United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Environmental Research
Laboratory
Athens GA 30605
EPA-600 5-79-007a
August 1979
Research and Development
c/EPA
Alternatives for
Reducing
Insecticides on
Cotton and Corn
Economic and
Environmental
Impact
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENTAL
STUDIES series. This series includes research on environmental management,
economic analysis, ecological impacts, comprehensive planning and fore-
casting., and analysis methodologies. Included are tools for determining varying
impacts of alternative policies; analyses of environmental planning techniques
at the regional, state, and local levels; and approaches to measuring environ-
mental quality perceptions, as well as analysis of ecological and economic im-
pacts of environmental protection measures. Such topics as urban form, industrial
mix, growth policies, control, and organizational structure are discussed in terms
of optimal environmental performance. These interdisciplinary studies and sys-
tems analyses are presented in forms varying from quantitative relational analyses
to management and policy-oriented reports.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/5-79-007a
August 1979
ALTERNATIVES FOR REDUCING INSECTICIDES
ON COTTON AND CORN:
ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
by
David Pimentel
Christine Shoemaker
Eddy L. LaDue
Robert B. Rovinsky
Noel P. Russell
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York 14850
Grant No. R802518-02
Project Officer
Thomas E. Waddell
Technology Development and Applications Branch
Environmental Research Laboratory
Athens, Georgia 30605
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ATHENS, GEORGIA 30605
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Environmental Research Laboratory,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, Georgia, and approved for pub-
lication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect
the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor
does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement
or recommendation for use.
-------
FOREWORD
: Environmental protection efforts are Increasingly directed towards
preventing adverse health and ecological effects associated with specific
compounds of natural or human origin. As part of this Laboratory's research
on the occurrence, movement, transformation, impact, and control of
environmental contaminants, the Technology Development and Applications
Branch develops management and engineering tools for assessing or controlling
toxic substances in the environment.
The toxicity and persistence of pesticides and their decomposition
products are problems of major importance to those concerned with environ-
mental quality. Because of widespread pesticide pollution and because of
high economic costs of pesticide controls, alternate ways of controlling
insect pests should be considered. This report analyzes various insect
control strategies for two important agricultural crops and estimates the
economic benefits and costs of each program as an aid to environmental
decision-makers and research planners.
David W. Duttweiler
Di rector
Environmental Research Laboratory
Athens, Georgia
m
-------
ABSTRACT
To develop an analysis of alternative insect control technologies, data
on current, potential, and future insect control techniques on cotton and
corn were assembled using information provided by 31 leading entomological
specialists in 29 states. Cotton and corn were selected for the analysis
because 64% of all the insecticide in U.S. agriculture is applied to these two
crops. The insecticide levels and application costs supplied by the entomo-
logical experts, plus estimates of the other costs involved with various in-
sect control strategies, indicate that many insect control strategies that
may significantly reduce insecticide use on cotton and corn may be more eco-
nomical than strategies currently being used.
An analysis of alternative insect control technologies in corn revealed
that few opportunities exist to employ alternative strategies because only
about 1 Ib of*insecticide is applied per acre. The prime pest on corn is
the rootworm complex and the practical alternative control is crop rotation.
Employing rotations would reduce the quantity of insecticide used in corn by
about 71%, but this would be accomplished at an increased annual cost of
nearly $90 million.
Cotton is currently treated an average of about 4.4 times with about
13.3 Ibs of insecticide per acre per season. Several alternative technolo-
gies are available for reducing the large quantity of insecticide applied
to cotton. If the United States adopted various alternate insect control
technologies for cotton in regions where feasible, the reduction in number
of treatments and insecticide used per acre per season would be as follows:
a scouting program reduced the number of treatments by 1.6 and insecticide
by 4.8 Ibs; a diapause/scouting program reduced treatments by 3.2 and
insecticide by 10.2 Ibs; trap crop/scouting program reduced treatments by
3.8 and insecticide by 10.9 Ibs; a short season/scouting program reduced
treatments by 3.9 and insecticide by 11.7 Ibs; a resistant/scouting
program reduced treatments by 4.8 and insecticide by 14.4 Ibs; and a resistant/
short season/scouting program reduced treatments by 5.4 and 16.2 Ibs.
Detailed static and dynamic analyses of insect control strategies for
cotton and corn were run and information was provided on economic costs,
insecticide usage, .acreage utilized, and regional changes in production.
An important finding with cotton was that selecting the most economical
control strategy in each region resulted based on a static analysis,in an
annual reduction in insect control costs of $81 million and also reduced
total insecticide usage by about 40%.
A significant finding was that if cotton production could be allowed
to shift naturally in the nation, insecticide use and cotton production
costs would be greatly reduced. Cotton production would shift from the
iv
-------
southeast and far west into Texas, Oklahoma, and the Delta states. This
implied that insecticide use in cotton could be reduced more by allowing
regional shifts in production than by adopting scouting or any other insect
control strategy. The high level of insecticide use and associated environ-
mental pollution appears to have been an externality of U.S. Government
allotment programs.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Grant No. R802518-02 by
Cornell University under the sponsorship of the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency. This report covers the period April 1975 to February
1977, and work was completed as of February 1977.
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword iii
Abstract iv
Figures viii
Tables ix
Acknowledgments xii
Introduction 1
Summary and Conclusions 7
Methods 10
Results 19
Analysis of Insect Control Technologies 19
Static Analysis 29
Dynamic Analysis 39
Discussion 64
References 68
Appendix. Cotton and Corn Insect Control Alternatives 71
VII
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Estimated amount of pesticide produced in the United States . 2
viii
-------
TABLES
Number Page
I Some Examples of Percentages of Crop Acres Treated,
of Pesticide Amounts Used on Crops and of Acres Planted
to this Crop 3
II Comparison of Annual Pest Losses in Agriculture for
the Periods 1904, 1910-35, 1942-51, and 1951-60 and an
Estimate of Losses for 1974 4
III Entomological Specialists for Major Cotton and Corn
Producing States Who Aided in this Investigation . 11
IV Linear Programming Tableau for the PESTDOWN Model "
Used in the Dynamic Analysis 17
V The Average Number of Insecticide Treatments Made per
Acre on Certain Cotton Acreage During Each Season and
the Total Quantity of Insecticide Used for Current,
Potential, and Future Pest Control Alternatives 20
VI Cost of Trap Crops per acre of Cotton Excluding Change
in Insecticide and Insecticide Application Costs 23
VII Effect of Implementation of Cotton Insect Control
Alternatives on Insect Control Costs 31
VIII Effect of Implementation of Cotton Insect Control
Alternatives on Insecticide Use 34
IX Costs and Benefits Resulting from the Nationwide
Implementation of Insect Control Alternatives 38
X Insecticide Use Resulting from the Nationwide
Implementation of Insect Control Alternatives 40
XI The Use of Insecticide in Cotton Utilizing Current
Alternative Insect Control Strategies During the
Short Run 43
XII Total Production and Production Costs for Various Crops
When Current Alternative Insect Control Strategies are
Employed in Cotton During the Short Run 44
ix
-------
Number Page
XIII Distribution of Cotton Production in Different Consuming
Regions Utilizing Current Alternative Insect Control
Strategies During the Short Run 45
XIV The Use of Insecticide in Cotton Utilizing Current
Alternative Control Strategies During the Long Term 47
XV Total Production Costs for Various Crops When Current
Alternative Insect Control Strategies are Employed in
Cotton During the Long Run 48
XVI Distribution of Cotton Production in Different Consuming
Regions Utilizing Current Alternative Insect Control
Strategies During the Long Run 49
XVII The Use of Insecticide in Cotton Utilizing Future
Alternative Insect Control Strategies During the
Short Run 50
XVIII Total Production and Production Costs for Various
Crops When Future Alternative Insect Control Strategies
are Employed in Cotton During the Short Run , , 51
XIX Distribution of Cotton Production in Different Consuming
Regions Utilizing Future Alternative Insect Control
Strategies During the Short Run 52
XX The Use of Insecticide in Cotton Utilizing Future
Alternative Insect Control Strategies During the Long Run ... 53
XXI Total Production and Production Costs for Various Crops
When Future Alternative Insect Control Strategies are
Employed in Cotton During the Long Run 54
XXII Distribution of Cot'ton Production in Different Consuming
Regions Utilizing Future Alternative Insect Control
Strategies During the Long Run 55
XXIII The Use of Insecticide in Cotton and Corn Utilizing
Current and Future Alternative Insect Control Strategies
in Cotton During the Short Run for Export Levels of Low,
Medium, and High 55
XXIV Total Production and Production Costs for Various Crops
When Current and Future Insect Control Strategies are
Employed in Cotton During the Short Term at Low, Medium,
and High Exports 58
-------
Number Page
XXV Distribution of Cotton Production in Different Consuming
Regions Utilizing Current and Future Insect Control
Strategies During the Short Run at Low, Medium and High
Export Levels 59
XXVI The Use of Insecticide in Corn Utilizing Current and
Future Alternative Insect Control Strategies on Corn and
Cotton During the Short Run 60
XXVII Total Production and Production Costs for Various Crops
When Current or Future Alternative Insect Control
Strategies are employed on Corn and Cotton During the
Short Run 61
XXVIII Distribution of Corn Production in Different Consuming
Regions Utilizing Current and Future Alternative Insect
Control Strategies During the Short Run 62
XXIX Amount That Could be Spent on Research for Resistance
and Short Season Cotton Varieties 66
XI
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank the following entomologists for their cooperation
and assistance with this project: Floyd R. Gilliland, Jr., Roy J. Ledbetter,
Theo F- Watson, Leon Moore, Charles G. Lincoln, Louis A. Falcon, Nick Toscano,
T. Donald Canerday, Herbert Womack, L.D. Newsom, Dan F. Glower, Fowden G.
Maxwell, F- Aubrey Harris, Flernoy G. Jones, Joe Ellington, R.L. Robertson,
Don C. Peters, Jerry H. Young, Kenneth N. Pinkston, Chin-Choy, Vernon R.
Eidman, L.M. Sparks, Allen Chambers, Raymond E. Frisbie, John R. Strayer,
William Luckmann, Donald E. Kuhlman, Thomas Turpin, Harold J. Stockdale, H.
LeRoy Brooks, Del Gates, W.W. Gregory, Jr., Robert F. Ruppel, Huai C. Chiang,
David M. Noetzel, Mahlon L. Fairchild, George W. Thomas, Robert L. Stoltz,
William H. Kearby, Armon J. Keaster, Z.B. Mayo, A,A. Muka, Robert L. Robertson,
Gerald J. Musick, Robert E. Treece, David D. Walgenbach, James W. Apple,
Christian C. Burkhardt.
We would also like to thank Tom Waddell of EPA's Environmental Research
Laboratory in Athens, Ga., who read the final draft report and gave nany help-
ful suggestions.
We are also indebted to Kenneth Hood of EPA's Office of Ecological
Effects for his many helpful suggestions in the development of the research
on this project.
xii
-------
INTRODUCTION
Since 1945, production of synthetic pesticides has grown to over 1.4
billion pounds annually (Figure 1) and more than half this amount is
applied to agricultural crops (Table I). Recent estimates of crop losses
due to insect, pathogen, and weed pests are about $18.2 billion or 33% of
our Crops in spite of all pest controls (Table II). According to survey
data collected during past decades, crop losses due to insects increased
about 83% from 1942 to 1974 (Table II). Plant disease losses during the
same period increased 14%, while weed losses declined 42%.
Another substantial loss of crops occurs post-harvest. Losses OT
stored foods to insects, rodents, and microorganisms are estimated to be
about 9% (USDA, 1965). In the U.S. a total of 39% (33% + 9% of the
remainder) of our food supply is lost to pests during the pre- and post-
harvest periods.
Although the overall percentage of crop losses to insects has in-
creased, as mentioned, despite the application of insecticides, important
advances have been made in reducing insect losses in some crops. For
example, losses in yield and quality from potato insects declined from
22% in 1910-35 (Hyslop, 1938), to 16% in 1942-51 (USDA, 1954), and to 14%
in 195.1-60 (USDA, 1965). This reduction is expected, considering the
effectiveness of insecticides in controlling the major potato insect pests.
In Minnesota, insecticides are reported from 1945 to 1975 to have contri-
buted to doubling the yields (D.M. Noetzel, University of Minnesota, letter,
1976).
In contrast, losses in apples caused primarily by codling moth and
apple maggot generally have not declined with increased use of organic
insecticides. A 10.4% loss in yield and quality was reported for the
period 1951-60 (USDA, 1965). This loss pattern reflects not only the highe^
quality standards for salable fruit but also a possible decline in sanita-
tion and other cultural controls formerly practiced in orchards for control
of these pests.
According to USDA estimates, insect losses also have been increasing
in a major grain crop, corn. A 3.5% loss was reported for the period
1942-51 (USDA, 1954) and 12.0% loss for the period 1951-60 (USDA, 1965).
Factors contributing to increased corn losses due to insects include the
continuous culture of corn on the same land year after year (increasing
rootworm populations and attack) in some cases planting of corn types
susceptable to attack by insects (e.g., corn borer) rather that resistant
corn types, and the use of herbicides such as 2,4-D which increases pest
problems on corn (Oka and Pimentel, 1976).
1
-------
14001
12001
1000|
T)
C
o 800|
Q_
cj 6001
400
200
1947 50 55 60
Years-
65 70 75
Figure 1. Estimated amount of pesticide produced in United
States (USDA, 1971; Fowler and Mahan, 1975).
-------
Table I. Some exan^ples of percentages of crop acres treated, of pesticide
amounts used on crops, and of acres planted to this crop (USDA,
1968; 1970; 1975a).
Crops
Non-Food
Cotton
Tobacco
Food
Field Crops
Corn
Peanuts
Rice
Wheat
Soybeans
Pasture Hay
& Range
Vegetables
Potatoes
Fruit
Apples
Ci trus
Insecticides Herbicides
% Acres % Amount % Acres % Amount
NA
61
77
NA
NA
35
87
35
7
8
0.5
NA
77
NA
91
88
50
47
3
HA
NA
17
NA
NA
NA
2
3
8
NA
13
6
2
NAa
82
7
NA
NA
79
92
95
41
68
1
NA
51
NA
35
22
NA
6
NA
NA
NA
41
3
2
7
g
9
5
NA
NA
NA
NA
Fungicides % of Total
% Acres % Amount Crop Acres
<0.5
4
7
<0.5
NA
1
85
0
0
?
0
NA
49
NA
67
58
NA
1
NA
NA
19
NA
4
NA
NA
NA
NA
25
12
NA
28
13
1.26
1.11
0.11
98.74
NA
7.43
0.16
0.22
6.11
4.19
68.40
NA
0.16
NA
0.07
0.08
All Crops 6 54 17 36 0.9 10 100
not available
-------
Table II. Comparison of annual pest losses in agriculture for the periods
1904, 1910-35, 1942-51, and 1951-60 and an estimate of losses
for 1974.
Insects
1974C
1951-606
1942-51 9
1910-35h
1904k
$a
7.2
3.8
1.9
0.6
0.4
*b
13
12.9
7.1
10.5
9.8
Diseases
$a
6.6
3.6
2.8
NA1"
NA
%b
12
12.2
10.5
NA
NA
Weeds
$a
4.4
2.5
3.7
NA
NA
%b
8
8.5
13.8
NA
NA
Total
$a
18.2
9.9
8.4
NA
NA
Loss
%b
33
33.6
31.4
NA
NA
Potential
Production
$a
d
55
29. 5f
26.7
5.T3
4.1
aBillion dollars
Percentage of estimated dollar crop losses on a crop-by-crop basis.
Estimated based upon discussions with various pest control specialists in
different parts of the United States.
dUSDA, 1974
eUSDA, 1965
Pest losses [for 1960] + Actual Crop Production [for 1960 (USDA, 1961)] =
Potential Crop''Production $9.9 billion + $19.6 billion = $29.5 billion
9USDA, 1954
hHyslop, 1938
*Not available
JIn&ect losses and crop production estimates for 1935 (USDA, 1936)
kMarlatt, 1904
-------
Cotton losses to insect pests in spite of all control measures are
estimated to he 19% (USDA, 1965). Without any insecticide used it was
estimated that cotton losses would increase to about 31% (Pimentel, 1973;
Pimentel and Shoemaker, 1974). To hold insect losses at an estimated 19%
for cotton and an estimated 12% for corn, about 200 million pounds of
insecticides are applied to these 2 crops (USDA, 1970; 1975a). This amounts
to about 64% of all the insecticides used in agriculture (USDA, 1970; 1975).
Of all the acres treated, corn, sorghum, and cotton represent 63% of the
cropland area treated (USDA, 1975a).
The total value of these insecticide applications, including materials
plus application costs, totals nearly a half billion dollars. This
represents a significant cost in cotton and corn production.
In addition to the economic costs, there is an important environmental
cost. The available evidence suggests that current methods of pesticide
use are a hazard to a few species of birds and several species of fishes
and beneficial insects (Pimentel, 1971). The full extent of the damage to
the life system (biota) from the use of pesticides is difficult to assess
because the investigations have involved less than 1% of the estimated
200,000 species of plants and animals existing in the United States.
We should be concerned about the environmental impact of pesticides on
the life system because the maintenance of our life system is vital to us.
We cannot survive with only our crop plants and livestock. The great variety
of species are essential for a viable life system. We depend upon the many
species for the maintenance of a quality atmosphere, for growing crops, and
for the biological degradation of wastes. Oxygen is produced by plants for
man and animals. This oxygen (as both oxygen and ozone) also screens out
the lethal ultraviolet rays from the earth's surface. In addition, the
plants are food for many animals, passing their life-support elements
(C, H, N, P, K, etc.) to the animals in the food chain. The microorganisms
assist in degrading wastes and dead organisms and releasing the vital
elements for recycling in the ecosystem. In this way, species of the life
system interact and keep the life system functioning—of which man is a part.
In addition to this effect of pesticides on man's vital life system,
pesticides may directly affect the health of man. At present the prime
danger of pesticide poisons is the increased use of insecticides with higher
levels of toxicity to man (Cronin et al., 1969). An estimated 14,000
individuals are poisoned (200 fatalities) in farms and homes annually from
exposure to pesticides (EPA, 1974). Although the public is exposed daily
to low levels of pesticides in their food, there is as yet no clear evidence
of danger. However, the available data on long-term, low-level effects of
pesticides to public health are scarce and incomplete. Indeed, the data
suggest that we should be watchful and cautious (Cronin et al., 1969).
Because of widespread pesticide pollution and because of high economic
costs of pesticide controls, alternate ways of controlling insect pests
should be considered. Hence, the objectives of this study are to: (1)
Determine what control techniques are currently being employed in cotton and
-------
corn insect pest control in the major production regions of the U.S.;
(2) Determine what potential control techniques may be available in the
near future; (3) Assess each of the control techniques for its economic
and environmental benefits and costs; and (4) Analyze various insect pest
control strategies on a national basis and estimate the economic benefits
and costs of each program and quantities of insecticides used. The
information gathered should aid the Environmental Protection Agency and
other groups concerned with pest control and pesticide use in their
policy decisions and at the same time help research planners determine
priorities for pest management investigations.
-------
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
From 31 leading entomological specialists in 29 states data were
assembled on current, potential, and future insect control techniques on
cotton and corn. Cotton and corn were selected for an analysis of alternative
insect control technologies because 64% of all the insecticide used in
agriculture in the U.S. is applied to these two crops. The insecticide levels
and application costs supplied by entomological experts, plus estimates of
the other costs involved with various insect control strategies, indicate
that many insect strategies which may significantly reduce insecticide use
on cotton and corn may be more economical than strategies currently being
used. The findings of this study are included under the headings of the
following three analyses that were made:
THE ANALYSIS OF INSECT CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
An analysis of alternative insect control technologies in corn revealed
that few opportunities exist to employ alternative strategies because of the
relatively small amount (about 1 Ib) of insecticide applied per acre. About
17% of the total agricultural insecticide is used on this crop because of
the large acreage (65 million acres) of corn grown in the U.S. The prime
pest on corn is the rootworm complex and the practical alternative control
is crop rotation. Employing rotations would reduce the quantity of insect-
icide used in corn from about 30 million Ibs to about 9 million Ibs, but
this would be accomplished at a cost of nearly $80 million (estimate of
dynamic analysis).
Cotton is produced on only about 13.1 million acres and is currently
treated an average of about 4.4 times annually with about 13.3 Ibs of insect-
icide per acre. Several alternative technologies are available for reducing
the large quantity of insecticide applied to cottori. If the United States
adopted the following insect control programs in cotton regions where
feasible, the number of treatments and insecticide applied per acre per
season would be as follows: a scouting program reduced the number of treat-
ments by 1.6 and insecticide by 4.8 Ibs; a diapause/scouting program reduced
treatments by 3.2 and insecticide by 10.2 Ibs; trap crop/scouting program
reduced treatments, by 3.8 and insecticide by 10.9 Ibs; a short season/
scouting program reduced treatments by 3.9 and 11.7 Ibs; a resistant/scouting
program reduced treatments by 4.8 and insecticide by 14.4 Ibs; and a
resistant/short season/scouting program reduced treatments by 5.4 and 16.2
Ibs.
-------
STATIC ANALYSIS
If the location and acreage of cotton production remains constant, it
is estimated that the implementation of several currently available insect
control alternatives can reduce cotton insect control costs by $81 million
and insecticide use by about 40%. The implementation of cotton insect control
methods which should be available within 5 to 10 years are estimated to reduce
annual insect control and insecticide use by 71% in quantity.
No single insect control strategy for cotton is best throughout the
nation. Clearly a combination of insect controls is best and these will vary
from region to region. Except for a couple of regions scouting is one
strategy that is a part of the combination programs.
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
Adoption of currently available cotton insect control strategies could
reduce insecticide use by lo to 34%andat the same time reduce insect control
costs and total crop production costs to farmers. Since the optimum insect
control strategy differs from area to area, adoption of any one control
strategy, such as scouting, scouting-diapause or scouting-trap crop, for the
entire U.S. would reduce insecticide use and production costs less than is
achievable when each area used the strategy that is best for that region.
Implementation and administration of a policy which required each region to
use the best strategy for that region would be difficult. A set of criteria
for selecting appropriate strategy for each area would be difficult to
establish and there would be continued disagreement about the interregional
equity of any set of criteria established.
The analysis above indicates that use of the strategy which is most
economical from the farmer view point would also reduce insecticide use and
total production costs more than adoption of any single strategy on a
nationwide basis. This leads to the conclusion that an educational program
designed to convince farmers that it is in their own best interest to adopt
modern insect control strategies would likely be the most efficient policy
to adopt. This would eliminate the need to arbitrarily determine strategies
that farmers should use and eliminate the need for the policy which would be
viewed by farmers as government harassment. While the costs of an effective
educational program were not determined in this study, it is likely that the
administrative and policing costs of a policy to adopt any of the strategies
analyzed would be greater than the costs of an educational program.
Development of short-season and resistant varieties would reduce
insecticide use 50 to 60% compared to current practice and would reduce pro-
duction costs approximately $28 million per year compared to the best
currently available technology evaluated. This implies that $56 million per
year could be spent to develop these varieties if the development took 5 years
and the cost efficiencies were achievable for 10 years. The period of time
over which the cost efficiencies could be maintained would depend on the
time required for development of new strains of insects.
-------
If no limit were placed on the amount of acreage shift possible for
cotton, insecticide use and production costs could be significantly reduced.
Cotton production in this situation would be shifted from the southeast and
far-west into Texas, Oklahoma, and the Delta states. This suggests that
insecticide use and production costs in cotton could be reduced significantly
more by allowing regional shifts in production than by adopting scouting or
any other insect control strategy. The high level of insecticide use and
associated environmental pollution is an externality of the government
allotment programs (Pimentel and Shoemaker, 1973).
Another increase in the feed-food grain exports similar to that
experienced between 1971 and 1973 would increase insecticide use on the crops
considered in this analysis two to four times above those experienced during
the 1971-73 period.
Corn as mentioned, uses about one-quarter as much insecticide as cotton.
Rotations would reduce corn insecticide by over 70% but would significantly
increase production costs to farmers. Scouting of corn is the only future
technology on the horizon. It would reduce insecticide use by 57% but would
significantly increase costs to farmers.
-------
METHODS
Cotton and corn were selected for this investigation, as mentioned,
because 64% of all agricultural insecticides are applied to these two
crops in the-U.S. and include more than 60% of all cropland acres that are
treated. Attention was focused primarily on the major cotton and corn
producing states. The states selected (Table III) in total are respon-
sible for the production of 99% of the cotton and 91% of the corn (USDA,
1974).
The procedure was to contact the leading entomologist(s) with special
knowledge for each crop in each of the major cotton and corn producing
states (Table III). From these entomologists we obtained via personal
visits and telephone conferences data on current insect pest control
practices and "best estimates" of what various alternative controls would
mean in economic cost/benefits and pesticide use patterns. Although some
of the data are "best estimates" and speculative, it should be emphasized
that this information came from the most knowledgeable entomological
experts in this nation. Further confidence in the data emerges when the
data from the specialists from each state are combined and examined as a
whole.
The specialists first provided us with detailed information on
current insect control practices being employed in their state. From these
data, the experts were asked to give a best estimate of the potential
economic benefits and costs of employing these known available alternatives
singly and in various combinations. Next, the specialists were asked about
potential pest controls that are currently being researched in their state
or nearby states that might be employed in their control programs. They
were asked to estimate the -realistic pest control potential of each
alternate control singly and in combination with current and other controls.
From this information it was our aim to identify those potential controls
that might provide in the future opportunities for effective economic
pest control and at the same time improve the quality of our environment.
Information on the details of each pest control technology for cotton
and corn for each region of the U.S., as mentioned, was obtained from each
specialist, and this is tabulated in Appendix A, tables 1-55. Some of the
background information related to these tables is presented in the main
part of the report and all additional information is available (Pimentel,
1975).
The estimate given by the 31 entomological specialists concerning the
percentage of cotton acres treated was 95% and corn acres treated was 52%.
10
-------
Table III. Entomological Specialists for Major Cotton and Corn Producing
States Who Aided in this Investigation.
Cotton
Alabama
Ari zona
Arkansas
California
Georgia
Louisiana
Mississippi
Missouri
New Mexico
North Carolina
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Dr. Floyd R. Gilliland, Jr.,
Dr. Theo F. Watson,
Dr. Charles G. Lincoln
Dr. Louis A. Falcon,
Dr. T. Donald Canerday,
Dr. L. D. Newsom,
Dr. Fowden G. Maxwell,
Dr. Flernoy G. Jones
Dr. Joe Ellington
Dr. R. L. Robertson
Dr. Don C. Peters,
Dr. Kenneth N. Pinkston,
Dr. Vernon R. Eidman
Mr. L. M. Sparks,
Dr. Allen Chambers
Dr. Raymond E. Frisbie
Dr. Roy J. Ledbetter
Dr. Leon Moore
Dr. Nick Toscano
Dr. Herbert Womack
Dr. Dan F. Clower
Dr. F- Aubrey Harris
Dr. Jerry H. Young,
Dr. Chin-Choy,
Corn
Florida
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
South Dakota
Wisconsin
Wyomi ng
Dr. John R. Strayer
Dr. William Luckmann,
Dr. Thomas Turpin
Dr. Harold J. Stockdale
Dr. H. LeRoy Brooks,
Dr. W. W. Gregory, Jr.
Dr. Robert F. Ruppel
Dr. Huai C. Chiang,
Dr. Mahlon L. Fairchild,
Dr. Robert L. Stoltz,
Dr. Armon J. Keaster
Dr. Z. B. Mayo
Dr. A. A. Muka
Dr. Robert L. Robertson
Dr. Gerald J. Musick
Dr. David D. Walgenbach
Dr. James W. Apple
Dr. Christian C. Burkhardt
Dr. Donald E. Kuhlman
Dr. Del Gates
Dr. David M. Noetzel
Dr. George W. Thomas,
Dr. William H. Kearby,
Dr. D. Pimentel
Dr. Robert E. Treece
11
-------
Both estimates differ substantially from those of the Economic Research
Service of the USDA (1975a) that report for cotton and corn 47% and 35%,
respectively. We doubt that 53% of the cotton acreage is untreated as
reported by the USDA, and thus feel that their estimates are much too low.
