COOPERATIVE
IMPACT ASSESSMENT
REPORT
THE BIOLOGIC AND ECONOMIC
ASSESSMENT OF
LINDANE
UNITED STATES IN COOPERATION WITH TECHNICAL BULLETIN
DEPARTMENT OF STATE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS NUMBER 1647
ACRICUniJKI COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE
OTHER STATE AGENCIES
U.S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
L.
-------
THE BIOLOGIC AND ECONOMIC
ASSESSMENT OF
LIN DANE
A report of the Lindane assessment team
to the rebuttable presumption against registration of Lindane
Submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency
on March 19,1980
UNITED STATES IN COOPERATION WITH TECHNICAL BULLETIN
DEPARTMENT OF STATE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS NUMBER 1647
AGRICULTURE COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE
OTHER STATE AGENCIES
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
PREFACE
This report is a joint project of the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
the State Land-Grant Universities, and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, and is the sixth in a series of reports recently prepared by a
team of scientists from these organizations in order to provide sound, cur-
rent scientific information on the benefits of, and exposure to, lindane.
The report is a scientific presentation to be used in connection with
other data as a portion of the total body of knowledge in a final benefit/
risk assessment under the Rebuttable Presumption Against Registration
Process in connection with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act.
This report Is a slightly edited version of the report submitted to
the Environmental Protection Agency on March 19, 1980. The editing has
been limited in order to maintain the accuracy of the information in the
original report.
Sincere appreciation is extended to the Assessment Team Members and
to many State Entomologists and Extensior personnel, representatives of the
chemical industry, and members and staff of the National Forest Products
Association, who contributed data for this analysis and gave so generously
of their time in the development of information and in the preparation of
the report.
Lindane Assessment Team
Samuel C. Billings Entomologist USDA, SEA, AR
Beltsville, Maryland
W. R. Bowen Entomologist University of California
Riverside, California
Roderick M. Coan Team Leader USDA, SEA, AR
Entomologist Beltsville, Maryland
Herman Delvo Economist USDA, ESCS
Washington, D.C.
Mark I Dow Entomologist Economic Analysis Branch, EPA
Washington, D.C.
Donald E. Eckerman Economist Economic Analysis Branch, EPA
Washington, D.C.
U
-------
Walter L. Ferguson
Stanford N. Fertig
George G. Kennedy
Robert E. Lee
Joseph W. Lewis
G Michael McVjhorter
David G Nielsen
John R. Parks
Clara Roy
0. Ray Stanton
Bill L Stevenson
E. David Thomas
Economist
Chief, Pesticide
Impact Assessment
Staff
Entomologist
Economist
Economist
Entomologist
Co-Leader
Entomologist
Economist
Natural Resource
Economist
Economist
Chemical Coordinator
Entomologist
USDA, ESCS
Washington, D.C.
USDA, SEA, AR
Beltsvile, Maryland
Dept. of Entomology
North Carolina State Univ.
Raleigh, North Carolina
Economic Analysis Branch, EPA
Washington, D.C.
USDA, Forest Service
Washington, D.C.
Dept. of Entomology
Texas A M University
College Station, Texas
OARDC, Ohio State University
Wooster, Ohio
USDA, ESCS
Washington, D.C.
Economic Analysis Branch, EPA
Washington, D.C.
USDA, ESCS
Washington, D.C.
USDA, Forest Service
Atlanta, Georgia
Ecological Effects Branch, EPA
Washington, D.C.
Ill
-------
ABSTRACT
The insecticide lindane is comprised of at least 99 percent of the
gamma isomer of benzene hexachioride (BHC). Three uses of lindane -- seed
treatments, hardwood lumber, and livestock - account for 87 percent
(1975-76) of the total poundage used (active ingredients), which has been
estimated to be 887,000 pounds.
Twelve commodity/site-pest groupings are of concern and have Impacts
in most areas.
Seed treatment with lindane accounts for 426,000 pounds, or 48 per-
cent, of production. Seeds of small grains, corn, sorghum, vegetables,
and flowers are treated to control wireworms, white grubs, seed corn
beetles, and seed corn maggots. Seeds for planting over 16.8 million
acres of corn and small grains are treated. The loss of lindane for this
use would be major and would result in yield losses and cost increases.
Hardwood lumber and logs are treated with 200,000 pounds of lindane,
or 23 percent of production, for the control of lyctus, bark, and ambrosia
beetles, as well as various flatheaded and roundheaded boring beetles. No
suitable substitute insecticides are available. The Impact of removing
lindane for this use would be major; yield and lumber quality losses would
be expected.
More than 20 million head of livestock are treated annually with
140,000 pounds (16 percent of production) of lindane for control of lice,
ticks, flies, and mites on cattle, hogs, sheep, goats, and horses. Appli-
cations are made to the animals directly, or to their bedding, shelters,
and loafing areas. Lindane is also important In regulatory quarantine
programs. Some alternative materials are available for some of the pests,
but the loss of lindane would result in production cost Increases estimated
at $1,083,000 per year.
Forestry uses in the areas of lumber production, seed (tree) orchards,
and naval stores account for 4,000 pounds of lindane annually. Llndane Is
used for the control of beetles, other bark beetles, the southern pine
beetle, and the black turpentine beetle. Lindane Is the only control
method -- chemical or noncheniical -- that Is registered for use on live
trees, and its removal would result in yield and quality losses.
Lindane is the only insecticide registered for the control of syinphy-
lans in the pineapple-producing areas of the Hawaiian Islands. Over 19,000
pounds are used annually on about 22 percent of the pineapple acreage In
production. Loss of Undane would result In yield losses of over
$1,000,000 in a growing cycle. There are no registered Insecticidal
alternatives.
lv
-------
On woody ornamentals, lindane is the only material registered for
control of the woodboring beetles and leafminers on dogwood, lilac, birch,
ash, and locust Moderate regional Impacts of about $20,000 , 000 per year
would be expected.
Small, but substantial, amounts of lindan้ are used annually in the
Christmas tree industry for control of the balsam woolly aphid, pine root
collar weevil, pales weevil, and white pine weevil. Loss of lindane would
result in yield losses and regional impacts in the major Christmas tree
growing areas.
Pecan phylloxera is controlled on pecan by 27,000 pounds of lindane,
which is applied to 30,000 acres of pecan trees. The loss of lindane would
result in production cost increases and yield losses estimated to be about
$2,000,000 per year.
It is estimated that more than 10,000 homes (and other structures) are
treated every year for control of woodboring insects such as the powder-
post beetle, carpenter ants, and the old house borer. There are no suit-
able, economical substitutes for control of these pests; the alternative is
the expensive process of fumigating the entire structure.
Approximately 11,600 acres of cucurbits are treated each year with
11,000 pounds of lindane, for control of the pickleworm and vine-boring
insects. There are no effective alternatives to lindane for use on cucum-
bers, melons, and squash, particularly In the southern States. Loss of
lindane would have a moderate regional impact amounting to over $2,400,000
per year.
In household situations, lindane is registered for the control of
carpet beetles and clothes moths. Several effective alternative materials
are available, however, and therefore loss of lindane would have only a
minor impact.
Lindane is also registered for control of ticks, fleas, lice, and
mites on dogs and cats, and in or on their premises. As many Insecticidal
alternatives are available, however, the impacts from the loss of lindane
for this use would be minor.
Keywords : lindane, insecticides, seed treatment, wlreworrns, seed corn
beetles seed corn maggot, lumber, logs, wood-boring beetles,
livestock, arthropod pests of livestock, seed (tree) orchards,
naval stores, pineapples, symphylans woody ornamentals,
leafininera, Christmas trees pine root collar weevIl pales
weevil, pecans, pecan phylloxera , wood-destroying insects,
household pest control, aiteTnatives to lindane., cucumber and
squash insects, dog and cat insect pests, environmental
exposure, human exposure, economic impacts, crop losses,
pesticide registration, RPAR, forestry insects, pests of pet
premises, gamma BHC.
-------
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTIONANDSUMMARy ....... . . . . . . . . ......... 1
Purpose of Analysis . . . . .
Product Introduction . * . .
Scope and Approach . . . . .
Summary of Findings . .
Overall Impacts . . . .
Hardwood Logs and Lumber
Seed Treatment . . . . .
Commercial Forest Land
Livestock . . . . . . .
Hawaiian Pineapples . .
Ornamentals . . . . . . . .
Christmas Trees . . . .
Pecans. . . . . . . . . . .
Pets . . . . . . . . . .
Existing Structures . . .
Household . . . . . . . . .
Cucurbits . . . . . . . . .
CHAPTER 1: GENERAL PRODUCTION AND USE PATTERNS
Production, Imports, and Exports . . . . . . . .
Quantities, Used bySite . . . . . ...S... S
CHAPTER 2: BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF LINDANE USE
IN THE HARDWOOD SAWMILL INDUSTRY.
Current UseAnalysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Performance Evaluation of Lindane and Alternatives
Economic Impact Analysis . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CHAPTER 3: BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF LINDANE USE
AS A SEED TREATMENT . . . . . * . .
Current Use Analysis . . . . . . . .. . . . . .
Performance Evaluation of Lindane and Alternatives
Economic Impact Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . .
S S S S * S 5 0 0 I I S S . 1
S S S S S I S S S S S I S S S S 1
S S S S I S I I S S S I S I I S S S I 1
S S I S I 0 I I S S S I S S I S S S 3
I S I S S S I S
S I S S S S S S S S
S S S S S
S S S S S S S S
. S S S I S S
. . I S S S I
S S S S S S I S
S S S S I S S S
. I S S S S I S S S
. I S S I S S I S S
S S S S S I I S S S S
S S S S S S S S S I
S S S I S I I S S S S
I I S S
S S S S S
S S I S I
S S I S
I I I S S
I S S S
I S S I
S S S S I
S I S S S
S S S I S
S S S I S
. I S S S
S I I S S
I I 3
I S 5 3
S I 5
I S S 7
. 5 5 7
S I 5 9
. . 12
. 14
. . 14
. . 17
17
. 22
. 22
I S S S I S S S 5 23
S S S S S I . 23
S S S S S S S S S 23
S S S S S S S I S 5 25
S S S S S S S S I S I
S I I I S S S S S I
I S S S I S S I I
I S S I S S S S S S I 36
S S I S S S I I I
S S S S S S S S S I
. S I S I S S S I S
S S S S I S S S S S
S S I I I S S S I S
25
31
.32
I 37
37
43
46
47
vi
-------
CHAPTER 4: BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF LINDANE USE
ON COMMERCIAL FOREST LAND . . .
Current Use Analysis . . . . . . .
Commercial Forest Land . . . . , ,
Seed Orchards . . . . , ,
Naval Stores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
GlossaryofTerms . . . . . . . . . . SS
CHAPTER 5: BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF LINDANE USE
ON LIVESTOCK . . . . . . . . .
CurrentUseAnalysis . . . . .. . .
Performance Evaluation of Lindane and Alternatives
Economic Impact Analysis . . . . . .
Summary. . . . . . .
CHAPTER 8: BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF LINDANE USE
ON PINEAPPLES . . . . . . . . . . .
Current Use Analysis . . . . . .
Performance Evaluation of Lindane and Alternatives
Economic Impact Analysis . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . .
CHAPTER 7: BENEFIT ANALYSIS OP LINDANE USE
ONORNAMENTALS . . . 1 ...
Current Use Analysis . . . . . . . . . . .
Performance Evaluation of Lindane and Alternatives
Economic Impact Analysis . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary . . . , ,
CHAPTER 8: BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF LINDANE USE
ON CHRISTMAS TREES. . . . . . . .
Current Use Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Performance Evaluation of Lindane and Alternatives .
Economic Impact Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
S S S S S S S 48
S S I S S S S S S 48
S S S S S S S S S S 48
S S S S S S S S S S S 60
o 0 S S S S S S I S 62
S S S S S S S S S 5 65
S S S S S S S S S 5 66
67
S S S S S
75
S I S S S S S 5 5
89
S S S S S S S 5
. S S S S S S S S
91
S 5 5 .
92
S S S I S S I
96
S S S S S S S S S
S S S S S S S S
. . S S S S S S S
I S S S S I S S S
S S S I S S
S S I S S S -. S
S S S S S S S S
104
104
108
111
118
118
118
120
123
134
S S S
S S I
S I S S
S S S S S
S S S *
. S S S
Summary S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S
S I S 55 5 5 S 0 5
-------
CHAPTER 9: BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF LINDANE USE
ON PECANS . . . . . . . . . , . , . . . , , 135
Current Use Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
Performance Evaluation of Lindane and Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
EconomiclmpactAnalysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
S urnmary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
CHAPTER 10: BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF LINDANE USE
ON PETS , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
CurrentUseAnalysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ . . 145
Performance Evaluation of Lmdane and Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
Economlc lmpactAna lysj.s ....... S0SS . . . . . . . . 151
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
CHAPTER 11: BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF LINDANE USE
ON EXISTING STRUCTURES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
CurrentUseAnalysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1s .... 152
Performance Evaluation of Lindane and Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . 153
EconomiclmpactAnalysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1SS 155
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
CHAPTER 12: BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF LINDANE USE
ONHOUSEHOLDPESTS . ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
CurrentUseAnalysis ....... . . . . ...... . . . . . . 156
Performance Evaluation of Lindane and Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
Economic lmpactAnalygjs . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..s... .. 161
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
CHAPTER 13: BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF LINDANE USE
ON CUCURBITS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
CurrentUseAnalysis . . . . . . . ........ . . . . 1s 162
Performance Evaluation of Lindane and Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
Bconomlc lmpactAnalysis . . . .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
S ulnmary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
April 1981
viii
-------
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
Purpose of Analysis
The purpose of this report is to
develop biological, exposure, and eco-
nomic information related to the uses of
lindane.
This information was provided in
an original benefits assessment report
(March 19, 1980) to the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) following its
issuance of a rebuttable presumption
against registration (RPAR) against
these registered uses of lindane.
Title 40, 162.11, of the Code of
Federal Regulations for the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA) as amended (86 Stat. 971,
89 Stat. 751, 7 U.S.C. 136 atseq.)
provides that a rebuttable presumption
against registration (RPAR) or reregis-
tration shall arise if the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) determines that
the pesticide meets or exceeds any of
the risk criteria relating to acute or
chronic toxic effects set forth in
the Regulations (Section 162.11 (a)(3)).
A notice of RPAR Is Issued when the
evidence related to risk meets the
criteria set forth.
In the Federal Register of February
17, 1977, the Environmental Protection
Agency Issued a notice of a rebuttable
presumption against registration and
continued registration of pesticide
products containing lindane (303). 1/
Product Introduction
Lindane Is the common name for a
chemical composed of at least 99 percent
gamma isomer of benzene hexachlorjde
(BHc). The chemical name for lindane
is: 1,2,3,4,5, 8 hexachiorocyc lohexane
gamma Isomer of not less than 99 percent
purity. BHC Is a mixture of Isomers
produced by chorinating benzene with six
atoms of chlorine. Inasmuch as the
aromatic character of the benzene ring
1/ FIgures in parentheses refer to
the li ferences at the end of the report.
disappears, it is technically incorrect
to call it BHC. but because it Is common
usage, this chemical will be referred to
as BHC in this report. It is properly
called hexachiorocyclohexane (HCH).
Soon after BHC was discovered to be
insecticidally active, it was found that
the gamma isomer is by far the most
active (182).
There are 555 registrations
containing the gamma Isomer of BHC
(lindane) and 88 State registered
products for which Federal registrations
have been requested (302). Sixtyfive
of these registrations also contain the
other isomers of BHC (that is, are BHC
products j(299)). Those registrants
holding BUG registrations are being
allowed to revise their labels such that
only the gamma isomer is contained in
the product. This would avoid cancel-
lation of their labels because of the
BHC voluntary cancellation (68).
Scope and Approach
This report Is a use-by-use eco-
nomic impact analysis of the principal
uses of lindane. The information pre-
sented In this report covers the Items
suggested in the RPAR notice (303),
along with other relevant information
for an economic Impact analysis. The
notice suggests that the preliminary
analysis Identify the major and minor
uses of the pesticide, estimate the
quantities utilized, Identify the regis-
tered alternatives and their availabil-
ity, determine the change in pesticide
costs associated with the use of alter-
natives, and evaluate the regulatory
Impact upon crop production and retail
prices. This analysis focuses on the
leading uses of lindane In terms of
active ingredient applied per year.
The site/pest combinations involved
Include: Hardwood logs and lurnber/
boring beetles; ornamental and forest
trees/beetles; Christmas trees/weevils;
seed traatment/wireworrns; livestock!
several insects; pineapple s/symphy-
lane; structures/powderpo8t beetles;
pecans/phylloxera; pets/several insects;
1
-------
Table 1. --Overall summary of preliminary benefit analysis of liridane
2. Seed
treatment
426,000 (48) 13,069,000 acres
small grains
3.800,000 acres
corn
yield and
quality loss
yield loss
cost increase
potentially
major
minor
4. Livestock 140,000
5. Pineapples 19,000
6. Ornamentajs 17.000
7. Christmas unknown
trees
alternatives only partially
fill role played by lindane
in forest management
alternatives are
generally available
none to play
role of lindane
alternatives exist for only
a portion of the pests; no
alternatives for majority
of pest control needs
cultural alternative exists
for 1 pest, but this ap-
proach has been evaluated
in Christmas tree plan-
tations
alternatives exist as 24(c)
in 2 States; expect yield
reductions with malathion
and/or oil in other States
several effective
alternatives available
PCP ERPAR) only economic
alternative available
several effective
alternatives available
alternatives exist with
varying levels of efficacy
production
cost increase
and yield loss
production
cost in-
crease and
yield loss
production
cost in-
crease and
yield loss
possible
cost in-
crease
possible
cost in-
crease
possible
cost in-
crease
production
cost increase
and yield
loss
1,083 000 potentially
major
1,018,000 minor
(4 years)
not quanti major to
fied some individ-
ual growers;
aggregate
impact not
estimated
2,093,000 minor
possible labor and community
impacts if multiple adverse
RPAR decisions
regional impacts on land-
scape configuration
possible regional hired labor
impacts, particularly in the
Lake States
Extent of
Availability
of economic
Impacts
Significance
Use site
Active Ingredient
pounds (percent)
use
Units of treatment
Nature
Economic
Extent
1. Hardwood
lumber
200,000
(23)
Number/Unit
3.365.705,000
alternatives
none
Social/Community
(S per year)
3. Forestry
none
several
$147,020,000 major
yield and not quanti-
quality loss fled
minor
production
cost increase
yield loss
4,000 (0.5) unknown
(16) 20,122,000 head
(2) 9,650 acres
(2) 3,630 acres
unknown
27,000 (3) 30,000 acres
30,000 (3) Unknown
1.000 (0.1) 10,000 homes
(1) Unknown
(1) 11.600 acres
20.000,000 moderate
8. Pecans
9. Pets
10. Structures
11. Hou nhold 12,000
12. Cucurbjts 11,000
near zero minor
near zero minor
near zero minor
2.437,000 moderate
All uses 887,000 (lOOT
$172,888,000
-------
households/several pests; and cucurbits/
several insects.
The general approach taken in this
analysis is to evaluate the biological
effectiveness and impacts of shifting
to alternatives at the user level (for
example, effects on yields and costs
to users) in affected areas and then
project resulting impacts at the
commodity and consumer levels where
appropriate. The alternate compounds
that are in various stages of the RPAR
process are also included in the various
sections of this report.
Economic impacts on users are
considered by State/region, and at
the United States level. Impacts are
estimated on a per-unit and per-
establishment basis, where possible,
as well as in the aggregate for a given
geographic area. Social/community
effects, which are possible from
pesticide cancellation where there are
economic dislocations or changes In pest
control technology, were investigated in
those areas where significant impacts
were considered to be possible.
The time frame for analysis is
generally 1976-77, based on available
data. Where data on the extent of pest
problems and pest control methods were
sparse or nonexistent, a number of
assumptions regarding the potential
total effects of canceling lindane for
these sites were used.
Information derived from responses
to the RPAR by interested parties
was used where appropriate. In those
instances , references to the particular
documents are included in the text.
Summary of Findings
Overall Impacts
Overall Impacts from the cancel-
lation of lindane are summarized in
table 1. There are major impacts in
all areas. The impacts fell the heavi-
est In the hardwOOd, seed treatment,
and livestock areas There are very
few registered alternatives to replace
lindane if the insecticides undergoing
the EPAR process are considered not
available. Also, many of the viable
alternatives are more toxic, require
many more applications, increase costs
twofold to threefold, or will result in
known yield reductions.
Three use areas account for 86
percent of the total pounds active
ingredient (a.1.) used in this country.
They are, in descending order: 1) seed
treatment, 2) hardwood lumber, and
3) livestock. The remaining use areas
individually account for 1 to 3 percent
of total pounds used. Total per-annum
impact (all sources (profits, yields,
social, and so forth)) is estimated to
be approximately $175,000,000.
Potential impacts were estimated at
the user level. Impacts at the consumer
level (costs, yield, quality) were
addressed in some instances, but were
not analyzed in detail.
It is important to remember that
the majority of the projected impacts
stem from the fact that there are few
adequate alternatives to lindane in most
of the uses analyzed. In some uses
there are no known alternative control
methods for the target pest; in some
other uses the alternatives are lacking
in effectiveness and cause the treated
commodity to be of a lower quality
in relation to lindane. Hopefully,
research in the future will develop
materials that could replace lindane.
In the remainder of this chapter,
the analysis of each area will be
summarized. Chapters 2 through 13
present the detailed analysis of these
uses.
