Safety,
g, 21 5-226.

Buttel, F. H. (1993). Socioeconomic impacts and social implication of reducing
pesticides and agricultural chemical use in the United States. In D.
Pimentel & H. Lehman (Eds.), The PsstJfide Question: Environment,
Economics __a_lnd Ethics (pp. 153-181). New York: Chapman and Hall.

157

Buttel, F. H., Gillespie, G. W. Jr., Janke, R., Caldwell, B., & Sarrantonio, M.
(1986). Reduced-input agricultural systems: Rational and prospects.
American Joumsl of Altemgtive Agriculture, 1(2), 58-64.

Burger, D. W., Katcher, J. B., Lange, N. E., Sanez, J. L., Sherman, S. P., &
Stoutemyer, M. R. (1995). Horticulture lnfonnation on the lntemet:
Cyberhorticulture on the information superhighway. HortTechnology. §(4),
329-331.

Cacek, T. & Langner, L. L. (1986). The economic implication of organic farming.
Americgn JournaLl of Alternative Agriculture, 1 (1), 25-29.

Calabresi, G. (1985). Ideals Beliefs Attitudes and the Law: Private Law

Perspectives on a Public Law Problem. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse
University Press.

 

Carson, R. (1962). Silent Spring. New York: Houghton Miffiin.

Cartwright, B., Collins, J. K., & Cuperus, G. W. (1993). Consumer influences on
pest control strategies for fruits and vegetables. In A. R. Leslie & G. W.
Cuperus (Eds), Successful Implementation of Integrated Pest
Management for Agricultural Crops (pp. 151-170). Boca Raton, FL: Lewis.

Chervokas, J & Watson, T. (1997a, March 21). Net helps farmers plow a leveled
field (Pt. 2). The New York Times [http:llwww.nytimes.comllibrarylcyberl
nation/032197nation.html].

 

. (1997b, March 14). Harvesting the web: Agriculture grows online,
(Pt. 1). The New York Ti_mes [http:llwww. nytimes.comllibrarylcyberl
nation/031497nation.html.].

Clarke, L. (1989). Acceptable Risk? Making Decisions in a Toxic Environment.
Berkeley, CA: University of California.

 

Council for Agricultural Science and Technology [CAST] (in press). Biological
Control: Task Force Report Sum_marv and Conclusions. Ames, IA.

Covello, V. T. (1983). The perception of technological risks: A literature review.
Technological Forecasting and Sociafihangs, 23, 285-297.

Covello, V. T., McCallum, D. B., & Pavlova, M. T. (1987). Principal and
guidelines for improving risk communication. In V. T. Covello, D. B.
McCallum, & M. T. Pavlova (Eds), Effective fisk Communication: Ths
Roltsgnd Resmnflitv of Government and Nongovernment
Organizations (pp. 3-18). New York: Plenum Press.

158

Cuperus, G. W., Johnson, G. V., & Morrison, W. P. (1993). Integrated wheat
management. In A. R. Leslie & G. W. Cuperus (Eds), Successful
Implementation of Integrsted Pest Ma_r_l_agement for Agricultural Crops (pp.
33-55). Boca Raton, FL: Lewis.

Dabbert, S. & Madden, P. (1986). The transition to organic agriculture: A
milti-year simulation model of a Pennsylvania farm. Americafloumgl for
A_Itemgtive Agriculture. 1 (3), 99-107.

Dad-dy. Mom-my. Com-pu-ter. (1997, June 10). PC Magazine, 1_6_(11), p. 3.

Daniel, E. L. (Ed) (1996). Are pesticides in food harmful to human health? In
Taking Sides: Cla_shing Views on Controversial Issues in Health and
Society (2nd ed.) (pp. 300). Guilford, CN: Dushkin.

Davidson, O. G. (1990). Broken Heartland: The Rise of America’s Rural Ghetto.
New York: Anchor.

Dearing, J. E., Meyer, 6., & Kazmierczak, J. (1994, September 1). Portraying the
new: Communication between university innovators and potential users.
Science Communicstion. 3(1), 11-42.

