FUNGICIDES:
AN OVERVIEW OF TKEIR SIGNIFICANCE TO AGRICULTURE
AND
THEIR PESTICIDE REGULATORY IMPLICATIONS
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS BRANCH
and
PLANT SCIENCES BRANCH
BENEFITS AND FIELD STUDIES DIVISION
OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS
September 3, 1980
-------
Fungicides:
An Overview of Their Significance to Agriculture
and
Their Pesticide Regulatory Implications
By
Gary Ballard, EAB
Willard Cummings, PSB
Mark Luttner, EAB
Neil Pelletier, PSB
Benefits and Field Studies Division
Office of Pesticide Programs
September 3, 1980
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction and Scope 1
Fungicide Market Dimensions 3
Regulatory Implications of RPAR's 9
Suitability of Alternatives 14
Yield/Quality Losses 16
Economic Impacts of Cancellation 17
Health Impacts Related to Fungicide Use 23
IPM Implications 25
New Chemical Outlook 26
Appendix I 30
-------
INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE
Fungicides are being impacted more heavily by the RPAR process than
any other major class of pesticides regulated under FIFRA. More than 90%
of the annual usage of the organic fungicides is accounted for by twelve
RPAR and pre-RPAR chemicals. This situation creates a complex regulatory
risk/benefit decision making environment under FIFRA. Major
substitutions among chemicals would take place depending on which
regulatory scenario applies. Almost an unlimited number of regulatory
scenarios are possible, each having differing impacts in terms of
exposure and risk to human health and the environment and in terms of
economic impacts on users and consumers.
This report provides an overview of RPAR and non-RPAR fungicides and
their importance in various usage sectors, particularly the agricultural
sector, heavily impacted by fungicide RPAR's. The report addresses the
pesticide regulatory implications of cancellation of pre-RPAR and RPAR
chemicals in a general way for the major use site categories of
fungicides in agriculture, such as for foliar vegetable treatments,
foliar fruit and nut treatments, etc. In each instance, a review is made
of the major diseases, the importance of pest damage, the extent of usage
and the availability of substitutes, the economic impact of
non-availability of the chemicals, the health implications of food or
feed product damage from fungal pests and the implications for integrated
pest management. These analyses were conducted on the basis of readily
available information and are presented primarily in matrix form in order
to 'most expeditiously bring issues into focus.
-------
The analysis helps provide background on the context of upcoming
decisions on individual RPAR's or groupings of KPAR's- It does not
provide the detailed analysis necessary to support those individual
decisions. Neither does it provide an analysis of the health and
environmental issues raised by RPAR triggers/ such as mutagenicity,
carcinogenicity etc.
Information and estimates for the extent of use, the economic
impacts, role of IPM, the list of recommended fungicides, and health
effects were derived in part from a 1979 EPA contract study prepared by
the American Phytopathological Society (APS), various RPAR EPA/USDA
Assessment Team reports and discussions with experts within and outside
of the Agency.
- 2 -
-------
.FUNGICIDE MARKET DIMENSIONS
Pesticide usage in. the United States is estimated to reach 1.2
billion pounds active ingredient for 1980. Fungicides, not including
petroleum based wood preservatives and sulfur, account for about 120
million pounds active ingredient or about 10% of total pesticide use
(Table 1).
There are currently as many as 12 fungicides on which regulatory
action under the RPAR program may be taken. Several of these 12 have
RPAR reviews underway while others are in the pre-RPAR review stage. In
total, the RPAR and pre-RPAR chemicals represent about 67 million pounds
of the total of about 74 million pounds used as organic fungicides in the
U.S. Fungicides also include several inorganic compounds such as the
copper compounds. Adding the inorganic compounds, which have plant
protection uses as well as wood preservative and some water treatment
uses, raises the total fungicide chemical usage to about 145 million
pounds (See Table 2)., Total fungicide usage depicted in Table 1 as
compared to Tables 2"and 3 does not correspond because of different
coverages of wood preservation treatments.
This study is concerned primarily with the agricultural uses of
fungicides. Table 2 shows that total agricultural sector use including
both organic and inorganic compounds is estimated to be about 89 million
pounds. The RPAR and pre-RPAR compounds represent almost 60% of this
total. Looking only at the organic chemicals, agricultural sector use is
about 58 million pounds annually. The RPAR and pre-RPAR compounds
account for 52 million pounds or about 90% of all organic fungicides used
in the agricultural sector.
- 3 -
-------
•teble J. \tolune of U.S. Pesticide Active Ingredient Used
ty Class and Sector) 1980 Estimates.
JVjriculture
Ind./Ormn./Govt.
ll.ire and Garden
Ibtal
Herbicides
1,000
Pounds
445,000
82,000
28,000
555,000
V
Percent
60
15
5
100
Insecticides *L
1,000
Pounds
306,000
47,000
42,000
395,000
Percent
77
• 12
11
100
Fungicides
1,000
Pounds Percent
50,000
60,000
10,000
120,000
42
50
8
100
Other 3/
1,000
Pounds
45,000
58,000
2,000
105,000
«
Percent
43
55
2
100
Tbtal
1,000
Poun<5s
846,000
247,000
82,000
1,175,000
Percent
72
21
7
100
«
-V Inclules plant grtwth regulators.
Z' Includes mitlcides and contact narra tic ides.
_' Includes rodentlcldes, funigants, and nolluscicides.
Source: EPA staff estimates based upon NACA annual surveys, U.S. ITC data, and other sources.
-------
Table 2. Prof tie cf Fmgicidal Usage in the U.S. by Pesticide
Regulatory Status and Usage Sector, 1980
Annual Usage
Chemical
Organic a/
Maneb, manoozeb
ChLorothalonil
Captan
Captafol
Benomyl
Folpet
Ferbam
Ihiram
PCNB
Dcdine
Dinocap
Zineb
Nabam
Metiram
Other organics b/
Inorganic c/
REAR Status
RPAR
Pre-RPAR Referral
RPAR
Pre-RPAR
RPAR
Pre-RPAR
Non-RPAR
Pre^PAR
RPAR
Non-RPAR
Non-RPAR
RPAR
RPAR
RPAR
Non-RPAR
Agriculture
16.0
6.0
10.0
6.0
2.0
1.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
2.5
1.5
3.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
tare &
Garden
J 1 1 J _
m I_L J. von
3.0
.5
5.0
.5
.5
.5
0.5
Ocmnnercial/Industry/
Government
J * •¥•
pounds A. x." •
2.0
.5
1.0
.5
.5
.5
.5
0.5
Ibtal
21.0
7.0
16.0
7.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
1-5
4.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
Copper sulfate and other
copper salts d/
Other inorganics e/
Ibtal
Non-RPAR
Non-RPAR
RPAR
Pre-RPAR
Non-RPAR
Grand Total
RPAR
Pre-RPAR
Non-RPAR
Grand Total
30.0
1.5
36.0
15.5
37.5
89.0
40.5
17.4
42.1
100.0
9.0
1.0
.5
10.5
85.7
9.5
4.8
100.0
20.0
20.0
3.5
2.0
40.5
46.0
TV-i v-.— 1-1 .-|l-
7.6
4.4
88.0
100.0
50.0
21.5
49.5
18.5
78.5
145.5
33.3
12.7
54.0
100.0
See notes on next page.
-------
a/ Does not include a phenylphenol/ petroleum, creosote, coal tar,
pentachlorophenol, trichloraphenol or cu-naphthenates.
b/ Includes: anilazime fentin hydroxide
Busan 40 glyodin
batrizol hexachlophene (RPAR)
chlorneb oxytetracycline
cydoheximide pannol
dizonet piperalin
DCNA streptomycin
ditalimates TCMTB
ethazol thiabenzadole
ethoxyguin tricyclazole
fenarimol ziram
£/ Does not include sulfur or zinc sulfate.
d/ Primarily copper sulfate. Includes all pesticidal uses, i.e., uses
against fungi, bacteria, algae, etc.
o_/ Includes arsenates and other salts of chromium, nickel, cadmium, and
other metals.
- 6 -
-------
The EBDC fungicides included in Table 2 (maneb, mancozeb, metiram/
zineb/ and nabam) (EBDC's also include amobam no longer in production)
constitute 27 million pounds active ingredient or 36% of all organic
fungicides used in the U.S. For the agricultural sector/ the EBDC's
represent 21.5 million pounds active ingredient or 37% of all organic
fungicides used in the agricultural sector.
Regionally, Table 3 shows that fungicides are most heavily used in
the Southeast. This usage corresponds to the climatic conditions of the
Southeast (i.e./ warm and humid) which intensifies disease pressure.
However as seen in Table 3, all regions are significant consumers of
fungicides. Fungicide use is primarily a function of cropping patterns
and climate. Vegetable and fruit crops tend to require fungicides in
their production. This accounts for such findings as the West is a
relatively large consumer of fungicides although climatic conditions
would tend to indicate less disease pressure.