Hardwood Logs and Lumber
The use of lindane and HC on hard-
wood lumber to reduce damage by ambrosia
beetles and wood bor้rs has been the
standard practice since the late 1940s
(figure 1), Llndane usage Is being
phased-In &S the mill owners substitute
lindane for BHC In their pest control
program (88). These pests attack
3
-------
FIGURE 1.
SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY BENEFIT ANALYSIS
OF LINDANE USE ON HARDWOOD LOGS AND LUMBER
A. USE: Lindane use on hardwood logs and lumber.
B. MAJOR PESTS CONTROLLED: Ambrosia beetle, roundheaded borers, flatheaded borers, bark beetles,
lyctus beetle8.
C. ALTERNATIVES: Major Registered Chemicals - None. (Registration does not imply equal control;
see text.)
Nonchemical controls : Most beetles and borers can be controlled by quickly reducing the mois-
ture content of green lumber to less than 48 pct. This can be accomplished by Nend_
racking or kiln drying.
State Recommendations/Federal Guidelines : Number of States recommending.
lthdane/BHC: 4
rapid lumber seasoning: 1
Efficacy of alternatives : Rapid seasoning effective against all pests but lyctus beetles.
Comparative performance : Lindane has been shown effective. End racking produces warping and
increased deterioration of wood. Kiln drying cannot be used for 63 pct of production
because of severe honeycombing. It also produces 1015 pct more deterioration of the
lumber during the seasoning period.
Comparative costs:
pest control expenditurell,0 00 bd
lindane 0.59
kiln drying unknown
Conclusion : No alternative chemical controls are registered. Kiln drying is not feasible for
the majority of the hardwood lumber produced.
D. EXTENT OF USE: (1975)
Total Percent
Bd ft treated production production
Region Lb gamma isomer ( 1,000) ( 1.000 bd It) treatment
North Central
and Northeast 59,632 1,013,737 1,778.486 60
South 138,351 2,351.968 3,178,335 75
Total Eastern
United States 197,983 3,365,705 4,956,821 79
E. ECONOMIC IMPACTS:
User :
Region
Northeast and
North Central
South
Total U.S. impact
(annual)
Average
cost
(annuall
per 1,000
per avg
mill
bdft
$20.88
53.50
$119,027.00
395,966.00
F 1 .
G.
$147,020,000
Market : Price of rough, dried hardwood lumber undoubtedly will increase. This will increase
input costs to hardwood-using industries (for example, furniture manufacturers). Shortages
of first quality lumber would be expected.
Consumer : Probable Increased price for final hardwood products.
Macroeconomic : Not investigated.
SOCIAL/COMMUNITY IMPACTS: Not investigated.
LIMITATIONS OF ANALYSIS: The estimate ofpercent of products in danger of attack was based on a
survey which had a small number of respondents and may have been biased. The estimate of total
hardwood lumber production was derived from several sources and several assumptions had to be
made. These two weaknesses contribute to the possible weakness of the estimate of pounds used.
The extent of damage, with control absent, was derived from the consensus of a panel of industry
experts.
4
-------
freshly sawn lumber or logs, particu-
larly during the warm seasons (at least
7 months in the lower South). Damage by
ambrosia beetles consists of many fine
holes (approximately 1/16-inch diame-
ter), together with a black stain of the
surrounding wood produced by the fungi
that are introduced by the insects.
Borers are a frequent pest on logs, and
may attack lumber if the bark is not
fully removed. These borers also create
holes in the affected wood. Depending
upon the level of attack, these holes
from either pest may not destroy the
wood for all uses; the damage does
result in very serious degrade (reduc-
tion in grade), which reduces the end
value of the lumber.
No dependable records are available
on the amount of BHC/jjndano used on
either lumber or logs. An estimate has
been made for the use of ltndane on
lumber, based on the reported hardwood
lumber production and an estimate of the
proportion of lumber treated. Lumber is
traditionally dip-treated with a water
solution containing lindane. The
estimated use of lindane, based on these
assumptions, approximates 200 , 000 pounds
a.i. at the current rate of hardwood
lumber production. No estimate was made
of the amount used for log treatments,
because the frequency of use on logs is
unknown. Logs only receive treatment
when storage Is expected to be longer
than a week (during warm weather) unless
they can be stored in water or under
water spray. This water storage is only
available at some sawmills.
There are no chemical alternative
controls registered for ambrosia beetles
and wood borers. Nonchemjcal control
methods require rapid drying of lumber,
wIth appreciable lois of grade and added
production costs. Kiln drying is
feasible for only 35 percent of present
hardwood lumber production, based upon
species produced. This drying would
add considerably to production costs.
With alternative chemical controls
unavailable, the hardwood sawmill Indus-
t y Is expected to suffer grade losses
of approximately $147 million per annum.
The value loss per thousand board feet
would approximate $54 for southern mills
and $21 for northern sawmills. If these
increased losses were passed on to lum-
ber buyers in the form of higher prices,
it would result in a heavy cost impact
on flooring, furniture, and specialty
wood products manufacturers, which
account for the majority of hardwood
lumber sales.
Seed Treatment
Linclane is registered as a seed
treatment primarily for small grains,
but also for corn, sorghum, and various
vegetables to control wireworms, seed
corn beetle, and seed corn maggot
(figure 2). Heptachlor is the only
registered alternative for small grains;
however, heptachior Is being phased-out
under the Final Order of the Admin-
istrator in the Chlordane/Heptach]or
hearings and cannot be considered a
viable alternative. Diazinon is the
only alternative registered for seed
treatment on corn.
Most seed treatment products also
contain a fungicide for the control of
damping-off, and other diseases. Mn-
dane is versatile, and can be used as a
planter-box treatment or as a water
slurry applied directly to the seed.
Alternates such as diazinon can only be
applied as a planter-box treatment.
This does not always work with the newer
plateless or air planters.
Other alternatives registered for
use on corn Include carbofuran (Fura-
dan 0 ), ethoprop (Mocapฎ), and fensul-
fothion (Dasanit 0 ). These chemicals
cannot be considered as effective
alternatives, however, because they are
registered as planting-time applications
for the protection of the germinating
plant, and not as seed treatments.
Research data on the comparative
efficacy of lindane and alternatives
are limited. This restricts the assess-
ment of economic impacts, inasmuch as
these kinds of data servo as the founda-
tion of impact analyses. Thus, the
extent of damage with no control was
5
-------
FIGURE 2.
SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY BENEFIT ANALYSIS
OF LINDANE USE AS SEED TREATMENT
A. USE: Seed treatment, primarily used for smell grain, but also includes corn.
B. MAJOR PESTS CONTROLLED: Seed corn beetle, seed corn maggot, and wireworms.
C. ALTERNATIVES: Major Registered Chemicals (Registration does not imply equal control; see text.)
Heptachior is registered as a seed treatment to prevent damage to small grains and corn;
however, heptachior is being phased-out under the Final Order of the Administrator (EPA) in the
Chiordane/Neptachior cancellation, and therefore cannot be considered as a viable alternative.
Heptachior Is the only alternative for small grains. Diazinon seed treatments are registered
for use on corn to prevent seed damage by seed corn beetles and seed corn maggots. Several
soil-applied chemicals are registered for use on corn to control seed corn maggots, seed corn
beetles, and wireworms; but not as a seed treatment.
Nonchemlcaj controls : None.
State Recommendations/Federal Guidelines : Small grains: heptachior (phased-out)
Corn: diazinon
Soil insecticides (not seed treatments) include: carbofuran, diazino (also a seed
treatment - see above), ethoprop, fensulfothiori, fonofos, heptachior (phased-out), phorate,
and terbufos.
Comparative performance : The comparative performance of chemicals registered for use on corn
could not be determined because no recent efficacy data on lindane or alternative seed
treatment compounds could be located.
Comparative costs : The cost of lindane seed treatments ranges from 15$ per planted acre of corn
to 46 per acre of planted barley (as of June 1978). Cost of diazinon seed treatments, at
that time, was about 20$ per acre. Cost of soil-applied chemicals ranged from $2.44 to
$30.00 per acre.
Conclusion : There are no alternative chemicals that control the spectrum of seed-destroying in-
sects (seed corn maggots, seed corn beetles, and wlreworma) at a cost similar to lindane.
D. EXTENT OF USE: (1976)
Active ingredient basis :
Small grains 344,400 lb a.i.
Corn 64,300 lb a.i.
Other crops 16,900 lb a.i.
Total 425,600 lb a.i.
Units treated basis : Small grains:
Acres Acres Percent
planted treated total acres
State ( 1,000) j l,00 treated
North Dakota 15,570 6,035 39
Idaho 2,465 1,344 55
Minnesota 7,451 844 11
Colorado, Kansas,
Oklahoma 24.994 2,644 11
South Dakota. Nebraska 11.647 431 04
Montana, Wyoming 7,731 600 08
Other United States 4Q,156 1,191 03
Total 110.014 13,089 12
Total U.S. corn 84. 121 3,800 05
E ECONOMIC IMPACTS: Economic impacts associated with cancellation cannot be quantified due to data
limitations. Potentially significant impacts may occur on all of the crops currently treated
with lindane; however, the potential for major impacts Is more likely in spring-planted small
grains. As much as 30 percent of the U.S. spring wheat acreage is planted with lindane-treated
seed; therefore, the impacts of cancellation on spring wheat are potentially major at both the
user and market levels.
F. SOCIAL/COMMUNITy IMPACTS: Not investigated.
G. LIMITATIONS OF ANALYSIS: The economic impacts of the cancellation of lindane seed treatments were
not quantified due to severe data limitations. These limitations include:
1, A lack of data indicating the distribution, frequency of infestation, and extent of damage
and yield loss by geographic area and crop associated with each seed pest.
2. A lack of date concerning the efficacy of lindane (and comparative efficacy of the alterna-
tives where applicable) In preventing seed pest damage.
B
-------
based principally on the knowledgeable
judgments of experts.
The costs of lindane seed treat-
ments range from 15$ (cents) per planted
acre of corn to 46$ per planted acre
of barley. The cost of diazinon seed
treatment on corn is approximately 20$
per acre. The costs of soil-applied
chemicals on corn range from $2.44 to
$30 per a๓re.
Approximately 426 ,000 pounds a.i.
are used annually for all seed treat-
ments. Approximately 13,000,000 acres
of small grains and 3,600,000 acres of
corn are planted with lindane-treated
seed annually. This constitutes 12
percent of the small grain acreage and 5
percent of the corn acreage planted;
however, as much as 30 percent of the
spring wheat in the United States is
treated with lindane prior to, or at,
planting.
The economic impacts associated
with possible lindane seed treatment
cancellation cannot be quantified owing
to data limitations. The potential for
major impacts does exist, at both the
user and market levels, particularly in
spring-planted small grains.
Commercial Forest Land
Lindane is registered for use
against bark beetles as a general cate-
gory and several specific beetles within
that category, all on conifer trees
(figure 3). Southern pine beetle, the
most serious pest, attacks trees that
are important producers of structural
lumber. Lindane is considered a neces-
sary part of control practices , but
generally is used only when all other
methods fail or are not feasible.
involved, immediate plants for the
stand infested, market conditions, local
weather, and similar factors.
,The use of lindane for forest trees
is small, because it is too expensive to
use routinely. BHC has also been used,
but is being replaced by lindane since
EPA ruled that lindane could be
substituted for the BHC formulation
(68). Endosulfan is registered for logs
only, and apparently is not preferred.
Ethylene dibromide (under RPAR) is used
in Colorado and in some Federal! State
cooperative projects elsewhere.
Lindane is the only control method
chemical or nonchemical - that can be
used on living trees. As such, it is
the only control method for seed
orchards and trees producing naval
stores. Lindane was not reported used
in either of these types of forest trees
in recent years, but use is expected to
resume if the beetle populations
increase. No cost impact could be
determined for lindane cancellation.
Serious disruptions in seed production
might occur and effects would be
extremely long-range, as well as short-
range. Naval store production has been
declining, but may become important
again if petroleum-based products become
more expensive.
Total gamma isomer use (lindane and
BHC) was approximately 4,000 pounds in
1976, over half of which was lindane.
Total cost impacts of ]indane cancella-
tion in timber production could not be
determined, because no alternative
chemical is accepted by most forest
managers. Factors such as timing of
implementation, terrain, climate, market
conditions , and weather lead to widely
varying costs of even one control
method, and cost comparisons among
methods are not feasible without consid-
ering all of these factors.
Livestock
Cultural control practices are
another . moans of controlling insect
pests, but they are not direct substi-
tutes for lindane. No single alterna-
tive is used exclusively. Instead,
forest managers choose the co itrol Liz dane is registered for the
method (or combination of methods) that control of many arthropod pests (for ox-
is most appropriate for the particular ample, fleas, flies, lice, mites, ticks)
level of insect infestation, the site on most classes of livestock, namely
7
-------
FIGURE 3.
SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY BENEFIT ANALYSIS
OF LINDANE USE ON COMMERCIAL FOREST LAND
A. USE: Commercial forest land (timber production, seed orchard, naval stores).
B. MAJOR PESTS CONTROLLED:
Timber production: Southern pine beetle, black turpentine beetle, beetles.
Seed Orchards: Southern pine beetle.
Naval Stores: Black turpentine beetle, southern pine beetle.
C. ALTERNATIVES: Major Registered Chemicals (Registration does not imply equal control; see text.)
Llndane
endosuifan (for logs only).
Nonchemical controls :
Timber: salvage, cut and burn, cut and leave.
Seed orchards: none.
Naval stores: none.
State Recommendations/Federal Guidelines :
Naval stores: lindane.
Timber: chemical - lindane.
nonchemical - salvage, cut and burn for suppression.
forest management practices - (for example, thinning) for prevention.
Efficacy of alternatives : Much disagreement among experts as to relative effectiveness of
chemical vs. nonchemical methods of control. Efficacy dependent on timing of application
and level of insect population.
Comparative performance : Salvage provides some revenue for owner. Chemical use allows later
utilization of timber. Cut and burn, as well as cut and leave, involves total loss of
timber products.
Comparative costs : Salvage has higher costs than other nonchemical control methods.
Conclusions : Where it is possible, salvage is most commonly used because of its revenue-
producing potential. Choice of control method often dictated by combination of factors
such as terrain, stand density, availability of buyers for timber and mill capacity.
Nonchemical methods not always possible to use and are not considered complete substitutes
for lindane.
D. EXTENT OF USE: (1976)
User Reported use
(pounds a.i.)
Federal (U.S.F ,s,) 1,710.4
(FY 1976 and transition quarter)
State
Arkansas 45.0 (calendar year 1976)
Georgia i,ozi.o (calendar year 1976)
North Carolina 1,232.0 (calendar year 1976)
No reported use In other States for 1976. No reported use for naval stores or seed orchards In
1976.
E. ECONOMIC IMPACTS:
User
Timber: Impacts expected to be heaviest for small timber (for example, family woodlot)
owner. Extent of impact on current and potential users will depend on future
insect population levels.
Seed orchards, naval stores: Productivity loss cannot be determined.
Market :
Timber: negligible.
Seed orchard: potentially significant impact if naval stores insect populations in-
crease again.
Consumer : Negligible in the short run.
F. SOCIAL/COMMUNITY IMPACTS: Not investigated.
G. LIMITATIONS OF ANALYSIS: No data available for nonDublic owners in all three categories. Use
data for any single year not typical for every year. ) o determination made of backup value of
lindane. Future levels of Insect populations not projected. Future demand for crude gum (naval
stores) not determined, Data were not available for Federal and State use in same time period.
8
-------
beef cattle, hogs and pigs, sheep,
goats, and horses, and livestock prem-
ises, such as barns, pens, and sleeping
quarters. The economic analysis of
lindane use on livestock focused on
the major arth.ropod pests. of the major
livestock classes lice, ticks, and
horn flies on beef, and lice and mites
on hogs, pigs, and livestock premises
(figure 4).
For these livestock class/pest
combinations, a total of six alterna
tives - toxaphene [ RPARI, cournaphos,
malathion, dioxathion, methoxychlor,
ronnel [ RPAR] - were selected for
analysis, based on efficacy and volume
of use. Not all alternatives were used
for each livestock class/pest com-
bination, but there were at least two
equally efficacious non-RPAR pesticides
for each combination, except for mites
on hogs and pigs. For this combina-
tion, malathion is the only efficacious,
non-RPAR chemical available, and some
livestock specialists claim that it is
not as effective as lindane or toxa-
phene. The control of mites in general
emerged as a major concern of livestock
specialists because of the lack of good
alternatives Mites cause mange
(mange/scab/itch) on livestock, which
is easily spread from one animal to
another by contact. Mange is classi-
fied as a quarantine able disease, and
is usually handled, on a large scale, as
a regulatory quarantine.
Lindane is registered for arthropod
control in and around livestock prem-
ises. Many of the livestock pests in
question leave or fall off the host
during some period of time in their life
cycle, and hide in the bedding, cracks
or crevices in these premises. Insecti-
cidal control is often necessary in
livestock premises, so that uninf sated
or recently treated animals do not
become reinfested.
ApproximatelY 140,000 pounds of
lindane were sold for use on livestock
and livestock premises in 1876. Of
107.7 million beef cattle in the contin-
ental United States in 1976, an esti-
mated 2.8 million animals were treated
with lindane for lice, 0.3 million for
ticks, and 1.3 million for horn flies.
Of 54.9 million hogs and pigs inve๑-
toned in 1976, an estimated 14.4
million were treated with lindane for
lice and 1.3 million for mites.
Annual treatment costs per animal
do not vary widely among lindane for-
mulations and the alternatives. For
controlling lice and ticks on beef
cattle, lindane products cost from 354
to 454 per animal. The alternatives
range from 334 to 644. Horn fly
treatment with lindane products costs
approximately 344 per head, whereas
the alternatives range from 344 to 434.
For controlling lice on hogs and
pies, lindane products cost from 314 to
35 per animal. Costs of the alterna-
tives range from 314 to 494. Annual
treatment costs for mites on hogs and
pigs range from 164 to 204 for lindane
products, and 184 to 254 for the
alternatives.
The estimated increases in annual
treatment cost per beef animal that
would result from lindane cancellation
are 54 for lice and horn flies, and
84 for ticks. The estimated annual
increases per animal for hogs and pigs
are 64 for lice and 24 for mites.
Multiplying these annual treatment
costs per animal by the estimated number
of animals treated with lindane In 1976
and summing the products results in a
short-run per-annum economic impact on
lindane users of $1.1 million: beef
cattle - $233,000, and hogs and pigs -
$850,000. Inasmuch as no changes in
livestock production are anticipated
from a cancellation of lindane, no
additional impacts are predicted at the
market or consumer levels.
Hawaiian Pineapples
Llndane I applied during the
planting process to control symphylans
in pin๓apple-prodUCIrig areas of the
Hawaiian Islands (figure 5). Current
lindane use in pineapple fields, esti-
mated at 19,300 lb active ingredient,
9
-------
FIGURE 4.
SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY BENEFIT ANALYSIS
OF LINDANE USE ON LIVESTOCK
A. USE: Lindane on livestock - beef cattle, hogs, sheep, goats, horses, premises.
B. MAJOR PESTS CONTROLLED ON MAJOR LIVESTOCK CLASSES: Beef cattle - lice, ticks, horn flies.
Hogs - lice, mites (primarily mange).
C. ALTERNATIVES: Non-RPAR - coumaphos, malathion, dioxathion, methoxychior. RPARd - toxaphene,
ronnel. See Comparative costs table, below, for alternatives by pest and livestock class.
Nonchemical controls : None that is effective alone; good sanitation assists in limiting pest
populations.
Efficacy of alternatives : The alternatives analyzed are equal in efficacy to lindane, with the
possible exception of malathion when used on hogs to control mites. Some specialists
believe it to be less efficacious in this use.
Comparative yield/quality : Not analyzed. Most likely, yield/quality is lower for pesticides
that require greater frequency of application for control.
Comparative costs: Major Registered Chemicals (Registration does not Imply equal control, see
text)
Annual treatment cost!
Pesticide Beef
Hoas
Lice Mites
Lice Ticks Horn flies
lindane 0.453 0.453 0.340
0.314 0.161
lindane and toxaphene .354 .354 .333
.354 .199
Alternatives
toxaphene [ RPAR] .358 .358 .339
.306 .179
coumaphos .348 .642 .432
malathion ai
.348
.492 .246
dioxathion .394 .591
methoxychlor .624 --- .426
ronnal IRPAR1 .334 -- -
.400
1/ U.S. Average variable annual treatment cost
chemical cost, labor cost for application, and number
per head, based on
of applications per
season.
2/ indicates that the pesticide is not an
pest/livestock class in the column.
alternative for the
Conclusions : 1. Lindane is registered and effective for the control of many pests on all major
classes of livestock and livestock premises The alternatives do not have thi advantage.
2. Lindane is particularly important for mite control. Only two efficacious
alternatives exist for this use, namely, toxaphene ERPAR] and malathion. Some speci I1Rts
consider malathion to be less effective.
D. EXTENT OF USE: Active ingredient basis : 138,329 lb gamma isomer (mostly lindane, but
includes some gamma isomer content In fortified BHC) sold for use on livestock and associated
buildings in 1976.
Units treated basis : Summarized in table under Economic Impacts below.
E. ECONOMIC IMPACTS:
User : Animal population, animals treated with lindane, and short-run
user economic impact
Livestock class
and pest
Animal
population
No. animals
treated
Chanae in trea
Per animal
tment cqst
Total
beef
1,000
Animals
Dollars
$1,000
107,734
lice
2,843
.049
139
ticks
309
.084
26
horn flies
1,314
.052
68
hogs
54,873
lice
14,402
.057
821
mites
1,254
.023
29
U.S. Total
L083
.
Macroeconomic : No measurable impact. $1.1 million user Impact is 0.005 pct of beef and hog
value of production ($21.9 biLlion).
