EPA - 540/9-75-031
November 1975
D
\
\
LLJ
EVALUATION OF
PEST MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
FOR COTTON, PEANUTS AND
TOBACCO IN THE UNITED STATES
1975
Office of Pesticide Programs
Office of Water and Hazardous Materials
Environmental Protection Agency
-------
EVALUATION OF PEST MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
FOR COTTON, PEANUTS AND TOBACCO IN THE UNITED STATES
by
Rosmarie von Rumker
Gerald A. Carlson
Ronald D. Lacewell
Richard B. Norgaard
Donald W. Parvin, Jr.
with
Freda Horay
James E. Casey
James Cooper
Arthur H. Grube
Valentin Ulrich
For
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Pesticide Programs
Charles D. Reese, Project Officer
Jeff Kempter, Project Officer
For
Council on Environmental Quality
722 Jackson Place
Washington, D.C. 20006
Warren Muir, Project Officer
EPA 540/9-75-031
-------
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This EPA report has been reviewed by the Office of Pesticide
Programs and approved for publication. Approval does not
signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and
policies of the Environmental Protection Agency, or does
mention of trade names or commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
PREFACE
This report describes the results of an IsEvaluation
of Pest Management Programs on Cotton, Peanuts and Tobacco
in the United States” performed for the Council on Environ-
mental Quality and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of pesticide Programs, under Contract No. EQ4ACØ36,
RvR Consultants Project No. 66.
The project has been directed by Dr. R. von Rümker,
Managing Partner, RvR Consultants, who also served as princi-
pal investigator. Co-principal investigators were Dr. G. A.
Carison, North Carolina State University; Dr. R. D. Lacewell,
Texas A & M University; Dr. R. B. Norgaard, University of
California; and Dr. D. W. Parvin, Jr., Mississippi State
University. Dr. V. Ulrich, West Virginia University, assisted
in finalizing this report. Ms. Freda Horay, RVR Partner,
served as project associate. The field work was performed
during the period July to September, 1974.
Dr. Warren R. Muir was project officer for the Council on
Environmental Quality, and Mr. Charles D. Reese and Mr. Jeff
Kempter represented the Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
RvR CONSULTANTS
By ‘tA 444 /PP . .1
Dr. Rosmarie von Rüxnker
Managing Partner
Project Manager
28 October 1975
1
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance and
guidance of the Government’s project officers for this study,
Dr. Warren R. Muir for the Council on Environmental Quality,
and Mr. Charles D. Reese and Mr. Jeff K mpter for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
This study received much support, assistance and en-
couragement from many scientists and others knowledgeable in
the subject area, including Dr. P. L. Adkisson, Dr. F. S.
Arant, Dr. J. R. Brazzel, Dr. L. A. Falcon, Dr. J. M. Good,
Dr. F. A. Harris, Dr. J. B. Kendrick, Jr., Dr. F. G. Maxwell,
Dr. L. D. Wewsom, Dr. R. F. Smith, and Dr. R. V. Sturgeon, Jr.
In addition, a number of persons were particularly helpful to
the regional studies and in reviewing the regional report
drafts, as recognized in the regional reports.
Draft final reports on the study were reviewed, in whole
or in part, by Dr. W. R. Muir, Mr. C. D. Reese, Mr. J. Kempter,
Dr. V. Ulrich, Dr. F. G. Maxwell, Dr. D. Pimentel, Dr. J. M.
Good, Dr. V. W. Davis, and Dr. J. R. Brazzel. Many construc-
tive comments that were very helpful in the finalization of
this report were received from these reviewers.
The authors express their sincere gratitude for all of
these contributions.
R. von Rürnker
G. A. Carison
R. D. Lacewell
R. B. Norgaard
D. W. Parvin, Jr.
October, 1975
ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction
Objectives
Study Approach and Methods .
S urnmary
Conclusions and Recommendations . . . .
Development of Pest Management Programs in the U.S.
Environmental Effects of Pest Management Programs
Human Health Effects
Environmental Effects
Feasibility of the Pest Management Programs Studied
Constraints on Expansion of Pest Management Programs
Research • • •
Development
Pest Management Delivery Systems .
Interdisciplinary Research, Education and Training
of Personnel •
Program Management . . . . . .
Applicability of Findings to Other Crops
• . . . 1
• • . . 2
• . . . 3
7
12
• • . 17
• • . • 21
• . . 22
• . . . 24
• I • I 27
• . • 32
• . • . 35
• . . . 36
• . • • 38
• . . 40
• * • 41
• . . 43
• . . 47
• I • 47
• . . 47
• . . 49
• • • 61
• . • 67
• . . 70
• . . 70
• . • 71
71
• . • 73
76
• . 76
• I 77
Cotton Pest Management Programs . . . * . . . •
Background . • • . • . • . • .
Trends in Cotton Production and Pesticide Use
Users, Locations and Characteristics of the Programs
Studied
Program Costs
Program Effectiveness .
Effects on yield . • • • • • • • •
Effects on insecticide use
Effects on production costs . . . . • • . . •
Effects on growers’ profits • •
Constraints on Expansion of Cotton Pest Management
Programs S 1 I
Peanut Pest Management Programs
Background • . •
Trends in Peanut Production and Pesticide Use • •
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Users, Location and Characteristics of the Programs
Studied • . . . 79
P rog rain Co S t S S
Program Effectiveness
Effects on yield
Effects on pesticide use
Effects on production costs .
Effects on growers’ profits
Tobacco Pest Management Programs
Background. . . . . . . .
Trends in Tobacco Production and Pesticide Use
Users, Locations and Characteristics of the Programs
Studied . . . .
Program Costs . . . .
Program Effectiveness
Effects on yield
Effects on pesticide use
Effects on production costs
Effects on growers’ profits . . . . .
Effects on tobacco sucker control and stalk
destruction .
References . . . . • • • 105
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Benefits of Pest Management Programs
on Cotton, Peanuts and Tobacco . . • • • • •
2 U.S. Cotton Acreage, Insecticide Use on
Cotton, and Production of Insecticides . . . •
3 Characteristics, Costs and Benefits of 19
Cotton Pest Management Programs . . . .
4 Estimated Implementation and Operating Costs
for Regional Pest Management Programs
onCottoninTexaS . . . . • • . . S
83
• . 86
86
• . 89
. . 90
• . 90
• • 93
• 5 93
• • 93
• . 96
• 5 99
100
101
102
102
103
103
• . . 5
•
• S * • • •
5 . I • S •
• . S • •
9
48
52—56
64
iv
-------
5 Comparison of Scouting Costs vs. Costs of
Supervision and Overhead for Selected
Cotton Pest Management Programs 65
6 U.s. Peanut Acreage and Use of Insecticides,
Fungicides and Herbicides on Peanuts . . . 78
7 CharacteristiCs, Costs and Benefits of 3
Peanut Pest Management Programs . . . . . 81
8 U.S. Tobacco Acreage and Use of Pesticides
on Tobacco
9 CharacteristiCS, Costs and Benefits of the
North Carolina Tobacco Pest Management
Programs 98
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Locations of the Cotton Pest Management Programs . . . 51
2 Locations of the Peanut Pest Management Programs . . . 80
3 Locations of the Tobacco Pest Management Programs . . 97
V
-------
INTRODUCT ION
Much has been written and said about integrated pest
management (1PM) in recent years, and several definitions
have been offered by a number of authors and speakers in-
cluding Geier (1966); Smith and Reynolds (1966); Smith and
van den Bosch (1967); Stern et al. (1959); Kennedy (1968)
Falcon (1972); and Rabb (1972). The Council on Environmental
Quality (1972) defines integrated pest management as follows:
“Integrated pest management is an approach that employs
a combination of techniques to control the wide variety
of potential pests that may threaten crops. It involves
maximum reliance on natural pest population controls,
along with a combination of techniques that may contri-
bute to suppression--cultural methods, pest-specific
diseases, resistant crop varieties, sterile insects,
attractants, augmentation of parasites or predators, or
chemical pesticides as needed. A pest management system
is not simply biological control or the use of any
single technique. Rather, it is an integrated and compre-
hensive approach to the use of various control methods
that takes into account the role of all kinds of pests
in their environment, possible interrelationships among
the pests, and other factors.”
For purposes of this study, pest management programs have
been defined as those programs that contain at least the follow-
ing three elements:
(1) Diagnosis of the pest problem by scouting, also
referred to as “field checking”, pest trapping
and/or other methods;
(2) Determination if and when intervention, i.e., pest
suppression, is required, mostly based on damage
thresholds;
(3) Suppression of the pest(s) by the most appropriate
tool(s) available.
1
-------
The determination if and when intervention (pest sup-
pression) is required is usually based on so—called “economic
damage threshold” infestation levels. Up to the present, the
most frequently used method of intervention (pest suppression
or control) has been the use of chemical pesticides.
Unilateral reliance on chemical pesticides has resulted
in economically as well as ecologically disastrous failures in
a number of agro—ecosystems (Adkisson, 1971; Smith, 1962; Smith
and Reynolds, 1972). On a number of crops, including cotton,
deciduous fruits, vegetables, and others, insect and/or mite
pests have become increasingly more difficult to control with
chemical pesticides due to the development of resistance,
destruction of beneficial predators and parasites, rapid resur-
gence of target pests, and build-up of previously unimportant
species to economically damaging proportions. There have also
been reports of development of resistance to chemical fungicides
in plant—pathogenic fungi. In crops where chemical herbicides
have been used for a number of years, weed populations are grad-
ually changing; more difficult-to-control weeds are becoming
more prevalent as those species that are easily controlled
recede.
A variety of alternative pest control or suppression methods
have been developed (Council on Environmental Quality, 1972),
Integrated pest management endeavors to combine several pest
suppression techniques, including the judicious use of chemical
pesticides.
OBJECTIVES
This study was undertaken for the purpose of evaluating
pest management programs on cotton, peanuts and tobacco in the
United States. Specific objectives were as follows:
-- Identify users and locations of major representative
pest management programs;
-— For these programs, assess (by years)
(a) biological effectiveness, including economic
threshold levels and factors such as crop yield,
2
-------
(b) types and amounts of costs associated with the
establishment and operation of the program,
(c) environmental impact,
Compare the factors set forth above (a, b, C) with
comparable farming operations not under pest
management;
Assess the overall feasibility of pest management for
cotton, peanuts and tobacco and specify constraints
which may exist for the expansion of these programs;
-- Analyze the extent to which the findings of this
study may be applicable to other crops.
Due to the sponsors’ information needs and timing require-
ments, the field phase of this study had to be conducted on a
tight time schedule (three months), at a time when many scientists
connected with pest management programs are either in the field,
on vacation, or busy with the resumption of classes (July through
September, 1974).
STUDY APPROACH AND METHODS
To accomplish the objectives set forth above within the
time frame stipulated, RvR Consultants engaged as co-investigators
four agricultural economists, each of whom had previous experience
in dealing with problems of crop protection and pest management.
Each of them collected data and information and prepared a report
in accordance with the overall project objectives for pest manage-
ment programs in specific regions as follows:
D. W. Parvin, Jr. Cotton programs in Louisiana,
Mississippi, and Alabama
G. A. Carison Cotton programs in North Carolina
and Arkansas, tobacco programs
in North Carolina
R. D. Lacewell Cotton programs in Texas, peanut
programs in Texas and Oklahoma
R. B. Norgaard Cotton programs in California
and Arizona
This project team met with the project manager, R. von Rümker,
at Dallas, Texas on July 10, 1974. This meeting was also attended
3
-------
by the CEO project officer, W. R. Muir, ana by C. D. Reese, EPA
project officer. The objectives of the study, the proposed
organization of reports, availability and acquisition of data,
coordination with other organizations, and many other working
details were thoroughly discussed.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Cooperative Extension
Service (CES) and Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
jointly sponsored and partially funded pilot pest management pro-
jects in the United States, beginning in 1971. That year, two
pilot projects were established to control insects on tobacco in
North Carolina and on cotton in Arizona, respectively. (both of
these projects are included in this evaluation.) Subsequently,
this USDA/State program has been expanded rapidly; it included 39
projects in 29 states on 19 major crops in 1973 (Good, 1973).
The USDA Cooperative Extension Service was advised of this
study at the time it was initiated by W. R. Muir, Council on En-
vironmental Quality. Additional contacts concerning data acquisi-
tion, progress of the study and related matters were maintained
by a personal meeting between W. R. Muir, R. C. Scott and others
on July 25, 1974, and in subsequent contacts by telephone, by
correspondence, and in person between R. von Rümker, R. C. Scott
and J. M. Good. USDA/APHIS (J. R. Brazzel) was kept abreast of
the study by R. von Rt mker.
Several USDA agencies including CES, APHIS, the Economic
Research Service and the Agricultural Research Service, as well
as the two sponsoring agencies, the Council on Environmental
Quality and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, provided
project members with various reports and documents containing
information on cotton, peanut, tobacco, and other pest management
programs, arid other helpful material. Much additional information
was obtained by G. A. Carison, R. D. Lacewell, R. B. Norgaard,
D. W. Parvin, Jr., and R. von Rümker in the field, primarily from
personnel directly involved with the cotton, peanut and tobacco
pest management programs studied.
4
-------
As the regional reports reflect, there was considerable
variation between states in regard to the quality and quantity
of data available on their respective pest management programs.
In general, this investigation received outstanding support in
most states covered, especially in Texas, Mississippi, Alabama,
Louisiana, and Arkansas.
Drafts of the cotton reports by Carison, Lacewell, Norgaard,
and Parvin were received by RvR Consultants in early September of
1974, and drafts of the peanut report by Lacewell and the tobacco
report by Carison were received by mid-October, 1974. RvR Con-
sultants then prepared analyses and overviews of the cotton, pea-
nut, and tobacco programs studied, and summary evaluations. The
cotton draft report was submitted to the sponsoring agencies in
September of 1974, and the draft report on peanuts and tobacco in
October of 1974. Both report drafts were then reviewed in whole
or in part by a number of scientists knowledgeable in the subject
matter, including Dr. W. R. Muir and Ms. M. Suter of the Council
on Environmental Quality, Mr. C. D. Reese and Mr. J. Kempter of
the U.S Environmental Protection Agency; Dr. J. M. Good, Dr. J. R.
Brazzel, Dr. V. W. Davis and others, U.S. Department of Agriculture;
Dr. D. Pimentel, Cornell University; Dr. F. G. Maxwell, Mississippi
State University; Dr. R. F. Smith, University of California;
Dr. G. A. Carison, North Carolina State University; Dr. D. W. Parvin,
Jr., Mississippi State University, Dr. R. D. Lacewell, Texas A & M
University; and Dr. R. B. Norgaard, University of California.
Dr. V. Ulrich, West Virginia University, assisted in the
editing of major parts of the report. In addition, each of the
regional reports (Appendices A through F) was reviewed by several
persons familiar with the individual programs studied, as recog-
nized in each report by the respective authors. Many helpful com-
ments and suggestions were received from these reviewers and
utilized in the preparation of this final report.
In the early phases of this study, the terms “pest management”
and “integrated pest management (1PM)” were used more or less
interchangeably in the project’s vocabulary. However, one of the
5
-------
findings of the study was that most of the pest management
programs evaluated were not genuinely integrated in the strict
sense of the word. Therefore, the term “pest management programs”
was subsequently applied, especially in the titles and main body
of the report.
The results of this study are presented in this report at
three levels of detail and resolution:
(1) Findings and conclusions are highlighted in
the sections Summary (p. 7-12)
Conclusions and
Recommendations (p. 12-16)
(2) A comprehensive overview, analysis and evaluation
of the regional reports follows next, organized as
follows:
Development of Pest
Management Programs
Environmental Impact
Feasibility
Constraints Ofl Expansion
Applicability of Findings
to other Crops
T’rends in Crop Production
and Pesticide Use )
Users, Locations and
Characteristics of the )
Programs Studied )
Program Costs )
Program Effectiveness
Yield
Pesticide Use
Production Costs
Growers’ Profits
(3) The regional reports, Appendices A through F, are
the data base of this study; they contain a large
)
)
)
)
)
Combined for
all crops
studied
p. 17—46
By crops:
Cotton, p. 47-75
Peanuts, p. 76—92
Tobacco, p. 93—104
6
-------
volume of detailed information on the pest manage-
ment programs studied, assembled by the regional
investigators in accordance with the study obleetives.
Access to the data in the appendices is facilitated
by many cross—references throughout the body of the
report.
SUMMARY
In this study, 19 cotton pest management programs, 3 peanut
pest management programs and 3 tobacco pest management programs
were evaluated in regard to the users, locations and characteris-
tics of each program, program costs, program effects on crop
yield, pesticide use, production costs and growers’ profits. The
environmental impact and the biological and economic feasibility
of each program were studied, and constraints on the expansion
of pest management programs and the applicability of the findings
of this study to other crops were assessed. In accordance with
the sponsors’ timing requirements, most of the data and informa-
tion presented in this report were collected during the period
July through September, 1974. The findings, conclusions and re-
commendations presented are based largely on the state of affairs
as of the fall of 1974.
Key parameters of the programs studied and of their costs
and effects are summarized in the following paragraphs. More
specific, quantitative data on the 25 pest management programs
are summarized in Table 3 , p. 52 to 56 for the 19 cotton
programs; in Table 7 , p. 81 for the 3 peanut programs; and
in Table 9 , p. 98 for the tobacco programs. Detailed
descriptions and evaluations of each program are presented in
the regional reports, Appendices A through F.
Program Characteristics
The 19 cotton pest management programs ranged in size from
1,422 acres in one county to 204,000 acres in 23 counties and in-
cluded programs started between 1949 and 1973. The 3 peanut pest
management programs studied comprised 394, 1,315 and 6,558 acres,
7
-------
respectively, and were initiated in 1971 or 1973. For the
North Carolina tobacco pest management program, operations were
evaluated for the 3-year period 1971 to 1973; the program com-
prised 8,032 acres in 5 counties in 1971 and expanded to 11,350
acres in 10 counties by 1973.
Program Costs
Operating cost and, to the extent available, implementation
cost data were collected for all programs studied. In the cotton
pest management programs, annual operating costs reported on a
per acre basis ranged from $1.30 to about $5.50/acre (exclusive
of costs of insecticides and application). Annual operating
costs reported on an “entire program” basis ranged from $20,303
to $911,568. The annual operating costs of the peanut pest manage-
rnent programs evaluated ranged from $7,882 to $40,133 per program,
or $1.20 to $53.16/acre. In the North Carolina tobacco pest
management programs, annual operating costs ranged from $14.91
to $17.80 per acre.
Program Effectiveness
An overv.iew of the effectiveness of the programs studied in
terms of crop yield, insecticide use, production costs and growers’
profits is presented in Table 1. In terms of all 25 programs
evaluated (19 cotton, 3 peanut and 3 tobacco programs), program
effects were as follows.
Cro yield : Adequate yield data were available for 18 pro-
grams, and in 13 (72%) of these, pest anagement program partici-
pants experienced increases in yield (quantity and/or quality).
There were no changes in yield in 5 programs, and none of the
programs studied reported yield decreases.
Insecticide Use : In 18 (86%) of 21 programs for which in-
secticide use data were available, insecticide inputs decreased,
while they increased in 3 programs.
Production Costs : Adequate production cost data were avail-
able for 20 programs, and in 17 (85%) of these, production costs
of program participants decreased, while there was an increase
8
-------
Table 1 : Benefits of Pest Management Programs on Cotton, Peanuts and Tobacco
Cotton Peanuts Tobacco All Crops
1! Programs Evaluated 19 3 3 25
Yield Increased 11 2* 0 13
Decreased 0 0 0 0
NoChange 2 0 3 5
NoData 6 1 0 7
Insecticide Increased 3 0 0 3
Use Decreased 14 1 3 18
NoChange 0 0 0 0
NoData 2 2 0 4
Production Increased 3 0 0 3
costs Decreased 13 1 3** 17
No Change 0 0 0 0
NoData 3 2 0 5
Profit Increased 15 2 3** 20
Decreased 1 0 0 1
No Change 0 0 0 0
No Data 3 1 0 4
* Increase in Quantity and/or Quality
** Disregarding Scouting Costs
9
-------
in production costs due to the pest management program in 3
of the cotton programs.
Profit : Participating growers’ profits increased in 20
(95%) of 21 programs with adequate data; there was a slight (6.0%)
decrease in 1 cotton pest management program in 1973, the base
year for Table 1. This decrease (in the Frio County, Texas pro-
gram) was due to locally adverse weather conditions which forced
a delay of harvest in some fields and required a more intensive
boll weevil diapause control program than would normally have
been required. The program increased participants’ profits in
3 out of 4 years since its inception in 1971.