- 7 -
-------
Table 3. Profile of Fungicidal Usage in the U.S. by Pesticide
Regulatory Status and Region, 1980
Annual Usge
Chemical
Organic a/
Maneb, mancozeb
Chlorothalonil
Captan
Captafol
Benomyl
Folpet
Ferbam
Thiram
PCNB
Dodine
Dinocap
Zineb
Nabam
Metiram
Other organics b/
RPAR Status
RPAR
Pre-RPAR Referral
RPAR
Pre-RPAR
RPAR
Pre-RPAR
Non-RPAR
Pre-RPAR
RPAR
Non-RPAR
Non-RPAR
RPAR
RPAR
RPAR
Non-RPAR
Inorganic c/
Copper sulfate and other
copper salts d/ Non-RPAR
Other inorganics e/ Non-RPAR
Total
RPAR
Pre-RPAR
Non-RPAR
Grand Total
RPAR
Pre-RPAR
Non-RPAR
Grand Total
NE
4.00
.50
5.00
1.25
.50
1.00
.20
.40
.20
1.50
.80
.50
.20
.20
.40
1.00
2.50
10.60
3.15
6.40
20.15
52.6
15.6
31.8
100.0
SE
7.50
2.25
3.50
2.00
.50
.30
.20
.50
1.00
.10
.10
1.50
.20
.20
.40
25.00
5.00
14.40
5.05
30.80
50.25
28.7
10.1
61.2
100.0
NC
'11*
3.00
.50
3.50
1.25
.75
.20
.20
.40
.50
.50
.40
1.50
.20
.20
.40
11.00
2.50
9.65
2.35
15.00
SC
pounds
4.50
2.25
.50
1.25
.50
.30
.20
1.00
.40
.20
.10
.30
.20
.20
.40
1.00
6.50
6.60
4.80
8.40
27.00 19.80
35.7 33.3
8.7
55.6
100.0
24.2
42.5
100.0
W
2.00
1.50
3.50
1.25
.75
.20
.20
.20
.40
.20
.10
.20
.20
.20
.40
12.00
5.00
7.25
3.15
17.90
28.30
25.6
11.1
63.3
100.0
Total
21.0
7.0
16.0
7.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
1.5
4.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
50.0
21.5
48.50
18.50
78.50
145.50
33.3
12.7
54.0
100.0
See notes on page 6.
-------
REGULATORY IMPLICATIONS OF RPAR'S
The possibility of removing some or all chemicals involved in the
RPAR process and possibly additional chemicals raises questions of the
significance of fungicides in economic terms to the agricultural sector
and the economy in general. The general approach taken was to aggregate
crops into groups of similar characteristics, similar disease problems,
and similar fungicide use practices. This aggregation allowed the
analysis to be broken into a manageable number of site groupings given
the time and resources available. As with any aggregation, the findings
tend to rely on broad averages. This analysis made use of ranges or
averages for both extent of treatment estimates and economic impact
calculations. Even though the use of averages was necessitated by
resource constraints, the overall and relative significance of fungicides
is generally portrayed.
A general summary of findings is presented in tabular form for
nine(9) crop use-site categories (Table 4). These nine categories are an
aggregation of more detailed information presented in Appendix I for
twenty-two (22) use-site categories. The remainder of this section of
the report is a discussion of the information presented in Table 4 and
Appendix I, along with implications for regulatory action under FIFRA.
- 9 -
-------
Kxtent of Current Usage
Site KI'AR Non-KPAR
Foliar 102-75% of total 10%-20% may be
Vegetables acreage treated. treated. Similar
90%-100% of regional break-
eastern acreage, down as for
2()%-50% of RPAR's.
western acreage.
Major vegetables
such as tomatoes.
potatoes and
cucurbits are
Intensive sites
for RPAR's.
Dlsiease Loss
Estimates—
Solanaceous crops
100% in Southeast
20% In California
Beans and Peas
10% East and
Midwest
Leafy Vegetables
100% in FL
20% in CA
Cucurbits
75% In Southeast
15% in other
regions
Root Crops
20% in FL and
midwest
5% In other
regions..
fitablllty of .
KPJni Alternatives—
Equally effective
compounds more
costly; less effective
alternatives Injurious,
have narrow spectrum,
and require more
applications.
Economic Impact
of RPAR
Cancel la t ton
Grower level
Impacts of 10%-
157. of value of
production or
up to $500 M.
Major shift
of nroductlon
from humid East
to less humid
West.
Heal ill Impact ' ) l'^^^i~..il c1)1. i cs
Kruni Loss of Siin^^viiiciil ;i 1 to
All Fungicides Clu-mlra) C.onlml
Higher Incidence Resistant
of fungal . varieties.
fragments in sanitation.
processed disease fore-
products. Limited casting, modified
availability of nlantlng dates.
fresli produce In
winter season.
Reduced
nutritional value
in processed
produce. For
potatoes, potential
Incidence of glyco-
alkolold poisoning
with ingestlon of
blight Infected
tubers.
Sweet Corn
100% In Southeast
8% in other
regions
Fruit and 45%-90% of fruits, 50%-80% of fruit, Disease losses
Nuts
20%-60% of nuts.
Treatment is more
intensive in East.
30%-80% of nuts.
Non-RPAR chemicals
are very often
used In conjunc-
tion with RPAR
compounds.
Non-UPAR alternatives Up to 20%-30%
as high as
75%-80% could
occur on stone
fruits.
100% losses
could occur on
certain tropical
fruits, I.e.,
papayas.
available for most
uses but are generally
less effective, not
as broad spectrum, or
are phytotoxlc for
certain situations.
of current value
of production
could be lost
from yield and
quality declines.
Reduced
availability of
of fresh and
processed fruit
and nuts.
Sanitation,
resistant
var let les,
maintenance of
tree' vigor.
pruning,
I rrI gat ion,
eradication of
alternate disease
host, controlling
Insect vectors,
disease fore-
casting.
-------
Extent of
Site RI'AR
Foliar (cont) Grain crops
Field and generally not
Cereal treated. Other
Crops field crops
receive some
treatments,
peanuts being
Intensively
treated (75%-
90%). Seedbed
treatment of
tobacco occurs
(50%- 70%). .
Treatment of
soybeans is
expanding from
5% treated
acreage
currently.
Oranmentals 20%- 100% of
including foliage and
Trees and flowering plants
Turf treated in
Current Usage
Non-RPAR
Generally not
significant.
However, peanuts
may be treated
with sulfur and
coppers (10%-20%).
Selected
ornamentals e.g.
roses are commonly
treated.
Disease Loss
Estimates-
Peanuts - Losses
as high as 75%.
Cotton - Heaviest
impact in South-
west, 50% losses
due to rusts.
Soybeans - Heaviest
impact in South
with 10% loss.
Cereals - Up to
25% loss due to
smuts in
localized areas.
Tobacco - Average
loss of 2% but
may be as high
as 75% under
severe conditions.
Highly Important
on golf courses.
Losses as high
as 100% on
m Suitability of ..
WPAR Alternatives-
Major foliar fungi-
cides are either RPAR
or Pre-RPAR status.
Alternatives generally
less effective and not
broad specturm or
phy to toxic.
Limited alternatives
for most uses are
generally less
effective, reduced
Economic Impact
of WAR
Cancellation
Loss on peanuts
could approach ^
$100 M or more.
Possible signif-
icant loss on
tobacco $20-50
million. Loss
on soybeans
could approach
$50 M but is
small percentage
of crop.
Negligible
affect on cereal
crops except in
localized areas.
Increased cost
of producing
nursery stock,
loss of aethetic
Health Tmnact
From Loss of
All Fungicides
Potential
af latoxin
poisoning. (Some
research
indicates cor-
coorelatlon
between grain
and peanut foliar
treatments and
reduced aflatoxln
level in stored
commodity.)
None apparent.
^^m Strategics
^W>p 1 emcn t a 1 to
Chi'mlcal Control
Sanitation,
disease fore-
casting, resistant
varieties.
Sanitation,
disease free
transplants,
rediicinn
nurserles.
Turf treatment
significant (25%-
757.) for golf
courses and
athletic fields.
Localized treat-
ment of high
valued trees.
Treatment
especially
significant in
Southeast.
highly suscepti-
ble turf in South.
Minor importance
on home lawns.
Highly Important
on certain high
value ornamentals
(i.e. roses).
Losses up to 80%.
spectrum, or
phytotoxic. Resistance
problems for certain
disease situations.
Value, decreased
number of
varieties availa-
ble, replacement
cost for diseased
ornamentals.
More frequent
applications or use
of multiple
fungicides.
humidity,
Improved soil
drainage,
fertilization,
irrigation,
mowing.
-------
TAB Hi
Importance of Agricultural Fungicides in the U.g. by Site Category and Regulatory Status
Site
Extent of Current Usage
RPAR Non-RPAR
Disease Loss
Estimates-
Suitability of .
RPAR Alternatives-
Economic Impact
of RPAR
Cancellation
Health Impact
From Loss of
All Fungicides
IPM Strategies
Supplemental to
Chemical Control
Seed Treat-
ments
Vegetables
Field
Crops
Cereal
Crops
Soil Treat-
ments
Vegetables
and
Peanuts
Over 50% of
vegetable seed
and 60%-70% of
potatoe seed
pieces treated.
Treatments ,ln
all regions.
Up to 80% of
crops, especially
peanuts In SE and
SW, corn in all
regions.
502-60% of
planted acreage.
10%-20% of
selected crops
(peanuts) in SE
and SW. Localized
for vegetables.
Up to 25% of
vegetable seed
may be treated.
\5%-40% of
acreage
treated especially
sugarbeets in west
10% of corn
acreage.
10%-20% of
planted acreage.
l%-5% of peanut
crop in SE and
SW.
Seed/seedling
diseases wide-
spread, resulting
in reduced stands
and plant vigor
in all regions.
