April 2003
Volume 41 Number 2

Research in Brief

To Bully-Proof or Not to Bully-Proof: That Is the Question

Charles Go
Youth Development Advisor
Alameda, California
Internet Address: cggo@ucdavis.edu

Shelley Murdock
Community and Youth Development Advisor
Pleasant Hill, California
Internet Address: swmurdock@ucdavis.edu

University of California Cooperative Extension

Introduction

Since the tragic Columbine school shootings, many programs have been created to prevent such incidents from recurring (e.g., Trent, Bai, Glick, Annin, & Keene-Osborn, 1999). The most popular response is the institution of "bully-proofing" programs in schools (e.g., Kanan, Nicoletti, Porter, 2000). Programs are based on the assumption that in school, youth are either bullies or victims. It is further assumed that if we identify all the bullies and provide intervention services, we will prevent a repeat of the Columbine school shooting.

Using a psycho-social theory of development (Erikson, 1950), where the focus of adolescence is identity formation, we hypothesize that it is possible for youth to be both a bully and victim as part of their developmental process (Ma, 2001). Second, a youth could have been bullied, and, in response, he/she would bully others. Both could have implications in the way we intervene and design our youth violence prevention programs. In the study discussed here, we examined the relationship between a youth's sense of safety and bullying and victimizing behaviors.

Methods

Participants

We surveyed youth in three middle schools in a diverse urban city in California.

• Questionnaires were administered to 3542 students; 1137 (45%) were completed and returned.
• The majority of the youth were ages 14 (29%), 13 (31%), 12 (28%), and 11 (12%).
• Fifty-seven percent were females; 43% were males.
• Ethnically, 35% identified as African-American, 36% as Hispanic/Latino, 13% as Asian, 12% Mixed/Other, 2% American Indian, 1% Pacific Islander, and 1% White non-Hispanic.
• School grade level showed that 36% were in eighth grade, 29% in seventh grade, and 35% in sixth grade.
• Youth self-reported most frequently received letter grades were A's (22%), B's (39%), C's (32%), D's (5%), and F's (2%).

Measurements

The questionnaire was anonymous and confidential. It was translated into Spanish and Vietnamese. Teachers administered the questionnaire during a class period at the respective middle schools. To allow for national and state comparisons, we used highly reliable and valid questionnaire items from the National Youth Risk and Behavior Survey and the California Healthy Kids survey. For the purposes of this article, we focus on whether the middle school youth engaged in the following behaviors within the past 12 months:

• School perpetrator/bully behaviors (been in a physical fight, used a weapon to threaten or bully someone, sold drugs to someone, been arrested by the police or sheriff)
• School victimization (been offered, sold or given illegal drugs, been teased or "picked on" because of your race, gender, disability, been threatened or injured with a weapon, had things stolen or deliberately damaged)
• Safety issues (how safe do you feel in school, how safe do you feel in your neighborhood).

Results

Frequencies

In response to the perpetrator or bullying questions, 36% of the youth reported having been in a physical fight; 9% used a weapon to threaten someone; 6% sold drugs; and 11% had been arrested in school at least once during the past year (Table I). In answer to the victimization questions, about 20% of the youth reported they were offered, sold, or given drugs at least once in school during the past year. Also within the past year and occurring at least once, 24% had been teased because of their race; 10% had been threatened with a weapon; and 29% had property stolen.

When asked about sense of safety, approximately 84% of the middle school youth reported feeling very safe or safe in their neighborhoods, while approximately 16% felt unsafe or very unsafe (Table 2). Further, about 70% reported feeling very safe or safe while at school, while 30% reported feeling unsafe or very unsafe. This suggests that youth felt safer in their neighborhoods than in their schools.

Bivariate

Using t-tests, we found significant gender differences in the perpetrator behaviors (Table 3). On average, boys were more likely to be involved in perpetrator behaviors (fighting, using a weapon, selling drugs, being arrested) than girls (1.65 vs. 1.54) were. But note that we also found no significant gender differences in victimization and safety issues. Despite their perpetrator behaviors, the boys were just as likely to be victimized as girls and were no more likely to feel safe than girls were.

Further, the perpetrator/bully variables were significantly correlated (Table 4). Youth who had been in a physical fight were more likely to use a weapon (r= .35, p <= .01), sell drugs (r = .28, p <= .01), and have been arrested (r = .33, p <= .01) than those who had not been in a fight. Of note is that youth who had been arrested were more likely to have used a weapon (r = .54, p <= .01) and sold drugs (r = .65, p <= .01) than those not arrested.

The victimization variables were also significantly correlated. Youth who were offered or sold drugs were more likely to have been teased (r = .20, p <= .01), threatened with a weapon (r = .38, p <= .01), or had property stolen (r = .21, p <= .01) from them.

Interestingly, there were also significant relationships between the perpetrator/bully variables and victimization variables. For example, youth who had been arrested were more likely to have been offered or sold drugs (r = .34, p <= .01), teased (r = .13, p <= .01), threatened (r = .41, p <= .01), and had property stolen (r = .22, p <= .01). On the other hand, youth threatened with a weapon were more likely to have been in a physical fight (r = .33, p <= .01), used a weapon (r = .50, p <= .01), sold drugs (r = .46, p <= .01), and been arrested (r = .41, p <= .01).

School safety was significantly correlated with neighborhood safety (r = .26, p <= .01). Also note that both school safety and neighborhood safety were negatively correlated with all the youth perpetrator and victimization variables.

Conclusion

We hypothesized that a youth could be a bully and a victim as part of the developmental process. The correlation analyses indicate that there is indeed a significant relationship suggesting that a youth can be a bully and a victim in a continual cycle. This finding lends support to the notion that adolescent youth, in the process of the struggle between social/cultural issues and the individual, may exhibit both bully and victim behaviors.