Environmental Impact
To evaluate the environmental impact of the pest management
programs studied turned out to be very difficult. There are no
adequate, quantitative base line data available on the effects of
“conventional” pesticide use on environmental quality and conse—
quently,there is no basis for comparing the environmental effects
of pest management programs to farming operations not under pest
management. In many of the USDA/State—supported programs, environ-
mental samples including soil, rodents, forage, fish, water, sedi-
ments, toads, and birds were collected and sent to a U.S. Department
of Agriculture Laboratory for analysis. However, after storing
these samples for several years, the Department decided not to
analyze them.
In 18 of 21 programs for which insecticide use data are avail-
able, program participants used smaller quantities of chemical
insecticides than non-participants, an indirect indication of
positive program effects. In a number of programs, the safety and
health of field scouts were monitored. No adverse effects on scout
health were noted in any of the programs.
Feasibility
All 19 cotton pest management programs studied were found to
be biologically and economically feasible, and generally successful
in accomplishing their objectives. Among the 3 peanut programs
10
-------
evaluated, only 1 had more than .1 year’s operating experience,
and this program appeared to be feasible. The biological and
economic effectiveness of the remaining 2 programs for which only
the start-up year’s experiences were available for evaluation
remains to be established firmly, but in both cases, prospects
appear promising.
On tobacco in North Carolina, management of insect pests
only does not appear to be economically feasible or attractive to
growers, based on 3—year experiences (1971—1973). In response to
these findings, the program objectives were greatly changed and
expanded in 1974.
Constraints on Expansion
Several actual and potential constraints on the further ex-
pansion of pest management programs or, in positive terms, oppor-
tunities for improvement became apparent in the course of this
study. These are highlighted briefly in the following section
(“Conclusions and recommendations”) and discussed in greater de-
tail in the section on “Constraints on expansion” (p. 32 to
42 ). Regional findings in this regard are included in the
regional reports, Appendices A through E (specifically, see pp.
B—54 ff., C—39 ff., D—190 ff., F—33 ff.).
pplicabi1ity of Findings to Other Crops
The results of this study show that the biological as well as
the economic elements of different pest management programs vary
considerably between crops, and even between programs for the
same crop in different geographical areas. In addition, the bio-
logical and economic effectiveness of any given program is subject
to year—to-year variations due to changes in weather conditions,
pest infestation levels, and other seasonal factors.
On the other hand, certain observations recurred in most of
the programs studied and are therefore probably applicable to
other crops as well. These are discussed briefly in the section
on “Conclusions and recommendations”, and in greater detail in
the section on “Applicability of findings to other crops”
11
-------
(p. 43 to 46 ). Reqional findings in this regard are
found on pp. C—52 ff., 0—196 If, and E—57 ff.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Expansion Potential
There are several potential routes of expansion for pest
management, including the following:
—- Increase acreage under pest management;
—— Increase variety of pest suppression tools and
methods;
—- Include pests other than insects (and mites);
—- Expand pest management into crop management;
—- Combine crop and pest management on a multi—crop,
area—wide basis.
When the programs studied are compared against these poten-
tials, it appears that while much progress has been made, there
is much room br further progress and expansion. For instance,
in most of the programs, i.e., in 14 of 19 cotton programs, in
2 of 3 peanut programs, and in all tobacco programs, insect sup-
pression was the main or the only program objective, and the use
of chemical insecticides “as needed” (as determined primarily i :y
scouting) was the main pest management tool. Thus, these pro-
grams are not really integrated pest management, but “prescri ir:ion
insecticide” programs. Only 5 of the 19 cotton programs, and 1
of the 3 peanut programs had broader crop production improvement
objectives. Very few programs included management of pests other
than insects and mites (weeds, nematodes, plant diseases, etc.)
among their objectives.
Re comme nda tion:
Promote the expansion of pest management programs and
practices to ards more comprehensive objectives, and
greater Lversificaticn and integration of management
strategies and tools.
12
-------
Research and Education
Lack of basic research does not currently appear to be a
constraint on the further expansion of pest management programs
on cotton, peanuts, or tobacco. However, much of the available
research know—how is available primarily in isolated, compart-
mentalized form, and is often put together only in the farmer’s
field. At the farm level, pest and crop management are complex
problems, while at public institutions, agricultural research
and teaching are traditionally discipline -oriented and -organized.
Better and more effective cooperation between all disciplines
involved in crop protection and crop production, including eco-
nomics, is an urgent prerequisite to the further successful de-
velopment of pest management, plant health, and integrated crop
production programs for cotton, peanuts, and tobacco, as well as
for other crops. This need is equally apparent in the research
area and in the education and training of pest and crop manage-
ment scientists, administrators, and practitioners.
Recomrnenda tion :
Promote more effective cooperation between all disciplines
involved in pest management and crop production in research
as well as in education and training of pest management
and crop production specialists.
Pest Management Delivery Systems
Pest management is a technology that has been and is being
developed largely in the public sector, primarily by federal and
state research and extension personnel, for implementation in the
private sector, i.e., by many individual farmers. Other technolo-
gies developed in the public sector are also used mainly in the
public sector, such as, for instance, space technology, military
technology, etc. The delivery of pest management technology to
users thus represents a somewhat unique problem. To the extent
that pest management services and chemical pesticides are inter—
changeable, they compete for the same clients and dollars. Chem-
ical pesticides are vigorously marketed, while pest management is
13
-------
not. Successful implementation and expansion of pest management,
especially of comprehensive, genuinely integrated plant health
improvement and crop production programs, requires one—on—one
contact between technology users and deliverers. In some of the
programs studied, this problem was recognized, and an effort was
made to strengthen and expand already existing pest management
delivery systems; the use of private pest management consultants
in the California cotton program is a case in point.
Recommenda tion :
The ql estion of the structure and nature (public, private,
optimal mix) of pest management delivery systems and re-
lated problems at the interface between the publicly
developed pest management technology and its private users
requires attention. Publicly funded or supported pest
management programs should include definitive plans and
provisions for delivery of pest management technology
and services to users on an ongoing self-sustaining basis.
Information Needs
In most of the pest management programs studied, program
design and execution did not include provision for adequate eval—
uation of the program’s economic and ecological effectiveness.
Data on program effects on crop yields, production costs and
growers’ profits are essential to “selling” pest management to
growers. Likewise, adequate information on the benefits (or
lack thereof) of these programs to society (tax payers) is need-
ed to justify expenditures of additional public funds for pest
management research, development and implementation.
Recommendation:
Publicly funded or supported pest management programs
should include provision (and funds) for evaluation of
their economic and ecological effectiveness.
14
-------
Federal Suj ort
Among the 19 cotton pest management programs studied in this
project, 2 were initiated in 1949 and 1950, respectively, 9
between 1964 and 1971, and 8 in 1972 or later. Federal support
for pest management programs from the USDA/State cooperative pro-
gram first became available in 1971/1972. A comparison of the
rates of progress in different programs before and after that
time indicates that the infusion of the federal support and funds
resulted in expansion and improvement of existing programs and
stimulated the establishment of many new programs, including the
3 peanut pest management programs studied and the North Carolina
tobacco pest management program. The USDA/State program has also
promoted the expansion of pest management objectives and strate-
gies along the lines suggested above under “Expansion Potential”
(p. 12 ).
Likewise, the multi-agency research project entitled “Inte-
grated pest management/the principles, strategies, and tactics
of pest population regulation and control in major crop ecosystems”,
popularly known as the “Huff aker Project”, funded jointly by the
National Science Foundation, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, has st mu1ated a
great deal of research and development activity in many areas re-
lated to pest management.
For a more comprehensive discussion of the role of govern-
ment support from a regional standpoint, the reader is referred
to pp. D—191 to D—194.
Recommendation :
Continue to provide federa7 support for pest management
research, development, and implementation.
Publicly funded or supported pest management programs
at the farm level should include provision for monitoring
program effectiveness and biological and economic feasi-
bility, and definitive plans for transfer to self-sustain-
ing status (or discontinuation if not feasible) at the
15
-------
earl e$t po$s1 ble time.
New projrams should be established and funded with
a view to further expanding pest management towards
its full potentials.
16
-------
DEVELOPMENT OF PEST MANAGEN1PN’1 1 PROGRAMS IN THE u.s.
The first cotton insec pest control or suppression program
meeting the criteria for pest management programs set forth above
(p. 1 ) was initiated in the state of Arkansas in the late
1940’s. The development and operation of the Arkansas program
are described in detail by Carison and Grube, p. B-2-3, B-8 ff.
Additional pest management programs were started soon there-
after in other cotton growing states. These included “supervised
pest control” programs by private pest management consultants in
California (as relayed by Norqaard, p. C-6 ff.); “spray coopera-
tives” and pest management programs initiated as commercial opera-
tions in North Carolina in 1967/1968 (Carison and Grube, p. B--13 ff.
and B—42 ft.); several programs in Texas, primarily involving dia—
pause boll weevil ( Anthonomus grandis ) control (reported by
Lacewel,1 and Casey, p. D—6 ff., D—23 ff., D—45 ft., and D—56 ft.);
and a private qrower cooperative program aimed at control of the
pink boliworm (Pectinophora gossypiella ) and the cotton leaf
perforator (Bucculatrix thurberiella ) in the Safford Valley, Graham
County, Arizona (Norgaard, p. C-42 ff.)
All of these programs implemented technology developed over
the years in the research programs of the U.S. Department of Agri-
culture and the land-grant universities and state agricultural
experiment stations.
Application of pest management strategies on cotton (and other
crops) received substantial additional support and expanded at an
accelerated rate following several milestone events in the early
1970’s, including the following.
To promote implementation of pest management, the U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture initiated (in 1971) two “pilot pest management
projects”, i.e., one on cotton in Arizona and one on tobacco in
North Carolina, at a funding level of $200,000. The program was
expanded in 1972 to 22 projects on 10 crops in 21 states, funded
at $1.2 million. In 1973, the program was increased again to 39
projects on 19 crops in 29 states, funded at $2.2 million (Good,
1975).
17
-------
In 1972, a multi—agency research project entitled “Inte-
grated Pest Management/The Principles, Strategies and Tactics of
Pest Population Regulation and Control in Major Crop Ecosystems”,
popularly known as the “Hut faker Project”, was initiated. This
bold and imaginative project, managed by C. B. Huffaker and
R. F. Smith, University of California, involves 19 universities,
several agencies of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, several
state agencies, and certain private institutions. The program
includes a cotton subproject in which the University of Arkansas,
the University of California, Mississippi State University, Texas
A & M University, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture cooperate.
The overall project is funded jointly by the National Science
Foundation, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. From its inception through
February 28, 1976, the project received $8,267,900 from the
National Science Foundation and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, and $1,556,100 from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
An additional $3,112,200 are to be provided by the National Science
Foundation and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the
last two years of the project, to February 28, 1978. These grants,
totalling about $13 million, represent about one-half of the full
level of financial effort going into the project. Internal support
provided by each of the participating institutions in the form of
academic and staff salaries, facilities and (in some instances)
a portion of the overhead comprises an amount estimated to be
equal to that received from the agencies formally funding the pro-
ject (Huffaker, 1975).
These two large nationwide programs stimulated a great deal
of activity directly or indirectly connected with pest management
in federal and state agencies and laboratories, universities,
state agricultural experiment stations, extension services, et.
Pest management conferences and workshops were held throughout the
country, andsymposia and paper reading sessions dealing with pest
management became a standard component of most or all meetings of
scientific societies interested in crops and pests. These activi-
18
-------
ties have produced much new knowledge, and a large number of
scientific uflU popular publications, reviews and unpublished
reports deaiinq primarily with the entomological aspects of
pest management. By comparison, relatively little attention
seems to have been devoted thus far to problems such as truly
interdisciplinary pest and crop management, economics, and how
to translate research findings into self-sustaining agronoxnic
practices at the grower level.
The Federal government, through its Legislative as well as
its Executive branches, encouraged further research and implemen-
tation of pest management. The President’s message of
February 8, 1972 to the Congress outlining his environmental
program includes the following statement on integrated pest
management:
“Chemical pesticides are a familiar example of a technolog-
ical innovation which has provided important benefits to
man but which has also produced unintended and unanticipa-
ted harm. New technologies of integrated pest management
must be developed so that agricultural and forest pro-
ductivity can be maintained together with, rather than at
the expense of, environmental quality. Integrated pest
management means judicious use of selective chemical pesti-
cides in combination with nonchemical agents and methods.
It seek.s to maximize reliance on such natural pest popula-
tion controls as predators, sterilization, and pest diseases.
The following actions are being taken:
--I have directed the Department of Agriculture, the National
Science Foundation, and the Environmental Protection Agency
to launch a large-scale integrated pest management research
and development program. This program will be conducted
by a number of our leading universities.
--I have directed the Department of Agriculture to increase
field testing of promising new methods of pest detection and
control. Also, other existing Federal pesticide application
programs will be examined for the purpose of incorporating
new pest management techniques.
--I have directed the Departments of Agriculture and of
Health, Education, and Welfare to encourage the development
of training and certification programs at appropriate academic
institutions in order to provide the large number of crop
protection specialists that will be needed as integrated
19
-------
pest management becomes more fully utilized.
—-I have authorized the Department of Agriculture to
expand its crop field scout demonstration program to
cover nearly four million acres under agricultural pro-
duction by the upcoming growing season.
Through this program many unnecessary pesticide applica-
tions can be eliminated, since the scouts will be used
to determine when pesticide applications are actually
needed.”
The “Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1972”,
an Act to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide
Act (Public Law 92-516, 92nd Congress, H.R.10729, October 21, 1972)
mandates the following in Section 20 (a):
“The Administrator (of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency) shall undertake research, including research by
grant or contract with other Federal agencies, universi-
ties, or others as may be necessary to carry out the
purposes of this Act, and he shall give priority to
research to develop biologically integrated alterna-
tives for pest control”.
These Presidential and Congressional mandates were implemen-
ted by policy statements, guidelines, and actions of the Executive
Branch, especially the Council on Environmental Quality, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Department of Agri-
culture. As an example, the Secretary of Agriculture’s memoran-
dum No. 1799 of February 1, 1973 stated:
“Non—chemical methods of pest control, biological or cultural,
will be used and recommended whenever such methods are eco-
nomically feasible and effective for control or elimination
of pests. When non-chemical methods are not tenable, inte-
grated control systems utilizing both chemical and non-
chemical techniques will be used and recommended in the
interest of maximum effectiveness and safety”.
In November of 1972, the Council on Environmental Quality
issued a publication entitled “Integrated Pest Management” in which
the need for this approach to crop protection and the current state
20
-------
of the art set forth in a well written and concise form. This
publication includes brief outlines of the current state of
development of chemical and nonchemical pest z anagement methods,
These Federal initiatives have stimulated and accelerated
research activities in the sciences underlying pest management,
especially entomology, and efforts to implement pest management
technology in field programs. However, research activities and
new knowledge will not affect agricultural production, environ-
mental quality, or societal well-being unless and until they are
widely accepted and practiced at the grower level. The present
study is part of an effort to evaluate the biological and economic
feasibility of pest management on selected crops, and the process
of transfer of this technology to growers.
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PEST MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
Of all criteria by which the effectiveness of pest management
programs may be measured, their environmental impact is most
difficult to evaluate. Very little information is available docu-
menting cause/effect-type relationships between the orderly use
(as opposed to accidents, spills, gross misuse, etc.) of specific
pesticides on specific crops and environmental quality. Pesticide
residues have been found analytically in human tissues, as well as
in numerous environmental samples, including soil, air, water,
sediment, wildlife, fish, lower aquatic organisms, domestic animals,
plants, and other materials collected in various pesticide monitor-
ing programs. However, in most instances, the significance of
these residues and their effects (if any) on the organisms or media
in which they are present is not clear. In the absence of adequate,
quantitative baseline data on the effects of “conventional” pesti-
cide use on environmental quality, it is very difficult to assess
the environmental effects of pest management programs as compared
to farming operations relying primarily on chemical pesticides for
pest control.
21
-------
Human Health Effects
There are numerous instances, many well documented, in which
pesticides, including those used on cotton, tobacco and/or peanuts,
have resulted in human illness and deaths. Victims include
pesticide applicators, other persons directly working with pesti-
cides, farm workers, as well as persons not directly involved in
pesticide operations, especially children. While a detailed study
of human health effects was not included in the scope of this study,
it should be mentioned that pest management programs will have
beneficial effects in this field in several ways, including the
following.
(1)
The results of this study indicate that adoption of
pest management principles and practices wilI. in
many instances result in a decrease in the quantities
of pesticides used. This in itself should decrease
the exposure of pesticide workers, other farm workers,
and bystanders to toxic pesticides and thus the
incidence of poisoning cases.
(2) Several pest management programs include grower educa-
tion, encourage more judicious use of pesticides, and
promote greater awareness of the hazards associated
with pesticide use, including hazards to human health.
Better training of persons handling pesticides should
help to reduce the pesticide accident rate.
(3) In a number of the programs studied, program partici-
pants are transferring the responsibility for insect
suppression measures, including insecticide applica-
tions, to the pest management organization. (This is
the case in the North Carolina “spray cooperatives”
and in some of the commercial operations in that state;
and in some of the California and Arizona programs.)
As more pest management programs develop into area—
wide crop protection or crop management schemes,
pesticides will increasingly be applied over larger
22
-------
areas by professional applicators, instead of by
individual growers to their own fields. This will
reduce the number of individuals exposed to pesti-
cide concentrates and spray mixtures and should thus
be another factor reducing pesticide accidents.
The report by Norgaard (p. C-33 ff.) includes statistics on
occupational diseases attributed to pesticides by industry groups
and specific pesticides (Table C-il), and by types of pesticides
and cotton growing counties in California (Table C-12) for 1971.
However, these data do not differentiate between “convential” pesti-
cide use practices and pest management programs and therefore do
not provide direct answers to the questions addressed in this chapter.
As Norgaard (p. c-36) points out, pest management involves frequent
entry of fields by persons employed to check population densities
of pests and beneficial organisms. This increases the potential
for exposure to pesticide residues and poisonings for this group.
However, field checkers are generally informed as to possible harm-
ful effects of pesticides, when fields have been treated, and on
the protective procedures that may be required. As a result, no
field-checker poisonings have been experienced in California.
The North Carolina tobacco pest management program .included a
human health effects element (Carlson, 1975). In 1973, blood
cholinesterase levels of field personnel in 2 counties were monitor—
ed. All determinations fell within normal ranges. (Depression of
blood cholinesterase indicates exposure to organophosphate or
carbamate insecticides.)
Scout health and safety were also monitored in the Texas pest
management programs. Scouts received pre-eiuployment physical ex-
aminations, and a medical history was obtained. Blood cholinester-
ase determinations were run biweekly, and urine samples were
analyzed for paranitrophenol levels, indicative of exposure to
parathion or methyl parathion. In the Rio Grande Valley program,
monitoring data showed that there was organophosphate exposure of
the scouts as a group, but there were no c’l.inically significant
23
-------
deviations from normal values in any one individual. No adverse
health effects were experienced by scouts involved in any of the
other Texas pest management programs either, and it was concluded
that there were no significant pesticide—related effects on any
scout in the program (Lacewell, 1975).
Environmental Effects
None of the pest management programs reviewed in this study
included effective plans or designs for measurement of environ-
mental impact. In some of the USDA/State cooperative programs,
environmental samples including soil, rodents, forage, water, sedi-
ment, fish, toads, and birds were collected and sent to a USDA
laboratory for analysis. However, after storing these samples for
several years, the Department decided not to analyze them (Reeves,
1975).
In spite of the dearth of specific data referred to above, it
is generally assumed that pesticides have a deleterious effect on
the environment outside the target area. In addition, adverse
effects of pesticides on the target agro-eco systems in which they
have been used have been documented in a number of instances; some
of these are reported in the publications cited above in be intro-
duction. Thus, the assumption that decreased use of pesticides will
be beneficial to environmental quality is held widely. Based on
this assumption, all of the authors of the regional reports (Appen-
dices A through F) used the effect of pest management programs on
pesticide inputs as one measure of their environmental impact,
rating reductions in the quantities of pesticides used by pest
management program participants as a positive indicator of benef i-
cial effects on environmental quality.
Cotton : As the data summarized in Tables 1 and 3 show, 14
of 19 cotton pest management programs resulted in a decrease in
the quantity of insecticides used. There was an increase in insecti-
cide use in 3 programs. The remaining 2 programs lack adequate
data on insecticide use.