Losses up to 10%
on certain
vegetable crops.
Losses up to 35%
on peanuts, 25%
on corn, and 10%—
20% on soybeans
and cotton.
Losses up to 15%. as above
Major Importance
in Southeast
where 25% losses
could occur.
Seed treatment
chemicals are rarely
broad spectrum. Heavy
relience on combina-
tions of fungicides
(often RPAR and
non-RPAR to control
disease complexes) .
as above
Extremely limited
non-RPAR alternatives
are generally less
effective of reduced
spectrum.
Higher production
costs as a result
of replanting and
higher seeding
None apparent.
Sanitation.
overseeding ,
delayed plant ing
dates.
rates.
5%-25% of corn
with value of $1-5
billion could be
lost. Up to 10% of
soybeans with value
of $1 billion.
Losses of 5%-15%
of .production with
value of up to $1
billion could occur.
Overall l%-5% of
vegetables and
peanuts could be
impacted. Losses
could approach
$50 million,
Southeast
especially
impacted.
None apparent.
Rotation,
resistant
varieties,
sanitation,
deep plowing.
-------
TAI1I.K
Importance of Agr Icul tura I Fungicides in thu U.Sv by Site Category ami Kegu latory Status
Kxtent of Current Usage
Site RPAR
Post-Harvest 40%-502 of
Fruit stone fruit, 5%-
30% of pome
fruit, 201-100%
of other fruit,
especially cran-
berries and
strawberries.
Post-harvest
rots occur In
all regions.
Vegetables Significant
portion of
selected vege-
tables such as
onions treated.
Non-KPAK
40%-50% of stone
fruit, limited use
on some fruit,
100% of stored
grapes treated.
Significant
portion of
selected vege-
. tables are
treated.
— Potential disease losses assuming no fungicide
Disease Loss Suitability of .
Estimates-' RPAR Alternatives-
Fruit losses range Alternatives generally
from 3%-5% for more costly and often
pears and apricots less effective. UPAR's
to 80%, 90% and may be applied pre-
100% for plums, harvest to control
lemons, and post-harvest
grapes. organisms.
Minor importance as above
for most
vegetables
(except those
requiring
prolonged
storage, I.e. ,
onions) .
treatments for most highly
Economic Impact
of RPAR
Cancellation
Losses up to 5%
might occur,
value of loss
over $300 H.
Availability of
out of season
fruit would be
diminished for
consumer.
Processed fruit
might replace
a share of fresh
fruit market.
Potentially
large for stored
vegetables such
as onions.
Reduced shelf
life and reduced
marketing range
could cause
multi-million
dollar disrup-
tions in market.
Consumers would
1 *.A «• 1-1 t t- A
nave more i.imi.ce(i
availability of
fresh vegetables.
Health Impact IPTF^ii rali-gii-s
From Loss of Suppl I'mcnUi 1 to
All Funj;l(! ides ChiMiilca 1 Control
Possible effects Sanitation,
from mycotoxlns refrigeration, wax
in processed/ coatings.
fresh produce due
to microbial
contamination.
Possible loss in
nutritional value.
Limited availability
of certain fruit in
"off season".
Possible loss as above
in nutritional
value. Limited
availability of
certain vege-
tables in "off
season".
21
Suitability of RPAR and pre-RPAR alternatives for major diseases of
majority of crops in given site.
-------
Suitability of Alternatives
The use patterns of the RPAR fungicides are extremely diverse; thus,
the following generalities should not be considered inclusive. In
general, the RPAR compounds are more suitable to their intended purpose
than the available alternatives. Also, major disruptions in disease
control programs would occur in nearly all major crop groupings if all
broad-spectrum RPAR fungicides were cancelled. Cancellations could
result in increased severity of certain diseases, increased alternative
fungicide usage, increased pest resistance and phytotoxicity. These
topics are discussed separately below.
Increased disease severity - Several disease conditions exist for which
the RPAR chemicals are uniquely suited. Loss of this group of fungicides
could result in increased severity of the following diseases (and
consequently increased losses) due to the lack of effective broad
spectrum alternatives:
Early blight (Alternaria), late blight (Phytophthora) and leaf
spot diseases on tomatoes, potatoes and other vegetables
Blights and mildews of ornamentals
Powdery mildew and leaf spot diseases of fruits, and ornamentals
Botrytis diseases of fruits, vegetables and ornamentals
Seed and soil-borne diseases
Post-harvest fruit diseases
- 14 -
-------
Increased Alternative Fungicide Usage - An increase in overall fungicide
usage would occur on many crops due to grower dependence on less
effective alternatives which would require more frequent applications.
As an extreme example, consider the treatment of mangos with benomyl
versus copper fungicides. Seven benomyl applications give better disease
control than 40 applications of copper which was used prior to benomyl
registration.
Increased Pest Resistance - The loss of fungicides, such as EBDC's and
captan, would increase the threat from pathogen resistance in the future.
Resistance has developed to pesticides (e.g., benomyl) which act
against limited sites in the pathogen but seldom develops to multi-site
inhibitors such as EBDC's and captan. Without these multi-site
inhibitors management of resistant pathogens (e.g. mixing or alternating
applications of benomyl with EBDC's) would be increasingly difficult and
would further restrict the availability of effective alternatives.
Increased Phytotoxicity - Many alternative fungicides are often
phytotoxic and not compatible with other pesticides. Sulfur, for
example, may cause severe fruit and foliage injury to many crops,
especially during periods of high temperatures.
Apart from these considerations, there are numerous uses for which
no registered alternatives exist. Benomyl, for example, is the only
chemical currently available for control of rice blast. Without this
chemical, 50% losses can be expected in areas where there is a history of
this disease.
- 15 -
-------
Yield/Quality Losses
The possible cancellation of RPAR and pre-RPAR would have varying
degrees of effects on both yields and quality depending on crop and
region under study. For example, untreated tomatoes in Florida could
suffer an effective yield loss of 100% while losses in California might
not exceed 20%. Individual vegetable crops could have yield losses
varying from 8% to 100% while overall losses on vegetables would fall in
the 10-15% range.
Similarily on fruit and nut crops, individual losses up to 75%-80%
on stone fruit would be expected while overall losses on fruit and nuts
would be 20-30%. Quality diminishment would be included in this range of
losses.
The possible losses on field and cereal crops tend to be lower with
losses of 10%-35% possible in individual cases. Overall losses could be
in the range of 5%-25% however since much of the field and cereal crops
are treated with seed treatment. The importance of fungicides as foliar
treatments for field and cereal crops is less significant with certain
exceptions such as peanuts and regional treatments of cotton and wheat.
•
Application of post-harvest treatments of fruit is not directly for
improving yields or quality in crop production but is an essential
component in the nationwide market of produce. The ability to store and
then ship most fruit would be significantly curtailed especially in the
- 16 -
-------
case of stone fruit and grapes which could suffer 80%-100% losses if
stored and shipped without fungicide treatments- Much of the fruit now
stored for later marketing would need to be processed to prevent large
losses. Even so some spoilage totaling up to 5% of the value of
production would still occur.
Economic Impacts of Cancellation
The widespread use of fungicides for foliar, seed treatment, soil
treatment, and post-harvest applications implies that economic impacts
from cancelling KPAR or pre-RPAR fungicides would be anticipated to occur
in most agricultural subsectors of production. This report provides
estimates of the initial one-year impacts of cancellation on the major
sites or site groupings where fungicides play a role in production.
A major assumption underlying the analysis of economic impacts upon
users is that market conditions and relative commodity prices will remain
unchanged. That is, it is assumed for example that a given percent
decline in production would result in the same percent decrease in the
value of production. This would be an unlikely occurrence in the real
world if significant portions of fungicides were cancelled. There would
be a great deal of interaction both within commodity groups and across
commodity groups as the marketplace caused adjustments in relative value
to change. The general tendency for food or feed crops is for prices to
increase a relatively greater percentage than volume of production
declines. The outcome is that consumers would spend more for a smaller
quantity of output.
- 17 -
-------
A matter that could not be specifically addressed at this time is
the regional availability of land which affects the possibility of
shifting crop production from one region to another. The general
tendency is that if fungicides are restricted or not available, then
Western states would gain a production advantage due to less disease
incidence in generally drier climates. Data are not available at this
time to predict the degree to which regional production shifts are
likely.
Initial User Impacts
Economic impacts of cancellations occur as a combined result of
effects of yield changes/ quality or grade changes, and production cost
impacts. This study focuses on the first two effects. Changes in costs
of production tend to be secondary in bringing about impacts as compared
to the yield and quality effects. In addition to the yield, quality and
cost effects, the significance of economic impacts is related to the
extent of pesticide usage, both in relative terms and absolute terms.
Based on the estimated combined factors outlined above, the impacts
of cancelling RPAR and pre-RPAR fungicide chemicals would have the
following values at the grower level:
- 18 -
-------
$Millions
Seed Treatment/Field Crops 2,000
Foliar Treatment/Fruit and Nut 1,600
Seed Treatment/Cereal Crops 1,000
Foliar Treatment/Vegetables 500
Post-harvest Treatment/Fruit 300
Soil Treatment/Vegetables and Peanuts 50
Ornamentals not quantified
Post-harvest Treatment/Vegetables not quantified
Total 5,650+
The estimated $5.6 billion one year impact can be compared to the
total value of all farm marketings of $129 billion in 1979 and the value
of crop marketings of $62 billion in that same year. Thus the economic
impacts would be nearly equal to 10% of the value of crops marketed in
1979.