At the same time we believe that entomological specialists may have over-
estimated the percentage of acres treated.
In evaluating these estimates we made a comparison of total quantity
of insecticides used on cotton and corn from another source of information
(NAS, 1975). Based on data on quantities of insecticides used in agri-
culture we estimated that currently about 180 million pounds of insecticides
are used on cotton and corn. The entomological specialists' estimate was
205 million pounds and the USDA estimate for 1971 was 101 million pounds.
These results would suggest that perhaps the entomological specialists'
estimates were at least 12% too high. However, we had no justification
for changing the estimates provided us by the leading entomological
specialists on cotton and corn in the United States and, therefore used the
estimates provided.
In order to estimate the effects of employing alternative insect
control technologies upon insecticide use, production costs, and land use,
three analyses were run: (1) Analysis of Insect Control Technologies;
(2) Static Analysis; (3) Dynamic Analysis. The analysis of insect control
technologies focuses primarily on the strategy and provides an estimate of
the reduction in number of insecticide treatments to cotton and corn if
implemented nationwide. The static analysis assesses the changes in cotton
pest management only by total and average insecticide use as calculated
under the assumption that the location of cotton production would remain
constant.
The static analysis was performed only on cotton, and consisted of
analysing the expected changes in insect control costs and total chemical
use, if several strategies applicable in each region are put uniformly into
effect without modifying present crop distribution. The following example
should clarify the process.
In almost all cotton producing regions in the United States, scouting
is presently a viable option. Thus, the tables in the Appendix contain, for
all regions except the Texas High Plains, a possible cultural practice that
involves scouting. Each table in the Appendix also contains current average
insect control costs, crop yields, and insecticide use. The estimated static
analysis then computes, for each region, the.net changes in these measures if
scouting were uniformly adopted. The resulting national net change in total
insect control costs and total insecticide usage were obtained by computing
total nationwide average, with such measures weighed by the total acerage
figures for each region. (Additional information is available in Detai1ed
Data for Static and Linear Analysis of Alternatives for Reducing Insecticides
on Cotton and Corn--Supplement 1 to Alternatives for Reducing Insecticides on"
Cotton and Corn: .Economic and Environmental Impact! The supplement is avail -
able from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road,
Springfield, Va. 22161, using the report number assigned to this document.)
12
-------
The dynamic analysis considers not only insect control practices but
also the location of cotton production. A linear programming model called
PESTDOWN was used in this analysis. (The model is described in Procedures
Used in Setting Up the Agricultural Production Model—Supplement 2 to Alter-
natives for Reducing Insecticides on Cotton and Corn: Economic and Environ-
mental ^Impact.The supplement is available from the National Technical In-
formation Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Va. 22161, using the
report number assigned to this document.) Model data were obtained or esti-
mated for base year 1973. The model equations and tableau are given below
from Taylor and Swanson (1975):
MIN ZZCJ.X?. + zzcj.xj, - ZZZT.. + ZZtb,,. ,0TB.,
X.TJB ij ij ij ij ij ij ikm ikm Ik ik'12 ik>12
Subject to:
a) Total cropland
ZX*, + zxJ. -V. (j = 1,2,... 540)
1* o -i * \j j
,1
b) Irrigated cropland
zx{. - I. (j - 1,2,...540)
4 ' J J
c) Cotton acreage
Xij + X?j " CAj (j' = 1»2,...540), (1 = cotton)
d) Cotton lint demand
rY Y + rv Y > r\ n (•* -
" ' * •;"•; •; " * • •" • • ~ l*LU \ 1 -
J J
e) Commodity demand
- ZTB1kn ' Dik
(i = 1,2,...8), (k = 1,2,...21)
f) Nutrient demand
1) Total digestible nutrients:
?tdn1nTRN1kn - TDNkn (n - 1,2,3), (k = 1,2,...21)
13
-------
2) Digestible protein:
fPinTRNikn " DPkn (" = 1.2,3), (k = 1,2,...21)
3) Dry weight of feed:
HRNikn = DWkn (n = 1,2,3), (k = 1,2,...21)
g) Pea demand in the pea area of the Northwest
Y Y +Y V _ pn H = npa ^
i 11*> i 115 i 119 i 119 ^ P '
1 3 I I
-------
dp. = the amount of digestible protein in one unit of commodity ~i for
livestock type n.
DW, = total dry weight requirement for feed for the n livestock
type in the k consuming region.
TON, = demand for total digestible nutrients by the n 1 livestock
j_ U
type in the k consuming region.
DP. = demand for digestible protein by the n livestock type
in the k consuming region.
D., = demand for commodity type i in the k consuming region.
1 K
D,I = superscripts used to distinguish between dryland and
irrigated production activities, respectively.
PD = pea demand in the pea area of Washington and Idaho.
TB-. = transportation of one unit of commodity i from the k
consuming region to the m consuming region by barge.
tb-. -= cost of transporting one unit of commodity i from the
a. L. J. L.
k consuming region to the m consuming region by barge.
B. = total units of commodities that can be transported by barge
from the k consuming region to consuming region 12.
As in the static analysis, the data in the Appendix were used to deter;;
changes in costs, yields, and total insecticide use for each insect control
option tested. In addition further options involving possible restrictions
on cotton acreage, forced use of rotations and/or scouting on corn, and
varying levels of export demands were tested, and are described in the secti
on results. (For details see Supplemental Report 1).
The assessment of economic benefits includes maintaining cotton and
corn yield while employing a control program that either costs less or
more. The program that costs less provides the grower with increased
profits (benefits). The social costs (including economic) of shifting
cotton and corn production among regions were not possible to evaluate at
this time other than to point these shifts out in the dynamic analysis.
15
-------
The assessment of environmental benefits focused primarily on reducing
the quantity of insecticide used while maintaining cotton and corn yields.
Changing methods of application (e.g., from aircraft to ground equipment)
would reduce environmental problems, but for this study we logically
assumed no change in insecticide application technology.
16
-------
Table IV. Linear Programming Tableau for the PESTDOWN model used in the Dynamic a
Analysis. See Supplemental Report 2 for a complete description of the model .
Constraint
2 Cropland
3 Irrigated cropland
4 Cotton allotment
5 Wheat account
6 Soybean account
7 Cottonseed account
8 Sorghum account
9 Corn account
10 Barley account
11 Oat account
12 Rye account
13 Cotton lint demand
14 Pea demand
15 Cattle TON
16 Cattle DP
17 Cattle feed bulk
18 Sheep TON
19 Sheep DP
20 Sheep feed bulk
21 Swine TDN
22 Swine OP
23 Swine feed bulk
24 Barge transportation
Crop production activities'*
Dryland
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
U_
S w i 3 U_ u-
6 IK > % (_) o 5 «< i u
JC 01 (= *- 5 01 ^ *J tu 3 0) f— 1
u(/ieaooec3o5> 3
(DO Ol JC
£» 4-» i — V\ C CTt
o O2?«a ID o o
to (_>to5caooui
11111111
11111111
i
Y Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
aMost of the columns represent more than one activity, and most of the rows represent more than one constraint. For example,
column 1 represents 91 crop production activities, and row 2 represents 131 cropland constraints. Therefore, the actual matrix
is much laiger than Is Indicated by this table.
''Ba » barley, DC = double-cropped, F = fallow, 0 = oats, F » pe^is, S - soybeans, W = wheat, SW = spring wheat, WW = winter wheat.
-------
Table IV. (cont.)
Constraint
1 Cost
2 Cropland
3 Irrigated cropland
4 Cotton allotment
5 Wheat account
6 Soybean account
7 Cottonseed account
8 Sorqhum account
9 Corn account
10 Barley account
11 Oat account
12 Rye account
13 Cotton lint demand
14 Pea demand
15 Cattle TON
16 Cattle DP
17 Cattle feed bulk
18 Sheep TON
19 Sheep DP
20 Sheep feed bulk
21 Swine TON
22 Swine DP
23 Swine feed bulk
24 Barge transportation
Activities that transfer commodities to nutrients
Cattle
30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
•o
0»
E 2 £
- £ .i § S
« r- «/l Ol C +•* .0
Ul>.-M>)
£, 3 C TO
*j a> a= o en c <*-> .a
a»u4->a>t-fc,+j>,
-C (0 «) >> O O O O
3ccaOGet/><->o
- s? 1 11
IO r- 1/V tJ| C +J -O
QJU.4->Q)UL.+->>)
-c«j*>,ooao
3Ccooa:t/»ocji*/>
-i
-i
-i
-i
-i
-i
-i
-i
tdn tdn tdn tdn tdn tdn tdn tdn
dp dp dp dp dp dp dp dp
wt wt wt wt wt wt wt wt
Rail
transportation activities
54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61
•o
V
ft 01
c 1/1 E
« C 3 >i
*-• O) O J^ V
S.A ** Ol C r— "»
>* 4J U L. I- W i
2«ni_}t/)ocaOac
tttttttt
Vc
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
Barge
transportation activities
62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69
T3
Ql
I/I Ol
C VI E
« C 3 X
** o> o -c at
(O .£ 4-1 Ol C r— Ul
..»-»t-l_u-»-'aj
^IOOOO^
^i/itJi/iocoooe
tb tb tb tb tb tb tb tb
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
11111111
Land
retire-
ment
activity
Total ,j
retirement °
ight-
hand
side
MIN
«L
SI
SCA
>D,
£0,
zo,
iO.
so,
iD.
£0,
£D,
>CLO
iPO
1TDN,
iOP,
=DW,
ZTDN,
IDP,
"DvV,
>TDN,
iOPj
•=OWj
-------
RESULTS
The results will be discussed for ease of presentation in three separate
sections: (1) The Analysis of the Insect Control Technologies; (2) The
Static Analysis; and (3) The Dynamic Analysis.
THE ANALYSIS OF INSECT CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
In this section of the results an analysis will be made of the various
cotton and corn insect control technologies and alternatives. Included in
this analysis will be an examination of cotton and corn losses with and
without insecticides.
Cotton
Each of the important cotton insect-control program alternatives are
described and discussed as follows:
Current Situation--
Thev first analysis that was made examined what percentage of the
cotton acreage is being treated including the average number of treatments
and amount of insecticide applied per acre each season. The current
situation includes a mix of controls that include regular treatments,
scouting, diapause controls, short season culture, trap crops, and com-
bination of these.
About 95% of the cotton acreage is treated according to the "best
estimates" of the nation's leading entomological specialists. The average
number of treatments per cotton acre annually is 4.4 with about 13.3 Ibs
applied and costs about $18 per season including insecticide and application
costs (Table V).
Regular Treatment Program-
Most cotton is treated on some type of a spray schedule and this is
termed "regular treatment;" this may include some diapause control but does
not include "scouting." We should point out, however, that a regular
spray-schedule does not mean that cotton growers treat without examining
their cotton and insect pest populations. In fact, most growers do "check"
their cotton for the abundance of insect pests. This type of examination
is not the type of monitoring of pest and natural enemy populations
employed in the "Scouting Treatment Program" described later. However,
the cotton specialists do feel that the "checking" carried out by the
19
-------
Table V. The average number of insecticide treatments made per acre on certain cotton
acreage during each season and the total quantity of insecticide used for
current, potential, and future pest control alternatives.
ro
o
Total
Number
of Acres
Involved
x 106
13.1
10.6
6.0
5.2
8.6
7.9
8.6
Regular
Insecticide
Treatments
No. Total Ibs/A
5.6 16.8
6.6 19.8
8.6 26.4
9.0 27.0
7.9 23.7
7.8 23.4
7.6 22.8
Current
Situation
Insecticide
Treatments
No. Total Ibs/A
4.4 13.3
-
.-
-
-
-
_
Scouting
Insecticide
Treatments
No. Total Ibs/A
-
5.0 15.0
-
-
-
-
_
Diapause &
Scouting
Insecticide
Treatments
No. Total Ibs/A
-
-
5.4 16.2
-
-
-
_
Trap Crop
and Scouting
Insecticide
Treatments
No. Total Ibs/A
-
-
-
5.2 16.1
-
-
.
Short Season
and Scouting
Insecticide
Treatments
No. Total Ibs/A
-
-
-
-
4.0 12.0
-
.
Resistant
and Scouting
Insecticide
Treatments
No. Total Ibs/A
-
-
-
-
-
3.0 9.0
_
Resistant and
Short Season
and Scouting
Insecticide
Treatments
No. Total Ibs/A
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.2 6.6
-------
growers has resulted in reducing the number of treatments an estimated 10 to
20% during the past 10 years.
The regular treatment program, as expected, utilizes the largest
number of treatments and the largest quantity of insecticides. If the
total U.S. cotton acreage were treated employing the regular treatment
program, the average number of treatments per season would be about 5.6
(ranging from approximately 0 to 17) and requires about 17 Ibs (Table V)
of insecticide per acre and costs about $22 (Appendix, Tables 1-32).
Note, that under regular treatment about 1.2 more treatments are made per
acre than under the current situation. The current situation includes
nearly half the acres under a scouting program.
Scouting Program--
The objective of the "scouting program" is to treat cotton acreage
only when the density and potential threat of insect pest populations
justify insecticide treatments. Both insect pest populations and natural
enemy populations must be monitored to obtain information on the potential
threat of the pests to the cotton crop. Stage of cotton growth and
fruiting influence the susceptibility of cotton to pest injury and, thus,
this information is also included in the scouting program and decision-
making processes. If the scouting program were adopted on all cotton
acreage where applicable (10.6 million acres), the number of treatments would
be reduced from the 6.6 regular average on this acreage to about 5.0
(Table V). Thus, scouting on an average reduces the number of treatments
per acre aoout 1.6 compared with regular. The amount of insecti-
cide used per acre is reduced about 24%. Because of resistance of certain
pests to insecticides and inadequate identification to species (e.g.,
cotton bollworm vs. tobacco budworm), the regular treatment program is
likely to result in greater pest insect losses than the scouting program.
Scouting added over the insecticide and application costs about $1.50 per
acre for monitoring cotton pests and natural enemy populations.
Diapause and Scouting Program--
Diapause control programs are directed specifically at boll weevils.
The aim of diapause control is to substantially reduce over-wintering
weevil populations so in the spring fewer weevils are present and insecti-
cide treatments can be delayed until later in the summer season when
weevils reach potentially damaging densities. The benefit of delaying
weevil treatments as long as possible is that natural enemies that are
especially important for control of bollworms and budworms are protected
and remain active in controlling these pests for a longer period of the
cotton growing season.
For diapause control, one (sometimes 2) treatment is made before the
cotton defoliant is applied to the crop. Then another treatment is made
about 2 weeks after the cotton is harvested, provided defoliation is not
complete and stalk destruction is delayed. It should be pointed out that
when the cotton is harvested, stalks and other parts of the cotton plant
21
-------
are shredded. This is also considered an essential part of the diapause
control program.
The effectiveness of diapause control for the weevil requires that all
the cotton acreage in the region be in the diapause control program. The
obvious reason for the requirement is that weevils disperse when they emerge
in the spring. Thus, a grower who used diapause control and who is
surrounded by growers who do not will hardly notice a reduction in weevil
populations on his surrounded farm. Diapause control must be a community-
wide effort.
Diapause control is employed as a supplement to other pest control
methods such as "scouting." If a diapause-scouting program were adopted
on cotton acreage when applicable (6.0 million acres), the number of treat-
ments would be reduced from the 8.6 treatments under regular to an average
of about 5.4 (Table V). Thus, a diapause-scouting program on an average
reduces the number of treatments per acre about 3.2 compared with regular.
This is about twice that of scouting alone. The amount of insecticide used
per acre would decrease about 39% or about 10.2 Ibs per acre. About 1/2 Ib
of insecticide per acre had to be applied for diapause control and this is
included in the total of 10.2 Ibs per acre.
Trap Crop and Scouting Program—
The use of a trap crop concentrates the pest on the trap crop. In the
case of a cotton trap crop, the trap crop is treated with a heavy dosage of
insecticide, thus killing a large percentage of the pest population (e.g.,
boll weevil). With other trap crops such as alfalfa, the objective is to
attract plant bugs from cotton to alfalfa.
Three types of trap crops have been employed for control of cotton
pests and one of these includes the use of early cotton. This trap crop
technique included planting an early cotton to attract boll weevils. About
5% (in well distributed strips) of the total cotton acreage of a farm is
planted to early cotton about 2 to 3 weeks before the regular crop planting
time. The emerging boll weevils are attracted to this early cotton. Then
a heavier than normal dosage of insecticide is applied to this early cotton
to destroy the boll weevils that congregate on this cotton.
Certain added costs are associated with employing a trap crop. These
include: (1) the nuisance cost of having to get the machinery and labor
ready to plant cotton 2 to 3 weeks early, and (2) failure of the trap crop
in some years. Since the trap crop fails approximately one in 4 years,
average reduction in insecticide use is only three-fourths of the 11.8 Ib/
acre, or 8.8 Ib; for an insecticide treatment cost saving of $9.40. The
cost of replanting the 5 percent of the acreage 1/4 of the time and labor
and machinery costs for early planting are assumed to be 250 and 200 percent
of normal planting costs, respectively. Adding these costs to normal
production costs increased these costs by an average of $2.55 (Table VI) per
acre of cotton grown. This assumes that the yield on trap crop acreage
22
-------
Table VI.
Cost of trap crops- per acre of cotton excluding change in
insecticide and insecticide application costs.
Region
Cost per acre of cotton ($)
Central Alabama
Northeastern Alabama
Western and Central Arizona
San Joaquin Valley California
Louisiana
Hill Region Mississippi
Southwest Oklahoma (Irrigated region)
Coastal Plain, South Carolina
Piedmont region, South Carolina
2.17
2.94
18.21^
2.93
2.46
3 . 9S-/
2.35
2.35
a/ Cotton planted on 5% acreage two to three weeks before normal planting
except where indicated otherwise
b/ Alfalfa trap crop
£/ Sorghum trap crop
(the 5%) is the same as achieved with all cotton acreage.
a saving of $6.85 per acre.
This indicates
The alfalfa trap crop technology utilizes alfalfa strips planted in
rows about 20 ft wide in the cotton fields. The rows of cotton were
about 300 to 400 ft wide; hence, about 6% of the field is in alfalfa. This
procedure utilized in the San Joaquin Valley of California was reported to
reduce the number of treatments to cotton (Appendix, Table 7). The
added costs must be included where using alfalfa as a trap crop. Alfalfa
increases the production losses by reducing the cotton acreage. The added
production costs include: (1) alfalfa strips that are a nuisance to plant
and harvest in cotton fields; and (2) costs of irrigation and fertilizer
to maintain the alfalfa.
23
-------
If only loss of cotton yield due to the alfalfa produced and the
change in water and fertilizer costs are considered, these factors add an
average of approximately $18.20 per acre (Table VI) to the cost of growing
cotton in the San Joaquin Valley. Thus use of an alfalfa trap crop
increases production costs in that area by at least $3.20 per acre.
The sorghum trap crop is planted with 4 rows of sorghum to each 24
rows of cotton. This trap crop in some years reduced the number of
treatments in Oklahoma (Appendix, Table 19). Even adding the costs of
the nuisance factor involved in planting sorghum in cotton fields, it
appears that the sorghum trap crop offers several advantages, including
reduced insecticide use as well as reduced production costs.
If trap crop and scouting programs were adopted in U.S. cotton
production where applicable (5.2 million acres), the number of treatments
would be reduced from the 9.0 regular treatments per acre to about 5.2
(Table V). Thus, a trap crop-scouting program on an average reduces the
number of treatments per acre about 3.8 compared with regular. This
reduction is about the same as that of diapause-scouting. The amount of
insecticide used would be reduced about 40%.
Additional costs for growing the sorghum include: (1) the increased
costs of planting and harvesting the sorghum in cotton fields; (2) the
reduced sorghum crop due to use of sorghum varieties that are attractive to
greenbugs; and (3) the increased fertilizer and water costs for sorghum
since it receives the same treatment as cotton. Assuming that the sorghum
yield is 85% of normal and that the added machine and labor costs of
planting the sorghum are $3 per acre, added costs for growing the sorghum,
including water and fertilizer costs, are approximately $7 per acre (Appen-
dix, Table 4).
Short-Season and Scouting Program--
Earlier we mentioned that bollworms and budworms appear late in the
season (late August and September) at numbers that may be damaging to
cotton. By forcing the cotton to mature early through cultural changes,
this then reduces the opportunities for the bollworms and budworms from
reaching high densities and damaging cotton. A cultural technique that
has proven effective in reducing the length of cotton growing season is
irrigation management. In early August the amount of irrigation water is
intentionally limited which forced the cotton pl.ant to mature and produce
its crop earlier than normal.
This short-season culture does not reduce cotton yields but only
reduces the threat from bollworms and budworms. For example, in parts of
Arizona and California if short-season culture is used, it would reduce
the number of treatments by about 3 per season (Appendix, Tables 4 and 8).
Similar to short-season cultural control, employing a short-season
cotton variety would provide an effective means of reducing the threat to
cotton from bollworms and budworms in the cotton growing regions that
cannot use irrigation as a management tool. Also, it should be pointed out
24
-------
that shortening the cotton fruiting season reduces the boll weevil problem.
The weevil is essentially a one-host plant. Thus, reducing the time for
boll weevil population increase, the weevil threat is greatly reduced (the
weevil generation time is about 2.5 weeks).
Currently a good commercial short-season cotton variety does not exist.
If such a short-season variety(s) were developed, it would be possible to
reduce significantly the number of treatments of cotton (Appendix, Tables
1, 2, 9-17, 21-26, 28-32).
If a short-season variety were available and combined with a scouting
program and employed where applicable (8.6 million acres) in the U.S., the
number of treatments would be reduced from the 7.9 regular treatments on
this acreage to about 4.0, (Table V). Thus, a short season scouting
program on average reduces the number of treatments per acre to about 3.9
compared with regular. This is similar to trap crop-scouting. The amount
applied per acre would be reduced nearly 50%. The savings in treatment
costs would be about $11.
Resistant and Scouting Program--
Varieties of cotton such as "Frego bract" have natural resistance to
boll weevils. Although this variety is resistant to the boll weevil, it
does not yield as well as the commercial varieties under regular insecticide
schedules (Appendix, Tables 12 and 13).
Tremendous potential exists for reducing the number of treatments of
cotton if a good commercial variety of cotton could be developed that was
also resistant to the boll weevil. The specialists estimated that a good
resistant variety would significantly reduce the number of treatments
(i.e., perhaps as much as 68%) (Appendix, Tables 1, 2, 5, 9-13, 16, 17,
21-26, 28-30, 32).
If a boll weevil resistant cotton variety were combined with a scout-
ing program in the U.S. and employed where applicable (7.9 million acres),
the number of treatments would be reduced from the 7.8 regular treatments
on that acreage to only 3.0 (Table V). Thus, a resistant-scouting
program on an average would reauce the number of treatments to about 4.8
compared with regular. The amount of insecticide applied per acre would
be reduced by about 62% with a saving of about $19.
Resistant, Short-Season, and Scouting Program--
If good commercial varieties that combined boll weevil resistance
and short-season characteristics were available, pest control in cotton
would be revolutionized. If these varieties were available, employed
where applicable (8.6 million acres), and combined with scouting, the
number of treatments would be reduced from the 7.6 regular treatments on
this acreage to about 2.2, (Table V). Thus, this program on an average
would reduce the number of treatments per acre about 5.4 compared with
regular. The amount of insecticide used could be reduced about 71%.
25
-------
Corn
Each of the important corn insect-control program alternatives are
described and discussed below:
Regular or Current Control —
In corn "regular control" is not easily definable because how and
where the corn is cultured (e.g., continuous vs. rotation) in large
measure determines what the pest control problem is and the treatment.
An estimated 52% of all corn acreage is being treated with about 1 pound of
insecticide per acre (Appendix, Tables 33-55). The prime pest is the
rootworm complex (Northern, Western, and Southern rootworms). The average
cost of treatment is about $4.50 per acre each season.
For continuous corn acreage on which rootworms are the most serious
pest, an estimated 87% of the acreage is treated (Appendix, Tables 34-55).
For corn in rotation with other crops, only an estimated 29% of the acreage
is treated.
Scouting--
All the specialists agree that scouting of the major corn pests
(rootworms, cutworms, European corn borers, armyworms, and corn leaf aphids)
would be a valuable aid in reducing the number of treatments in corn.
However, several specialists seriously question whether it is now practical
or would ever be practical (because of scouting costs) to employ commercial
scouting on corn.
Some specialists, as in the State of Illinois, feel they have an
effective procedure for scouting corn pests—especially the rootworm com-
plex. If scouting were implemented throughout the state, the Illinois
specialists estimated that the percentage of acres treated could be reduced
from more than 60% to less than 15%. If we estimated that the average
insecticide treatment of corn in Illinois costs $6.00 per acre and on an
average scouting would reduce insecticide treatments by 75%, then the costs
of treating those acres previously would decline from $6.00 to an average
of about $1.50. If we assume scouting costs of $2.00 per acre, then the
total saving per acre is about $2.50 in Illinois. Compared with savings
per acre in cotton, that averaged about $20 per acre, this $2.50 is a
relatively low return.
Some specialists, as in Missouri, believe that while sufficient
information is not available for an effective scouting program, scouting
corn may prove useful in the future. And yet other specialists, as in
Iowa, estimate that even with effective monitoring procedures for corn
pests, the reduction in insecticide treatment costs would not pay for the
scouting costs. Scouting costs for corn were estimated to range between
$1 and $4 per acre. At $2 per acre, an estimated 50% reduction in number
of current treatment costs (at $4.00 per acre) would be necessary just to
pay for the scouting. For rootworms, the most serious pest of corn, most
specialists project that a 33% reduction in number of treatments is
impossible. Therefore, this group of specialists argues that corn scouting
appears impractical, given the current relative price structure.
26
-------
Rotations for Rootworm Control--
The prime rotation of corn in the U.S. is with soybeans but other
rotations include wheat, oats, barley, alfalfa and sod. Seldom is there
a problem in first year corn from rootworms. About 60% of the corn is now
grown in the U.S. in rotation with other crops (Appendix, Tables 33-55).
The reasons that farmers give for rotating corn with other crops are many.
They include: rootworm control; tradition; relative prices of other crops;
nitrogen fertilizer availability (soybeans and alfalfa); and others.
Since most rotations are carried out for reasons other than rootworm
control, the benefits and costs of rotating corn are numerous. In addition
to rootworm control, rotations aid in adding nitrogen to the soil (legumes),
reducing disease problems in corn, and reducing soil erosion problems.
Since corn rotation reduces the number of insecticide treatments by 1
and at a saving of about $6 per acre, any rotation scheme often has to have
more than rootworm control as its economic impetus to benefit the grower.
The relative value of crops that are in rotation is obviously a dominant
factor for growers deciding whether to rotate corn with other crops or grow
corn continuously. The main place where rotation fits is where other crops
will be grown on land of similar quality regardless of the planting sequence.
"No-till" Culture for Rootworm Control —
"No-till" corn culture involves leaving corn or other crop remains on
the soil surface, using 2 to 4 Ibs of herbicide to chemically kill weeds or
previous crops, and then planting directly through the surface mulch.
Several variations of this technology are employed and are collectively
referred to as minimum tillage (USDA, 1975b).
The surface mulch and not disturbing the soil increases rootworm
problems in "no-till" corn (Chiang et al., 1971; Musick and Collins, 1971;
Pruess et al., 1968; USDA, 1975b). Other pest problems associated with "no-
till" corn culture include increased problems from cutworms, armyworms, and
slugs. These pests in "no-till" corn often require treatment. Another
potential disadvantage of "no-till" culture is the low soil temperature may
reduce stands and slow the rate of corn growth early in the season.