Norgaard’s report on the California cotton pest management
24
-------
programs (Appendix C) is the only regional report that includes
data on bee, fish and wildlife losses due to pesticides. Fish
and wildlife losses attributed to pesticides in the San Joaquin
Valley from 1965 to 1969 are summarized in Table 13, page C-37.
However, many other crops are produced in the Valley, and it is
impossible to attribute all of the reported wildlife losses to
the use of insecticides on cotton. Furthermore, there are no
quantitative comparisons between pest management program partici-
pants’ and non-participants’ cotton insect control practices for
the years in question, nor data on the effects of specific pesti-
cide use practices on wildlife. Thus, while the fish and wildlife
loss data are interesting, they make no direct contribution to an
assessment of the environmental impact of pest management programs
in the area. The same comments in priciple apply to the reports
on the adverse effects of pesticides on bees. The bee, fish and
wildlife loss data simply document that these undesirable “side-
effects” from the use of pesticides did occur, the expectation
being that a reduction in the volume of use of toxic insecticides
on cotton would most likely reduce such losses.
Peanuts : In general, peanuts receive relatively heavy pesti-
cide inputs in the United States. The per-acre use of insecticides
on peanuts increased slightly from 1966 to 1971, but the use of
herbicides on peanuts increased by about 50%, and the use of fungi-
cides almost quadrupled.
Adequate pesticide use data are available for only one of the
three peanut programs studied. In Frio County, Texas, the adoption
of pest management procedures decreased the quantities of insecti-
cides used. The results of field plot trials in Oklahoma (Lacewell
and Casey, p. E-46 ff.) suggest that in that area, the use of
pesticides on peanuts may be suboptimal, and that increased inputs
of pesticides, especially insecticides and/or nematicides, may in-
crease peanut yields and growers’ net returns. Thus, it is possible
that more intensive peanut pest monitoring, and a better under-
standing of the combined effects of all production inputs on peanut
25
-------
yields and profits will result in increased pesticide use in
that area. If increased pesticide use is equated with adverse
effects on environmental quality, negative environmental impacts
might be anticipated. However, there is no evidence that the
present (or an increased) use of pesticides on peanuts is (or
will be) detrimental to environmental quality.
Tobacco : As summarized in Table 9 , p. 98 and
documented in detail by Carison and Cooper (p. F-31 ff.) the
North Carolina tobacco pest management program resulted in reduced
use of insecticides in each of the 3 years studied. In addition,
Carison and Cooper reported the abundance of several species of
beneficial ins.ects, including stiltbugs and Campoletis (p. F-9,
Table 2.3), and tiger beetles (p. F-30, Table 3.7). These were
sampled in different years inside and outside of the pest manage-
ment area. There were some numerical differences in the popula-
tions of these beneficial insects, but they were statistically
insignificant due to large variances.
Data on residues of insecticides in sample areas are included
in North Carolina’s tobacco pest management program report for
1973. Only traces of currently used chemical pesticides were
detected in crops sampled since 1971, indicating that presently
used pesticides, at presently practiced use patterns, do not
create environmental residue problems, with the exception of
methomyl. Residues of this insecticide were found from pesticide
useage at a time preceding the pest management program.
In summary, no data are available which would permit a
rigorous evaluation of the environmental impact of.the
pest management programs studied in comparison to compar-
able fields, farms or areas not under pest management.
Anindirect indication of possible positive program
effects is a reduction in the use of chemical pesticides
in most of the programs.
26
-------
FEASIBILITY OF THE PEST MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS STUDIED
Cotton : The feasibility of each of the cotton pest manage-
ment programs evaluated in this study was carefully assessed.
Details are documented and discussed by Parvin for Louisiana,
Mississippi and Alabama in Appendix A, by Carison and Grube for
North Carolina and Arkansas in Appendix B, by Norgaard for Cali-
fornia and Arizona in Appendix C, and by Lacewell and Casey for
Texas in Appendix D.
Without exception, these investigators report that each pro-
gram evaluated is feasible. As summarized in Table 1 , p. 9
and, in greater detail, in Table 3, p. 52—56 , cotton yields in-
creased in 11 of 13 programs for which yield data are available,
insecticide use decreased in 14 of 17 programs with adequate in-
secticide use data, cotton production costs decreased in 13 of
16 programs, and growers’ profits increased in 15 of 16 programs.
Present and future benefits of pest management programs to
cotton producers, to environmental quality, and to society have
been well documented for several programs, notably those in Texas.
In several instances, it appears. that the pest management approach
was not only feasible, but was actually a practical, economic
necessity. This is the case, for example, in the diapause .boll
weevil control programs in Texas, and in the programs in the Rio
Grande Valley of Texas and in Graham County in Arizona.
Peanuts : The feasibility of the 3 peanut pest management
programs studied has been evaluated by Lacewell and Casey (pp. E-16,
E-34, E-53). Adequate information and experience are currently
available only for the Frio County, Texas program. For this pro-
gram, there appears to be a cost effectiveness of $8-16 returned
per dollar of program cost. In addition to these monetary gains,
the program contributed to a downward trend in the quantity of
insecticides used. Current producer costs for the program are
$1.00/acre. Participating producers have indicated that they would
be willing to pay $2.00/acre or more to continue the program.
27
-------
These factors indicate that the program is attractive to
growers, and that it is effective in accomplishing its princi-
pal objective, management of the burrowing bug ( Pangaeus
bilineatus) . The program appears to be feasible both biologic-
ally and economically.
The remaining 2 programs, both supported by USDA grant funds
(Comanche County, Texas and Oklahoma), were implemented only in
1973 Both programs experienced various start-up difficulties,
including late availability of funds, inadequate time and funds
for program planning and preparation, and late start of field
operations relative to the vegetation period of peanuts. In both
programs, actual costs per program acres were excessive. As of
the fall of 1974, data and operating experiences available were
insufficient for a realistic assessment of the economic feasi-
bility of these programs.
Both of these programs address not only insect problems, but
include consideration of plant diseases, nematodes, weeds, soil
fertility, and plant health. It is not clear how much such an
integrated pest management/plant health service would be worth to
peanut growers, but some indications in this regard may be gleaned
from the Oklahoma program. This program has several interesting
features. It provides not only pest management advice to partici-
pating growers, but includes field demonstration tests in which
different peanut management practices and production inputs are
evaluated comparatively. ovel monitoring techniques such as
infrared photography and remote sensing are being evaluated. A
mobile diagnostic laboratory of the type successfully used in
Virginia for many years is employed in the program. Thus, it
appears that this program involves an interdisciplinary effort to
develop a complete, efficient peanuE production system, focusing
on plant health improvement, rather than only on the management of
one or a fe specific pests.
Plans for 1974 for the Oklahoma program included making sug-
gestions to participating growers based on populations of harmful
28
-------
(and beneficial) insects, weeds, nematodes, and diseases, to
be monitored by plant health teams weekly from June through
August, and bi-weekly in September and October. Growers will
also receive advice on soil fertility and irrigation. Each
grower will receive a “field report” following each visit by the
plant health team. The field report will be supplemented by the
services of the mobile plant health diagnostic laboratory which
is staffed with a technician and a field plant health supervisor.
Participating growers are paying a fee of $8/acre for this service
for the first 50 acres, $7/acre for the next 25 acres, and $6/acre
for the balance of acres in the program. Plans for 1975 envisioned
expansion of this approach to additional crops.
The biological and economic effectiveness of this compre-
hensive, innovative approach that incorporates interdisciplinary
inputs and several different techniques (field monitoring, field
test plots, mobile diagnostic laboratory, with remote sensing
perhaps to be added) remains to be established. However, the large
differences in peanut yields and in gross and net returns obtained
in the 1973 Hughes County field demonstration plots indicate that
there is considerable room for improvement of peanut production
in Oklahoma. The potential net profit improvements indicated are
of the order of $l60-240/acre. Potential profit increases of this
magnitude could well support the cost of an effective, comprehen-
sive plant health improvement service.
Peanut programs based on integrated management of pest com-
plexes as well as production practices have been operated success-
fully for many years in Eastern peanut growing areas including
Virginia and Georgia. These programs were initiated long before
the term “integrated pest management” became popular. In Georgia,
for instance, this approach quadrupled peanut yields in 20 years
(Good, l974a). Due to limitations in available time and funds, it
was not possible to include an evaluation of these older programs
in the present study.
29.
-------
Tobacco : The gross return of tobacco in North Carolina
is about $2,000/acre. The North Carolina tobacco pest manage-
ment program, by its published objectives and activities from
1971-1973, was not an integrated pest , but an insect management
program. Program objectives did not include management of tobacco
diseases, nematodes, or weeds, nor soil fertility or general plant
health considerations. According to the information analyzed by
Carlson and Cooper (p. F-27 to F-29), the estimated costs for
insecticides and application on all North Carolina tobacco farms
in 1971 was $11.28/acre. Pest management program participants
may have realized cost savings from reduced use of insecticides
ranging from $2.51 to $5.55/acre, averaging $4.26/acre for the
3 year period 1971—1973. The latter figure amounts to 0.2% of
the farm value of one acre of tobacco, while the total average
cost for insect control for all North Carolina tobacco growers,
$11.28/acre, amounts to 0.56% of the farm value of the crop per
acre. Thus, tobacco insect control is not a major tobacco pro-
duction cost item.
As summarized in Table 9 , p. 98 , the total cost of insect
management (including scouting, extension service and professional
support, overhead, and cost of insecticides and application) for
program participants ranged from $23.53/acre in 1972 to $23.68 per
acre in 1971 and 1973. The dost of insect management per acre of
tobacco in the program was more than twice as high as the estimated
cost of insecticides plus application on all North Carolina farms.
The per—acre costs of scouting (scout salaries and travel) alone,
disregarding all other program expense elements, were higher than
the savings in insecticides and application costs, (Program par-
ticipants realized a small actual increase in profits only because
they did not make any contributions to the costs of the program.)
For these reasons, it does not appear that a pest management
program limited to the management of insect pests on tobacco is
economically feasible in North Carolina.
As Carison and Cooper point out in the concluding remarks of
30
-------
their detaile6 study (p. F-35), yield and quality improvements
were not part of the North Carolina tobacco pest management pro-
gram up to 1973. Due to the high value of the tobacco crop,
small improvements in yield quantity or quality will justify
considerable expen 1itures of management resources. Thus, while
tobacco insect management may not be economically feasible by
itself, it may well be viable as one component in an interdisci-
plinary tobaccO pest management/plant health improvement program.
This was recognized by USDA and North Carolina program managers
and consequently, the program was restructured, and a new 3-year
program began in crop year 174. The new thrust will provide for
integrated management of pest problems caused by insects, weeds,
diseases, and nematodes, and for sucker control. It is known
that the principal losses of tobacco are caused by diseases and
nematodes, and individualized recommendations for management of
these pests will i ore likely be economically attractive to tobacco
growers. For example, a large percentage of the tobacco acreage
is treated with expensive soil fumigants for the control of soil—
borne disease organisms and nernatodes. These treatments cost
$20 to $60 per acre; and substantial savings to growers could
probably be realized by more precise application based on needs
and use of less expensive chemicals, depending on the pests
present (Good, 1974a).
In summary, all- cotton pest management pro grams studied
in thie project were found to be feasible and generally
successful in accompli8hiflg their objectives, with differen-
ces in objectives between projects and areas.
Of the. 3 peanut programs studied, only one (Frio County,
Texa8) had more than one year’s operating experience.
This program appears to be feaaib is. Both of th9 Oklahoma
programs were initiated only in 1973 and therefore had only
one year’s operating experience at the time when the field
phase of the present study was conducted (early fall of 1974).
The biological and economic effectiveness of these programs
31
-------
remain8to be established firmly, but prospects appear
very promising.
On tobacco in North Carolinas management of insect
pests only does not appear to be economically feasible
or attractive to growers, and in response to these
findings, program objectives were greatly changed and
ea panded in 1974.
CONSTRAINTS ON EXPANSION OF PEST MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
Review of the pest management programs studied in this
project, including the regional investigators’ projections,
indicates that these programs could expand in several different
ways, i.e.:
—- cover more acres;
-- use greater variety of insect suppression
tools ai d techniques;
—- include pests other than insects (and mites);
-- include crop (not just pest) management;•
-- include crop and pest management on a multi-crop,
area-wide basis.
Evaluating the pest management programs studied, especially
those on cotton, against these potentials, it appears that most
of them are,,’ at this stage, still primarily “prescription insecti-
cide” schemes. Some cotton programs have expanded prescription
insecticide uée almost to an area-wide basis. The use of insect
suppression tools other than insecticides is minimal compared to
the use of insecticides. On cotton, there does not appear to be
any expansion toward the management of pests other than insects
(and mites) • Some cotton programs are developing into crop/insect
management schemes.
This analysis should not detract from the success and viabil-
ity of the pest management approach’ón cotton; it simply indicates
that there is much room for expansion, and that the development
32
-------
thus far has largely been in the area where the immediate
needs were the greatest. The USDS/State-supported programs
have been instrumental in stimulating the expansion of pest
management. In particular, the USDA/State program has brought
substantial additional cotton acreage under pest management.
It has reinvi orated some of the older programs that were show-
ing signs of sagging, and has given much added impetus to the
adoption of the crop development/plant measurement approach and
thus to the expansion of pest management in the direction of
total crop management. The “Huf faker program” has added substan-
tia].ly to the research base for these efforts in the fields on
which it focuses, i.e., the principles, strategies and tactics
of the population regulation and control of pests, primarily
foliar insects, on cotton and several other crops (alfalfa,
citrus, pines, pome and, stone fruits, and soybeans). Both of
these programs (USDA/State and “Huffaker”), of course, benefit
from, and build further on the vast base of research and technol-
ogy develoDed over many years by the U.S. Department of Aqriculture,
public and private universities, State Agricultural Experiment
Stations and Extension Services, private industry, and others.
The data presented in this study and in other reports show
that pest management programs have produced many benefits to agri-
culture as well as to society at large. However, in view of the
magnitude of ‘the effort, the amounts of public funds (both Federal
and State) that have been invested, and the favorable results at
hand, the question arises: If pest management is so advantageous
to all, why is it not ‘adopted more rapidly?
Integrated pest management is a new technology that might be
compared to the development of a new product or technology in an
industrial setting in terms of the phases involved in such a
process, including research, development, pilot marketing, and full
commercial production, marketing and use.
In the research phase, candidate new products (or technologies)
are invented and tested, and their suitability for their intended
33
-------
purpose is determined. A crucial step in the development phase
of a new product, after its basic effectiveness has been estab-
lished, is the determination of its economic f&asibility, includ-
ing obtaining answers to questions such as:
-- How much does it cost?
—— What will it do for users?
—- How much is it worth to users?
—- How much will users pay?
-- How does it compare to present products or practices?
In the commercial world, it would not be possible to success-
fully introduce and market a new product without solid answers
to these questions.
Even after a product proceeds from research and fievelopment
to commercial production, marketing and use, there is an ongoing
need for research support. Continued research is required for
product improvement, and to adapt the product or technology to
changing user needs. Development or technical service personnel
assist users in obtaining optimal benefits from the product,
handle problems of unsatisfactory performance and/or other user
complaints, provide communication between research and users, and
promote new and expanded uses. Very often, a new product is first
manufactured and marketed on a limited, or pilot scale to verify
or correct the economic, functional and operational forecasts made
earlier.
Finally, full commercial production, marketing and use present
the acid test on the validity of all previous forecasts and expecta-
tions. The well-known case of Ford’s Edsel, among others, docu-
ments that massive product failures are still possible at this
late stage.••
Comparing pest management as a new technology to the develop-
ment of a new product or technology in a commercial environment
provides a frame of reference helpful to the identification Of
certain strengths and weaknesses.
34
-------
Research
Considerable research has been conducted in the past on
the pests including insects, nematodes, diseases, weeds, etc.,
of cotton, peanuts, tobacco, and many other crops, as well as
on many other facets of the production of these crops. However,
up to the present, such research appears to have been conducted
largely on a disciplinary basis, without effective interdiscipli-
nary cooperation, leaving it up to the grower to put it all to-
gether, and to work out as best he (or she) can unforeseen inter-
actions between the different pieces of technology that were
developed in isolation.
Cotton : As pointed out above, a broad base of research know-
how on cotton insects and other pests has been developed in the
United States over many years. Among the commodities studied in
this project, cotton is the only one included in the “Huf faker
Project”. By its very title and its stated objectives, this pro-
gram is a research and method development effort. It strives to
be multi-disciplinary, but seems to be heavily tilted toward
entomology. Furthermore, while inputs from economists were planned,
it seems that in actual fact, economists have had only lirnit d
influence on, and participation in program planning, design, and
execution. This deficiency may become serious in areas where
Huf faker project activities progress from research into the develop-
ment and implementation phases of pest management.
Peanuts : The peanut pest management programs studied utilize
and implement research results developed in the states concerned
and elsewhere and rely on ongoIng research support and backup.
The Oklahoma program shows that field observations often raise
questions that can be resolved successfully only by continued re-
search participation and support. Lacewell and Casey emphasize
that both of the Texas peanut pest management programs also rely
heavily on, and receive, strong research backup.
Thus, lack of research data does not appear to be a major
constraint on expansion of peanut pest management programs, but
35
-------
ongoing research support is clearly an important requirement.
Tobacco : Rabb et al. (1974) have pointed out and documented
that a substantial pool of research knowledge exists in regard
to tobacco production and, in particular, in regard to the in-
sects and diseases affecting tobacco. These authors make the
following observation regarding utilization of this research
know-how:
“The integration of pest control actions into the tobacco
production system has been a slow step-by-step process
taking many years. Most of the inputs by pathologists
and entomologists have been made separately, and each
group has developed and implemented its own ‘action’
program.”
Rabb et al. (1974) cite several examples of tobacco production
improvements made unilaterally by one discipline, without co-
operation with other disciplines in the research (or development)
phase. For instance, it was found that the introduction of
nematode-resistant tobacco varieties aggravated damage by the
tobacco hornworm, Manduca sexta . Other examples include the role
of insects in the transmission of tobacco diseases; the increased
susceptibility of plants to disease because of insect damage; and
the influence of the use of maleic hydrazide, a chemical employed
most frequently for chemical sucker control on tobacco, in reduc-
ing overwintering populations of the tobacco hornworm.
It appears that sufficient basic knowledge on tobacco pests
exists to support pest management programs on tobacco. However,
more effective cooperation between all scientific disciplines
involved in tobacco pest management and production would seem to
be required in the further development of integrated pest and
crop management systems for tobacco.
Development
The USDA/State-supported “pilot program for integrated pest
management”, by its title and objectives, would correspond to the
development and pilot marketing phase in the life of a new
36
-------
commercial product. This comparison suggests several oppor-
tunities for improvement.
Economic and ecological evaluation : As pointed out above,
studies on economic effectiveness and feasibility are an essential
step in the development phase of a new product or technology. In
this regard, most of the pest management programs evaluated in
this study leave much to be desired. It appears that in most or
all of these programs, economists were not involved in program
planning and design and, to the extent that they participated at
all, had mostly inadequate data to evaluate ex post facto.
Scott (1974) and other leaders of the USDA/State cooperative
pest management program have emphasized that “Extension pest manage-
ment programs are designed to teach farmers to adopt integrated
biological, cultural, and chemical technology to control agri-
cultural pests”, and that “these programs have both economic and
environmental objectives -- to help maximize incomes of producers
and reduce potential adverse environmental effects of pesticides”.
In the light of these program objectives, it is surprising
that the design and funding of the programs apparently did not
provide for thorouqh , systematic evaluation of their economic and
environmental effects. Economic benefits to be obtained from pest
management programs will be far more persuasive to growers than
other factors. If pilot pest management programs are intended to
promote grower acceptance and implementation of integrated pest
management, generation of adequate economic data would appear to
be essential. If, in addition, these programs have environmental
objectives, then they should also include provision for monitor-
ing achievement of these objectives.
Information feedback : The information feedback loop in the
USDA/State program appears to be rather long, slow, and inefficient.
For instance, data necessary for an evaluation of the effective-
ness of the 1972 program were not collected from State project
leaders until late in 1973, and were not summarized and published
until the latter part of the summer of 1974. An evaluation of
the 1973 programs was not available in the fall of 1974. Results
37
-------
of analyses of the environmental samples collected in 1972,
were not available in the fall of 1974, and in the spring of
1975, it was announced that plans to analyze these samples had
been abandoned. Some pest management workers contacted in this
study in the early fall of 1974 were reluctant, unwilling or
unable to provide information because they had not collected or
analyzed their 1972 and/or 1973 data as yet.