Another comparison which can be made is that since -1970, EPA has
announced or implemented nine major cancellation/suspension proceedings.
The estimated first year impact of all of these actions totals about $125
million. The estimated total impact for the long run for these nine
actions is $363.24 million. These impacts are small compared to the
impacts shown above for fungicides.
The Preliminary Benefit Analysis prepared in support of the RPAR the
six fungicides collectively named EBDC's indicated that total one year
impacts of approximately $150 million could result from their
cancellation. The currently proposed regulatory options reduce the
- 19 -
-------
impact on the agricultural sector to about $62 million, not including
requirements for additional protective clothing. Thus the net effect of
EBDC cancellation given the availability of other currently registered
fungicides would be 1 to 2 percent of the total economic benefit of
fungicides.
The seemingly minor contribution of the EBDC's to the estimated
total benefits of fungicides brings into focus the key regulatory
implication of this analysis. Single fungicides or even grouping of
fungicides create benefits with respect to the suitability and
availability of alternatives. Therefore, as long as alternative
chemicals with generally acceptable efficacy are available a single
chemical will not appear to have overwhelming benefits attached to its
use. As such, a single chemical is not likely to be critical except in
possibly individual region/crop/pest combinations. However, the need for
chemical disease control requires that some reasonably effective
fungicides be available or a large loss in benefits could occur.
Reviewing chemicals on a one-by-one basis can give a misleading view
of the benefits of any single chemical or group of chemicals. The order
in which chemicals are reviewed and potentially removed from the market
would alter the apparent benefits from individual chemicals- Benefits
are based on the overall need for disease control. Therefore consistent
risk/benefit decision-making would require that the parameters of the
decision be independent of the order in which decisions on individual
chemicals are made. As a practical matter, this requires that
comparative benefits and comparative risks should be developed on a
site-by-site basis.
- 20 -
-------
Regional Variation
The widespread use of .fungicides would indicate that cancellation of
RPAR and pre-RPAR fungicides would have significant impact in all regions
of the U.S. There would be a tendency for benefits to be relatively
higher in coastal regions, especially the Southeast. The possible losses
in the Southeast vegetable and fruit producing areas are high relative to
the value of the crops produced.
On an absolute basis, the value of losses in the Midwest where field
and cereal crops dominate would be as high as any other region because of
the vastly larger acreages involved. The impact as a percent of the
value of crops produced would tend to be lower however than in the
Southeast.
In the West, relative losses on a percentage basis would be lower as
the vegetable and fruit crops as compared to the Southeast and Northeast.
However, in many instances the higher yields per acre and hence the
higher value of output per acre enjoyed in the West would cause
significant losses on a dollar basis should major fungicides be
cancelled.
- 21 -
-------
Consumer Impacts
The $5.6 billion estimated impact at the farm level from cancelling
all RPAR and pre-RPAR fungicides would also cause significant economic
impacts for consumers. If the farm level losses were simply passed on to
consumers without being absorbed or added to by the marketing chain, the
impact would be the equivalent of $25 per capita per year.
A more realistic outcome/ given the typical inelasticity of demand
for food, would be for prices to increase at a relatively higher rate
than physical production declines. The consumer sector in the end would
pay more for a smaller volume of food consumed.
The agricultural sector as a whole would benefit at the expense of
the consumer sector. Furthermore, within the agricultural sector, non-
users of fungicides would gain relative to users of fungicides. This
outcome would occur as all growers, including those with output
unaffected by disease, would receive the higher market price resulting
from overall industry decline in output.
A rough estimate of the cost to consumers from a decline in farm
output can be made using elasticity estimates econometrically derived.
Assuming a price elasticity of demand for all food at the farm level at
-0.2; a decline in food output of 1% would cause an increase in prices of
about 5%. Given the overall decline in quality of food production- at the
farm level of 4% ($5.6 billion out of $129 billion using value at unit
prices as a proxy for quantity), food prices at the farm level could be
- 22 -
-------
expected to increase overall by up to 20% ($27 billion) with a complete
bar of RPAR's and pre-RPAR's in effect. If only RPAR's were cancelled,
the impacts would be in the range of 5 to 10 percent ($6-13 billion) as
less impacts would occur on most vegetables and field crops. These
estimates, it should be remembered, are based on parameters that were
statistically derived and should be judged accordingly. They also assume
that farm level impacts are passed on without add-on's. If there were
add-on's beyond the farm level, the impacts would be larger.
Consumers would also be impacted by an expected decline in quality
of produce available and by waste involved in trimming away blemished and
infected tissue. Unblemished produce would be expected to command
premium prices over other produce. A large part of this impact would
relate to aesthetics and to the aversion to consuming blemished and
infected produced, but the desire on part of consumers for unblemished
food is real nevertheless.
a
The prices of individual food items may rise to such a level as to
inhibit purchases by the lower income segments of consumers. The effect
would be to restrict the purchasing options for some people.
Health Impacts Related to Fungicide Use
Health effects related to the loss of all or selected fungicides are
relatively subtle and not readily determinable. The most broad impact
would be on nutrition. With reduced availability of fresh produce and
shift to processed food (due to loss of post-harvest treatments or use of
- 23 -
-------
less efficacious field treatments) there would be more dependence of the
consumer on processed food and their inherent lower nutritional value.
There would also be the nutritional loss due to the lessened availability
of fresh winter season vegetables or produce stored over one or more
seasons.
A more dramatic effect of loss of fungicides involves a potential
incidence of human poisioning due to presence of mycotoxins in produce
infected with fungi. Although the correlation between pre-rharvest grain
and peanut fungicide treatments and reduced aflatoxin levels in the
stored commodities has not been conclusively demonstrated, a relationship
of pre-harvest treatments and mycotoxins levels0 has been shown for two
major food crops. The toxin, patulin, produced by species of Penicillium
occur in infected apples and in apple juice (Nat. Acad. Sci. 1973). Due
to the occurrence of benomyl tolerant strains of Penicilluim, harvest
treatments of benomyl are no longer effective for control and incidence
of Penicillium infections and subsequent levels of patulin increased
(Burton and Filonow, 1980). Glycoalkaoid mycotoxins produced in late
•^ \
\
blight diseased potato tubers have been—reported to cause several human
disorders and teratogenesis (Renwick, 1972; Poswillo, Sopher, and
Mitchell, 1972). The correlation between effective foliar fungicide
treatments for late blight and reduced incidence of blighted tubers has
been reported by several workers including Manzer, and Merriam, 1974.
Although, at the post-harvest stage, fresh produce is not usually
infected with mycotoxin producing fungi, the potential for mycotoxin
problems, in the event of loss of fungicides, is unknown (Mirocha,
1980).
- 24 -
-------
Indirectly related to health effects is impact on food purity
standards which set limits on the quantity of fungal fragments in
processed food. Reduced fungicidal efficacy would result in high
incidence of fungal lesions on produce and higher fungal fragment counts
in the processed food. This would obligate changes in tolerance levels
for fungal fragments or markedly increase the rate of rejection of
contaminated products.
IPM Implications
While IPM strategies show great promise for dramatically reducing
insecticide usage on many crops, the overall prospect for comparable
fungicide reduction is less promising. Current IPM practices for plant
disease control typically include fungicides as an integral part of the
overall strategy.
Cultural practices and biological control can bring about disease
reduction but are rarely entirely effective by themselves and are often
used as supplements to chemical control.
Monitoring and forecasting techniques have successfully brought
about reductions in frequency of fungicide use, but a certain number.of
fungicide applications are still necessary for effective disease control.
Genetic resistance remains one of the primary alternatives to
fungicide use, but is limited on certain crops due to the lack of
suitable host resistance or other factors. While the IPM approach will
continue to bring about reductions in total fungicide use, it is unlikely
that fungicides will be entirely replaced on most crops.
- 25 -
-------
NEW CHEMICAL OUTLOOK
New Fungicide Materials
As expressed in the American Phytopathological Society (APS)
contract study for the Environmental Protection Agency/ new product
research has been decelerated recently due to the following major
reasons:
"Many pesticide companies are delaying basic decisions on whether or
not to continue investment in new pesticide products until they
learn of the outcome of current RPAR's and other recent
regulations."
"Sharply increased registration costs and the substantial expenses
devoted to product defense and reevaluation drain the funding for
new product research."
"The pesticide industry is now devoting most of its R & D effort to
herbicides and insecticides. Under the pressure of higher R & D
costs, less money is likely to be invested in products for the
limited markets offered for disease control chemical.
Presently, very few chemicals potentially useful for plant disease
control are within the registration process (APS, 1979). The future
trends in number of chemicals submitted for registration depend both on
the stringency in setting acceptable levels of risk and on future markets
available. The availability of markets is itself affected by regulatory
activity such as cancellation of a major fungicide.
- 26 -
-------
This rather negative prognosis concerning the fungicide market
outlook, must be taken within the context that the pesticides industry is
a profitable, growing, healthy industry. This has been true for the
1970's and can reasonably be expected to be true for the 1980's. If
certain chemicals are taken off the market, this tends to open up markets
for new chemicals or new uses of old chemicals. Normally, regulatory
actions are taken over a period of time, particularly where major
economic impacts are indicated, giving the pesticides producer and user
communities time to adjust to change.
