Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 1 · column 2 of 9 · from the scan, no model involved
By DAPHNE McCULLOlJGH
Rappahannock New* Staff Writer
Ironically, an ecologist and former regulator of toxic substances with the Environmental Protection Agency presented the most convincing argument for the use of chemical controls in orchards at the Rappahannock League for Environmental Protection’* April 7 meeting.
Dr. Raymond Johnson reported that he’d heard time and time again from agricultural economists that the use of a dollar’s worth of chemicals brings S3 to S4 in economic return. “The profit motive’s there for their use,” he acknowledged. Without chemicals, the orchardist can’t meet the artificial standards of perfection demanded by the fruit buying public, Johnson said.
Johnson joined Washington orchardist George Sharp and Dr. Mason Reger, regional representative of the Staufford Chemical Company in RLEP’s program on orchard chemicals. Capt. Sharp began the panel presentation with a talk on integrated pest management (IPM), the use of biological and chemical controls to combat orchard problems.
Under an IPM program, a carefully maintained population of beneficial insects lessens spray applications required, Sharp said. However, an orchardist’s main dependence is still on chemicals. “It is not possible to produce usable apples without applying chemical materials,” he stated.
Sharp emphasized that all orchard chemicals shouldn’t be lumped together in assessing potential environmental damage. He noted that fungicides used to control fruit tree diseases are not even listed as to toxicity
83.4%