In the commercial world, beginning a new year’s cycle in
the development of a seasonal product (such as pest management)
without prior complete assessment and exploitation of the preced-
ing year’s experience would be considered inexcusable. By com-
parison, the present information handling practices in many of
the programs studied in this project cause long delays in the
application of field experience. More rapid and efficient col—
lection and evaluation of field data and more rapid communication
of the findings to all program participants and to other interested
agencies and persons would appear to be highly desirable.
Pest Management Delivery Systems
Delivery of pest management technology to growers may be
compared to the marketing of a new product. In the commercial
environment, it would be very difficult, if not impossible for any
new product, no matter how good, to gain wide acceptance and use
without effective marketing. In the United States as well as in
many other “free market” countries, marketing has traditionally
been a function of private enterprise.
Chemical pesticides and pest management services, to the
extent that they are interchangeable, compete for the same users
and dollars. In the U.S., chemical pesticides are promoted and
marketed vigorously. By comparison, pest management does not
appear to be “sold” nationwide or regionally with any degree of
vigor. It thus appears to be in the position of a new product
without effective marketing.
38
-------
Cotton : In the cotton pest management programs studied in
this project, pest management is being delivered to growers
through private pest management consultants or organizations in
some cases (North Carolina, Arizona/Graham County, and California’s
private consultants), through the publicly funded Extension Service
in others. The two systems are not mutually exclusive; most or all
private consultants rely in varying degrees on the research, back-
up, and support of Federal and State research and extension per-
sonnel. In some states, notably in California, the administrators
of the USDA/State-supported cotton pest management program have
endeavored to expand private pest management consulting. In other
states, private pest management activities do not appear to be
encouraged by the State program.
Peanuts : No private enterprise “marketing” or delivery of
the pest management technology to users appears to be involved in
any of the peanut pest management programs studied. In the case of
the grower-initiated Frio County, Texas program, pest management
is delivered to growers by State agricultural agencies. Research
support is provided by the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station,
and pest management monitoring and advisory services are delivered
directly to peanut producers by or through the Texas Agricultural
Extension Service. Program users pay for the costs of scouting,
and the services of the State agencies are paid from State funds.
The other two programs studied did not appear to encourage
private enterprise participation either. If the Oklahoma program
accomplishes the ambitious objectives envisioned for 1974, 1975
and beyond without private enterprise participation, a considerable
expansion of the role of State agencies, especially of the Exten-
sion Service, would seem to be required.
Tobacco : No elements of private enterprise delivery of pest
management technology to growers appear to be involved in the
North Carolina tobacco pest management program. Program partici-
pants receive the “product”, pest management services and advice,
directly or indirectly from State agencies, primarily the Exten-
sion Service.
39
-------
Successful implementation of integrated pest management,
especially of more comprehensive plant health improvement pro-
grams, requires one-on-one contact between pest management users
and pest management deliverers. This requirement appears to be
at odds with several basic principles that apply to all extension
programs, but especially to developing pest management programs,
as stated by Good (1974b) as follows:
—- Extension must not compete with the private sector.
-- Extension cannot provide specialized services to
select individual or groups.
—— Extension must present alternative choices so that
growers have sufficient knowledge to make enlightened
decisions.
A study of the relative advantages and disadvantages of the
delivery of pest management technology with or without private
enterprise participation was not included in the scope of this
study. However, the facts discussed above indicate that a better
understanding of the optimal mix between public and private activity
in the delivery of integrated pest management technology to users
may be important to the further planning and implementation of
public policies in this field.
Interdisciplinary Research, Education and Training of Personnel
Pest (not just insect) management and plant health improve—
ment are complex problems that clearly require an interdisci-
plinary approach. Tackling crop production problems in an inter-
disciplinary manner is not the traditional approach within the
U.S. Department of Agriculture, nor at U.S. universities and
State Experiment Stations. Agriculture-oriented universities in
the U.S. are traditionally discipline -oriented and -organized in
research and education, and this seems to carry through to the
Extension system. Effective cooperation between entomologists,
plant pathologists, neinatologists, weed scientists, plant physiolo—
gists, plant breeders, agronomists, engineers, chemists, and
other disciplines involved in crop production appears to be feeble
40
-------
or nonexistent in most academic institutions. Cooperation between
the biological and physical disciplines and economists and
sociologists likewise is vastly underdeveloped.
It appears that more effective cooperation between all
disciplines involved in crop production is an urgent prerequisite
to the further successful development of integrated pest manage-
ment or plant health programs for cotton, peanuts and tobacco,
as well as for other crops. Such interdisciplinary cooperation
is essential for the efficient solution of research problems, as
well as for the education and training of field personnel and
growers.
Program Management
At this writing (1974/1975), overall responsibility for pro-
gress of the various federally supported pest management programs,
and for optimal use of public funds appropriated for this purpose
appears to be ill defined, and diffused throughout different
Federal and State agencies. The question arises whether the interest
of farmers as well as of society (and taxpayers) at large would
not be better served by tighter management, i.e., if one agency
would be given specific overall responsibility and authority for
the further development and implementation of pest management
programs.
This function would be comparable to that of a product manager
in industrial settings. The product (or program) manager concept
has been used extensively and successfully in other mission-oriented
governmental activities such as, for instance, the space program
and the military services. Management tools such as the “Program
Evaluation and Review Technique” (PERT), critical path method,
and/or others are often used with much success; they facilitate
program coherence, communications, and timely completion of in-
dividual work elements.
None of these management methods appear to be in use in the
USDA/State program, or between that program and the “Huf faker
Project” and other pest management efforts. Very tight manage—
41
-------
ment of the entire program may not be feasible or even de—
sirable. However, there does appear to be a need for more
effective guidance and support of individual program elements,
including promotion of more effective coordination and coopera-
tion between all elements necessary to the efficient further
development of truly integrated, practical pest/crop manage-
ment systems; improvement of information collection and handl-
ing procedures, and strengthening of a communications system
through which information can and will flow swiftly in both
directions, i.e., from research workers through extension and
other advisory personnel to growers, and vice versa. Another
function of such overall pest management program guidance would
be to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort, to pinpoint and
correct weaknesses, and to keep the overall program moving in
the right direction.
In summary, •rnuch has been accomplished in the establish-
rnent and e. rpans-ton of pest management programs on cotton,
peanuts and tobacco, especially in the last 3 years
(since 1972) through the USDA/State-supported program,
but a great deal more remains to be done to develop this
technology towards its full potential, and to make it
permanently viable and self-sustaining. There are oppor-
tunities for’ improvement in the following areas, especially
in publicly funded or supported programs:
-- Evaluation of th c?coriomic and ecological effests
of pest management program8
-- Informatio i feedback
-- Pest management delivery systems.
-- Interdisciplinary research, education and training
of personnel;
-- Overaliprogram guidance.
Note: As emphasized above in the introductory sections of this
report, the findings and conclusions presented are based on data
and information collected in the field in the early fall of 1974.
42
-------
APPL1CAB1LI:TY OF FINDINGS TO OTHER CROPS
In this study, 19 pest. management programs located in 8
major cotton-producing states, 3 peanut pest management pro-
grams located in the states of Texas and Oklahoma, and the North
Carolina tobacco pest management program were described and
evaluated in detail. In all evaluations, prime emphasis was
placed on the practical, economic effectiveness and feasibility
of the programs studied. Most previous reports on pest manage-
ment programs have dealt primarily with their research and bio-
logical (largely entomological) aspects, instead of their economic
effectiveness and practicality at the grower level. To the best
of our knowledge, comparable, economically oriented, down—to—earth
evaluations of pest management programs on other crops do not
currently exist.
The present study has shown that there are considerable dif-
ferences between pest management programs on the same crop in
different states, and even within states. For instance, each of
the 3 peanut programs evaluated had different objectives, even
though all were located in two neighboring states, in the same
general area of the U.S. Similar variations in origin, experience
to date, and objectives were observed among the cotton programs
studied.
Furthermore, it is interesting to note that Oklahoma peanut
producers, growing a crop worth $375/acre (1973 U.s. average),
were reported willing to pay $8/acre for an integrated pest
management/plant health improvement service. California cotton
producers, growing a crop worth about $250/acre (1973 California
average), pay private consultants $2 to $6/acre for pest manage-
ment and general production advice, depending on the level of
service (Falcon, 1974). On the other hand, North Carolina tobacco
producers, growing a crop worth $2,000/acre, have contributed
nothing to the cost of their USDA/State-supported insect manage-
ment program between 1971 and 1973.
Thus, it appears that the biological as well as the economic
elements of pest management programs vary greatly between different
43
-------
crops and geographic areas. This is not surprising in view of
the great variations in the farm values of different crops, the
importance of insects, diseases, weeds, and other pests in re-
lation to other production problems, the availability of basic
prerequisites for successful integrated pest management, and
many other pertinent factors. These numerous variables explain
why in many ways, each pest management program has at least
some unique characteristics, and braod generalizations are of
questionable value.
On the other hand, certain observations recurred in most or
all of the pest management programs studied in this project and
are therefore probably applicable to other crops as well. These
include the following.
1. The biological and economic effectiveness of any given
program is subject to year-to-year variations due to
changes in weather conditions, pest infestation levels,
and other seasonal factors. Therefore, evaluation of
individual programs over time is likely to be more
informative and meaningful than studying different
programs or averages for single years in a “time slice”
fashion. The latter approach would obscure differences
between programs and lead to erroneous conclusions if
the year evaluated was unusual, which most years are
in one way or another.
2. Most of the cotton, peanut, and tobacco pest management
programs evaluated lacked adequate provision for evalua-
tion of their economic and environmental effects in
their planning, funding and execution.
3. One of the major constrair ts on the further expansion
of integrated pest management programs appears to be
the lack of effective interdisciplinary research,
planning, and, field implementation of research
know-how.
44
-------
4. There is a shortage of versatile, interdisj—
plinarily educated and trained crop management
scientists, administrators and practitioners.
5. The problem of optimal delivery systems of inte-
grated pest management technologies to growers
needs attention. In the majority of the pest
management programs studied, the Cooperative
Extension Service currently appears to be the
primary delivery system. There is a question if
in the long run, this role will be compatible with
the overall mission of the Extension Service which
considers itself primarily an educational agency
that should not provide specialized service to
individuals. On the other hand, effective pest
management delivery and implementation will have to
include furnishing specific, individualized advice
to growers.
6. As pointed out in greater detail in the section on
constraints, integrated pest management at its cur-
rent state of development shows many of the symptoms
of a new commercial product that lacks effective
development and marketing management. Several of the
programs evaluated appear to be stalled, or headed
for trouble at the crucial threshold between research/
development and full commercial viability and implemen-
tation, without clear plans how and by whom they could
or should be lifted across.
7. The foregoing, seemingly critical statements should not
take away from the fact that in most of the programs
studied in this project, much progress has been made
in a relatively short period of time. The USDA/State
cooperative program has successfully acted as catalyst;
it has mobilized many resources and greatly accelerated
the development and expansion of integrated pest
45
-------
management in the field. The very fact that certain
problems of commercial implementation and use of
pest management on a large scale at the grower level
are now at hand is a result of the success of the
program thus far.
46
-------
COTTON PEST MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
BACKGROUND
Many studies on the biology, population dynamics and control
of cotton insects have been conducted. At the present time, more
pest management programs are in operation on cotton than on any
other crop in the United States. This is due primarily to two
facts, i.e., (1) several of the serious failures of chemical in-
secticides have involved cotton insects, and (2) almost 50% of
the total quantity of insecticides used by farmers in the U.S. in
recent years was used on cotton (U.S. Department of Agriculture,
1968b, 1970, 1974b).
Further details on development of pest management programs,
especially programs on cotton, have been presented above in the
section entitled “Development of Pest Management Programs in the
U.S.” and are therefore not reiterated here.
A variety of different insect pests occur on cotton in the
United States. Their relative economic importance varies in
different parts of the country. Cotton pests of the Southern
cotton growing areas and their interactions with the cotton
plant, with beneficial parasites and predators, and with other
elements of the environment are discussed by Parvin (see p. A—2
to A-16). In the Far West, principal pests on cotton include
mites, lygus bugs, the cotton bollworm,Heliothis zea , the pink
boliworm, Pectinophora gossypiella (in Southern California and
Arizona), and the cotton leaf perferator, Bucculatrix thurber—
iella . These regional differences in the relative abundance and
importance of injurious as well as beneficial insects and mites
on cotton necessitate different pest management strategies, as
discussed in greater detail in Appendices A, B, C, and D.
TRENDS IN COTTON PRODUCTION AND PESTICIDE USE
The U.S. Department of Agriculture has collected data on
the quantities of pesticides used by U.S. farmers in 1964, 1966,
and 1971. These data are presented in Table 2 , along with the
47
-------
Table 2: U.s. Cotton Acreage, Insecticide Use on Cotton, and Production
of Insecticides, 1964 — 1973
Year
1964
1966
1971
1973
Cotton Acreage
(1,000 Acres)
14,836
10,349
12,355
12,501
Insecticide Use
on Cotton
— Total (1,000 lbs. Al)
78,022
65,368
73,357
75,0O61 ’
- per Acre (lbs. Al)
5.25
6.31
5.93
6.0 1/
Insecticides Produced
in U.S.
(1,000 lbs. Al)
463,321
561,814
564,818
639,169
Cotton Insecticide Use
Relative to U,. S. Production
16.8%
11.6%
13.0%
11.7%1#4’
Sources: U. S. Dept. of Agriculture (1966, 1968a, 1968b, 1970, 1973c,
1974a, 1974b)
U. S. Tariff Commission (1974)
1/ Estimates
48
-------
total U.S. cotton acreage, and the total U.S. production of
insecticides in the years in question, plus 1973. The U.S.
cotton acreage varied from a high of 14.8 million acres in 1964
to a low of 10.3 million acres in 1966; it was close to 12.5
million acres in 1971 and 1973. The USDA insecticide use data
indicate that in 1964, an average of 5.25 lbs. of insecticide
active ingredients were used on cotton, 6.31 lbs./acre in 1966
and 5.93 lbs./acre in 1971. The quantity of insecticides used
on cotton was 16.8% of the total quantity of insecticides pro-
duced in the U.S. in 1964, 11.6% in 1966, and 13.0% in 1971.
Assuming that cotton growers used an average of 6.0 lbs.
of insecticide active ingredient per acre on cotton in 1973,
total insecticide consumption on cotton for that year would
have been about 75 million lbs. of active ingredients. This
estimate would place the quantity of insecticides used on cotton
as percent of the total U.S. production of insecticides at the
low end of the scale of the actual experience in 1964, 1966, and
1971 and thus appears plausible.
The data presented in Table 2 do not indicate any trend
in the use of insecticides on cotton. All but one of the USDA !
State-sponsored cotton pest management programs were initiated
only in 1972 and probably did not achieve full effectiveness
until 1973 or 1974. It will be interesting to see if these pro-
grams will result in a statistically noticeable decrease in the
use of insecticides on cotton in the future. The U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service is planning a
survey of pesticide and fertilizer use practices for crop year
1976. Additional data on pesticide use will be collected as
part of the Agency’s surveys of costs of production by commodi-
ties (Davis, 1974).
USERS, LOCATIONS ND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROGRAMS STUDIED
In this project, 19 individual cotton pest management pro-
grams were studied. The locations of these programs, superim-
posed on a dot-map of the U.S. cotton acreage harvested in 1969,
49
-------
the latest year for which such dot-maps are available, is given
in Figure 1 . This map shows that the present study covered
most of the major cotton producing areas in the United States.
An overview of the characteristics of the cotton pest manage-
ment programs evaluated, including their locations, purpose, and
starting years are presented in Table 3 . The entries opposite
“Ref (erence) Page” refer to the page numbers in the regional re-
ports where these programs are described and assessed in detail.
The data in Table 3 pertain to the year 1973, except for a few
instances (marked appropriately) where 1973 data were not avail-
able. 1973 was chosen as the base year for this overview be-
cause it is the most recent year for which data are available
at this writing (July - August, 1974). Secondly, many of the
USDA/State-supported pest management programs were initiated
rather hastily in 1972 and did not have a full year of “normal”
operation until 1973.
The cotton pest management programs studied vary consider-
ably in regard to users, purpose, starting year, and acreage
covered. The major features of these programs are as follows
(programs discussed in approximate decreasing order of acres
covered).
Arkansas : The program with the longest history is that in
Arkansas, started in 1949 for the purpose of improving cotton
insect control in the state. It has been carried out primarily
by scouts trained and supervised by the Extension Service. De-
tailed data on the Arkansas program, by years from its inception
to the present, have been collected and evaluated by Carison and
Grube (p. B-8ff). Their report includes number of scouts and
scout supervisors; number of counties, cotton acres, cotton
fields and farms in the program; scout load characteristics and
costs; and grower pest management training activities. In 1973,
the Arkansas pest management program was one of the three largest
programs studied; it included 204,000 acres on 892 farms in 23
counties and employed 149 scouts. The program operates in
practically all cotton-growing counties of Arkansas and covers
50
-------
Cotton Harvested, 1969
U,
H
Figure 1: Locations 1 ” of the Cotton Pest Management Programs Evaluated in this Report
Relative to the Geographic Distribution of Cotton Production in the U.S.
1/ Program locations identified by circles.
UNtIED STATES
TOTAL
11,496,320
Department t Comme;ce
and Ecanonr’c Statistics Adr ;- c!tan.
Bureau of the Census
-------
Table 3 Characteristics, Costs and Benefits of 19
Cotton Pest Management Programs, 19731/
Program Arkansas North Carolina Mississippi Alabama
PM Program Cooperative Commercial PM Program PM Program
Operations
Location Eastern half Several Counties Grenada—Yalo— North,West&
of State busha co.’s Central Ala.
Purpose Insect pest Group purch.Insect pest Insect pest Insect pest
suppression of insect suppression (boll weevil) suppression
control suppression
Ref. Page B—8, B—35 ff B—13 If., B—42 If. A—31 If. A—41 ff.
Year Started 1949 1967 I 1968 1972 1972
Area 23 Counties Several Counties 2 Counties 17 Counties
Acres 204,000 33,516 11,700 13,827 115,000
Farms ) 892 401 58 97 599
Fields) PM 5,726 3,280
# Scouts 149 37 10 13 73
# Scout Supv. 6 9
Acres/Scout 1,417 1,027 1,625 1,063 1,575
Pest Mgmt. 18% of State 18.4% 6.4% 73% of cottor 40% of cotton
Acreage Ratio cotton acr. of State cotton acreage acr. in area acr. in area
Insect Manage-
ment Costs, $ per Acre per Acre per Acre per Acre
Scouts 1.04 1 18 ç 1.25 1.25
Scout Travel 0.01 .1 ) )
Scout Supv. 0.08*
Co. Agents 0.28* 1, 1.80
Prof. Support 0.09* 1 1.6l
Other 0.07* )
Subtotal 1.57 4.59
Insecticides 5.40 15.50 13.34 18.79
Application 3.60 11.74 8.30
Total 10.57 31.82 21.64
Growers’ Funds 10.05 30.22 1.25 1.25
Public Funds* .52* 1.61*
Benefits:
Cotton Yield I- 8% + 230 lb 8 No data Above state avg.
Insectic. Use — 20% + 24% — 2.3 appl.’s — 2to4 appl.’s
Product. Cost — 1% + $10 — $5,20 ” — $6.78
Profit 4 9% + $84 Increased Increased
Notes on page 56
52
-------
Table 3 : Characteristics, Costs and Benefits of 19
Cotton Pest Management Programs, 19731/
California
Pest Mgmt.
Consultants
San Joaquin
Valley
Scout Progran
San Joaquin
Valley
Louisiana
1972
Catahoula,
Grant &
Tensas Par.
Insect pest
suppress ion
A—46 ff.
1972
3 Parishes
5,600
70
230
6
Suppr .Lygus Improve
& bo].lworms cotton prod.
C—6 ff.
1950
6 counties
200,000
Program
Location
Purpose
Ref. Page
Year Btarted
Area
Acres )
Farms ) in
Fields) PM
# Scouts
1! Scout Supv.
Acres/Scout
Pest Mgmt.
Acreage Ratio
Insect Manage-
ment Costs, $
Scouts
Scout Travel
Scout Supv.
Co. Agents
Prof. Support
Other
Subtotal
Insecticides
Application
Total
Growers ‘Funds
Public Funds*
Benefits:
Cotton Yield
933
10% of Cottonj 22% in San
Acreage in Joaquin V.
area
per Acre per Acre
(1972) (1971)
2.45* 2.33
Arizona
Graham Co. Pinal Co.
Safford
Valley
Pink boll— Insect pest
worm control suppression
C—42 ff. C—43 ff.