Possible replacement fungicides or additional fungicides can come
from two sources. First, there are fungicides which have been developed
in Europe and Japan and used in many areas of the world, but have not
been registered for use in the United States. The second source is new
product research.
There are about 13 compounds in the first category described above,
(APS, 1979). The risks involved in the use of these materials is a key
question. Should any of these chemicals become available, the economic
implications of cancelling RPAR and pre-RPAR fungicides would need to be
appropriately adjusted. The tendency would be for the expected impacts
of loss of RPAR fungicides to be lessened.
- 27 -
-------
New product research, especially for the development of systemic
fungicides, may also produce replacement chemicals. Most fungicides tend
to act as protectants while systemic fungicides may have curative
properties as well as protectant properties. The curative properties are
desirable since completeness of plant coverage and timing of applications
become less critical. Several important diseases such as potato blights
and downey mildew in some vine crops are particular targets of research
into systemics. There again is the issue of whether new chemicals on the
horizon might also be found to have RPAR triggers.
Several new fungicides within the registration process appear to be
especially significant due to their broad spectrum activity. Among these
these compounds are Ridomil (Subdue, Metalaxyl) and CGA 64251. Ridomil
is active against some major vegetable diseases and CGA 64251 is active
against some major fruit diseases.
Both Ridomil and CGA 64251 belong to a group which due to their mode
of action are known as sterol inhibitors. Due to their mode of action
(active against a specific pathogen site), there is much concern among
plant pathologists that target fungi will rapidly develop resistance. It
has been proposed that resistance can be minimized by using these
compounds mixed or alternating in application with fungicides which do
not induce resistance.
- 28 -
-------
PRINCIPAL REFERENCES
1. American Phytopathological Society. Contemporary Control of Plant
Diseases With Chemicals. Present Status, Future Prospects, and
Proposals for Action. EPA Contract No. 68-01-3914. St. Paul, Minnesota
June, 1979.
2. ARS, USDA, Losses In Agriculture. Agricultural Handbook No. 291, 1965.
3. Burton, C.L. and A.B. Filonow, Patulin in Apples Infected with
Benomyl-Tolerant Isolates of Penicillium Expansion, Abstracts of Papers
APS Annual Meeting, Minneapolis, Minn. August 1980.
4. Manzer, F.E. and D.C. Merriam. Potato, Fungicide and Nematicide Pests
Results of 1974.
5. Mirocha, C.J. Dept. of Plant Pathologist, Univ. of Minn, personal
communication to E.N. Pelletier, EPA, Washington, D.C. Aug. 26, 1980.
r
6. National Academy of Sciences, 1973, Toxicants Occurring Naturally In
Foods, Second Edition.
7. Poswillo, D.E., D. Soper, and S. Mitchell. Experimental Inductors of
Fetal Malformation with Blighted Potato, Nature 239: 462-464, 1972.
8. Renwick, J.H. Hypothesis: Anencephaly and Spina Bifida are Usually
Preventable by Avoidance of a Specific Unidentified Substance in
Certain Potato Tubers, Br. J. Prev. Soc. Med. 26: 67-89, 1972.
j.
9. USDA/EPA/State Assessment Team of the National Agriculture Pesticide
Impact Assessment Program Assessment of PCNB Fungicide Uses in
Agriculture. Draft Report No. 1., April 30, 1978.
10. USDA/EPA/State Assessment of EBDC Fungicide Uses in Agriculture, Draft
Report No. 1, April, 1978.
11. USDA/EPA/State Assessment of Benomyl Fungicide Uses in Agriculture, Draft
Report No. 1, March 15, 1978.
12. USDA/EPA/State Assessment of Cadmium Fungicide Uses in Agriculture. Draft
Report No. 1, March 16, 1978.
13. USDA/EPA/State Assessment Team of the National Agriculture Pesticide
Impact Assessment Program, Draft Reports of Selected Uses of Captan,
Updated.
- 29 -
-------
APPENDIX I
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANCE
OF FUNGICIDES
BY CROP SITE GROUPING
September, 1980
- 30 -
-------
Significance of Fungicides by Crop Site Grouping
Explanatory Note
Because of the nature of this report, the following summary pages
present generalized statements for major agricultural crop groups, minor
but locally important crops, diseases, fungicides, and losses are not
addressed.
The suitability of recommneded fungicides for their use sites is
assessed by means of a three digit rating scheme: the first digit refers
to efficacy, this quality is ranked on a scale of one to three,' a rank of
one indicates a high degree of efficacy, two indicates moderate efficacy
and three indicates low efficacy; the second digit refers to spectrum of
activity, where on a scale of one to three, a rank of one indicates a
broad spectrum of activity, two is a moderate spectrum and three
indicates a narrow spectrum; the third digit refers to phytotoxicity
where on a scale of one to three, a rank of one indicates no
phytotoxicity is usually observed, a rank of two indicates a moderate
degree of phytotoxicity is sometimes observed, and three indicates
phytotoxicity is often observed.
- 31 -
-------
Information and estimates for the Extent of Use, the Economic
Impact, Role of IPM, the list of recommended fungicides, and Health
effects were derived in part from a 1979 EPA contract study prepared by
the American Phytopathological Society (APS), various RPAR EPA/USDA
Assessment Team reports and discussions with experts within and outside
of the Agency.
The disease loss estimates are based on crops receiving no fungicide
treatments, and have been included to present an overall picture of the
importance of fungicides to agricultural production.
In reviewing these summary pages, it can be seen that, in general,
RPAR compounds are more suitable to their purpose than the non-RPAR
compounds. Also, major disruptions in disease control programs would
occur in nearly all crop groupings if all RPAR fungicides were
cancelled.
i
It is emphasized that IPM strategies presented are supplemental to
chemical control and that these strategies are already implemented by
most growers.
- 32 -
-------
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANCE OF FUNGICIDE USE ON POME FRUITS (APPLES,
PEARS)
A. Use; Foliar
B. Major Diseases: Scab, powdery mildew, rusts, fire blioht,
summer diseases, leaf spots
C. Major Recommended Fungicides and Suitability:
RPAS's/Suitability Pre-RPAR's/Suitability Non-RPAR/Suitabilitv
EBDC's/1-1-1 Captafol/1-2-2 Sulfur/2-1-3
Benomyl/2-1-1 Folpet/1-2-2 * Dodine/2-2-1
Captan/2-2-1 Dinocap/1-3-1
Coppers/3-1-1
Streptomycin/1-3-1
Oxytetracycline/1-3-1
Terramycin/1-3-1
; Dithiocarbamates/2-1-2
D. Extent of Use: :
Apples - Disease pressure is most severe in the North Central,
Southeast, and Mid-Atlantic states (about 40% of acres).
Least problematic in the West (30% of acres) .
Region Acres Treated (1,000) % Treated
East 200 95
North Central 100 99
West 50 --. 35
OS . 381 80
Pears - Number and severity of diseases greatest in the East
(17% of U.S. acres). Major problem in West is fire blicht
(80% of acres).
Acres Treated (1,000) % Treated
15,000 . 98
56,000 70
75,000 '74
E. Economic Impact of Loss:
Crop Current Loss Loss Without Chemicals
Apples \. X.$ 50 M .5 -440-M
Pears -.-J- 10 M $ 80 M
All Pomes >' 60 M $ 520 M
Total loss increase without chemicals is $• 460 M or about 50%
of current U.S. pome crop value. A redistribution of income
from affected to non-affected growers and higher consumer
prices would result.
F. Health Effects: •
None apparent ^- — ' .
G. Role of'lPM;
Supplemental controls include: tolerant and/or resistant
varieties; pruning practices for certain aople diseases,
elimination of the alternate host (i.e. cedars) for rust control;.
controlling insect vectors that transmit fire blioht; and
disease forecasting. EBDC's are adaptable to intergrated
mite control programs.
- 33 -
-------
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANCE OF FUNGICIDE USE ON STONE FRUITS (PEACHES,
NECTARINES, APRICOTS, PLUMS, PRUNES, CHERRIES)
A. Use; Foliar
B. Major Diseases: Brown rot, leaf curl, shot hole, areen fruit
rot, russet scab, rust,.powdery mildew
C. Major Recommended Fungicides and Suitability;
RPAR's/Suitability .Pre-RPAR' s/Suitability Non-RPAVSuitahility
Benomyl/2-2-1 Captafol/1-2-1 Coppers/3-1-3
Captan/1-2-1 Dichlone/2-2-2
NaPCP/3-3-3 Sulfur/2-2-3
Dinocap/1-3-1
Dithiocarhanates/1-2-1
D. Extent of Use;
Fungicides are widely used on highly susceptible stone fruits.
Crop Region Areas Treated (1,000) % Treated
Peaches East
West
US
Nectarines US
Apricots US
Plums, prunes West
US
Cherries East
West
US
E. Economic Impact of Loss:
Crop Current Loss
Peaches
Nectarines
Acricots
Plums, prunes
Cherries
Total
$
$
5
$
$
5
5
0
0
3
0
9
.0
.6
.3
.0
.2
.1
M
M
M
M
M
M
130
85
215
15
30
50
15
63
20
83
Loss Without
5
• S
$
• $
' $
S
115
14
12
8
20
169
85
75
80
100
100
40
45
95
40
75
Chemicals
M
M
M
M
M
M
Loss increases without chemicals represent the followinc
percentages of crop values: peaches., 45%; nectarines, 45%;
apricots, 45%; plums and prunes, 7%; and cherries, 20%. A
redistribution of income from affected to non-affected growers
and higher consumer prices would result.