DeLind, L. B. (1994). Celebrating hunger in Michigan: A critique of an emergency
food program and an alternative for the future. Agriculture and Human
Values, m, 58-68.

 

. (1997, May/June). Organic food and farming: Building a relationship
to place. Michigan Organic Csonnections, pp. 1, 6.

DeLind, L. B. & Ferguson, A. E. (1997, June). Is it a women’s movement? The
relationship of gender to community supported agriculture in Michigan.
Paper presented at the joint meetings of the Agriculture, Food, and
Human Values Society and the Association for the Study of Food and
Society, Madison, WI.

Diebel, P. L., Taylor, D. B., & Batie S. S. (1993). Barriers to low-input agriculture
adoption: A case study of Richmond County, Virginia. American Journal
for A_Iternative Agriculture, 8(3), 120-127.

Dietz, T. R., Frey, S., & Rosa E. (in press). Risk, technology. and society. In R.
E. Dunlap & W. Michelson (Eds), H_andbook of Environmental Sociolpgy.
Westport, CT: Greenwood.

Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method.
New York: Wlley.

159

Douglas, M. & Calvez, M. I. (1990). The self as risk taker: A cultural theory of
contagion in relation to AIDS. The Sociological Review, 3_8_(3), 445-464.

Duffield, J. A. & Gunter, L. (1991, June). \Mll Immigration Reform _A_ffect the
Economic Competitiveness of Labor-Intensive Crops? (No. AGES 9126).
Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture.

Eagley, A. H. & Chaiken, S. (1993). The Psvchologv of Attitudes. Orlando, FL:
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Edwards, C. A. (1993). The impact of pesticides on the environment. m
Pesticides Question: Environment. Economics and Ethics. New York:
Routledge, Chapman & Hall.

 

Edwards, C. A., Grove, T. L., Hanrvood, R. R., & Pierce Colfer, C. J. (1993). The
role of agroecology and integrated farming systems in agricultural
sustainability. In C. A. Edwards, M. K. Wall, D. J. Horn, & F. Miller (Eds),
Agriculture and the Environment (pp. 99-121). Amsterdam, Netherlands:
Elsevier Science Publications.

Elkind, P. D. (1993). Correspondence between knowledge, attitudes, and
behavior in farm health and safety practices. Journal of Safepr Research,
_2_4, 1 71 -1 79.

Environmental Protection Agency. (1992, August 21 ). Worker protection
standards, hazard information, hand labor tasks on cut flowers and ferns
exception; Final rule, and proposed rules (40 CF R Pts. 156 and 170, Pt.
III). Federal Register, 38102-38176.

Fazio, R. H. (1990). Multiple processes by which attitudes guide behavior: The
mode model as an integrative framework. Advances in Experimental
Social Psvchology, 23, 75-109.

Ferris, T. (1997, April 4). The risks and rewards of popularizing science. _Th_e
Chronicle of Higher Education, p. B5.

Fleisher, B. (1990). Agricultlfll Risk Management. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

Flora, C. B. (1990). Pesticide risk: Making decisions. Plant Disease, _7_4_(2),
1 05-1 08.

Flore, J., Ricks, D., Harris, 0., Whalon, M., Guyer, 0., Hull, J., & Cash, J. (1992).
Micmgsn Fruit Industgy Survey (Report 524). East Lansing: Michigan
State University Agricultural Experiment Station.

160

Fischhoff, B., Liechtenstein, 8., Slovic, P., Derby, S. L., & Keeney, R. L. (1981).
Acceptable Risk. New York: Cambridge.

Fraas, W. (1997, April). Groups for progress and change: The Nebraska Ag
IMPACT project. Center for Rura_l Affgifi Negsletter. pp. 3-4.

Freudenburg, W. R. (1988). Perceived risk, real risk: Social science and the art
of probabilistic risk assessment. Science. 242(10), 44-49.

 

. (1989). Social scientists’ contributions to environmental
management. Journal of Social Issues, 15(1), 133-152.