1968 1971
I county 1 county
4,492 31,508
35 85
46
12
About 25% of
the county
per Acre per Acre
(1971) (1972)
} 1.65 } .oo
} 13.50 } 26.35
15.15 27.35
15.15 27.35
Insufficient Insufficient
data data
Decreased — $11 tol4
Insuff. data — $10 tol3
Insuff. ,data + $10 tol3
± chg. in
yield
C—2l ff.
1972
3 counties
19,000
101
75/
3% in 3
counties
per Acre
1.30
J —17.00
2.00-2.50 ’
2.00_3.00*
3/5/
Insufficient
data
— $5 to 10
— $3 to 8
+ $3 to 8
± chg. in
yield
17.24
10.90
30.59
28.14
2.45
10/
No data
10 /
Insectic. Use No data
10/
Product. Cost No data
10/
Prof it No data
Notes on page 56
} 4.20
6.53
6.53
+.l6 to .43
bale
— $3 to 11
— $1 to 9
+ $16 to 65
53
-------
Benefits:
Table 3 : Characteristics, Costs and Benefits of 19
Cotton Pest Management Programs, 19731/
Notes on page 56
Pecos
Research
Station
East Texas,
TX Dept. of
Corrections
Insect pest suppression
(demonstration)
Pro gram
Location
Purpose
Ref. Page
Year Started
Area
Acres )
Farms PM
Fields)
# Scouts
II Scout Supv.
Acres/Scout
Pest Mgnit.
Acreage Ratio
Insect Manage-
ment Costs, $
Scouts
Scout Travel
Scout Supv.
Co. Agents
Prof. Support
Other
Sub total
Insecticides
Application
Total
Growers’ Funds
*
Public Funds
High Glasscock
Plains County
Diapause boll weevil
suppression
D—6 ff. D—23 ff.
1964 1968
Several co.’s 1 county
186,000 16,200
(1972)
100% in
proj. area
Entire
Program per Acre
172,180
85,313*
68,142
325,635
449,738
136,195
911,568 1.51
413,127 0.76
498,441* 0.75*
+ 4.0% No change
—82% —83%
— 8.2t — 3.7%
+ 8% +12.0%
Texas —
South TX
Rio Grande
Valley
Avoid
Heliothis
damage
D—34 ff.
1973
3 counties
23,000
10—15% in
proj. area
per Acre
} 5.00
18.77
23.77
No change
— 33.7%
— 6.8%
+57.3%
I
D—45 ff.
1968
2 counties
per Acre
5.00
0.00
+ 28.3%
— 86.0%
— 13.0%
+100.0%
D—56 ff.
1970
Several co.’s
5,757
(1972)
per Acre
) 5.00
3.78
÷ 19.1%
— 50.2%
— 0.5%
+143.1%
Cotton Yield
Insectic. Use
Product. Cost
Profit
54
-------
Table 3 : Characteristics, Costs and Benefits of 19
Cotton Pest Management Programs, 19731/
Ref. Page
Year Started
Area
Acres )
in
Farms 1PM
Fields)
# Scouts
If Scout Supv.
Acres/Scout
Pest Mgmt.
Acreage Ratio
Insect Manage-
ment Costs, $
scouts
Scout Travel
Scout Supv.
Co. Agents 2 !
Prof. Support
Other
Subtotal
Insecticides
Application
Total
Rio Grande
Valley
D—76, 88 ff.
1972
3 counties
15,632
77
12
1,303
5% in project
area
Entire
Pro gram
18,771
4,552
21,817
3,010
48,150
Blackland S
Hill and
Ellis Co.’s
D—99, 108 ff.
1972
2 counties
10,266
59
208
7
1,467
Near 100% in
project area
Entire
Program
9,317
1,405
16,659
2,625
30,006
Trans—P eco a
Reeves and
Pecos Co.’s
1972
2 counties
8,600
28
134
9
25% in project
area
Entire
Program
9,558
2,078
Frio Co. &
neighboring
Count lea
1971
1 county
1,422
20
28
Growers’ Funds
Public Funds*
Benefits:
Cotton Yield
Insectic. Use
Product. Cost
Prof It
3,933
36, 792*3/
7,425*4/
+ 25.1%
+ 11.4%
+ 5.0%
+112.5%
5,865
20,941*3/
3, 200*4/
+ 11.5%
— 30.0%
— 2.8%
+ 23.9%
13,555
21, 275*3/
10,000*4!
+ 6.1%
+ 2.0%
— 3.0%
+36.5%
15,053*3/
5, 250*4/
+ 0 9 ’
—25 4%
+ 2 9%
U . J o
Program
Location
Purpose
Texas
Insect pest suppression; cotton production improvement
D—l20, 130 ff. D—141, 151 ff.
100% in the
county
Entire
Pro gram
18,879*
1,424*
20, 303*
28, 588*
4, 606*
44,830
Notes on page 56
55
-------
Footnotes pertaining to Table 3:
* Public funds
1/ Unless another year specified
2/ [ ncL. travel costs
3/ Federal (USDA) funds
4/ State Zunds
5/ Data from USDA Summary for 1973
6/ Decrease only in 1973, 6—year average
shows no decrease
7/ Increase due to scouting costs less reduced
costs of Insecticides
8/ Midpoint of range of yield increases,
96 to 363 lb/acre
9/ Approximate savings relative to other producers in
the area for the same year, based on average cost
per insecticide application of $2.26/acre
10/ Only 30% of producers in program followed scouting
recommendations
56
-------
an estimated 18% of the state’s total cotton acreage.
Initially, the Arkansas program was a “prescription
insecticide program” (refer to the discussion of different
types of cotton insect control programs per Newsom, as relayed
by Parvin, p. A-19 ff.). Beginning in 1968, cotton growth
monitoring was added, and field-checking and monitoring of
traps and sugar lines for additional insects have recently
been added. In addition, Arkansas has for many years provided
grower pest management ttaining by scouting schools, radio
and TV programs, county insect letters, and county pest
management demonstrations. It is estimated that today,
40-50% of all Arkansas cotton growers (and/or their families)
scout their own fields, that 80% of all Arkansas cotton acres
are scouted, and that practically all cotton growers in the
state apply at least some pest management principles. Thus,
there are practically no “controls” or “non—pest management”
cotton areas in the state.
As described in greater detail by Carison and Grube
(p. B-2ff.), the infusion of USDA funds into the Arkansas
cotton pest management program came at a very opportune time.
These funds were used primarily to imporve scout supervision
and thus the quality of the scouting program. This has re-
invigorated growers’ confidence in the program and was instru-
mental in bringing additional acreage under pest management.
California : The “pest management consultants” program
in California has almost as long a history as the Arkansas
pest management program. It started in about 1950, based on
research by, and guided by University of California entomolo—
gists. In 1973, private pest management consultants serviced
an estimated 200,000 acres of cotton in California’s San
Joaquin Valley, that is about 22% of the total acreage in the
Valley. (For further details, see Norgaard, p. C-6 ff. of
this report). Initially, California’s “supervised insect con-
trol” revolved around the management of the key pest insects
on California cotton, the lygus bug, Lygus hesperus , and the
57
-------
boliworm, Heliothis zea . Today, some private consultants’
services are still limited to counting insects and making treat-
ment recommendations to the growers, while others have adopted
a more comprehensive crop management (as opposed to insect manage-
ment) approach. This development received considerable added
impetus with California’s participation in the USDA/State-sup-
ported cotton pest management program in 1972. Systematic
monitoring of cotton development, and development of dynamic
economic thresholds for lygus were included in the California
“scout program” beginning in 1972 (Norgaard, p. C-21 ff.;
Falcon, 1972; Smith and Falcon, 1973).
In this program, the Cooperative Extension Service in
California engaged the services of private pest management con-
sultants. In this manner, the total cotton acreage under pest
management was extended more rapidly than would have been the
case otherwise, while at the same time, private-enterprise pest
management consulting received a substantial boost, instead of
possible competition from a publicly financed pest management
program.
Texas High Plains : This program, comprising 186,000 acres
in 1973, is aimed at boll weevil suppression, as reported in
detail by Lacewell and Casey (p. D-6 ff.). This program was
initiated in 1964 with the objective of preventing further
spread of the boll weevil. The program was instigated by a cot-
ton grower organization, Plains Cotton Growers, Inc., and was
implemented jointly by this organization and Texas A & M Univer-
sity, Texas Tech University, and the U.S. Department of Agricul—
ture. The program essentially accomplished its initial purpose
of suppressing boll weevil populations in the High and Rolling
Plains of Texas. In 1970, about 360,000 acres of cotton received
a total of 1,170,000 acre-treatment with insecticides for dia-
pause boll weevil control. In 1972, the “base acreage” in the
program declined to 186,000 acres.
A se ond, much smaller diapause boll weevil control program
in Texas is in Glasscock County. It covered about 16,200 acres
58
-------
in 1973. For further details, see Lacewell and Casey, p. D—23 ff.
Alabama : The Alabama pest management program is the fourth
largest in acreage among those studied in this project. In 1973,
it covered 115,000 acres on 599 farms in 17 counties; employing
73 scouts. This represents a rapid expansion from about 39,000
acres under the same program in 1972. In Alabama, as in other
cotton states in the Midsouth, the key pest of cotton is the boll
weevil. A characterization of key pests, occasional pests, and
secondary pests of cotton in the Midsouth, and of the relation-
ships between these insect pests and the development of the cot-
ton crop has been provided by Parvin (p. A-2ff.). Details of
the Alabama pest management programs (1972 and 1973) have been
documented and analyzed by Parvin (p. A-36 to A-45).
Mississippi : The Missippi pest management program is very
similar to that in Alabama. It also started in 1972 and covered
13,827 acres in 1973, its second year of operation. Details on
both program years for Mississippi are provided by Parvin,
p. A-25 to A-35.
North Carolina : Organized cotton pest management activities
started in about 1967 in North Carolina. In 1974, 11 farmer-
directed pest control cooperatives and 3 commercial firms were
actively involved in cotton pest management in the state. The
acreage under these programs grew from a few thousand in 1967 to
about 50,000 acres in 1973, and to 76,000 acres in 1974. In 1973,
459 farms were involved, and 47 scouts were employed (for further
details, see Carlson and Grube, p. B—3 ff., B—13 ff., B—42 ff.).
The cooperatives, also known as “spray groups”, serve
several insect control functions. They provide scouting, aerial
applicator services, insecticide purchase in bulk, bookkeeping
insect trap monitoring, and insecticide use decisions. The
- latter are made either by individual managers (farmers and/or
persons trained in entomology), or by some or all members of the
board of directors. Cooperative members transfer rights and
responsibility for insect control to the cooperative. Most of
these groups operate on an area-wide basis. As described in
59
-------
greater detail by Carison and Grube (p. B—13 to B-21), the
cooperatives vary considerably in number of years of experience,
acreage covered, number of members, number of scouts employed,
and operating and decision-making procedures.
The USDA-supported North Carolina cotton pest management
pilot project worked with 6 of these cooperatives in 1973, cover-
ing about 24,000 acres of cotton. Federal project funds were
used to furnish each group a scout supervisor, personnel to
collect background data, forms to record scouting results, clerks
to transcribe data, computer programming, and data processing.
Varying degrees of guidance on the operation of scouting pro-
grams and the use of insecticides were provided by project
personnel. In this manner, federal funds in North Carolina (as
in California) were used to upgrade and expand existing private-
enterprise cotton pest management activities.
- In addition to these cooperatives, three commercial cotton
pest management organizations operated in North Carolina in 1973.
At least two of them have been in business for a number of years.
For further details, see Carison and Grube, p. B-21.
Texas : Among all states studied in this project, Texas
appears to have the largest number and variety of cotton pest
management programs. The program characteristics, users and
locations, all operating details, and effectiveness, costs and
returns have been documented and evaluated in great detail by
Lacewell and Casey (Appendix D of this report). Their evaluation
covers 9 individual cotton pest management programs; 4 of these
are part of the USDA-supported “Texas scout” or Texas cotton in-
sect management program.
The diapause boll weevil suppression programs in the Texas
High Plains and in Glasscock County have already been mentioned.
In 1973, the remaining 7 Texas pest management programs combined
covered about 65,000 acres on more than 200 farms in 16 counties,
employing 28 scouts. Program users include the Pecos Research
Station, the Texas Department of Corrections, and several groups
of individual growers in areas ranging in size from 1 to 3
60
-------
counties. Purposes of these programs include demonstration of
the feasibility of pest management (in contrast to unilateral
reliance on chemical insecticides); avoidance of damage by cotton
boliworms (especially Heliothis virescens ) through the use of
short-season, early maturing, determinate cotton cultivars which
permit cotton harvest before these insects become economically
damaging; general cotton insect pest suppression; and cotton
production improvement.
Lacewell and Casey (p. D-4 to D-5) point out that beyond
the publicly s .ipported pest management programs in Texas, there
is considerable activity in pest management consulting in the
private sector. Approximately 30 entomologists who are members
of the Texas Association of Consulting Entomologists provide
cotton growers with pest management advice. In addition, there
are 15 to 20 insect scouts who, while not members of the Assoc-
iation, work as private consultants to producers relative to
cotton insect population control. It is estimated that about
300,000 to 400,000 acres of crops are scouted annually in Texas
by private consultants.
Louisiana : This program was initiated in 1972, and the
only information available on the program is for the 1972 crop
season. This program, one of those in the USDA/State Coopera-
tive Program, was conducted in portions of Catahoula, Grant and
Tensas parishes; these parishes are representative of major cot-
ton farming areas in Louisiana. In 1972, 70 producers and 5,600
acres participated in the program, and 6 scouts were employed.
PROGRAM COSTS
The quality and quantity of data available on the types and
amounts of costs associated with the establishment and operation
of pest management programs vary widely for the different pro-
grams evaluated in this study. Carison and Grube (Appendix B)
accumulated and analyzed a great volume of cost data from the
Arkansas pest management program (dating back as far as 1960),
and for some of the North Carolina pest management cooperatives.
61
-------
However, in both the Arkansas and North Carolina programs re—
viewed, there is no delineation between establishment or start-
up costs and ongoing operating costs. In both instances, the
programs started small, essentially by “self—ignition”, and
developed to their present dimensions gradually, over about
25 years in the case of Arkansas, and over several years in the
case of the North Carolina programs.
Operating cost data for 1973 for these Arkansas and North
Carolina programs are included in Table 3 . Many further de-
tails, including information for prior years, are reported in
Carison and Grube’s complete account in Appendix B.
Very good, detailed operating cost data are available for
most of the Texas programs for 1972 and 1973 (Lacewell and
Casey, Appendix D). Again, only data for 1973 have been in—
cluded in Table 3 , and the reader is referred to Lacewell and
Casey’s report for further details, and for data for 1972 and
earlier years.
The Texas report is the only one that provides program
cost details broken down by implementation costs, annual over-
head, annual operating costs, and state-level implementation,
coordination and operating costs. For each year of the program,
Lacewell and Casey provide the following details:
Implementation costs broken down by items, including
mapping, grower contact, recruitment, and scout train-
ing; and by source of funds, separated by federal and
state funds.
Operating (program) costs broken down by items, including
salaries for county extension personnel, scouts, and
clerical help; travel expenses for county extension
personnel and scouts; and supplies, miscellaneous, and
incidentals. Source of funds by items is broken down
by 3 categories, i.e., federal funds (USDA grant), state
funds (Texas Agricultural Extension Service), and
producer contributions.
62
-------
State I plernentation, coordinatlo n4o erating costs
broken doWh by items and source of funds.
Estimated implementation and operating costs for 7 regional
pest management programs in Texas are summarized in Table 4
Much less detail on program costs is available from the
Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, California, and Arizona programs.
As the data summarized in Table 3 for 1973 indicate, the
costs of the different programs varied considerably. Scouting
costs (including scout salaries and travel expenses) ranged from
$1.05 per acre in Arkansas to $5.00/acre in several Texas programs,
and up to more than $10/acre in the California scout program
(which includes plant growth measurements, in addition to insect
counts). A tabular comparison of costs for scouting only follows:
Arkansas $1.05/acre
North Carolina 1.18/acre
Mississippi 1.25/acre
Alabama 1.25/acre
Arizona 1.00—1.65/acre
Louisiana 2.45/acre
Texas 5.00/acre
Costs of scout supervision, county agents or extension
entomologists contributing to programs, professional support, and
other items (clerical and computer time, supplies, etc.), are
given only in a few instances, some per acre, some for entire
programs.
From the data summarized in Table 3 , ratios of overhead
costs (including scout supervision; county agents/extension ento-
mologists; professional support; and “other”) to scouting costs
(scout salaries and travel) have been computed for those programs
for which adequate data are available (Table 5 ). Arkansas had
by far the lowest supervision and overhead costs (1 : 0.5),
followed by Texas’ Rio Grande (1 : 1.1) and Blacklands (1 : 1.8)
programs. In North Carolina and in Texas’ Trans—Pecos programs,
cost of supervision and overhead were almost 3 times as high as
the scouting costs.
63
-------
Table 4 : Estimated Implementation and Operating Costs for Regional
Pest Management Programs on Cotton in Texas
Program
Implementati,on
Costs 1 ’
Operating
Costs/Year
High Plains
$70,000 — 100,000
$600,000 — 1,350,000
Glasscock Co.
18,000
11,000 — 100,000
East Texas
Nil
2,000
Rio Grande Valley
13,000 — 48,386
48,150
Blacklands
9,500 — 27,555
30,006
Trans Pecos
1,800 — 17,479
44,830
Frio County
1,100 — 13,397
20,303
1/ The ranges given include estimated implementation costs in
the low value, and implementation plus first year operating
costs in the high value since so much of the first year’s
efforts were directed to program organization and development.
Source: Lacewell, R. D. (1975)
64
-------
Table 5: Comparison of Scouting Costs vs. Costs of Supervision and
Overhead for Selected Cotton Pest Management Programs, 1973
Program
Unit
Scouting 1 !
Supv. &
Overhead2/
Scouting Costs:
Supv. & Overhead
Arkansas ”
per Acre
$ 1.05
$ 0.52
1 :
0.5
N. Carolina ”
per Acre
1.18
3.41
1 :
2.9
Texas
— Rio Grande5h”
Program
$23,323
$24,827
1 :
1.1
— Blacklands 6 ”
Program
10,722
19,284
1 :
1.8
— Trans—Pecos 7 ”
Program
11,636
33,194
1 :
2.9
1/ mci. scout salaries and travel
2/ mci. scout supervisors; county agents/extension personnel (salaries
and travel); professional support; clerical and computer time
Sources:
3/ Carison and Grube, p. B—41
4/ Carison and Grube, p. B—45
5/ Lacewell and Casey, p. D—91
6/ Lacewell and Casey, p. D—106
7/ Lacewell and Casey, p. D—127
65
-------
The detailed reports on these programs indicate that in
the Arkansas program, scout supervision may be suboptimal. The
North Carolina costs of supervision and overhead are so high
because the USDA grant funds were used to beef up already exist-
ing supervision, and to provide data collection and processing
for previously established programs. The supervision and over-
head costs in the Texas Trans-Pecos program are relatively high
because the county extension entomologist carries out most of
the field scouting responsibilities.
In summary, this report provides detailed implementation
co8t data for 6 of the 9 regional cotton pest management
programs in Texas, and operating cost data for all programs
evaluated. The majority of the operating cost data are
detailed and broken down by items such as salaries, super-
ViSiOn, materials and supplies, etc., and also by source
of funds (Federal, State, grower contributions, etc.). The
operating cost data provided go back to 1960 for the Arkansas
program, to 1964 for the Texas High Plains program, and to
1968 for the Glasscock County, Texas program. For most
other programs, operating cost experiences are reported for
1972 and 1973. Table 3 includes 1973 operating cost data
by items and by source of funds for all cotton pest manage-
ment programs studied to the extent that the authors of the
4 regional reports (Appendix A - D) were able to obtain
this information. Table 4 (p. 64 ) summarizes estimated
implementation and annual operating costs for 7 Texas pro-
grams, and Table 5 (p. 65 ) compares scouting costs with
cost of supervision and overhead for 5 of the programs
studied.
66
-------
PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS
The effectiveness of cotton pest management programs
was measured by several different criteria, including:
—- Cotton yields,
-— Pesticide use,
—— Production costs,
—— Profit to growers.
An effort to evaluate the 1972 USDA/State—sponsored cotton
pest management programs has been undertaken by Womach (1974).