In addition, the data suggests that adolescent bully and victim behaviors may be coping responses to the youth's lack of a sense of safety. It is interesting to note that school and neighborhood safety were negatively correlated with all the youth perpetrator and victim behaviors. Perpetrators do not feel any safer than their victims do. It is most likely because they know their victims may retaliate.

Implications for Programs

Both findings have distinct programmatic implications. The first finding implies that programs that simply label youth as victims or bullies and then seek to "fix" the bullies will not work. Depending on the situation, both behaviors may be exhibited by the same youth. A more effective approach may be to monitor the youth's development (e.g., process of youth identity formation) over time and across incidents. The focus should be supporting and providing youth with positive youth development activities that allow them to try out a variety of roles and challenge norms without the use of bullying behaviors.

The second finding indicates that programs that focus on youth bully and youth victimization may not be effective. Instead, we suggest that programs should focus on increasing all youth's sense of safety because sense of safety decreased both youth perpetrator/bully behaviors and victimization behaviors.

References

Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. New York, NY: Norton.

Kanan, L. M., Nicoletti J. A., & Porter, W.W. (2000). Violence goes to school: One district's psychological safety response. Symposium, American Psychological Association Convention, Washington D.C.

Ma, X. (2001). Bullying and being bullied: To what extent are bullies also victims? American Educational Research, 38, 2, 351-370.

Trent G. T., Bai, M., Glick, D., Annin, P., & Keene-Osborn, S. (1999). Searching for answers: Shooting at Columbine high school, Colorado. Newsweek, 133, 19, 30.

Pesticide Use Changes in New York Vegetables: 1978 to 1998

Lydia J. Stivers-Young
Agricultural Extension Agent
Penn State Cooperative Extension, Washington County
Washington, Pennsylvania
Internet Address: js32@psu.edu

Thomas P. Kuhar
Assistant Professor
Department of Entomology, Virginia Tech
Eastern Shore Agricultural Research & Extension Center
Painter, Virginia
Internet Address: tkuhar@vt.edu

Michael P. Hoffmann
Professor
Department of Entomology, Cornell University
Ithaca, New York
Internet Address: mph3@cornell.edu

Introduction

Reducing the use of pesticides in agriculture is a public policy objective increasingly adopted at many levels of society. Integrated pest management concepts and techniques designed in part to reduce pesticide use are common components of agricultural Extension programs. However, thorough assessments of pesticide use trends that can be used to measure impacts or as a guide to help steer future efforts are often lacking.

Analysis of pesticide use trends can provide critical information on the impacts of regulatory, research, extension and farm policies that either directly or indirectly affect the pest management choices that farmers make (Gianessi & Silvers, 2000). Our study compared pesticide use on vegetable crops in New York over a 2-decade span, from 1978 to 1998, and also identified potential factors that might explain shifts in use patterns and possible strategies for future pesticide reductions.

Materials and Methods

Pesticide use patterns in 1978 and 1998 were compared for 15 major New York vegetable crops. Data were calculated for amount of insecticide, fungicide, and herbicide active ingredient applied on a statewide and a per hectare basis. Raw data were drawn primarily from two sources, Muka and Heath (1979) and Stivers (1999). In 1978, Muka and Heath conducted an in-depth statewide survey of pesticide use patterns of vegetable producers in New York as part of a USDA Pesticide Impact Assessment Program project. In 1999, Stivers developed "crop profiles" for the major vegetable crops produced in New York through a USDA-funded project. Information for 1997 and 1998 on pesticide use was collected from processor records, grower surveys, and interviews with private consultants. Unlike data collected by the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (Anonymous 1997), information in the Muka and Heath (1979) and Stivers (1999) reports reflects all pesticide use in vegetables in the state.

Results & Discussion

Production Statistics

Total vegetable production (metric tons harvested) in New York declined only slightly (3%) from 1978 to 1998, while the number of hectares devoted to vegetable production declined 13% (Table 1). In general, statewide production levels were maintained through increased crop yields.

Total Pesticide Use

Slightly (8%) less total pesticides (MT of active ingredients) were applied to vegetable crops in New York in 1978 compared with 1998 (Table 1). Potatoes and onions combined accounted for more than 60% of all pesticides used in vegetables in 1978 and 1998, thus these two crops had a substantial impact on overall use trends in the state. The amount of pesticides applied per hectare varied considerably by crop, but calculated as an average over all crops, increased approximately 18% from1978 to 1998 (Table 1).

Insecticide Use

From 1978 to 1998, insecticide use decreased in almost all vegetables when measured on a statewide basis and a per hectare basis (Table 2). A total of 383,446 kg of insecticides (active ingredient) were used in 1978, compared with 135,810 kg in 1998, a decline of 65%. In several crops, including potatoes, dry beans, carrots, onions, tomatoes, and sweet corn, declines in insecticide use were dramatic.

Most of the insecticide use decreases in vegetables can be attributed to the replacement of organophosphate and carbamate products with lower-use rate insecticides such as pyrethroids and neonicotinoids. For example, in potatoes, growers switched from multiple applications of organophosphates and carbamates to one application of the neonicotinoid insecticide, imidacloprid, for control of Colorado potato beetle, Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Say) (Boiteau, Osborn, & Drew, 1997). In onions, growers switched from organophosphates applied at ~ 1.0 kg ai/ha to pyrethroids applied at <0.1 kg ai/ha for control of onion thrips, Thrips tabaci Lindeman (Reiners, Petzoldt, & Hoffman, 2000).

Adoption of integrated pest management (IPM) programs also contributed to declines in insecticide use. In sweet corn, monitoring for European corn borer, Ostrinia nubilalis Hübner (Shelton, 1986), contributed to a 79% decline in insecticide use per hectare. In onions, successful IPM of thrips and onion maggot Delia antiqua (Meigen) (Hoffmann, Petzoldt, & Frodsham, 1996) helped to reduce the frequency of insecticide applications from 3.0 per season in 1978 to 1.8 per season in 1998.