"No-till" corn culture, however, has several important advantages
(USDA, 1975b). It may be more economical by reducing labor inputs.
Especially important is the reduction in soil erosion. The estimated loss
of topsoil for continuous corn culture is about 21 tons per acre per
annum (Whitaker et al., 1973; Burwell et al., 1974). "No-till" corn
culture reduces this loss to less than 1 ton per acre (USDA, 1975b; Pimentel
et al., 1976). "No-till" corn culture also has the advantage of reducing
water run-off and otherwise conserving soil moisture.
i \
Cutworm Control--
Cutworms_are common on bottom land (i.e., in lowland areas in which
the soil is rich and relatively heavy). The recommended procedure for
determining whether treatments are needed for cutworms on a particular
27
-------
piece of bottom land is "history," that is, if cutworms have been a problem
in the past, then this land should be treated.
In Iowa, for example, the estimate is that about 60% of the bottom land
has an annual cutworm threat and should be treated annually with about 1 Ib
of insecticide (Appendix, Table 37). Thus, employing the procedure of
recording past cutworm problems on land can play a valuable role in
reducing the number of cutworm treatments that normally occur on bottom
land.
Wireworm Control--
Wireworms are sometimes a problem when corn is planted following sod.
Compared to rootworms, however, the problem is minor and occurs on only
about 1% of the corn acreage (Appendix, Tables 33-55). The reasons for
the problem being minor are: (1) a relatively small amount of the total
corn (about 2%) acreage is planted following sod; and (2) only about half of
sod acreage has infestations of wireworms that are serious and require
treatment.
European Corn Borer Control--
A relatively small percentage (about 1%) of the nation's corn acreage
is treated for European corn borer control (Appendix, Tables 33-55).
Most specialists feel that some resistance to the corn borer has been bred
into most corn that is planted today. This resistance along with natural
enemies is keeping corn borer populations sufficiently low so that treatment
is rarely required for this pest.
The development of a resistant corn borer variety will reduce the
amount of insecticide being used in corn production. However, with onlv
about 1% being treated and perhaps twice this acreage requiring treatment,
further corn borer resistance will not benefit corn production as much as
would the development of resistance in corn to the rootworms.
Corn Leaf Aphid Control —
The corn leaf aphid can reduce yields but it is not an annual pest
but occurs sporadically (Appendix, Tables 33-55). The corn leaf aphid is
a serious pest that requires treatment on about 2% of the corn acreage.
Annual treatment for the corn leaf aphid, however, on current corn acreage
is estimated to be less than 1%.
Mites and Other Pests —
On irrigated corn as in Nebraska and Kansas, mites may become a serious
problem and require treatment. On a national basis treatment for mites
occurs on less than 1% of the corn acreage (Appendix, Tables 33-55).
Combinations —
The combination of controls in corn is not as dramatic as in cotton.
Again, the prime pest on corn is the rootworm. Corn in rotation with other
crops will control rootworms, but the net benefits of rotations depend
upon a great many factors in corn production. The advantages and dis-
advantages have been discussed.
28
-------
Adding some European corn borer resistance to corn has significantly
reduced the threat of the corn borer. A higher level of resistance is
needed and it would be desirable to have this combined with rootworm
resistance. This combination, however, is at least 10 years in the future,
The options for employing combination controls in corn pest control
appear to be less than that in cotton.
Losses in Cotton and Corn to Insects
In cotton the estimate is that a 19% loss occurs in cotton in spite of
all insect control efforts (USDA, 1965). This estimate appears to be about
right for 1975 based on comments by several specialists.
Pimentel (1973) has estimated that the increased loss of cotton in the
U.S. if all fields were not treated, would be about 31%. Adding the increase
of 31% to 19% gives approximately 50%. In the present study, the specialists
estimated an increased overall loss of 35% (range 0 to 90%) if acres current-
ly treated were left untreated. Adding the 35% to 19% gives a 54% total
loss; hence, the earlier 50% estimated loss agrees in general with the
current estimate of 54%.
The high cotton losses (up to 90%) if insecticides were not used, occurr-
ed primarily in the regions where the boll weevil is a serious pest (Appen-
dix, Tables 1-32). These regions are also the regions where the largest
quantity of insecticide is used.
Losses in corn on those acres not treated were estimated to total
about 21% (Pimentel and Shoemaker, 1974). The average estimate from the
specialists for losses on untreated corn is about 20% and ranges from 1% to
65% (Appendix, Tables 33-55). Hence, these results suggest that the
earlier rough estimate (Pimentel, 1973) was generally good.
STATIC ANALYSIS
The effects of implementing new insect control strategies depend
upon the location of crop production. As a result several patterns of
cropland use are considered in our analysis of insect control methodologies
for cotton and corn production. In the Static Analysis discussed in this
section, cotton is assumed to have its current location of production as
estimated in the Appendix. In a later section entitled "Dynamic Analysis,"
the effects of shifts in the location of crop production are analyzed.
Both the static and dynamic analyses are based upon the costs, yields,
acreages and insecticide use figures obtained from an extensive nation-
wide survey of agriculturalists (Appendix). However, in order to use
these figures it was necessary to calculate expected costs and insecticide
use for each insect control alternative in the static analysis.
Based upon the current averages given for each region, we have calcu-
lated that over $250 million is spent currently for cotton insect control.
29
-------
This represents an average of $19.31 per acre on 13.1 million acres. Over
174 million pounds of insecticide are used including 102 million pounds of
chlorinated hydrocarbons, 68 million pounds of organophosphorous compounds
and 4 million pounds of carbamates.
Each of the cotton insect control methods are feasible on a fraction
of the total cotton acreage. The total number of acres on which each
method has been reported to be a feasible option is listed in Table VII
(column III). For example, methods using diapause and scouting are current-
ly feasible on 6.26 M (million) acres, which is only 48% of the 13.12 M
acres currently in cotton production.
In column IV of Table VII, the average cost of using an alternative
is given. This is calculated by dividing the total cost of implementing
the alternative by the number of acres in the area of implementation in
column III. The average savings in insect control costs (column VI) is
the difference between column V and column IV. The average current cost
(column V) is obtained by summing the current costs (per acre costs
multiplied by the number of acres) over all regions in the area of
implementation. Notice that the average current cost is significantly
higher than the average of $19.31 per acre in areas where methods such as
diapause control and trap crops are feasible. Column VII is the average
savings from column VI multiplied by the number of acres in the area of
implementation.
The economic consequences of implementing an insect control method
depend upon changes in yield as well as changes in insect control costs.
The total increase in cotton production expected over the area of imple-
mentation is given in column VIII. The increase in yield in each region
is the yield that is expected with the implementation of the specified
insect control alternative minus the current average yield.
In order to compare the benefits of increased cotton production to
those of reduced insect control costs, it is necessary to estimate the
value of the increase in cotton production. Cotton is valued at $.45 per
pound. Thus, the value of increases in cotton production listed in column
IX is based upon calculations that assume the price of cotton does not
change as a function of the quantity produced. Since the changes in
quantity in column VIII are small relative to the total amount of cotton
produced, the assumption of constant price does not appear to introduce a
significant error. The net benefit (column X of Table VII) is then the sum
of the savings in insect control costs and the increase in income due to
increased yields..
-^i
The insect control alternatives considered in the analysis are listed
in column I of Table. VII. In column II is given the potential time of
implementation. Alternatives denoted by "present" include methods that are
currently being used or that could be implemented at present. Such
options are denoted by comment codes 1 or 2 as used in the Appendix.
(Comment code 1 -^current practices; code 2 = alternative pest controls
that could be put:into practice within one year; code 3 = alternative
30
-------
Table VII. Effect of implementation of cotton insect control alternatives on insect control costs.
ii
in
IV
VI
VII
VIII
IX
Insect Time of Area of Average Cost , Average Average Savings Total Savings Total Increases in Net c
Control Implementa- Implementa- of Alternative Current in Insect ,- in Insect , Cotton Production Benefits'
Alternative tion1 tion2 Costs^ Control Costs Control Costs Lint7 Value8
(acres) ($ per acre) ($ per acre) ($ per acre) ($) (Ib) ($) ($)
Most
Economi-
cal 10
Least
Insecticide
Feasible1'
Scouting
Diapause/
Scouting
Trap Crop/
Scouting
Short Sea-
son/Scouting
Resistant/
Scouting
Resistant,
present
in 5 to 10
years
present
in 5 to 10
years
present
present
present
in 5 to 10
years
in 5 to 10
years
in 5 to 10
13.1 M
13.1 M
13.1 M
13.1 M
10.6 M
6.0 M
5.2 M
8.6 M
7.9 M
8.6 M
13.
8.
14.
9.
21.
26.
22.
14.
13.
10.
10
95
10
00
35
60
60
65
25
55
19.
19.
19.
19.
23.
30.
31.
27.
26.
27.
30
30
30
30
71
00
70
35
50
35
6.20
10.35
5.20
10.15
2.45
3.45
9.10
12.72
13.25
16.80
81.3 M
136.1 M
68.3 M
132.9 M
26.0 M
19.8 M
47.5 M
110.5 M
104.9 M
144.6 M
+58.8 M
+51.3 M
+58.3 M
-15.3 M
+58.8 M
63.9 M
0
-191.3 M
-11.2 M
-122.4 M
+26.5 M
23.1 M
26.5 M
-6.9 M
26.5 M
28.9 M
0
-86.07 M
-5.0 M
-55.1 M
109.19 M
159.16 M
94.75 M
126.04 M
52.5 M
48.6 M
47.5 M
24.4 M
99.9 M
89.5 M
Short years
Season,
Scouting
-------
FOOTNOTES FOR TABLE VII
1. Time when the insect control alternative can be implemented in all
regions included in the area of implementation.
2. The total number of acres on which the insect control alternative has
been reported to be feasible.
3. Average cost per acre of the alternative over the area of implemen-
tation.
4. Average cost per acre of current insect control practices over the
area of implementation of the insect control alternative being con-
sidered.
5. The average current cost (column V) minus the average cost of the
alternative (column IV).
6. Average savings in insect control costs (column VI) multiplied by
the area of implementation (column III).
7. Based upon estimates of the effect of the insect control alternative
on yield as reported in Appendix A.
8. Assuming a value of $.45 per pound.
9. The total savings in insect control costs (column VII) plus the value
of increased cotton production (column IX).
10. The most economical alternative in each region is implemented. (See
text for further discussion.)
11. In each region the option is implemented which uses the least insecti-
cide among those which are economically feasible. (See text for
further discussion.)
32
-------
pest controls that require additional research and potentially could be
put into practice in 5 to 10 years.) Insect control alternatives with a
time of implementation of 5 to 10 years include the currently available
alternatives as well as those expected to be available in the future.
These options have comment codes 1, 2, or 3 in the Appendix. Diapause
control, scouting, and trap crops are methods that are currently available.
Methods that require new plant varieties that are resistant or that mature in a
shorter season will not be available for commercial use for another 5 to 10 years.
Two of the insect control alternatives listed in Table VII are entitled
"most economical". For this alternative the insect control method selected
in each region is the least costly among the methods available in the time
period specified. Both insect control costs and yield losses are con-
sidered. If no yield losses occur in a region, the method selected will
be the one with the lowest insect control cost. If yield losses do occur,
the loss is valued at $.45 per pound and added to the insect control cost.
The most economical option is then the method for which the combined cost
of insect control and yield loss is smallest. For future alternatives, the
options were chosen in a similar fashion except that they are chosen from
all methods: those currently available and those available in 5 to 10 years.
The "least insecticide feasible" alternative selects the insect control
method in each region that uses the least insecticide among those control
methods that are available within the appropriate time limit and that are
economically feasible. An option is considered to be economically feasible
if the combined cost of insect control and yield loss is not more than
15% greater than current insect control costs. In a majority of cases
the least insecticide option is actually less expensive than the current
practice.
From Table VII, the implementation of the most economical option
currently available in each region could reduce control costs by a total
of $81.31 M, which is an average of $6.20 per acre. There are also
increases in yields associated with the implementation of the most eco-
nomical alternative in Arkansas. The yield increase is 58.8 M Ibs which
is valued at $26.46 M. The net benefit from implementing the most eco-
nomical options currently available is then $109.19 M.
The analysis of the most economical options available in 5 to 10
years predict even larger benefits. The total savings in insect control
costs is $136.08 M. There are yield increases in Arkansas and decreases
in Mississippi for a net increase of 51.29 M pounds valued at $23.08 M.
The net benefit is $159.16 M.
The effect of implementing insect control alternatives on insecticide
use is given in Table VIII. Columns III, V and VII of this table give the
total amounts of chlorinated hydrocarbons, organophosphates, and carbamate
insecticides, respectively, used in the area of implementation. The
average rates per acre in the area of implementation are given in columns
IV, VI and VIII of Table VIII.
-------
Table VIII. Effect of implementation of cotton insect control alternatives on insecticide use.
II
ill
IV
VI
VII
VIII
IX
XI
CO
Insect
Control
A 1 toynafiuO
/l 1 IfCI Mu \t I xC
Most
Economical
Least
Insecticide
Feasible
Scouting
Diapause/
Scouting
Trap Crop/
Scouting
Short Sea-
son/Scouting
Resistant/
Scouting
Resistant/
Short
Season/
Scouting
Time of
Implementa-
tion
I I Ull
•
present
in 5 to 10
years
present
in 5 to 10
years
present
present
present
in 5 to 10
years
in 5 to 10
years
in 5 to 10
years
Estimated Insecticide Use on Cotton
of Insect Control Alternative
Chlorinated
Total3
(M Ibs)
£1.9
42.5
59.1
34.3
83.8
50.7
41.7
43.9
37.3
29.8
Hydrocarbons
4
Average
(Ibs/acre)
4.72
3.24
4.50
2.61
7.87
8.81
7.97
5.11
4.70
3.47
with Implementation
Organophosphates
Total3
(M Ibs)
37.2
27.2
34.5
19.5
49.0
33.3
21.0
25.0
20.2
18.3
Average
(Ibs/acre)
2.83
2.08
2.63
1.49
4.60
5.78
4.01
2.91
2.54
2.13
Carbamates
Total3
(M Ibs)
3.9
3.5
1.7
.1
1.8
1.7
3.71
.18
.10
.01
Average
(Ibs/acre)
.30
.26
.13
.01
.17
.29
.71
.02
.01
.00
Ratio of Insecticide
to Current Use
c
or
.61
.41
.58
.33
.82
.64
.59
.44
.41
.30
c
OP6
.54
.40
.50
.28
.72
.76
.46
.39
.34
.29
7
C7
1.88
.88
.44
.02
.45
.62
3.49
.06
.04
.00
-------
FOOTNOTES FOR TABLE VIII
1. Time when the insect control alternative can be implemented in all
regions included in the area of implementation.
2. Ratio of the total insecticide (columns III, V or VII) to the total
amount presently applied with the current insect control practices
in the area of implementation. (See Table VI for definition of area
of implementation.)
3. Total amount of insecticide used in the area of implementation.
4. Total amount of insecticide divided by the area of implementation.
5. Chlorinated hydrocarbons
6. Organophosphates
7. Carbamates
8. See footnote 10 of Table VI.
9. See footnote 11 of Table VI.
It is useful to compare the alternative control estimates of insecti-
cide use to the currently used patterns. The ratio of insecticide use to
current insecticide use is the amount of chemicals estimated to be used
with the specified insect control alternative divided by the amount of
insecticide currently used in the area of implementation. Columns IX, X and
XI of Table VIII give the ratios for chlorinated hydrocarbons, organo-
phosphates, and carbamates, respectively.
From the ratios, we note that implementation of the most economical
options that are currently available is estimated to reduce the use of
chlorinated hydrocarbons by 39% and organophosphates by 46%. There is an
increase in the use of carbamate but the amount is small. The implemen-
tation of the most economical options available in the future are predicted
to reduce insecticide use even more. Chlorinated hydrocarbons are reduced
by 59% and organophosphates by 60%.
As would be expected, insecticide use and"insect control cost savings
are lower for the least insecticide feasible options than for the
corresponding most economical options. What is surprising ts that the
differences are not very great. For options that are currently available,
the difference in insect control costs between the least insecticide
feasible options and the most economical is only $14 M or about $1 per
acre. The insecticide use varies by about 0.5 Ib per acre.
35
-------
With insect control methods available in the future, both the least
insecticide feasible and the most economical options have large savings
in insect control costs of $133 M and $136 M, respectively. There is a
significant difference in cotton production between the two alternatives.
This is primarily due to yield changes in Arkansas.
Of the insect control methods currently available, scouting is clearly
important. It is an available option on over 80% of the cotton acreage.
However, one can see from the results in Tables VII and VIII that the bene-
fits of scouting are greatly enhanced by its use in combination with other
methods of control. For example, the implementation of scouting saves
only $26 M ($2.45 per acre) in insect control costs. However, the
implementation of the most economical options, which almost always involve
scouting, has an additional saving of $81 M (Table VII, column VII). In
addition, insecticide use is reduced by about 20% for scouting alone but is
reduced by about 40% with the implementation of the most economical options
currently available (Table VIII, columns IX, X and XI).
Diapause control used in conjunction with scouting is currently a
feasible option on 6 M acres. In this area the current average cost of
insect control is $30 per acre. The implementation of diapause control and
scouting reduces this cost by over $3 an acre. Because of substantial
increases in yields in Arkansas, the total net benefit on 6 M acres is
calculated to be $48.6 M.
The use of trap crops is currently a feasible option on 5.23 M acres.
These regions include areas where insect control costs are high, an average
of $31.70 per acre. The savings in insect control costs are substantial,
$9.10 per acre. Insecticide use is reduced by about 43%. However, the
total net benefit is not as high for trap crop/scouting as for scouting
or diapause/scouting because there are no yield increases associated with
trap crops. However, as noted above, the yield increases associated with
scouting and diapause/scouting alternatives occur primarily in Arkansas.
Trap crops are not an option in Arkansas. Therefore, on the 5.23 M acres
where trap crops are a feasible option, the use of trap crops in combination
with scouting is more profitable than either scouting alone or scouting and
diapause control.
The last three alternatives in Tables VII and VIII utilize special
plant varieties that have resistance to insect damage or that mature in
a shorter time. These varieties will not be ready for commercial use for
another 5 to 10 years. It is estimated that varieties that have a short
season because they mature more quickly will be available on 8.6 M acres.
Resistant varieties that do not have short season characteristics are
expected to be available on 7.94 M acres.
The savings in insect control costs are $111 M for varieties that have
only short season characteristics and $145 M for varieties with both short
season and resistance characteristics. However, in both cases there are
some yield losses, mainly in Mississippi. Outside Mississippi, the imple-
mentation of insect control programs that utilize short season, resistant
36
-------
varieties appears to be advantageous from both economic and environmental
viewpoints.
In summary, the most outstanding aspect of the results presented in
Tables VII and VIII is that, contrary to popular belief, reductions in insecti
cide use need not increase the cost of producing cotton. All of the alter-
natives considered substantially reduce total costs (insect control costs
plus yield losses) while reducing insecticide use. The implementation of
the most economical among currently available options reduces insecticide
use by about 40% and control costs by $81 M (Tables VII and VIII). The
implementation of control methods that will be available in the future
reduces insecticide use and control costs even further.
An examination of the results in Table VII also indicates that no single
method of insect control is best throughout the nation. (If this were not
true, one of the methods would have had net benefits that were close to those
derived for the most economical options.) The indication is that the best
combination of methods will vary from region to region. Scouting is
usually a part of the control programs that are most economical. The use of
resistant varieties in conjunction with scouting is estimated to be the
most profitable among technologies available in the future.
The relative importance of each insect control alternative is measured
in part by comparing the total savings (Table VII, column VII) and net
benefits (Table VII, column X). It should be emphasized that these values
are based upon total costs and yield increases throughout the area of
implementation. In some cases a method was not as advantageous throughout
the area of implementation as some other methods, but it was very profitable
in certain regions. For example, the net benefits from resistant, short
season varieties are greatly reduced by yield losses in Mississippi and
Arkansas. However, in some other area, the use of these varieties are pre-
dicted to generate a considerable reduction in cotton production costs.
One difficulty in using the results of Tables VII and VIII to compare
different pest control methods is that the location and size of the area of
implementation of each method is different. These Tables give a detailed
description of the effects of implementing a method in those regions where
it has been acknowledged to be a feasible option. However, it is difficult
to use these values to compare one method to another in terms of their
national significance.
In order to give another basis for comparison, the nationwide effect
of implementation of each of the pest control methods was analyzed. The
results are presented in Tables IX and X. These calculations are based
upon the costs, benefits and insecticide use over the entire 13.1 M acres
of cotton production. Outside the area of implementation of each method, it
was necessary to make some assumptions about the pest control methods being
used. Since scouting is an available and economical option in most areas,
it was assumed that outside the area of implementation, scouting would be
used in the regions where scouting is an available option. In the remaining
area, pest control methods are not changed from current practice.
37
-------
Table IX. Costs and benefits resulting from the nationwide implementation of insect control
alternatives1.
I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX
Total Increases in
Area of Average Cost Average Savings Total Savings Cotton Production
Insect Time of Imp! ementa- of Alterna- in Insect ~ in Insect 3 4 Net
Control Implementa- tion tive Control Costs Control Costs Lint Value Benefits
Alternative
Scouting
Diapause/
Scouting
Trap Crops/
Scouting
Short Season
Variety/
Scouting
Resistant
Variety/
Scouting
tion
present
present
present
•
in five to
ten years
in five to
ten years
(acres)
10.6 M
6.0 M
5.2 M
8.6 M
7.9 M
($ per acre)
17.
16.
15.
10.
10.
30
00
80
50
30
($ per acre)
2
3
3
8
9
.00
.20
.50
.80
.00
($)
26
42
45
115
118
.0 M
.6 M
.7 M
.0 M
.4 M
(Ibs)
58.8 M
63.9 M
58.8 M
-191.3 M
-11.2 M
($)
26.5 M
28.8 M
26.5 M
-86.1 M
-5.0 M
($)
52.5 M
71.3 M
72.2 M
28.9 M
113.3 M
Resistant, in five to 8.6 M 7.90 11.40 150.1 M -122.4 M -55.1 M 95.0 M
Short Season ten years
Variety/
Scouting
-------
Footnotes for Table IX
1 All costs and benefits are calculated over the entire 13.1 M acres of
cotton production. Outside the area of implementation of a method, scout-
ing is assumed to be practiced wherever it is available. In the remaining
regions, the current pest control practices are assumed to be used.
2 The current average cost on the 13.1 M acres of land presently in cotton
production is $19.30. Column V is $19.30 minus the values given in column
IV.
3 Based upon estimates of the effect of the insect control alternative on
yield as reported in Appendix A.
4 Assuming a value of $.45 per pound
5 The total savings in insect control costs (column VI) plus the value of
increased cotton production (column VIII)
The values in Tables VIII and X give results that are qualitatively
similar to those in Tables VII and VIII. Diapause/scouting and trap crop/
scouting have net benefits that are nearly equal. The use of resistant
varieties is the most profitable of the methods available in the future.
Short season varieties are not as beneficial as other techniques because of
yield losses. There is a difference in cotton production with trap crop/
scouting between Table VII and Table IX. This is due to an increase in
cotton production in Arkansas resulting from the implementation of a
scouting program. Trap crops are not an available option in Arkansas.
In the dynamic analysis discussed in the next section, the location of
crop production as well as pest control methods are allowed to change.
Since this analysis is nationwide, the same criterion is used in Tables IX
and X for choosing pest management methods outside the area of implementa-
tion. Namely, scouting is used if it is an available option. Otherwise
the methods currently used are assumed to be practiced.
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
The dynamic analysis was conducted using the linear programming model
described in Rovinsky et al. (1977). Alternate pest management practices
were reflected through regional production costs and yields which were
specified as input parameters to the model. Each pest management strategy
required a separate model analysis. For each pest management strategy
the model calculates the optimum location of crop production, production
costs, insecticide use and insect control costs.
39
-------
Table X. Insecticide use resulting from the nationwide implementation of insect control
alternatives.
II
III
IV
VI
VII
Carbamates
VIII XI X
Ratio of Insecticide
r
Use to Current Use*
Insect Control
Alternative
Scouting
Diapause/
Scouting
Trap Crop/
Scouting
Short Season
Variety/
Scouting
v Resistant
Variety/
Scouting
Resistant,
Short
Season
Vari ety/
Scouti ng
unit/I iiiui.«.%
Total
(M Ibs)
83.8
55.0
68.2
• 45.7
43.9
31.6
Avpranp
nvci u^jc
(Ibs/acre)
6.39
4.95
5.20
3.48
3.35
2.41
Total
TFTTFs)
49.0
43.7
40.0
27.0
25.4
20.3
Average
Ibs/acre)
3.74
3.33
3.05
2.06
1.94
1.55
Total Average
(M Ibs) (Ibs/acre)
1.8 0.14
2.1 0.16
5.2 0.39
0.5 0.04
0.5 0.04
0.3 0.03
CH3
0.82
0.64
0.67
0.45
0.43
0.31
OP4
0.72
0.64
0.58
0.39
0.37
0.30
C5
0.45
0.54
1.32
0.13
0.12
0.09
-------
Footnotes for Table X
1 All insecticide totals and ratios are calculated over the entire 13.1 M
acres of cotton production. Outside the area of implementation of a
method, scouting is assumed to be practiced wherever it is a feasible
option. In the remaining regions, the current pest control practices
are assumed to be used.
2 ratio of the total insecticide (columns II, IV, or VI) to the total
amount presently applied with the current insect control practices
in the entire 13.1 M acres of cotton production
3 chlorinated hydrocarbons
4 organophosphates
5 carbamates
In addition to considering both cotton and corn, the analysis eval-
uates the impact of two levels of pest management technology and three
levels of export demand. Both limited and unlimited shifts in regional
cotton acreage were considered. The first pest management technology
(current technology) included only those pest management practices that
are currently available, i.e., strategies that could be adopted by farmers
within one year. The future technology level includes insect control
strategies that entomologists believe will be available within 5 to 10
years. The three export levels include: (1) the level experienced
during 1973; (2) 50 percent below 1973--which is approximately equal to
1971 quantities for many crops; and (3) 50 percent above 1973 levels--
which assumes that the effective demand of developing countries will
continue to expand.
With limited cotton acreage shifts, the amount of cotton that could
shift out of any region was limited by a lower bound on acreage by region.
The lower bound represented approximately 80 percent of the historical
cotton allotment. With unlimited cotton acreage shift, there were no
limits on the amount of cotton to be produced in any area. This assumes
that farmers adjust completely to the technological and economic conditions
specified.
Cotton: Current Technology
Several insect control practices and combinations of practices are
possible on cotton. The complexity is increased when the peculiarities
of regions and states are included. The analyses described below are
limited to those pest management strategies that are considered most
promising or are widely used.
41
-------
The Short Run--
Many physical and economic factors limit the ability of farmers to
respond to changes in the economic and regulatory factors influencing crop
production. This is particularly important for cotton since acreage allot-
ment practically regulated the amount of cotton grown on farms for many years.
This regulation and the threat of its return, at least in farmers' minds
limits the rate at which cotton will shift out of economically noncompetitive
areas. Fixed factors of production and normal resistance to change also
contribute to slow regional shift in response to economic change. To
illustrate the impact of differential adjustment, analyses have been made
under what have been termed a short run situation and a long run situation.
The basic difference between these two situations is the amount of regional
shift in cotton acreage allowed. Lower bounds on cotton acreage by region
as defined by Rovinsky et al. (1977) were used to portray the short run
situation. No lower bounds were used with the long run situation.
Current situation—This analysis included the insect control strategies
presently in use on U.S. farms. The results approximate 1973 production
with allowance for adjustment by farmers to basic economic conditions preva-
lent in 1973. Total cotton insecticide use was estimated at 123 million
pounds with total insect control costs of $184 million (Table XI). Cotton
production used approximately 12.7 (the model estimate differed from the
13.1 mentioned earlier) million acres and total production cost was $1.25
billion. Acreage, production and production cost for corn and the other feed
grains are shown in Table XII. This analysis using current farm practices
will be used as a basis for comparison in evaluating the effectiveness of
other insect control strategies.
