Integrated Fruit Production (IFP): An Overview of Programs

In the second edition of the International Organisation for Biological Control's (IOBC) Guidelines for Integrated Production of Pome Fruits in Europe: Technical Guideline III , IFP is defined as: ". . . the economical production of high quality fruit, giving priority to ecologically safer methods, minimizing the undesirable side effects and use of agrochemicals, to enhance the safeguards to the environment and human health (Cross and Dickler, 1994). IFP originated in integrated plant protection in Europe in the 1950s, but did not experience much growth until the late 1980s (Dickler and Schäfermeyer, 1991). Now, almost fifty percent (790,000 acres) of the apple and pear acreage in western Europe is managed under an IFP program (Reed, 1995). The proportion of an individual country's pome orchard acreage that is represented ranges from less than 1% (Spain) to 82% (Austria) (Hollingsworth, 1995). In 1995, 31 regional or national IFP and/or Quality Assurance (a similar program) organizations in twelve countries participated.

Though not well known in the US, the Integrated Fruit Production guidelines developed in western Europe are probably the most important nonorganic example of field-level assessment and certification." Field-level assessments apply the same criteria to all or most of the crops produced, rather than specific criteria to each crop (as in crop-specific assessments). However, the application of IFP principles has thus far been concentrated on pome fruits and viticulture. Organic certification guidelines also apply essentially the same criteria to all or most of the crops produced, but usually require the development of a farm plan and may involve the integration of animal and plant production systems. Thus, organic guidelines are somewhat more related to farm-level assessments, but clearly operate at the field level in many cases. Both IFP and organic guidelines include postharvest criteria (storage, packaging, processing, etc.)

IFP certifying organizations use a "points for practices" system to make certification determinations for individual farms. The IOBC uses the same type of system for evaluating certifying organizations' certification guidelines for IOBC endorsement determinations. It is not necessary to implement each criterion in IFP guidelines to achieve certification. Points are deducted from the maximum total possible, for each case where the recommended practice is not followed. A minimum score must be attained for a grower to be certified (there are probably some cases where a different type of point system is used). Some IFP programs or certifiers do not use a point system. Again, organic certification guidelines are similar to IFP guidelines, but do not use a point system, are more restrictive with respect to materials (i.e., chemicals like pesticides and fertilizers), require (nominally) all applicable criteria to be met for certification, and as noted, include a farm-level planning component.

Regionally or nationally available pesticides are identified with respect to three categories—permitted ("green list"), permitted with restrictions ("yellow list"), not permitted ("red list")—according to the following criteria: toxicity to man, toxicity to key natural enemies, toxicity to other natural organisms, pollution of ground and surface water, ability to stimulate pests, selectivity, persistence, incomplete information, and necessity of use. ⁽There are exceptions. For example, the South African Deciduous Fruit Industry uses a four-category system: permitted, not permitted, permitted with restrictions, and not permitted with exceptions). The proscribed materials include pyrethroid and organochlorine insecticides and acaricides, nonnaturally occurring plant growth regulators, and toxic, water polluting, or very persistent herbicides. Soil sterilants are not permitted.

The regulations or guidelines used by each country or organization vary and are not always consistent with the IOBC Guidelines. Most countries do not seek IOBC endorsement, nor are there any penalties for noncompliance with IOBC recommendations (Hollingsworth, 1995). Reed (1995) attributes the recent sustained and rapid growth in IFP in Europe to government regulations and programs to reduce pesticide use, government subsidies or tax credits for experimentation with new production systems or systems that exclude undesirable practices, and government-sponsored marketing programs financed by wholesale ad valorem taxes. In some countries, IFP fruit has enjoyed significant price premiums. IFP guidelines have been introduced or are under development in South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, and Argentina (Hollingsworth, 1995). IFP-influenced programs have been introduced in the USA. To my knowledge, there are no IOBC-endorsed IFP certifying entities in North America yet, but at least four local/regional groups have developed guidelines and at least one group has developed a certification program (See Programs, Contacts, Resources). One regional certifying group in the Pacific Northwest has recently or will soon become incorporated as a nonprofit organization.

Note: this is an abbreviated listing—there are many journal articles on IFP.

Boller, E.F. 1988. The ecosystem approach to plan and implement Integrated Plant Protection in viticulture in eastern Switzerland in: Proceedings of joint CEC/IOBC symposium, Plant Protection Problems and Prospects of Integrated Control in Viticulture", Lisbon, Portugal, July 6-9, 1988. p. 607-617.