F. Health Effects:
None apparent
•
G. Role of IPM;
Supplemental controls included the use of oeach varieties with
resistance to powdery mildew, disease forecasting, and
sanitation.
- 34 -
-------
'SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANCE OF FUNGICIDE'USE ON CITRUS (ORANGES,
LEMONS, GRAPEFRUIT)
A. Use; Foliar
B. Major Diseases: Brown rot crummosis, greasy spot, melanose,
scab
C. Major Recommended Fungicides and Suitability:
RPAR's/Suitability Pre-RP^R's/Suitability 'Non-RPA.R/Suitahility
Benorayl/2-2-1 Captafol/1-1-1 Coppers/3-1-3
Oil sprays/2-3-3
D. Extent of Use:
Fruit rots are major problems in Arizona and California. Foliar
and fruit diseases are important in Florida and Texas.
Area Acres Treated (1,000) % Treated
FL,TX ' 740-833 80-90
AZ,CA 183-220 50-60
US 923-1,053 70-30
E. Economic Impact of Loss;
Crop Current Loss Loss without Chemical
FL,TX S 67 M ; $ 172 M
AZ,CA $ 6 M " $ 203 M
US $ 73 M $ 375 M
Total loss increase without chemicals = $ 302 M or 20% of
value of U.S. crop. A redistribution of income from affected
to non-affected growers and higher retail prices for consumers
could be expected. Reduced quality of citrus available for
export market.
F. Health Effects;
None apparent
G. Role of IPM:
Pruning, mowing or discing, general sanitation, proner
irrigation management and maintenance of tree vigor are
important aids, but do not control diseases.
- 35 -
-------
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANCE OF FUNGICIDE USE ON TROPICAL FRUITS
(BANANAS, MANGO, PINEAPPLES, PAPAYA)
A. Use: Foliar
B. Major Diseases: Sigatoka disease of bananas; stem-end rots,
Phytophthora blight and anthracnose of papaya; root and
heart rots
C~. Major Recommended Fungicides and Suitability;
RPAR's/Suitability Pre-RPAR's/Suitability Non-RPAR/Suitabilitv
EBDC's/1-1-1 Difolantan/1-2-1 Oil sprays/2-2-2
Benomyl/2-1-1 Chlorothalonil/1-2-1
Captan/1-2-1 .. •
Thiophenate
methyl/2-1-1
D; Extent of Use: , .
Banana - Mancozeb, oil, and benomyl are major chemicals.
Virtually all bananas are treated up to 30 times a year.
Central and S. America are the major geographic areas.
Mango - Usage undetermined but probably heavy. Primarily
use of benomyl, captan, and EBDC's in Florida and Hawaii.
Papaya - All acreage treated with fungicides, primarily
mancozeb, benomyl and chlorothalonil in Florida and Hawaii.
Pineapple - 15% of acreage in Hawaii treated with di.folatan or
captan. -
E. Economic Impact of Loss;
The number and severity of tropical diseases indicates severe
economic impact without fungicides with commercial production
virtually impossible. Bananas would be reduced from a stable
diet item to an expensive luxury. Loss of papayas almost
total, $ 5 M. Loss of pineaples, $ 2 M. Reduced suooly
of tropical fruit and resulting higher prices to consumers.
F. Health Effects; ' •
None apparent
G. Sole of IPM;
Strategies supplemental to chemical control; practices include
sanitation and resistant varieties.
- 36 -
-------
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANCE OF FUNGICIDE USE ON SMALL FRUITS (GRAPES,
STRAWBERRIES, BLUEBERRIES, CRANBERRIES, BRAMBLES)
A. Use; Foliar and soil treatments
B. Major Diseases: Foliar/blueberries - bacterial canker and
mummyberry; cranberries - Guignardia blight and Lophodermiun twia
blight; grapes - powdery mildew; strawberries - powderv mildew,
leaf spot, and anthracnose; all small fruits - botrvtis fruit
rots and blights. Soil/strawberries - red stele, root rots,
Verticillium wilts.
C. Major Recommended Fungicides and Suitability;
RPAR's/Suitability Pre-RPAR's/Suitability Non-RPJ\R/Suitabilitv
Foliar
Benomyl/2-1-1
Captan/2-2-1
EBDC's/1-1-1
Soil
D. Extent of Use:
Captafol/1-2-1
Methyl bromide/1-1-3
1,3-0/1-3-3
Dichloran/1-3-2
Sulfur/2-3-3
Copners/3-1-3
Biphenyl/1-3-3
Dodine/1-3-2
Ca cyanide/1-3-3
Dithiocarbamates/1-2-1
Chloropicrin/1-1-3
Acres Treated (1,000) % Treated
Grapes
Blueberries
Cranberries
Strawberries
570
25
23
39
30
100
100
100
Fungicide use on minor berries and brambles (i.e. blackberries,
raspberries) is undetermined, but is probably very intensive.
E. Economic Impact of Loss:
Crop Current Loss
Grapes
Blueberries
Cranberries
Strawberries
Total
S 56 M
5 6 M
$ 2 M
$ 45 M
S109 M
Loss without Chemicals
$ 225 M
$ 13 M
$ 16 M
$ 94 M
$ 348 M
Total loss increases amount to 30% of grape croo value, 18%
of blueberry value, 45% of cranberries value, and 50% of
strawberry crop value. Losses in minor berries and brambles
undetermined but significant. A redistribution of income from
affected to non-affected growers and higher retail prices for
consumers could be expected.
F. Health Effects:
None apparent
G. Role of IPM;
Destruction of crop residues to prevent overwinterina of
mummyberry on blueberries, irrigation manaoement and use of
registant varieties for red stele of strawberries are
supplementary control measures.
- 37 -
-------
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANCE OF FUNGICIDE USE ON NUTS (WALNUT.?,
ALMONDS, PECANS, FILBENTS)
A. Use: . Foliar
B. Major Diseases: Brown rot, walnut blioht, shot hole, bacterial
canker, scab, downy shot, zonate leaf spot, powdery mildew
C. Major Recommended Fungicides and Suitability:
RPAR's/Suitability Pre-RPAR's/Suitability Non-RPAP./Suitabilitv
Zirara/2-2-1
Benomyl/2-2-1
Captan/1-2-1
EBDC's/1-2-1
NaPCP/3-3-3
D. Extent of Use;
Crop
Almonds
Pecans
Walnuts
Area
CA
South &
Southwest
CA,OR
Coppers/3-1-3
Dichlone/2-2-2
Triphenyltin hydroxide/
1-1-2
Dodine/2-2-1
Sulfur/2-1-3
Acres Treated (1,000) % Treated
140
410
45
40
60
20
E. Economic Impact of Loss;
Crop
Almonds
Pecans
Walnuts
Total
Current Loss
$ 2.0 M
$ 3.5 M
$ 2.0 M
$ 7.5 M
Loss without Chemicals
$ 8.0 M
$ 6.5 M
S 6.0 M
$20.5 M
Loss increases are equivalent to 7%, 9% and 4% of value of
almond, pecan, and walnut crops, respectively. A redistribution
of income from affected to non-affected -growers an.d higher
retail prices for consumers could be expected.
F. Health Effects:
None apparent
G. Role of IPM;
Pruning practices and irrigation, methods help reduce incidence
of brown rot and shot hole of almonds; sanitation practices help
reduce disease incidence on pecans.
- 38 -
-------
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANCE OF FUNGICIDE USE ON Solanaceous Crops (tomato, potato,
pepper, eggplant)
A. Use: Foliar and Fruit
B. .Major Diseases; Late blight, Early blight, Anthraenose, Leaf spots, Wilts,
Bacterial spot, Fruit rots
C. Major Recommended Fungicides and Suitability
SPAR's/Suitability Pre-RPAR's/Suitability
EBDC/1-1-1
Captan/3-2-1
Chlorothalonil/1-1-1
Captafol/2-2-1
Thiram/2-1-1
Non-RPAR/Suitability
Coppers/3-1-3
Dithiocarbamates/2-1-1
Dichloran/1-3-1
D. Extent of Use;
Majority of acreage (80-100%) treated in East. Treatment in West is less
extensive, but significant (50-75%). Similar pattern for number of
applications, 8-10 in East and 4-6 applications in West. About 1.2-1.5 million
acres treated with RPAR or Pre-RPAR chemicals. 8-10 million acre-treatments in
total. .
E. Economic Impact of Loss;
Expect significant loss in yields and quality in East. Losses of yield
and quality in West, but less severe. Overall yield loss would average 10-15%
with lower quality on remainder of crop. Value of loss before market
adjustments would be $200-300 million. Expect production to tend to shift to
West from East. Questionable availability of land in West.
F. Health Effects:
Higher incidence of fungal fragments in processed products possible
incidence of glycoalfcaloid poisioning in humans due to ingestion of late
blight infected potato tubers.
Limited availability of fresh vegetables in winter seasons.
G. Role of I?M; —
* Strategies supplemental to chemical controls. Practices include use of
resistant varieties, sanitation, and disease forecasting.