Cotton project questionnaires for evaluation of the 1972 program
were sent to project leaders in the latter part of 1973. Ques-
tion forms were returned and tabulated in the spring and suini er
of 1974. Womach’s report includes data, all for 1972 by states,
on the following items:
Cotton acres planted,
Program participation,
Scouting activities (numbers of scouts, acreage
scouted, fields scouted, acres per scout,
fields per scout),
Numbers of scout supervisors,
Time lapse between scouting and recommendations
to producers,
Degree of producers’ compliance with program pest
control recommendations,
Contributions from private consultants, industry
representatives, and regulatory agencies in
the pest management programs,
Cost items (professional support, scout supervisors,
scouts, clerical, computer, supplies, totals),
Sources of funds (USDA, state, grower, totals),
Producer contributions per acre and as a percent
of scouting costs,
Program costs per acre scouted,
Percent of 1972 producers who agreed to participate
in 1973,
67
-------
Number of pest management organizations in
the pest management project areas,
Cotton yields for participating and non-participating
growers (only 11 of 14 states provided yield data
for program participants, and only 4 of the 14
states provided yield estimates for non—participants),
Pesticide application rates and costs for program
participants,
Target pests,
Number of economic threshold infestations and number
of pesticide applications,
Insecticides used most frequently,
Effects of diapause boll weevil control on pesticide
use,
Measures of scout safety.
Womach concluded in part as follows:
“From the first year’s data, it is not possible to draw
any firm conclusions about the cotton pest management
program’s effects upon economic efficiency or environmental
quality. The limited information available indicates that
in some states positive benefits did result. Several factors
contributed to the lack of evidence in 1972 on the benefits
of the program. First of all, and most important, the
designers and leaders of the program did not or could not
build in a control satnple to serve as a comparison group
with the cooperating producers. It is recognized that
adequate control samples are difficult to obtain because
of the large acreage involved and the diversity of pest
and cultural conditions. Secondly, prior to initiation
of the program little information was available to document
and assess the size and severity of environmental and
economic problems related to pest control and pesticide
use. Finally, as the initial year of a three—year program,
1972 does not serve as an entirely valid indicator for the
success of the program”.
68
-------
Analysis of all 19 pest management programs evaluated in
this study indicates that most of them suffer, although in vary-
ing degrees, from the same deficiency, i.e., lack of planning and
provision for meaningful measurements of program effectiveness
and comparisons between program participants and non-participants.
By far the most useful data in this regard come from the Texas
programs as documented by Lacewell and Casey in Appendix D.
They report, for each year of most Texas programs, cotton yields
(lint, seed, and totals), insecticide inputs, production costs
(variable pre-harvest and harvest costs, fixed costs, and totals),
and net returns. These data are given for participating growers
and for carefully selected, reasonably comparable non—participat-
ing growers.
Carison and Grube (Appendix B) were able to supply some
actual yield comparisons between pest management cooperative mem-
bers and non-members in North Carolina. As already mentioned
above, comparing Arkansas farmers who use pest management to
those who do not is impractical because essentially all Arkansas
cotton growers apply at least some pest management principles.
In the absence of possibilitties for direct comparisons, Carison
and Grube evaluated the effect of scouting on early season in-
secticide treatments, and the effect of infestation records on
marginal productivities of insecticides (p. B-22 ff.).
In the report on Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana,
Parvin (Appendix A) compared the quantities and costs of insecti-
cides actually used in 1972 and 1973 by pest management program
participants to a “norm”, derived from the approximate costs of
producing cotton in the Midsouth for producers using a calendar
or “womb to tomb”-insecticide program (for further details, see
p. A—51 ff.).
Criteria employed by Norgaard for measuring the effective-
ness of the cotton pest management programs in California and
Arizona include cotton yields by quantity and by value, and
total pest management costs including pesticides, application
and consulting fees. These data are compared for pest manage-
69
-------
ment program participants and non—participants, or for averages
for the program compared to appropriate county averages.
Data on pest management benefits for all programs evaluated,
including effects on cotton yield, insecticide use, production
costs and growers’ profits for 1973 are summarized in the lower
part of Table 3 , p. 52—55.
The differences in the quantity and quality of the available
data on program benefits made quantification of these benefits a
very difficult task. It was not possible to present all benefit
data in terms of one common denominator; instead, some are given
in terms of percent, some in terms of dollar values.
Effects on yield
Cotton yield increases in 1973 were reported in 11 of 13 pro-
grams for which yield data are available, i.e., Arkansas, North
Carolina, Alabama, California (private consultants), and in 7 pro-
grams in Texas.
In 2 programs, i.e., Glasscock County, Texas, and South Texas,
there were no changes in yield. In both of these programs, the
program objective was to prevent yield decreases from infesta-
tions of the boliweevil (Glasscock County) or from bollworms
(South Texas program). Therefore, “no decrease”, or “no change”
(in yield) in these cases means that the program was successful.
No information on yield effects was available from the
remaining 5 programs, i.e., Mississippi, Louisiana, the California
“scout program”, and both Arizona programs.
Quantifiable yield increases ranged from + 0.9 to + 28.3%,
and from about 80 to 230 lbs. of cotton per acre. (For further
details, refer to Table 3 , p. 52—55.
Effects on insecticide use
Fourteen of the 17 pest management programs for which insecti-
cide use data are available reported decreases in the quantities
of insecticides used on cotton under pest management, i.e.,
Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, both California and both Arizona
programs, .and 7 Texas programs. Two Texas programs (Rio Grande
70
-------
Valley and Trans Pecos) reported increased use of insecticide
per acre, but insecticide use per pound of cotton produced de-
clined. Increased insecticide use was also experienced in the
North Carolina programs, suggesting that insecticide use may
have been suboptimal in areas not under pest management.
In the 14 programs where the use of insecticides decreased,
reductions were within the following ranges: 20 to 86%, $3 to
14/acre, or 2 to 4 insecticide applications/year. Insecticide
use increases ranged from 2 to 24%.
Effects on production costs
Production cost changes can be caused in several different
ways by pest management programs. Production costs may increase
by the cost of the pest management program, decrease by savings
in pesticide inputs, or move in either direction by combinations
of these factors.
Among the pest management programs evaluated, 7 of 9 Texas
programs and 6 others experienced net decreases in production
costs; the latter included Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, both
California programs, and Pinal County, Arizona. Production cost
decreases from adoption of pest management practices ranged from
1 to 13%, or form $1 to 13/acre.
There was an increase in production costs in 3 programs,
i.e., North Carolina (+ $10/acre), Rio Graride Valley Texas (+5.0%),
and Frio County, Texas (+ 2.9%).
No adequate data on production costs were available for the
remaining 2 programs, i.e., Louisiana, and Graham County, Arizona.
Effects on growers’ profits
From the cotton producers’ standpoint, this is undoubtedly
the most important indicator of the degree of success of cotton
pest management programs. It is therefore significant that the
effectiveness of the cotton pest management programs evaluated
was most clearly demonstrated by this criterion.
Fifteen of the 16 programs for which adequate data are avail-
able resulted in increased profits to growers, i.e., all programs
71
-------
except Frio County, Texas, which experienced a decrease in
growers’ profits of 6% in 1973, and the Louisiana and Graham
County, Arizona programs for which available data are insuffi-
cient. Quantifiable profit increases ranged from 9 to 112.5%,
or from $3 to 84/acre. (For further details, refer to Table 3,
p. 52—56.)
In summary, the effects of the pest management programs
evaluated on cotton yields, insecticide use, production
coat8 and growers’ profits were as follows, expressed in
numbers of program8 in each category:
Effect Yield Insecticide Production Growers’
Use costs profit
Increase ii 3 3 iS
Decrease 14 13
No change 2
Nodata 5 1 2 2
Totals lB 18 18 18
These program effects are summarised in the preceding
section on program effectiveness, and tabulated in quanti-
fied form (to the extent available) in Table S , p. 52 ff.
Detailed discussions of these pest management program bene-
fits for 1973, the base year for Table 3 (except as in-
dicated), and for additional program years are presented
in the regional studies, Appendices A through D. For easy
access to these detailed data in the appendices, Table 3
includes references to the Appendix page numbers for each
of the programs evaluated.
These findings concerning the effectiveness of cotton
pest management programs are very significant and encourag-
ing. It is somewhat surprising that these practical effec-
tiveness indicators have not been more thoroughly studicd.,
and that they have not been widely utilised and publicized.
Data such as those summarized in this section, especially
72
-------
data on increased profits, wi ll “sell” pest management
to farmers far more effectively than other measures.
CONSTRAINTS ON EXPANSION OF COTTON PEST MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
In accordance with the objectives of this study as set forth
above (p. 2-3), all of the authors of the regional reports ad-
dressed the question of constraints on the expansion of the cotton
pest management programs which they studied. Some of these have
already been covered in whole or in part in the general discussion
on this topic above (p. 32-42) but each regional investigator’s
comments are suinniarized below in order to provide a complete,
coherent account of their views.
Parvin (p. A-29) mentions the following “potential road-
blocks” to the successful further development of the pest manage-
ment concept:
—- lack of sufficient numbers of trained personnel;
- — current attitudes of the insecticide industry, commercial
applicators and growers;
-- cooperation between members of all disciplines involved
in crop production;
-- difficulties in developing and registering for use insecticides
that are especially needed in pest management;
-- convincing producers to accept the economic threshold concept,
obtaining information on their insecticide applications,
and satisfying their request for more personal attention by
project staff;
early termination of the scouting program as a result of
early fall school starts.
Carison and Grube (p. B-54 ff.) point out that in Arkansas,
ineffective scout recommendations were threatening to restrict
further expansion of the cotton pest management program. However,
this has been at least partially corrected in the past few years
with the increase of scout supervision made possible through the
USDA funds. In addition, they mention the following problems:
73
-------
Arkansas:
—— inadequate support of the pest management program, especially
scout training, on the part of county agents in many
cotton counties;
-- inadequate understanding of the program by many growers,
aerial applicators and insecticide sales firms;
—- inadequate use of the extensive information collected
by scouts and compiled in computers;
North Carolina:
—- shortage of trained and experienced pest management leaders
in the cooperatives;
—— lack of adequate scout supervision when cooperatives
become too large;
—— inadequate cotton insect warning systems (insufficient use
of light traps, sugar lines, radio announcements, and other
warnings, especially in regard to boliworms;
—- combination of pest management with chemical and application
services which may result in higher insecticide use than
necessary.
Norgaard (p. C—49 ff.),based on his evaluation of the Calif-
ornia and Arizona cotton programs, mentions the following con-
straints:
—— inadequate demonstration and advertising of the economic
advantages of pest management by government agencies in
California, despite ample justification in terms of health,
safety, and environmental quality;
-- inadequate exploitation and implementation of available
economic data;
-- high cost per acre of delivering pest management to small
fields.
Lacewell and Casey’s comprehensive report does not include
an item on “constraints”; instead, they approach the problem
from the positive side and entitle the section in question
“components of a successful program” (p. D-190 ff). The follow-
ing items are included in this category:
74
-------
-— program support by a strong producer organization;
—- strong individual producer support of the program,
coordinated through the producer group or association;
—— County extension entomologists possessing above-average
competence, initiative, enthusiasm and ability;
—— a strong research component developing optimum pest
management strategies and new and innovative approaches
in all phases of cotton production, oriented toward
local or regional climatic and other requirements, and
effective flow of information between research and
implementation;
—— continued governmental support, justified by documenta—
tion of actual and potential benefits to producers as
well as to society.
75
-------
PEANUT PEST MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
BACKGROUND
Peanuts are beset with a variety of pest problems. Insect
pests of peanuts include the lesser cornstalk borer ( Elasmopalpus
lignosellus) , the red-neck peanut worm ( Stegasta bosguella) ,
the burrowing bug ( Pangaeus bilineatus) , and several foliage-
feeding insects. Economically important fungus diseases of pea-
nuts include Cercospora leaf spots ( Cercospora arachidicola and
C. personata) , Southern blight ( Scierotium rolfsii) , and several
soil—borne pathogens including Pythiurn, Rhizoctonia , and Fusarium
species. In addition, peanuts are attacked by several species
of nematodes including the root—knot nematode ( Meloidogyne sp)
and the root lesion nematode ( Pratylenchus brachyurus) . A variety
of weeds can also be a problem, especially in irrigated peanuts.
The occurrence and severity of these pests vary considerably be-
tween different peanut growing areas.
To a greater or lesser degree, commercial peanut growers in
the U.S., especially in Virginia and Georgia, have practiced
pest management out of practical necessity for many years before
the term became widely known and used. Organized pest management
programs on peanuts were initiated under the auspices of the
USDA/State cooperative pest management program in Comanche County,
Texas and in 3 counties in Oklahoma in 1973. Lacewell and Casey
(Appendix E of this report) evaluated one additional peanut pest
management program in Texas, i.e., one started by private initia-
tive in Frio County in 1971.
A workshop on peanut and tobacco pest management, sponsored
jointly by the Cooperative Extension Service and Oklahoma State
University, was held at Oklahoma City, Oklahoma in February of
1974. At this meeting, peanut and tobacco pest management stra-
tegies and tactics were discussed, including the progress in
specific projects, use of remote sensing techniques, data collec-
tion and handling procedures, grower support, economic thresholds
for insects, nematodes, and diseases of peanuts, and monitoring
76
-------
for pesticides. The workshop proceedings include a brief pro—
gress report on the pest management project in Comanche County,
Texas, for 1973 by Hines and Hoelscher (1974), and a very com-
prehensive, detailed report on Oklahoma’s 1973 peanut pest manage-
ment activities by Sturgeon et al. (1974).
TRENDS IN PEANUT PRODUCTION AND PESTICIDE USE
In the United States, peanuts were harvested for nuts on
about 1.5 million acres in 1973. The geographic distribution of
this peanut acreage was as follows: 269,000 acres in the Virginia—
North Carolina area; 792,000 acres in the Southeast (including
South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi), and
435,000 acres in Oklahoma, Texas, and New Mexico. For the entire
U.S., the average yield per acre of peanuts harvested in 1973
was 2,323 lbs. Farmers received an average price of $0.162/lb.
Total U.S. peanut production in 1973 was about 3.5 billion lbs.,
worth about $560 million at the farm level, or about $375/acre
(U.S. Department of Agriculture 1 1974d).
The use of fungiCideS insecticides and herbicides on pea-
nuts in 1966 and 1971, and the U.S. peanut acreage in 1964, 1966
and 1971 are summarized in Table 6. Pesticide use data are
available only for the years 1966 and 1971, from surveys of the
quantities of pesticides used by farmers conducted by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture for these years. In a similar USDA sur-
vey covering 1964, peanuts were not disaggregated, and farm pesti-
cide uses have not been surveyed since 1971. No data on the
quantities of nematicides used on peanuts are available for any
of the years covered by the USDA farm pesticide use surveys.
The total U.S. peanut acreage increased slightly from 1964
to 1971, from about 1.4 million acres in 1964 to 1.46 million
acres in 1971. In 1973, 1,496 million acres of peanuts were
grown, an increase of about 7% over 1964 (USDA, 1974d).
The use of insecticides on peanuts increased slightly from
1966 to 1971, i.e., from 5.5 million lbs. of active ingredients
(At) in 1966 (3.9 lbs. Al/acre) to almost 6 million lbs. (4,1 lbs.
Al/acre) in 1971.
77
-------
Table 6 : U. S. Peanut Acreage and Use of Insecticides,
Fungicides and Herbicides on Peanuts, 1964 — 1973
Year
1964
1966
1971
Peanut Acreageh/
(1,000 Acres)
1,397
1,418
1,455
Pesticide Use on Peanuts
Insecticides
— Total (1,000 lbs. Al)
N.a.
5,529
5,993
— per Acre (lbs. At)
1/
Fungicides
— Total (1,000 lbs. Al)
Na.
N.a.
3.9
1,108
4.1
4,431
— per Acre (lbs. Al)
N.a.
0.8
3.1
Herbicides
— Total (1,000 lbs. At)
— per Acre (lbs. Al)
N.a.
N.a.
2,899
2.0
4,374
3.0
Nematjcjdes
N.a.
N.a.
N.a.
Fungicides, Insecticides
N.a.
9,536
14,798
and Herbicides if
— Total
— per Acre
1/ Acreage harvested for nuts
2/ Exci. sulfur
Sources: U. S. Department of Agriculture (1968b, 1968c, 1970,
1973a, 1974a)
78
-------
The use of fungicides almost quadrupled from 1966 to 1971,
i.e., from 1.1 million lbs. of active ingredients (0.8 lb. Al
per acre) in 1966 to 4.4 million lbs. (3.1 lbs. Al/acre) in 1971.
The use of herbicides on peanuts increased by about 50%
from 1966 to 1971, i.e., from 2.9 million lbs. of active ingred-
ients (2.0 lbs. Al/acre) in 1966 to 4.4 million lbs. (3.0 lbs.
Al/acre) in 1971.
The combined volume of fungicides, insecticides and herbi-
cides used on peanuts amounted to 9.5 million lbs. of active
ingredients (6.7 lbs. AX/acre) in 1966, increasing to 14.8 million
lbs. (10.2 lbs. Al/acre) in 1971. These data indicate that the
production of peanuts in the United States involves rather heavy
annual inputs of chemical pesticides.
USERS, LOCATIONS, AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROGRAMS STUDIED
In this project, 3 peanut pest management programs were
studied. The location of these programs, superimposed on a dot—
map of the u.s. peanut acreage harvested for nuts in 1969 (the
latest year for which such dot-maps are available), are given in
Figure 2.
Table 7 provides an overview of the characteristics, costs
and benefits of the 3 peanut pest management programs evaluated
in detail by Lacewell and Casey (Appendix E ), including program
location; objectives; starting year; area; acres, farms and fields
in the program; nurnberof scouts and scout loads; program costs;
source of funds; and benefits obtained. The entries opposite
“Ref (erence) Page” refer to the page numbers in Appendix E where
these programs are described and analyzed in detail. The data
in Table 7 pertain to the year 1973. For 2 of the 3 programs,
this was the starting year.., Important features of the 3 programs
are as follows.
Frio County, Texas Program : This program was initiated in
1971 under the direction of the Frio County Peanut Improvement
Association, with assistance from the Texas Agricultural Experi-
ment Station and Extension Service. This program is focused on
79
-------
Figure 2: Locations of the Peanut Pest Management Programs Evaluated in
this Report Relative to the Geographic Distribution of Peanut
Acreage in the US.
‘Program locations indicated by circles)
0
-------
Table 7 : CharacterLstics, Costs and Benefits of 3 Peanut
Pest Management Programs, 1973
Program Location Frio County, Comanche County, Atoka, Hughes &
Texas Texas Marshall Co., Okia.
Objective Insect pest Insect pest Plant health
suppress ion suppression improvement
Ref. Page E--3 to 18 E—19 to 38 E—39 to 56
Year started 1971 1973 1973
Area 1 County 1 County 3 Counties
Acres ) 6,558 1,315 394
Farms) 23 33 8
Fields) 1PM 42
# Scouts 4 3 1 team
Acres/Scout 1,640 435
1PM Acreage Abt. 30% of peanut Abt. 2% of peanut 40% of peanut acreage
Ratio acres in the county acres In the County of particip’g farms
Pest ana&ement Entire program2 ’ Entire program Entire program
Costs, $
Scout3 6 558 2,686 1,500
Stout Travel ‘ 879
Extension Service 765 20,187 5,600
Professional Support 459 13,000 8,100
Other 1 ! 100 3,381 5,800
Total 7,882 40,133 21,000
(1.20/acre) (28.77/acre ) (53.16/acre)
Source of Funds $
Grower Funds 6,558 (1.00/acre) 300 (0.25/acre) —
State Funds 1,324 (0.20/acre) 26,850 8,600
Federal Funds — 10 6835/ 12,400
2,300
Benefits .
Yield Quantity No change + 9.0 to 29.0% 25.3 to + 92.2%
Yield Quality + 19.0% No data No data
Pesticide Use — 50.0% No data — 80.6 to + 177.8%
Production Cost — 1.5% No data — 43.5 to + 47.8%
Profit + 3.0 to 15.0% + 3.0 to 133.0% — 18.0 to + 144.0%
1/ mci. clerical, supplies, equipment, adm. overhead, etc.
2/ Insect pests only
3/ Program objectives included monitoring plant diseases, nematodes,
weeds, and soil fertility
4/ Based on total of $40,133 less $2,300 impleinentatirn funds = $37,833: 1,315 acres
/ Implementation funds
81
-------
control of the burrowing bug, Pangaeus bilineatus , an insect
that first became economically important in this part of Texas
in about 1968. Burrowing bugs pierce the peanut hull and feed
on kernels, causing yellow to dark spots on the kernel that are
termed “pitting” by peanut graders. This damage reduces peanut
quality, and penalties are assessed to producers by peanut
buyers, based on the percent of kernels damaged. Such penalties
for pitted peanuts can range from $3.40 per ton for 2% damaged
kernels to $100 per ton for 10% damaged kernels. In 1970, Frio
County peanut producers’ collective revenue losses due to bur-
rowing bug damage was about $122,000. These losses occurred
almost entirely from peanut quality reduction as the burrowing
bug does not significantly affect peanut yields.