Fungicide Use

Fungicide use varied among vegetable crops in New York, but the general trend was for increased fungicide use (Table 3). Fungicide use statewide increased 76% from 1978 to 1998. Only one crop, cucumbers, showed a decline (albeit minimal) in fungicide use on a per hectare basis. In 1998, potatoes ranked number one in fungicide use per hectare and accounted for 58% of total fungicide use in vegetables. Onions were a close second in fungicides used per hectare, accounting for 24% of the total on all vegetables.

The major reason for the increase in fungicide use in potatoes (and tomatoes) was the relatively recent immigration of a metalaxyl-resistant strain of Phytophthora infestans, the pathogen causing late blight disease (Fry and Goodwin, 1997). Since the occurrence of metalaxyl-resistant P. infestans, producers have had to rely on frequent applications of protectant fungicides on their entire crop. Sixty-seven percent of all fungicides used on potatoes in 1998 were foliar applications for control of late blight and early blight, including mancozeb, maneb, metiram, and chlorothalonil, which were also the predominant foliar fungicides used in 1978. Fungicide use in onions and cabbage also increased considerably from 1978 to 1998.

Herbicide Use

Total herbicide use on vegetables declined 24% from 1978 to 1998 (Table 4). Herbicide use in onions was the highest of all vegetables in 1978 on both a statewide and a per hectare basis, but decreased dramatically (78% statewide and 76% per hectare) by 1998. In 1978, onion growers typically applied CDAA (Randox) at a rate of 5.9 kg ai/ha, two to three times per season, accounting for much of the herbicide use. In 1998, producers used a variety of post-emergence herbicides at rates ranging from 1.7 kg/ha (pendimethalin and metolachlor) to 0.0022 kg/ha (oxyfluorfen) with an application frequency of one to three times per season. In addition, use of sprout inhibitors (chloropropham and maleic hydrazide) fell from 42,000 kg in 1978 to 7,100 kg in 1998. Thus, the dramatic decline in onion herbicide use is largely explained by the shift away from two high use-rate herbicides to multiple herbicides of relatively low use rates.

In other vegetables, such as potatoes, high use-rate herbicides (EPTC at 4.7 kg ai/ha and linuron at 1.4 kg ai/ha) have largely been replaced by lower use-rate materials (metribuzin at 0.67 kg ai/ha). However, these reductions have been more than offset by an increase in the use of sprout inhibitors and vine-killing herbicides such as paraquat and diquat.

Implications for Extension: Strategies for Future Pesticide Use Reductions

In New York vegetable production, factors such as market demands for increased quality, stagnant commodity prices, development of pesticide resistance in certain pests, and rising costs of labor have tended to increase the use of pesticides, especially fungicides and herbicides. In contrast, factors such as the introduction of new pesticides with lower use-rates, availability of varieties with improved pest tolerance, rising costs of pesticides, increased regulations, and the adoption of IPM practices have tended to lower the use of pesticides, particularly insecticides.

If a further reduction in pesticide use without a significant decline in vegetable production is the goal, three targeted strategies would have more impact than broader efforts aimed across all vegetable commodities. Successful implementation of these strategies would involve the pesticide manufacturing, regulatory, agricultural research and extension arenas.

1. Reducing the Use of Protectant Fungicides in Potatoes and Onions

The EBDC fungicides (mancozeb, maneb, and metiram) plus chlorothalonil represented over 40% of all pesticide use in vegetables in 1998 (Table 5). Most of this fungicide use occurred in potatoes and onions. New Qo1 inhibitors (strobilurans) such as azoxystrobin (Quadris) hold some potential for at least partially substituting for protectant fungicides (Leroux, 1996; Gullino, Leroux, & Smith, 2000), but other alternatives are needed. The availability of new fungicides with curative efficacy for late blight would significantly reduce the use of protectant fungicides in potatoes.

The use of weather-based disease forecasting systems for late blight in potatoes and Botrytis leaf blight in onions could also reduce fungicide applications in New York (Fohner, Fry, & White, 1984; Vincelli & Lorbeer, 1989). Use of the BLIGHT-ALERT forecasting scheme has been shown to reduce fungicide use in onions by up to 44% (Hoffmann et al., 1996).

2. Reducing the Use of High-Rate Herbicides, Especially in Beans and Sweet Corn

The high-use-rate herbicides, Metolachlor (Dual) and EPTC (Eptam), accounted for 41% of herbicide use and 13% of all pesticide use in vegetables in 1998. Ninety-two percent of the EPTC use and 24% of the metolachlor use occurred in snap and dry beans (Table 5). Weed control programs in beans that move away from these active ingredients, either by a greater reliance on post-emergence herbicides such as fomesafen or on mechanical weed control, could significantly reduce herbicide use. Forty-eight percent of the metolachlor use and 100% of the atrazine use in 1998 occurred in sweet corn. Despite regulatory pressures on both of these herbicides, alternative herbicides, which could serve as complete substitutes have not yet been identified (Bellinder et al., 1999).

3. Continue Reducing the Use of Organophosphate Insecticides

In 1998, organophosphates still accounted for 54% of insecticides used in vegetables in New York. Methamidophos in potatoes and dimethoate in cabbage accounted for much of this organophosphate use (Table 5). Since 1998, several organophosphates (methyl parathion, dyfonate, disulfoton) have lost their registrations in the U.S. or are being phased out. Several new classes of insecticide chemistry, including neonicotinoids, avermectins, spinosyns, fiproles, Bacillus thuringiensis, and various insect growth regulators have spawned a variety of new and effective substitutes for organophosphates for control of insect pests in vegetables. Furthermore, increasing the use of seed treatment formulations of insecticides rather than sprays should further reduce the amount of insecticide active ingredient applied to vegetables (Taylor, Eckenrode, & Straub, 2001; Kuhar, Stivers, Hoffmann, & Taylor, 2002).

Acknowledgements

This research was supported in part by a grant from the New York State Integrated Pest Management Program and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Pest Management Policy/PIAP Crop Profiles. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of either of the aforementioned organizations.