 

 

. (1992). Heuristics, biases, and the not-so-general publics: Expertise
and error in the assessment of risks. In S. Krimsky & D. Golding (Eds),
Socwheories of Ris_k (pp. 229-249). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Gilmore, J. (1996, April). Agriculture on the net. Small Farm Today, 26-30.
Golding, D. (1992). A social programmatic history of risk research. In S. Krimsky

& D. Golding (Eds), Social Theories of Risk (pp. 23-52). Westport, CT:
Praeger.

Goldstein, J. (1990). Demanding Clean Food gnd Water: The Fight for a Basic
Human Right. New York: Plenum Press.

 

Gonzalez, M. F. (1995, March 10). Profile of Michigan’s Migrant Agriculture
Labor Force. Lansing: Migrant Services Division, Michigan Department of
Social Services.

Goodell, P. B. & Zalom, F. G. (1993). The potential for integrated pest
management in California vegetable production. In A. R. Leslie & G. W.
Cuperus (Eds). Successful Implemmation of migrated Pest
Management for Agricultural Creps (pp. 75-94). Boca Raton, FL: Lewis.

Greeley, A. (1993). Dodging the rays. FDA Consumer, 2_7 (6), 30-33.

Greenwood, T. (1994, June 29). Frigid winter wipes out peach crop. The Detroit
News, p. B1.

Gunter, V. J. (1994). Environmental Controversies. News Media and the State:
The Case of Synthetic Orgnic Pesticides in the 1940s 1950s and
1960s. (Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University).

 

 

Gunter, V. J. & Harris, C. K. (in press) Noisy winter: The DDT controversy in the
years before “Silent Spring.” Rural Sociology.

161

Gussow, J. D. (1991). Chicken Little, Tomato Sauce & Agriculture: Whp Vlfil_l
W? New York: Bootstrap-

Hallberg, M. C. (1992). Policy for American Agriculture: Choices and
Consequences. Ames, IA: Iowa State University.

Harding, S. (1991). Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.

Harris, C. K. & Shepard, P. T. (1989, November) Values, attitudes, and
alternative farming systems. Paper presented at the Second Biennial
Conference of the Agriculture, Food and Human Values Society, Little
Rock Arkansas.

Harris, C. K. & Whalon, M. E. (1991). Integrated pest management: A harbinger
of (non-silent) spring. Unpublished manuscript.

Harris, C. K. & Worosz, M. R. (1995). The Politics of Sustainable lnfonnation.
Paper presented at the Conference on The Politics of Sustainable
Agriculture, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR.

 

. (1997). The Structure of Information for Fruit Pest Management.
Paper presented at the joint meetings of the Agriculture, Food, and
Human Values Society and the Association for the Study of Food and
Society, Madison, WI.

Henry A. Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture. (1996, July). Organic sales
increase by 21 percent—total more than $2 billion in 1995. Alternative

Agriculture News, p. 2.

Higley, L. G. & Wlntersteen, W. K. (1992). A novel approach to environmental
risk assessment of pesticides as a basis for incorporating environmental
costs into economic injury levels. American Entomologist, 88(1), 34-38.

Himer, C. A. (1988). Social structure, psychology, and the estimation of risk.
Annuall Review of Sociolfiogy, 14, 491-519.

lnrvin, G. A. (1980). Discussion paper on A. Mazur: Societal and scientific causes
of the historical development of risk assessment. In J. Conrad (Ed),

Socieg Technology and Risk Assessment (pp. 159-161). London:
Academy Press.

Johnson, G. L. (1990, Summer-Fall). Ethical dilemmas posed by recent and
prospective developments with respect to agricultural research.

Agriculture and Human Values, 23-34.

162

Kamrin, M. A., Katz, D. J., & Walter, M. L. (1995). ReportiggOn Risk: A
Joumalist’s Handbook on Environmentsl Risk Assessment. Ann Arbor:
Michigan Sea Grant College Program.