Scouting—If scouting were adopted in all areas where entomologists
believe that the procedure has been sufficiently developed and tested to be
adopted immediately by all farmers, cotton insecticide use would drop to 103
million pounds and insect control costs would be $171 million (Table XI).
This represents a 16% saving in insecticide use and a 7% saving in insect
control costs compared to the current situation. The only significant
regional shift in production caused by this strategy is a movement of 1.2
million acres of cotton from Texas and Oklahoma into other areas including
the Arkansas/Louisiana/Mississippi region (Table XIII). Cotton displaced
from the Texas/Oklahoma area was replaced by sorghum and corn. The shift
from the Texas/Oklahoma area is apparently caused by the high cost of scouting
relative to other insect control strategies in parts of Texas.
Diapause and scouting—When diapause control is combined with scouting
wherever diapause control is a currently viabVe option, the use of chlorina-
ted hydrocarbons declines significantly and total insecticide use declines
to 81 million pounds (Table XI). This represents a 34% decline in insecti-
cide use compared to the current situation and a 21% decline from the level
achieved with use of scouting alone. This reduction in insecticide use
involved a slight increase in insecticide control costs over use of scouting
alone, but was somewhat less costly than current situation. The location of
cotton production with this insect control strategy is similar to that found
with the current situation.
42
-------
Table XI. The use of insecticide in cotton utilizing current alternative
insect control strategies during the short run.
Insect Control
Strategy—
Regular
Current Situation
Scouting
Diapause/Scouting
Trap-Crop/Scouti ng
Most Economical (Current)
No Insecticide
Pounds of Insecticide Used (x 10 ) Insect Control
Costs (x 106)
$188.8
OP3-'
C- Total
77.9 47.6 2.3 127.8
75.5 45.3 1.9 122.8
65.7 36.9 0.9 103.5
47.1 32.9 1.1 81.1
54.9 30.9 4.0 89.8
48.6 28.0 4.0 80.7
000 0
184.4
170.6
174.2
158.5
134.9
0
]_/ See text for description of strategies
2J Chlorinated insecticides
3/ Phosphate insecticides
4/ Carbamate insecticides
Trap crop and scouting—Use of a trap crop and scouting wherever the
combination is feasible and scouting in all other areas reduced insecticide
use to 90 million pounds. This is 26 percent less than with current practice
and 13 percent less than with scouting alone. Insect control cost decreased
by 14 and 7 percent, respectively.
Most economical insect control strategy—The most economical insect
control strategy for each region was defined as the strategy with the lowest
insect control costs when insecticide, insecticide application costs, value
of yield differential and other strategy implementation costs (such as
cultural practice costs of trap crops) were considered. Selecting the most
economical insect control strategy for cotton for each producing region from
an array of known and applicable technologies resulted in a savings of about
$49.9 million in cotton insect control costs (Table XI). This 27% reduction
in cotton insect control costs would also result in reducing the total
amount of insecticide used by about 33%.
No insecticide use on cotton and corn—To determine the impact of
withdrawal of insecticides on land use, on regional shifts in cotton and
corn production and on production costs, an analysis was made assuming no
pesticides were used. This analysis has to be viewed with care since the
43
-------
Table XII. Total production and production costs for various crops when when current alterna-
tive insect control strategies are employed on cotton during the short run.
-p*
-pa
Insect Control
aa«aK1'
Regular
Current Situation
Scouting
Diapause/Scouting
Trap Crop/Scouting
Host Econonlcal (Current)
No Insecticide
Acres?/
13.0
12.7
11.9
12.2
11. G
11.6
16.3
Cotton
Production^/
6,929
6,697
6,929
6,929
6,929
6,929
6,929
Costs-'
1.267
1,246
1,245
1,227
1,226
1,202
1.313
Acres?/
53.1
62.6
53.0
52.6
53.1
53.1
53.6
Corn
Production^/
276,692
271,104
275,189
274,753
275,190
275,180
274,539
Costs*/
2,820
2,801
2,804
2,791
2,796
2,796
2,879
Acres?/
42.9
42.9
43.0
42.9
42.3
42.9
43.9
Soybean
Production^/
75.629
74,744
75,751
75,586
75,746
75,746
76,153
Costs*/
1,344
1,343
1,144
1,342
1,344
1,344
1,355
Acres?/
71.9
71.9
72.0
71.9
72.0
72.0
71.2
Wheat
130,129
124,658
130,145
130,145
130,145
130.145
127,031
Costs*/
1,599
1,599
1.588
1,598
1,587
1,587
1.587
Acres?/
20.7
21.1
21.9
21.1
22.0
22.0
20.8
Sorqhun
Production^/
70,956
70,741
73,374
70,320
73,373
73,373
72,673
Other Snail Grains
Costs*/
661
677
696
677
701
701
665
Acres?/
38.1
38.1
37.5
38.5
37.5
37.5
38.0
Production^'
66,721
60,051
65,691
67.355
65,691
65.691
66,494
Costs4/
621
622
610
629
609
609
632
Totals
Acres2/
239.6
239.4
239.4
239.3
238.5
239.1
243.8
Costs4'
8.312
8.288
8,288
8.265
8,264
8.240
8,432
I/ See text for description or strategies
2/ HI 11 Ions of acres
3/ Millions of pounds
V Production costs 1i nil]Ions of dollars
-------
en
Table XIII. Distribution of cotton production in different consuming regions utilizing current
alternative insect control strategies during the short run.
Insect Control Strategy-
Consuming
Regions
Iowa/Missouri
Va./W.Va./N.C.
Ky./Tenn.
Ala./Ga./S.C.
Florida
Ark. /La. /Miss.
Texas/Okla.
Ariz./N.M.
Calif.
Total
Regular
179
247
310
1,205
15
2,122
8,218
258
418
12,972
Current
Situation
179
217
242
1,205
15
2,244
7,411
253
370
12,136
Scouting
179
247
310
1,205
15
2,626
6,639
253
418
11,892
Diapause/
Scouting
179
247
311
1,205
15
2,354
7,244
258
418
12,231
Trap-Crop/
Scouting
179
247
310
1,205
15
2,782
6,181
258
418
11,595
Most
Economical
(Current)
179
247
310
1,205
15
2,782
6,181
253
418
11,596
No
Insecticide
179
217
243
1,205
15
2,451
10,756
296
459
15,821
I/ See text for description of strategies.
-------
entomologists estimating the yield impacts of no pesticide use for individual
options were likely not taking into account the full impact of a complete
withdrawal of all insecticide in all areas. Further the analysis does not
take into consideration the changes in inter-farm and inter-year variability
that such a practice may cause. This analysis does, however, provide some
general indication of the impact of insecticide withdrawal.
With this alternative, insecticide use on cotton and corn, of course,
drops to zero reflecting a reduction in insecticide use of nearly 123
million pounds compared to the current situation. Acreage used in cotton
production increases 29% over the amount used under the current situation
and 30% to 40% over other strategies. Total land used for all crops increased
about 2%. Cotton production costs were 6% above costs under current practice
and total production costs for all crops included in the model were nearly
2% higher. Since no land or other fixed costs are included in the production
cost estimates, these data significantly underestimate the costs of cropping
the increased acreage. This is particularly true for cotton.
The Long Run--
Given a sufficient period of time farmers will completely adjust to
a changed economic environment. As implied above the rate of adjustment
will depend upon the degree of change in crop economy, the magnitude of
fixed factors of production and the available alternatives. A linear
programming analysis with no restriction on regional production shifts in-
dicates the result that could be expected after complete adjustment has
taken place. While the real world is never static long enough for complete
adjustment to any particular economic environment to take place, an analy-
sis under these conditions indicates the direction and magnitude of changes
that can be expected. Thus, the short run analysis presented above and the
long run analysis presented below bracket the results that could be
expected with any particular strategy (Table XIV). Initial consequences
of implementing a particular strategy can be expected to look something
like the results from the short run analyses while the long run results will
be more closely approximated as time progresses (Tables XI, XII, XIII, XIV,
XV, and XVI).
The long run situation was approximated by allowing unlimited shift
in regional production of all crops. Under these conditions nearly all
cotton production shifted to the Arkansas/Louisiana/Mississippi and Texas/
Oklahoma areas (Table XVI). The particular insect control strategy used
has little impact on the general location of production. It appears that
the Arkansas/Louisiana/Mississippi and Texas/Oklahoma areas have a large
enough production advantage over other areas that the differential cost of
alternate insect control strategies does not cause changes in the location
of production. Under these conditions the amount of pesticide used and the
magnitude of insect control costs are a function of the specific levels of
cost and insecticide use in these geographic areas (Tables XIV and XV).
This implies that the expected relationship between the insect control costs
and insecticide use for the strategies examined that was apparent in the
short run, may no longer hold.
46
-------
Table XIV. The use of insecticide in cotton utilizing current alternative
insect control strategies during the long term.
Insect Control
Strategy-
Regular
Current Situation
Scouting
Diapause/Scouting
Trap-Crop/Scouting
Most Economical (Current)
No Insecticide
Pounds of Insecticide Used (x 10 ) Insect Control
Costs (x 106)
96.2
91.6
133.0
111.8
117.4
116.5
0
CH^/
38.2
35.8
33.9
23.1
26.5
24.7
0
0&
23.7
22.2
24.9
21.1
20.5
21.1
0
C4/
.1
.1
.2
.2
.5
.5
0
Total
62.1
58.2
59.0
44.4
47.5
46.1
0.
!_/ See text for description of strategies
2J Chlorinated insecticides
3/ Phosphate insecticides
4/ Carbamate insecticides
The shift in location of production that could be expected to occur
in the absence of regional acreage limitation would reduce insecticide use
by 52% with continued use of current practices (Tables XI and XIV). Com-
pared to current practice, universal use of scouting alone would result in
a slightly higher level of insecticide use and higher insecticide control
costs and total production costs. Use of diapause and scouting would
reduce insecticide use by 64% with lower insect control costs and total
production costs than scouting alone (Tables XI, XII, XIV, XV). Use of the
most economical strategy in all areas resulted in a 62% reduction in insec-
ticide use with insect control costs that are slightly higher than the
diapause-scouting system option but with the lowest total production costs
for crops of all the options considered (Tables XI, XII, XIV, and XV).
It is important to note that the level of insecticide use, insect
control costs and total production costs are lower for all long run
analyses compared to short run analyses (Tables XI, XII, XIV, and XV).
This implies that insecticide use (and production costs) could be reduced
more by allowing regional shifts in production than by forcing universal
use of any of the currently available technologies. Environmental pollution
from the current high level use of insecticides is therefore an externality
of the government allotment programs. The allotment programs restricted
regional shifts in cotton production in the nation.
47
-------
Table XV. Total production costs for various crops when current alternative insect control
strategies are employed in cotton during the long run.
00
Insect Control
Strategy*'
Regular
Current Situation
Scouting
Diapause/Scouting
Trap Crop/Scouting
host Econoalral (Current)
No Insecticide
Acres?/
12.9
12.7
12.4
12.1
12.2
12.2
14.5
Cotton
Production?/
6.929
6,929
6,929
6.929
6,929
6.929
6.929
Costs"
934
927
967
945
954
941
1.015
Acre.^
54.9
54.0
53.7
53.3
53.2
52.7
=5.5
Corn
Production?' Costs"
282,112
280,520
278,787
276,591
276.592
276.025
312.848
2.887
2.872
2,053
2,828
2,825
2.821
2,882
Acre,?'
43.0
42.9
43.0
42.9
42.9
42.7
44.0
Soybean
Production?/. Costs"
75,904
75,807
75,805
70,654
75,608
75.460
76,489
1.346
1.345
1.344
1,340
1,341
1,589
1,366
Acres?/
71.8
71.8
71.6
71.6
71.6
71.5
71.1
Uheat
Production?' Costs"
130,167
130,149
130,149
125,210
130,149
130.157
128,226
1,604
1,598
1,592
1,590
1,590
1.589
1,599
Acres?'
18. 8
19.0
18.9
20.1
20.1
20.1
20.9
Sorqhum
Production?'
67,289
68,152
69,999
70,497
70,497
69,856
74,112
Other Small Grain
Costs"
635
639
657
662
661
659
680
Acres?'
36.9
37.3
37.3
38.2
38.2
39.0
35.9
Production?'
64,879
65.675
65,517
67 .346
67,345
68,638
63.207
Costs"
603
609
607
627
627
639
598
Tota's
Acres2'
238.4
237.8
237.8
238.3
238.2
238.3
242.1
Costs4
8.011
7.988
8.020
7.991
7,999
7.986
8,141
' See text for description o. strategies
' HIV) Ions of acres
' KillIons tf pounds
' Productlr.i costs In millions of dollars
-------
Table XVI. Distribution of cotton production in different consuming regions utilizing current alternative
insect control strategies during the long run.
Insect Cgntrol Strategy-
Consuming
Regions
Iowa/Missouri
Va./W.Va./N.C.
^Ky./Tenn
ID
Ala./Ga./S.C.
Florida
Ark. /La. /Miss.
Texas/Okla.
Ariz/N.M.
Calif.
Total
Regular
0
30
68
0
0
1,977
10,634
107
48
12,864
Current
Situation
0
30
68
0
0
2,281
9,753
102
48
12,136
Scouting
0
30
68
0
0
2,665
9,462
107
48
12,380
Diapause/
Scouting
0
30
68
0
0
2,794
9,087
107
48
12,134 1
Trap Crop/
Scouting
0
30
68
42
0
2,841
9,080
107
48
2,216
Most
Economical
(Current)
0
30
68
42
0
2,998
8,895
107
48
12,187
No
Insecticide
0
30
68
0
0
2,794
9,087
107
48
12,134.,
I/ See text for description of strategies.
-------
Cotton: Future Technology
Adding the future possibility of boll weevil-resistant cotton and
short season varieties to the available control technologies is expected
to contribute importantly to cotton insect control. The analyses using
these strategies provide an indication of the potential returns to develop-
ment of these technologies.
The Short Run--
For this analysis the short run implies what would be expected if
resistance and short season varieties became available before significant
regional shifts in production had taken place. Alternately the short run
could be interpreted as what would likely happen if these strategies were
adopted under current conditions (Tables XVII, XVIII and XIX).
The major impact of resistant and short season technologies compared
to currently available technologies on the location of production in the
short run is to shift some cotton production from the Texas/Oklahoma area
to the Arkansas/Louisiana/Mississippi region (Table XIX).
Short-season and scouting—Use of short season varieties and scouting
in all areas where this technology is expected to be available within the
next 5 to 10 years reduces both insecticide use and pest control costs be-
Table XVII. The use of insecticide in cotton utilizing future alternative
insect control strategies during the short run.
Insect Control Pounds of Insecticide Used (x 106) Insect Control
Strategy-/ C\& OP-/ £f Total Costs (x IP6)
Short Season/Scouting 34.9 22.9 0.3 58.1 129.5
Resistant/Scouting 35.9 20.5 0.3 56.7 117.0
Resistant/Short Season/
Scouting 25.0 16.5 0,2 41.8 94.5
Most Economical (Future) 35.5 21.4 3.1 60.0 98.3
]_/ See text for description of strategies
2/ Chlorinated insecticides
3/ Phosphate insecticides
4/ Carbamate insecticides
50
-------
Table XVIII. Total production and production costs for various crops when future alternative
insect control strategies are employed in cotton during the short run.
Insect Contot
Strait;)/"
Short Season/Scouting
Resistant/Scouting
Resistant/Short Season/
Scouting
Host Economical (Future)
1
Acres2' Pn
12.9
11.8
12.7
11.3
:otton
xluctlon?'
6,929
6,929
6,929
E.929
Corn Soybean "heat Sornhum
' Costs*' Acres?' Production?' Costs4/ Acres" Production?' Costs*' Acres?' Production?' Costs*' Acres?' Production?'
1,207 52.7 274,919 2,803 43.0 75,648 1,342 71.9 130.145 1.601 21.2 72,690
1.182 52.6 276,760 2,791 43.0 75,586 1.342 72.0 130.145 1,592 21.3 72,284
1,169 52.6 274,920 2.800 43.0 75,647 1.343 71.9 130.145 1.601 21.2 72.689
1,157 52.9 274,976 2.794 43.0 75.663 1,342 72.0 130,145 '.589 21.9 72,829
Other Snail Grains Totals
Costs*' Acres?' Production?' Costs4' Acres2' Costs'
676 38.2 66,721 622 239.7 8.252
685 38.5 79,426 626 239.2 8,220
678 38.1 66.721 622 239.6 8.212
699 38.1 66,509 620 239.0 8.202
' Hill Ions of acres
' H111 Ions of pounds
' Production costs in •Dllgns of dollars
-------
Table XIX. Distribution of cotton production in different consuming regions
utilizing future alternative insect control strategies during
the short run.
Insect Control Strategy-
Consuming
Regions
Iowa/Missouri
Va./W.Va./N.C.
Ky./Tenn.
Ala./Ga./S.C.
Florida
Ark. /La. /Miss.
Texas/Okla.
Ariz./N.M.
Calif.
Total
Short Season/
Scouting
179
247
310
1,205
15
2,435
7,785
258
418
12,852
Resistant/
Scouting
- - i nousana
179
247
310
1,205
15
2,671
6,540
258
418
11,843
Resistant/
Short Season/
Scouting
Acres ------
179
247
310
1,205
15
2,438
7,692
258
418
12,762
Most
Economical
(Future)
179
247
310
1,205
15
2,943
5,773
258
418
11,348
]_/ See text for description of strategies
low the levels achieved with any of the technologies currently available.
Insecticide use would be 53% lower than with current practices (Tables XI,
XVII). Total production costs are similar to those experienced with most
economical current technology (Tables XII, XVIII-).
Resistant-variety and scouting—Resistant variety reduces insecticide
use to approximately the same level as is achieved with short-season varie-
ties (Tables XI, XVII). Insect control costs are somewhat lower than for
short-season varieties. Total production costs are lower than was found
for any of the currently available technologies (Tables XII, XVIII).
Short-season, resistant and scouting—When boll weevil-resistance and
short season varieties are combined, insecticide use, insect control costs
52
-------
and total production costs are lower than for any other strategy considered
(Tables XI, XII, XVII, XVIII). Insecticide use is 66% less than found for
the current situation (Tables XI, XVII). Compared to the lowest total cost
achievable under current technology (most economical) a savings of $28
million per year in the cost of producing the crops included in the model
is achieved through use of short-season and resistant varieties (Tables XII,
XVIII).
The Long Run~
In general, insecticide use and insect control costs show the same
relative pattern in the long run analysis as was found in the short run
analysis (Tables XVII and XX). Resistance with scouting shows a greater
reduction in both insecticide use and costs than short-season with scouting
(Table XX). However, the greatest reduction in insecticide use is achieved
with both short season and resistance.
Although the most economical option uses slightly more insecticide
than the resistant/short-season/scouting option and has slightly higher
insect control costs, a 68% reduction in insecticide use compared with the
current situation is achieved (Table XX). Total production costs are less
with the most economical option than the resistant/short-season/scouting
option (Table XXI).
Table XX. The use of insecticide in cotton utilizing future alternative
insect control strategies during the long run.
Insect Control Pounds of Insecticide Used (x 10 ) Insect Control
Strategy-/ CH-/ OP-/ C-/ Total Costs (x IP6)
Short Season/Scouting 25.8 19.5 >0 45.4 $104.1
Resistant/Scouting 22.9 16.5 >0 39.4 97.8
Resistant/Short Season/
Scouting 19.4 16.4 >0 35.8 84.6
Most Economical (Future) 20.3 18.6 0.2 39.1 101.7
_]_/ See text for description of strategies
2/ Chlorinated insecticides
3/ Phosphate insecticides
3/ Carbamate insecticides
53
-------
Table XXI. Total production and production costs for various crops when future alternative insect
control strategies are employed in cotton during the long run.
cn
Insect Control
Strategy^
Short Season/Scouting
Resistant/Scouting
Resistant/Short Season/
Scouting
Host Economical (Future)
Acres?'
12.8
12.3
12.8
12.2
Cotton
Production3-'
6.929
6.929
6,929
6.929
Co.sts*'
945.2
911.1
925.7
925.9
Acres?'
53.2
52.8
53.2
52.6
Corn
Production3'
279,280
277,609
279,281
276,530
Costs*'
2,851
2,834
2,851
2.822
Acres?'
42.9
42.8
42.9
42.8
Soybean
Production3^
75.640
75,674
75.638
75,673
Costs*'
1,337.1
1,338.9
1,337.9
1,338.9
Acres?'
71.5
71.7
71.5
71.8
Uheat
Production3^
130,149
130,152
130,149
130,149
Costs*'
1,596.5
1.508.5
1.S94.8
1.585.8
Acr«?'
19.8
20.1
19.8
20.8
Soronum
Production3-'
68.467
70,419
68.467
71.481
Other Small Grains
Costs'"
649.3
668.5
649.3
679.7
Acres?'
38.0
37.9
38.0
37.9
Production
66.636
66,306
66.634
66.306
Cj»'s"
616.9
613.0
617.0
613.0
Totals
Acres2'
238.2
237.7
238.2
23G.O
Cost,4'
7,996.1
7.954.2
7.975.8
7.965.6
I/ See text for description of strategies
y Millions of acres
3/ HI 11 Ions of pounds
V Production costs In millions of dollars
-------
In the long run more cotton is grown in the Arkansas/Louisiana/
Mississippi region with future technology than with current technology
(Table XXII). Assuming that cotton is a profitable crop for those areas,
the return to research to develop the future technologies would be greater
for this region than for the rest of the country.
Cotton: Alternate Export Levels
As the level of exports increase the competition for land with low
insect control costs increases and, in general, both the amount of insecti-
cide used and total insect control costs increase (Table XXIII). The
magnitude of this increase appears to be 3% or less in moving from approxi-
mately 1971 (low) export levels to 1973 (medium) export levels. However, a
further increase of approximately the same magnitude would increase insecti-
Table XXII. Distribution of cotton production in different consuming regions
utilizing future alternative insect control strategies during
the long run.
I/
Insect Control Strategy-
Consuming
Regions
Iowa/Missouri
Va./W.Va./N.C.
Ky./Tenn.
Ala./Ga./S.C.
Florida
Ark. /La. /Miss.
Texas/Okla.
Ariz./N.M.
Calif.
Total
Short Season/
Scouting
0
30
68
202
0
3,310
9,049
107
48
12,814
Resistant/
Scouting
0
30
68
0
0
3,381
8,752
28
48
12,307
Resistant/
Short Season/
Scouting
0
30
68
202
0
3,401
9,014
72
48
12,835
Most
Economical
(Future)
0
30
68
202
0
3,725
8,010
71
48
12,154
V See text for description of strategies
55
-------
Table XXIII.
The use of insecticide in cotton and corn utilizing current and future alternative
insect control strategies in cotton during the short run for export levels of low,
medium, and high.
Cotton
Corn
Total
cn
Cotton Insect Pounds of
Control Strategies 2/
and Export Levels CH^'
Scouting^
Low Exports
Medium Exports
High Exports
Most_E_cpnom1cal (Current J. -
Low Exports
Medium Exports
High Exports
Resistant/Scouting -
Low Exports
Medium Exports
High Exports
Resistant/Short Season/Scouting-'
Low Exports
Medium Exports
High Exports
Insecticide Used(x 106
OP-' C-' Total
) Insect Pounds of Insecticide Used(x 10
Control , 7/ -,, ,,
Costsix 10 ) CH-' OP-' C-' Total
Costs(x 106)
Pounds of Insecticide
CH?' OPI C4/
Used(x 106) Insect
Control ,
Total Costsfx 10°)
Current Technology
63.3
05. 7
71.9
48.6
43.6
52.1
36.3
36.9
42.4
27.8
28.0
29.7
0.9
0.9
0.9
5.0
4.0
5.0
100.6
103.5
115.1
£1.4
80.7
36.8
165.7
170.6
206.4
132.8
134.9
152.4
3.1
4.0
10.0
3.1
4.0
9.8
8.0
11.3
16.1
3.0
11.2
15.9
10.1
13.8
27.1
10.1
13.7
26.9
21.2
29.1
53.2
21.2
28.9
52.6
80.9
109.3
174.4
80.9
108.4
172.1
66.5
69.5
81.9
51.8
52.6
61.9
44.3 11.0
48.1 14.7
58. 5 28.0
35.8 15.1
39.2 17.7
45.5 31.9
121.8
132.6
168.4
102.7
109.6
139.3
246.6
279.9
330.7
213.7
243.2
324.5
Future Technology
39.7
35.9
44.4
25.8
25.0
27.9
22.5
20.6
25.9
17.4
16.6
18.6
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
62.5
56.7
70.5
43.4
41.8
46.6
113.1
116.9
132.6
95.7
94.5
99.0
3.1
4.1
9.J
25.8
4.1
9.9
8.0
11.4
15.9
17.4
11.3
16.3
10.1
13.9
26.9
0.2
13.9
27.2
21.3
29.4
52.5
43.4
.29.3
53.5
80.9
110.7
172.2
95.7
110.2
176.3
42.8
39.9
54.2
51.6
29.1
37.0
30.5 10.4
32.0 14.2
41.7 27.1
34.9 0.3
27.9 14.0
34.9 27.4
83.7
86.1
123.1
86.3
71.1
100.1
194.1
227.6
304.9
191.3
204.7
275.3
I/ See text for description of strategies
|/ Chlorinated insecticides
3/ Phosphate insecticides
47 Carbamate insecticides
-------
cide use 7 to 12% and insect control costs 13 to 21% with current technology.
With future technology insect control costs increase with increasing exports
but the impact on insecticide use is variable. As might be expected varying
export levels influenced production costs, amounts produced, and acreages
(Table XXIV).
It should be pointed out that this analysis does not consider the impact
of different cotton export levels; only changes in the level of feed-food
grain exports are considered.
Varying the level of feed-food crop exports had relatively minor impact
on the location of cotton production in the short run (Table XXV). The major
general change was an increase of cotton acreage in Arkansas/Louisiana/
Mississippi and a decline in Texas/Oklahoma as the level of exports increased.
Also the total acreage of cotton declined slightly.
Corn: Current Technology
The number of alternatives for reducing insecticide use on corn are
limited. Rotation is the only currently available technology that could be
employed for the control of the major pest, the rootworm complex. Scouting
is being developed and may be adaptable within a few years. The analysis
below assesses«the impact of adopting these alternatives.
This analysis included the corn insect control strategies presently
in use on U.S. farms. Total insecticide use on corn was estimated at 29.1
million pounds and total corn insect control costs were $109.3 million
(Table XXVI).
An obvious difference between corn and cotton is that about one-quarter
as much insecticide is used on corn as on cotton and this relatively small
quantity of insecticide is spread over about 4 times as many acres (Tables
XXVI, XXVII, XXVIII). On a per acre basis about one-sixteenth as much
insecticide is used on corn compared to cotton. This fact limits the impact
of corn insect control strategies in reducing insecticide use on corn.
Rotations—
The primary insect pest on corn is the rootworm complex. The current
control alternative available for rootworm control is rotation with a nonhost
crop. Universal use of rotation would reduce insecticide use from 29.1 to
8.5 million pounds or 71%. Total insect control costs would be reduced
68% (Table XXVI). However, total production costs for all crops would
increase $125 million or approximately 1.5% (Table XXVII).
Corn: Future Technology
Some opportunity exists for improving the current resistance in corn
to the European corn borer. The amount of insecticide used in corn is rela-
tively small (only about 1% of acreage is treated) for the corn borer;
therefore, the potential reduction in total insecticide for corn borer resis-
tance is relatively small.
57
-------
Table XXIV. Total production and production costs for various crops when current and future
insect control strategies are employed in cotton during the short term at low,
medium, and high exports.