References

Anonymous. (1997). 1996 agricultural chemical usage: Vegetables: New York and major states. USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. Economic Research Service. Washington, D.C.

Bellinder, R., Miller, A., & Kirkwyland, J. (1999). New herbicide research in sweet corn. Proceedings of the New York State Vegetable Conference, February 2-4, 1999, Syracuse, NY.

Boiteau, G., Osborn, W.P.L , & Drew, M. E. (1997). Residual activity of imidacloprid controlling Colorado potato beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) and three species of potato colonizing aphids (Homoptera: Aphidae). J. Econ. Entomol. (9): 309-319.

Fohner, G. R., Fry, W. E., & White, G. B. (1984). Computer simulation raises question about timing protectant fungicide application frequency according to a potato late blight forecast. Phytopath. (74): 1145-1147.

Fry, W. E., & Goodwin, S. B. (1997). Re-emergence of potato and tomato late blight in the United States. Plant Dis. (81): 1349-1357.

Giannessi, L.P., & Silvers, C.S. (2000). Trends in crop pesticide use: Comparing 1992 and 1997. National Center for Food and Agriculture Policy Report, November, 2000. Office of Pest Management Policy, USDA-ARS Coop. Agreement 58-0790-7-039.

Gullino, M. L., Leroux, P., & Smith, C. M. (2000). Uses and challenges of novel compounds for plant disease control. Crop Prot. (19): 1-11.

Hoffman, M. P., Petzoldt, C. H., & Frodsham, A. C. (1996). Integrated pest management for onions. New York IPM Prog. Pub. No. 119. Cornell Cooperative Extension, Ithaca, NY.

Kuhar, T. P., Stivers, L. J., Hoffmann, M. P., & Taylor, A. G. (2002). Control of corn flea beetle and Stewart's wilt in sweet corn with imidacloprid and thiamethoxam seed treatments. Crop Prot. (21): 25-31.

Leroux, P. (1996). Recent developments in the mode of action of fungicides. Pesticide Sci. (47): 191-197.

Muka, A.A., & Heath, J.L. (1979). Patterns of pesticide use by New York vegetable growers in 1978. Cornell University Dept. of Entomology, Pesticide Impact Assessment Program.

Reiners, S., Petzoldt, C. H., & Hoffman, M. P. (2000). Integrated crop and pest management guidelines for commercial vegetable production 2000. Cornell Coop. Ext. Pub. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.

Shelton, A. M. (1986). Management of Lepidoptera on processing sweet corn in western New York. J. Econ. Entomol. (79): 1658-1661.

Stivers, L.J. (1999). Crop profiles of 15 New York vegetables. USDA Office of Pest Management Policy/PIAP Crop Profiles. On-Line at: http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/

Taylor, A.G, Eckenrode, C. J., & Straub, R.W. (2001). Seed coating technologies and treatments for onions: Challenges and progress. HortScience (36):199-205.

Vincelli, P. C., & Lorbeer, J. W. (1989). BLIGHT-ALERT: A weather-based predictive system for timing fungicide applications on onion before infection periods of Botrytis squamosa in commercial onion fields in New York. Phytopath. (79): 493-498.

Zheng, D., Olaya, G., & Koeller, W. (2000). Characterization of laboratory mutants of Venturia inaequalis resistant to the strobilurin-related fungicide kresoxim methyl. Current Genetics (38): 148-155.

An Assessment of Consumer Preferences for IPM- and Organically Grown Produce

Geoff Zehnder
Professor of Entomology
Coordinator, IPM and Sustainable Agriculture Programs
Clemson University
Clemson, South Carolina
Internet Address: zehnder@clemson.edu

Chip Hope
Department of Horticulture
Blue Ridge Community College
Flat Rock, North Carolina

Hoke Hill
Professor of Experimental Statistics
Clemson University
Clemson, South Carolina

Libby Hoyle
Professor of Family and Youth Development
Clemson University
Clemson, South Carolina

James H. Blake
Extension Associate and Adjunct Professor
Agricultural Service Laboratory
Clemson University
Clemson, South Carolina

Introduction

South Carolina is experiencing unprecedented rates in growth of acreage converted from farmland into developed land status. From 1992 to 1997, 30.2% of South Carolina farm and forestland was converted for development (London & Hill, 2000). This ranks South Carolina 6th in the nation among states in this category, and the rate of development and loss of farmland is expected to continue.

Concurrent with development has been an increase in land values and property tax rates, making it more difficult for farmers to maintain profitable enterprises. Farmers on small acreage farms typical of South Carolina (average size approximately 200 acres) can no longer survive economically solely by growing and marketing conventional, low-value row crops. Thus, farmers are interested in alternative niche market crops where the per-acre profit potential is high.

Organic is one of the fastest growing agricultural markets in the U.S. Despite the lack of national organic standards before 2002, certified organic cropland more than doubled between 1992 and 1997, and sales of organic products have increased on average by 20% annually since 1990 (Greene, 2001). Implementation in 2002 of national standards for organically produced commodities (under the USDA National Organic Program) will facilitate marketing of organic products in the U.S. and abroad. Medium-term growth forecasts for U.S. organic markets is in the range of 20-30% (Anonymous, 1999).

A recent study by Consumers Union showed that organically grown foods have fewer and generally lower pesticide residues than conventionally grown foods (Baker, Benbrook, Groth, & Benbrook, 2002). A survey of supermarket customers in Oklahoma and Texas indicated that over 70% of consumers were concerned about the health effects of pesticide residues and were willing to pay over 10% price premium for pesticide residue-free produce (Collins, Cuperus, Cartwright, Stark, & Ebro, 1992).