- 39 -
-------
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANCE OF FUNGICIDE USE ON Leafy Vegetables
(Lettuce, Spinach, Collards, Cabbage, Broccoli, Cauliflower, Celery, Brussels
Sprouts)
A. Use: Foliar
B. Major Diseases; Leaf spots. Early blight, late blight, Bottom rot, Downey
mildew, Blackleg
C. Major Recommended Fungicides and Suitability
RPAR' s/Suitability Pre-RPAR* s/Suitability Non-RPAR/Suitability
EBDC/1-1-1 Chlorothalonil/1-2-1 Copper/2-1-3
Captan/2-2-1 Dithiocarbamates/2-1-1
Benomyl/2-2-1 Dichloran/1-3-1
Analazine/2-3-2
D. Extent of Use;
Crucifers:
25-100% of 220,000 acres of crucifers might be treated. Major growing
areas include NY, TX, PL, CA, WS.
Leafy vegetables:
30-40% of acreage treated on average. Geographically up to 100% of
acreage treated in South and East. In west about 23% of acreage treated.
About 75-100 thousand acres are treated. Applications range from 2-3 for
lettuce to 4-5 applications for spinach.
E. Economic Impact of Loss; ' • . •
Crucifers:
Yield loss of 10-30% value of production loss of $35-110 million before
market adjustments, in eastern states, esp. FL and NY. New York would have
largest impacts. Western states would be impacted to lesser degree.
Leafy vegetables:
Overall yield loss would range 5-10%. losses in East would be more severe
especially Florida (up to 100%). Value of loss would approach 350 million if
RPAR and pre-RPAR chemicals were not available. Western states of CA and AZ
would be expected to increase share of production, although total production
would decline.
F. Health Effects; Limited availability of fresh vegetables in winter season.
G. Role of IPM;
» • '
Strategies supplemental to chemial controls; practices include use of
resistant varieties, sanitation, disease forecasting.
- 40 -
-------
'SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANCE OF FUNGICIDE USE ON SOYBEANS
A. Use; Foliar
B. Major Diseases: Pod and stem rots
C. Major Recommended Fungicides and Suitability:
RPAR's/Suitability Pre-RPAR's/Suitability Non-RPAR/Suitabilitv
Benomyl/2-2-1 Thiabendizole/2-2-1
Copper and Sulfur/3-1-2
D. Extent of Use;
3.5 to 4.0 million acres treated annually (5% to 6% of acreacre)
majority of the usage in AR, MS, AL, TN, GA, NC, SC. Benomyl
as the major fungicide.
E. Economic Impact of Loss;
Current losses of $28 M/year, loss without treatment $56 M/year
( 1% of U.S. crop value). . '
F. Health Effects:
None apparent
G. Role of IPM:
Strategies supplemental to chemical control practices include:
resistant varieties, sanitation, deep plowing.
- 41 -
-------
SUMMARY.OF SIGNIFICANCE OF FUNGICIDE USE ON PEANUTS
A. Use: Foliar
B. Major Diseases: Leaf spots, rust, web blotch
C. Major Recommended Funoicides and Suitability:
RPAR's/Suitability Pre-RPAR's/Suitability Non-RPAP./Suitahilitv '
BBDC/1-1-1 Chlorothalonil/1-1-1 Copoers/2-1-2
Benomyl/2-2-1 Captafol/1-1-1 Sulfur/3-2-2
Triphenyltin hydroxide/
1-1-1
D. Extent of Use;
About 95% of 1.6 M acres are treated annually in Southeast
and Southwest.
E.. Economic Impact of Loss;
Without fungicides, 20% to 75% loss in production $150 M to
$200 M before market adjustment.
P.. Health Effects:
None apparent
G. Role of IPM;
Strategies supplemental to chemical control; practices include
disease forecasting, sanitation, resistant varieties.
-------
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANCE OF FUNGICIDE USE ON Tobacco
A. Use: Foliar
B. Major Diseases; Blue mold
C. Major Recommended Fungicides and Suitability
RPAR' s/Suitability Pre-RPAR's/Suitability Non-RPAR/Suitability
EBDC/1-1-1 Ridomil/1-1-1
Oithipcarbamates/2-1-1
0. Extent of Dae;
50-70% of plant bed area is treated for disease. Small part of field
tobacco may be treated. Treatment may occur in any growing region.
S. Economic Impact of Loss;
Losses of 2-3% of tobacco production with a value of $50-30 million before
market adjustment. Support program adjustment could reduce Industry loss.
Localized impacts could still occur. Losses, in severe years as great as 75% in
isolated areas.
F. Health Effects;
None apparent
G. Role of IPM;
Strategies supplemental to chemical control; practices include rotation,
sanitation, resistant varieties.
- 43 -
-------
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANCE OF FUNGICIDE USE ON CEREAL CROPS
(WHEAT, BARLEY, OATS, RYE)
A. Use: Foliar
B. Major Diseases: Rusts
C. Major Recommended Fungicides and Suitability;
RPAR's/Suitability Pre-RPAS'a/Suitability Non-RPAR/quitabilitv
EBDC/1-1-1 - Coppers/3-2-2
Sulfur/3-2-1
D. Extent of Use;
250,000 acres treated annually, primarily in NO, SD, MO, MN,
IA, about 0.25% of U.S. acres treated. Maneb is the major
fungicide.
E. Economic Impact of Loss; '
Current losses of $ 0.4 M/year, loss without fungicides $ 5 M/year,
equivalent to 0.06% of crop value. No significant impact on
grain or livestock markets or to the consumer.
F. Health Effects: .
None apparent
G. Role of IPM;
Strategies supplemental to chemical controls; practices include:
disease forecasting, sanitation, resistant varieties.
- 44 -
-------
SUMMARY OF 'SIGNIFICANCE OF FUNGICIDE USE ON ORNAMENTALS (CUT
FLOWERS, POTTED PLANTS, FOLIAGE PLANTS, BEDDING PLANTS, TREES)
A. Use; Foliage and soil treatments and plant dins
B. Major Diseases: Rusts, wilts, blights, powdery mildew, root,
stem and corm rots
C. Major Recommended Fungicides and Suitability:
RPAR's/Suitability Pre-RPAR's/Suitability Non-RPAP./Suitabilitv
EBDC's/1-1-1 Chlorothalonil/1-1-1 Coppers/3-1-3
Captan/2-2-1 Streptomycin/1-3-1
Benomyl/2-2-1 Oxycarboxin/1-3-1
PCNB/1-3-1 Dinocap/1-3-1
Sulfur/2-1-3
Dichloran/2-2-1
Fenaminosulf/1-2-1
Terrazole/1-3-1
D. Extent of Use; '
30% to 100% of ornamentals treated depending on soecific
crop; significant usage especially for nursery arown everareen
and deciduous trees.
E. Economic Impact of Loss;
Major impact on ornamental production in Southeast, especially
FL, Increased cost of nursery stock;, loss of aesthetic value
of ornamentals, decreased variety of ornamentals available.
Increased costs due to replacement due to loss from uncontrolled
diseases.
F. Health Effects;
None apparent
G. Role of IPM;
Supplementary cultural controls include sanitation, usino
disease-free transplants, reducing humidity, providing
adequate soil drainage. '' . ...
- 45 -
-------
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANCE OF FUNGICIDE USE ON TURFfiPASS
A. Use; Foliar
B. Major Diseases: Dollar spot, brown patch, Helminthosnorium
diseases,snow molds, pythium blight, rusts
C. Major Recommended Fungicides and Suitability:
RPAR's/Suitability Pre-RPAR's/Suitability Non-RPAR/Suitabilitv
EDBC's/1-2-1 Chlorothalonil/1-l-r Anilazine/2-1-1
Benomyl/2-2-1 Terrazole/2-3-1
Cadmiums/2-3-1 Chloroneb/1-3-1
PCNB/2-2-2 Improdione/1-3-1
Thiophanate- Thiophanate-ethyl/2-2-1
methy1/2-2-1 Cycloheximide/1-2-2
: Mercuries/1-3-2
D. Extent of Use: : .
.Treatment of 75% to 100% of high value areas such as oolf
courses and recreation areas. Minor usage for home lawns.
E. Economic Impact of Loss;
Impact largely aesthetic, major disruption in use of turf
areas, and localized impact on property values due to reduced
aesthetic appeal.
.; s
P. Health Effects;
None apparent
G. Role of IPM;
.Various supplementary cultural controls are practiced by turf
managers. These include: fertilization, drainage, irriaation,
mowing, resistant varieties.
- 46 -
-------
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANCE OF FUNGICIDE USE ON FRUIT CROPS FOR
POST HARVEST DISEASES
A. Use; Post harvest treatments
B. Major Diseases; Post harvest fruit rots
C. Major Recommended Fungicides and Suitability:
RPAR's/Suitability Pre-RPAR's/Suitabilitv Non-RPAP/Suitahilitv
Benomy1/2-1-1
Captan/2-2-1
Thiabendazole/2-1-1
Biphenyl/2-1-1
NaOPP/2-2-1
2-Aminobutane/2-l-l
Dichloran/1-3-1
Chlorine/2-1-1
Sulfur dioxide/1-3-2
D. Extent of Dse;
Fruit Crop
Apple
Pear
Cherry
Peach
Plum, Prune
Nectarine
Apricot
Grapes
Pineapple
Citrus
E. Economic Imoact of Loss:
% Treated
30
5
100
40
100
100
10
100
20
90
Fruit Crop
Apple
Pear
Cherry
Peach
Plum, Prune
Nectarine
Apricot
Grapes
Pineapple
Citrus
Total
Current Loss
Loss Without Chemicals
5
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
5
1
2
2
0
0
0
8
0
2
.0
.0
.0
.0
.5
.6
.3
.0
.7
.0
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
$22.1 M
$
$
$
$
'. - •$
$
$
$
$
70.