Cross, J.V., and E. Dickler, eds. 1994. Guidelines for Integrated Production of pome fruits in Europe: IOBC Technical Guideline III. IOBC/WPRS Bulletin 17(9):1–8. International Organization for Biological and Integrated Control of Noxious Animals and Plants, Montfavet, France.

ISBN92-9067-067-3 [English, French, German, Italian, Spanish; see IOBC address below]

Dickler, E. 1992. Current situation of integrated plant protection (IPP) in orchards in IOBC WPRS. Acta Phytopathologica Et Entomologica Hungarica. 27(1-4): 23-28.

Dickler, E., and S. Schäfermeyer. 1991. General principles, guidelines and standards for integrated production of pome fruit in Europe and procedures for endorsement of national and regional guidelines and standards. OILB Bulletin SROP1991/XI/3.

Galli, P. 1992. Present status of guidelines for integrated fruit production and marketing in the Federal Republic of Germany. Acta Phytopathologica Et Entomologica Hungarica. 27(1-4): 251-256.

Hollingsworth, C.S. 1995. Integrated Fruit Production (IFP): a status report. Fruit Notes. (Fall):14–15.

Series of four publications (citation lacking for "1st"), all with same first author— Hassan, S.A.*, et al.—and same title— Results of the [second, third, fourth, fifth] joint pesticide testing programme by the IOBC/WPRS-Working Group "Pesticides and Beneficial Organisms [for "second", substitute "Arthropods".]

1983. Zeitschrift für angewande Entomologie. 95:151-158.

1986. Zeitschrift für angewande Entomologie. 101:?.

1988. Journal of Applied Entomology. 105:321-329.

1991. Entomophaga. 36(1):55-67

*Address: Biologische Bundesanstalt für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Institut fur bioloische Schädlingsbekämpfung, Heinriächstr. 243, D-6100 Darmstadt. FRG

Rating system used: 1, harmless; 2, slightly harmful; 3, moderately harmful; 4, harmful.

Integrated Fruit Production: Guidelines for Pome Fruit. July, 1994. Commissioned by the Steering Committee for Integrated Fruit Production of the South African Deciduous Fruit Industry [contact info. unavailable] p.21 plus annexes. [Uses a points scale for practices: grower starts with maximum no. of points. Penalty points are deducted—disqualification results if >30. Classification system for chemicals with four categories: permitted, not permitted, permitted with restrictions, not permitted with exceptions.]

Muller, W., ed. 1990. Symposium on Integrated Fruit Production, Wadenswil, Switzerland, Sept. 11-15, 1989. International Society for Horticultural Science, Wageningen, The Netherlands. P. 193. [series: Acta horticulturae. no. 285]

Niederholzer, F.J.A., Seavert, C., and H.Riedl. 1996. Demonstration and implementation of integrated fruit production (IFP) on pears in Northern Oregon: introduction. International Symposium on Pear Growing, Tulca, Chile. Proceedings of the Oregon Horticultural Society. p.?. [not yet published]

Reed, A.N. 1995. Responsible Choice: a systems approach to growing, packing, and marketing fruit. In: Hull Jr., J., and R. Perry. The 125th Annual Report of the Secretary of the State Horticultural Society of Michigan for the year 1995. p. 68-78.

Schenk, A.M.E., A.D. Webster, and S.J. Wertheim, Eds. 1993. 2nd International Symposium on Integrated Fruit Production, Veldhoven, Netherlands, August 24-28, 1992. ISHS, International Society for Horticultural Science, Wageningen, Netherlands. p. 377. [series: Acta horticulturae. no. 347]

Schenk, A.M.E., and S.J. Wertheim. 1992. Components and systems research for integrated fruit production. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science. 40(3):257-268.

Waldner, W. 1995. "Integrated fruit production is success in Italy." Good Fruit Grower. March 15, 1995. [also at http://www.goodfruit.com/archive/March15_96/special8.html; originally published in the 1995 International Dwarf Fruit Tree Association Proceedings]

Wildbolz, T. 1994. "Integrated plant protection: goals, developments." Revue Suisse De Zoologie. 101(4): 905-909. [German]

The Food Alliance:  Growers and consumers for a profitable, productive, and environmentally sound agriculture.