South Carolina farmers could participate and potentially profit from expanding organic markets because of the long growing season and the proximity of rural farming communities to large metropolitan centers like Charleston, Columbia, and Greenville. Before farmers explore organic markets, it would be helpful for them to have information on local consumer attitudes related to purchase of organic products. Market opportunities may also exist for farmers who implement integrated pest management (IPM) programs, where pesticides are used but only as last resort to prevent crop damage.

Our study assessed local consumer preferences for IPM- and organically grown produce to determine if market opportunities exist. Questions relating to IPM-grown produce were included because IPM has been used as a focal point for marketing programs (New York State IPM Program, 1999; Infante-Casella, Nitzsche, Ingerson-Mahar, Holmstrom, 2003), and to determine if consumer attitudes towards IPM- and organically grown produce differed.

Survey Procedures

A Consumer Buying Preferences Survey was developed to assess local consumer attitudes related to purchase of IPM/organic produce. The following questions were included in the survey.

1. Are you concerned about health effects related to pesticide residues on fresh produce? (1 = not concerned, 2 = slightly concerned, 3 = moderately concerned, 4 = extremely concerned).
   
   
2. If information on the type of pesticide applied and the number of pesticide applications to produce were provided at the point of sale, would you take this into consideration when selecting produce for purchase?
   
   
3. Which would you be most likely to purchase? (rank in order of preference)
   • Produce grown using IPM methods
   • Produce grown using organic methods
   • Produce grown using conventional pest control methods
   
   
4. Which would you be most likely to purchase?
   • Perfect-looking produce produced by a farmer using regularly scheduled pesticide applications
   • Produce with some slight, cosmetic blemishes produced using little or no pesticides
   
   
5. Would you be willing to pay more for produce grown using little or no pesticides if this produce had no blemishes? If yes, how much more? (choices ranged from <5% to >25%)
   
   
6. Would you be willing to pay more for produce grown using little or no pesticides if this produce had some slight, cosmetic blemishes? If yes, how much more? (choices ranged from <5% to >25%)
   

Respondents were also asked to provide demographic information on age, education, and income level. A brief introduction on the first page of the survey provided general definitions for integrated pest management (IPM) and organic crop production.

The surveys were distributed to visitors at three Plant and Flower Festivals organized by the South Carolina Department of Agriculture in the cities of Charleston, Florence, and Greenville. Charleston and Greenville are predominantly urban counties  (337 and 480 residents per square mile, respectively), and Florence is a more rural county  (157 residents per square mile; year 2000 U.S. Census Bureau figures). The festivals attract visitors interested in home landscaping and gardening; therefore, survey respondents may have had some experience with pesticides. Surveys were given to100 people at each location, and respondents completing surveys were given free heirloom tomato transplants.

Data Analysis

Of the 300 surveys distributed, 250 provided usable data and were included in the analysis. Response data were initially sorted by location and subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) to determine if responses differed by location. No significant differences (P > 0.05) in mean response values among locations were identified for any of the questions. ANOVA were also performed on data sorted by demographic factors (age, education, income) to determine if these factors influenced response trends. Only one of 24 analyses identified significant differences (see Results), so data from all locations and demographic categories were pooled and frequency tables developed for each question. 

Results

The majority of respondents (56.6%) ranged in age from 36 to 55 years, and 30.5% were older than 56 years (Table 1). Over half were college graduates, and 24.4% indicated that they had obtained a graduate or professional degree. Household income for over half of the respondents was greater than $40,000. ANOVA did not identify significant differences (P < 0.05) in response values among the three locations. The only significant difference in response values among the various demographic categories occurred with Question #3.

To the first question relating to perceptions about the health effects of pesticide residues, 53.6% of respondents expressed extreme concern, and 35.1% indicated moderate concern about negative health effects from pesticide residues on produce. Only 1.8% were not concerned about health effects of pesticide residues. Over 95% of respondents indicated that they would consider pesticide use information (e.g., type of pesticide applied, number of applications) when purchasing produce if this information were available at the point of sale (Question #2). When asked to indicate their preference for produce grown using IPM, organic, or conventional pest control methods (Question #3), 35.8% and 42.3% of respondents indicated that they would most prefer IPM- and organically grown produce, respectively.

ANOVA identified significant differences among education categories in responses to the question about preferences for organic produce. Here, people were asked to rank preference for organic produce (1 = most prefer, 2 = moderately prefer, 3 = least prefer). Respondents in the highest education category had an average response value of 1.95, and response values in the other education categories averaged 1.65 (values were significantly different; F = 3.99, P = 0.004). This suggests that respondents in the highest education category demonstrated less preference for organic produce. However, only 6.4% of those surveyed indicated that they would most prefer conventionally grown produce (e.g., pesticides applied on a routine or scheduled basis).

Question #4 addressed consumer-buying preferences related to the cosmetic appearance of produce and pesticide use. A large majority of respondents (84.2%) indicated that they would be most likely to purchase produce with some slight blemishes if grown using little or no pesticides. Only 15.8% indicated that they preferred perfect-looking produce that received regular pesticide applications.

Most respondents (90.9%) to Question #5 indicated that they would be willing to pay more for IPM- or organically grown produce with no blemishes. Interestingly, almost the same percentage (88.6%) indicated that they would pay more for IPM/organic produce with some slight cosmetic blemishes. Half of the respondents indicated that they would pay 5-10% more for produce grown using little or no pesticides if the produce had no blemishes, and almost the same percentage (46.4%) indicated that they would pay the same premium for IPM/organic produce with some slight cosmetic blemishes. Approximately 20% indicated that they would pay a 10-15% price premium, and 6 to 7.8% a 15-20% premium, for IPM/organic produce with or without blemishes. A smaller percentage indicated that they would even pay more than 25% over normal cost for IPM/organic produce with (3.8%) or without (4.9%) blemishes.

Discussion

These results indicate that local market opportunities exist for IPM/organic produce and that consumer preferences for IPM and organic produce were similar. Results from Question #1 suggest that the majority of consumers are concerned about the health effects of pesticide residues on produce and that, if given a choice, they would prefer to purchase produce grown using IPM or organic farming practices compared with conventionally produced produce.