When the burrowing bug first became a problem, peanut pro-
ducers in Frio County reacted by heavy insecticide use. Results
were unsatisfactory, and problems from secondary pests began to
appear. This prompted the Frio County Peanut Improvement Assoc-
iation to seek help from the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station
after the 1970 growing season. The pest management program
evaluated by Lacewell and Casey was initiated jointly by the pea-
nut growers and the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station and the
Texas Agricultural Extension Service in 1971. In 1973, the pro-
gram covered 6,558 acres on 23 farms and employed 4 scouts. The
average workload was 1,640 acres per scout.
Comanche County, Texas Program : This program was initiated
in 1973. Its prime objective is control of the lesser cornstalk
borer ( Elasmopalpus lignoseflus) , an insect that can reduce pea-
nut yields by 50% or more. Peanut producers’ efforts to control
this insect in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s were reaching
the point of routine insecticide applications at regular intervals,
primarily by aircraft. Intervals between applications were being
reduced and quantities of insecticides applied increased, but
insect control remained unsatisfactory. The Texas Agricultural
Experiment Station and Agricultural Extension Service began work-
ing with producers in this area by providing more specific
82
-------
recommendations on appropriate insecticides, application methods,
and timing of applications. In 1973, a pilot peanut pest manage-
rnent project was initiated in Comanche County under the auspices
of the USDA/State cooperative program. In addition to providing
regular insect surveys, program objectives Include monitoring
plant diseases, nematodes, weeds, and soil fertility.
In 1973, its start-up year, this program included 1,315
acres (about 2% of the total peanut acreage in the county), divided
into 42 fields on 33 farms. Three scouts were employed. The
average scouting workload was 435 acres per scout.
Oklahoma Program : In Oklahoma, peanuts are an important crop
in many counties. Oklahoma peanut producers have experienced a
variety of pest problems over the years, including most of the
peanut insects, diseases, nematodes and weeds mentioned above
(p. 76 ). An organized pest management program on peanuts was
conducted in Oklahoma for the first time in 1973, supported in
part by USDA funds. Due to late approval of the State plans, the
program had a late and hasty start. It was largely a demonstra-
tion porgram, with opportunity to gain experience in operational
problems such as obtaining grower support, Scout workloads,
integration of disciplinary inputs, etc. In 1973, 394 acres on
8 farms, located in 3 different counties, were in the program.
One scout team conducted all field survey work.
PROGRAM COSTS
Some cost data are available for each of the 3 peanut pest
management programs evaluated in this study. However, since 2 of
the 3 programs (Comanche County, Texas, and the Oklahoma program)
were initiated only in 1973, the first-year operating costs of
these programs probably included substantial non—recurring start-
up expenses.
Frio County, Texas : Implementation costs of this program
are estimated by Lacewell and Casey at $2,109, (p. E 8-9), con-
sisting of $1,497 for salary and travel expenses of an entomolo-
gist surveying the problem, and $612 for Scout training. These
funds were provided by the Texas Agricultural Extension Service
83
-------
($1,344) and the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station ($765).
The operating costs of the Frio County program by years,
cost elements and source of funds are detailed by Lacewell and
Casey (p. E—ll, Table E-4). In 1973 (Table 7 , p. 8]. ), these
costs totaled $7,882, equivalent to $1.20/acre. Growers contributed
$6,558 ($1.00/acre) while the balance, $1,324 was contributed by
the Texas Agricultural Extension Service ($865) and the Texas
Agricultural Experiment Station ($459).
Comanche County, Texas : In this program, implementation cost
elements include mapping, grower contacts, recruiting, scout train-
ing, data handling and processing, area delineation, and procedure
development. The Texas Agricultural Extension Service contributed
$9,950; the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station $5,000, the
balance of $2,300 caine from USDA cooperative funds.
Total operating costs of this program in 1973 were $40,133,
eauivalent to $28.77/acre for the 1,315 acres in the program (not
including in the total costs $2,300 federal implementation funds).
This cost is obviously excessively high on a per-acre basis, even
considering the fact that the program was not limited to insect
management, but included in its objectives monitoring of plant
diseases, neinatodes, weeds, and soil fertility. Additional years’
experience will be required to determine if program costs can be
brought into an economically attractive relationship to program
benefits. The program was increased from 1,315 acres in 1973 to
2,800 acres in 1974, with a goal of 7,000 acres for 1975. Par-
ticipating growers’ contributions were increased from $0.25 per
acre in 1973 to $1.00/acre in 1974. These are encouraging signs.
Participating growers have indicated that in the future, they
would be willing to pay all scouting costs up to $3.50 per acre.
Oklahoma : For the Oklahoma program, specific implementation
costs are not available. Lacewell and Casey (p. E-48) suggest
that implementation costs experienced in Comanche County, Texas
($17,250) may be relevant to the Oklahoma program.
Operating costs for the Oklahoma program by expense items
and by sources of funds are detailed by Lacewell and Casey
84
-------
(p. E—49, Table E-17) and suirunarized in Table 7 (p. 81 ). The
total operation costs of $41,000 include $20,000 for “field
support”. This amount was provided by the Hughes County Peanut
Growers, for support of the Hughes County demonstration farm.
This sum is not included in Table 7 . Assuming that $21,000
were spent to operate the scouting activities of the Oklahoma
program, the resulting cost for the 395 acres in the program
amounts to $53.16/acre. These costs are, obviously, completely
beyond the realm of economic feasibility. It must be remembered
that for this program also, 1973 was the start-up year. Program
principals in Oklahoma are aware of several opportunities for
greater efficiency and economy of the program which will be
implemented in subsequent years.
In summary, this report provides implementation coat data
for 2 peanut pest management programs (Frio County, Texas,
p. E-l0) and Comanche County, Texas (p. E-29) 4-year
operating cost data for 1 program (Frio County, p. Fl-li);
and first-year operating costs for the remaining 2 programs,
i.e., Comanche County (p. E-31) and the Oklahoma program
(p. E—49).
Implementation coats were estimated at $2,109 for the
Frio County, and at $17,250 for the Comanche County programs.
The operating cO8tS in Frio County (providing insect manage-
ment only) average about $1.20/acre. First-year costs in
the Comanche County program were $28.77/acre, in the Oklahoma
program, $53.16/acre. It is emphasized that both of the
latter programs were initiated in 1973, the only complete year
for which operating cost data are currently available. In
addition, both of these programs include not only insect pro-
blems, but cover plant diseases, nematodes, weeds, soil fer-
tility, and general plant health problems.
85
-------
PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS
The effectiveness of the peanut pest management programs
studied was measured by the following criteria:
-— Yield quantity,
-- Yield quality,
—— Pesticide use,
-- Production costs,
-— Profit to growers.
Quantification of these parameters for the programs evaluated
is difficult because none of the programs provided in their design
for adequate, let alone rigorous economic evaluation.
Effects on yield
Frio County, Texas : As outlined above, this program was
initiated by producers for the purpose of obtaining relief from
the burrowing bug, an insect that had developed into a key problem,
causing substantial peanut quality reductions. In the absence of
other pertinent data, Lacewell and Casey (p. E-14) compared the
quantities of peanuts damaged by the burrowing bug and the result-
ing losses in producer revenues for Frio County for 1970, the last
year prior to initiation of the pest management program, to the
years 1971, 1972, 1973 and 1974 in which the program was in opera-
tion. This type of comparison, as the authors point Out, does
not take into account variations in burrowing bug populations from
year to year, nor losses due to other factors such as water short-
age, weeds, fertilization, etc., and tends to exaggerate program
benefits in light infestation years. In 1970, there were 9,020,000
lbs. of peanuts damaged, costing producers $121,700 in lost revenues.
In 1971, these losses were reduced by about 90%. There were only
minimal peanut quality losses in 1972, and none in 1973 or 1974.
Lacewell and Casey concluded that in 1973, the program resulted
in a 19% increase in peanut quality. There were no effects on the
quantities of peanuts harvested as compared to non-participants.
Comanche County, Texas : In this program, there were likewise
no “control groups” available for measuring the effectiveness of
86
-------
the pest management program for participating growers. Lacewell
and Casey compared the peanut yields of participating producers
in 1973 to their own 1971-1972 average yields, and to the County
average for 1973. On this basis, the average yield for participat-
ing producers, on irrigated as well as on nonirrigated fields,
exceeded both their own yields for 1971—1972, and the County aver-
age yields for 1973 (p. E-27, Table E-9). Participating growers’
yield increases ranged from 9 - 29% (Table 7 , p. 81 ). Peanut
quality was not at issue in the Comanche County program because
the key insect in this area, the lesser cornstalk borer, affects
yield quantity, but not quality.
Ok1ahoma _ pro ram : In this program, yield quantity and quality
were recorded for growers participating in the program, separated
by irrigated and nonirrigated fields. However, there are no com-
parable data for non—participating growers. Thus, an assessment
of the effects of the program on peanut yields (quantity or quality)
of participating growers is not possible.
The 1973 Oklhaoma program also included a field demonstration
test in Hughes County, established to evaluate and compare various
chemical. and cultural practices. Four different management
strategies designated as A, B, C, and D were compared. Management
level A applied chemical pesticides recommended for the area re-
gardless of need. Management level B-plots received pesticide
treatments only when control was needed as indicated by periodic
field surveys, with emphasis on minimal pesticide use. Management
level C was designed to represent practices considered typical for
area peanut producers. Management level D received little or no
pesticide applications. Yields and returns per acre from these
different management strategies were as follows (from Sturgeon et al. ,
1974, as discussed by Lacewell and Casey, p. E-47, Table E—16, of
this report):
87
-------
Management
strategy
Yield,
lbs.per
acre
Grade,
%
Gross Total
returns, cost,
$/A s/A
Net
returns
$/A
A
4,370
67
684
275
410
B
2,746
68
432
187
245
C
2,274
66
354
186
168
D
1,697
59
243
105
138
Management strategy A incurred the highest production costs,
but was clearly superior to the other 3 strategies in regard to
yield, and gross and net returns. These results are difficult to
interpret because this strategy involved not only higher inputs
of chemical pesticides, especially for insect and nematode control,
but also use of one additional fertilizer application 1 and of a
growth regulator. The additional fertilizer application as well
as the growth regulator application were omitted in plots B, C.
and D.
The program benefit data for the Oklahoma program provided
by Lacewell and Casey and included in Table 7 are based on
comparing the effects of management levels A, B and D to level C.
In summary, the data presented in greater detail by Lacewell
and Casey in Appendix E of this report indicate that one of
the three peanut pest management programs evaluated (Fria
County, Texas) did not change peanut yield quantity, but in-
creased qua7ity by 19% by reducing insect damage. The
Comanche County, Texac program increased peanut yield
quantity by 9-29%, but ‘lid not affect quality. Data avail-
able on the Oklahoma pr- gram on 8 farms are not adequate for
evaluation of program ef’fects on peanut yield quantity or
quality. In a demonstrition plot, different pest management
and cultural strategies affected peanut yield changes from
— 25.3 to + 92.2%.
88
-------
Effects on pesticide use
Pesticide use data available for the 3 peanut pest management
programs evaluated are incomplete, but some program effects are
evident.
Frio County, Texas : In this program the quantities of pre-
emergence and postemergenCe insecticides used by participating
peanut producers declined from 3.12 lbs. Al/acre in 1971, the
first year of the program, to 2.44 lbs. Al/acre in 1972, and to
0.97 lbs. Al/acre in 1973, then re—increased slightly to 1.37 lbs.
Al/acre in 1974. There are no comparable data on participating
producers’ insecticide use p7 ictices prior to 1971, nor on the
quantities of insecticides u ed by non participating producers
during the period 1971-1974 Lacewell and Casey point out that
burrowing bug infestations in Frio County were heavy in 1971 and
1972, while 1973 and 1974 were light infestation years. There-
fore, the marked reduction in the use of insecticides in 1973 and
1974 cannot be entirely attributed to the effects of the pest
management program. Nevertheless, Lacewell and Casey believe
that the program contributed to reduced (- 50%) and more efficient
use of insecticides (p. E-16).
There are no data on the kinds and amounts of pesticides other
than insecticides used in Frio County by participating or non-
participating peanut producers.
Comanche County, Texas : In this program, quantities of in-
secticides, herbicides, nernaticides, and fungicides used by parti-
cipating growers were recorded. However, there are no comparable
data for non_participating producers. Based on pesticide use
patterns in previous seasons, Lacewell and Casey perceive “some
indication (that) producers are more effectively using pesticides”,
but a more definite statement regarding the effects of this pro-
gram on pesticide use cannot be made (p. E-34).
Oklahoma : In this program, pesticide uses were recorded for
the 8 participating growers, but again, no comparable data for
non participatiflg producers are available. In the Hughes County
demonstration plots, pesticide inputs varied from -80.6 to
89
-------
+177.8% of typical local practice. Results indicate that in-
creased pesticide inputs could substantially increase peanut
yields. However, as pointed out above, the increased yields and
returns in the high pesticide-use plots may have been due, at
least in part, to the application of a growth regulator and/or
an increased fertilizer rate.
In summar j., one of the three peanut pest management programs
reviewed resulted in decreased pesticide use. There are no
adequate data for a meaningful evaluation for the other two
programs c *udied. Field test plot results indicate that in
one area in Oklahoma) current pesticide u8e levels may be
suboptirnal, and that increased pesticide U85 would increase
peanut yieLds.
Effects on production costs
Production costs can be affected in several ways by pest
management programs. They could be increased by the cost of the
program, decreased by savings in pesticide inputs, or affected
in either direction by combinations of these factors.
Complete, detailed production cost records are not available
for any of the peanut pest management programs studied, with
exception of the demonstration plots in Hughes County, Oklahoma,
in 1973 (see p. A-21). In comparison to local conventional
practice (“Management Strategy C”), different other management
strategies caused changes in total production costs ranging from
— 43.5 to +47.8%.
In the Frio County, Texas program, participating producers’
production costs decreased slightly (—1.5%) due to decreased
insecticide inputs.
No adequate production cost data are available for the
Comanche County, Texas program.
Effects on growers’ profits
From the peanut producers’ standpoint, profit is undoubtedly
the most important indicator of the degree of success of pest
management programs.
90
-------
Fric County, Texas : The pest management program resulted
in improved peanut quality, decreased use of insecticides, de-
creased production costs, and a net increase in growers’ collec-
tive profits estimated by Lacewell and Casey at over $60,000 per
year on the average. In years of high burrowing bug infestations,
benefits of the program are estimated at $120,000 or more.
Comanche County, _ as : Average peanut yields for a sample
of participating growers were compared to a comparable sample of
non-participating growers. There were 5 growers using irrigation,
and 5 growers riot using irrigation in each sample. The average
yield per acre for participating producers was 1,917 lbs., worth
$268.38. Non-participating growers’ yield average was 1,835 lbs.
per acre, worth $256.90. Thus, participating producers had an
average yield increase of 82 lbs. of peanuts per acre, worth
$11.48. Program participants contributed only $0.25/acre toward
the cost of this program.
Oklahoma : Data available are not adequate for estimating
the effects of the program on the net returns of the 8 growers
participating in the team monitoring program. Observations from
the demonstration plots in Hughes County indicate highest net
returns ($410/acre, see p. E-47) from the highest level of pesti-
cide use. The application of pesticides as needed, based on pest
infestation monitoring, produced a net return of only $245/acre.
However, as pointed out above, measures other than pesticide in-
puts may be responsible in whole or in part for the high return
experienced at the highest level of pesticide use in this instance.
In summary, net profits of peanut growers participating
in pest management programs inarsased in the two programs
for which some data are available for evaluation. In one
of these programs (Frio County, Texas), growers’ increased
profits, based on 4-year averages, ranged from 3 to 15%
and exceeded the full costs of the pest management program
several times. In the other two programs (Comanche County,
Texas, and Oklahoma), program costs in 1973, the first year
of operation of both programs, were exces8ively high
91
-------
($28.77 and $53.16/acre, respectivel j, see Table 7 ),
but were largely or entirely paid for from public funds.
Net profit changes ranged from + 3 to +133% in the Comanche
County, Texas program, and from - 18.0 to + 144% in the
Oklahoma demonstration program.
92
-------
TOBACCO PEST MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
BACKGROUND
Tobacco is attacked by a number of different pests. Im-
portant insect pests of tobacco in the U.S. include the tobacco
budworm, Heliothis virescens , and the tobacco hornworm, Manduca
sexta . Tobacco budworms inflict damage on tobacco primarily by
larval feeding in the terminal vegetative parts of tobacco early
in the growing season. Tobacco hornworms, especially the last
of the five larval stages of this insect, feed on tobacco leaves;
they are capable of completely defoliating tobacco plants.
Plant diseases affecting tobacco include brown spot,
Alternaria longipes ; black shank, Phyto hthora parasitica var.
nicotianae ; and mosaic, a virus disease. Several species of
nematodes and weeds may interfere with production. In addition,
chemical plant growth regulators are used extensively on tobacco
for “sucker control”. Suckers are shoots developing from adventi-
tious buds in leaf axils which, if allowed to grow, would produce
foliage and flowers of no commercial value and would thus prevent
maximum production of marketable tobacco leaves. Chemical plant
growth regulators have been developed to control sucker growth.
An excellent discussion of tobacco pests, of their inter-
actions with plant growth regulators and other production factors,
and of scientific approaches to their management has recently
been presented by Rabb et al. (1974).
As in the case of peanuts, commercial tobacco growers in the
U.S. have practiced pest management .to a greater or lesser degree
for many years, without specific scientific guidance and before
the term as such became known.
TRENDS IN TOBACCO PRODUCTION AND PESTICIDE USE
In 1973, about 890,000 acres of tobacco were grown in the
U.S. Average yield per acre was 2,011 lbs., Growers received an
average price of $O.897/lb. The total U.S. tobacco production in
1973 was about 1.8 billion lbs., worth about $1.6 billion at the
93
-------
farm level, or about $1,800/acre (U.S. Department of Agriculture
1973b)
The quantities of pesticides (insecticides, fumigants, fungi-
cides, growth regulators) used on tobacco in 1964, 1966 and 1971,
according to the USDA surveys for these years, and the U.S.
tobacco acreage for the same years are summarized in Table 8.
Pesticide use data are available for 1964, 1966, and 1971 for
insecticides, fumigants, and growth regulators, and for fungicides
only for 1964. No disaggregate data on the use of herbicides on
tobacco are included in any of the USDA surveys of the quantities
of pesticides used by U.S. farmers.
The total U.S. tobacco acreage ranged from 1,078,000 acres
in 1964 to 838,000 acres in 1971. It comprised 892,000 acres
in 1973 (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1974c).
The total quantity of insecticides used on tobacco was about
5 million lbs. of active ingredients (Al) in 1964, and about
4 million lbs. in 1971. On a per—acre basis, use of insecticides
on tobacco ranged from a low of 3.9 lbs. in 1966 to 4.8 lbs.
in 1971.
The data on the use of fumigants on tobacco included in
Table 8 may be misleading because between 1964 and 1971, the
USDA changed its procedures. In the earlier years, space and soil
fumigants were not separated. In recent years, there has been a
trend to greater use of broadcast soil fumigants on tobacco which
is not reflected in the USDA data reported in Table 8
probably due to the fact that space fumigants were included in the
earlier figures but not in those for 1971 (Good, l974a).
Because of these problems, fumigants and fungicides have not
been included in the totals and averages at the bottom of Table 8,
and the data on the use of fumigants on tobacco appear to be of
limited usefulness and should not be over-interpreted.
The use of growth regulators on tobacco increased greatly
from 1964 to 1971. The total quantity of growth regulators applied
to tobacco doubled during this period, from 2.5 million lbs. Al in
1964 to almost 5 million lbs. in 1971. On an area basis, plant
94
-------
Table 8: U.S. Tobacco Acreage and Use of
Pesticides on Tobacco, 1964 — 197].
Year
1964
1966
197].