The Northwest Food Alliance project funded by the Kellogg Foundation has led to the formation of a new organization, The Food Alliance (TFA), that will carry on beyond the initial Kellogg project. TFA is a nonprofit organization of food system stakeholders working to develop market-based incentives for improved stewardship in food production. TFA is endorsing farms and food processors/packers who meet the stewardship guideline criteria for management in three sectors: pest and disease management, soil and water conservation, human resources. Their goal is to endorse a range of products across food categories to build broad opportunities for consumers to support environmental stewardship in agriculture with their food purchase decisions. The logo/seal is tentatively named the "Good Earth Seal."

Current contacts: Miles McEvoy, project director, 360-902-1924 David Granatstein, farm improvement director, 509-663-8181 x.222

Future contact: Deborah Kane, Exec. Dir., Portland, OR (Office should open in late summer, 1997).

Contacts: 1. Clark Seavert, Extension Economist (Agricultural and Resource Economics Dept., Oregon State Univ.) Mid-Columbia Agricultural Research and Extension Center, 2990 Experiment Station Drive

Hood River, OR 97031 USA 541-386-3343; FAX -3684 seavertc@oes.orst.edu

2. Franz Niederholzer, Extension Agent, Hood River Co.; niederhf@hood.oes.orst.edu

3. Helmut Riedl, Extension Entomologist, 386-2030 (ext 14) (1, 2, & 3 at same address)

4. Felix Tomlinson, Chairman, Hood River Grower Shipper Association's IFP committee.

See the Mid-Columbia Orchardnet homepage: http://www.orst.edu/dept/hort/orchardnet/hifp.htm

for a description of the components of their IFP program and a pesticide rating system with categories. Also, see paper by Niederholzer et al. (1996) in the preceding subsection. Currently there is no market differentiation for their IFP pome fruits, nor dividends for growers. Their three-category (1/most preferable, 2/preferable, 3/permitted) environmental impact ratings for pesticides and other chemicals applied to apples and pears are given in tables at their website.

International Organization for Biological Control (IOBC), General Secretariat

INRA Station de Recherches de Zoologie et d'Apidologie, Domaine Saint-Paul Cantarel

Route de Marseille - B.P. 9184143 MONTFAVET FRANCE

c/o Wendy Gordon, Executive Director, Mothers & Others for a Livable Planet

40 West 20th St., 9th Floor, New York, NY 10011-4211

212-242-0010 ext. 307; FAX -0545; 1-888-ECOINFO; wgordon@igc.apc.org

Publications: 1. Core Values statement. p.1; 2. The Northeast Stewardship Alliance CORE Values Northeast, Apple Grower Guidelines for 1997 Growing Season. p.3.; 3. About Northeast Stewardship Alliance Growers. p.2.; 4. Green Food Labels: Emerging Opportunities for Environmental Awareness and Market Development.

NESA was formed in 1996. The Apple Grower Guidelines are based in part on Guidelines for Integrated Production of pome fruits in Europe: IOBC Technical Guideline III. Certification requirements include: 1) submission of a farm plan; 2) undergoing a knowledge-based assessment by a third party inspector every five years; 3) adherence to the Guidelines. The farm plan consists of three parts: 1) maps and narrative description of history, information sources, soil stewardship program, water quality protection plan, and harvest, handling, and storage methods; 2) a tabular record of pest problems, control methods, and related issues; and 3), information-based decision making—detailed narrative description of preventive, control, and diagnostic methods or procedures and decision criteria. The farm plan must include apple acreage, but the rest of the farm operation can be included on a voluntary basis.

Stemilt is a fruit packer serving over 200 growers of pome fruits in Oregon, Washington State, and British Columbia. The voluntary use of pesticide environmental impact ratings in pesticide selection decision making is promoted. Pesticide application records are submitted to the packer. Annual EIA ratings (Responsible Choice Points^©) are calculated for each farm or orchard (since 1989). Participating growers do not receive price premiums, but neither is their fruit accepted nor rejected based on their annual RC Point total.

Wasco County Fruit and Produce League IFP Program

Contacts:
1. Mr. Lynn Long, Chair Wasco Co., OSU Extension Service, 421 E 5th St., Annex B-201, The Dalles, OR 541-296-5494; FAX 298-3574; longl@oes.orst.edu

2. Steve Kelsey, President, WCFPL, 3850 Knob Hill Rd, The Dalles, OR 97058 541-298-8445 3. John Morton, Oregon Cherry Growers WCFPL uses an IFP-type, three-category materials rating system (red, yellow, and green) and a set of guidelines, but does not have a certification program.

---