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.

-------