Kasperson, R. E. & Pamlund. I. (1987). In V. T. Covello, D. B. McCallum, & M. T.
Pavlova (Eds), Effective Risk Communication: The Role gm
Responsibility of Government and Nongovernment Organizations (pp.
143-158). New York: Plenum Press.

Kasperson, R. E., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown H. S., Emel, J., Goble, R.,
Kasperson J. X., & Patick, S. (1994). The social amplification of risk: A
conceptual framework. In S. L. Cutter (Ed), Environmental Risks and
Hazards (pp. 112-123). Englewook Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kazmierczak, R. F. Jr., Norton, G. W. , Knight, A. L., Rajotte, E. G., & Hull, L. A.
(1993). Economic effects of resistance and withdrawal of
organophosphate pesticides on an apple production system. Journal of
Economic Entomology, _8_6_(3), 684-696.

Kidd, P., Scharf, T., & Veazie, M. (1996). Linking stress and injury in the farming
environment: A secondary analysis of qualitative data. Health Education
Quarterly, 2_3(2), 224-237.

Kirkendall, R. S. (1966). Social Scientists and Farm Politics in the Amt
Roosevelt. Columbia: University of Missouri.

Klaidman, S. (1990, Fall). How well the media report health risk. Daedalus
_1_18(4), 119-132.

 

Korsching, P. F. & Hoban, T. J. IV. (1990). Relationships between lnfonnation
sources and farmers’ conservation perceptions and behavior. Socieg and
Natural Resources, 8, 1-10.

Kovach, J., Petzoldt, C., Degni, J., & Tette, J. (1992). A method to measure the
environmental impact of pesticides. New York’s Food and Life Sciences
Bulletin. 139. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.

Kranich, N. C. (1989, June, 15). lnfonnation drought: Next crisis for the American
farmer? Libragy Journal, 22-27.

Krebs, A. V. (1992). The Corporate Reapers: The Book of Agribusiness.
Washington DC: Essential Books.

Landis, J. M, Harris, C. K., Worosz, M. R., Schwallier, P., Olsen, L. G. (1997).
Great Lakes Apple Integrated Crop Manggement lnformgtion Delivenr

163

Svstem for the World V\fide Web. A proposal submitted to the Integrated
Pest Management Grants Program North Central Region, Land Grant
University System and Cooperative State Research, Education, and
Extension Service, US. Department of Agriculture.

Lane, N. (1996, December 6). We must explain why science matters to society.
The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A48.

Laurie, J. (1994, November, 7). Milk from BST treated cow is o.k. The Thumb
Farm News. p. 1.

Lawrence, G. W. (1994). lnfonnation poor, information risk: Rural America and
the internet. Journal of Agriculture & Food Information. _2_3(3), 71-81.

 

Leslie, A. R. & Cuperus, G. W. (1993). Successful Implementation of Integrated
Pest Management for Agricultural Crops. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis.

Ley, T. W., Wlllett, M. J., Boyer, J., Wright M. A., Muzzy, A., & Graves, C. B.
(1992). Implementing a real-time weather data acquisition and information
delivery system for enhanced crop production in Washington state.
Compgteg in Agricultural Extension Prpgrams: Proceedings of the 4th
International conference (pp. 129-134). St. Joseph, MI: American Society
of Agricultural Engineers.

 

Lobao, L. (1990). The uneven development of farm and industrial structure. In

Locality and lnegualig: Farm and Industpr Structure. Albany: State
University of New York.

Lofland, J. & Lofland, L. H. (1995). Anahging Social Settings: A Ggide to
Qualitative Observstion and Analysis. University of California at Davis,
CA: Wadsworth.

Madden, P. J. (1983). Case Studies of Farms in Transition Toward a More
Regenerative Farming System. Unpublished manuscript.

Maddox, M. (1996). The intemet—get on board new. American Cooperation: An
ALnnusl Review of the Year in Cooperatives, p. 85-88.

Market Size. (1997). CyberAtlas [www.cyberatlas.comlmarket.html].

Mason, R. & Halter, A. N. (1980). Risk attitude and the forced discontinuance of
agricultural practices. Rural Sociology. £61»), 435-447.