Compared with national averages from U.S. Census Bureau statistics (U.S. Census Bureau 2000), our survey population had a higher percentage of college graduates (51.7% vs. 26%). Thus, it may be argued that the overwhelming preference for IPM/organic produce may be related to a higher level of education. However, ANOVA indicating no significant differences in response values among education or income categories suggests that these factors do not influence attitudes towards purchase of IPM/organic produce among our survey population. 

Most of those surveyed responded that they would consider pesticide use information at the point of sale in their decision to purchase produce. This suggests that information on pest management practices provided at the market place could be used to provide a marketing advantage for IPM/organic produce. Results also indicate that consumers would preferentially purchase IPM or organic produce over produce grown using conventional pest control methods if products were labeled to reflect pest management practices.

The percentage of respondents who would most prefer to buy organic produce was only 7% greater than the percentage that most preferred IPM produce. This suggests that the market for IPM produce may be as strong as for organic produce if consumers were provided information on IPM and could identify IPM produce at the point of sale.

A large majority of respondents (84.2%) indicated a willingness to purchase produce with slight cosmetic blemishes if they had knowledge that the product was produced with little or no pesticides. One of the main constraints to production and marketing of IPM/organic produce is the difficulty in maintaining high standards for appearance with limited or zero use of pesticides.

Survey results indicated that consumers would accept produce with slight blemishes provided that they had knowledge that IPM/organic practices were used. Survey results also indicate that consumers would be willing to pay more for IPM/organic produce than for conventionally grown produce, even if the IPM/organic produce had slight cosmetic blemishes. Based on survey responses, an acceptable price premium would be in the 5-15% range, although a small percentage would pay 25% more for IPM/organic produce.

References

Anonymous (1999). Organic food and beverages: World supply and major European markets. International Trade Center, Geneva, 271 pp.

Baker, B.P., C. M. Benbrook, E. Groth III, & K. L. Benbrook. (2002). Pesticide residues in conventional, IPM-grown and organic foods: Insights from three U.S. data sets. Food Additives and Contaminants 19: 427-446.

Collins, J.K., Cuperus, G.W., Cartwright, B., Stark, J.A. & Ebro, LL. (1992). Consumer attitudes on pesticide treatment histories of fresh produce. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 3: 81-98.

Greene, C.R. (2001). U.S. organic farming emerges in the 1990s: Adoption of certified systems. USDA-ERS, Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 770. Available at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aib770/

Infante-Casella, M., Nitzsche, P., Ingerson-Mahar, J., & Holmstrom, K. (2003). Integrated pest management poster for farm markets. Journal of Extension [On-line], 41(1). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2003february/tt5.shtml

New York State IPM Program (1999). IPM labeling effort: The growing market for IPM labels. Available at: http://www.nysipm.cornell.edu/labeling/label2.html

London, J. B. & Hill, N.L. (2000). Land conversion in South Carolina: State makes the top 10 list. Jim Self Center on the Future, Strom Thurmond Institute, Clemson University. Available at: http://www.strom.clemson.edu/publications/london/conversion.pdf

U.S. Census Bureau (2000). Educational attainment in the United States (update; March 2000), publication #P-20-S36. Available at: http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/educ-attn.html

An Interactive Survey to Assess Consumer Knowledge About Landscape Plant Health Care and IPM Practices

James C. Sellmer
Assistant Professor of Ornamental Horticulture
Internet Address: jcs32@psu.edu

Kathleen M. Kelley
Assistant Professor of Consumer Horticulture Information

David J. Suchanic
Ornamental Horticulture Extension Agent
Montgomery County

The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, Pennsylvania

Susan Barton
Extension Horticulturist
University of Delaware
Newark, Delaware

Introduction

Plant Health Care (PHC) and Integrated Pest Management (IPM) are concepts that have become hallmarks of the Cooperative Extension effort to educate commercial and consumer clientele. The educational goals behind these two concepts are parallel and complementary. IPM employs monitoring of pest problems and recommends a combination of management tactics such as biological, chemical, cultural, and mechanical methods to reduce or maintain pest populations below damaging levels. PHC monitors plant health and focuses on prevention of plant problems through site analysis and plant selection before planting, proper planting procedures, deliberate and proper maintenance activities (Ball, 1994; Lloyd & Miller, 1997).

Cooperative Extension agents and specialists have long addressed issues of properly managing landscape plants to reduce pest activity and to assure healthy plants. The message is carried to both homeowners and commercial clientele in numerous forums, including organized education programs; newspaper, television, and radio pieces; clientele phone calls; and question and answer venues at local events.

However, quantifiable data on knowledge and practices consumers employ in their own landscapes relative to IPM and PHC concepts is seldom collected. The purposes for this report are to:

• Describe an interactive, touch screen computer system and quiz-based survey format.
• Summarize the results of a weeklong assessment of consumer understanding and implementation of IPM and PHC practices in their home landscape.

The Survey Site

The Philadelphia Flower Show is the largest indoor flower show in the world. Annually, 230,000 people visit the weeklong show orchestrated by the Pennsylvania Horticultural Society (PHS) in March. The show is built around a new theme each year that is interlaced through all the displays, exhibits, and competitions. Universities, colleges, schools, landscape architects, nurseries, florists, landscape construction firms, and supply companies design and construct displays to educate, entertain, and elicit future business from the attendees.

In 2001, Delaware Valley College, Horticulture Academy at Abraham Lincoln High School, Williamson Free School of Mechanical Trades, Walter Biddle Saul High School of Agricultural Sciences, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III, Temple University, Penn State Cooperative Extension, Delaware Cooperative Extension, Rutgers Cooperative Extension, and the Southeast Pennsylvania IPM Research Group came together to create a display depicting and employing IPM and PHC practices (Figure 1).