Cotton Insect
Control Strategies 2/
•Mfiuoritanii Acres-'
Scoiitliw1'
Low Exports
Hedlio Exports
High Exports
Host E;orw»l caljfurrent )!'
Low Exports
Hedluft Exports
Iilgh Exports
Reylstant/Scoutlng^
Low Exports
Medium Exports
High Exports
Be' 1 stint/Short Season/Scouting'
Low Exports
Hedlun Exports
High Exports
12.5
11.9
11.4
11.9
11.5
11.0
Cotton
Production3-'
6,929
6.929
6,929
6,929
6.929
6,929
"*
1,238
1,245
1,321
1,200
1,202
1,282
Acres?'
42.9
53.0
75.5
42.9
53.1
74.7
Corn
Production^/ Costs'/
231 .585
275.189
389,914
231 ,626
275,190
383,845
2.267
2,804
4,196
2,167
2,796
4.139
Acres?'
Curr
30.1
43.0
63.3
30.0
42.9
62.5
Soybean
Production3-/
ent Technology
54,882
75,751
100.190
54,882
75,745
100,018
Costs'/
I
913
134
2,158
913
1,344
2,129
Acres?'
47.5
72.0
92.9
47.6
72.0
92.9
Wheat
Production3-'
88.583
130,145
165.683
88,523
130.145
160,744
Costs-'
972
1,588
2,338
971
1.587
2,339
Acres?'
21.1
21.9
10.9
21.1
22.0
12.9
Sorghum
Production3-'
67,701
73.374
41,753
67.712
73.372
77.956
Other Small Grain
Costs-'
592
696
488
592
701
555
Acres?'
37.2
37.5
20.7
37.2
37.5
20.6
Production3' Costs"
67,489
65.691
33,645
67.489
65,691
33.645
581
610
384
581
609
385
Acres2' Com''
191.4 6.562
239.4 8.288
274.8 10.886
190.6 6.523
239.2 8,240
274.7 10,824
Future Technology
11.9
11.8
11.0
13.2
12.8
12.5
6,929
6,629
6,929
6,929
6,929
6,929
1,190
1.182
1,269
1,158
1.169
1,239
42.9
52.6
74.7
42.9
52.6
75.5
231 ,639
276,760
383,871
231 ,620
274.920
3?1,721
2.267
2,791
4,140
2,267
z.ina
4,225
30.0
42.9
62.5
30.1
43.0
63.3
54,882
75,586
100,019
54,882
75,647
100,194
912
1,342
2,129
914
1.343
2,163
47.6
72.0
93.0
47.5
71.9
92.5
88,503
130,145
165,683
88,532
130,145
165,683
972
1.592
2.341
973
1,601
2.345
21.1
21.3
12. J
20.7
21.2
10.2
67.716
72,284
47.930
67,711
72,689
37,946
592
685
555
589
678
457
37.2
38.5
20.6
37.2
38.1
20.3
67,489
79,426
33,645
67,489
66.721
33,645
581
626
384
581
622
384
190.8 6.513
239.2 8,220
274.7 10.817
191.6 6,482
239.6 8,212
275.0 10.812
I/ SH text for description of strategies
?/ Nil lions of acres
J/ Millions of pounds
V Production costs In nfllions of dollars
-------
Table XXV.
Distribution of cotton production in different consuming regions utilizing current
and future insect control strategies during the short run at low, medium and high
export levels.
Current Technology
Future Technology
Scouting Strategy!'
Consuming
Regions
Iowa/Missouri
Va./W.Va./N.C.
££ Ky./Tenn.
Ala./Ga./S.C.
Florida
Ark. /La. /Miss.
Texas/Okla.
Ariz/N.M.
Calif.
Total
Low
Exports
179
247
310
1,205
15
2,328
7,567
258
413
12,528
Medium
Exports
179
247
310
1,205
15
2,626
6,639
253
418
11,892
High
Exports
179
247
310
1,205
15
3,137
5.589
JOS
418
11,405
Most Economical (Current) Strategy-
Low
Exports
179
247
310
1,205
15
2,626
3,975
258
413
9,233
Medium
Exports
179
247
310
l,20b
15
2,782
6,181
253
418
11,596
High
Exports
Thousand
179
247
310
1,205
15
3,542
4,742
305
418
10,963
Resistant/Scouting Strategy-
Low
Exports
Acres
179
247
310
1,205
15
2,724
6,530
257
418
11,885
Medium
Exports
179
247
310
1,205
15
2,671
6,540
258
418
11,843
High
Exports
179
247
310
1,205
15
3,563
4,724
305
418
10,966
Resistant/Short Season/Scouting Strategy-'
Low
Exports
179
347
310
1,205
15
2,128
8,449
258
418
13,309
Medium
Exports
179
247
310
1,205
15
2,438
7,692
258
418
12,762
High
Exports
179
247
310
1,205
15
2,922
6,856
305
418
12,457
\J See text for description of strategies
-------
Table XXVI. The use of insecticide in corn utilizing current and future
alternative insect control strategies on corn and cotton during
the short run.
Insect Control
Strategy-^
Current situation on corn
with scouting on cotton
Forced rotations on corn
with scouting on cotton
Pounds of Insecticide Used (x 10 ) Insect Control
4.0
2.0
Current situation on corn
with resistant, short season/
scouting on cotton
Forced rotation and/or
scouting on corn with
resistant, short season/
scouting on cotton
4.1
2.5
OP'/
- - Current Technology
11.3 13.8 29.1
4.0
2.6
Total Costs (x 10 )
109.3
8.5 34.7
— Future Technology - —
11.3 13.9 29.3 110.2
6.3
3.7
12.5
72.3
V See text for description of strategies
2/ Chlorinated insecticides
3/ Phosphate insecticides
4/ Carbamate insecticides
The only technology that entomologists expect to be developed for corn
insect control in the future is scouting. Although scouting is considered
ready for use in some states, most entomologists believe that the scouting
technology is not adequately developed.
When use of either scouting or rotation is forced in all areas insecti-
cide use declines by 57% (16.8 million pounds) and total insect control t
costs decline by 34% (Table XXVI). However, total production costs increase
by $116 million or 1.4% (Table XXVII). In addition nearly 5 million more acres
of land are used in production. This magnitude of an increase in land use
would imply an increase in fixed land, building and machinery costs which are
not included in the model. Thus, total costs will increase by significantly
more than the 1.4%.
60
-------
Table XXVII, Total production and production costs for various crops when current or future
alternative insect control strategies are employed on corn and cotton during
the short run.
Insect Control _CpJLtPn Con> Soybean Wheat Sorghum __pther Small Grains Totaii
Strategies-7 Acres^ Production-' Costs-' Acres-' Praductjon?' Costs_-^ Acres-' Production^' Costs-' Acres-' Production^' Costs4-' Acres-' Production?' Costs'" Acres.-' Production3' Costs4' Acres?' Costs
Current Technology
Current situation on corn 11.9 6,929 1,245 53.0 275,189 2,804 43.0 75,750 1,344 72.0 130,146 1,588 21.9 73,374 696 37.5 65,691 610 239.6 8.312
with scouting on cotton
_ Forced rotation on corn 11.9 6.929 1,244 56.0 272,017 2,882 42.7 75.893 1,381 71.7 129,044 1,595 23.5 77,678 713 34.4 65,548 622 240.1 B.437
Oi with scouting on cotton
Future Techdology
Current situation on corn 12.7 6,929 1.169 52.6 274,918 2.800 43.0 75,647 1,343 71.9 130,145 1,601 21.2 72.689 678 38.1 66,721 622 2J9.6 a.212
with resistant/short season/
scouting on cotton
Forced rotation and/or 12.8 6,929 1.171 52.5 272,836 2,875 57.2 75.921 1,364 72.1 129,050 1,610 23.0 77,322 706 36.4 65,051 602 254.a 8.328
stouting on corn with
resistant/short season/
scouting on cotton
I/ See text for description of strategies
?/ K111Ions of acres
37 Hi 11 ions of pounds
if Millions of dollars
-------
Table XXVIII.
Distribution of corn production in different consuming
regions utilizing current and future alternative
insect control strategies during the short run.
Current Insect Control Strategy- Future Insect Control Strategy-
Scouting on
Consuming Current Situ-
ation on corn
Region
cotton and-
Forced Rotation
on corn
Resistant/Short Season/
Scouting on cotton and-
Current Situ-
ation on corn
Thousand Acres
Illinois
Iowa/Missouri
Minn. /Wise.
Michigan
Ohio/Indiana
Mid-Atlantic
Va./W.Va./N.C.
Ky./Tenn.
Ala./Ga./S.C.
Florida
Ark. /La. /Miss.
Texas/Okla.
Kansas/Neb.
N.D./S.D.
Idaho/Mont.
Colo./Wy.
Ariz./N.M.
Wash. /Ore.
Calif.
Total
7,728
6,857
4,423
492
5,689
2,816
2,331
2,323
1,162
337
2,212
2,474
7,957
4,345
39
393
34
62
1,345
53,033
8,236
7,497
3,525
497
5,148
3,257
2,306
1,382
2,235
352
2,355
3,558
7,139
6,374
39
394
34
62
1,588
55,992
7,764
6,874
4,423
492
5,697
2,816
2,589
2,323
1,175
337
2,149
1,671
8,107
4,339
39
393
• 34
62
1,345
52,644
Forced Rotation
and/or
Scouting on Corn
8,678
6,707
4,291
496
5,275
2,816
3,636
1,376
1,854
18
2,270
3,612
7,859
1,515
39
394
34
62
1,588
52,535
I/ See text for description of strategies
62
-------
In interpreting the increased production costs associated with the corn
insect control strategies it should be pointed out that the 1.5% increase in
costs will likely imply a reduction in the farmers' return from labor and
management of 5% or more. Farm profit would be reduced by a significantly
higher percentage.
63
-------
DISCUSSION
The analysis of alternatives for reducing insecticides on cotton and corn
documented that several insect control strategies could be employed to reduce
insecticide use in both cotton and corn. For cotton insect control, scouting,
diapause control, trap crops, and short season culture are technologies that
are available today that could be employed to reduce insect control costs and
reduce the amount of insecticide used.
In one analysis that employed the most economical insect control strategy
for cotton in each region resulted in an estimated annual saving for the
nation of 49.9 million in cotton insect control. This amounts to about a
27% reduction in cotton insect control costs while at the same time reducing
the total amount of insecticide used by about 33%.
With 27% reduction control costs, the immediate question is why aren't
cotton growers employing this current and applicable technology? The
adoption of technology by cotton growers as with all groups is complex.
Before commenting specifically on problems of adoption of specific insect
control technologies, it should be emphasized that cotton growers have been
adopting new insect control technologies.
As mentioned earlier, few growers are now applying insecticides on a
strictly routine basis. Most check their cotton for the seriousness of
insect pests before treating. Most are shredding cotton following harvest
to reduce the number of overwintering boll weevils and cotton bollworms.
Some apply insecticides for diapause control of boll weevils and employ trap
crops.
To explain why the most economic cotton insect control technologies are
not being employed extensively necessitates consideration of each control
technology. "Scouting" itself is a complex technology that requires
knowledgeable specialists to advise growers. Also the grower has to pay
for this service. In addition, the use of insecticides provides the grower
with a type of insurance for his crop. Investing'in a specialist to advise
him when "not to treat" appears sound but is viewed as somewhat of a
"gamble."
We should also point out that the insecticide companies have their "free
advisors" telling growers how and what to treat. The number of "free
advisors" constitute a large "public relations force" encouraging the use
of insecticides.
The use of low concentrations of insecticides for diapause control of
64
-------
the boll weevil is hindered in part because the control must be adopted on
a region-wide basis. No one has assumed responsibility for assuring
regional participation. Demand by growers is also relatively weak because
it is a technique that is employed in the fall of one year for the control
of weevils the following season. This indirect relationship makes it diffi-
cult for the grower to relate his efforts to the direct control of boll
weevils.
The difficulty of growers adopting trap crops for insect control in
cotton was discussed in detail in the RESULTS, hence, nothing more will be
said here.
The use of short season cotton culture for irrigated cotton is hindered
because growers often do not fully understand the physiology and growth
characteristics of the cotton plant. Withdrawing water late in the season
restricts further foliage growth and forces the cotton plant to mature and
produce its normal crop early. This occurs without a reduction in cotton yield,
Restricting water and further cotton foliage growth appears to farmers
an undesirable effect based on his perspective of the cotton plant. In
defense of the grower, we should point out that cotton plant physiology and
insect control are only two factors of a highly complex set of factors
related to the whole cotton production system. A need exists to inform the
farmer how insect control and water use are part of the total cotton pro-
duction system.
Some new technologies represent programs with higher yield variability
and thus risk to the farmer than a regular spray schedule. When this
increased risk is combined with the necessity of learning a new insect
control strategy, resistance to change is expected. Part of this resistance
stems from the experience that farmers have had with new technology. If the
change is unsuccessful the first year (for the farmer or his neighbor) the
farmer will tend to continue with current practices. Of course, any added
increased yield variability increases the probability that an "experiment"
will be unsuccessful.
The results obtained from the dynamic analysis should be compared to
the static analysis. The most significant difference in insecticide use
trends between the two analyses is between calculations using the current
averages of insecticide use' in each region. Based upon the information given
by entomology experts (see Appendix), a total of 174 million pounds of
insecticide were used on 13.1 million acres of cotton. However, the linear
programming model calculated that to obtain the same level of cotton pro-
duction, the total amount of insecticide used when employing current
practices, would be only 123 million pounds of insecticides used on 12.7
million acres of cotton. Thus, the relocation of production to more
efficient areas not only reduces the number of cotton acres by 3%, it also
reduces the total amount of insecticide use by 29%.
Both the static and dynamic analyses were based upon the same data for
the levels of insecticide use per acre. Thus, the reduction in insecticide
use was caused by the fact that the regions into which cotton is being
65
-------
shifted require less insecticide than the regions from which cotton is
removed.
In the static analysis the total amount of insecticide used was estimated
to decrease by 41% when the "most economical (current)" insect control
practices currently available were substituted for current practices in each
region. An analogous comparison of the results of the dynamic analysis
indicates that implementation of the "most economical (current)" insect
control method in each region will result in a 53% reduction in insecticide
use. The reason for this difference in the results is primarily that the
initial shift of production in the base run reduced the amount of insecti-
cide use so much that additional reductions due to the implementation of new
technology are of less significance.
Assuming the most efficient allocation of cotton production and imple-
menting the "most economical (future)" methods (includes resistant and short
season varieties) available in the future and removing all restrictions on
the location of cotton production results in a reduction of 78% of the 174
million pounds estimated to be used currently. However a substantial amount
of research will be required before these varieties are commercially avail-
able. The data in Table XXIX show the annual research expenditure which
could be justified by these savings under various assumptions about the
length of time taken to develop these varieties and the length of time over
which the savings could be achieved. These latter assumptions take into
account the fact that pests will eventually adapt to the new varieties.
Table XXIX. Amount that could be spent on research for resistance and
short season cotton varieties.
Years before
Resistance 2/
Breakdown —
Years for
5
Development
10
million dollars per year-^-'
5
10
15
22
39 '
53
10
17
22
V Assuming 5% discount rate
2/ Average years over which full benefits
received. Resistance is likely to break down
gradually.
66
-------
Compared with cotton, the number of insect control strategies in corn
were limited to crop rotations for control of the rootworm complex, scouting,
and resistant varieties. Because there are fewer serious pests on corn
than on cotton, about one quarter as much insecticide is used on corn as
on cotton. Also this smaller quantity of insecticide is distributed over
4 times as many acres. Hence, on a per acre basis l/16th as much insecti-
cide is used on corn as cotton. This fact limits the opportunities for the
use of different insect control technologies in corn.
67
-------
REFERENCES
Burwell, R.E., G.E. Schuman, R.F. Piest, R.G. Spomer and T.M. McCalla. 1974.
Quality of water discharged from two agricultural watersheds in south-
western Iowa. Water Resources Res. 10:359-365.
Chiang, H.C., D. Rasmussen, and R. Gorder. 1971. Survival of corn rootworm
larvae under minimum tillage conditions. J. Econ. Entomol. 64(6):1576-
1577.
Cronin, I.E., J.E. Johnson, D. Pimentel, and W.M. Upholt. 1969. Effects of
pesticides on non-target organisms other than man. pp. 177-288. I_n
Report of the Secretary's Commission on Pesticides and Their Relation-
ship to Environmental Health. U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare. U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington D.C. 677 pp.
EPA. 1974. Strategy of the Environmental Protection Agency for Controlling
the Adverse Effects of Pesticides. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Pesticide Programs, Office of Water and Hazardous Materials.
Washington, D.C. 36 pp.
Fowler, D.L. and O.N. Mahan. 1975. The pesticide review 1974. U.S. Dept.
of Agriculture, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service,
Washington, D.C. 58 pp.
Hyslop, J.A. 1938. Losses occasioned by insects, mites, and ticks in the
United States. E-444 USDA. 57 pp.
Marlatt, C.L. 1904. The annual loss occasioned by destructive insects in the
United States. Yearbook of the Dept. of Agr. (U.S. Govt. Printing
Office), pp. 461-474.
Miller, M.F. 1936. Cropping systems in relation to erosion control. Bull.
Mo. Experiment Station #366.
Musick, G.J. and D.L. Collins. 1971. Northern corn rootworm affected by
tillage. Ohio Report on Research and Development in Agriculture, Home
Economics, and Natural Resources 56(4):88-91.
NAS. 1975. Pest control: an assessment of present alternate technologies.
Contemporary pest control practices and prospects. Vol. I. 506 pp.
Oka, I.N. and D. Pimentel. 1976. Herbicide (2,4-D) increases insect and
pathogen pests on corn. Science 193:239-240.
68
-------
Pimentel, D. 1971. Ecological effects of pesticides on non-target species.
U.S. Govt. Printing Office. 220 pp.
Pimentel, D. 1973. Extent of pesticide use, food supply, and pollution. J.
N.Y. Entomol. Soc. 81:13-33.
Pimentel, D. 1975. Notes on pest control technologies used in cotton and
corn based on discussion with specialists in various regions of the
United States. In manuscript.
Pimentel, D. and C. Shoemaker. 1974. An economic and land use model for
reducing insecticides on cotton and corn. Environ. Entomol. 3:10-20.
Pimentel, D., E.G. Terhune, R. Dyson-Hudson, S. Rochereau, R. Samis, E.
Smith, D. Denman, D. Reifschneider and M. Shepard. 1976. Land
degradation: effects on food and energy resources. Science 194:149-155.
Preuss, K.P., G.T. Weekman, and B.R. Somerhalder. 1968. Western corn root-
worm egg distribution and adult emergence under two corn tillage systems.
J. Econ. Entomol. 61(5):1424-1427.
Rovinsky, R.B., N.P. Russell, E.L. LaDue, C.A. Shoemaker and D. Pimentel. 1977,
Procedures used in setting up the agricultural production model for the
Cornell pest management study.
Taylor, C.R. and E.R. Swanson. 1975. The economic impact of selected nitro-
gen restrictions on agriculture in Illinois and 20 other regions of the
United States. Department of Agricultural Economics. University of
Illinois. AERR 133.
USDA. 1936. Agricultural Statistics 1936. United States Dept. of Agr.,
U.S. Govt. Printing Office. 421 pp.
USDA. 1954. Losses in agriculture. Agr. Res. Ser. 20-1. 190 pp,
USDA. 1961. Agricultural Statistics 1961. U.S. Govt. Printing Office.
624 pp.
USDA. 1965. Losses in agriculture. Agr. Handbook No. 291, Agr. Res. Serv.
U.S. Govt. Printing Office. 120 pp.
USDA. 1968. Extent of farm pesticide use on crops in 1966. Agr, Econ. Rep.
No. 147 Econ. Res. Ser. 23 pp.
USDA. 1970. Quantities of pesticides used by farmers in 1966, Agr. Econ.
Rep. No. 179, Econ. Res. Ser. 61 pp.
USDA. 1971. The pesticide review 1970. Agr. Stab, and Cons. Ser. 46 pp,
USDA. 1974. Agricultural statistics 1974. U.S. Govt. Printing Office,
Washington, D.C. 619 pp.
69
-------
USDA. 1975a. Farmers' use of pesticides in 1971...extent of crop use.
Econ. Res. Ser., Agric. Econ. Rep. No. 268. 25 pp.
USDA. 1975b. Minimum tillage: a preliminary technology assessment. Office
of Planning and Evaluation. May. 34 pp.
Whitaker, F.D., H.G. Heinemann and W.H. Wischmeier. 1973. Chemical weed
controls affect runoff, erosion and corn yields. J. Soil Water Conserv.
28:174-6.
70
-------
APPENDIX. COTTON AND CORN INSECT CONTROL ALTERNATIVES
Data on cotton and corn insect control alternatives were obtained from
the leading entomologist(s) with special knowledge for each crop in each of
the major cotton and corn producing states in the United States. These
entomologists provided data on current insect pest control practices and
"best estimates" of what various alternative controls would mean in economic
cost/benefits and pesticide use patterns.
The detailed data on insect control alternatives for each distinct
region are presented for cotton in Tables 1 through 32 and corn from Tables
33 through 55.
71
-------
Table 1, Cotton Feet Control in Alabama,
Central Region,
Acranee erovn .l£5 J1QO __ ___ 8-mrco
Averogo yield ?°° 1WA _ Porlod
ll'lov'1 "•
nnrt llr. OuV. Lodbsttav
1972-7U .
Line
Ho.
1
2 .
3
U
5
J
Cultural
Pi-notice
R«
-------
Table I» Continued.
Acreage grown.
Average yield .
Source,
, Period.
Line
Ho.
8
9
10
11
Cultural
Prnotice
Trao Crop
Scouring
Short Season
Variety
Scouting
Resistant
Scou-ir.K
Short Season
Resistant
Variety
Scouting
%
Peats
r
Extent of Problem(JO
Acreage
Needing
Chemical
Treatment
00
100
100
100
100
Currently
Being. .
Treated
W)
Treatments
Pesticides Us.;d
if or
Treat-
ments
lt-5'
3
6
Z
lbo/A/Tr
-------
Table 2« Cotton Peat Control in Alabama,
Northern Region.
Acreage grown.
Avcrnso yield _522_lWA_
Bource nr. Fiovri R nnnii.n,i-nn,i n.. nnv.
. Period 1972-71' •
Ledbetter
Line
Ho.
1
2
3
U
5
6
7
Cultural
Practice
Regular,
Diapause ^
Scouting,
Dianause 1
Itasl stunt.
Regular '
Resistant,
Scouting,
Diapause 1
ns.n~ /.v«r2
Regular
qhrir.t „„„ con
Regular
Trap prnpT2
Short season
Recular
Dianause
Trap crop 3
*
75
?*\
Pests
Roll Uppvll
Rol lunrni
Boll weevil
Bollworm
Budworm
Mites . etc .
Bnl 1 vppv-i 1
Rrtl 1 vnTTTl
Rilriunrm
Boll weevil
Bollworm
Budworm
Mites, etc.
3nll weevi:
Bollworm
Budworm
Mites, etc.
Unl T vrtrTn
Br.1 1 uopvl 1
Rilriunftn
M1to«l Ptf
Boll weevil
Budworm
Bollworm
Mites, etc.
Boll weevil
Boll weevil
'xtunt of Problem(J»)
Acreage
Chemical
Treatment
Of).
ioo
100
100
100
100
100
Acreace
Currently
Doing.
Treated
. Of)
96
100
Treatments
-IC£ticides_Uacd _
Treat-
ments
8
7
1*
li
5
li
3
2
3
Ibo/A/Trca tmenl
nil
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
OP
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1A
c
3
Materials
Cost/A
(*)
2li.OO
6.00
12.00
6.00
15.00
12.00
6.00
3.00
""
Application
CosVA
(*)
8.00
2100
lt.00
2.00
5.00
14.00
2.00
2.00
~
Total
Coat /A
W)
32.00
8.00
16.00
8.00
20.00
16.00
8.00
5.00
1.05.
Yield/A
With
IVcatmcnl
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
-
"*
Without
Treatment
250
Scouting
CosVA
(*)
1.25
1.25
i
in
Diapause
Control
18
18
100
Stamen •
Code14
1
1
3
3
3
3
-
"
-------
Tatle 2.
Continued.
Acreage grown.
Averngs yield .
« Source.
_. Period.
Line
No.
6
9
10
11
12
Cultural
Practice
Diauause
Scouting
Trap Crop
Spniit.i ng
Rhnr+. SeRSon
Variety
Scoutinff
Resistant
Scouting
PhriT*t. Kpnson
R*»«H Rt.H-nt.
Variety
Scouting
%
Peats
Extent of Problen(X)
N&ffr$e
Chemical
Treatment
(X)
100
100
100
100
100
Cu??ln!ly
Oelng.
Treated
W
Trc^traenba
Ppctt-in^p^c, Jf^fYl
Treat-
ments
1
1)
3
5
2
iWA/Trrtatmenl
CH
2
2
2
2
2
OP
h
1
1
1
1
C
later tale
Cost/A
(*)
3.00
12.00
9.00
15-00
' 6.00
Application
Co8t/A
(*)
1.00
It. 00
3.00
5.00
2.00
Total
Coat
(*)
It. 00
16.00
12.00
20.00
8.00
Yield /A
With
Treatment
500
500
500
500
500
Without
Treatment
Scouting
Coet/A
W)
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
% Actes
in
Diapause
Control
100
Common'
Code*
2
2
3
3
3
en
-------
Table 3, Cotton Pest Control in Arizona,
Eastern Region.
Acreage Br°OTi 3"
fir. Thpn Unt.snn anil Tn- - Leon
Average yield 610 Ibs/A
. Period 1972-7''
Line
Ho.
1
2
Cultur.il
Practice
Regular
scouting
%
l;oJ
50
bO-
fo
Paaf a
Fink Hollwor
Plant Bugs
Bollworm
complex
Leaf
Perforator
Same
.
Extent of ProblemU)
No^'B|ge
Chemical
Treatment
«)
100
75
cVr'Sffily
Being.
Treated
W)
100
75
I'rcutraenfco
Pesticides Used
H of
Treat-
ments
2
-------
Table 14, Cotton Pest Control in Arizona,
. Western and Central Region.
Acrcnce qrovm UP.OOP
Source
fir. Theo W.ihnnn nnd Dr. r.f>rm
Average yield 1.100 lbn/A Pbriod -1972-7't
Line
He.
1
2
3
14
5
6
Cultural
Pr net ice
Regular
Scouting
Refful ar
.
Trao croc^
ScoutinK
Short season1
Regular
Short season'
Scouting
Trap crop-'
%
P1-
°7
j-
V
Pests
Pink Bollwoj
Plant BURS
Bollvorm
conrolex
Leaf
Perforator
All
All
All
All
All
Extent of Protlemf?)
Acreage
Heed ing
Chemical
Treatment
W
n
100
»
100
100
100
100
100
Acreage
Currently
Being.
Treated
CO
100
100
Treatments
Pesticides Used
a or
Treat-
ments
9
6
7.5
It
6
2.5
(4-3)
lbn/A/Trcatmen1
CM
2
2
2
2
2
2
OP
1
1
1
1
1
1
C
Materials
Coot /A
(*)
Application
Coat /A
(*)
Total
Cost /A
(*)
U5.00
30.00
37-50
20.00
30.00
12.50
Yield/4
With
Treatment
1,100
1,100
1,100
1,100
1,100
1,100
..
Without
Treatment
715
Scouting
CosVA
(*)
2.50
2.50
2.50
i
% Acres
in
Diapause
Control
Comncn'
Code1*
1
1
2
2
2
2
-------
Tatte >»•
Continued.
Acreage grown.
Average yield.
Source.
. Period.
Line
No.
7
Cultural
Prnctlce
Short Rp n^m
Variety
Scouting
%
p. a fa
•
Rxtent of Problem(!$]
«*HJS£
Chemical
Treatment
100
Cteft-iy
Being.