164

Mazur, A. (1980). Societal and scientific causes of the historical development of
risk assessment. In J. Conrad (Ed). Societv. Technology and Risk
Assessment (pp. 151-157). London: Academic Press.

McCullum, D. B. (1994). Risk communication about new agricultural
technologies. In 48th Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the
Northeastern Weed Science Societv (pp. 133-140). College Park, MD:
Northeastern Weeds Science Society.

Meams, J. (1994). Psychological effects of organic pesticides: A review and call
for research by psychologists. Journal of Clinical Psychology, $9).
286-294.

Metcalf, R. L. (1987). Benefit/risk considerations in the use of pesticides.
Agriculture and Human Values, 15-25.

Michigan Department of Public Health, Bureau of Environmental and
Occupational Health (1989, December). Agricultural Labor Camp Rules
(§333.12421).

Michigan Department of Social Services. (1991, April). Migrants/seasonal
farmworkers. Program Eligibiliy Manual (Item 610, Rev. 2-25-91, Eff.
4—1-91, PPB 91-2). p. 1-2.

Michigan Plant Industries (1995, August 10). Generating Res___earch and
Extension to Meet Economic and Environmental Needs (GREEEN). East
Lansing: Michigan State University.

Michigan State University Extension. (1996, February). Virus and graft -
transmittable diseases, X-disease. MSU Tree Fruit Integrated Pest
Management School. p. 57.

Mooney, P. H. (1983). Toward a class analysis of midwestem agriculture. Rural
Sociology. 5(4), 563-584.

 

Murphy, D. J. (1992). _ngetv snd Hea_lth for Production Agriculture. St. Joseph,
MI: American Society of Agricultural Engineers.

National Research Council. (1989). Alternative Agriculture. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.

 

. (1994). Science gld Judgment in Risk Assessment. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press.

165

Newman, A. (1995). Ranking pesticides by environmental impact. Environmental
Science & Technology, 28(7), 324-326.

 

. (1993). Raising the risk of pesticides: Toxicity levels tolerable for
children. Environmentgl Science & Technolggy, 22 (9), 1742-1744.

Nichols, R. W. (1997). Stretching for the future of science. The Sciences, 37(2),
6.

Olsen, L. G, Landis, J. N., & Edson, C. E. (1996, February 12). IPM Needs
Assessment: A Survev of Michjggn Fagners to Assess Their Needs_to
Implement Integrated Pest Management. East Lansing: Michigan State
University, IPM Program.

 

Orr, D. W. (1992). Ecolmical Literacy: Education gnd the Transition to a
_lflistmodem World. Albany: State University of New York.

Page, S. & Smillie, J. (1995). The Orchagi Almanac: A Seasonal Guide to
flsglthv Fruit Trees. Davis, CA: agAccess.

Perkins, J. H. (1982). Insects. Experts and the Insecticide Crisis: The Quest for
New Pest Management Strategies. New York: Plenum Press.

Pfeffer, M. J. (1992). Labor and production barriers to the reduction of
agricultural chemical inputs. Rural Sociology, fl (3), 347-362.

Phleeger, T. & Zobel, D. (1995). Organic pesticide modification of species
interactions in annual plant communities. Ecotoxicology, 5, 15-37.

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, UK: John Wlley &
Sons.

Pimentel, 0., Kirby, C., & Shroff, A. (19933). The relationship between “cosmetic
standards” for foods and pesticide use. In D. Pimentel & H. Lehman

(Eds), The Pesgicide Question: Environment. Economics and Ethics (pp.
85-105). New York: Chapman and Hall.

Pimentel, D., McLaughlin, L., Zepp, A., Lakitan, B., Kraus, T., Kleinman, P.,
Vancini, F., Roach, J. W., Graap, E., Keeton, W. S., & Selig, G. (1993b)
Environmental and economic impacts of reducing U. S. agricultural
pesticide use. In D. Pimentel & H. Lehman (Eds), The Pesticide
Question: EnvironmenL Econorflcs and Etfis (pp. 223-278). New York:
Chapman and Hall.