Figure 1.
The "Improving Plant Health with IPM" Display at the 2001 Philadelphia Flower Show

Individual themes within the display area related to the concepts outlined in the Penn State Extension Publication Series "Creating Healthy Landscapes," which are available online at http://pubs.cas.psu.edu/landscapes.html. Each publication in the series addresses a specific topic in proper plant health care and pest management using a focused, descriptive, and easy-to-read format.

The display provided an ideal setting to assess the visitors on their understanding of the concepts of IPM and PHC and the practices they employ in their landscapes.

The Survey Tool

The site and participants offered several challenges relative to standard surveying techniques:

• Large number of visitors at the display at one time,
• Background noise and visual distractions,
• Participants' short attention spans, and
• Variability in participants' age, experience, and interest in gardening and the environment.

To address the site and participant limitations in a thought-provoking, educationally rewarding, and interactive manner, a quiz format for the survey was developed using multiple-choice answers. To address survey format issues, a computer-based quiz with a touch screen was chosen that would allow direct interaction with the respondent. This approach also maintained participant interest in the survey (Figures 2 and 3).

Figure 2.
Question 1 and Computer Responses the Participants Received Based on Their Answers to the Touch-Screen-Administered Survey

Figure 3.
Sample Screen Respondents Would See After Incorrectly Answering a Question on Factors Most Important in Deciding When and How to Prune

The survey consisted of 16 questions and was administered by Survey America and the TouchSource Group (Indianapolis, IN) on three touch-screen SurveyCenters^™. The computer automatically recorded survey results as respondents touched the answers on screen. Data were collected continually during the hours of the show. This approach allowed participants to answer questions at their own pace.

The survey consisted of several parts, including questions regarding demographics, plant health care, and integrated pest management activities. Seven demographic questions addressed age, gender, home ownership, interest in gardening, interest in protecting the environment, use of professional landscape services, and location of residence.

The plant health care questions were multiple-choice questions allowing individual and multiple responses or the collective answer "all of these." Questions included site analysis concepts, planting practices, mulching, and pruning. Questions were:

• Which features of your landscape are important when choosing plants to purchase?
• What information should you know about the area you are landscaping to help you in choosing plants?
• Select all of the practices that you should do when planting a tree or shrub
• Can you identify all of the reasons for applying 2-3 inches of mulch around your landscape planting?
• What one factor would you consider most important when deciding when and how to prune?

Integrated pest management questions were multiple-choice questions and required a single answer response. Questions allowed answers of two types either "yes, no, and no opinion" or "always, sometimes, never, and no opinion." Questions focused on identifying, monitoring, and keeping records of plant problems. They included:

• As a general rule, do you identify the insect on your plants before deciding how to treat them?
• Do you regularly (once a week or so) walk through your yard to see how your plants are doing and whether there may be a pest problem?
• Can you identify pest damage without seeing the pest?
• Do you keep track of the pests and insect that you find around your plants and how you have treated them in the past?

Data Analysis and Survey Results

Survey America tabulated the data, conducted basic statistical analysis, and provided a report consisting of frequency and respondent percentage data for each question. The survey results were finalized within 2 weeks of the completion of the survey.

Of the show attendees, 2,158 participated in the survey. Participant responses were screened for completion and age. Partially completed responses and respondents 19 years of age and younger were removed from the survey population. Seven hundred-twenty eight eligible, completed, responses were obtained.

Survey Demographics

The average respondent age was 47 years, with the 36 to 50 year old group accounting for 44% of the population. Varlamoff, Florkowski, Jordan, Latimer, and Braman (2001) reported a similarly aged majority respondent pool to a phone survey on homeowner landscape practices in Georgia. The next largest respondent age group ranged in age from 51-60, 22% of the participants, followed by the 26-35 year old age group, 13% of the participants. A majority of the respondents were women (69%). Results from other consumer research have shown that the majority of survey participants tend to be female (Varlamoff et al., 2001; Kelley, Behe, Biernbaum, & Poff, 2001).

A majority of the respondents (76%) reported owning a single-family home as their primary residence, with 55% living within Pennsylvania, followed by New Jersey (21%). A majority (56%) never hired a professional landscape maintenance service, compared to 40% that have sometimes, frequently, or always hired firms. Respondents have a very strong to moderate interest in gardening (90%) and an interest in protecting the environment (87%).

Plant Health Care

The most correct answer to the question regarding important features to consider when purchasing landscape plants was "all of these." Respondents could also select any related answer, including:

• The amount of sun or shade the area receives each day
• Soil type (clay, loamy, or sandy) and amount of water held by the soil
• The soil pH
• The average temperatures recorded in the area during the year
• Exposure to the wind of the area

Fifty-eight percent of the respondents chose the answer "all of these" or selected all of the items before continuing. Among individual answers, 95% of respondents thought light levels at the planting site was most important, followed by soil type (85%), average temperature (74%), soil pH (74%), and exposure to the wind (70%).

Selecting proper activities when planting a tree or shrub also allowed multiple answers, but only one answer was correct, "plant only as deep as the root ball or pot." Among respondents, 49% chose the single correct answer, while 64% chose the correct answer along with several incorrect answers (Figure 4).

Figure 4.
The Percentage of Respondents Choosing the Individual Answers to the Question "Select all of the following that you should do when planting a tree or shrub"

The correct reasons for applying 2-3 inches of mulch around a landscape planting included: weed reduction, reducing water loss from the soil, providing a slow release nutrient source, protecting plants from damage, and to keep plant looking good. "All of the above" was the most correct answer; however, selecting all of the individual correct answers was also an option. Overall, 49% of respondents chose all of the correct answers. Among individual answers, reducing water loss from the soil was most popular (94%), followed by weed reduction (91%), protecting plants (78%), slow release nutrient source (77%), and keeping plants well groomed (68%).