F. SOCIAL/COMMUNITY IMPACTS: Not reported.
G. LIMiTATIONS OF ANALYSIS: See text.
10
-------
FIGURE 5.
SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY BENEFIT ANALYSIS
OF LINDANE USE ON COMMERCIAL PINEAPPLES
A. USE: Commercial pineapple production in Hawaii.
B. MAJOR PESTS CONTROLLED: Symphylans.
C. ALTERNATIVES: Major Registered Chemicals (Registration does not Imply equal control;
see text.)
Nothing 18 registered that provides the residual control achieved by lindane, although DBCP,
EDB . DD, and Telone, applied for nematodes, offer some secondary benefits as controls of early
symphylen intestatlons. Some of these fumigants are under RPAR, however.
Nonchemical controls : Avoid planting in fields under conditions favorable to symphylans --
mainly old roadbeds and excessively moist field conditions.
State Recommendations/Federal Guidelines : Lindane.
Efficacy of alternatives : There is little disagreement regarding the nonexistence of chemical
alternatives. Little attention has been given to nonchemical approaches, so there is
little information to appraise or dispute.
Comparative performance : The fumigants already applied for nematode control (DBCP, EDB. DD, and
Telone) provide good control for early infestations, which apparently are the most critical
from a yield standpoint.
Comparative costs : Without lindane, costs will be reduced by the amount attributable to
lindane materials.
Conclusions : Growers will probably attempt to avoid known infestation area conditions. There
will be yield losses attending use of soil fumigants without the additional protection of a
registered residual action compound.
D. EXTENT OF USE:
User Use levels Time period
Hawaiian Pineapple 19. 300 lb on 9,650 acres 1974-76
Growers annually or 22 pct of the
acreage In production
E. ECONOMIC IMPACTS:
User : No impact the first year without lindane; the present value of the overall loss for the
fIrst 4 years Is estimated at $1,018,367.
Market : Negligible price effects, although en additional U.S.-held share (less than 1 pot) of
domestic markets would probably be taken over by competitive foreign producers. If regula-
tory action against I.tndane should overlap action against tumigants, however the Industry
could be jeopardized.
Consumer : Negligible in the short run.
F. SOCIAL/COMMUNITY IMPACTS: Negative impacts would probably center on the fleidworker/carinery
labor force. The nature of the Impacts would involve losses of wages and some jobs, resulting
in family disruptions and perhaps out-migration. Impacts of this nature will probably be light
unless regulatory action against lindane overlaps with action against RPARd fumigants.
G. LIMITATIONS OF ANALYSIS: See text.
11
-------
is applied to about 9,650 acres annu-
ally. This represents 72 percent of the
acreage planted annually, or 22 percent
of the acreage in production.
Symphylans are root-feeding insects
that typically damage pineapple roots
soon after planting. Pineapples are
generally planted in a field that has
been fallow for 6 months to a year.
Symphylans that survive the fallow
period are attracted to the tender,
vigorously growing roots of the newly
planted pineapple. Injury causes delay
in establishment of the root system for
various lengths of time, depending upon
the severity of infestation. In extreme
cases, growth may be delayed 3 months
and such affected plants are permanently
stunted; however, test results estab-
lishing level of yield loss in unpro-
tected fields have not been reported.
Because lindane is actually
regarded as an ancillary treatment for
symphylans, in a sense there is no
registered alternative. Several fumi-
gants, such as EDB, DD, DBCP, and
Telone, that are applied with lindane
primarily to cbntrol nematodes also
offer initial symphylan control, how-
ever. These compounds are utilized
differentially, depending upon soil type
and moisture. If ground preparation
results in poor soil tilth due to exces-
sive moisture or other contingencies,
the fumigants may not provide sufficient
symphylan control. They also lack
residual action beyond 6 months and,
thus, offer no protection against late
infestations. Lindane is utilized to
compensate for both of these weaknesses
in the fumigants. Hawaiian Pineapple
Gro were Association officials have
estimated that a loss of the lindane
registration, and reliance by default on
the various fumig ants, would result in
an overall Hawaiian crop loss of 0.8
percent, or about 5,150 tons of the
annual crop, valued at $515,000 at the
farm level. During the first 4-year
period (the length of the typical
pineapple growing cycle) the industry
would experience a loss, at present
farm value, of $1,018,387. There would
be no loss in the first year, however,
because the first untreated crop (no
lindane) would not be harvested for 20
months. Moreover, the loss in income
over the period is actually lowered by a
factor equal to the cost of the lindane
material that would no longer be part of
the production budget.
No consumer impacts are expected,
owing to the likelihood of ready substi-
tution of domestic supplies with imports
from foreign producers.
Social and community impacts would
be likely to center around major losses
of income and/or jobs in the permanent
pineapple labor force. This could occur
if a production loss of substantial
magnitude were registered, but is not
likely. Owing to the marginal economic
status of the industry, however, a
parallel regulatory action against all
of the fumigants raises the possibility
of community impacts.
Ornamentals
Lindane is registered to control
lilac borer, dogwood borer, locust
borer, bronze birch borer, and leaf-
miners on woody ornamentals and floral
and foliage plants (figure 6). These
pests are particularly Important on
dogwood, lilac, birch, ash, and locust.
Alternatives generally do not exist for
the woody ornamental plants; alterna-
tives generally do exist for the floral
and foliage plants.
Endosulfan is registered to con-
trol lilac borer and dogwood borer.
Chlorpyrifos. (Dursbanฎ) is registered
to control lilac borer. Lindane is
the only registered control for the
remainder of the boring pests. Chlor
pyrifos Is as effective as lindane in
controlling lilac borer. Endosulfan is
approximately 50 percent as effective as
lindane In controlling dogwood borer.
Woody ornamentals attacked by these
boring pests will be disfigured because
of limb dieback. Some woody orna-
mentals will die if attack is severe.
Commercial nurseries are unable to sell
ornamentals disfigured by borer attack.
12
-------
FIGURE 6.
SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY BENEFIT ANALYSIS
OF LINDANE USE ON ORNAMENTALS
A. USE: Woody ornamentals, flower and foliage plants.
B. MAJOR PESTS CONTROLLED: Lilac borer, dogwood borer, locust borer, bronze birch borer, leaf
miners.
C. ALTERNATIVES: Major Registered Chemicals (Registration does not Imply equal control; see
text.)
Pest NonRPAR RPAR
lilac borer chioropyrifos (Dursban) none
endosulfen
dogwood borer endosulfan none
eli other borers none none
Nonchernical controls : None.
Efficacy of alternatives : Chiorpyrifos is as effective as lindane for lilac borer. Endosulfan
is approximately 50 pct as effective as lindane in controlling dogwood borer.
Comparative costs:
Chemical Price per lb a.i. ($ )
lindane 8.12
ch lorpyrifos 13.70
endosulfan 4.85
Conclusions : Alternatives are generally not available to control borers on woody ornamentals.
Where alternatives are available, control results are mixed.
D. EXTENT OF USE (1977):
Commercial :
Acres Percent
State Lb a.i. used Acres treated in production acres treated
Idaho 1,280 254 1,900 13
Indiana 6,810 2,055 2,060 100
Kentucky 80 20 35 57
Maryland 370 94 185 51
Ohio 862 207 475 44
Tennessee 4,000 1,000 1,000 100
Total 13,402 3,630 5,655 64
Residential : Usage reported by National Arborists Association was 3,580 pounds a.i. This
should be considered as a minimum, as it represents only a portion of possible applica-
tors.
E. ECONOMIC IMPACTS:
User:
Commercial:
State Annual impact ($ )
Idaho 4,993,000
Indiana 4,657,000
Kentucky 120,000
Maryland 345,000
Ohio 8,725,000
Tennessee 1,799,000
Total ZO,b39,000
Residential : Impacts were not possible to estimate. Impacts would generally re8ult in replac-
ing ornamentala already in place.
Market : Shortages of affected species would develop in retail nurseries.
ConsUmer : Prices of affected species would be likely to increase due to quantity shortages.
Macroeconomic : No significant Impact expected.
F. SOCIAL/COMMUNITY IMPACTS: Regional impacts on landscape configuration due to decreased quality or
reduced geographic range.
G. LIMITATIONS OF ANALYSIS: Analysis based primarily on questionnaire responses by State extension
personnel. No sources were found to validate the questionnaire data. Estimated usage should be
considered as minimums. Relative efficacy findings reported in the questionnaire were not
supported by teSt data.
13
-------
Almost 17,000 pounds of lindane
were reported used in 1977 by several
States and trade associations. Approxi-
mately 3,600 acres of commercial nursery
stock were reported treated in 1977.
These figures should be considered mini-
mums, as responses to the USDA question-
naire were not received from all States.
An estimated $20,000,000 per-annum
impact would be experienced by com-
mercial nurserymen in Idaho, Indiana,
Kentucky, Maryland, Ohio, and Tennessee
if lindane is canceled for these uses.
In addition, homeowners would experience
increased pest problems and perhaps
would be forced to replace certain spe-
cies of ornamentals with pest-resistant
species. Impacts on regional landscape
configurations would result.
Shortages of nursery stock would
develop at the retail level, causing
probable price increases. No signifi-
cant macroeconomic impacts are expected.
The analysis was based almost
totally on the State responses to the
USDA lindane questionnaire. No sources
were found to validate the State
provided data. As such, the results
should be considered subject to revision
if further data are developed.
Christmas Trees
Pests of major economic importance
in Christmas tree production for which
lindane is used regularly are the balsam
woolly aphid and reproduction weevils
(figure 7). Although they may be found
almost anywhere in the East and Midwest,
these pests appear to be concentrated in
certain areas: pine root collar weevil
in the Midwest. pales weevil in the
Northeast, white pine weevil along the
East coast, and balsam woolly aphid in
the Fraser fir zone of Tennessee and
North Carolina.
Lindane Is considered essential for
control of these pests. Oxydemeton-
methyl (MetasystoxR ) is registered
for control of the white pine weevil,
but is rarely recommended Carbofuran
(Furadanฎ) and phosmet (Imidan ) can
be used for control of pales weevil only
on seedlings. Cultural control methods,
suggested as alternatives, have not been
tried in commercial production.
The Christmas tree industry is
loosely organized, and no data could be
found for total acres in production
nationwide, total acres infested, or
total amount of lindane used. Individ-
ual growers reported using very small
amounts per acre: 2.55 pounds a.i.
yearly in Pennsylvania, 0.17 pounds
a.i. yearly in Virginia, and 0.50
pounds a.i. once every 8 years in
Michigan. No data were available for
North Carolina.
Economic impacts of canceling Un-
dane may be significant in this use.
The Virginia grower would have a chemi-
cal cost increase of $2.10 to $17.50
per acre over the 10year rotation. The
Pennsylvania growers interviewed would
see the per-acre present value of the
operation (excluding fixed costs) fall
from $1,961 to $1,071 for Douglasfir
and from $457 to a negative $395 for
Scotch pine. Estimates of loss in
Michigan depend on efficacy of the
alternative. Present value of an acre
of Scotch pine could fall from $1 ,200
(using lindane) to $450 (cultural con-
trol with 10 percent added yield loss).
Estimates for other growers cannot
be determined because of the wide vari-
ety of practices, species of trees,
growing conditions, and levels of insect
populations. Growers with similar con-
ditions to those included here will face
similar impacts.
Pecans
Lindane is registered by EPA for
control of pecan phylloxera (figure 8).
Other insecticides that are regis-
tered by EPA and recommended by
pecan-producing States include mala-
thion, oil, and endosulfan (registered
in Louisiana and Mississippi only, under
Section 24(c) of FIFRA, as amended).
There are no biological control agents
specifically recommended for phylloxera
control.
14
-------
FIGURE 7.
SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY BENEFIT ANALYSIS
OF LINDANE USE IN CHRISTMAS TREE PRODUCTION
A. USE: Christmas tree production (mainly pines).
B. MAJOR PESTS CONTROLLED: White pine weevil, pales weevil, pine root collar weevil, northern pine
weevil, balsam woolly aphid.
C. ALTERNATIVES: Major Registered Chemicals _ (Registration does not Imply equal control; see text.)
Metasystox-R 5 for white pine weevil; ImidanC tor pales weevil as a top dip when planting white,
slash, and loblolly pines only; Furadan for pales weevil as a root dip or soil application when
planting pine only.
Nonchemical controls : Stump removal for pales weevil. Early b ksal pruning and complete removal
of duff from under the tree for pine root collar weevil. None for balsam woolly aphid,
white pine weevil.
Efficacy of alternatives : Tests in Maine indicate Metasystox-R is effective. Imidan and
Furadan are effective for seedlings only. No efficacy studies available for stump removal
or for basal pruning/duff removal in Christmas tree production. Stump removal estimated to
be effective if timed before weevils emerge.
Comparative performance : Tests indicate no yield loss probable with Metasystox R if growers
can be persuaded to use it. F redan and Imidan will give definite losses, as trees
planted in previous years will be susceptible. Cultural practices not yet tried in
commercial production of Christmas trees. No yield loss expected with stump removal if
timed properly. Additional losses possible using cultural control for pine root collar
weevil, but extent unknown.
Comparative costs : Chemical cost increase with Metasystox-R; changes in equipment costs
undetermined. Substantial increases in labor costs for stump removal and basal
pruning/duff removal, with probable yield loss in latter. Redistribution of costs in stump
removal from annual low cost to very large costs following harvest. Examples:
Total cost (S per acre) over rotation
Species Pest Using lindene Using alternatives
Scotch pine Pin t( l r) $ 21 ( 8 yr) $538 (9 yr) if no yield loss
$502 (9 yr) ii 10 pct yield loss
Scotch pine pales weevil (Pa.) $400 (10 yr) Sl,637 (10 yr)
Douglasfir pales weevil (Pa.) $600 (15 yr) $2,353 (15 yr)
White pine white pine (Va.) $ 13 (10 yr) $15 to $31
Conclusions : Effective control of white pine weevil depends on growers acceptance of
Metasystox as a Mg 5 f 1 chemical. Cultural control methods can be used, but are not
economically feasible. Change to other types of trees not biologically feasible.
D. EXTENT OF USE: Total pounds a.i. used by industry, total acres in production, and acres needing
treatment not available. Alternatives not reported used in Christmas tree production.
E. ECONOMIC IMPACTS: User : Decline in present value of Christmas tree production acres. Heaviest
impacts probably in Pennsylvania, Virginia, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and possibly Ohio.
Examples:
Present value of a rotation
Species Pest ( $ per acre)
Using lindane Using altirnatlves
Scotch pine (Mich.) pine root collar weevil 1, 20Q 270 to 938
Scotch pine (Pa.) pales weevil 457 395
Douglasffr (Pa.) pales weevIl 1,961 1,071
Market : Probably supply shrinkage. Redistribution of production from present areas to areas
pest-free not probable because of problems such as disease and natural spread of insect
pests.
Consumer : Impacts felt over several years. Probably decrease in supply will cause fewer trees
for consumer, less variety, lower quality. Future prices could not be determined.
F. SOCIAL/COMMUNITY IMPACrS: Phase-out of production of pines and perhaps otherepecies could result
in loss of approxImately 9,300 seasonal Jobs In Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Virginia, over
the 7- to 10-year rotation, with additional losses possible in other States such as Pennsyl-
vania. Affected labor force of women, students 1 and transient workers traditionally experiences
high unemployment rates. Most are in rural areas with limited alternative employment opportu-
nities and, being housewives and students, have limited geographic mobility.
G. LIMITATIONS OF ANALYSIS: Data used for impact analysis not applicable to all growers. Average or
typical figures for Impact on total industry not available. Comparative efficacy studies not
available for cultural control. No data available for balsam woolly aphid.
15
-------
FIGURE 8.
SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY BENEFIT ANALYSIS
OF LINDANE USE ON PECANS
A. USE: Pecans
B. MAJOR PESTS CONTROLLED: Pecan phyUoxera (stem and leaf).
C. ALTERNATIVES: Major Registered Chemicals (Registration does not imply equal control; see text.)
RPAR: None. Non-RPAR: endosulfan (Louisiana and Mississippi ni, oil, malathion.
State Recommendations/Federal Guidelines Number of States recommending pesticides:
lindane, 1; endosulfan, 2; malathion, 4 + USDA Guidelines; oil, 1.
Nonchemical controls : There are no biological control agents specific to phylloxera.
Efficacy of alternatives : Oil and malathion provide less control than lindane; endosulfan is as
effective, but is only registered in two States under 24 c.
Comparative performance : Loss of lindane will lead to crop losses estimated at 25 percent with
malathion, and 33.3 percent with oil in Oklahoma. Yield losses of 23 percent with oil are
expected in Texas. No yield reduction is expected with endosulfan.
Comparative costs:
Insecticide Number of treatments Cost/tree/season Cost/acre/season
lindane 1 $1.68 $ 20.16
malathion 2.5 8.68 104.16
oIl 1 2.86 34.32
endosulfan 1 1.45 17.40
D. EXTENT OF USE:
Active ingredient basis:
State Lb of a.i. (1976) Percent State Lb of a.l. (1976) Percent
Georgia 3,100 9.2 Texas 17.400 51.8
Mississippi 3,600 10.7 Other StatesL 6,300 18.8
Oklahoma 3,200 9.5 Total 33,600 100.0
Units treated basis :
Pecan trees treated Percent of total pecan
State Pecan trees (1,000) with lindane (1,000) trees treated with lindane
Georgia 1,359 40.8 3
Mississippi 255 48.4 19
Oklahoma 532 42.6 8
Texas 1,549 232.4 15
Other StatesL 836 83.6
Total 7 States 447.8 10
E. ECONOMIC IMPACTS:
User:
Insecticide Change in treatment cost/tree State Decrease in growers (1,000 )
malathion $7.00 Georgia S 567
oIl 1.18 Mississippi + 14
endosulfan
(Miss. and La. only) -.23 Oklahoma 275
Texas 246
Other States 1 ! 300
Total 7 States 1,374
1/ Other States include Alabama, Arkansas, and Louisiana.
The owner of a hypothetical 20-acre pecan grove with 12 trees per acre could incur addi-
tional treatment costs of $1,680/year using malathion and $283/year using oil. Costs of
production are expected to decline $55/year using endosulfan.
Market/Consumer : Market and consumer impacts are not likely, because all cost increases would
probably be borne by the growers in the short run. Individual producers who are not
currently using lindane may experience shortrun windfall profits. In the long run, a
slight impact may result, but it is not determined.
F. SOCIAL/COMMUNITY IMPACTS: Projected loss in profitability of pecan production may reduce the num-
bers of groves in the long run, with a resultant loss in income to those lindane users. The
overall Impact was not evaluated. There is a lack of data on the use of lindane products regis-
tered for control of insect pests on pecans. Little data are available on the quantity used,
the number of users, number of acres, or trees affected, or other appropriate measures. Little
efficacy data are available for lindane and other chemical alternatives. The analysis relies
upon persons with expertise in pecan production and represents the best available Information on
the subject. There is a lack of quantitative data on the cost-effectiveness of lindane and
registered alternative Insecticides. The analysis also lacks economic information (such as
price elasticities of demand, and production budgets for different States. Data that were
available (for example, number of areas and tree density) could not be confirmed through two or
more sources of intormatlon.
G. LIMITATIONS OF ANALYSIS: See text.
18
-------
Lindane is most frequently used on
managed groves where one application is
made during the 2-week period when the
insects emerge about the time of bud
break.
A U.S. Department of Agriculture
survey, in 1977, of Alabama, Arkansas,
Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Okla-
homa, and Texas indicated that about
447,800 pecan trees were treated with
lindane to control phylloxera in 1976
(118). Based, on an application rate
of 0.075 pound a.i. per tree, an esti-
mated 33,600 pounds of lindane (active
ingredient) were used.
One treatment of lindane costing
$20.16/acre per season, or $1.68/tree,
is considered effective for control of
this pest. Malathion requires 2.5
treatments, and on the average costs
$lO4.16/acre per season ($8.68 per
tree). One treatment of oil or of
endosulfan costs $34.32 and $17.40/acre
per season ($2.86 and $1.45 per tree),
respectively.
With the alternative Insecticides,
treatment costs are expected to increase
by $631,000 for the seven States
studied, Control costs would increase
in Georgia by an estimated $285,600
with malathion, and would decline in
Mississippi by $11,100 with endosulfan.
Entomologists Indicate that endo-
sulfan is equally as effective as
lindane; oil and malathion provide less
control. For the seven Impacted States,
pecan production is estimated to decline
1.5 million pounds by using alter-
native Insecticides. The estimated
value of the lost production is
$742,000, with the largest impacts
expected in Georgia and Oklahoma
at $281,000 and $177,000, respec-
tively.
The estimated production loss of
1.5 million pounds accounts for less
than 1 percent of the total 184.1
million pounds annual U.S. average
production for 1974-77. The effect
on consumer prices would probably be
negligible.
Because data are limited regarding
the extent of lindane use for control of
insect pests on pecans (including effi-
cacy and yield data), this analysis
relies heavily upon the expertise of
persons associated with pecan produc-
tion. The analysis lacks quantitative
data on the cost-effectiveness of
lindane relative to the registered
alternative insecticides. Such data, if
available, would permit better evalua-
tion of changes in pecan yield or
quality associated with the cancellation
of lindane.
Pets
Lindane is registered for the con-
trol of ticks, fleas, lice, and mites on
pets and their premises (figure 9).
According to Hooker Chemical Company,
a total of 30,000 pounds of lindane is
used annually for these pest problems.
Alternatives to lindane include:
carbaryl ERPAR], rotenone [ RPAR],
coumaphos, malathion, and methoxy-
chior. All alternatives are highly
recommended by the States and are
readily available at competitive prices.