166

Powers, S. E. & Harris, C. K. (1980). Adoption of organic farming methods: The
Decision Making Process Amonwicmganfigmers. Paper presented at

the Rural Sociological Society conference, Ithaca, NY.

Recent web statistics (1997). In Highlights from A_round the Web. CyberAtlas
(Ed) [http:llwww.cyberatlas.coml].

Renn, O. (1992a). Concepts of risk: A classification. In S. Krimsky & D. Golding
(Eds), Social Theories of Risk (pp. 53-79). Westport, CT: Praeger.

 

. (1992b). The social arena concept of risk debates. In S. Krimsky &
D. Golding (Eds), Sociflheories of Risk (pp. 179-196). Westport, CT:
Praeger.

Renn, 0., Burns W. J., Kasperson, J. X., Kasperson, R. E., & Slovic, P. (1992).
The social amplification of risk: Theoretical foundations and empirical
applications. Journjal of Social Issues, 58(4), 137-160.

Repetto, R. & Baliga, S. S. (1996). Pesticides and the Immune Svstem: The
Public Heglth Risk_s_. Washington DC: World Resources Institute.

Rodefeld, R. D. (1978). Trends in U. S. farm organization structure and type. In
R. D. Rodefeld, J. Flora, D. Voth, I. Fujimoto, & J. Converse (Eds)

Change in Rural America: Causes, Conseguences, and Alternatives (pp.
158-177). Saint Louis, MO: CV. Mosby.

Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of InnovJations (3rd ed). New York: The Free
Press.

Ronis, D. L., Yates, F. J ., & Kirscht, J. P. (1989). Attitudes, decisions and habits
as determinants of repeated behavior. In A. R. Pratkanis, S. T. Breckler, &
A. G. Greenwald (Eds), Attitude Structure a_nd Function (pp. 213-239).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.

Rosenman, K. D., Brissett-Burns, P., & Doss, H. (1993). Michigan Agricultural
In'mries and Illnesses 1992. East Lansing: Center for Michigan
Agricultural Safety & Health, Michigan State University.

 

Sauer, R. (1990). Meeting the challenges to agricultural research and extension.
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 8(4), 184-186.

 

Scherer, Clifford W. (1992). Communicating Food Safety: Ethical Issues in Risk
Communication. Agriculture agnd Humsan Values, 8(2), 17-26.

167

Schuman, H. & Johnson, M. P. (1976). Attitudes and behavior. Annual Review of
Sociology, 2, 161-207.

Schuman, H. & Presser, S. (1981). Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys:
Experiments on Question Form. Wording, and Context. New York:
Academic Press.

Sclove, R. E. (1995). Democracv and Technology. New York: Guilford.

Short, J. F., Jr. (1984). The social fabric at risk: Toward the social formation of
risk analysis. American Sociological Review. 4_9_, 711-725.

Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 2118, 559-563.

Snow, R. M. (1995). Technology transfer on the internet. Proceedings of the
TechnoIOflTragsfer Societv: Amual Meetillngnternationsl Symposium
and Exhibit (pp. 66-69). Indianapolis, IN: The Technology Transfer
Society.

Sommers, D. G. & Napier, T. L. (1993). Comparison of Amish and non-Amish
fanners: A diffusion / farm - structure perspective. Rural Sociolpgy. _5_§(1),
1 30-145.

Specialty Crop Pesticide Committee. (1995). The Assessment of Pesticides at

Risk in the Future of Michigan Food grid Feed Plant Agriculture. East
Lansing: Michigan State University.

 

Stebbins, R. L. (1983). Training and Pruning Apple and Pear Trees. A Pacific
Northwest Extension Publication.

Stevenson, G. W., Posner, J., Hall, J., Cunningham, L., & Harrison, J. (1994).
Addressing the challenges of sustainable agricultural research and
extension at land-grant universities: Radically organized teams at
Wisconsin. American Journal of flemativflgnculture. 8(1 and 2), 76-82.