3.
50.
45.
40.
15.
1.
75.
7.
40.
$346.
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
5
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Increase in known fruit losses = $ 325 M. This is equivalent to
5% of the total U.S. fruit and nut value ($6 B). Losses would cut
fresh fruit supplies and raise prices sharply. Production of
processed fruit would increase. Consumer expenditures shift
from fresh to processed fruit. Higher fresh fruit prices- at
retail, lower prices for processed fruits. Met imoact^unknown.
Disruption of export market for countries reauirina specific
treatments. . _
F. Health Effects:
Possible nutritional losses. Possible effects from raycotoxins
in processed/fresh produce due to microbial contamination. .
G. Role of IPM:
Sanitation and refrigeration are supplementary controls for
reducing post harvest fruit rots.
- 47 -
-------
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANCE OF FUNGICIDE USE ON Vegetables
A. Use: Seed and seed niece treatment
B. Major Diseases; Pre and post-harvest damping off, seed piece rots
C. Major Recommended Fungicides and Suitability
RPAR's/Suitability Pre-RPAR's/Suitability
Captan/1-1-1 Thiram/2-1-1
•EDBC/1-1-1
Non-RPAR/Suitability
Thiob«ndazole/2-2-1
Streptomycin/2-3-2
D. Extent of Ose;
A majority of (>75%) of vegetable seed and about 60-75% of potato
seed-pieces are treated. Treatment occurs in all growing regions to some
extent.
E. Economic Impact of Loss;
Reduced stand and plant vigor leading to yield reduction probably up to
10% for some crops.
F. Health Effects:
None apparent
G. Role of ISM;
Strategies are supplemental to chemical control; practices include
combinations of .fungicides and combinations with insecticides, sanitation, seed
bed drainage, overseeding, delayed planting dates.
- 48 -
-------
-SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANCE OF FUNGICIDE USE ON FIELD CROP? (PEANUTS,
COTTON, RICE, CORN, SOYBEANS, SUGARBEETS) AND CERFAL CROPS
A. Use; Seed treatment
B. Major Diseases; Field crops - pre and post emeroence damoincr
off; Cereal crops - smuts, seedling diseases
C. Major Recommended Fungicides and Suitability:—
RPAR's/Suitability Pre-RPAR's/Suitability Non-RPAR/Suitabilitv
PCNB/1-3-1 Hexachlorobenzene/1-3-1 Terrazole/2-3-1
Captan/2-3-1 Thiram/2-2-1 Carboxin/2-3-1
EBDC/2-2-1 Dichloran/2-3-1
D. Extent of Use;
75% to 100% of field and cereal crop acreage is olanted with
treated seed. All geographic regions rely on use of treated
seed. :
E. Economic Impact of Loss;
Yield losses averaging 5% to 35% of various crops could occur
as a result of reduced stands and loss of plant victor.
P. Health Effects;
None apparent
G. Role of IPM;
Strategies supplemental to chemical control practices include
combinations of fungicides and combinations with insecticides,
sanitation, overseeding, delayed planting dates.
- For increased efficacy and spectrum, fungicide combinations
. are used.
- 49 -
-------
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANCE OF FUNGICIDE USE ON VEGETABLES AMD
PEANUTS (TOMATO, POTATO, PEPPER, EGGPLANT, CRUCIFERS, BF.ANS).
A. Use; Soil Treatment
B. Major Diseases: Southern blight, stem canker, black scurf,
wire stem (vegetables), southern blight (peanuts)
C. Major Recommended Fungicides and Suitability:
RPAR's/Suitability Pre-RPAR's/Suitability Non-RPAP/Suitabilitv
PCNB/1-2-1 • Carboxin/2-2-1
EBDC/3-1-1
D. Extent of Use;
Limited to localized regions in particular, the Southeast.
Treated acreage can range from 10% to 20% of planted acreacie.
E. Economic Impact of Loss;
Loss of production could average 10% to 25%. Overall loss
could average 1% to 5%, $ 50 M or more before market adjustment.
Impact would be localized with heaviest impact in Southeast.
F. Health Effects:
None apparent
G. Role of IPM: i
Strategies supplemental to chemical control; practices include .
rotation, resistant varieties, sanitation* deep plowing.
- 50 -
-------
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANCE OF FUNGICIDE USE ON Root Crops
(onion, carrots, beets, turnips)
A. Use: Foliar
B. Major Diseases; Leaf spots, Downey mildew, Neckrot, Blast
C. Malor Recommended Fungicides and Suitability
RPAR' 3/Suitability Pre-RPAR's/Suitability
EBDC/1-1-1 Chlorothalonil/1-1-1
Captan/2-2-1
Non-RPAR/Suitability
Anilazine/2-2-1
Coppers/2-1-3
Dithiocarbamates/2-1-1
D. Extent of Use;
About 25-35% of the 250,000 acres of root crops are-treated annually.
Applications range from 3-4 in Southwest and West to 3-10 in Upper Midwest.
E. Economic Impact of Loss;
Overall loss of up to 5% of production with value of about $12 million
before market adjustment. Losses could occur to some extent in all major
growing areas. .
P. Health Effects:
. None apparent.
G. Sola of IPM: ~~
Strategies as supplement to chemical control; practices include resistant
varieties, disease forecasting, sanitation.
- 51 -
-------
SUMMARY OP SIGNIFICANCE OF FUNGICIDE USE ON Cucurbits
A. Use: Foliar
B. Major Diseases; Downy mildew, Leaf spots, Anthracnose, Gummy stem blight,
Powdery mildew •
C. Major Recommended Fungicides and Suitability
RPAR's/Suitability Pre-RPAR* s/Suitability Non-RPAR/Suitability
BBDC/1-1-1 Chlorothalonil/1-1-1 Dinocap/1-3-2
Benomyl/2-2-1 Analazine/1-3-2
Dichloran/1-3-1
0. Extent of Uses .
About 40-50% of 550,000 acres of cucurbits receive foliar treatment with
fungicides. Major growing areas include Southeast, Upper Midwest, Southwest
and West* Disease pressure and need for treatment increases in going from West
to East. Treated acreage receives an 3-7 applications with highest number in
Southeast.
E. Economic Impact of Loss;
Average production losses of 10-15% might occur. Value of production
affected would total $50-75 million before market adjustments. Losses would be
more severe in Southeast and less severe in Southwest and West. Economic
advantage would tend to shift westward to extent land would be available.
?. Health Effects;
Higher incidence of fungal fragments in processed products
Limited availability of fresh vegetables
G. Role of IPM;
Strategies supplemental to chemical controls, practices include use of
resistant varieties, sanitation, and disease forecasting.
- 52 -
-------
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANCE OF FUNGICIDE USE ON Sweet Corn
A. Use: Foliar
B. Major Diseases; Helrainthosporium leaf blights/ Stalk and ear rots
C. Ma-jor Recommended Fungicides and Suitability
RPAR's/Suitability Pre-RPAR's/Suitability Non-RPAR/Suitability
EBDC/1-1-1 Chlorothalonil/1-2-1
Captan/2-2-1 ' '.
D. Extent of Use;
About 40-50% of 170,000 acres of fresh market sweet corn and a. negligible
portion of 500,000 acres of processing market sweet corn are treated. Treated
acreage is primarily in Florida and other coastal states.
E. Economic Impact of Loss;
Overall loss would be about 6-8% of fresh market production with a value
of $7-10 million. Florida growers would be heavily impacted. Other areas less
heavily impacted. Winter, spring, and fall season supply would be severely
reduced.
F. Health Effects;
Limited availability of fresh produce.
•
G. Role of IPM;
Strategies are supplemental to chemical controls, practices include
modified planting dates, resistant varieties.
- 53 -
-------
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANCE OF FUNGICIDE USE OH Beans and Peas
A. Use: Foliar
B. Major Diseases; Bacterial blights, Bust, Powdery mildew. Leaf spots, Downy
mildew, Storage .
C. Ma-jor Recommended Fungicides and Suitability
RPAR* a/Suitability Pre-RPAR's/Suitability Non-RPAR/Suitability
EBDC/1-2-1 Chlorothalonil/2-2-1 Coppers/2-1-3
Benomy1/2-3-1 Sulfur/3-2-3
Captan/2-3-1 Dithiocarbamates/1-2-1
D. Extent of Use;
About 30-40% of the 540,000 acres of beans treated. Major growing states
include WI, OR, NY, MI, MD, and FL. Coastal and southern regions rely more on
fungicides with 60-90% of acreage treated. Upper Midwest and Northwest are
less dependent on fungicides.
B. Economic Impact of Loss;
Production losses of 8-12% valued at $15-25 million before market
adjustment. Losses would be most severe in coastal and southern regions.
Fresh market production would be more severely impacted than processing market
production.
6. Health Effects;
Higher incidence of fungal fragments in processed food. Limited
availability of fresh produce.
Role of IPM;
Strategies are supplementary to chemical controls; practices include
sanitation, crop rotation, resistant varieties, disease forecasting.
------- |