Imp acts for loss of lindane for
pet use are expected to be major if
the presently RPARd alternatives are
not considered. Removing the RPARd
compounds leaves only malathion and
methoxychlor for control of the major
pests, and malathion and the phenols,
oil, sulfur, and turpentine treatments
for mites. Lindane is registered for
the control of all of the major arthro-
pod pests including ticks, fleas, lice,
and mites, as well as pet premises.
Lindarie is apparently toxic (direct
application) to cats in concentrations
necessary for parasite control; however,
It would still be suitable for premises
control.
Existing Structures
Lindane is registered for control
of the general species of insects
collectively called powderpost beetles
(figure 10). Present use of lindane
for these pests Is believed to be small
17
-------
FIGURE 9.
SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY BENEFIT ANALYSIS
OF LINDANE USE ON PETS
A. USE: Dogs, cats, and their premises.
B. MAJOR PESTS CONTROLLED: Ticks, fleas, lice, and mites.
C ALTERNATIVES: Major Registered Chemicals (Registration does not imply equal control; see text.)
RPAR: carbaryl, dichiorvos, rotenone. NonRPAR: coumaphos, malathion, methoxychlor.
State Recommendations/Federal Guidelines:
Dogs ______________ Cats
Non-RPAR RPAR (pre-RPAR) Non-RPAR RPAR (pre-RPAR )
Ticks - malathion carbaryl, rotenone Ticks malathion carbaryl, dichiorvos
Fleas - malathion carbaryl, dichiorvos Fleas - malathion carbaryl, dichlorvos
Lice - malathion carbaryl Lice - pyrethrins carbaryl, dichiorvos
met hoxychior Mites - malathion
Mites - malathion, phenol, none
pine tar oil, sulfur,
turpentine
Premises
Non-RPAR RPAR (pre-RPAR )
Ticks - dlaztnon, malathion, propoxur carbaryl
Fleas diazinon, malathion carbaryl
Nonchemical controls : Ticks - Keep grass and weeds mowed. Fleas - Control in the home can be
accomplished by a combination of good housekeeping and the use of insecticides. Thor-
oughly clean infested rooms with a vacuum cleaner; include carpets, rugs, upholstered
furniture, and other Items on which eggs and larvae may be found. To control fleas on the
premises, all infested debris should be removed; infested bedding of pets should be washed
or destroyed by burning; and debris on the ground kennels and poultry houses should be
removed. Lice - No data available. Mites - No adequate nonchernical control measures.
Efficacy of alternatives : AU listed alternatives were highly recommended by the States. They
are readily available and can be purchased In both liquid and powder form.
Comparative performance : The following chart is a list of lindane and alternate pesticide
registrations for tick, flea, lice, and mite control as listed in the Federal Guidelines
and recommended by 23 States. The data are shown as the number of recommendations/total
sources from which available.
Dogs Cats Premises
Ticks - Undane 4/23 9/23 5/23 USDA
carbaryl (RPARI 17/23 11/23 12/23
malathion 11/23 5/23 11/23 USDA
rotenone ERPARI 9/23 3/23 1/23
dichiorvos (RPARI 5/23 3/23 7/23
Fleas - lindane 4/23 1/23 1/23
carbaryl ERPARI 18/23 18/23 15/23
malathion 16/23 USDA 12/23 USDA 19/23 USDA
dichlorvos (RPARJ 11/23 11/23 6/23
Lice - Undane 3/5* 0/5 Premises are not treated
malathion 5/5 2/5 for lice and mites.
carbaryl [ RPAR] 3/5 5/5
methoxychior 3/5 1/5
pyrethrins 3/5 3/5
dichiorvos (RPARJ 2/5 2/5
*Only 5 States reported.
Mites - lindane 1/3* 0/3 Premises are not treated
malathion 2/3 2/3 for lice and mites.
phenol 2/3 0/3
pine tar oIl 2/3 0/3
sulfur 2/3 0/3
turpentine 2/3 0/3
*O y 3 States reported.
Comparative costs : Alternatives are marked in differing concentrations, package, and manners.
Thus, precise price comparisons are not possible. In general, however, alternatives are
either competitively priced or are slightly more expensive than lindane for pet use.
18
-------
FIGURE 9. (Continued)
SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY BENEFIT ANALYSIS
OF LINDANE USE ON PETS
D. EXTENT OF USE:
Ac tive ingredient basis : 30,484 pounds, lindane.
Units treated basis : Not available.
E. ECONOMIC IMPACTS:
User/Consumer : Lindane js used both by homeowners and veterinarians on domestic animals and
oremises for control of fleas, ticks, lice, and mites. It is not a prominent State choice
or use on pets, especially cats. Lindane is highly toxic to cats in concentrations that
are necessary for parasite control.
F. SOCIAL/COMMUNITY IMPACTS Not reported.
G. LIMITATIONS OF ANALYSIS: Not reported.
FIGURE 10.
SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY BENEFIT ANALYSIS
OF LINDANE USE ON POWDERPOST BEETLES
A. USE: Lindane treatments for powderPOst beetle control in and around the home.
B. MAJOR PESTS CONTROLLED: Powderpost Beetles (PPB).
C. ALTERNATIVES: Malor Registered Chemicals (Registration does not imply equal control; see text,)
Pentachiorophenol [ RPARI, chiordane (suspended), methyl bromide, sulfuryl fluoride (fumigants).
Nonchemical controls : Kiln drying of unfinished wood; painting, varnishing, or waxing of wood
surfaces.
Efficacy of alternatives : AU majโr registered chemicals effectively kill PPBs. Methyl bromide
and sulfuryl fluoride are fumigants with no residual control which lindane, chiordane, and
pentachiorophenol provide.
Comparative performance : PentachloropheflOl may harm finished wood surfaces.
State Recommendations/Federal Guidelines : USDA lists lindane and chiordane. State recommenda-
tions include lindane, chiordane. pentachiorophenol ERPAR), and methyl bromide (fumigant).
Comparative costs : Treatment with a chemical spray costs between $150 and $250 regardless of
pesticide used. The chemical cost accounts for about 1 percent of the total. There would
be no change in cost if, for example, pentachiorophenol were used.
Treatment by fumigation costs $1,000 to $2,000. The chemical cost is a relatively minor
component. Fumigation is, however, not expected to be substituted for spot-treatment
except in rare cases. Damaged wood would be replaced where feasible.
D. EXTENT OF USE:
Active ingredient basis : Estimated lindane use on PPBs is less than 1,000 lb per year. If
chiordane were canceled, the potential market would be an estimated 12,000 lb per year.
Units treated basis : An estimated 10 to 12 thousand homes may be treated with lindane for PPBs
each year. The potential use is up to 140,000 homes each year.
E. ECONOMIC IMPACTS:
User : Assuming that lindane is canceled, users would probably switch to pentachlorophenol , with
insignificant cost effects.
Market : No significant impacts.
Consumer : No significant Impacts.
Macroeconomic : No significant impacts.
P. SOCIAL/COMMUNITY IMPACTS: Not investigated.
G. LIMITATIONS OF ANALYSIS: Current use of lindane for PPBe Is not known precisely.
19
-------
FIGURE 11.
SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY BENEFIT ANALYSIS
OF LINDANE USE IN HOUSEHOLDS
A. USE: Lindane use In households.
B. MAJOR PESTS CONTROLLED: Carpet beetle and clothes moth.
C. ALTERNATIVES: Major Registered Chemicals (Registration does not imply equal control; see text.)
Non-RPAR
chiorpyrifos propoxur
diazinon methoxychior
malathion naphthalene
ethylene dichioride paradichioroben zene
alkyl dimet hyl ben zyl resmethrin
ammonlum chloride
RPAR : (includes pre-RPAR and cancellation proceedings)
chiordane (until stock depleted) Strobane (until stock depleted)
d lchlorvos piperonyl butoxide and pyrethrlfls
rotenone Perthane
ronnel
State Recommendations/Federal Guidelines Number of State recommendations for control of carpet
beetle and clothes moth.
Chemical Carpet beetle Clothes moth Chemical Carpet beetle Clothes moth
lindane 8 8 naphthalene 12 11
diazlnon 20 10 methoxychior 11 12
chlordane 1/ 19 15 ronriel 6 4
malathion 18 N/R dichiorvos 5 7
paradlchlorobenzene 14 17
1/ Until stock depleted
Federal Guidelines for control of:
Chemical Carpet beetle Clothes moth
lindane 1 1
all other chemicals 9 9
Efficacy of alternatives : AU other chemicals at least as effective as lindane against carpet
beetle and clothes moth.
Comparative performance : Other chemical controls will produce results at least equal to lindane
treatment.
Conclusion : Many alternative chemical controls are registered. Alternative insecticides, such
as diazinon and malathion, are preferred for control of carpet beetle and clothes moths.
D. EXTENT OF USE (1977): Small. There are eight (8) labels registered for household use of lindane.
Most significant use of lindane is shelf paper (12,488 ib).
E. ECONOMIC IMPACTS:
User : Lindane recommended for use across the United States. Other chemical controls for carpet
beetle and clothes moth are recommended across the United States. Cost of control will
remain the same.
Consumer : No significant impacts.
Macroeconomic : Not Investigated.
F. SOCIAL/COMMUNITY IMPACTS: Not investigated.
G. LIMITATIONS OF ANALYSIS: Information on the comparative efficacy of lindane and its alternatives
f or household use Is very sparse. State recommendations form the majority of the basis for this
analysis. Data on usage was scarce and sources were not in agreement.
FIGURE 12.
SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY BENEFIT ANALYSIS
OF LINDANE USE ON CUCURBITS
A. USE: Cucurbits (cucumbers and squash only).
B. MAJOR PESTS CONTROLLED: Pickleworm and squash vine borer.
C. ALTERNATIVES: Major Registered Chemicals (Registration does not imply equal control; see text.)
RPAR: carbaryl (Sevin); Non-RPAR: endosu1tan methomyl, mevlnphos, parathion.
State Recommendations/Federal Guidelines Number of States recommending pesticides.
lindene: 4 + USDA methomyl: 2
carbaryl fRPARJ: 3 + USDA mevinphos: 1
endosulfan: 4 + USDA parathion: 1
20
-------
FIGURE 12. (Continued)
SUMMARY OF PREL] MINARY BENEFIT ANALYSIS
OF LINDANE USE ON CUCURBITS
Nonchemical controls : There are no biological control agents specific to the insects. Research
Indicates that when cucumbers and squash are grown adjacent to each other, pickleworms
prefer squash.
Efficacy of alternatives : In Florida and South Carolina, lindane, endosulfan, methomyl, carbaryl
(RPARI, mevinphos (Florida only), and parathion (Florida only) are equally as efficacious.
In Georgia, lindane alternatives may be as little as 75 percent as effective (compared to
lindane).
Comparative performance : Data limitations do not allow for the quantitative comparison of
Undane alternatives; however, all the chemicals are toxic to bees. Yields may be reduced
due to bee kills, as cucurbit blossoms must be pollinated by bees before cucumbers and
squash can be produced.
Comparative costs : Cost of treatment per acre per season (assuming 4 applications)
Lindane: $21.32
carbaryl [ RPAR): $19.08
en dosulf an: $23.24
methomyl: $43.04
Conclusion : In Florida and South Carolina, lindane alternatives provide equal control.
Georgia cucurbit growers expect yield losses as high as 25 percent using endosulfan and
methomyl. Mevinphos and parathion will not be used in Florida where they are recommended
because they are both highly toxic.
D. EXTENT OF USE: Active ingredient basis:
State Pounds of a.i. (19761977) Percent
Florida 1,046 9.9
Georgia 8,000 75.9
South Carolina 1,500 14.2
Other States undetermined _____
Total 10,546 100.0
Units treated basis :
Total Cucurbit acreage Percent of total cucurbit
State cucurbit acreage treated with lindane acreage treated with lindane
Florida 27,900 2,790 10.0
Georgia 10,500 8,000 76.0
South Carolina 14.600 800 6.0
Other States no data available ____
Total 94,800 11,590 12.0
E. ECONOMIC IMPACTS:
User: Insecticide Change in treatment cost/acre (assuming 4 applications )
carbaryl [ RPARJ $() 2.24
endosulfan $ 1.92
methomvl $ 21.72
State nnual impact to growers
Florida $ 3,100
Georgj 2,401,900
South Carolina 32 600
Other States undetezinifled
Total 2,436,600
The owner of a hypothetical 19-acre cucurbit farm could incur additional costs of $413 if four
applications of methomyl replace four lindane applications. Four applications of endosulfan
cost $36.50 more than a similar number of lindane applications on 19 acres of cucurbits. Pro-
duction costs are expected to. decLine $42.56 if carbaryl IRPAR) replaces lindane.
Market/consumer : Market and consumer Impacts are uncertain. The increased costs of production
will be absorbed by the consumer to the extent that costs are passed on by the growers.
Macroeconomic : No significant impacts are expected.
F. SOCIAL/COMMUNITY IMPACTS: This analysis does not contain an assessment of the social or community
Impacts which may occur if lindane Is canceled for use on cucurbits. Available data indicate
that such an action will reduce the profitability of cucurbit production if increases in grower
costs cannot be passed on to other market levels.
G. LIMITATIONS OF ANALYSIS: Up-todate State recommendations for lindane use on cucurbits were not
available from all the cucurbit-producing States. Current lindane use data were not always
available. Lindane user and nonuser information was not always substantiated. Little efficacy
data are available for lindene and other chemical alternatives. The analysis also lacks Current
economic-related information. In all cases, the State mean yield and mean yield using lindane
were assumed equal. The analysis relies heavily upon information and opinion provided by per-
sons with expertise in cucurbit production. Secondary costs associated with lindane alterna-
tives could not always be evaluated or quantified. Finally, there was a lack of quantitative
information on the coat-effectiveness of lindane relative to the registered alternative
insecticides.
21
-------
(less than 1,000 pounds and 10,000 to
12 ,000 homes) because chiordane has
been the preferred chemical control in
the past. The suspension and imminent
cancellation of chiordane for use on
powderpost beetles would appear to
elevate the importance of lindane for
that use. Without restriction, lindane
use for these pests could increase
to 12,000 pounds active ingredient
annually for 140,000 homes.
Alternate chemical controls include
pentachloropheflOl (PCP) [ RPARd] for
spot treatment. Methyl bromide and sul-
furyl fluoride are used when fumigation
is required. Spot treatment by a pest
control operator with a chemical spray
for a house can cost $150-$250. There
would be no increase in cost from
switching to PCP (RPAR], because the
cost of the chemical used in treatment
is a minor component of the total cost.
Fumigation costs $1 , 000$2 ,000 per
treatment with either methyl bromide or
sulfuryl fluoride. Fumigation is used
when widespread infestations not con-
trollable by spot treatments occur, and
thus is not a direct substitute for
lindane. Nonchemical controls include
replacing damaged wood and finishing
wood with paint, wax, varnish, and so
forth, to prevent egglaying.
PentachiorophenOl [ RPAR] is quite
toxic and has a disagreeable odor. The
loss of chiordane will make lindane the
preferred chemical, and an essential
tool of the pest control operator.
Household
The use of lindane in the home
is limited (figure 11); approximately
12,000 pounds a.i. are estimated to
be used annually in the form of shelf
paper. Some other formulations may
also be used, although the household
pesticide use survey indicated none.
Lindane is also available for use by
pest control operators, but It is not
the chemical of choice.
Other effective controls of
household pests are available to the
homeowner and pest control operator.
Lindane is not the preferred chemi-
cal, based on State recommendations.
Alternatives include: chlorpyrifos.
diazinon, malathion, and ronnel [ RPAR].
Alternatives are considered to be at
least as efficacious as lindane for the
control of household pests.
An analysis of local retail prices
indicates that alternatives to lindane
are competitively priced. The cancel-
lation of the use of lindane would have
minimal impact on the control of pests
in the home.
Cucurbits
Lindane is registeed by EPA for
control of aphids, cucumber beetle,
cutworm, melonworm, pickleworm, squash
bug, squash vine borer, striped and
spotted cucumber beetle, and white
grub, on cucurbits (cantaloup, cucum-
ber, pumpkin, squash, and watermelon)
(figure 12). Pickleworm and squash
vine borer (sometimes the striped and
spotted cucumber beetle) are the only
Insects of economic importance on cucum-
bers and squash. Other insecticides
which are registered by EPA and recom-
mended by cucurbitproduclng States
include endosulfan, mevinphos, para-
thion, and carbaryl IRPARI.
Lindane is frequently applied to
cucurbits as many as eight times (0.25
lb a.l./aCre per application) during the
growing season at 5- to 7-day intervals.
It is estimated that approximately
11,000 pounds active ingredient were
used in 197677 on 11,800 acres in
Georgia, Florida, and South Carolina, or
12.0 percent of fresh market cucumbers
and squash acreage in the United States.
The pickleworm and squash vine
borer are small but destructive insects,
which may cause severe economic loss
to squash and cucumber growers in the
United States. Four treatments of
lindane per season costing $21.32 are
generally considered effective for
control of these pests. Growers sub-
stituting carbaryl (RPAR] for lindane
in the Southeastern United States can
expect the total season cost per acre
22
-------
to fall $2.24/four applications. The
total season per-acre increases in cost
by using endosulfan and methomyl are
$1.91/four applications and $21.72/four
applications, respectively.
Entomologists indicate that end o-
sulfan, methomyl, and carbaryl [ RPAR]
are as effective as lindane on squash
and cucumbers in Florida and South
Carolina. Loss of lindane in Georgia
may result in yield reductions as high
as 25 percent with endosulfan and
methomyl due to insect damage and
reduced pollination. If one assumes
maximum yield loss, gross revenue is
expected to fail $2.9 million. Georgia
cucumber and squash harvest costs
per acre should decline approximately
$99 and $61, respectively, due to the
loss in yield. Total harvest costs
On both crops are expected to decline
$640, 600.
The unavailability of lindane to
Cucurbit growers in Florida, Georgia,
and South Carolina should increase in-
secticidal costs approximately $176,600.
Georgia cucumber and squash growers will
incur almost 80 percent of the total
impact, with South Carolina following.
No significant impact is seen for Florida
cucurbit growers.
The net total Impact to growers of
the three States is estimated to be $2.4
million annually. Because data limita-
tions will not allow for measurement
of the entire impact, no estimate is
provided for other cucurbit-producing
States.
In the short run, market, consumer,
and macroeconomic impacts are consid-
ered unlikely, inasmuch as all cost
increases would probably be absorbed
at the grower level. The cost of
increased production will be absorbed
by the consumer to the extent that costs
are passed on by the growers. In the
long run, a slight impact may result,
which is undetermined.
This analysis relies heavily upon
information and opinion provided by per-
sons with expertise in cucurbit produc-
tion. Secondary costs associated with
lindane alternatives could not always be
evaluated or quantified. There was a
lack of quantitative information on the
cost effectiveness of lindane relative
to the registered alternatives.
CHAPTER 1
GENERAL PRODUCTION AND USE PATTERNS
duction, Imports, and Exports
Until recently, lindane was pro-
duced domestically by the Specialty
Chemicals Division of Hooker Chemicals
and Plastics Corporation. Iii May of
1978, Hooker discontinued production
of lindane, pending completion of the
Environmental Protection Agencys review
of the chemical. Currently, Hooker is
importing lindane in order to supply its
Customers (98).
Table 2 presents statistics or the
production, sale, import, and export of
lindane and BHC. It can be seen that
the production and sales of BHC have
declined in recent years, while lindane
production has remained fairly stable.
The production of pesticides in the
United States was 1,417,000,000 pounds
in 1974; insecticide production was
650,000,000 pounds. The gamma isomer
of BHC, then, comprised less than
0.2, percent of all 1974 U.S. pesticide
production and less than 0.4 percent
of insecticide production (266).
Quantities Used by Site
Lind ens is registered for use on
a variety of sites, including hard wood
lumber, seed treatment, forests, com-
mercial livestock, fruit and vegetables,
23
-------
Table 2.--U.S.
Production, sales, imports, and exports of gamma isomer
Pounds of gamma isomer
Total
Year
FBHC il
Hooker sales
Hooker U.S. sales! US. Exports?!
u.s. imports. !
Liixiane Total
FBHC Liixlane Total FBHC Lindane Total
FBHC Lindane
1972
1,621,960
808,000 2,429,960
165,640 575,880 741,520 1,456,320 232,120 1,688,440
5/
N/A 132,939
1973
1,327,840
712,000 2,039,840
.
202,440 646,280 848,720 1,125,400 65,720 1,191,120
N/A 5,757
1974
1,412,980
660,000 2,072,980
246,560 555,760 802,320 1,166,420 104,240 1,270,660
N/A 3,525
1975
356,040
802,000 1,158,040
130,040 598,840 728,880 226,000 203,160 429,160
N/A N/A
1976
196,080
702,000 898,080
148,600 669,700 818,300 47,480 32,300 79,780
N/A N/A
Total
4,914,900
3,684,000 8,598,900
893,280 3,046,460 3,939,740 4,021,620 637,540 4,659,160
!1142,221
Average Year
982,980
738,800 1,719,780
178,656 609,292 787,948 804,324 127,508 931,832
!47,407
1/ Source: Hooker (98).
Total Hooker sales minus Hooker U.S. sales.
Source: USDA, 1976 (266).
Fortified benzene hexachioride (FBHC) contains 43 percent gamma isomer.
Y N/A = Not available.
3 Years only.
-------
Table 3.--Estimated pounds of gamma isomer used by site
Site
Pounds a.i.