Stone, R. N. & Mason B. J. (1995, March). Attitude and risk: Exploring the
relationship. Psychology & Marketing, 12(2), 135-153.

Stouffer, S. A. (1962). Social Research to Test Ideas. New York: Free Press of
Glencoe.

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Grounded Theopl: Grounded Theory
Procedures and Technigues. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

168

Suvedi, M. (1996). Farmers” Perspectives of Michigan State Universmr'
Extension, Summary Report. East Lansing: Michigan State University

Extension, Program Support Systems.

 

Task Force on Rural Poverty. (1994). Poverty in rural America: Trends and
demographic characteristics. In RSS Task Force on Rural Poverty,
Poverty in Rural America (pp. 20-38). Boulder: Westview.

Tesser, M. & Schaffer, D. R. (1990). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual
Review of Psycholpgy, 4_1_, 479-523.

 

Tilma, C. & Doss, H. (1992, April). Preventing Tractor Overturns. Center for
Michigan Agricultural Safety & Health, Machinery Operator Safety Series.
East Lansing: Michigan State University, College of Human Medicine &
Cooperative Extension Service.

Tosteson, A. N. A., Weinsteinm, M. C., Wllliams, L. W., & Goldman, L. (1990).
Long-tenrr impact of smoking cessation on the incidence of coronary heart
disease. American Journal of Public Health, 88(12), 1481-1487.

Toufexis, A. (1989, March, 6). Watch those vegetables, Ma: pesticide-laden
produce may endanger your tots. Time, p. 57.

Trafimow, D. & F ishbein, M. (1994). The importance of risk in determining the
extent to which attitudes affect intentions to wear seat belts. Journal of
Applied Social Psvchology, 24(1), 1-12.

Traweek, S. (1988). Begmtimesygnd Lifetimes: The World of High Energy
Physicists. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

US. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. (1995). Biologically Based
Technologigs for Pest Control (OTA-ENV-636). Washington, DC: US.
Government Printing Office.

US. Department of Agriculture, National Organic Standards Board. (1996,
October). Draft Ststement of Organic Standards. Washington, DC: US.
Department of Agriculture.

US. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration. (1994,
April). 1992 Census of Agriculture (Vol. 1): Geographic Area Series, Pt.
22: MichflStgtggnd Countv Dag. Washington DC: US. Government
Printing Service.

van Dyke, J. K. (1995). Entomologists and the lntemet: It’s time to get online.
American Entomologist, Fall, 162-168.

169

van Lenteren, J. C. (1988). Implementation of biological control. American
Journal of Alternative Agriculture, §(2/3), 102-109.

van Ravenswaay, E. O. & Hoehn, J. P. (1991a). The impact of health risk
information on food demand: A case study of Alar and apples. In J. A.
Casewell (Ed.), Economics of Food Safetv (pp. 155-174). New York:
Elsevier Science.

 

. (1991b). Consumer Willingness to Pav For Reducigng Pesticides
Residues in Food: Results oféa Nationwide Survev (Report No. 91-18).
East Lansing: Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State
University.

Vaughan, E. (1993). Chronic exposure to an environmental hazard: Risk
perceptions and self-protective behavior. Health Pgrchology, 1_2_, 74-85.

Wernick, S. & Lockeretz, W. (1977, November/December). Motivations and
practices of organic farmers. Compost Science, 20-24.

VWldavsky, A. & Drake, K. (1990). Theories of risk perceptions: Who fears what
and why? Dadalus, 119(4), 41-60.

Wood, S. (1990). The trials of a fruit grower. 153A JJournal. 1§(3), 37-40.

Wynne, B. (1992). Risk and social Ieaming: Reification to engagement. In S.
Krimsky & D. Golding (Eds.), Social Theoriespf Risk (pp. 275-297).
Westport, CT: Praeger.

Young, A. (1995, August 25). Low cherry prices make growers sour. The Detroit
ms. 9- 01-2-

nxcutan sran UNIV. LIBRARIES
illllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllillllllllllllllllllllllll
31293017197355