Reasons for pruning had three possible correct answers: "pruning to remove damage or diseased branches," "pruning to improve strength, structure and safety," and "thinning to improve air circulation." A majority of respondents chose from the possible correct answers (83%). Among these respondents, 47% chose improving strength, structure, and safety, followed by 32% choosing remove damaged or diseased branches. Choosing to prune because it is the season was selected by 7% of the respondents. Five percent of respondents also chose either pruning into formal shapes or topping because the tree is too tall.

Integrated Pest Management

Seventy-one percent of respondents identified insects on their plants before deciding to treat them. Similarly, 74% regularly monitored their landscape plants for problems. In the category of record keeping, a total of 72% kept regular or infrequent records of pests and insects they found and the treatment applied. Of these, 21% always kept records, while an equal percentage kept no records. On the ability to identify a problem without seeing a pest, only 8% claimed to always identify pest damage without seeing the pest, compared to 74% claiming to identify the damage some of the time.

Conclusion

The results of this survey were heartening in that when responding to plant health care and integrated pest management questions, nearly half or greater of the respondents chose the correct answers. While benchmark information pertaining to the set of questions asked of the respondents is hard to come by, results of the survey suggests that educational efforts are more likely having an impact on the perceptions and practices that consumers are employing in their landscapes. However, it is evident by the number of partial correct answers elicited through the survey that continued effort in educating home landscapers and consumers is still necessary.

The quiz format and the interactive computer system were effective tools for assessing knowledge under such challenging conditions. Conducting surveys involving similar tools under different environmental and site conditions could be helpful in assessing consumer understanding and implementation of plant health care and integrated pest management practices.

Acknowledgment

This project was partially funded by the Pennsylvania Horticultural Society and the Penn State University, Department of Entomology, IPM Program.

References

Ball, J. (1994). Plant health care and the public. Journal of Arboriculture, 20(1), 33-37.

Kelley, K., Behe, B. K., Biernbaum, J. A., & Poff, K. L. (2001). Consumer preference for edible-flower color, container size, and price. HortTechnology, 36(4), 801-804.

Lloyd, J., & Miller, F. (1997). Introduction to plant health care. In J. Lloyd (Ed.), Plant Health Care for Woody Plants. International Society of Arboriculture. Savoy, IL.

Varlamoff, S., Florkowski, W.J., Jordan, J.L., Latimer, J., & Braman, K. (2001). Georgia homeowner survey of landscape practices. HortTechnology, 11(2), 326-331.

Impact of the Penn State Food Safety Web Site as a Food Safety Information Resource for Extension Professionals

Luke LaBorde
Assistant Professor
Department of Food Science
Penn State University
University Park, Pennsylvania
Internet Address: lfl5@psu.edu

Introduction

Extension specialists in food science are challenged to develop and deliver educational programs that disseminate knowledge in their field to a diverse audience of food producers, processors, the food service and retail industry, and consumers. At the same time, specialists must create research programs that address emerging issues in food chemistry, microbiology, or processing technologies. As a result, traditional Extension programs that were once a high priority may receive less attention than Cooperative Extension agents have come to expect. This is often the case with consumer food safety and home food preservation programs.

The use of the Internet, however, holds promise as a means to increase the efficiency at which information can be delivered from faculty specialists to field educators. This article describes the development of the Penn State Food Safety Web Site <http://foodsafety.cas.psu.edu/> as a supplementary method to deliver food safety and preservation information to Cooperative Extension agents and to enhance communication between county agents and food science Extension specialists.

Background

The Penn State Food Safety Web Site was created in response to a survey of Extension agents at an annual Children, Youth, and Families in-service for Penn State Cooperative Extension agents. The results of the survey indicated that agents desired greater support from food science specialists in the areas of food safety and home food preservation.

Efforts to use the Internet for answers to questions from clientele were hindered by several factors, including Web sites that were commercial and, therefore, of questionable objectivity; were poorly organized or too lengthy for quick information retrieval; or contained outdated information. Agents agreed that a well organized, user-friendly Web site would be helpful in finding food safety and preservation resources and would result in more productive interactions between food science Extension faculty members and county agents.

The completed Web site was introduced to agents at the March 2001 Children, Youth, and Families Cooperative Extension In-service. Agents were introduced to each section of the site and were briefly trained on search strategies for obtaining food safety and preservation information.

Key features of the site are two searchable databases containing online food safety and home food preservation information. The food safety database contains over 1,200 online food safety resources for and about producers, processors, the food service/retail industries, and consumers. Visitors can select the appropriate sector of the food system and then further refine their search by selecting the type of food, the biological or chemical hazards of interest, best practices, or new technologies, or choose from among several other appropriate categories.

The food preservation database contains over 400 references that consumers can use to safely preserve over 100 food items. A search of the database can be limited by type of food (fruits, vegetables, dairy and eggs, meats and seafood) and by preservation method (canning, freezing, drying, pickling, curing, smoking, and fermentation). Within the food preservation database is a searchable version of the USDA Complete Guide to Home Canning. The site also contains links to food safety news and features, contacts who have expertise in food safety, descriptions of upcoming food safety related in-services, short courses, and workshops at Penn State, and printable fact-sheets, brochures, and posters that agents can use in their programs.

Teaching, research, and outreach activities available at Penn State University are also provided. An important consideration in the design of the site was the need for rapid updating of food safety and preservation information. A password protected database administration Web page was added allowing Extension specialists to easily create and categorize new links to the databases.

The objectives of the study discussed here were to determine:

1. The extent to which the site is used by agents to support their food safety and preservation programs,
2. The effect that the site has had on their ability to retrieve food safety and preservation information, and
3. Changes in attitude and behavior regarding the use of the Internet as an information reference tool.

Methodology

In December of 2001, 72 Cooperative Extension agents were surveyed to determine the impact that the site has had on their food safety and preservation programs. Agents who were surveyed were subscribers to a food safety news and information email mailing list offered by the Food Science Department and therefore had demonstrated interest and expertise in food safety and home food preservation issues.

An email announcement informed the agents of the purpose of the survey assured th