(gamma)
Percent
of totaiV
Hardwood logs,
lumber
200,000
23.0
48.0
Seed treatment
426,000
Forestry
4,000
16.0
Livestock
140,000
2.0
PIneapples
Ornamentals
19,000
17,000
2.0
Christmas trees
unknown
3.0
Pecans
27,000
3.0
Pets
30,000
Structures
1,000
1.0
Household
12,000
1.0
Cucurbits
11,000
Total
887,000
1/ May not add to 100 percent due to rounding-off.
ornamentals, Christmas trees, pets, and
household. Available data Indicate that
the majority of the lindane Is used for
hardwood lumber, seed treatment, and
Commercial livestock.
Current Use Analysi
EPA Registrations of Lindane
and Alternatives
Lindane Is registered for control
of the following pests on logs and lumber:
1) Bark beetles Including pine
bark beetles.
2) Wood-boring insects including
wood-boring beetles, flatheaded wood
borers, roundheaded wood borers, POW-
derpost beetles, lyctus beetles, and
ambrosia beetles. The powderpost and
lyctus beetles are drywood pests only;
the remainder of the pests will not
attack logs and lumber after the mois-
ture content falls below 48 percent (272).
Estimates for various uses are
shown in table 3. Further breakdown
of data and discussion are provided
in the specific section later in this
report.
Table 4 summarizes EPA pesticide
registrations for the above pests on
logs and lumber. In particular, there
is a registered alternative for only the
lyctus beetle. Further, because the
lyctus beetle is a drywood pest, protec-
tion of green wood at lumber mills from
the other pests can be accomplished
chemically onW with lindane.
Recommendations for Use
of Lindane and Alternatives
State Recommendations
Recommendations for control of
pests on logs and lumber were located
for only two States. Both Alabama and
CHAPTER 2
BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF LINDANE
USE IN THE HARDWOOD SAWMILL INDUSTRY
25
-------
Table 4. -Registrations for selected logs and lumber site/pest combinations
Logs
(felled)
Logs
(green)
Logs
(hardwood)
Logs
(pine)
Logs
(decked)
Lumber
Logs
(hardwood)
Bark Beetles:
Turpentine beetles
BHC(4)
IJL(1)
L(1)
V
BHC(3)
BHC(2)
Black turpentine beetles
Ips beetles
Ips engraver beetles
Pine engraver beetles
Pine bark beetles
BHC(1)
BHC(1)
Southern pine beetles
Shothole borersY
BHC(1)
Wood-Boring Insects:
BHC(1)
BHC(1)
PCP(1)
BHC(1)
BHC(2)
BHC(1)
BHC(1)
BHC(l)
Wood-boring beetles
flatheaded wood borers
BHC(1)
L(1)
BHC(1)
BHC(1)
southern pine sawyer
roundheaded wood borers
BHC (1)
BHC (1)
powderpost beetles
BHC(1)
IIBHC(1)
lyctus beetles
BHC(2)
BHC(2)
PCP(3)
Ambrosia beetles
BHC(5)
BHC(5)
BHC(2)
BHC(1)
BHC(1)
BHC(6)
Footnotes (except 3/) should be read as additional substitute registrations using the same key that applies to
the main table entries.
1/ endosulfan (1).
/ endosulfan (7).
3/ mainly a fruit tree pest.
4/ PCP (9), copper naphthenate (1).
Source: Compiled from EPA microfiche, October 1976 (300).
Key: BHC= benzene hexachioride.
L = lindane.
PCP pentachiorophenol ERPAR].
Blank indicates either no registration or no valid site/pest combination; a single label may be
represented in more than one site/pest category.
1/ abbreviation of chemical registered.
2/ = number of labels with that site/pest/chemical combination.
11.2/ = (for example, BHC(6) indicates 6 BHC labels).
-------
Florida recommend BHC/lindane to control
ambrosia beetles on logs. Florida
recommends rapid seasoning to control
ambrosia beetles on lumber. Recommen-
dations are summarized In table 5.
Federal Guidelines
The U.S. Department of Agriculture
lists lindane to control ambrosia
beetles and wood borers on logs (259).
Industry recommends the use of BHC
to control ambrosia beetles on logs and
lumber, and borers on logs (110). These
recommendations will now be changed to
lindane.
Use of Lindane and Alternatives
Description of the Lumber
Milling Process
Lumber mills obtain their hardwood
logs either by cutting them from their
own lands or by purchasing them from
other forest landowners. In a recent
survey, it was found that hardwood mills
obtained, on the average, 24 percent of
their logs from company-owned land and
75 percent from privately owned land
(312).
Hardwood lumber mill operators take
possession of the logs near the point of
logging, or contract the logging them-
selves after purchase of the standing
timber. Timber owners generally have
only a small quantity of logs to sell to
the mill at any given time. Mills then
usually have numerous suppliers of hard-
wood logs. These timber sources are
scattered widely about the mill area.
Decked logs often will have to
remain In these rural areas for a period
of weeks before logging trucks can pick
them up and transport them to the mill.
When logs are to remain decked for more
than a few d aye, the mills will send an
employee to spray the logs with lindane
to control the beetles. This log-
spraying method is usually employed from
April 1 to November 1. This is the time
of year when temperatures often exceed
65ฐ F. During the warm months of the
year, beetles are most active, and it is
the opinion of some lumber mill owners
that Infestations start immediately
after felling.
After transportation to the mill,
some species of logs are placed under a
water spray.
As logs are moved into the mill,
the bark is removed, and the log is
moved onto the saw carriage and cut
into lumber. It is the skill of the
sawyer that initially determines the
grade of lumber that will be obtained
from the log. Additional personnel in
the mill take the freshly sawn lumber,
edge it, and send It on toward the dip
vat.
As the lumber leaves the mill, each
piece is ailowed to drop into a dip tank
containing a solution of lindane and
sodium pentachiorophenate. Each board
in turn Is allowed to rest in the dip
solution for several seconds before
being lifted out by mechanical conveyor
and deposited on the green-chain. The
green-chain Is usually a long roof-
covered deck, approximately 24 feet wide
and up to 200 feet long. The lumber is
moved sideways on endless chains at a
slow pace, permitting a grader to walk
on the deck and mark individual boards
for sorting. At both sides of this deck
are lumber stackers, who will pull off
individual boards at appropriate points,
and move them by hand to the building
stacks behind them.
There are two other common treat-
ment methods for green lumber reported
by NFPA (163):
1) Green-chain spray: Lumber is
conveyed through a low-pressure spray
system, which is housed In a booth.
2) Lumber package dip: After the
lumber is stacked, the complete stack is
dipped in a vat for about 5 minutes.
After the lumber Is stacked and
moved to the drying area, it remains
there for at least 4 months. Drying. can
take as long as 5 to 6 months in the
winter No spraying is done after the
lumber reaches the seasonIng yard.
27
-------
Table 5.--RecommendationS for control of log and lumber pests
Control
State Site/Pest Control Carrier solution
concentration
(percent)
Control
instruc- Remarks Reference
tions
State Recommendations
Alabama logs/ambrosia chemical BHC fuel 0.5 gamma spray spray only if Alabama. 1975.
beetle lindane oil green logs cannot be Insect Control
logs used promptly Guide. Feb. (2)
lumber/ambrosia season
beetle lumber
rapidly
Florida pine logs! chemical BHC #2 fuel 0.5 gamma spray spray only if Florida Agricul-
ambrosia oil logs prompt utUl- tural Ext. Serv.
beetle zation is not 1974. Insect
feasible Control Guide
Univ. of Florida
Gainesville. (71)
hardwood logs! chemical BHC water 0.5 gamma spray spray only if
ambrosia lindane infested prompt utili-
beetle portions zation is not
feasible
Federal Guidelines
logs/ambrosia lindane water 1.0 gamma wet bark USDA. 1974.
beetles and thoroughly Guidelines for
borers the Use of Insec-
ticides. Agric.
Res. Serv. Agric.
Handb. No. 452.
Industry Recommendations (259)
lumber/ BHC water 0.8 gamma dip H. R. Johnston.
ambrosia all 1952. Insect
beetle lumber Control South-
ern Lumberman.
15 May (110)
logs/ambrosia BHC #2 fuel 0.5 gamma spray to treatment
beetle oil wetness effective for
approximately
4 months
-------
a a, a
N C DCD
a
c ,co
CDCD
C D CD
NNNCD
N LC)
4.1, NCD
U, CDU 4
C cI 4Cv
I C I
a a a
CD
,-4 ,-4i-4 4
ฉ
ฉ
I I N 4CO
a a a a
N 4C )C
4
NN
I
CD I
I
I NNI1,
a
a a a
CD
NC4
,- I-. I 4
N
N NC)N
I I a a
I CD NCD
N i-INN
N
N
CD CDCQฉ
a, a a
I CDi COU N
N
e-41 -4,-I
CD NN
CD
CD
4 a
I . i
CD
v-INCD
CD c
- - CD 4
CC
4 a- 4 a a a
U,
11,
I
i-i -N cv 4.
N N N N N:
CDD) . -
,_4 i-I 4-
i -I
N
C !,
CD
CD
C D
C ,,
N
C D
C D
C,
S
N
CD
N
CD
-4
U, a
4
CD
ll
o
Sc !,
4
C.
CD
Irto
C,,
II
Lindane Used in Hardwood
Lumber Mills
Data on the actual use of lindane
In sawmills are not available. A
potential use figure for the country has
been derived by making the following
assumptions:
1) Llndane is applied to lumber
via dipping at the rate of 1 pound a.i.
per 17,000 board feet of lumber (3).
2) All railway ties produced are
treated with wood preservatives, not
with lindane.
3) Hardwoods are used either for
lumber or railway ties.
Railroad tie production is given
in table 6. Total lumber production
estimates are given In table 7. The
estimates of lindane usage- are presented
In table 8. The estimate of usage of
lindเne does not indicate use on the
estimated 20 percent of the hardwood
logs treated each year.
These estimates are well above the
amount of BHC distributed to U.S.
formulators by Hooker Chemical Company
In 1975 (98). There are several pos-
sible explanations: 1) Possible Imports
of BHC; 2) carryover stocks of BHC; and
3) estImates of the percentage of lumber
dipped may be high. -
First, Imports could have sub-
stantially Increased the available stock
of BHC for use on lumber and logs;
however, as previously discussed, this
Is -- unlikely Sifice EPA stopped. the imp or-
- - - tation of - EEC. - Second, It Is possible
that stocks were -carried over from
previous years, and used up to satisfy
current demands; whether - this is true
is not known, however. Third, the
estimates of - the proportion of lumber
dipped may be lii error. The estimates
of usage- -a e highly sensitive - to - the
estimate of lumber treated. -
Use of Alternatives to tindane -
The onntrol of beetles on hardwood
logs at the: sawmill Is - -accomplished
In one of three ways 1) Rapid ti ritover
of -log-B;2) water spray; or- 3) use of
CD4-
4-,
0+. . C
( I D
a
CDN
N
N
0 )
a
N
- 4
0
a,
CD
o
E- 0i-
cI) Cj
N ฉNฉ
CD CDNCD
I CD I 0) CD
I I a a a
N cDtt )C !)
N
C D
U,
-I
N
N
CD
CD
0 * -
a, 4-4
CD
4- . .
-4
H
4-,
zc
I
CD
C .,
a
-4
0
a
C l )
- CD
N
C)
C,,
N
C 4
29
-------
Table 7.--U.S. Estimated hardwood lumber production, 1974-75
Geographic areal
Total Hardwood
production V
(1,000 bd ft)
Average Tie
production V
(1,000 bd ft)
Estimate
produ
(1,000
d Lumber
ction
bd ft)
1974 1975
1974
Northeast and North
Central Region
2,418,000 2,176,000
397,514
2,020,486
1,778,486
Southern Region
4,297,000 3,550,000
371,665
3,925,335
3,178,335
Eastern U.S. Total
6,715,000 5,726,000
769,179
5,945,821
4,956,821
1/ Northeast, North Central: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, North
Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas.
Southern: Delaware, Maryland, District of Columbia, Virginia, West Virginia,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama,
Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas.
2/ Source: US. Department of Commerce, 1976 (294).
3/ From table 6, 3-year average.
Table 8.--Use of BHC to treat green hardwood lumber, 1975 (pounds)
High estimate
Low
estimate
estimate
1/
FBHC
gamma
isomer
FBHC
gamma
isomer
FBHC
gamma
isomer
North Central
and
Northeast
201,762
84,740
82,200
34,524
141,981
59,632
Southern
373,921
157,047
284,893
119,655
Eastern U.S.
575,683
241,787
367,093
154,179
471,388
197,983
1/ Fortified benzene hexachioride (FBHC) contains 42 percent gamma isomer.
Note: High and low estimates based on the statistical confidence interval range
of percentage lumber treated by region derived from a Chapman Chemical Survey. Mean
estimates are based on the estimated mean percentage of lumber treated by region.
chemicals. A majority, of hardwood saw-
mills use a water spray to protect their
logs (312).
Before lindane was used to control
the ambrosia beetle and related pests on
hardwood lumber, one method of control
was rapid curing of the lumber. This
was accomplished by a drying method
known. as end racking. When green
lumber is stacked by end racking , it
dries out rapidly. A few days of sea-
soning by end racking will reduce the
moisture content of lumber to a point
where beetle attack is rio longer likely.
This procedure is not recommended
because of the danger of checking with
many species, Increased yard space
requirements, and increased handling
costs (111). It is therefore unlikely
that the rapid seasoning method of
control Is currently In use.
30
-------
Kiln drying is possible with certain
species. Some species, when kiln-dried
immediately off the green-chain, will
warp or honeycomb.
The species that cannot be kiln-
dried directly from the green-chain are:
oak, gum, cottonwood, hickory, and elm.
These species constitute approxi-
mately 65 percent of total hardwood
production (294). It is unlikely that
kiln drying of green hardwood is widely
practiced.
Performance Evaluation of Lindane
and Alternatives
Pest Infestation and Damage
The ambrosia beetle, and related
Species, are important because of the
degrade (downgrading) of lumber caused
by their invasion. The degrade is
caused by the tunnels bored in the lum-
ber and logs, and the black stain caused
by the fungus Introduced Into the wood
by the beetle. Numerous species of
ambrosia beetles are known, and have
been found throughout the world (272).
Three main types of bark beetles
and ambrosia beetles attack the trees:
1) The twig and cone beetles bore into
the cones of trees or the pith of twigs
and eat the wood. 2) The ambrosia or
timber beetles tunnel into the sapwood
and heartwood of unseasoned lumber, log
cabins, and rustic work, making pin-
hOiestI upon which they propagate fungi
as food, often rendering lumber prac-
tically worthless. These adults do not
eat the wood and the larvae do no
damage. 3) The most destructive and
best known species, เalled bark beetles,
mine just beneath the bark of standing
or felled trees, feeding upon the
cambjum and adjacent tissues, and
leaving characteristic engravings upoui
both the inner surface of the bark and
the wood. Reddish, boring dust Is ,.
pUshed. qut of the tunnels and clings to
the bark; nr: accurnulates about the base
of the trees; and often sap exudes and.
dries to form hard pitch or resin tubes
around the entrance holes (i44).
Flatheaded and roundheaded borers
are less common, but do considerable
damage by boring large galleries in wood
(124). The gallery diameter is approx-
imately the size of a pencil (144).
These borers deposit their eggs in
crevices of bark. The larvae feed under
the bark, in the sapwood or heartwood,
or a combination of these places. The
mines end in a pupal cell, which is
connected to the surface by short exit
holes (272).
The ambrosia or timber beetles are
the most important insect pests to the
hardwood sawmill industry. These
insects bore Into the hardwood of trees
and feed on fungi that they cultivate in
their galleries. The ambrosia beetle
Introduces a stain known as grease spot
or flag. All the boring insects allow
the entrance of common sap stain or blue
stain (110). They do not eat the wood,
but do considerable damage by tunneling
through it. The larvae develop in small
cells adjoining the main galleries, and
in most species the larvae are fed by
the adults Each species usually feeds
on one particular type of fungus; when
the females emerge and fly to another
tree, they carry conidia of the fungus
from the natal gallery to the new host
and introduce the . fungus into the
gallery they excavate. After the eggs
hatch, the females usually care for the
larvae until they are full grown and
pupate. To do this, they must keep the
larval burrows supplied with fresh
fungus or ambrosia, and theykeep the
galleries clean by carrying away the
feces of the larvae (18).
Timber is not attacked by the
ambrosia beetle unless the moisture con-
tent of the wood IS at least 48 percent.
Seasoned lumber is never attacked.
Trees cut during the summer and left.
unprotected are usually: attacked within
2 weeks. This is particularly true. of
gum, cypress, and oak logs (272).
Attacks by these inseCts are; heaviest
during periods of warm temperatures and
high humidity. Thus the summOr months
correspond to periods of heavy infesta-
tion, ; particularly in the Southern
United States.
31
-------
Comparative Yield/Quality
Standard hardwood lumber grades
are based on the number and size of
clear (that is, free of defects) cut-
tings obtainable from the board (164).
The minimum size of cutting varies
with each grade; a specific percentage
of the board must be contained in a
given number of clear cuttings for each
grade.
Beetle or borer holes can degrade a
given board several grades. The degree
of degrade depends upon the level of
attack and the placement of the boring
holes.
Comparative Performance Evaluation
Comparative Efficacy
This section contains a discussion
of the possible control methods in terms
of their effectiveness in controlling
the named pests.
For control of beetles on green
logs, BHC/lindane and water spray
have both been found effective (312).
Of course, by far the best method of
control is rapid utilization of the
logs. This method does not allow an
infestation to start, but is not prac-
tical on an industrywide basis.
For control of beetles and borers
on lumber (both green and seasoned),
BHC/lindane has been found effective
(124). The prevention of insect attack
starts as soon as the chemical is
applied. The effectiveness of non-
chemical control of green lumber pests
depends upon the ability of a control
method to reduce the moisture content
of the lumber to a point below 48 per-
cent. End-racking is dependent upon
atmospheric conditions for its effec-
tiveness. Kiln drying is effective
in preventing damage by green lumber
pests only if the lumber is placed in
the kiln promptly after leaving the
green-chain. Neither rapid seasoning
control method will be effective against
the drywood pests if the rough lumber
is stored after seasoning in areas
accessible to the lyctus and powderpost
beetles.
The quality of green logs after
treatment is dependent upon the control
method employed. For those species that
can be placed under a water spray, the
quality of the logs does not differ
between chemical control and water spray
control. Species such as ash and
hickory cannot be placed under a water
spray (23). These species deteriorate
rapidly under water.
Similar differences exist for lum-
ber pest control methods, as previously
discussed. In summary, end-racking is
not recommended because of the danger of
checking with some wood species (110).
Kiln drying introduCes 10 to 15 percent
more deterioration than chemical con-
trol, coupled with air drying (23).
Kiln drying lumber, directly from the
green-chains will produce severe honey-
combing and warping in about 63 percent
(based on species) of all hardwood
lumber produced.
Comparative Costs
The cost differences between BHC
and Undane are presented in table 9.
To derive the figures, it was necessary
to assume an application rate of 1 pound
gamma isomer per 17,000 bd ft of lumber.
It was also assumed that current lindane
product prices would be similar to pos-
sible lindane products meant for use on
hardwood lumber. It should also be
pointed out that the lumber industry is
still using the remaining stocks of BHC;
that is, the changeover to lindane has
not yet been made.
Economic Impact Analys
Profile of Impact Areas
The majority (97 pct) of hardwood
produced In this country comes from the
Eastern United States (294). For pur-
poses of this analysis, the Eastern
United States was partitioned into two
regions that would be compatible with
the regions defined by the Bureau of the
Census. The northeast and north central
region consists of the following States:
32
-------
Table 9.--ComparatiVe costs of chemical control of hardwood lumber pests
1/ Source: (306).
2/ Assumes application rate of 1 lb
Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, New
York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio,
Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wis-
COnSin, Minnesota, Iowa, North Dakota,
Nebraska, and Kansas. The southern
region consists of the District of
Columbia, and the following States:
Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, West Vir-
ginia, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee,
Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Loui-
siana, Oklahoma, and Texas.
Sixty-two percent of all hardwood
production In the United States is
produced in the southern region. The
gamma isomer per 17,000 bd ft.
northeast and north central
produces 35 percent of the
production of hardwood.
Table 10 presents some selected
general statistics on the sawmill indus-
try. The hardwood sawmill industry is
characterized by a large number of small
family-owned mills (163). The average
mill produces approximately 10 million
board feet per year.
Nationally, the production of hard-
wood lumber has remained fairly stable
(table 11). Table 12 presents the
wholesale price index for hardwood
U.S sawmills and planing milJ.s
Pesticide
Cost/pound
gamma isomer!
1,000 bd ftp..
BHC
$6.00
$0.35
59
lindane
10.00
region
Nations
Table 10. -General statistics for
Establishments
(number)
All employees
Value
shipments
(million $)
Number
(1,000)
Payroll
(million $)
Sawmills and planing
mills (general)
Entire industry 8,071
166:s8
1,272.2
6,470.8
Establishments with
at least 75 percent
specIalization 7,866
137.1
1,017.7
5,348.4
Hardwood lumber, rough
and dressed
Primary product class
of establishment 558
19.1
11S.7
544.1
Establishments with
at least 75 percent
specialization 397
13.4
19.9
387.9
Source. Bureau of CensUs, 1975 (292,293).
33
-------
Table 11.--U.S. Hardwood lumber production
Year
Southern hardwoods
Total hardwoods
(million board feet)
1966
4,050
7,737
1967
3,779
7,430
1968
3,617
7,188
1969
3,770
7,482
1970
3,617
7,138
1971
3,456
6,949
1972
3,326
6,770
1973
3,397
7,008
1974
3,265
6,904
1975
2,766
5,524
1976
3,081
6,350
Year
Source: National Forest Products
1977 (163).