Treated
Treatments ' •
Pn<5K
-------
Table 5> Cotton Pest Control in. Arkansas,
Acreage (tniun
Central, East Central, Southwest Region. Average? yi.vM 0-3
GOIU'C C "" Phnvlog
. Period i. 107?-7ll-
Line
80.
1
2
3
I
5
Cultural
Practice
Regular J
Diapause (1)
Seoutinfr,
Diapause (l)
Resistant
Short Season
Scouting
Diapause (1)
f
7o
'I"
Pests
Boll weevil
Bollworm
complex
Plant Biies....
Mites. Thrin
All
Boll veevil
-
?ytent of Problem(?'l
Acreage
Needing
Chemical
Treatment
(JO
100
100
100
100
100
Acreage
Currently
Being.
Trent«d
CO
100
100
Ti catmunts
Festiciaes Usea
II of
Treat-
menta
(5-8)
6
0
0
5
2
lbn/A/Treatmett1
CH
1.7
1.7
1.6
1/2
OP
1
1.2
1.1.
1/2
C
.7
i/i
.5
MatnrialB
Co8t/A
(*)
Application
Coot/A
(*)
Total
Co at/ A
(*)
15.00
15.00
0
0
13.00
5.00
Yield'*
With
1'rcatracnl
513
600
500
1.00
600
1.00
Without
Treatment
375
Scouting
Cost /A
(*)
1.50
1.50
i
" Acres
in
Diapause
Contro
15
15
100
Conmen
Code
1
1
3
3
2
-
-------
Table 5- Continued
Aerenge grown.
Average yield .
Sourco.
_. Period.
dne
No.
6
7
8
Cultural
Pmctice
*?hnrt Season
Variety
Scouting
Resistant
Scouting
Short Season
Resistant
Variety
%
P«af a
.
Rxtent of Problera(H)
Acreage
Needing
Chemical
Treatment
(*)
100
100
100
Acreage
Currently
Being.
Treated
(*)
Treatments • '' '
.. Pesticides Used
f ot
Treat-
ment a
0
0
0
Ibo/A/Troatmenl
CH
OP
c
Materials
Coet/A
(*)
Application
Coet/A
($)
Total
Cost
(*)
Yield /A
With
freatmenl
Without
Treatment
Scouting
Coet/A
(I)
1.50
.1.50
% Acres
in
Diapause
Control
Common'
Codr-1"
3
3
3
00
o
-------
Table 6. Cotton Pest Control in 'Arkansas,
Northeast Region.
Acreage
Mi,flnn
fir Phnr-loc T.-i nr-r.1 n
Average yield **Q3 1WA
. Period .H972
Line
Ho.
1
a
Oiltur.il
JYnctice
Regular '
Scouting
.
t
SO
^0
Pesto
Plant BUGS
ThriDs
Mites
•Ixtont of Pro\>lcm(*)
vteBSP
Chemical
Treatment
(*)
100
100
C&FfMy
Delng.
Trcatfld
(« .
100
66
TrenLmento
. restlcidfs Ihffl
S of "*
Treat-
ments
0-1
0-1
Ihn/A/Trcatmenl
CII
1/2
1/2
OP
I/I.
lA
c
T
T
'later ials
CooVA
(*)
Application
Coot /A
(*')
Total
Cost/A
(*)
3.00
$3.00
Yicld/n
With
IVcatraenl
>»93
Without
Treatment
1.73
Scouting
CosVA
(*)
1.50
? Acres
in
Diapause
Control
Conur.cn
Code1*
1
1
00
-------
Table 7.'Cotton Pest Control in California
San Joaquin Valley Region
Acreage Brr.vn 850.000
Dr. Louis Falcon
Average ft.™ 9°° (350-20X) )
1972-7!*
Line
No.
1
2
3
U <
Cultural
Practice
Regular,0
Trap Crop
Scouting?
Trap Crop1"
Regular^
'irap cropiu
Scouting^
Trap Crop3
f
T«
22
Plant Bugs
Mites, Boll-
worm Complex
fink flollwor
All
All
All
Extent of Problem(jf)
Acreage
reeainG
Chemical
Treatment
(«
20
20
20
20
Acreage.
Currently
Deing.
Treated
(K)
80
20-30
TrcitmenbB
1. Pesticides Used
» of
Treat-
raenta
2.5
(2-3)
1.5
(0-3)
1.5
(0-1)
0.5
(0-1)
Ibo/A/lVontmcnl
CII
1
1
1.5
1-5
OP
2
2
0
0
c
3/1.
1
0
0
•Inter idle
Co8t/A
(*)
i».oo-
10.00
Application
Co8t/A
($)
1.00-
2.00
Totol
Coat
(*)
20.00
10.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
Yield /A
With
850
900
900
900
Without
Arcatmcnt
900
900
900
Scouting
Coet/A
(!)
5.00
2. 50-10. (
5.00
(2.50-10,
i
% Acres
in
Diapause
Control
0)
00)
Common'
Code^
1
1
2
2
00
PO
-------
Table 8, Cotton Pest Control in California,
and Riverside Co,).
Acrcnce proun 50.QUO
Source Dr- Mick
Southern Region (Imperial. San Bernardino, . .
- -- -- - « " • — ....... 1,300 Ibs/A
Average yield.
Period
J.ne
No.
1
2
3
b
5
6
Cultural
Practice
Regular
Scouting
C,- ,-,,•!-<„„
fi-np Vjt.ia-
Rnnntlnfr
Short. RpHsrm
Croc Met. -1-1
ScoutinK -
Short season °
1.
IiO
60
Pests
Pink Boll-
vorm
Leaf Perfor-
ator
Bollworm
complex
Plant "bugs
All
f 11
an
Pink RnllwrjTM
T.pRf Pprfpi"-
ntor
R^l Ivor™
complex
All
Extent of Protlera(!8)
Acreage
Heed ing
Chemical
Treatment
(«
100
100
100
100
100
100
Currently
Being.
Treated
(.*).
100
100
Trcutmcnto
II of
Treat-
ments
10
2
7
1
5
1
1)
U.5
3.5
•
Ibu/A/Troatmcnl
CII
0
0
0
0
0
Q
0
OP
1
0
'1
0
1
0
1
1
1
c
0
1
0
1
0
1
' 0
•later lale
Cost /A
(*)
Application
Coot /A
(*)
Total
Coot/A
($)
72.00
U8.00
33.00
2U.OO
27.00
21'. 00
Yield /A
With
t'rcatncnl
1,300
1,300
1,300
1,300
1,300
1,300
Without
Treatment
650
Scouting
CorVA
W)
7.75
7.75
7.75
7-75
i
' Acres
in
Diapause
Control
Corcn«n'
Code1
1
1
2
2
2
2
CO
CO
-------
Table 8.
Continued.
Acreage
Averogs yield
Source.
. Period .
Line
Ho.
7
8
Cultural
Practice
Short Season
Variety
Scouting
Short Season
Resistant
Variety
Scouting
t
P*af a
Extent of Problem (J{)
Acreage
Needing
Chemical
Treatment
(JO
100
100
Acreage
:urrently
Being.
Treated
(*)
Trcitmcnta • . •>
Pesticides Used
1 of
Treat-'
ments Ibo/A/Troatmenl
1».5
1».5
CM
0
0
OP
1
1
c
0
0
*
later iale
Cost/A
(«)
Application
C08t/A
(1)
Total
Coot
(»)
27.00
27.00
Yiel
With
Treatment
1,300
1,300
d/A
Without
Treatment
Scouting
Cost/A
(*)
7.75
7-75
i
% Acree
in
Diapause
Control
Commcn'
Codck
3
3
00
-------
Tuble 9. Cotton Pest Control in Georgia,
Above the Fall'Line Kegion.
7S.QOO
Averago yield.
!»50 Ibs/A
. Period
.Dr..nonn.M rnnorriay an.l !>• Hprbgrt VOBacll
1972-714
Line
Bo.
1
2
3
1.
5
6
Cultural
Prnotice
Secular
Diapause (1)
Diapause (1)
Short Season
Regular
Scouting
Diapause (1)
Regular
Scouting
Resistant
Diapause (1)
Hapause
?
T>
'&
,
Festo
Mneevil
worm
complex
All
All
All
Xxtcnt of Probleta(!S)
NeeAffnega8e
Chemical
Treatment
(%l
100
100
100
100
100
100
^Acreage
Currently
Being.
Treated
(?)
95
95
Trcaimenfca
„ Pesticides Used
Treat-
ment D
12
10
8
9
7
6
I
iWA/Treatmenl
CH
2
2
2
2
2
2
OP
1
1
1
1
1
1
iA
c
Materials
Coet/A
(*)
Application
Cost/A
(*}
Total
Coat/A
(*>
60.00
50.00
bo. oo
145.00
35.00
30.00
14.00
Yield It,
With
treatment
1450
1450
1450
1450
1»50
1(50
1450
Without
Treatment
200
Scouting
Cost /A
($)
1.59
1.59
1-59
i
•* Acres
_. in
Diapause
Control
20
20
100
100
Comtsen'
Cede1*
1
1
3
2
3
3
-
00
en
-------
Table 9- Cotton Pest Control in Georgia, Acteoge grown.
Above the Fall Line Region.
(Continued) Avorngs yield .
Source.
.Period'.
Line
No.
7
8
9
Cultural
Prnetice
^Vinr»+. Rafi^rm
Variety
Scouting
Scouting
snort oeason
ttesis^Birc
Variety
fip^i^l nn
*
Extent of ?roblnm(J)
Acreage
Needing
Chemical
Treatment
W
100
100
100
Acreage
Currently
Being.
Treated
(«
Tro'itmento
Pesticides Used
1 of
Treat-
ments
7
6
6
IbD/A/Trotttmenl
CH
2
2
2
OP
1
1
1
C
Materials
Co8t/A
(*)
f
Application
COBt/A
(*)
Total
Coat
(t)
35.00
30.00
30.00
Yield /A
With
1»50
U50
1(50
Without
rrcatmcnt
Scouting
Cost/A
(*)
1.59
1.59
1.59
% Acres
in
Diapause
Control
Common'
Code*
3
3
3
-------
Table 1°. Cotton Pest Control in Georgia, Acrcnce crown
.Below the Fall Line Region.
Dr. Donald Canerday and Dr. Herbert Womack
Averase yield ^° lbf!/A Period
Line
Ko.
1
2
U
5
6
7
3
Cultural
Practice
Regular
Diapause (1)
Scouting
Diapause (1)
Regular
Scouting
Diapause (1)
PffTulflr
"
Scoutintt
Resistant,
Diaoause (l)
Regular
Diaoause
Diapause
f
'!">
^
Peota
Boll weevil
Bollworm
complex
All
All
All
an
All
Extent of ProM.em(J)
Acreage
Needing
Chemical
Treatment
WJ
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Currently
Delng.
Treated
(«
95
95
Trcatmento
Pesticides Used
H of
Treat-
ments
16
Hi
12
13
10
6
15
1
lbn/A/1'rontmoivl
Oil
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
OP
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
iA
c
Materials
Cost/A
(*)
Application
Coot /A
<*)
Total
Cost/A
(t)
80.00
70.00
60.00
65.00
50.00
30.00
75.00
1».00
Yield/a
With
treatment
U50
1(50
It 50
1*50
1|50
1(50
1(50
Without
Treatment
200
Scouting
CosVA
($)
1.59
1.59
1.59
* Acres
in
Diapause
Control
20
20
100
100
100
Comncn
Code11
1
1
3
2
3
3
2
00
-------
Table 10. Cotton Pest Control in Georgia,
Below the Fall Line Begdion.
(Continued)
Acrense
Average yield .
_. Source.
_ Period .
Line
Bo.
g
9
10
Cultural
Pr'nctlce
Short Season
Variety
ScoutinK
Resistant
Scouting
Sh^rt Pop'STii
Resistant
Vnr-1 oty
%
•
Extent of Pro"b3em(^]
Needing
Chemical
Treatment
W
100
100
100
Jurren^Iy
Qelng.
frcated
oa
TrcotmentB
Pesticides Used
W 01
Treat-
ments
11
9
6
iWA/l'roatmcni
CH
2
2
2
OP
1
1
1
c
Mater itflB
Co8t/A
(*)
Application
Coat /A
(!)
Total
Coat
(»)
55.00
i»5. oo
30.00
Yield /A
With
Treatment
1(50
1(50
1(50
Without
Treatment
Scouting
Cost/A
(*)
1.59
1.59
1.59
% Actes
in
Diapause
Control
Coiranen'
Codek
3
3
3"
-
00
oo
-------
Table 11. Cotton Pest Control in Louisiana, Acreage grown.
.. SOUTC e
and Dr . T>flti
Averaga yield 550 Ibs/A Perlod 1972-7U .
jine
No.
1
2
3
It
5
6
7
Cultural
Practice
Regular
Diapause vi)
Scouting
Diapause (l)
Resistant
Diapause (1)
Regular
Resistant
Scouting
Diapause (1)
Trar crop (2)
Scouting
Diapause (1)
Trap crop (2)
Scouting
Resistant
Diapause (1)
Short season
Resistant
Scouting
Diapause
%
«b
TV
Pests
Budworm
HOIJ. weevil
Bollworm
Plant buf.s_
All
All
All
All
All
All
=lxtcnt of ProblemW
Acreage
Needing
Chemical
Treatment
Ctt
100
to. _ .
100
100
100
100
100
100
Acreage
Currently
Being.
Treated
.(*>
100
100.
Treatmenta •
Pesticides Used
II OI
Treat-
ment a
10.5
(9-12)
8
(7-9)
0
0
0
0
2
3
1
Ibo/A/Trcatmenl
CII
2
2
2
1
OP
1
1
1
lA
.5
C
Materials
Cost /A
(*)
31.50
2U.OO
6.00.
Application
Coat /A
(!)
10.50
8.00
2.00
Total
Coot/A
(t)
52.00
32.00
0
• 0
0
0
8.00
S.liO
.1*0
Yield /A
With
I'rcatrocnl
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
-
Without
Treatment
320
(275-363)
Scouting
Coot /A
($)
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
i
" Acres
in
Diapause
Control
66
66
100
100
100
100
Comrccr.
Code11
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
-
-
00
-------
Table H.
Continued.
Acreage grown.
Average yield.
Source.
. Period.
Line
No.
8
9
10.
11 '
Cultural
Practice
Diacause
Scouting
Trap Crojp
Scouting
Short Season
Variety
Scouting
Resistant
Scouting
%
P«af a
•
Extent of Problem(lt)
Acreage"
needing 1
Chemical
Treatment
Ctt
100
100
100
100
Cu&SfiWS
Being.
Treated
WJ
Treatments • • -: •
Pesticides Used
i Ol
Treat-
ments 'ibn/AA'recitmcni
2-lt
U
2
2
CH
2
2
2
2
OP
1.
1
1
1
c
Materials
Cost/A
(*)
9.00
12.00
6.00
6.00
Application
Cost /A
(*)
3.00
It. 00
2.00
2.00
Total
Coat
(*)
12.00
16.00
8.00
6.00
Yield /A
With
frcatmcnt
550
550
550
550
Without
treatment
Scouting
Cost/A
(*)
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
% Actes
in
Hapause
Control
100
Commen'
Codei
2
2
3
3
UD
O
-------
crpvn
R/iin-/... Dr. Fnvdsn Maxvpl 1
Table 12. Cotton Pest Control in Mississippi,
Delta Region. Averago yield 650 Ibs/A Perlod 1972-7U .
Harrl K
Line
Ho.
1
2
3
It
5
6
7
8
9
Cultural
Practice
Reeular
Scouted
Resistant
(FreSo.)
Resistant
(Hectarless)
Short season
Scouted
Diapause (1)
Rfrm+cA
Rjaci <=+nnf
(Fr=E~)
wesistant
(Nectarless)
Scouted
Pheromone
Traps
%
\\
f>7
Pesto
Boll wepvll
Bollvorm
Budvonn
Plant bucs_
All
Boll weevil
Boll weevil
All
All
All
All
All
latent of ProblcmW
Bc^nt66
Chemical
Treatment
(90
100
100
100'
100
100
100
100
ctee\ftiy
Being.
Treated
W
100
100
Trcntmonto - Fixed Spray Schedule
Pesticides Used
H Ol
Treat-
ments
10
6
0
0
U
It
3
U
U
Itm/A/Troatmer.l
Clt
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
OP
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
C
Mater lain
Coot /A
(*)
Application
Cost /A
<*)
Total
Cost/A
(*)
It5. 00
27.00
0
0
18.00
18.50
13.50
18.00
18.00
Yield/A
With
t'rcatmenl
650
• 650
500
550
575
650
650
650
650
Without
Treatment
ItOO
Scouting
CocVA
{$)
1.75
1.75
1-75
1-75
1-75
1-75
% Acres
in
Diapause
Control
100
Conmc.T
Code1*
1
1
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
-------
Table 12 continued,
Acreage grown.
Average yield.
.. Gourcc.
_ Period.
Line
No.
10
11
12
13
111
15
16
IT
16
Cultural
Practice
Short season
Resistant
(Frego)
Short season
Resistant
(Nectarless)
Short season
Regular
Short season
Fheronone
fra.ps29J
Scouted
Short season
Resistant
( Frego)
Scout **i
CJ^rt*** .Qan ca/"»r-
Ppe4 c*-on*
/•!**•»+• i ^
Scouted
Short season
Pheroraone
Traps^2./
Regular
Diapause (1)
Resistant
l?rcgo)
Pa£ii1av
_8r>al stunt
fKectarlessl
%
Pcato
Bollworm
Budworm
Boll weevil
Bollworm
Budvorm
Boll weevil
All
Bollworm
Budworm
Boll weevil
All
•
Al£
All
All
All
Extent of Problem (JO
NcAef^«e
Chemical
Treatment
(«
100
100
100'
100
100
100
100
Cu&Wy
Being.
Treated
Of)
Trwitmcnto
_ Pesticides Used
8 or
Treat-
ment a
0
0
5
1
3
2
3
5
5
Ibo/A/lVcatmenl
CH
2
1.3
2
2
2
2
OP
1
.1
1
1.25
1
1.5
1*5
0
Mater lain
Cont /A
(*)
'
Application
Coat /A
{*)
Total
Cost /A
(*)
0
0
21.90
.0.60
12.1*0
10.65
lU.Uo
29.1lO
27.55
Yield /»
With
Treatment
U50
550
5T5
550
575
575
575
650
650
Without
Treatment
Scouting
Coot
(*)
1.75
1.75
1.75
% Acres
in
Diapause
Control
100
100
Coromon
Code1*
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
IO
ro
-------
Table 12 Continued,
Acreage crown.
Average yield.
Source.
. Period.
line
Ho.
19
3Q
21
22
23
2k
25
Cultur/xl
Practice
Pheromones
Diapause (l)
Resistant
(Vi-eccO
Fheromones
Diapause (1)
Resistant
(Nectarless)
Scouted
Fheromores
Diapause (1)
Resistant (h-
Scouted
Pherosiones
Diapause (£}
Resistant ( He
Diapause (l)
Hieromones
Kesistant (ire
Spgul nr
THqr«llBt> (1 1
Pheromones
Resistant (Hec
Regular
Diaoause (l)
Diapause
Fheromone
%
ego
cTaij
?o)
Pests
All
All
All
All
less;
ess )
'Ixtent of Problem(?)
NC\C4T
Chemical
Treatment
(?)
100
•
100
100
100
100
100
100
Acreage
Currently
Being.
Treated
W
Treatments
Pesticides Used
Treat-
ment!)
2
3
>t
It
6
6
10
2
1
lbo/A/1'roatmcir!
Cl!
1.5
1.5
1.3
1.3
2
OP
1
1
1.25
1.25
1
1
1
1
C
Materials
Cont/A
($)
Application
Coat/A
(4)
Total
Cost/A
<*}
7-50
10.50
15.20
13.1*5
25.65
25.65
38.30
6'. 60
5.00
Yield/A
With
t'rcatmcnl
550
600
650
650
650
650
650
500
Without
Treatment
Scouting
CosVA
(*)
1.75
1.T5
% Acres
in
Diapause
Control
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Cor.rr.cn'
Code1!
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
-
10
oo
-------
Table '13. Cotton Pest Control in Mississippi,
Hill Region,
grown ^no.nnn
Average yield U75 Ibs/A
Fnurion MdWoll onrl fly
y UnrT^ H
Line
Bo.
1
2
3
It.
5
6
7
8
9
Cultural
Practice
Hegular
Scouted
snort season
Resistant
Scouting
Snort season
Scouting
Resistant
Scouting
Diapause (1)
Scouting
Trap Croo (2)
Resistant
%
80
20
Festa .
Hoil weevil
Bollworm
Budworm
Plant buss _
All
bonvorfli
Hudworm
Boll veevil
Ail
All
fill
All
Budworm
Boll weevil
Kxt.ent of I'roblcmU1
Acreage 1
Wooding
Chemical
Treatment
W
100
100
100'
100
100
100
Currcnfiy
Being.
Treated
.(*).
100
100
Tn;ntmonfcn
Pesticides Used
H Of
Treat-
ment a
10
7
0
0
3.5
3.5
7
7
0
Ibo/A/Treatmenl
CH
2
2
2
2
2
2
OP
1
1
1
1
1.3
1
0
Materials
Coot /A
(*)
Application
Coot /A
(*)
Total
Coot/A
(*)
33.75
26.25
0
0
13.50
13.50
32.85
30.00
0
Mold/A
With
I'rcatmcnl
VT5
1)450-500)
U75
1*50-500)
363
350-375)
363
350-375)
1<50
1(50
U75
1(50-500)
U75
U50-500)
385
Without
Treatment
200
Scouting
Cost /A
W)
1-75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
% Acres
in
Diapause
Control
100
Comir.cn'
Code1*
1 '
1
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
ID
-------
Table 13 Continued
Acreage Grown.
Average yield .
Source.
.Period .
No.
10
11
12
13
1>4
15
Cultural
Practice
Short season
Regular
Scouting
Short season
KESistant
Scouting
Short Season
Trap Crop ( 2 )
Diapause (1)
Regular
Resistant
Diapause (l)
Regular '
Trap crnn (2)
bcouting
Resistant
uiapause (l}
Trap crop (2}
THflTV*iici»
TV«p crop (?}
%
Pents
All
All
All
All
All
•ixhi-nl. of Prob.U:in(5!)
Acreage
Needing
Chemical
Treatment
(*)
100
100
100
100
100
100
Acre-age
Currently
Being.
Treated
CO
Trnd.mcntn •
Pesticides Used
# oi
Treat-
mcnta
5
2
14
7
11
14
3
2
rbo/A/Treatmenl
CII
2
2
2
1.5
2
2
OP
1.3
1.3
1
1
1
1.5
lA
1
c
Mater lain
Cont/A
(*)
Application
Coet/A
($)
Total
Coot/A
(*)
18. T5
7-50
16.00
25.35
22.05
15.00
9-yo
3.15
Yield/A
With
I'rcatmenl
Ii25
1*25
1.25
'175
1*75
1*75
275
Without
Treatment
Scoutine
Coot /A
(*)
1.75
1.75
1.75
i
% Acres
in
Diapause
Control
100
100
100
Common.
Code*
3
3
3
3
3
3
UD
tn
-------
» . Cotton Pest Control In Missouri. *«*«• Brovm.^000 Bourco Dr. Flernoy Jones „
Average yield
500 Ibs/A
. Period
1972-71*
Line
No.
1
2
3
It
5
6
7
8
Cultural
Prnctlce
Resnilar
scouting
Short season
Diapause
Scoutine
Trati Crop
Scouting
Rhnrt. Season
Vaript.v
Scouting
Resistant
Scouting
phQft. Season
Pes^stant
Variety
Scouting
%
9S
i>
j
Peoto
. Bnl T L/OT*m
, Tlirips
Mites
Bnl 1 iTAev-U
B
Krti-nt of Prob.lcin(X)
Nc^fSf.
Chemical
Treatment
(?)
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
„ Acreage
Currently
Being.
Treated
.(«
50
50
I'rcnLncnlin
, Pesticides 'Used
ff uf
Treat-
monto
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.61
Vbo/A/UVeatmenl
cn
OP
.6
.6
.6
.6
.6
.6
.6
.6
C
Materiole
Coat /A
(*)
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
Coot /A
(*>
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
Total
Coat/A
(t)
2.1(0
2.1(0
2.1(0
2.1*0
2.UO
2.1(0
2.1»0
2.1(0
Yield /A
With
I'reatmcnl
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
Without
'frcatmcnt
1(87
Scouting
COBVA
(*)
1.75
1-75
1.T5
1.75
1-75
1-75
•
% Acres
in
Diapause
Control
Conner
Code1
1
1
3
2
2
3
3
3
(£>
cn
-------
Tatle 15, Cotton Pent Qohtrol J,n Mew Mexico, Acreage grovn 99iQQQ
Bouroe
Dx. J. Ellinfita
Average yield 750 lbt/A Pbriod'i21SJi.
Line
Ho.
1
Ji.
3
Cultural
Prnctice
Regular
>eoutinK
Short season
Scouting
%
Hu
20
Peato
Pink Bollwo
Bollworm
complex
fiant ijugs
. All
All
•Ixtcnt of Probli:m(?)
Nc^5H|se
Chemical
Treatment
(«
m
2
»
0
0
Currently
Being.
Treated
tf)
p
0
0
. Tro'iUncnta
„ Eesticidcp Use4
Treat-
mcnto
2
012
O12
IbD/A/Troatmenl
Cll
0
0
0
oi".
.1
0
0
?c
0
0
0
Material a
Coat/A
($)
Application
Coat/A
(»)
Total
Cost/A
(*)
8.00
0
0
Yield /A
With
('refitment
750
750
750
Without
Treatment
750
Scouting
Cost /A
(I)
1.75
1.75
* Acres
In
Diapause
Control
0
Comir.cn'
Code11
1
1
3
-------
Table J6, Cotton Pest Control in North Carolina,ronc
Ii3.88
32.50
lit. 63
lit. 63
13.00
6.50
1.1(0
Application
Coot/A
(*)
16.88
12.50
5.63
5.63
5.00
2.50
0
Total
Cost/A
(*)
60.76
Il5.00
20.26
20.26
18.00
9.00
1.1*0
Yinld/A
With
L'rcatmcnl
ItOO
It 00
1*00
!*00
!iOO
UOO
-
Without
Treatment
100
Scouting
Cost /A
(t)
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
/» Acres
in
Diapause
Control
5
5
100
100
100
Coirmcr.'
Code1*
1
1
2
3
3
3
-
00
-------
Table 16.
Continued.
AcretiRe Brown -
Avornga yield .
fiourc e.
. Period .
Line
No.
7
3.
Cultural
Practice
Khm"t Sepson
Variety
Scoutinc
Short Season
Resistant
Variety
Scouting
%
Extent of Problem(5t)
NOA«6
Chemical
Treatment
tt)
100
100
Curr?Sf$
Being.
Treated
Wl
Trcntmcnsn
.Pesticideo Used
Ir of '
Treat-
ment B
lt-6
2-lt
lBo//\/Trontmcnl
CH
2
2
OP
1
1
0
liter iols
COBt/A
(!)
16. P.5
9.75
Application
Cost/A
(*)
6.25
3.75
Total
Cost
(*)
22.50
13.50
Yield/A
With
rreatracnl
. 1(00
U 00
Without
Ircatmcnt
Scouting
Cost/A
($)
2.00
2.00
i
% Actes
in
Diapause
Control
Common'
Code*
3
3
IO
-------
Table 17. Cotton Pest Control in North Carolina,AcrcnBU
•jO
Feats
UolJL weevil
coiiworm
CQaipXex
Tyn «?nrtttnil—
At)hidsT etc.
All
All
All
All
•Ixtcnt of ProblcmW
..Acreage
Needing
Chemical
Treatment
(*)
100
100
100
100'
100
100
MHb
Being.
