Articles
DEMONSTRATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF INTEGRATED FRUIT PRODUCTION (IFP) ON PEARS IN NORTHERN OREGON: ECONOMICS
Article number
475_6
Pages
67 – 76
Language
Abstract
The demonstration and implementation of Integrated Fruit Production (IFP) on Pears in the Hood River Valley included four growers, each providing a conventional and IFP block and each farm representing a replicate for the two treatments.
Four methods were used to measure the success of the IFP program in the 1995 crop year.
They were the economic component, environmental impacts, biological control impacts and resistance development.
Total yields between treatments were similar except one grower’s conventional block received about 1,700 20 kg boxes per hectare more than the IFP block.
Therefore the gross incomes and profits also varied dramatically between these two programs.
The packouts for the four growers showed that fruit size was not much different for two blocks but quite different for the others.
This difference in yield and fruit size was probably a result of the difficulty in randomizing treatments for applied research on grower farms.
The economic results showed there were no economic benefits during the first year for the IFP program over the conventional method of pear growing.
The costs of the pheromones and labor to install the pheromones were too high for the IFP pesticide program to compete with the conventional pear growing.
The environmental impact measures showed that there also was not much difference between the IFP and conventional program.
The EIQ rating system from Cornell University showed that two growers had lower EIQ ratings for the IFP and two did not.
However, the biological control impacts showed a drastic improvement for the IFP than the conventional.
This measure was the impetus in the 1995 pest management program.
The fourth measure was for resistance development which also showed an improvement in the broad spectrum based pesticides for the IFP than the conventional.
Four methods were used to measure the success of the IFP program in the 1995 crop year.
They were the economic component, environmental impacts, biological control impacts and resistance development.
Total yields between treatments were similar except one grower’s conventional block received about 1,700 20 kg boxes per hectare more than the IFP block.
Therefore the gross incomes and profits also varied dramatically between these two programs.
The packouts for the four growers showed that fruit size was not much different for two blocks but quite different for the others.
This difference in yield and fruit size was probably a result of the difficulty in randomizing treatments for applied research on grower farms.
The economic results showed there were no economic benefits during the first year for the IFP program over the conventional method of pear growing.
The costs of the pheromones and labor to install the pheromones were too high for the IFP pesticide program to compete with the conventional pear growing.
The environmental impact measures showed that there also was not much difference between the IFP and conventional program.
The EIQ rating system from Cornell University showed that two growers had lower EIQ ratings for the IFP and two did not.
However, the biological control impacts showed a drastic improvement for the IFP than the conventional.
This measure was the impetus in the 1995 pest management program.
The fourth measure was for resistance development which also showed an improvement in the broad spectrum based pesticides for the IFP than the conventional.
Publication
Authors
C.F. Seavert, F. Niederholzer, H. Riedl
Keywords
IPM, Pyrus, biological control, beneficial insects, economics
Online Articles (74)