Association,
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
100.0
104.5
120.1
114.7
113.5
126.2
167.0
189.5
160.3
176.0
100.0
102 5
106.5
110.4
113.9
119.1
134.7
160 1
174.9
188.0
Sources: USDA, Forest Service, 1977 (281), U.S. Department
of Commerce, Bureau of Census, 1975 (292).
lumber and all commodities. For the
last 10 years, the price of hardwood
lumber has generally kept pace with the
aggregate wholesale price index.
User Impacts
Data have been developed by the
USDA s Forest Service on lumber produc-
tion costs. These are developed and
reported, along with average price
data, by the National Forest Products
Association (NFPA). The average cost
to produce 1,000 bd ft of lumber is
$163.00. The average revenue that can
be derived from that lumber and Its
byproducts is $193.00 (163).
The losses that would be incurred
under two levels of Insect attack are
presented in table 13 for two important
species of wood. A weighted average was
calculated from these two species, which
was used as an average loss over all
species. This loss figure was developed
from a consensus of :an industry panel
Table 12.U.S. Selected wholesale price indices, 1967-76
(1967 = 100.0)
All hardwood lumber All commodities
34
-------
Table 13.--U.S. Expected value Cs) of hardwood lumber per 1,000 board feet!!
Concerning possible Insect attack in
the absence of control techniques. As
Such, they are estimates based only on
knowledgeable judgment, rather than on
demonstrated fact (163).
In a severe attack, the loss
exceeds the average profit margin
reported by NFPA. This raises the
question of possible mill closings if
lindane Is removed from the market.
Th 0 answer to such a question cannot
be found with our current pooi of
knowledge. Too little is known about
the components of production costs
reported by NFPA, as well as, the
Supply and demand characteristics of the
hardwood lumber market.
Before developing impacts, one must
estimate the qua itity of lumber in dan-
ger of losing protection from insects.
Table 14 presents estimates of lumber
currently treated, by region.
Table 15 presents statistics on the
impact of loss of control. It was
assumed that the most likely, levels of
Infestation would correspond to a
modex ate infestation in, the North and
a severe infestation in the South, This
Is because of the differing climates In
the two regions. The anpual impact In
the North would be $21,168,856, In the
South it would be $12L85.j,146. The
total annual impact for the sawmill
industry would be 414 7,020 ,0U2. .
Expected value Value loss
Lindane No control No control No control No control
Species or BHC Moderate Severe Moderate Severe
control attack attack attack attack
Red oak 193.74 172.06 138.40 21.68 55,34
Sap gum 153.20 141.20 120.00 12.00 33.20
Weighted
average.a/ 190.39 169.51 136.88 20.88 53.51
1/ Assumes 1976 prices.
j Weighted by the 1975 Eastern U.S. production of each of the 2 species.
Sources: Derived from National Forest Products AssociatIon, 1977 (163),
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, 1976 (294).
Table 14.--Estjmated lumber treated by region in the United States, 1975
Estimated percent Estimated lumber treated 2/
Lumber lumber treated (1,000 bd ft)
Region production Minimum Maximum Mean
(1,000 percent percent percent
bd ft) 11 treated treated treated Minimum Maximum Mean
Northeast
and North
Central 1,778,486 33 81 57 586,900 1,440,574 1,013,737
Southern 3,178,335 64 84 74 2,034,134 2,669,801 2,351,968
1/ Taken from table 7.
J The range of lumber treated was derived by multiplying the estimated
percent of production treated by the estimated level of production.
range of
.35
-------
Table 15.--Estimated u.s. per-annum impacts
1/ Assumes mean volume of lumber treated by region.
2/ Assumes moderate infestation.
3/ Assumes severe infestation.
4/ Assumes moderate infestation in North,
Market Impacts
Data are insufficient for a
detailed analys.s of market impacts;
only broad statements can be ventured.
The price of hardwood lumber will
probably rise if lindane is removed from
the market. This will affect the Input
cost of hardwood lumber-Using industries
such as the furniture industry.
Consumer Impacts
A rise in the price of final wood
products is likely. The size of the
increase is unknown.
Social and Community Impacts
The social impacts were not inves-
tigated, owing to a lack of data.
Macroeconomic impacts
The macro impacts were not investi-
gated because of a lack of data.
Limitations of the Analysis
The preceding analysis has definite
drawbacks and limitationS, which Include
the following:
1) PoSsible bias in the Chapman
Survey (38) of mill owners.
2) Possible invalid assumptions
made during the process of estimating
hardwood lumber production.
3) Data on damage with control
absent were based on industry expert
opinion.
4) Because of a lack of data, not
all possible impacts on mills were fully
investigated.
5) The impacts beyond the mill
level were not investigated.
The first three limitations com-
bine to make the analysis sensitive to
changes in the estimates of lumber
productions lumber treatment, and
possible loss. They form the basis of
impact calculations.
The effects on mills of possible lin-
dane cancellation were not investigated
fully because of a lack of knowledge
concerning production costs and hardwood
lumber supply and demand character-
istics. Additionally, the effect of
cancellation on hard wood-using Indus-
tries could be substantial, but was not
investigated because of a lack of data.
Summary
Lindane is the only insecticide
registered for the control of all of the
various bark beetles and wood-boring
Insects in the hardwood/sawmill indus-
try. There are no industrywide,
effective, nonchemical control alterna-
tives . Without proper controls, there
will be yield losses and possible lumber
price Increases.
Average annual imp
Total per region
Most likely
Region
Per average mill
Maximum
total impact j/
Minimum 1/ Maximum
Minimum
Northeast and
North Central
119,027.40 305,001.30
21,168,856
54,244,053
125,851,146
21,168,856
125,851,146
Southern
154,526.80 395,966.60
49,113,796
180,095,199
147,020,002
Eastern U.S. Total
severe infestation in South.
36
-------
CHAPTER 3
BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF LINDANE
USE AS A SEED TREATMENT
Current TJso Analysis
EPA Registrations of Lindane
and Alternatives
Lindane is registered as a seed
treatment on numerous field and spe-
cialty crops (300). The seed treatment
analysis will deal only with the use of
lindane on small grain and corn seed,
inasmuch as these uses comprise 96
percent of the use of the chemical as a
seed treatment. It is estimated that
approximately 75 percent of the lindane
used in seed treatment formulations is
applied to small grain seed to prevent
damage by the wireworm compiex.V A
significant percentage of the seed
treatment is applied to corn seed to
prevent damage by wireworms, seedcorn
maggots, and seedcorn beetles. The
remainder of the seed treatment for rnula-
tion is applied to pea, bean, sunflower,
lentil, sugarbeet, sorghum, and other
vegetable seeds to prevent damage by
wireworms, seedcorn , seedcorn
beetles, and kafir ants, and as a repel-
lent to pheasants. Table 16 presents
the pesticides that are registered for
control J of the previously mentioned
pests of wheat and corn seed. Of the
alternatives registered to control
wireworms (true and false) in wheat,
only heptachlor may be used as a seed
treatment, and it is also the only
chemical registered for use as a seed
treatment to control wireworrflS in Corn.
The term wireworm complex Is
used to describe several species of the
Coleoptera (beetle) families Elat rtdae
(true wireworms), and Tenebrionidae
(false wireworms).
3/ For the purposes of the seed
treatment analysis, the term control
will be used to Indicate prevention of
damage. Seed treatment, in itself, does
not significantly reduce the soil insect
population; however, the treatments
reduce damage to the seed caused by the
insects.
Heptachlor is also registered to control
seedcorn beetles and seedcorn maggots in
corn. The Final Order of the Admin-
istrator in the Chiord ane/Heptachlor
Cancellation, signed March 6, 1978,
however, phases out the use of hepta
chlor seed treatments on barley, oats,
wheat, rye, corn, and sorghum. Cancel-
lation is effective September 1, 1982 on
the small grains and corn; heptachlor
seed treatments on sorghum will be
canceled July 1, 1983. The total volume
of heptachlor used to produce seed
treatment formulation is also limited
through the effective cancellation date.
The only registered alternatives to
lindane and heptachlor seed treatments
in wheat for wireworm control are 1 ,3-
dichioropropene and a 1, 3-dichloropro
pene + chloroplcrin formulation. Both
of these formulations must be used as
preplant fumigants, and are not used
routinely on an industrywide basis.
There are several registered alter-
natives to lindane and heptachlor seed
treatments in corn. Diazinon is regis-
tered as a seed treatment to control
seedcorn maggots and seedcorn beetles;
however, wireworm control requires soil
application of diazinon. Chlorpyrlfos
(Dursban) Ia registered as a seed
treatment to control seedcorn maggot
damage; however, It is not registered to
control wireworms or seedcorn beetles.
Several other alternatives requiring
soil application are also registered to
control the soil insect complex in corn
acreage. These Insecticides are applied
to the soil for the control of the above-
mentioned insects attacking the young
plant, and are not seed treatments.
Recommendations for Use of Lindane
Seed Treatments and Alternatives
State Recommendations
During the period from 1974 to 1976,
10 States -- Colorado, Kansas, Minnesota,
37
-------
Table 16.--EPA-registered controls for seed pests of wheat and corn
Pesticide
Wheat
Wireworm
Corn
Wireworm
Seedcorn
maggot
Seedcorn
beetle
Registered for Seed Treatments
X
X
X
X
lindane
diazinon
X
X
Registered for Soil Applications
X
X
X
diazinon
carbofuran (Furadanฎ)
X
chioropicrin
X
chlorpyrifos (Dursbanฎ) 1/
1 , 3-dichioropropene (Teloneฎ
1 ,3-dichloropropene + chioropicrin
X
X
X
X
ethoprop (Mocapฎ) 2
fensulfothion (Dasanitฎ)
X
X
X
X
X
X
fonofos (Dyfonateฎ)
heptachiont
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
parathion
X
phorate (Thimetฎ) 4/
terbufos (Counterฎ)
X
X
x
X
x
1/ 1 ,3-dichloropropene and 1 ,3-dichloropropene + chioropicrin must be applied as
preplant fumigants.
2/ Fensulfothion is registered only for use on seedcorn maggot and seedcorn beetles
in the Midwest.
3/ Heptachior seed and soil treatments are being phased-out under the Final Order
of the Administrator in the Chlordane/Heptachlor Cancellation.
4/ Terbufos reduces only wireworm populations, and it is registered only for use in
the Southeastern States.
Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Okla-
homa, South Dakota, Texas, and Washing-
ton -- planted from 2.8 to 12.6 million
acres of wheat (average of 5.8 million
acres) annually. State recommendations
for 1975-76 were available for all
States except Nebraska, and are sum-
marized in table 17. Of the nine sets
of recommendations reviewed, lindane and
heptachior seed treatments were recom-
mended to prevent wireworm damage to
wheat seed in eight States. No recom-
mendations were made for use of any
other chemical or chemical combinations
for wireworm control in wheat.
Between 197476, five States -
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, and
Nebraska - planted from 6.0 to 13.3
million acres of corn (average of 8.9
million acres) annually. Recommend a-
tions for at least one of those years,
for each State, were available. The
following chemicals were recommended
to control wireworms, seedcorn maggots,
and seedcorn beetles:
Seed treatments : lind ane, diazinon.
Soil insecticides : carbofuran (Fura-
danฎ),41 diazinon, ethoprop (Mocapฎ),
fensulfothion (Dasanitฎ), fonofos (Dyf-
onateฎ), heptachior, / phorate (Thi-
metฎ), terbufos (Counterฎ).
4/ Carbofuran is registered to con-
trol only wireworms of the three insects
listed.
5/ Heptachior is canceled as of
September 1, 1982 for barley, oats,
wheat, rye, and corn; as of July 1, 1983
for sorghum.
38
-------
Table 17.--Sumrnary of State recommendations for control
of the wireworm insect complex in wheat
State
Chemical
Lindane
Heptachior
Colorado
ww -
ww
Kansas
fww
fww
Minnesota
ww
ww
Montana
ww
ww
Nebraska
State recommendations
unavailable
North Dakota
ww
ww
Oklahoma
fww
fww
South Dakota
No recommendation made
Texas
ww
ww
Washington
ww
ww
1/ ww wireworm, fww = false wireworrn.
Sources: Colorado (42); Kansas (115); Minnesota (153);
Montana (157); North Dakota (179); Oklahoma (187);
South Dakota (226); Texas (243); and Washington (317).
Lindane and heptachior are regis-
tered as seed treatments to control the
three seed pests, whereas diazinon can
only be used as a seed treatment to
prevent damage by seedcorn beetles and
seedcorn maggots. The other chemicals
require soil application to control the
seed pests. Table 18 summarizes the
major corn-producing States recommend a-
tions for seedcorn maggot, seedcorn
beetle, and wireworm control.
Federal Guidelines
The U.S. Department of Agriculture
(259) does not list any chemical meas-
ures to prevent wireworm damage to
wheat seed. Aidrin and heptachior were
recommended as broadcast applications to
control wire worm infestations in corn;
however, aidrin has been canceled and
broadcast treatments of heptachlor are
being phased-out with an August 1, 1980
effective date of cancellation under the
Final Order of the Administrator in the
Chiordane/Heptachior Cancellation.
Use of Lindane Seed Treatments
and Alternatives
Hooker Chemical Company, the basic
producer of lindane, estimates that
approximately 425,600 pounds of lindane
active ingredient were used to produce
seed treatment formulations in 1976 (98).
By using 425,600 pounds of lindane
active ingredient as a base, information
obtained from formulators, seed com-
panies, State extension entomologists,
and other experts was used to develop
estimates of lindane seed treatment used
by crops and geographic location.
The use of lindane as a seed treat-
ment is most heavily concentrated in the
northern portion of the United States
between Idaho and Minnesota. Table 19
presents the EPA estimates of lindane
used by geographic location. App roxi-
inately 81 percent of the lindane seed
treatment is applied to small grains,
and almost half of the poundage (39
percent) is applied to North Dakota
small grains. The estimated use of
lindane as a seed treatment by crop
is presented in table 20. Estimates
of the small grain acreage planted with
lindane-treated seed are presented in
table 21.
Estimating the use of lindane for
the prevention of soil insect seed dam-
age is complicated. Most seed treatment
39
-------
Table 18.--Summary of State recommendations for seed pest- control in corn
Chemical
State
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Minnesota
Nebraska
1 indane
scm 5 ,
- hcb 5
scm 5 ,
scb 5 ,
1
carbofuran
(Furadanฎ)
ww
ww
diazinon
san 5 ,
scm,
scb 5 ,
scb, ww
scm .
ww
scb .
scm .
scb 5
scm .
scm,
scb 5 ,
scb, ww
s
e thoprop
(Mcapฎ)
san,
scb, w
ww
ww
scm,
scb, w
fensulfothion
(t isani tฎ)
scm,
scb, ww
scm,
scb, ww
fono fos
(Dyfonat eฐ)
san,
scb, ww
ww
scm,
scb,
heptachlor /
ww
scb 5 ,
scm 5
scb,
w.
scm,
scm,
scb,
scb, ww
scm, ww
ww,
sdi
phorate
(Thin tฎ)
scm,
scb,
ww
ww
scm,
scb, ww
terixifos
(Counterฎ)
scm,
scb,
ww
ww
ww,
sdi
!/ scm = seedcorn maggot; scb = seedcorn beetle; ww = wireworms; sdi = seed-destroying insects.
2/ Insects subscripted with an s (for example, scb 5 ) indicate that the chemical is recommended as a seed
treatment as opposed to a soil application.
3/ Broadcast and seed treatment applications of heptachior are being phased-out under the Final Order of the
Administrator in the C hiord ane/ Heptachlor Cancellation.
Sources: Illinois (103); Iowa (105); Minnesota (153); Nebraska (165); and Purdue (207).
-------
Table 19.--Estimated use of lindane as a seed treatment,
by geographical location, 1976
Lindane
Area of use (active ingredient)
Use
of
as a proportion
seed treatment
rounds
Percent
North Dakota
165,000
39
Idaho
59,700
14
Minnesota
50,500
12
Colorado, Kansas,
Oklahoma
50,300
12
South Dakota,
Nebraska
30,900
7
Montana, Wyoming
16.700
4
Other
United States
52 ,500
12
Total
425,600
100
Source: Environmental Protection Agency, 1976 (300,302).
registrations include an insecticide and
a fungicide (usually maneb, captan, or
thiram). The fungicide is incorporated
into the mixture for the control of
damping-off, seedling blight, and seed
decay. Lindane is versatile in that it
can be used as a planter-box or wet
slurry treatment, whereas the alternate
compound for seed treatment, diazinon
(only the 50 W formulation), is only
registered as a planter-box treatment.
Ranchers and farmers are concerned with
seed and seedling diseases as well as
with seed-destroying insects, and there
are probably instances where a lindane-
fungicide seed treatment is used more
extensively as a disease preventive
than for insect control (215). The use
estimates developed represent seed
treatment with chemical combinations.
EPA estimates also indicate that
approximately 15 percent of the lindane
seed treatment formulations are applied
to corn seed (table 20), resulting in
approximately 3.8 million acres planted
with treated corn seed annually.
Approximately 65 percent of the lindane
treatments are applied in Minnesota and
Nebraska (40 and 25 percent, respec-
tively).
The type of planting machinery used
by farmers is also a factor in determining
the type of insecticidal application (seed
or soil) that can be made effectively.
In 1976, 47 percent of the Illinois corn
acreage was planted with plateless
planters (including air planters), and
the remainder of the acreage was planted
with conventional machinery (102).
When plateless planters are used,
a planter-box treatment may become
ineffective or the proper amount of
material is not put out. Studies
indicate that when the International
Harvester Cyclo planter (an air planter)
is used, only 2.5-9.6 percent of the
lindane (Isotox F, 25 pct lindane for-
mulation) remains on the seed. The
plateless planters have many advantages
over the conventional planters, however;
they can operate at a faster field speed
and require fewer manual operations such
as refilling seed and changing plates to
accommodate different varieties of seed.
As the new air and plateless planters
replace conventional planters, the acre-
age that could be planted effectively
with planter-box-treated seed will
diminish, and alternates such as diaz-
mon will not be able to be used.
41
-------
Table 20.--Estimated use of lindane as a seed treatment,
by crop, 1976 V
Crop
Lindane
(active ingredient)
Use
of
as a proportion
seed treatment
Pounds
Percent
Small grains
wheat
barley, oats,
Corn 2/
Other crops
rye
344,400
250,400
94,000
64,300
16,900
81
59
22
15
4
Total
425,600
100
1/ Estimates of the number of acres planted with treated
seed were made by taking the amount of Lindane used (esti-
mate made by multiplying the appropriate seeding rate by
the number of acres planted with treated seed); then the
total poundage of seed was multiplied by the appropriate
lindane application rate to obtain the volume of lindane
used.
2/ Includes: dry beans, dry peas, sorghum, lentils,
sunflowers, sugarbeets, and vegetables.
Source: Environmental Protection Agency (300,302).
Table 21.--Estimated acres of small grain planted with lindane-treated seed,
by region, 1976
Geographic
area
Lindane-treated seed
Other small Small-grain Small-grain
Wheat grain V total area
Lindane-treated
as proportion of
total small grain
North Dakota
Thousand acres
4,896 1,139 6,035 15,570
Percent
39
Idaho
768 576 1,344 2,465
55
Minnesota
844 844 7,451
11
Colorado,
Kansas,
Oklahoma
2,508 136 2,644 24,994
11
South Dakota,
Nebraska
374 57 431 11,647
4
Montana,
Wyoming
360 240 600 7,731
8
Other
United States
1,076 115 1,191 40,156
Total
10,826 ,263 iไ,ii 9 110,014
12
1/ Primarily includes barley, with lesser acreages of oats and rye.
42
-------
Table 22.--Estimated expenditures for
seed protection provided by lindane,
by crop
Crop
Cost of lindane
Small grains
Thousand dollars
$3,124
wheat
other small grain 2 !
2,271
853
Corn
Other crops 1 !
583
153
Total
$3,860
1/ Primarily barley.
2/ Includes, but not limited to, dry
beans, dry peas, sorghum, lentils, sun-
flowers, sugarbeets, and vegetables.
This is where the versatility of lindane
is advantageous; lindane can be applied
as a tiwet slurry directly to the seed,
and the planter-box technique does not
have to be used.
Estimates of expenditures for
lindane seed protection by crop are
presented in table 22. These data
assume that the cost of lindane active
ingredient is $9.07 per pound. !J
Estimates of alternative chemical
use to reduce seed damage caused by
wireworm (true or false) in small grain
acreage and wireworms, seedcorn mag-
gots, and seedcorn beetles in corn
acreage are not available.
Performance Evaluation of Lindane
and Alternatives
Pest Infestation and Damage
Lindane seed treatment of small
grains and corn is primarily used to
prevent damage by seed-destroying pests
--the wireworm complex (including true
and false wireworms), seedcorn maggot,
and seedcorn beetle--to the seed prior
to germination. The nature of damage
caused by each pest follows.
6/ See Comparative Costs section
(page 45) for a discussion of lindane
costs.
The term wireworms is used to
describe numerous species of beetles.
Important genera of wireworms include
Agriotes, Limonius, Horistonotus, Cten-
icera, Melanotus , and Conoderus species,
and contain members of the group known
as the true wireworms. The genus
Eleodes contains the important species
of the false wireworms.
Host plants of wireworms include
small grains (wheat, oats, barley, rye),
corn, sorghum, tuber crops, sweet
clover, and numerous cultivated and
native grass species. The above-
mentioned genera of both the true and
false wireworm primarily damage host
plants in the immature larval stage.
The shiny, hard-bodied, wirelike larvae
are yellow to brown in color and feed on
the seed and other underground portions
of host plants.