Treated
.(X)
96
96
'i'vealmentd
„ Pesticides Used
'Treot-
monto
9
T
U.5
(1.-5)
U
2
(0-1.)
lt-5
It a /A/'l'reatmen 1
Cll
2
2
2
2
2
2
OP
1
1
1
1
1
1
C
0
0
0
•0
0
0
Materials
Coet/A
(*)
28.25
22. T5
m.63
13.00
6.50
1U.63
Application
Cost/A
(*)
11.25
8.75
5.63
5.00
2.50
5.63
Total
Coat/A
(*)
39-50
31.50
20.26
18.00
9.00
20.26
Yicl
With
rreatmonl
1(00
1.00
liOO
1(00
1(00
Uoo
d/A-
Without
Treatment
100
Scouting
Cost /A
<*)
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
* Acres
in
Diapause
Control
0
0
Common4
Code^
i
i
3
3
3
3
o
o
-------
Table J8, Cotton Pest Control in Oklahoma,
Dryland-Southwest Region,
Acreage grnun
Average yield
Ibs/fl
m- nr,,. n P..I />..., n, 7..,,^
Dr. Chin-Choy and Dr. Vernon Eidman.
Pbriod J973-7lt . -
.^, cr. Ken Pinksfcon,
Line
No.
1
2
Cultural
Prncticc
firnii'Mnj
.
t
yit
h
Pests
heiiotnis
complex
ix>J.i. weevil
Flea Hopper.
Thrips
Mites
Plant bugs
A«3 A^VWP
Extent of Problom(£)
NcVf!S|e
Chemical
Treatment
(JO
<50
<50
ctoSB6iy
Being.
Trontod
(*)
<50
<50
Ti-cntmunta
„ Pesticides Used
Treat-
mcnto
<1
1/2
Ibo/A/Troahmenl
C1I
1.5
1.5
OP
1.5
1.5
0
Materials
Coot /A
(*)
Application
Coot/A
(*)
Total
Coat/A
(4)
3.15
1.60
Yield/A
With
IVcatmcnl
21)0
2>lO
Without
Treatment
210
Scouting
Coot/A
(!)
1.00
i
It Acres
in
Diapause
Control
Common'
Code 1*
1
1
-------
_ .. 19. Cotton Pest Control in Oklahoma,
10016 Irrigated Southwest Begion,
Acreage
fill.OOP .-
Ro.it.,... Dr. Bon C. Pfft,""s. Dr. iT°rT Y"""ffi Or. Ken Pinkston,
Dr. Chin-Choy and Dr. Vernon Eidman
Avorogo yield , 500 ibs/A Period .
Line
Ho.
1
Z
3
Cultural
Practice
Regular
Rnni:t4n£
Trnji r?rop 1"
Spoilt, tn^
Trau cron
j:
9<4
f,
Heliothis
complex
Boll weevil
Flea hopper
l^U'lpS
Mites
Flant bugs
AQ flVinvA
Ap a^jpvc
•
•Ixtoiit of l'roWom(S)
»<=&e
Chemical
Treatment
f«
100
100
Currre!aS5r
Doing.
Troatod
«)
100
100
Trcntmcntd
Pesticides Used
H or
Treat-
mcnto
7
6
0«
H>D/A/lVoatnipn1
Oil
1.5
1.5
OP
1.5
1.5
C
Materials
Cost /A
(t)
Application
CODt/A
(!)
Total
Coot/A
(*)
22.09
18.90
oi?
3.00
Ylold /A
With
L'rcatracnl
500
500
500
Without
Treatment
375
Scouting
Coct/A
W)
2.00
2.00
J Acres
in
Diapause
Control
Copr.c;r
Code1!
1
1
2
a
-------
Table 20. Cotton Pest Control in Oklahoma,
Southeast Region,
Acreage grovn 7Srnoo ._ ,
, ,j 300 lbs/A
Average yirad __^_____
__ Cnm-n«. l?r.
nnn Po-t-.i.™ nr
Dr. Chin-Choy and Dr. Vernon Eidman
Period 197 Z-T1' • -
r. Ken Pinkston,
Line
llo.
1
2
Cultural
Practice
Regular
Scouting
t
W
b
•
Peato
Heli'jthis
cojipiex
Boll weevil
Flea hopper
Thrips
Mites
Plant bugs
As above
Extent of Problem(55;
Acreage
N"<*ing
Chemical
Treatment
W)
Acreage
Currently
Being.
Treated
(*)
60
b6
Ti catmcnto
Pesticides Used
li 01
Treat-
ment a
6
5
loo/A/'Prcatmenl
CK
1.5
1-5
OP
1.5
1-5
c
Materials
Cost /A
(t)
Application
Coot /A
(*)
Total
Cost/A
(*)
18.90
16.75
Yield/A
With
IVcatmcnl
300
300
Without
Treatment
225
Scouting
Cost/A
(*)
2.00
et
•' Acres
in
Diapause
Control
Conine.*!
Code11
1
1 •••
o
CO
-------
Table 21. Cotton. Pest Control in South Carolina ,Acrctl6° Grown
Coastal Plains Region,
Gourcc ""- r—U—Sparks
Averago yield *t70 lbs/A porlod 1972-7.li
Line
Ho.
1
2
3
I
5
6
7
Cultural
Practice
Reffiilur
Scouted
Scouted
Diapause (l)
Short season
Scouted
Trap crop (2)
Scouted
iTap crop \'£)
Scouted
Short season
Dianause (1)
Resistant
Scouted
Diapause
Trap crop (3)
%
?>'
66
Peats
Roll weevil
Wt.cs
All
All
All
All
A_L1
All
•Ixt.c-nt of ProMom(j!)
Acreuge"
Needing
Chemical
Treatment
(«
lex
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
CufeWy
Doing.
Treated
tf)
100
100
Troitraonto
„ Pesticides Used
ti ur
Treot-
racnto
17
lit
12
9
1.2
9
12
2
2
Ibn/A/Troatmcn'
CII
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
OP
1
*
1
1
1
1
1
.5
.10
c
Materials
C08t/A
(*)
1(2.50
35.00
3P.OO
22. 50
30.00
22.50
30.00
3.00
Application
Coot/A
(I)
21.25
17-50
19-00
12.50
19.00
12.50
19.00
2.50
Total
Coat/A
(*)
63.75
52.50
Ii9.00
35.00
149.00
35.00
149.00
5-50
1.25
Yield /A
With
I'rcatmcnl
liTO
1)70
1.70
1)70
1»70
1)70
1»70
Without
Treatment
50
Scouting
Coot /A
(t)
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
* Acres
in
Diapause
Control
100
100
Cominen'
Cod-;11
1
1
2
3
2
3
3
-
-
-------
Table 21.
Continued.
Acreage grown.
Avornga yield .
Source.
. Period .
Line
Ho.
3
Cultural
Practice
Short Season
Resistant
Variety
Scouting
%
Pests
F.xtent of Problem(St)
Acreage
Heeding
Chemical
Treatment
Ctf
100
Currently
Being.
Treated
00
Treatments
Pesticides Used
Treat-
ments
9
lon/A/Trrxvtmen1
CH
2
OP
1
C
laterals
Coei/A
(*)
22. JO
Application
Cost/A
(*)
12.50
Total
Cost
(*)
35.00
Yield /A
With
Treatment
1»70
Without
Treatment
Scouting
Cost/A
{*)
1.50
% Acte 6
in
Diapause
Control
Common'
Codoi
3
o
01
-------
22. Cotton Pest Control in South CaroHna,Acreaea grown ,15,PO.Q . Source Mr • L. H. Sparhs
Piedmont Region.
Avoraeo yield 1*70 Ibs/A Period jlQ72-7l>
Line
Ho.
1
2
3
li
5
6
7
Cultural
Practice
Refill nr
Poouted
Scouted
Diapause (l)
Short season
Scouted
Trap crop
Scouted
'ivap crop
Scouted
Short Season
Diapause (1)
Resistant
Scouted
Diapause
Trap crop I 3 )
%
71!
•>
-------
Table 22.
Continued.
Acrnnge grown.
Average yield .
Source.
.Period.
Line
Mo.
8
Cultural
Practice
Short Season
Resistant
Variety
ScoutinK
t
Pnnf n
.
Extent of Problera(Z)
Nn/A/Trro.uien1|
CH
2
OP
1
C
Mater inlo
Coet/A
(*)
20.00
Application
Coot /A
(*)
12.00
Total
Cost
(*)
32.00
Yield /A
With
Treatment
1»70
Without
Treatment
Scouting
Cost/A
(•t)
1.50
% Acres
in
Diapause
Control
Common'
Code1"
3
-------
Tixble S3. Cotton Pest Control in Tennessee.
Northern Region,
Acreage
250.000_
Source Dr. Allen Chambers
Average yield
600 Ibs/A
. Period
1972-71)
Line
Ho.
2
«
3
U
5
6
7
8
CiiUurnl
Pr.net Jce
Regular
Scouted
Resistant
Renular
Resistant
Scouted
Short Season
Regular
Phercmone
Trans
Scoutir.K
Khnrt. Season
Variety
Scouting
Short Season
Resistant
Variety
Scouting
f
9B
2
Pcnto
Boll weevil
Boll worm
complex
Plant buKS .
Thrips
All
All
All
•
All
All
All
All
Kxl.ont ol'
Acreage
Need ing
Chemical
Treatment
(*)
25
•roblcmW
Acreage
Currnntly
Doing.
'frcatod
(»
25
>0
Trcntncnfcn
Pesticides Used
# of
Treat-
racnta
3
>0
>0
>0
>0
>0
>0
0
.Ibn/A/TrnaLmonl
Clt
2
OP
1
C
*
Mater ialo
Cont/A
(*)
9.00
Application
CooiyA
($)
3.00
Total
CooVA
{*)
12.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
yiMd /A
With
IVcatraenl
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
Without
Treatment
500
Scout inc
Coot /A
(1)
1.50
1.50
1.50
! 1.50
/' Acres
in
Diapause
Control
Coiro?!!
CoUo1*
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
o
00
-------
Table Hit. Cotton Peat Control in Tennessee,
Sbuthern Region.
Acrcn0e grown 2Tr;.OQP
600 ILs/A
Averaga yield
Source T)r. A11i-n
Period
• 1972-711
jine
No.
1
2
3
ll
5
6
7
Cul tural
Practice
.
Seoul ed
Resistant
Regular
Resistant
Scouting
Short season
Scouting
Pheromone
Traps
Scouting
Scouting
Diapause
%
02
~TT
—
Pests
Boll weevil
Bjllworm
complex
Plant bucs
Thrips
AH.
'"xtrnt of Prob.lcm(iH
Acreage
Need.ing
Chemical
Treatment
C«
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Acreage
Currently
Being.
Treated
00
100
100
Troatmcntu
.. Pesticides Used
Treat-
mcnta
12.5
10
li
1
2.5
U. 5
8
2
IbD/A/U'rcntmcn!
C1I
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
OP
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I/I*
C
Materials
Cost /A
(*)
37.50
30.00
12.00
3.00
7-50
13.50
2lt.OO
3.00
Application
Coot /A
(*)
12.50
10.00
U. 00
1.00
2.50
1|.50
8'..00
2.00
Total
Cost/A
(1)
50.00
Uo.oo
16.00
i».oo
10.00
18.00
32.00
5.00
Yield/A
With
1'rcatracnl
• 600
600
600
600
600
600
600
Without
Treatment
175
Scouting
CosVA
(t)
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
'" Acres
in
Diapause
Control
100
Common
Code1'
1
1
3
3
3
3
2
-
o
IO
-------
Table 2U.
Continued.
Acreage grown.
Average yield .
Source.
. Period .
Line
No.
a
Cultural
Prnctiee
Short Season
Resistant
Variety
Scoutinc
*
•
xtent of Froblem(Jfl
££RE
Chemical
Preatmont
cn.
100
Acreage
Currently
Being
Treated
tfl
Tro".1.mcnt.e
Pesticides Used
a 01
Treat-
ments Ibn/A/Trootmcnl
1
CH
Z
OP
1
c
later iale
CoBty^
(*)
3.00
Application
Coot /A
(I)
1.00
Total
Cost
(t)
It. 00
Yield /A
With
'rcatmcnl
600
Without
If catmcnt
Scouting
Cost//,
($)
1.50
% Acres-
in
Diapause
Control
Common'
Cod*1'
3
-------
Table 25! Cotton Pest Control in Texas,
Black Lands Region,
Acrotico
. flnn.'inn
Gourcc -Fir. Ray Friship
Averago yield 15n lbs/A
. Period E9T2-71' •
jlne
No.
1
2
3
li
5
6
Cultural
Practice
Regular
Sccutinff
Reristc.nt
(Sell veevil)
Fleahcr>r>ers
Ehi^rt sen son
Scouting
Sfinltation -10
Scetttine;
Short Season
Variety
Scouting
Resistant
Scouting
*
°6
i>
Peetn
Poll v^evil
Cotton Flpa
^opDer
Thrin=
Bill weevil
Cotton Flea
Horjper
Boll veevil
Cotton Fioa
Hopper
Thrics
Cotton Flon
Ho:T,er
Thrips -
'•'.xtrnt. of Problem(JS)
Acreage
Needing
Chemical
Treatment
W
100
100
100
for Thrif
100
100
100
Acrentjo
Currently
Deing.
Treated
W)
100
100
3
Ti cfitmcntn
Pesticides Used
f or
Treat-
mcnta
1»
2 1/2
-3
<1
1 1/2
-•2
2
<1
il)D/A/Trcatinerl
CH
OP
1/3
1/3
1/3
1/3
1/3
1/3
C
1/10
1/10
1/1C
L/1C
1/10
1/10
Materials
Cost/A
(*)
Application
Coot/A
W
Total
Cost/A
(t)
8.00
5-50
2.00
3.50
i».oo
2.00
Yield/A
With
treatment
150
150
150
150
150
150
Without
Treatment
0-60
0-60
lljO
Y5
Scouting
Cost /A
(*)
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
j( Acres
in
Diapause
Control
Comiicn
Codou
1
1
3
2
3
3
-------
26. Cotton Pest Control In Texas,
Central Texas River Bottoms Region.
Acreage grown <»,"00 -- , -- Boui-cc >*•
Average yield
• 1O7o_7l,
Period . /f" ' .
Line
No.
1
L"
3
U
5
6
7
Cultural
IVnctlco
"emilar
Scoutina
Resistant
(Boll weevil)
Scouting
Short season
Regular
L; .. '
Short season
Scouting
Crop Culture 3
Scouting
Sh.itt Season
Resistant
Varietv
Scouting
9
71
f>9
1
Peete
Boll weevil
Bollworm
Budworra
Boll weevil
Bollworm
Budworm
Boll weevil
Eollworra
Buiworm
Boll weevil
Bollworm
Boll weevil
Bollworm
Budworm
Boll weevil
Bollworm
Budworm
Ixtont oT Prob.lom(!0
AcYeU^e
Needing
Chemical
Treatment
100
20
100
50-100
50-100
100
100
Being.
Treated
(*)
100
20
Trcatmcntn
. Pesticides Used
It Ot
Treat-
ment a
3-7
2
1
2-3
1
1-2
<2
.lbn/«/ Treatment
CH
1
1
1
1
1
1
- 1
OP
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
c
Materials
Coot /A
(*)
Application
Coot/A
Total
Coot/A
(*)
18.75
7.50
3.75
9.38
3.75
13.13
7.00.
Held/A
With
I'rcatracnl
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
Without
'treatment
<200
< 200
250
ItOO
ItOO
350
Scouting
COEt/A
(*>
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
% Acres
in
Diapause
Control
Conacn
Codc't
1
1
3
3
3
2
3
PO
-------
Table 27- Cotton Pest Control in Texas,
High Plains Region.
Acreage grown ..g.'iTfi.fino
Avorngo yield S70 lbr./A Pbriod 197P-7U
Dr. Ray Frichjo
Line
No.
1
i
Cul tural
Prnetlcc
%
Peato
uoi^on fiea-
hoppers
Poll weevil!
Cotton Boll-
- worm1"
KxLrnl br Problernt^}
Ncc^Inl80
Chemical
Treatment
(*)
6
i
(?5fre§fi!ly
Deln,;.
Treated
(»
6
Tr 'il.monto
„ Pysticidau Uficd
Trcot-
mcnto
1-2
IbD/A/treotmcn
CH
OP
1/10
I/I)
C
j
Mater iolo
Cost /A
(*)
-J
._ . ...j
Application
Coot /A
(*•)
Total
Coat/A
(*)
1.50 -
2.00
Ytold/A
With
treatment
2TO
Without
Treatment
23 0-260
Scouting
Cocl/A
(*)
% Acres
in'
Diapause
Control
Conr.cn
Code1*
1
-------
Table 28. Cotton Pest Control in Texas,
Lover Gulf Coast Region,
.Acreage Crn»n 121.000
Average yield
nay Frlcbie
lb3/A
.Period
Line
No.
1
2
3
U
5
6
Cul tural
Practice
Regular
Scouting
Resistant,
(boll weevil
& flea hopoer
Short Season
Scouting
Sanitation LG
Scouting
Short Season
Variety
Scouting
Resistant
Scouting
I
92
a
—
Peuto
Boll weevil
Cotton Flea
Hopper
Boll weevil
Cotton flea
Hopper
Boll weevil
Cotton Flea
Hopper
•
•'.xtent of Problem^.)
Acreage
Need ing
Chemical
Treatment
(X)
100
100
<10
100
100
100
Aureola
Currently
Being.
Treated
t*>
100
100
Ti'cntmcnto
reoticicicu ur.eJ*
// of
Treat-
monte
U
2
-------
Table 29. Cotton Pest Control ir. Texas,
Lower Rio Grande Valley Region.
Acrciico
Avcrngo yield Jl2
Cource.
. Period.
Line
No.
1
2
3
li
5
6
7
8
Cultural
Prnctice
Regular
Rpnl+Bflrm1-
Scouting
Pan1t.nt.1nn'L'
Scouting
Sanitationiy
nesistaut
(Boll weevil
& Cotton flea
hopper ;
phnr*t si»nqrtn
Pr> 'iihiny
Short, spftnnn
Snout ir.s
Sanitation19
Resistant
Scoutine
Rpni Rt.ftnt.
Variety
Scouting
t
J*
'&
Pests
Cotton Flea
Honner
Boll weevil
Bollwtvrm .
Budworm
' .• above
As abo/e
As above
'
A-; nhnvp
AP fthovi*
As above
Extent of Problem!?}
NceSfSr
Chemical
Treatment
CiO
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Currently
Being.
Treated
<*}
100
100
Trrntmento
„ Pesticiaea Used
Treat-
ments
12
9
6
5
1.-5
li
U-5
It
Itn/A/Trcatmenl
CM
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
OP
1
1
1
•1
1
1
1
1.
c
Materials
Co nt/A
(*)
Application
Cost/A
(*)
Total
CosVA
(*)
1)5.00
33.75
22.50
18.75
16.87
15.00
16.87
15.00
Yield /A
With
I'rcatraenl
1.25
1)25
1)25
1)25
1)25
1)25
1)25
1)25
Without
Treatment
<100
<100
200
300
200
200
Scouting
Cost /A
(*)
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
. 2.50
i
% Acres
in
Diapause
Control
70
70
100
100
Coirjuen'
Code1*
1
1 '
2
3
3
3 .
3
3
-------
Table 30, Cotton Pest Control in Texas,
Rolling Plains Region.
.. 276.000
Acreage
Average yield -19f> Ibs/A
Source Hi-. Rav Frlsbig
..pbriod
Line
NO.
1
&-
3
It
Cultural
"Practice
Regular
Diapause (1)
Scouting
Diaoause (l)
No treatment
Diacause (l)
Resistant
Short pennon
Diapause
%
38
£
fcC
Boll weevil
Low incidenc
of other
pests
Uoli weevil
Low incidenc
of other ,
pests
Boll weevil
Bollworm
Extent of Problem(/0
NeMatsf
Chemical
Treatment
•(«
100
1 100
30
25
30.
C&RffiEy
Doing.
Treated
W
100
100
0
Treatments
j, Pesticides Used-
Treat-
ment a
1-2
3-l<
0
>0
3
lbn/A/Treatmen1
CH
OP
1/lt-
1/2
lA-
1/2
1/14-
1/2
c
'•laterfals
Coot /A
(*)
Application
Cost /A
(*)
Total
Coat /A
(*)
3.38
7.88
0
0
1.50 -
2.00
Yield M
With
I'rcatmenl
216
23U
180
196
Without
'JVeatmcnt
180
180
180
180
Scouting
Cost/A
(!)
1.25 =
Dryland
14.00 =
IrriK&tei
% Acres
in
Diapause
25
25
25
100
Gormen
Code1*
1
1
1
3
-
cr>
-------
Table 30.
Continued.
Acreage grown i_
Avcrngn yield ,
Source.
. Period .
Line
No.
5
6 .
1
8
Cultural
Practice
Diapause
Scouting
Short Season
Variety
Scouting
Resistant
Scoutina
Short Season
Resistant
Variety
Scouting
%
Feats
_
ftttent of Pronlcm(J()
..Acreage
Needing
Chemical
Treatment
(*)
Acret.ee
Currently
Being.
Treated
00
Trcnlmcnta
Pesticides Used
a 01
Treat-
monta
2
2
1
1
Lbo/A/Trootmcn1
CH
OP
1/U-
1/2
1A-
1/2
1/1.-
1/2
1/1.-
1/2
C
'iterlola
COBt/A
(*)
Application
Cost/A
(*)
Total
Cost
(*)
1..50
U.50
1..50
2.00
Yiold/A
With
Crcntmcnl
200
200
200
200
Without
rroatmcnt
180
180
180
180
Scouting
Cost//.
(*)
1.25 /Dry
Land
U.OO/
Irrigatec
Land
1..00/
Irrigated
1.25/Dry
Land
U.OO/
1.25/Dry
Land
1..00/
% Acres
in
Diapause
Control
Common'
Codek
2
3
3
3
-------
Table 31. Cotton Pest Control in Tcxno,
TransJecos Region,
Acronce C''""n PQfi.nnf)
Gourcc Dr. H.'iyJ'Viiibl
yield »° lb»/A Period
dne
No.
1
2
3.
ti
5
0
7
Cultural
Trncticc
Regular
Scouting
Regular
Short season
Regular
Crop culture J
Scouting
Short season
enn^ttnr
Crop culture l
Scouting
Short season
Grot) culture ^
*
92.
7.
f
Pesto
BollVona
Budworm
; Bollworra
Budworra
Bollworm
Budworra
Bollworra
Budworm
Bollwcrn
Bijdv.-orra
Bollworra
Budworm
Bollvorm
Budworm
- -
Kxtent of Problem(X)
B^SfSi6
Chemical
Treatment
(*)
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Currently
Being.
Treated
(X)
100
100
Trccitmenta
Pesticides U»ed
* of
Treat-
ments
10-12
5
7
7
3
3
2
lbo/A/Trootmen1
CH
1
1
1
1
1
.T_
1
OP
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
c
Materials
Co lit /A
($>
j
i
1
1
Application
Cdot /A
(*)
Total
Cost /A
<*)
1(1.25
18.75
26.25
26.25
11.25
11.25
7.50
Yield/A
With
I'reatracnl
550
550
550
550
550
550 .
550
Without
Treatment
300
300
UOO
350
Uoo
Uoo
Uoo
Scouting
Cost/A
(*)
1.50
• 1.50
1.50
1.50
i
% Acres
in
Diapause
;ontrol
Conin'jn
Co-lc ^
1
1
3
2
3
2
3
00
-------
Table 32, Cotton Pest Control in Texas,
. Upper Gulf Coast Region.
Acreage grown 131.000
, nnm-"». T«'. Ray Frisbie
Avcrase yield ll00 lbs/A Perioa - 19Y2-7»..
Line
No.
1
ih
3
li
5
6
Cultural
PrnetJcc
PfR\U-ar
Scoutine
Resistant
(3oll veevil
!t Flea -Hopper
Short season
Scouting
Sanitation11'
Scouting
Short Season
Variety
Seoutine
Resistant
Scout ins
9
R
yv.
•
Pcsto
Boll veevil
Cotton Flea
honoer
Boll weevil
Cotton Flea
hopper
Boll weevil
Cotton Flea
hopper
rioli weevil
Cotton Flea
hopper
,
Kxtcnt of Problcm(Ji)
Hcc^gg6
Chemical
Treatment
CO
100
100
<10
100
Q&SB&i
Doing.
Trcatod
.{JO
100
100
Trciitmcntn
„ Pesticides Used
Treat-
monto
It
2
<1
1 1/2
-2.
1
1
Ibn/A/'i'r oa tmonl
CII
OP
1/3
1/3
1/3
1/3
1/3
1/3
fi
1/10
1/10
1/10
1/10
1/10
1/10
Co ob /A
(*)
Application
Coot /A
(*)
Total
Cont/A
(*)
8.00
It. 00
2.00
3.50
2.00
2.00
Yield /A
With
Treatment
1)00
It 00
1|00
1)00
ItOO
ItOO
Without
Treatment
200
200
375
300
Scoutine
Coot/A
(*>
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
2 Acres
in
Diapause
Control
100
Coirrcon'
Cod -: h
1
1
3
2
3
3
-------
Table 33, Corn Pest Control in Florida.
SOO.OQ.l
Source Dr. John Straver
Average yield _Ji3_bu/A_
. Period a972-Ik.
Line
No.
1
Cultural
Practice
Regular
(soil insects)
Regular
(above ground
insects)
%
100
J.OC
PosCa
Lesser Corn
Stalk Borer j
Sugar Cane
Borer. Whitr
Fringe Beetl
Wireworms
Army Worms
Corn Ear
Worm, Leaf
Miner, Mites
Kxtcnt of 1'robl.cinCO
tetfi?
Chemical
Treatment
(V
50
7-5
CffiMKly
Belnj.
Treated
(U
25
5
Treii^mcnto
..PestlcirtPS Used
Treat-
ments
per
season
1
1
lbs/A/Trca< men!
C1I
OP
2
C
.5-
2
iA
Materials
Cost/A
(*}
Application
Cost/*
(*)
Total
Cost/A
(*)
13.50
12.00
Yield/A
With
treatment
*3a0
Ii3
Without
Treatment
25
35
Cost /A
tt)
-
Comraen
Code14
1
1
ro
o
-------
Table 3l(, Corn Pest Control in Illinois,
Ea,st Central, Southwest, Southeast
Acreage grown *i.P'in.nijll
,.,^ yiel(J 1n?_3 tu/A
. Period .1 R7?-7lt
Line
Ho.
1
2
•14
Cultural
Practice
Continuous
Rotation
Sco^t^ng;
Continuous
Rotation
Continuous
Rotation
Continuous
Rotation
%
1)0
60
ItO
flO
kD.
&0_
"•0
>0
N. & W.
Rootworm j
•
n fc u
Rrtrttlt^^JJ]
Tnrn BTflr
Leaf anhid
Black
Cutworm
Blor-k
pilt.vmTn
Corn hnrpr
Corn borpr
I.paf Anhifl
Leaf Aohid
•Lxtont of Prob]cm(!t)
ftieifse
Chemical
Treatment
(*)
5
0
5
3
3
2
2
2
2
Acreage,
Currently
Being.
Treated
(%)
60
30
50
30
1
1
1
1
Treatments
Ppst-irirlos licun
ff oi
Treat-
Ment8
season
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Vbs/A/Trea1;nent
CH
0
1/2
1/3
1
1
OP
1/2
iA
1/3
1/2
1/2
1
1
C
1/2
!/"•
1/3
>4
1/2
1/2
later ials
Cost/A
W
Application
Cost/A
(*)
Total
Coat/A
<*)
lt.00-
8.00
lt.00-
8.00
lt.00-
8.00
5.00-
8.00
5.00-
8.00
5.00-
6.00
5.00-
6.00
5.00-
6.00
5.00-
6.00
Yield/n
With
rreotmenl
102-3
102-3
102-3
102-3
102-3
102-3
102-3
102-3
102-3
Without
Treatment
90-92
102-3
50
50
92-93
92-93
92-93
92-93
Scouting
Cost /A
«)
1.00
Comnerr.