Tobacco Acreage”
1,078
972
838
(1,000 Acres)
Pesticide Use on Tobacco:
Insecticides 2 ”
— Total (1,000 lbs. Al)
4,997
3,791
3,999
— per Acre (lbs. Al)
4.6
3,9
48
Fumigants
— Total (1,000 lbs. Al)
15,066
10,334
4,429
— per Acre (lbs. Al)
14.0
10.6
53
Growth Regulators
— Total (1,000 lbs. Al)
2,484
3,058
4,978
— per Acre (lbs. Al)
2.3
3.2
59
Fungicides
— Total (1,000 lbs. Al)
2,359
N.a.
N.a.
— per Acre (lbs. Al)
2.2
N.a.
N.a.
Herbicides
N.a.
N.a.
Na.
Total, Insecticides and Growth
— Total (1,000 lbs. Al)
Reg.’s
7,481
6,849
8,977
— per Acre (lbs. Al)
6.9
7.0
10.7
1/ All types of tobacco
2/ Exci. petroleum
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture (1968c, 1968b, 1970,
1973a, 1973b, 1974a)
95
-------
growth regulator use increased by more than 150%, from 2.3 lbs.
Al/acre in 1964 to 5.9 lbs./acre in 1971.
The ccrnbined volume of tobacco insecticides and growth
regulators increased frOm about 7.5 million lbs. Al in 1964
to 9.0 million lbs. in 1971. This increase is due primarily to
the increased use of growth regulators. On an area basis, the
use of insecticides and growth regulators combined amounted to
6.9, 7.0 and 10.7 lbs. Al/acre in 1964, 1966 and 1971, respec-
tively.
USERS, LOCATIONS AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROGRAMS STUDIED
Figure 3 presents an overview of the geographical distri-
bution of the U.S. tobacco acreage in 1969 by way of a dot-map
(1969 is the latest year for which such dot-maps are available).
The total U.S.. tobacco acreage in 1969 was 877,000 acres, rela-
tively close to the 892,000 acres grown in 1973. Tobacco pro-
duction statistics indicate that the geographical distribution
of tobacco in the U.S. per Figure 3 is still representative
for 1973.
North Carolina is the leading tobacco-producing state in
the U.S. with about 375,000 acres, that is more than 40% of the
U.S. total.
North Carolina appears to be the only state in which an
organized tobacco pest management program meeting the criteria
set forth in the introduction to this report is currently in
operation. The locations of North Carolina’s 3 major tobacco
pest management programs are indicated by circles in Figure 3
North Carolina’s tobacco pest management prOgra1T was one of
the two “pilot pest management projects” initiated in 1971 with
support from the USDA/State cooperative program.
Table 9 summarizes the characteristics, costs and bene-
fits of the North Carolina tobacco pest management prOgrafl for
the three years for which data are available, 1971—1973, based
on Carlson and Cooper’s more detailed description and analysis
in Appendix F of this report.
In 1971 and 1972, the program was operated in 5 counties,
expanding to ‘10 counties in 1973. It included:
96
-------
Figure 3 :
Locations of the Tobacco Pest Management Programs Evaluated in
this Report Relative to the Geographic Distribution of Tobacco
Acreage in the U.S. (Program locations indicated by circles).
-------
Table 9• Characteristics, Costs and Benefits of the North Carolina
r1()baCcO Pest’ Management Programs, 1971 — 1973
Program Location 3 areas in North Carolina
Objective Insect pest suppression
Year started 1971
Year 1971 1972 1973
Area 5 Counties 5 Counties 10 Counties
Acres ) 8,032 8,498 11,350
Farms 1,531 1,680 813
Fields) 3,076 3,339 3,448
# Scouts 37 39 33
Farms/Scout 41.2 43.1 24.6
Fields/Scout 83.1 85.6 104.5
Acres/Scout 217.1 217.9 343.9
Sites/Field 5 5 4
Insect Management
Costs, $ per Acre per Acre per Acre
Scouts 5.49 5.33 3.94
Scout Travel 1.03 0.81 0.76
Scout Supv. N.a. 1.47 1.38
Co. Agents N.a. 1.32 1.32
Prof. Support N.a. 3.75 3.44
Other l/ N.a. 5.12 6.29
Subtotal 14.91 17.80 17.13
Insecticides 3.25 2.12 2.18
Application 5.52 3.61 4.37
Total 23.68 23.53 23.68
Source of Funds :
Scouting Program Public funds Public funds Public funds
Insecticides&Appl. Grower funds Grower funds Grower funds
Benefits :
Yield No change No change No change
Insecticide Use — 22.5% — 43.5% — 29.0%
Production Costs — $2.51/acre2/ — $5.55/acre2l — $4.73/acre2/
Profit + $2.51/acre2/ + $5.55/acre2/ + $4.73/acre2/
1/ mci. clerical, data processing, env. monitoring, ongoing research, regulatory
personnel, supplies, insect identification, and Exp. Sta. & Extension administration.
2/ Due to reduced use of insecticides, disregarding scouting costs.
Program participants did not contribute to the scouting costs which, if they
had to be borne by growers entirely, would more than offset the savings in
costs of insecticides and their application.
98
-------
8,032 acres in 3,076 fields and 1,531 farms in 1971
8,498 acres in 3,339 fields and 1,680 farms in 1972
11,350 acres in 3,448 fields and 813 farms in 1973
Thirty-seven scouts were employed in 1971, 39 in 1972, and
33 in 1973.
When the program was expanded to 5 additional counties and to
a total of 11,350 acres in 1973, the number of fields increased
only slightly to 3,448, and the number of participating farms de-
creased by about 50%. Thus, there were considerably more acres
per field and per farm in the program in 1973 as compared to the
first two years. At the same time, the number of sites sampled
per field was reduced from 5 in 1971 and 1972 to 4 in 1973. These
changes resulted in considerable improvements in scouting efficiency
in 1973. Only 33 scouts were employed in 1973.
PROGRAM COSTS
Public and farm costs of the North Carolina tobacco pest
management program were analyzed in detail by Carison and Cooper
(p. F-22 to F-39). These costs are summarized on a per-acre basis
in Table 9 . No breakdown of implementation vs. ongoing
operating costs is available for this program.
Scouting costs per acre (including Scout salaries and travel)
decreased from $6.52 in 1971 to $6.14 in 1972, and to $4.70 in 1973,
even though scout wage rates rose from $2.48/hour in 1971 to $2.76
per hour in 1973. Changes in the work accomplished per hour were
thought to have caused this reduction in scouting costs. A de-
tailed mathematical analysis of all scouting cost elements by
Carison and Cooper indicates that the size of program farm is
related to travel expenses; on large farms, scouts have to drive
greater distances to cover all fields. Itis further believed that
significant decreases in total Scouting costs were obtained by pay-
ing scouts by a “piece rate” incentive scheme, instead of by the
hour. Additional program cost savings in 1973 as compared to the
preceding years were realized by reducing the number of sites per
field from 5 to 4, and by counting pests only when the crop was
at the most susceptible stage of growth. These program changes all
99
-------
contributed to reducing the time spent per field.
While the per-acre cost for scouting decreased substantially
from 1972 to 1973 (Table 9 , p. 98 ; Table 3.5 p. F—28), pro-
gram costsfor clerical and data processing services, and for on-
going research, regulatory personnel, supplies, insect collection
and identification, and experiment station and extension adminis-
tration increased from 1972 to 1973, offsetting most of the savings
in the scouting costs. Thus, total program costs decreased by
only $0.67 per acre from 1972 to 1973. If participating growers’
costs for insecticides and application are added to the program
costs, total insect management costs for program participants
varied very little between the 3 program years.
For each of the 3 program years, scouting costa alone were
higher than the eavings in costs of insecticides and
application realized by program participants, as discussed
in greater detail below, p. 102—103.
PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS
From 1971 - 1973, the North Carolina tobacco pest management
program focused primarily on the 2 major foliar insect pests of
tobacco, the tobacco hornworm and the tobacco budworm. In fact,
it called itself an insect pest management program (Ellis, l?74).
Program objectives included maximum natural suppression of bud-
worms and hornworms by beneficial species; application of selective
insecticides only as needed, as determined by weekly scouting;
effective sucker control as an aid to suppressing the hornworm;
and early stalk destruction to suppress overwinteriflg pests and
diseases. These objectives were designed primarily to reduce un-
necessary insecticide use and, thereby, save growers production
costs and increase their profits without loss in tobacco yield or
quality (Carison and Cooper, p. F-2).
The effectiveness of the North Carolina tobacco pest manage-
ment program was measured by several criteria, including yield
quantity and quality, pesticide use, production costs, and profit
to growers. In addition to these parameters, Carlson and Cooper
provide data on the abundance of pest and beneficial insects by
100
-------
years and pest management program areas (p. F—9, Table 2.3 ),
and on timeliness of stalk destruction (p. F -19, 20). These
authors rejected the degree of pest management acceptance as
measured by percent of acreage scouted in a county as a useful
benefit indicator, pointing out that acceptance due to program
benefits is difficult to distinguish from acceptance due to project
“salesmanship”.
As with most other pest management programs studied, the
design of the North Carolina tobacco program did not include pro-
vision for measuring program effects in comparison to suitable
non-program “control groups”.
Effects on yield
The program did not include yield quantity or quality improve-
ment among its objectives. Carison and Cooper made a comprehensive
study, involving 4 counties in the program, in an attempt to iso-
late possible program-related effects on tobacco yields (p. F—14 ff,).
Random samples of 50 farms in the program and 50 farms not in the
program were taken from County Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service (ASCS) records in Wilson, Columbus, Bladen,
and Cuxnberland Counties for the years 1969 through 1973. Four
types of yield differences were tested for each county, i.e., (1)
years before the program for non-program farms compared to program
farms; (2) years during the program for non-program farms compared
to program farms; (3) non-program farms, years before the program
compared to years during the program; and (4) program farms, years
before the program compared to years during the program.
In a further effort to identify any program effects on tobacco
yields, another set of tests was made involving Wilson, Bladen and
Columbus Counties. For each county, yields for the years before
the program were compared to yields for each year during the pro-
gram for program and non-program farms.
The reBults of the two teat8 were in good agreement with
one another indicating that the North Carolina tobacco
pest management program had no significant positive (or
negative) effects on tobacco yields.
101
-------
Effects on pesticide use
Carison and Cooper (p. F-31 ff., Table 3.8) report the
number of insecticide applications, and pounds of insecticides
applied per acre per year for participating farms by counties for
1971, 1972, and 1973. In each of the 3 years, the program means
were substantially below the USDA estimates for all North Carolina
tobacco farms in 1971. For instance, unpublished 1971 USDA survey
data indicate that the average use of insecticides in Surry County
was 2.03 lbs. per acre, that is 4.6 times the quantity used in the
same county in 1971 by program participants. As summarized in
Table 9 , Carison and Cooper concluded that the program re-
duced insecticide inputs by 22.5% in 1971, 43.5% in 1972, and
29.0% in 1973 (3 year average = — 31.7%).
Quantities of other pesticides (fumigants, fungicides, herbi-
cides, growth regulators) used on tobacco were apparently not
studied or recorded in the North Carolina tobacco pest management
program and consequently, no information is available on the effects
(if any) of the program on inputs of pesticides other than insecti-
cides.
In summary, the program resulted in a decrease in the use
of insecticides in each of the 3 program years for which
data are available at this time. Reductions in insecticide
inputs ranged from 22.5 to43.5% the 3-year average
reduction was 31.7%.
Effects on production costs
Detailed production cost records are not available for the
North Carolina tobacco pest management program. According to
Carison and Cooper (p. F-27 ff., Table 3.6), the estimated cost
of insecticides plus application for all tobacco farms in North
Carolina was $11.28/acre in 1971. The same cost for pest manage-
ment program farms in 1971 was estimated at $8.77/acre, indicating
a cost saving of $2.51/acre for program farms. If the insect con-
trol costs for non—program growers were the same in 1972 and 1973
as in 1971, cost savings for program participants would have been
$5.55/acre in 1972 and $4.73 per acre in 1973. However, partici—
102
-------
pating growers did not contribute any funds to the cost of the
pest management program.
In each of the 3 program years, the cost of scouting (scout
8alaries and travel expenses) alone exceeded the monetary
value of thc insecticide and application costs saved, even
though significant increases in scouting efficiency and
decreases in scouting costs were achieved in 1973, as out-
lined above (p. 99 and Table 9 , p. 98 ), and in
greater detail by Carl8on and Cooper (p. F-22 ff., Table8
F-3.4 , 3.5). If growers had had to bear the entire coet
of the pest management program, their production coBte would
have increased substantially in comparison to non-program
growers.
Effects on growers’ profits
Tobacco growers participating in the North Carolina pest
management program experienced, on the average, a small profit
increase due to savings in insecticides and application, ranging
from $2.51 to $5.55/acre (3—year average = $4.26/acre). However,
as pointed out above, they did not contribute to the scouting
costs. Scouting costs alone, disregarding other program cost
elements, more than offset the savings in costs of insecticides
and application.
Thus, one has to conclude that it probably would be diffi-
cult to promote this program on a voluntary basis. To
save about $4 - 5/acre, partially or totally offset by
program costs, would not be attractive for tobacco growers.
In addition, county agents would be reluctant to spend
time on a program that has no yield or quality improvement
objectives.
Effects on tobacco sucker control and stalk destruction
Promotion of effective sucker control through properly
timed application of chemical growth regulators was included
among the prime objectives of North Carolina tobacco pest manage-
ment program. Program effects on stalk destruction are discussed
by Carison and Cooper (p. Fl9, 20). Early stalk destruction
103
-------
reduces overwintering populations of tobacco hornworms and
budworms by eliminating the food sources for these insect pests
when they are entering diapause. The degree of properly timed
stalk destruction during 1971—1973 left much to be desired, but
the program appears to have contributed significant improvements.
For instance, in Wayne and Wilson Counties, approximately 98% of
harvested tobacco fields contained undestroyed stalks by the end
of August in 1971. In 1972, only about 35% of the fields con-
tained undestroyed stalks at the same time, but in 1973, the
percentage of fields with undestroyed stalks went back up to 55%.
In Columbus and Bladen Counties, there was significant improve-
ment in stalk reduction between 1971 and 1972, but no further
improvement from 1972 to 1973.
The requirements for the timing of stalk removal vary,
depending upon the pest or disease that is to be suppressed.
However, quantitative data on the effects of stalk destruction,
and thus evidence with which to convince growers, appears to be
lacking (p. F-20).
In Bummary, the program appears to have resulted in some
improvements in stalk destruction timing.
104
-------
REFERENCES
Adkisson, P. L. 1971. Objective Uses of Insecticides in
Agriculture. In: Agricultural Chemicals - Harmony or
Discord. University of California, Division of Agricul-
tural Sciences. Symposium Proceedings, p. 43-51.
Carison, G. A. 1975. Personal Communication to R. von
Rt mker, June 24, 1975. North Carolina State University,
Department of Economics and Business, Raleigh, N.C.
Council on Environmental Quality. 1972. Integrated Pest
Management. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
D. C. (41 pp.).
Davis, V. W. 1974. Personal Communication to R. von Rüxnker,
October 16, 1974. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic
Research Service, Washington, D. C.
Ellis, H. C. 1974. Tobacco Insect Pest Management. In:
Peanut and Tobacco Pest Management Workshop Proceedings.
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, p. 51-55.
Falcon, L. A. 1972. Integrated Control of Cotton Pests in
the Far West. Beitwide Cotton Production Research Conference
Proceedings.
Falcon, L. A. 1974. Personal Communication to R. von Rümker,
September 5, 1974. University of California, Department of
Entomological Sciences, Berkeley, California.
Geier, P. W. 1966. Management of Insect Pests. Annual Review
of Entomology 11:471-490.
Good, J. M. 1973. Pilot Programs for Integrated Pest Manage-
ment in the United States. Presentation at the US—USSR Pest
Management Conference, September 10—18, 1973, Kiev, USSR.
US. Department of Agriculture, Extension Service, Washington,
D. C. ANR—5—15 (10—73). 11 pp.
Good, J. M. 1974a. Personal Communication to R. von Rflmker,
November 7, 1974. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Extension
Service, Washington, D. C.
Good, J. M. 1974b. The Role of Extension Specialists and
Private Consultants in Pest Management Programs. Presenta-
tion at the Corn and Grain Sorghum Pest Management Workshop,
Lincoln, Nebraska.
Good, J. M. 1975. Personal Communication to R. von Rümker,
September 12, 1975. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Exten-
sion Service, Washington, D. C.
105
-------
Hines, B. M., and C. E. Hoelscher. 1974. Progress Report
1973 Texas Peanut Pest Management, Comanche County, Texas.
In: Peanut and Tobacco Pest Management Workshop Proceed-
ings. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, p. 5-8.
Huf faker, C. B. 1975. Personal Communication to R. von
Rt mker, September 15, 1975. University of California,
International Center for Biological Control, Albany,
California.
Kennedy, .1. S. 1968. The Motivation of Integrated Control.
Jour. Applied Ecology 4, 492—499.
Lacewell, R. D. 1975. Personal Communication to R. von
R xnker, May 26, 1975. Texas A & M University, Department
of Agricultural Economics, College Station, Texas.
Rabb, R. L. 1972. Principles and Concepts of Pest Manage-
ment. In: Implementing Practical Pest Management Strategies.
Proceedings of a. National Extension Insect-Pest Management
Workshop held at Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana
(Sponsored by USDA/State Cooperative Extension Services),
p. 6—29.
Rabb, R. L., F. A. Todd, and H. C. Ellis. 1974. Pest Manage-
ment: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Crop Protection!
Tobacco Pest Management. Presentation at the AAAS Sym-
posium, San Francisco, California.
Reeves, R. 1975. Results of Environmental Sampling in
Pest Management Programs. Presentation at the Regional
Workshop on Corn, Grain Sorghum and Alfalfa Pest Management,
April 1-3, 1975, Urbana, Illinois. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Environmental Quality Laboratory, Brownsville,
Texas.
Scott, R. C. 1974. A Progress Report on Extension Pest
Management Programs. Presentation at the Agricultural Re-
search Institute Annual Convention, Denver, Colorado.
Smith, R. F. 1972. The Impact of tlie Green Revolution on
Plant Protection in Tropical and Subtropical Areas.
Bull. Entomological Society America 18, 7—14.
Smith, R. F., and L. A. Falcon. 1973. Insect Control for
Cotton in California, Cotton Growing Review 50:15-27.
Smith, R. F., and H. T. Reynolds. 1966. Principles, Defini-
tions and Scope of Integrated Pest Control. Proc. FAO
Symposium on Integrated Pest Control (1) 11-17.
106
-------
Smith, R. F., and H. T. Reynolds. 1972. Effects of Mani-
pulation of Cotton Agro-EcOsyStemS on Insect Pest Populations.
In: The Careless Technology, M. T. Farrar and 3. P. Milton,
Eds. Natural History Press. p. 373—406.
Smith, R. F., and R. van den Bosch. 1967. Integrated Control.
In: Pest Control, Biological, Physical and Selected Chemical
Methods. W. W. Kilgore and R. L. Doutt, Eds. Academic Press.
Chap. 9, 295—340.
Stern, V. M., R. F. Smith, R. van den Bosch, and K. S. Hageri.
1959. The Integration of Chemical and Biological Control
of the Spotted Alfalfa Aphid. Hilgardia 29:81-101.
Sturgeon, R. V., L. Tripp, 3. Coakley, and H. Greer. 1974.
Annual Report of 1973 Peanut Pest Management Programs. In:
Peanut and Tobacco Pest Management Workshop Proceedings.
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, p. 9-5 0.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1966. The Pesticide Review
1966. Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1968a. The Pesticide Review
1968. Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1968b. Quantities of Pesticides
Used by Farmers in 1964. Agricultural Economic Report No. 131,
Economic Research Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1968c. Agricultural Statistics.
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1970. Quantities of Pesticides
Used by Farmers in 1966. Agricultural Economic Report No. 179,
Economic Research Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1973a. Agricultural Statistics.
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1973b. Tobacco Situation,
TS—146. Economic Research Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1973c. The Pesticide Review
1972. Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1974a. Cotton Situation,
CS—267. Economic Research Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1974b. Farmers’ Use of Pesti-
cides in l971....QuantitieS. Agricultural Economic Report
No. 252, Economic Research Service.
107
-------
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1974c. Tobacco Situation,
TS—147. Economic Research Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1974d. Fats and Oils Situa-
tion, FOS—274. Economic Research Service.
U.S. Tariff Commission. 1974. United States Production and
Sales of Pesticides and Related Products 1973, Preliminary.
Washington, D. C.
Womach, J. 1974. An Evaluation of the USDA Sponsored Cotton
Pest Management Program, 1972. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Economic Research Service, Natural Resource Economics Divis-
ion. Unpublished Manuscript (30 pp.).
108
------- |