The damage potential of the wire-
worm complex is variable. Several
factors, including cropping history, soil
type, moisture, fertility, and previous
pesticide use, influence the occurrence
and population density of the pest.
Wireworms are often clumped in field
distribution, which probably reflects
the ovipositional (egglaying) habits of
the adult beetle, as movement of larvae
underground is thought to be limited.
Wireworm infestations may neces-
sitate replantings of entire fields,
particularly if other environmental
factors are detrimental to seedling
establishment. During an 8-year period,
estimated losses attributable to wire-
worm infestations range from 10 to 80
percent of the total impact of insect
damage to wheat in North Dakota alone.
The wireworm complex is consistently
regarded as 1 of the 10 most costly
pests damaging North Dakota wheat
(215). The probability of economically
damaging infestations occurring in any
geographic area is unknown, owing to the
long history of pesticide use.
The life cycles of the wireworm
complex are variable. Some species
require 1 year to complete development.
and others 2 to 5 years; this results in
43
-------
overlapping generations and wireworms of
all sizes and ages in the soil.
Overwintering of the pest can occur in
the adult or larval stage, depending on
the species. The adults of the false
wireworm are unable to fly. They
usually oviposit in the late summer and
early fall, and are often associated
with more arid soil conditions. Adults
of the true wireworms are called click
beetles, and oviposit during the spring
and early summer when development is
favored by moist soil conditions.
Various wireworm genera are dis
tributed throughout the United States.
Many authorities indicate that frequency
of detectable occurrence increases west
of the Mississippi River (49).
The seedcorn maggot ( Hylemya
platura (Meigen)), a fly, is known to
have a very extensive host range, which
includes both dead and living material.
The larva or maggot is the damaging
stage, and is commonly found in pota-
toes, beans, corn, radish, turnip,
onion, giant burdock, red clover,
spinach, soybean cake, rape seed meal,
dried fish, dead insects, and animal
excrement.
The immature stage (maggot) of the
insect burrows into the seed, causing
loss of germination or the emergence of
a weak seedling and reduction in plant
populations. The seedcorn maggot can
be a pest of numerous crops when the
seeds or propagative plant material are
planted in cool, moist soil that is high
in organic content.
In temperate zones there are two to
four maggot generations per year; the
spring or early summer generations
frequently are the most damaging. In
States with cool seasons (such as New
York, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Wash-
ington) this pest overwinters in a
puparium. In warmer States it may
overwinter in any of its three larval
instars. Flies emerge in early or
mid-spring. Adults feed, mate, and then
seek out suitable sites for oviposition.
The female oviposits on or just below
the soil surface. The eggs hatch in
several days, and the young larvae
burrow down in the soil, where they may
tunnel into germinating seeds. The
seedcorn maggot is distributed across
the entire United States and other
temperate zones of the world.
The seedcorn beetle ( Stenolophus
lecontei (Chaudoir)), and slender
seedcorn beetle ( Clivina impressifrons
LeConte), normally feed on other insects
and insect parts and are only rarely
associated with damage to seeds.
Damage occurs as adult beetles feed
on the contents of corn seed when condi-
tions are unfavorable for rapid seed
germination. A reduction in plant popu-
lation can result when beetle numbers
are high. The beetles are regarded as
occasional pests and are sporadic in
occurrence. Damage is usually most evi-
dent in cool, wet soils in low areas of
fields. The geographic distribution and
life histories of these beetles are not
well understood. They probably over-
winter in the pupal or adult stage, as
they are present and active very early
in the spring (144).
Comparative Performance Evaluation
Comparative Efficacy
Lindane is applied to seed to
decrease stand loss attributable to
seed-damaging insects. The treatments
are made as insurance against poten-
tial damage, and protect the seed only
prior to germination. When severe soil
insect infestations occur, seed treat-
ments may be largely ineffective; if
insect damage is lessened prior to ger-
mination, once the seed sprouts other
insects may damage the root system of
the seedling. In such instances, the
insecticidal seed treatment does not
always protect the grower from losses in
yield (or replanting). Data quantifying
the efficacy of lindane under various
levels of seed insect infestations are
not available.
Other than lindane and heptachlor
seed treatments, the only chemicals
registered to control seed-destroying
44
-------
Table 23.--Cost of lindane per acre of planted seed
Crop
Active ingredient
applied per 100
pounds seed V
U.S. Average
seedling rate
per acre V
Cost
application
/
Winter wheat
Pound
0.031
Pounds
70.2
Cents
19.7
Spring wheat
durum
other spring
.031
.031
89.4
85.8
25.1
24.1
Barley
.063
80.6
46.1
Corn
.125
13.4
15.2
1/ Using labeled rates of Ortho Isotoxฎ Seed Treater (F),
EPA Reg. No. 239-677-ZA.
2/ USDA, Statistical Reporting Service, 1977 (283).
3/ Assumes a lindane cost of $9.07 per pound.
insects in small grains are soil fumi
gants. Fumigants cannot be considered
as usable alternatives to lindane seed
treatments because of costs (see Compar-
ative Costs section), and the time and
equipment required for fumigation.
Lindane seed treatments are applied
to corn to reduce pregermination seed
damage by wireworms, seedcorn maggots,
and seedcorn beetles. Diazinon is reg-
istered and widely recommended (table
16) as a seed treatment to reduce seed-
corn maggot and seedcorn beetle damage
to corn; however, diazinon seed treat-
ments are ineffective against wireworms.
Soil applications of diazinon, ethoprop
(Mocapฎ), fensulfothion (Dasanitฎ),
fonofos (Dyfonateฎ), phorate (Thimetฎ),
and terbufos (Counterฎ) will also con-
trol the three seed-destroying pests.
Data quantifying the efficacy of lindane
in comparison to these alternative chem-
icals are not available.
Comparative Yield/Quality
Comparative yield/quality data for
lindane-treated small grain seed versus
untreated small grain seed under various
levels of wireworm are not available.
Research quantifying the yield/quality
effects of lindane seed treatment to
corn versus diazinon seed treatments or
soil-applied insecticides has never been
performed.
Comparative Costs
Lind ane planter-box (and/or slurry
treatment) formulations usually consist
of lindane, a fungicide, and special
inert ingredients that help the formula-
tion adhere to the seed. It is assumed
that farmers will continue to use an
insecticide/fungicide seed treatment if
the use of lindane is canceled. The
cost of seed treatment ascribable to
lindane has been broken out from the
full cost of the seed treatment (table
23). The data collected indicate that
the cost of lindane is $9.07 per pound
active .2!
7/ In 1978 an 18.75 pct lindane, 50
pct maneb. 31.25 pct inert planter-box
seed treatment formulation retailed at
$4.25 per pound formulation; a 50 pct
maneb, 50 pct inert planter-box formu-
lation retailed at $2.55 per pound.
Therefore, 0.1875 pound of lindane
cost the farmer approximately $1.70,
or 1 pound of lindane active ingredient
cost $9.07.
45
-------
The cost of lindane per acre of
planted seed, by crop, ranges from a
high of 46 per acre for barley to a
low of 1$ per acre of cern (table 23).
Heptachior and the fumigants used are
the only chemicals currently registered
for use on small grains. Heptachlor is
being phased-out and the fumigants cost
approximately $36 per acre -- $15 per
acre machine and labor charges and $21
per acre for chemical costs. Alter-
native soil-incorporated chemicals (not
seed treatments) that control wireworms,
seedcorn beetles, and seedcorn maggot
range in cost from $2.44 to $30 per
acre (table 24). These costs are 16 to
200 times greater than the cost of the
lindane seed treatment.
There are no chemicals that are
workable alternatives for lindane as a
seed treatment on small grains.
The States indicating heavy use of
Undane seed treatments on corn -- Min-
nesota and Nebraska, 1.5 and 1.0 million
acres were planted and treated seed,
respectively - experience damage by
wireworms, seedcorn maggots, and seed-
corn beetles. If Lindane is canceled
in these areas, one of the soil-applied
chemicals discussed above will be neces-
sary to control the seed pests; however,
in areas where wireworms are not a
problem ,. ! diazinon seed treatments
can be substituted for lindane seed
treatments. Diazinon seed treatments on
corn cost approximately 20 per acre.!
Economic Impact Analysis
quantified owing to data limitations
discussed earlier in this analysis (geo-
graphic seed pest distribution, pest
damage and yield impacts, frequency of
pest infestation, and lindane efficacy).
Presently, growers are treating seed on
an annual basis at a cost ranging from
15 to 46 per acre (corn and small
grain costs) as insurance against poten-
tial damage to seed. The economic
impacts of cancellation will be charac-
terized by one of three situations.
1) Insecticidal treatments will
not be made, resulting in sporadic yield
losses (frequency and extent of yield
loss indeterminate).
2) When infestations occur and
environmental factors are favorable,
fields may be replanted. The estimated
cost of replanting an acre of wheat is
approximately $12 (includes machine
operation, labor, and seed); replant
costs for corn are significantly higher.
Replanted fields may also experience
yield losses.
3) For corn, a third situation may
occur if lindane seed treatments are
canceled. Insecticidal treatments of
the soil can be made to prevent pest
damage; the cost of alternative treat-
ments ranges from $2.44 to $30 per
acre (table 24). It is not known
whether yield losses incurred when seed-
destroying insects are not controlled
are large enough that the grower would
be willing to bear the higher costs of
soil-applied chemicals.
The economic impacts of a lindane
seed treatment cancellation cannot be
8/ The extent of corn acreage
planted with lindane-treated seed that
does not experience economically
damaging wireworm infestations is not
known.
9/ A 33.3 pct diazinon, 66.6 pct
inert planter-box seed treatment formu-
lation costs $3 per pound of formula-
tion. The formulation is applied at the
rate of 4.5 oz per bushel of corn. Corn
is seeded at an average rate of 13.4
pounds per acre.
Under these situations, significant
impacts may occur on all of the crops
currently planted with lindane-treated
seed. The potential for major impacts
also exists, particularly in Minne-
sota and North Dakota where wireworm
infestations are most severe and where
spring-planted small grains are grown.
Although an estimated 12 percent of the
United States small grain acreage is
planted with lindane-treated seed, as
much as 30 percent of the United States
spring wheat acreage Is planted with
treated seed. If wireworm damage does
result in significant yield reductions
46
-------
Table 24.--Costs per acre-treatment of alternative chemical control of wireworms,
seedcorn maggots, and seedcorn beetles
Chemical
Formulation
Application rate
of formulation
Cost per unit Chemical cost per
formulation acre application
diazinon
Diazinone AG
Diazinonฎ 50W
5001
Units per acre
Dollars
5.75 17.25 23.00
3.75 22.50 30.00
34 quarts
68 lb
ethoprop
Mocap lOG
10 lb
0.55 5.50
fensulfothion
Dasanitฎ 15G
3.36.17 lb
0.74 2.44 4.57
fonofos
Dyfonateฎ 4E
Dyfonate 20G
Dyfonateฎ lOG
3/4-1 quart
20 lb
40 lb
6.06 4.55 - 6.06
1.08 21.60
0.58 23.20
1/ Only the diazinon 50W formulation has a registration for seed treatment.
Source: Environmental Protection Agency, 1976 (306).
and infestations occur on a frequent
basis, the impacts of cancellation on
spring wheat are potentially major at
both the user and the market levels.
Thus far, the seed treatment
discussion has focused on lindane appli-
cation to the major use crops -- small
grains and corn; however, approximately
3 percent of the lindane seed treatment
formulations are applied to lentils and
dry peas. In 1976, 100 percent of the
U.S. production of these crops was
located in Idaho and Washington.
Approximately 85 percent of the lentil
acreage and 100 percent of the dry pea
acreage is planted with lindane-treated
seed to reduce wireworm damage. As
with the small grains, there are no
alternatives to lindane seed treatments,
and the yield impacts associated with
uncontrolled wirewor m infestations are
not available. Because of the high
percentage of treatment on these crops,
possible cancellation of lindane seed
treatments on lentils and dry peas could
result in major economic impacts at the
user and market levels. These minor
crops should be protected.
Limitations of the Analysis
The economic impacts of the
possible cancellation of lindane seed
treatments were not quantified because
of severe data limitations. These limi-
tations include:
1) A lack of data indicating the
distribution, frequency of infestation,
and extent of damage and yield loss by
geographic area and crop associated with
each seed pest.
2) A lack of data concerning the
efficacy of lindane (and comparative
efficacy of alternatives where applica-
ble) in preventing seed pest damage.
Summary
Only lindane and diazinon have
current seed treatment registrations
that will control more than one insect.
Heptachior has several seed treatment
registrations, but has been canceled and
is being phased-out as of September 1,
1982. About 75 percent of the lindane
is used on small grains, as a seed
treatment, and there is no registered
alternative. Lindane is the only regis-
tered insecticide, for use as a seed
treatment, on the minor crops, such as
peas, beans, sunflowers, lentils, and
vegetables, and major crops including
sorghum and sugarbeets. The only
alternatives for corn are a planter-box
treatment with diazinon (seedcorn maggot
and seedcorn beetle only, not wireworms)
and chiorpyrifos (Dursbanฎ) for seed-
corn maggot only (not seedcorn beetle
and wireworms).
47
-------
CHAPTER 4
BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF LINDANE
USE ON COMMERCIAL FOREST LAND
Current Use Analysis
EPA Registrations of Lindane
and Alternatives
Registrations of lindane can be
found for forest pests under several
names. Table 25 lists these pests,
along with any other chemical also reg-
istered for control. RPARd compounds
are clearly designated. The sites
involved are pine and/or conifer trees.
Recommendations for Use
of Lindane and Alternatives
Federal Guidelines for bark beetles
include lindane for 10 of the 11 species
included. Lindane is the only recom-
mended chemical for 4 of these. Ethyl-
ene dibromide (EDB) [ RPAR], which is
restricted to logs only, is the only
alternative suggested. Use of EDB is
limited to Federal or State cooperative
projects only (259).
Table 26 lists the chemicals recom-
mended by the States for the control of
these pests. Only those States with
recommendations on file with EPA are
included.
All States with chemical recom-
mendations on file mention Lindane for
control of at least one of these pests.
BHC is named instead of lindane for
black turpentine beetle in Georgia;
but all BHC registrations are being
changed over to lindane, as previously
discussed.
Details on recommended rates and
when to apply the chemical are found
in references 2,10.41,74,76,130,134,147,
178,191,244.
Commercial Forest Land
Use of Lindane and Alternatives
Description of Control Methods
Infestation detection . - -Detection of
a beetle infestation is usually accom-
plished in one of two ways: 1) ground
visual inspection, or 2) aerial visual
inspection. Ground inspectors generally
look for signs of attack, such as pitch
Pest
Table 25.--Current registrations for forest beetles, October 1977
- ________ Registered chemicals 1
Bark beetles
Black turpentine beetle
Douglas-fir beetle
Engelmann spruce beetle
Fir engraver beetle
Ips beetles
Jeffrey pine beetle
Mountain pine beetle
Pine bark beetle
Southern pine beetle
Turpentine beetles
1/ Lindane also includes BHC.
Source: EPA (300).
lindane, end osulfan
lindane
lindane, EDE ERPAR), cacodylic acid ERPAR]
EDB ERPARI
lindane
lindane
lindane, EDB ERPAR]
lindane, EDB ERPAR], cacodylic acid [ RPAR]
lindane, EDB [ RPAR]
lindane, cacodylic acid ERPAR],
dicrotophos (Bidrinฎ)
lindane
48
-------
Table 26.--State suggestions for chemical control of forest beetles
Pest Ala.
State
Ark.
Fla.
Ga.
La.
Md.
Mich.
Miss.
N.C.
Pa.
S.C.
Tex.
Southern pine
beetle
1/
L
BHC
L
L
BHC
L
L
L
-
L
L
-
L
BHC
L
Black turpentine
beetle
L
BHC
-
L
BHC
BHC
-
-
-
-
-
-
L
L
Ips engraver
beetle
L
-
L
BHC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
L
Bark beetles
-
L
-
-
L
T
-
L
M
-
L
L
BHC
L
Ips beetles
-
-
-
L
-
BHC
1/ L = Lindane; M = methoxychior; T Thiodanฎ.
tubes on the trunk of the tree and
boring dust on the ground around the
tree base. Aerial inspectors look for
discoloration of the foliage to signal
infestations.
Once an outbreak area is discov-
ered, any of the control methods may be
employed, depending upon accessibility
and weather conditions.
Chemical controls.--When a tree is
to be sprayed with chemicals it is
first felled, bucked into logs, and then
sprayed. Care is taken to ensure that
all of the trunk area and all limbs over
2 inches in diameter are sprayed to the
point of runoff. All logs must be
turned several times or jackstrawed when
felled to ensure that all of the trunk
area has been treated.
This control method is effective
only if the spraying is done when the
beetles are present. Aerial detection
methods fail to detect most infestations
early enough for spraying to be effec-
tive in controlling populations of
insects. By the time the change in
foliage color is observable, the beetles
have left the tree.
Cacodylic acid ERPAR] has been used
as an indirect chemical control method.
Cacodylic acid is a herbicide and is
used to kill trap trees. Pheromones are
used to attract the beetles to trees
that have been treated with cacodylic
acid. The acid kills the trees before
the beetles are able to complete their
life cycle, thus reducing the larvae
population by depriving them of a food
source.
Silvicultural controls.-Forest man-
agement practices can be used to prevent
an insect infestation in the future or
to suppress an existing infestation.
Practices designed to prevent
insect damage include the following:
1) Growing trees On favorable
sites, where soil conditions and micro-
climate factors are conducive to
healthy, vigorous trees.
2) Growing more than one species
in a single stand. A mixed stand coinpo-
sition would offer fewer host trees per
49
-------
acre, restricting food and breeding
sites for attacking insects. It would,
however, be less economically desirable
at time of harvest.
3) Thinning the stand to avoid
densities that cause stress. Dense,
overstocked stands lead to a decline in
vigor, and these conditions apparently
increase susceptibility to insect infes-
tations.
4) Removing weak, damaged trees
from stands. This can be a part of a
thinning operation or on an individual
tree basis.
5) Harvesting trees when they are
mature. Overmature trees decline in
growth and vigor, thus increasing
susceptibility to attack.
6) Preventing, as much as possi-
ble, injury to remaining trees during
thinning and harvesting operations.
Damage such as scraped bark and broken
limbs can lead to stress in the tree and
also serve as magnets during epidemics.
Suppression techniques deal with
trees that have already become infested.
Silvicultural practices used to contain
the infestation include:
1) Commercial removal of infested
trees. Trees showing evidence of cur-
rent infestation are marked and offered
for a salvage sale. The buyer immedi-
ately logs out these trees and hauls
them to the mill, where they are
debarked. This lessens the threat to
the rest of the stand and allows the
infested trees to be used.
2) Piling and burning of infested
material. Where areas of infestation
are too small for profitable sales, the
infested trees may be felled, limbed,
piled, and burned (burning subject to
local and State laws).
3) Cutting and leaving infested
trees. Where burning is not possible,
the felled trees may simply be left in
the forest.
Each of these methods endeavors to
kill the tree before the larvae can
develop fully and complete their life
cycle. Disruption of the life cycle
reduces the insect population. The
methods differ in their approach to dis-
posal or use of the tree after felling.
Salvage, of course, provides some
revenue from the sale of trees. It also
usually involves higher costs for log-
ging operations due to road construction
and configuration of the harvest area.
The other methods involve the cost of
felling trees and sometimes the burning
of the wood. The latter two methods are
less costly than salvage, and sometimes
can be carried out when salvage is not
feasible due to inaccessibility of the
infestation area.
Federally Sponsored Use
USDAs Forest Service reported use
includes applications on National Forest
land and on other forested areas covered
by Federal/State cooperative funds.
Over 1,700 pounds of lindane (a.i.)
were reported used by the Forest Service
in this manner, for the 15-month period
of fiscal 1976 and transition quarter
(table 27). The greatest reported use
was for bark beetle control. This use
is given twice in the table, because
some regional personnel report number
of acres containing trees treated, and
others report actual number of trees
treated. Mountain pine beetle (616
pounds a.i.) and southern pine beetle
(202 pounds a.i.) were identified
separately, part of a total of 1,379
pounds a.i. for all bark beetles. The
only other insect of any importance, in
terms of pounds of lindane use, was the
balsam woolly aphid (304 pounds a.i.).
Other Use
Lindane use on private forest land,
not included in cooperative projects,
could not be determined. Little use of
chemicals on public commercial forest
land was reported in the Rocky Mountain
and Pacific Coast States. Silvicultural
practices are the most prevalent forms
of control used in the West.
Table 28 shows the amounts of
lindane (and BHC) used in southern
commercial forests in 1976. Only those
States reporting actual use of the
chemical that year are included. The
last column shows the amount of lindane
50
-------
Table 27.-USDAs Forest Service use of lindane, July 1975-September 1976 1!
Forest Service
Per mittee/G rantee
State-Private
Totals
unit
lb
unit
lb
unit
lb
Insect
treated
a.i.
treated
a.i.
treated
a.i.
lb a.i.
Meristem
feeder
-
-
-
-
9 acres
12
12.0
Sapsucking
insects
-
-
-
10 acres
2
2.0
Bark beetles
5,126 acres
89.0
55,000 acres
416
505.0
Bark beetles
2,150 trees
11.0
-
540 trees
45
56.0
Southern pine
beetle
12,106 trees
202.0
202.0
Mountain pine
beetle
5,950 trees
484.0
4,716 acres
132
616.0
Balsam woolly
aphid
10,510 trees
304.0
304.0
Weevils
-
-
-
2,400 trees
7
7.0
Fir cone worm
45 acres
0.4
-
-
-
0.4
Structural
insects
2
600 ft
3.0
1 site
3
6.0
Total
1,093.4
3
614
1,710.4
1/ Forest Service cooperative projects
Source: USDA, FS, 1977 (281).
with State and private forest landowners.