Code1*
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
-------
lable 35. Corn Pest Control in Illinois, Aeveaeu nravn _.5»?50,('OQ Rnnrv.. Dr. W. Luckcian and Dr. Don Kuhlman
Northwest, Northeast, Central Region. . 102.103 bu/A 1972_7lt
Line
No.
1
2
U
Cultural
Practice
Continuous
Rotation
Scoutin.5
Continuous
Kottiiiori
Rotation
Continuous
Rotation
%
55-
60
1(0-
^
'}'}-
60
b i-
,'i*j
bi>-
bO
liO-
1"5
^>-
60
lO-
ii5
Pests
N. & W.
Rootworm !
N. & W.
Rootworm
Leaf A- >hid
Corn borer
Black
Cutworm
Black
Cutworm
Corn torer
Corn borer
Leaf Aphid
Leaf Aphid
Extent of Problea(!{)
Acreage
Need mg
Chemical
Treatment
-------
Table 36( Corn Pest control in Indiana
icu grown 6.000.Q 10
eu yield 92 bu/A ..
Sourc e
- yhomas .Tiirpi
.Period 19T2"73
Line
ND.
1
2
3
Cultural
Practice
Continuous
Rotation
Scouting
*
UQ
f.(l
—
—
N.& W.
Rootworm
V?irevorm
Pn'v^rm
Wireworra
Cutworm
N. & W.
Rootworm
Wireworm
Cutvorn
I4x-t.cn t of Problem (!f)
Needing
Chcinicul
Treatment
(*)
100
10
100
Beine.
Treated
W
100
10
Treatments
„ Ppltirines llsnri
a ol
Truut-
munts
per
season
1
1
1
Ibu/A/'frcutincnl
CII
3A
1/U
OP
«
1/2
1/2
0
1/2
"
Materials
Coot/A
(*)
2.79
2.79
2.79
Application
Coot/A
($)
0.50
0.50
0.50
Total
Cost/A
(*)
3.29
3,29
3.29
Hclil/A
With
L'reatincut
92
92
92
Without
Treatment
90
91
Cost /A
W)
2.00
Coiruncn;
Codc^
1
1
3
T\5
CO
-------
Tub.1c 37, corn Control in leva,
Bottom Land Region,
Anrc.'iifrju (*rown i, ^no^nn
Avirage yield U1 b"/A
, SourceJOr—Harcji
. Period 1972-714
Line
Ho.
1
Cultural
Practice
Continuous "
Rotation
*
25
75
Pes+s
Cutvorms
Rootworms !
Corn borer
Wireworms
Cutworm
Corn borer
Wireworm
intent of Froblerndf)
Chemical
Treatment
(*)
60
60
Being.
Treated
(JO
6U
67
Treatments
.PfiStl clues
Treat.
mcnts
per
season
1
1
Useu_
los/A/Treatnent
CH
1/2
1/2
OP
1A
1A
C
•»
1/14
Materials
Cost/A .
(*)
3.50
3.1)0
Application
Cost/A
(*)
0
0
Total
Cost/A
(*)
3.50
3.50
Yield/A
With
Creatment
111
111
Without
Treatment
110
106
CosVA
($)
Commeri'.
Code*
1
1
ro
-------
ro
en
Table 38, Corn Pest Control in Iowa,
Other La.nd Region,
Acreii|;u ITI-QVH 10.500,000
AvornGe yield l:LL tu''A
Dr. Harry Stnckdal p
. Period
Cultural
Practice
Continuous
notations
•
*
25
/!>
__.
Rootvorms
Cornborer !
Wlreworms
Cutworms
Cornborer
Wirewprms
Cutvorms
•Ixtcnt of Problcmfj!)
fcafHS
Chemical
Treutment
(%)
88
0
6fiFf@8?ly
Being.
Treated
(*)
72
61.
Trot tmcnto
Pesticidp* i^eH
Treat-
ments
per
reason
1
1
ll)o/A/Treal.rienl
Gil
1A
I/It
OP
1/2
1/2
C
1/1
l/U
Materials
CooVA
(»)
14.50
It. 50
Application
Cost /A
<*)
0
0
Total
Cos1/A
(*)
It. 50
It. 50
Yield /A
With
I'reutwetit
111
111
Without
Treatment
10U
lOU
Scouting
Cost/ A
(*)
Common '.
Code1*
1
1
-------
•Table 39, Corn Pest Control in Kansas,
Dry Land Region,
Acreage fp-nun 650.000
Average yield ,8° bu/A
Snnw.e Drs. LeBny RronkR an.H TVI
. Period
Line
No.
1
2
Cultural
Practice
continuous £1
^t
Kotation
•
%
^
i1?
Pests
Rootworm
Rootworm
Extent of ProUtm(^)
Acreage
Heeding
Chemical
Treatment
(«
62
0
acreage
Currently
Being.
Treated
W
100
29
Treatments
j,Pe»t1c1dp<: llsprf
Treat-
ments
per
season
1
1
lbs/ft/Trea fcment
CH
OP
1/2
1/2
C
1/2
1/2
Materials
Cost/A
($)
Application
Cost/A
($)
Total
Cost/A
(*)
5.00
5.00
Yield/A
With
treatment
80
80
Without
Treatment
50
80
Scouting
Cost /A
(I)
Commen;
Code1*
1
1
ro
-------
Table UO, Corn Pest Control in Kansas,
Irrigated Region.
Acro.-iRt crown 650.000
Average yield "-5 tu/A
Cource Drs. LeRov Brooks and
. Period 1972-714
Line
Ho.
1
2.
Cultural
Practice
continuous
Rotation
Continuous
Rotation
Continuous
Rotation
Continuous
%
o5
T>
>">
15
>b
i^>
bi>
15"
.Rootworra
3ootworm
SoiJer mite
Snider aiite
Corn borer28
>orn borer
Corn borer 2
Corn borer
•/e stern Bean
Cutworm
Cutworm
•Ixtent of Problem!1?)
Kcrsage11 •
Needing
Chemical
Treatment
(?)
62
0
71
71
12
1
12
29
29
rtcreage
Currently
Heing.
treated
(%)
100
29
71
71
3
3
29
29
Treatments
Pesticides Used
// of
Treat-
ments
per
season
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Ibs/A/Treatnent
CH
01'
1/2
1/2
I/?
1/2
L/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
(T
1/2
:../2
:/2
J/2
1/2.
1/2
1/2
1/2
Materials
Cost/A
($)
Application
Cost/A
(*)
Total
CosVA
($)
5.00
5.00
It. 25
It. 25
U.25
U.25
U.25
U.25
Yield /It
With
Treatment
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
Without
Treatment
50
115
85
85
76
76
76
76
Scoutinc
Cost/A
{$)
Commcir
Code '•
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ro
-------
Taldf '4l' Corn Peat Contro1 ln Kentucky,
Eastern Region,
,,,„,.,. .,,.„„„ 3nr).ooo_
rnfii1 yield
85 bu/A
Source Dr- We3 Gregory
. 1'tTiod .
Line
No.
1
2
3
Cultural
Practice
Continuous
(conventional)
Rotation
(conventional)
Continuous
(Ho Till)
Rotation
(Ho Till)
Continuous
(conventional)
.
Rotation
(conventional)
Continuous
(No Till)
Rotation
(No Till)
*
1Y
12
'U
2b
I'f
12
U3
28
Subterraneai
Cutworm ;
Subterraneai
Cutvorm 1
Root aphid
Wireworra
Cutworm !
Root aphid
Wireworra
Cutworm
Corn borer
Corn borer20
Corn borer
Corn borer20
Corn borer
Corn borer20
Corn borer
Corn borer20
Extent of Problem!?]
Chemical
Treatment
(*)
6-7
6-7
ItO
ItO
35
35
35
35
Being.
Treated
(*)
8-10
8-10
ItO
ItO
35
35
35
35
Treatments -
Treat-
ments
per
season
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ibs/A/Treatraent
CH
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
2
2
2
2
OP
""
iA
iA
i/it
c
LA
iA
iA
i/it
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
Materials
Cost/A
(*)
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
Application
Cost /A
(*)
.75
.75
.75
.75
Total
CosVA
($)
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
8.75
2.75
2.75
2.75
Yield/A
With
treatment
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
Without
Treatment
68
68
68-72
68-72
70
70
70
70
Cost /A
(*)
Conoen'.
Code1'
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ro
oo
-------
Table '•S, Corn Pest Control in Kentucky,
Western Region,
eacw ir.rnvn 715.000
ro
10
yield _85_bu/A_
Source Dr * Wes Gregory
. Period ,
Line
Do.
Cultural
Practice
Continuous
(conventional )
(conventional)
Continuous
(!Io Till)
flotation
(llo Till)
•
Continuous
(conventional )
Rotation
(conventional)
Cont inuous
fjlo Till)
Rotation
(No Till)
*
13
I'J
L'
13
1J
I'-!
'
20
20
1(0
1.0
35
35
35
35
Treatments
.p-^Sticides Used
Treat-
ments
per
season
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Ibs/A/Trea tment
CH
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
2
2
2
2
OP
1A
1A
lA
1/lt
c
lA
iA
lA
iA
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
Materials
Cost/A
($)
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
Application
Cost/A
($)
•75
• T5
.75
.75
Total
Cost/A
($)
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
2.75
2.75
2.75
2-75
Yield/A
With
[Vestment
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
Without
Treatment
68
68
68-72
68-72
56
56
56
56
Scouting
Cost /A
«)
Commcn1
Code ^
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-------
Table !»3t Corn Feet Control in Michigan.
iKO gromi 1.700.000 gnnf?«_pr. Robert Ruppel
Average yield -8o bu/A Period .1972-71*
Line
Ho.
1
2
3
Cultural
Practice
Continuous 22
Rotation 2J
notations
Continuous ^
Rotation ^
Continuous 22
«-.
%
bo1
li^
U2
5B
i»2
w
Pests
N. & W.
Rootvorm •
t-orn oorer
Ariayworm
Annyworm
Cutworm
(Jutvorm
Extent of Problem (*X)
ACerlf81
Chemical
Treatment
(K)
ui.
0
6
6
6
6
8
8
&ffia%7
Being.
Treated
W)
111
0
1
1
3
3
3
3
Treatments
g £esticides_ Usec
Treat-
ments
per
season
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
Ibs/A/Trea-jnent
CH
OP
c
1
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
Materials
Coot/A
(*)
2.75
2.75
2.50
2.75
2.75
2.75
Cost/A
(I)
2.75
2.75
2.75
2.75
2.75
2.75
Total
Cost/A
(t)
6.00
0
5.50
5.50
5.25
5.50
5-50
5.50
Yield/A
With
treatment
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
Without
Treatment
66
72
72
60
60
68
68
Cosf/A'
(*)
3.10
Cosucen'.
Code"1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
-------
Table 1*1) ^ Corn Pest Control in Minnesota,
Aere;i(;i_-
6f80Q,pl>0
Huai Chlancf a.nd Ttr . nnvi.l
Average yield 93 bu/A
. Period
Line
ND.
1
2
Cultural
Practice
Continuous
Continuous
notations
I
Ith
UU
bb
iiiW Corn
Rootworra ;
Corn torcr
Wireworms
Cutvorms
Corn borer
Wireworms
Cutworms
Rxtent of FroblemtJ!)
jfereage
flee"ing
Chemical
Treatment
(*)
60
cfifflnSJy
3eing.
Treated
(it)
60
.3
0.3
Treatment 8
„ Pestirinp.: HCAH
Treat-
ments
per
season
1
1
1
Ibs/A/Treatnent
CH
OP
1/2
1/2
1/2
C
1/2
1/2
1/2
Materials
Cost/A
(I)
Application
Cost/A
(*)
Total
Coat/A
(*)
14.00.
5.00
5.00
Yield/A
With
freatment
93
93
93
Without
Treatment
8.7
•(86-88)
87
(86-88)
92
Scouting
Cost /A
<$)
Conraen:
Code ^
1
1
1
-------
I|J. Corn Pest Control In Missouri,
Bottomland Region,
Aeri'ni;i; (M-UKM
AvwaGo yield
nniir.;i»_l'rn. M.-ihlnri l''u.lrr-hl M. <\>.ogge.TliH!)fliL>- itob'ert Stoltz, and
WiUium Ki'urby and Armori Knastrr
. Period
Line
So.
1
2
Cultural
Practice
Loniinuous
Kot«a~^ion
,
f
bi>
1i
Peats
Cutworm
Hcotworm i
uorn uorer
wireworm
Cutworm
Corn borer
Wireworm
•Ixtent of !'roblran(J!)
.Acreage
Seef-ifig
Chemical
Treatment
(?)
32
58
cteasiy
Being.
ft-eatcd
M
32
58
Tr
-------
Table 1|6^ Corn Pest Control in Missouri
Other land than Bottomland,
crovn
Avej'uce yield fit
Rnllt./.0DrE. Fairchlld, George Thomas, Robert Stoltz. Wllliaa
Kearby and Armon Keaster
. Period Mrr?-lk .
Lin«
Ko.
CO
CO
Cul lurnl
Practice
Continuous
Rotation
*
1(0
bU
Rootworm
Corn borer '
Wirevorm
.
Corn borer
Wireworm
•Ixtcnb of ProMfm()!)
^crga.ge
Chemical
Treatment
5
0
UfiBBKly
Beinij.
Treated
CO
5
0
Treatments
,. Pesticiarv
Treat-
ments
per
season
1
0
,_Useji
Ibs/A/Troutmenl
CII
.1.5
OP
1/3
n
1/3
Kuterlals
Cost/ A
(*)
3.50
Application
Cost/A
(*)
0
Total
Coat/A
<$)
3.50
0
Yic-.lcl/A
With
Treatment
67
67
Without
Treatment
65
67
Sooutinc
Cost /A
($)
Common:
Code1-
1
1
-------
Table 'tT. Corn Pest Control in'Nebraska,
Dryland Region,
Aereui;u
Average yield
3,900,foo
80 bu//
.Period
1972-71*
Line
No.
1
2
3
1.
5
Cultural
Practice
continuous
S.-mitlng
Continuous
All corn
All corn
Scouting
AIJ. corn
torn Borer
resistance
*
50
5U
sn
*
100
IOC
100
W. Rootworra
Wirevorra !
Giitworn)
Wirevorm
Cutworn
u ftootvora
Corn borer
Corn borer
Corn borer
•Ixtent of Problem «)
Acreage
Needing
Chemical
Treatment
W)
80
0
30-UO
20
16
10
Acreage
Currerttly
Being.
Treated
<*)
80
rootworm)
5
rootvorm)
20
Treatments
Pesticides Used
ff of
Treat-
ments
per
-.eason
1
1
1
1
1
1
Ibs/A/Treatraent
CH
OP
.5
.5
.5
1
1
1
c
• 5
• 5
.5
later ials
Cost/A
($)
Application
Cost/A
($)
Total
Cost/A
($)
14.50-
8.00
1|.50-
8.00
lt.50-
8.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
Yield/A
With
treatment
80
80
80
80
80
80
Without
Treatment
65-70
60
Cost'*
(*)
2.00
2.00
Connerv.
Code
1
1
2
1
2
3
CO
-pi
-------
Table U8, Corn Pest Control in Nebraska,
Irrigated Region,
t C»*nwn p.Tno.nrn
Gourc e Dr. Z ^^3^_M?YQ_..
Average yield
Period 1972-Tli
Line
No.
1
2
3
It
Cultural
Practice
Continuous
-
Continuous
All corn
Scouting
All corn
Corn borer
resistant
All corn
t
yo
10
yu
lUiJ
—
loo
100
W. Rootworra
Wirevorm
Cul.wornl
Wirevom
Cutworm
Corn borer
••
Corn borer
Spider mite
Kxl.ent of Frobl.>m(?)
Chemical
Treatment
(JO
85
30-1)0
10
8
5
10
Ileing.
Treated
(JO
85
(80-90)
rootworms
<5
rootworms
10
15
Treatments
.. Pesticidp
Treat-
ments
per
season
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
iW/
Cll
i-_.Usec
v/Tron
OP
.5
.5
.5
1
1
1
1
tnonl
C
.5
.5
.5
Materials
Cost /A
(*)
Application
Coot/A
($)
Total
Cost/A
(40
8.00
U.50-
8.00
14.50-
^ 8.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
Yield/A
With
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
Without
Treatment
105-UO
105
100-105
Cost /A
(*)
2.00
2.00
Conjnen'
Code^
1
1
2
1
2
3
1
oo
en
-------
1)9,' Corn Pest Control in New York.
A,.v,..-i(-.. Crnuii 360.0)0
Avoruco yield , 77
Dra. A.A. Muka and D. Plmentel
Period
Line
Bo.
1
2
3
Cultural
Practice
continuous
Rotation
Scouting
f
0
0
*, Rcotworm
Corn Borer >
Leaf Aphid
•rmyworm
Corn Borer
.eaf Aphid
\rmyworm
Jxtcnt of Problem(J()
/eCc&e?Sl
Chemical
Treatment
«)
30
2
30
teaay
Being.
Treated
(*)
ItO
2
Treotmento
Pp
-------
Table 50, Corn Pest Control in North Carolina. Aert«n;o grow' 1'500.'X|0—| Source.
Avurnjjc yield 6*i bu/A Period 1972-71.
Dr. Robert Robertson
Line
No.
1
2
3
Cultural
Practice
Continuous
Rotation
Scouting
*
17
33
-
Billbuds
Wirevorms
S . Rootworm
Cnrn ^^Tj^f
All
nxtent of rroblomfj!)
Acreage
JleediHg
Clicmicul
Treatment
(*)
18
(17-19)
18
(17-19)
15
r3oing.
TreateJ
(t)
15
(10-20)
15
(10-20)
Treatment!!
it tfiBSt.
Tzx-at-
mcnbs
per
season
1
1
1
lba./A/Trca1. .icn I
CM
1/2
1/2
1/2
OP
C
*
"
3A
Mater ialo
Coot/A
(*)
Apjilication
Coot/A
(*)
Total
Coat/A
(*)
6.20.
6.20
6.20
Yio]
With
L'rcatincu
65
65
65
'I/A
Without
Treatment
1.0
(35-1.5)
1.0
(35-U5)
Cost /A
(*)
2.00
Commcrr
Code!.
1
1
3
CO
-------
Table' 51 ^ Corn Pest Control in Ohio,
Eastern Region,
grown Ill°2i°°.'.l
Average yield ZQ-Jju/A—i
Source
Dr. Gerald Musick and Dr. Robert Treece
. Period ..1.Q7?-?1!
Line
No.
1
2
3
Cultural
Practice
Continuous
Rotation
Scouting ^
%
35
65
•
N. Rootworm
Corn borer !
Cutworm
Wirewora
Corn borer
Cutworm
Wireworm
Cxtcnt of Problom«)
.Acreage
Needing
Chemical
Treatment
W
26
(20-30)
2U
(20-30)
Acreage
Currently
Being.
Treated
00
26
(20-30)
2U
(20-30)
Trontments
r^i
Treat-
ments
per
season
1
1
1
nidfis Iliwd...
Ibs/A/Treatment
CH
.26
0
.26
OP
M
.36
•;i»u
C
.53
• >4 It
.53
Materials
Cost/A
($)
14.00
3.00
3.00
Application
Coat/A
($)
T
T
T
Total
Cost/A
(*)
14.00
3.00
hflo
Vie]
With
Creatmenl
70
70
70
d/«
Without
Treatment
66
67
Scouting
Cost /A
($)
u.oo
"
Coiniaeiy
'Cod<*
1
1
3
CO
00
-------
TuMe 52. Corn Pest Control in Ohio,
Western Region,
erc-UJ''-' J'rnwn
hr. f|pr-»1ri Mll.Tirk
rnco yic-ld ..UP W/ __ Period -197S-7U
Line
No.
1
a
Cultural
Practice
Continuous
Rotation
ScoutinR '&
Continuous
Sccuting1^
Rotation
«
Co
LO
—
N. Rootworm
Corn borer '
Cutworm
Wi rcvorm
Corn borer
Cutworm
I. Ti re worm
II. Hootworm
Corn borer
Cutworm
Wirevorm
Corn borer
Cutworm
Wireworm
"
Ixtont of J'rol)l.tnn(5£)
Acreage
Needing
Chemical
Treatment
(*>
go
UO
60
UO
ftcretge
Currently
Doing,
Treated
(*)
80
80
TrcuLmcn1.o
Pest,
// of
Treat-
ments
per
season
1
1
1
1
ifj^es -Used
Ibs/A/Treat nen(
C1I
.18
L.O
.18
1.0
OP
.22
.05
.22
.05
C
.26
.07
.26
.07
Materials
Coot/A
($)
U.OO
3.00
3.00
3.00
Application
COB t/A
($)
T
T
T
T
Total
Coot/A
($)
U.OO
3.00
3.00
3.00
YiolnVA
With
110
110
110
110
Without
i
Treatment
100
100
100
100
Cost /A
($)
U.OO
U.OO
Common'.
Cod<*
i
1
3
3
CO
LO
-------
Table 53( Corn Pest Control in 8outh Dakokai AcreuEe 6rown 3,600.^0 Source Dr- David WalgenbacU
Average yield
65
. Period
1972-71*
Line
No.
1
2
Cultural
Practice
Continuous
- Rotation
Total
Total
%
142
•fl
Qn
;pp
11 & W Root-
worm !
H & W Root-
vorra
Gra^shoDDers
Cutworms
Wireworms
Rxtcnt of ?roblcm(i£)
fi£HHS
Chemical
Treatment
(X)
100
33
6
1
C&$i8By
Being.
Treated
(fl
100
33
3
17
Treatments
PestlnlflpB Ilnf.,^
U Of
Treat-
ments
per
season
1
1
1
1
Ibs/A/Tr cat men!
CH
1
OP
1/2
1/2
1/2
C
1/2
1/2
1
NJaterials
Coot /A
(*)
Application
Cost/A
(*)
Total
Cost /A
($)
5.00
5.00
lt.00
14.00
Yield/A
With
Chemical
rreatmenl
65
65
65
65
Without
Chemical
Treatment
53
55
52
50
Cost/A
(*)
Commen'
Code^
1
1
1
1
-------
Tulde 5!tt Corn Pest Control in Wisconsin,
Acre,l(,,e ^un 2.270.000 Grain s Dr. Jarces Apple
Avwnf;e yield 9° bu/A Period
jine
No.
1
2
5
Cultural
Practice
Continuous
Continuous
iotation
>coutinrc '^
Continuous
*
6^
• •3
41
N&W Rootvorm
•
Loaf anlild
Corn borer
Cutworm
Leaf aphid
Corn borer
Cutworm
H^W Rootwonn
Leaf nnhid
Covn borer
Cutworm
'xtcnt of Problem(^)
tests
Chcraicul
Treatment
tf)
75
2
2
75
(ApreaBa
Being.
Treated
(?)
100
1
1
Treatments
Pesticldps Ilsofl
Treat-
ments
season
1
1
1
1
Ibu/A/'i'rcatmenl
CII
.1
0?
1.0
.5
.5
.7
0
1.0
1.5
1.5
.2
tutorials
Coot/ A
(*)
5.00
1.00-3.00
1.00-3.00
3.50
Application
Coot/A
(*>
1.00
3.00
3.00
T
Total
Coat/A
(*)
6.00
U.OO-
6.00
U.oo-
6.00
3.50
Yield/A
With
t'ruu Une.Mil
90
90
90
90
Without
TrctiUnunt
82
80
80
Cos*1- /A
(*)
2.00
CoioiDcn'
Code4
1
1
1
7
-------
Table 55. Corn Pest Control in Wyoming.
Acreage grown fiS.OOO
Average yield 70+ 1"*.'A
Source Pi-. Chris _Burl
-------
FOOTNOTES
1. For the added materials and costs for any control program that includes
diapause control see "diapause" below "double line" on each respective
table.
2. For the added materials and costs for any control program that includes
trap crop control see "trap crop" below "double line" on each respective
table.
3. Trap crop occupies only 5% of the total cotton acreage. Dosage and cost
given is for the treatment of only the trap crop.
4. Comment codes are as follows:
1 = Current practices
2 = Alternative pest controls that could be put into practice within one year
3 = Alternative pest controls that require additional research and potentially
could be put into practice in 5 to 10 years
5. Trap crop in this situation refers to the alternate cutting of alfalfa
fields to'leave live alfalfa fields for plant bug control.
6. By ceasing to irrigate the cotton further in August, growth of the cotton
can be terminated.
7. No one treats automatically anymore. Everyone scouts to some degree.
8. Fields are scouted by insecticide representatives and others.
9. Scouting in this case means "supervised pest control."
10. Trap crop in this situation refers to the interplanting of cotton with
strips of alfalfa to attract plant bugs.
11. By managing the crops that are grown adjacent to cotton, it is estimated
that the number of sprays would be reduced by 1-2.
12. Treatments may be required rarely. Scouting will determine when treatments
are needed and time these accurately.
13. The advantage of scouting is timing.
14. Trap crop = sorghum interplanted in cotton, 4 rows to 24 of cotton.
Added cost = $3.00.
15. Treatments reduced significantly.
16. Early and uniform destruction of cotton stalks on an area-wide basis for
boll weevil control.
143
-------
17. Reducing irrigation and lowering the amount of fertilizer will reduce the
growth of the cotton plants and make them less attractive to the bollworms
and budworms late in the season.
18. Only in certain counties; 5-7% of the acreage.
19. Early and uniform destruction of cotton stalks on an area-wide basis for
boll weevil control. Destroying the stalks on 70% of the acreage is
ineffective.
20. 43 bu reflects mean for Florida. With chemical treatment, it has
shown consistently that yields may be increased 50-75%.
21. The spider mite, European and southwestern corn borer and western bean
cutworm are not a problem in these sections.
22. Corn in two years before rootworms are a problem. Second year corn is
not bothered.
23. 25% of the corn is in annual rotation.
24. Insect problems sporadic and diverse. A sound predictive index is needed.
25. May not decrease the number of treatments but would improve the timing of
applications by having an effective insect pest monitoring program.
26. Monitoring of insect pest populations could be carried out by the growers
themselves. Would improve timing of applications. Commercial scouting
is not practical at present.
27. This resistance would be primarily tolerance in the ability of the corn
plant to regenerate roots.
28. Southwestern corn borer. All other references are to European corn borer.
29. Trap crop sprayed with pheromones.
144
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/5-79-007a
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION>NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Alternatives for Reducing Insecticides on Cotton and
Corn: Economic and Environmental Impact
5. REPORT DATE
August 1979 (issuing date)
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
D. Pimentel, C. Shoemaker, E. LaDue, R. Rovinsky,
N. Russell
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14850
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1BB770
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
R802518-02
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Environmental Research Laboratory—Athens, GA
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Athens, GA 30605
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final, 4/75-2/77
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/01
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
Insecticide levels and application costs supplied by 31 entomological experts,
plus estimates of the other costs involved with various insect control strategies,
indicate that many insect control strategies that may significantly reduce insecti-
cide use on cotton and corn may be more economical than strategies currently being
used. An analysis of alternative insect control technologies in corn revealed that
few opportunities exist to employ alternative strategies because only about 1 pound
of insecticide is applied per acre. The prime pest on corn is the rootworm complex
and the practical alternative is crop rotation. Several alternate controls are
available for cotton that would reduce the use of large quantities of insecticide,
however. A detailed static analysis revealed that selecting the most economical
control strategy for cotton in each growing region resulted in an annual reduction
in insect control costs of $81 million and also reduced total insecticide use by
about 40%. A significant finding was that if cotton production could be allowed to
shift naturally in the Nation, insecticide use and cotton production costs would be
greatly reduced.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
COSATI Field/Group
Insecticides
Insect control
Agricultural chemistry
Agricultural economics
Economic analysis
02A
57P
68E
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE YO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES
157
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
145
it U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979 — 657-060/5367
-------
|