Table 28.--Estimated usage of lindane (gamma isomer of BHC)
in southern commercial forests, 1976
State
Minimum
pounds
a.i. used
BHC!/
Lindane
Total
Arkansas
0
45
45
Georgia
803
218
1.021
North Carolina
Total
186
1
1,046
1,309
1,232
2,298
1/ Pounds active ingredient.
Sources: Doggett, 1977 (52);
Northum, 1977 (180).
assuming that
at the present
are considered
Godbee, 1977 (84); and
Ethylene dibrornide ERPARI is
generally restricted to Federal/State
cooperative projects. The USDAs For-
est Service reported 17,534 pounds a.i.
used in FY 76, for control of mountain
pine beetle only.
that would be used,
chemical use continues
level (lindane and BHC
the same compound).
Use of Alternatives
Endosulfan, which is registered for
logs only, was not reported used on any
commercial forest land in 1976.
States that
lindane or BHC
not been using
did not report use of
in 1976 generally have
chemical controls for
51
-------
the past few years (161,209). In Texas,
for example, chemicals comprised only 2
percent of all control efforts in 1975;
cut-and-leave was the most prevalent
method used in that year.
Choice of Site/Pest Combinations
for Analysis
Major insect pests of conifers
for which lindane is registered are
described in the following section
titled: Performance Evaluation of Lin-
dane and Alternatives - Pest Damage and
Infestation. Only those pests that were
considered to be economically important
are included in the remainder of the
benefit analysis. This judgment was
based on one or more of the following
criteria: 1) Status reported by the
Forest Service (281); 2) opinions of
Forest Service entomologists in regional
offices; 3) opinions of various State
forestry entomologists; and 4) lack of
registered chemical alternatives.
Performance Evaluation of Lindane
and Alternatives
Pest Damage and Infestation
Bark beetles ( Dendroctonus and in )
destroy the cambium layer Of a tree,
where new cells are formed for bark and
sapwood. Without the ability to produce
new cells, the tree dies. In addition,
blue stain fungus may enter the tree
through the tunnels created by the bark
beetles. This permanently discolors the
wood.
For 1974, the Forest Service iden-
tified the southern pine beetle as one
of the three most important insect pests
of trees in the East, increasing espe-
cially in Georgia, North and South Caro-
lina, Virginia, and Tennessee. For the
West, several species of bark beetles
(both Dendroctonus and .Lp. .) were among
the top three insect posts. These beetles
were considered the most important in-
sect pests in Forest Service Regions 2,
3, 4, and 8 which include the central-
southwestern and southeastern United
States. Heavy losses were attributed to
bark beetles in Region 1 (Montana),
where the mountain pine beetle was
identified as the most destructive bark
beetle. The defoliators, Such as the
western budworm and the Douglas-fir
tussock moth, competed for attention in
Region 1 and in Region 5 (California).
In Region 6 (Washington-Oregon), infes-
tations were confined mostly to eastern
Oregon, where the mountain pine beetle
and fir engraver caused serious damage
(281).
Conversations with Forest Service
and State forest entomologists Confirmed
the same pattern for 197677 (53,101).
The objective in forest insect con-
trol is to prevent or Suppress epidemic
outbreaks of injurious insects, and to
prevent their spread. It is best not to
disturb normal infestations of native
insects, for there is small hope of
exterminating them, and the complicated
factors that hold the species in balance
may be disrupted. The objective in bark
beetle control is to prevent or suppress
the development of a large beetle popu-
lation, and at the same time encourage
natural control agents to restore a
natural balance (116).
The control of forest insects is a
vast undertaking. Control problems may
be approached in at least three differ-
ent ways: (a) by such direct remedial
methods as destroying the insects by
burning, drowning, or poisoning; (b) by
silvicultural methods that modify the
physical or nutritional forest condi-
tions, to change temperature, moisture,
or food supply; and (c) by biological
methods that alter conditions, to
increase the numbers of natural para-
sitic or predaceous enemies. It is
often necessary to utilize more than one
of these approaches to solve some forest
insect problems.
Forest management practices that
exclude chemicals are usually preferred
for control of forest insect pests.
Where epidemic or certain localized con-
ditions exist, chemical control methods
are usually used. Prompt salvage of
infested trees often is the most practi-
cal method of control for bark beetle.
52
-------
Infested trees should be removed from
the stand, preferably before new broods
of beetles emerge, or when the trees are
first attacked and the scope of the
infestation is limited. This will
reduce the number of insects in the
stand and help to protect the remaining
trees from attack. In addition, if
the trees are removed before fungi
cause widespread wood staining and
decay, they may be sold for pulpwood
or saw timber. If infested trees are
allowed to remain in the stand, an even
greater number of trees may be destroyed
by the next generation of beetles. When
salvage is not possible, beetles may
be destroyed by cutting, piling, and
burning (116).
The bark beetles are considered to
be major insect pests of forests. The
term bark beetle is applied to a group
of small beetles belonging to the family
Scolytidae. Destruction is caused by
the western pine beetle, Dendroctonus
brevicomis LeConte; the mountain pine
beetle, D. ponderosae Hopkins; the
Douglas-fir beetle, D. pseudotsugae
Hopkins; the black turpentine beetle, D.
terebrans (Olivier); the southern pine
beetle, 13. frontalis Zimmermann; the
Jeffrey pine beetle, D. jeffreyi Hop-
kins; the red turpentine beetle, D.
valens LeConte; the spruce beetle, D.
rufipennis (Kirby). Other bark beetles
that cause destruction are several
species of the pine engraver beetles,
including the fir engraver, Scolytus
ventralis LeConte; and the jj engraver
beetles, such as the small southern pine
engraver, avulsus (Eichhoff); the
California fivespined ips; I. confusus
(LeConte); and the pine engraver, 1.
pini (Say).
The pine beetles belonging to the
genus Dendroctonus are by far the most
destructive of the bark beetles that
attack conifer trees in North America.
All species breed under the thick bark
of the trunk of living or dying trees,
or in fresh stumps or logs of various
conifers. Some species prefer felled,
weak, or dying conifers, whereas others
apparently prefer normal healthy trees
(116).
The adult Dendroctonus beetles are
stout, cylindrical, dark, reddish-brown
to black bark beetles ranging from 1/8
to about 3/8 inch long. The eggs,
larvae, and pupae are similar to those
of other bark beetles. These beetles
are monogamous in habit, and each pair
constructs a single egg gallery which,
starting from the outside, penetrates to
the cambium and extends between the bark
and wood. Egg galleries differ in that
some wind in a tortuous manner, crossing
and recrossing the galleries made by
other pairs of beetles, whereas others
are straight and parallel to the grain
of the wood. Dendroctonus egg galleries
are always packed with boring dust,
except for an inch or two at the end
where the beetles are working. This
will distinguish the work of the
Dendroctonus beetles from that of other
groups of bark beetles (116).
Trees attacked by the Dendroctonus
beetles can first be distinguished by
reddish boring dust caught in bark
flakes or crevices, and around the base
of the tree, or by pitch tubes that form
on the bark at the mouth of the entrance
tunnels. In heavily attacked or deca-
dent trees, however, pitch tubes often
are either missing or they are so small
that they can be seen only from a short
distance. Later discoloration of the
foliage is a more noticeable evidence of
attack. The most conclusive evidences
of attack are the egg and larval gal-
leries on the inner surface of the bark.
These form a pattern so characteristic
for the work of each species that, when
considered with locality and host tree,
identification of the species responsi-
ble for the attack is relatively simple
(116).
Four of the Dendroctonus species
deserve special attention. The southern
pine beetle and the black turpentine
beetle are common pests in the South,
where BHC and/or lindane has been used
for control. The mountain pine beetle
and the western pine beetle, although
important pests in the West are not
currently being controlled commercially
by chemicals on forest land. The
mountain pine beetle is a serious pest
53
-------
in Colorado, and chemical controls are
being used In a cooperative resldential/
State program (local program).
The southern pine beetle CD.
frontalis ) has been recognized as a
major pest; it reached epidemic levels
in east Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana,
southeast Oklahoma, and Mississippi in
1976. Eastern Texas reported 11,000
spots of 10 trees or more, twice the
number reported the previous year.
Thirty-six counties were declared disas-
ter areas because of the beetle damage,
and yet southern pine beetle populations
declined throughout the Atlantic Coastal
Plain and Piedmont regions, and the
southern Appalachian Mountains. In some
localized parts of the central Appala-
chian Mountains, however, populations
remained at high levels (279).
In the United States, the southern
pine beetle ranges from Maryland to
Texas. It attacks all yellow pines, and
also white pine, spruce pine, red pine,
and red spruce. Attack is frequently
unsuccessful on white pine, usually
because of heavy exudation of pitch.
When southern pine beetles attack red
spruce, they excavate short tunnels
and soon die. Shortleaf, loblolly,
Virginia, and pitch pines appear to be
preferred to slash and longleaf (124).
The black turpentine beetle also
attacks all southern pines, but the most
severe attacks have occurred in stands
of slash pine and loblolly pine and, to
a lesser degree, longleaf pine. It has
been found killing trees from Texas to
Virginia, and southward toward Florida.
The beetle most commonly kills less than
10 percent of the stand during a single
season, but on several occasions in
north Florida and south Georgia It
killed more than 25 percent of the stand
in a single season. It appears that
these widespread activities of the
beetle may be associated with low tree
vigor resulting from drought (225).
Preshly cut stumps are usually pre-
ferred by the black turpentine beetle
for breeding; freshly cut logs are
rarely attacked The beetle also shows
a preference for weakened trees, such
as those damaged by fire, worked for
naval stores, or attacked by other
bark beetles; however, it can severely
attack apparently normal, healthy trees.
Beetles usually attack the basal 36
inches of trees, although scattered
attacks t.o a height of about 6 feet are
common. The low basal attack is common
to slash and longleaf pine in the South-
east. In the western Gulf States,
attacks extend higher, especially in
loblolly pine, which is frequently
attacked to a height of 12 feet. A
majority of the attacks are made on
trees already weakened by beetles.
Attacks on a tree usually last 4 to 7
months, but periods of 12 months or more
have been recorded. Shortly after the
attack has started on the trunk of the
tree, attacks are made on the large
lateral roots. These increase somewhat
proportionately with the trunk attacks.
Root attacks may eventually become nu-
merous, which hastens the death of the
tree, and may be a source of a con sider-
able number of beetles to start the next
generation. Attacks are most frequent
in stands disturbed by fire, logging,
climatic conditions, outbreaks of other
insects, or naval stores operations.
The beetle seldom persists at a high
population for more than a year or two
under the first three conditions; how-
ever, where naval stores operations are
taking place, attacks may continue for 3
to 5 years if not properly controlled.
The beetle has a tendency to work slowly
and persistently through the year. Only
rarely does the population build up
quickly enough to cause areas of sudden
high mortality. Inasmuch as dying trees
In the Southeast deteriorate rapidly, a
casual observer could easily be misled
Into minimizing the seriousness of the
damage caused by the insects (225).
The western pine beetle ( Dendroc
tonus brevicomis ) confines Its attacks
o Uie main trunk of ponderosa and coul-
te r pines. Rarely does it go into tops
or small trees less than 6 inches in
diameter, or into limbs. The beetle may
attack other, pines under exceptional
conditions, but it is unable to breed
successfully In such trees. The range
54
-------
of this native bark beetle closely
approximates the range of ponderosa
pine west of the Rocky Mountains
(117).
The mountain pine , D.
ponderosae , is found over a wide
range from the Pacific coast east-
ward through the Black Hills, and from
southern British Columbia and Alberta
southward through northern Mexico.
Western white pine, sugar pine, and
lodgepole pine are preferred hosts,
but mountain pine beetle, sometimes
causes extensive killing of ponderosa,
white bark pine, and limber pine
(235).
In 1976, the western pine beetle
population increased in California in
late fall following drought conditions.
Heavy infestations were reported in
central Oregon. The mountain pine
beetle caused heavy mortality In lodge-
pole and ponderosa pine over 4.2 million
acres. The most significant areas of
Infestation were in western Montana,
Yellowstone National Park, southern
Idaho, eastern Oregon, and the Black
Hills of South Dakota. Infestations were
increasing In Wyoming and Utah, and
scattered Infestations were reported
In California, northern Arizona, and
New Mexico (279).
Smaller species of bark beetles,
which work In the trunks and larger
branches of pine and construct egg
galleries that radiate from a central
nuptial chamber and form distinctive
patterns, are frequently referred to as
the pine engraver beetles. These belong
to , Pityogenes, Orthotonicus , and
related genera (116).
Comparative Performance Evaluation
Lindane is generally accepted as
the most effective chemical for control
of bark beetles (210). It is used as
the standard against which the perform-
ance of other chemicals Is measured In
experiments Involving new pesticides.
In addition, it compares favorably with
other chemicals In terms of cost and
ease of applicatIon (22).
There is considerable controversy
over the effectiveness of chemical con-
trol compared with silviculture. Some
forest experts contend that preventive
techniques, such as thinning, may pro-
vide adequate control.
Problems with nonchemical con-
trols . --Silvicultural control methods
used for suppression have definite
limitations. Cutting and leaving
increases the amount of debris in the
forest, which increases fire hazard.
Piling and burning usually does not
involve this same risk, but this control
method might not be possible in States
that have restrictions on burning. Cut-
and-burn is not advisable for control
under very dry conditions.
If the area for the salvage sale is
small or if the trees to be removed are
widely scattered, commercial removal of
timber may not be possible. Heavy
logging equipment could not be used, for
fear of damaging surrounding trees and
creating new potential sites of beetle
attack. The timber owner might not be
able to find a buyer for a salvage sale,
because large volume is desired to
offset the cost of bringing a crew and
special equipment to the site. In addi-
tion, if the beetle infestation is so
heavy and widespread that a large amount
of logging must be done to remove
infested and vulnerable trees, local
mills may be so overstocked with logs
that they cannot handle any more. This
lack of mill capacity would defeat the
purpose of salvage logging, because
prompt utilization of Infested logs is
an essential part of the control method.
Climate may also be a factor; when heavy
rains interrupt harvest schedules,
beetle populations increase and spread.
The logistics of cutting and , hauling
infested material within the brief time
span necessary for control may be over-
whelming (249).
There may be an additional problem
with salvage sales, if the forest mana-
ger wants to replant the cleared area
with intolerant species such as Douglas-
fir and southern pines. Reproduction of
these commercially desirable species
55
-------
will succeed only if the entire stand is
opened up, so the seedlings get full
light. Thus, harvesting of beetle-
infested timber as the only means of
control of bark beetles may not be very
reliable.
Conclusions of efficacy.--No single
method of control, by itself, will pro-
vide adequate control. The method used
by the forest manager is cho n after a
careful consideration of all factors.
The control method may be efficacious
in, a limited situation or area, but no
comparison can be made of all control
methods for all situations at all times.
The use of lindane is an essential tool
for the forest manager to use, if a
need arises.
Use Impact Analysis
Given the epidemic nature of these
insects, it is Impractical to project
future chemical use. If lindane Is no
longer available, less chemical use may
occur unless suitable substitutes are
registered. If lindane registration is
continued, use of this chemical may
decline if the beetle populations remain
at a low level and cause no economic
problems.
Economic Impact Analysis
Profile of Impact Areas
One-third of the total land area
of the United States was classified as
forest land In 1970, the most recent
year for which relevant data are avail-
able. Over one-fifth of the Nations
area was termed commercial forest land,
defined by the Forest Serivce as land
capable of producing continuous crops
of sawlogs or other timber products,
at a rate of at least 20 cubic feet
of timber per year and suitable for
harvest at the present or some future
time (273). Thus, commercial forest
land does not have to have trees on
it, but merely must have the ability to
sustain the specified level of growth
of commercial species--types of trees
containing wood for which there is some
market value.
Commercial forest land may be
considered in several ways: by species
type, ownership class, and geographic
area. This preliminary analysis was de-
veloped in accordance with the four geo-
graphic regions organized by the Forest
Service (273). The regions are: North,
South, Rocky Mountain, and Pacific. The
Black Hills area of South Dakota was
placed in the Rocky Mountain region,
apparently because of its forest type.
Species type.--Over half of the
commercial forest land in 1970 was
planted in eastern hardwood, whereas
softwood--both eastern and western--
covered slightly more than 40 percent.
About 4 percent of the land was
unstocked, that is, no commercial timber
species were growing on it. It is normal
to have some unstocked acres, because of
the time lag between harvest and the
establishment of the new forest, either
by natural or artificial regeneration.
Western softwood, covering 21 per-
cent of the acres, made up 48 percent of
the volume. Eastern and western soft-
wood covered 41 percent of the acres,
yet the volume of softwood growing stock
in the West alone made up 45 percent of
the total volume, or 61 percent when
combined with southern softwood volume.
One of the main reasons for this is the
amount of old growth timber, with its
massive volume per tree still to be cut
in the Pacific Northwest.
Ownership classes.--Owners of com-
mercial forest land are divided into
four categories: Federal, other public,
forest industry, and other private.
Federal : This usually refers to the
Forest Service, managers of the National
Forests. Total Federal ownership also
includes land. administered by the Bureau
of Land Management (BLM), the Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA), and small holdings
by other, Unspecified offices (273).
Other Public : This includes county
and municipal, as well as State land.
Much of this land had been privately
owned and poarly managed. It was proba-
bly acquired by the State or county
56
-------
government by abandonment or tax delin-
quency. Much of it is understocked or
has less desirable species.
Forest Industry : This class is
made up of large corporations with ex-
tensive interests throughout the forest
products industry. Among the best known
are Weyerhaeuser, Boise-Cascade, Georgia
Pacific, and Union Camp. These corpora-
tions commonly own forest land in both
the South and the Pacific Northwest.
Other Private : 1he largest owner-
ship class in the United States is
comprised of farm and miscellaneous
owners, numbering more than 4 mIllion
people. The average holding in 1970 was
71 acreS. Almost half of the 298 mil-
lion acres were in the South (table 28).
Few generalizations can be made
about these owners. The nonfarm owners
Include business and professional people
who inherited the land or bought it
possibly for speculative purposes,
housewives, wage and salary workers
who may or may not live near the land,
railroad and mining companies, other
corporations such as public utilities,
and various other occupation groups.
Many have no training In forestry,
and have neither the interest nor the
ability to invest in forest management
activities that would improve their
timber production. Many have nontimber
objectives for the land, such as
recreation, wildlife, aesthetics, and/or
speculation. Many who are willing to
sell their timber are not ready to
undertake stand Improvement practices.
In 1970, only an estimated one-fourth of
these owners sought advice in marketing
or forest management through the
generous Federal and State assistance
programs that were available (273).
Although this ownership group
produced 48 percent of the net annual
growth o softwoods and 72 percent of
hardwood growth, It could produce
much more. Present inventory (1970) on
nonindustrial private commercial forest
land is probably less than half (48 pct)
of what the land Is capable of growing
(83).
Table 29.-Acres
of commercial forest land by ownership,
and United States, 1970
South
Ownership!
Percent of
South South U.S .
South/U.S.
Ratio
National Forests
1,000 Acres
10,764 91,924
BLM
11 4,762
BIA
220 5,888
,Other
3,282 4,534
Total Federal
14,277 7.4 107,108
13.3
State
2,321 21,423
County, Municipal
681 7,589
Total other Public
3,002 1.6 29,012
10.3
Industry
35,325 18.3 67,341
52.5
Farm
65,137 131,135
Miscellaneous Private
74,801 165,101
Total other Private
139,938 72.7 296,236
47.2
Total, All Ownerships
192,542 100.0 499,697
38.5
1/ BLM = Bureau of Land Management; BIA
Source: USDA, 1974 (273).
= Bureau of Indian Affairs.
57
-------
Table 30.--Southern pine species of economic importance
Pine species
(Pinus)
Usual
height(ft)
Diameter
(dbh,ft)
ii Commercial uses
Special
characteristics
Longleaf
100-200
2-2 1/2
Naval stores, masts,
Heavy, very hard,
(P. palustris)
bridges, railroad ties,
railroad cars, fencing,
flooring, fuel, charcoal,
interior finishing
durable wood
Loblolly
100
2-3
Construction lumber,
, coarse-grained,
(P. taeda)
interior finish
not durable wood
Pond
70
2
Lumber, pulpwood
Very resinous, heavy,
( . rigida var.
soft wood
serotina)
Shortle f
(P. echinata)
80-100
2-3
Lumber
Variable quality wood,
heavy, hard, strong
Slash
100
23
Naval stores, lumber,
Heavy, very hard,
(P. elliottii)
railroad ties
strong, durable wood
Pitch
60
2-3
Fuel, charcoal, lumber
Light, soft, brittle,
(P. rigida)
very durable wood,
not strong
1/ dbh = diameter at breast height.
Sources: Sargent, 1949 (213); USDA,
Geographic areas.-North : In 1970,
54 percent of the hardwood volume, but
only 9 percent of the softwood volume,
was on northern commercial forest land.
Inasmuch as the insects with lindane
registrations and forest use are not
commonly found in the North, and are
pests only of softwood, the emphasis of
this analysis will be on the Southern
and Western regions.
South : This is considered one of
the primary timber-producing regions of
the United States; almost 63 percent of
the land area of Florida, Georgia, the
Carolinas, and Virginia is forest land
(273). Climate is conducive to rapid
growth, and with genetic improvement of
pine species, the rotation period is
being shortened to as little as 30
years.
Over 38 percent of the forest land
in 1970 was In this region (table 29).
Southern pines, the host group of trees
for the southern pine beetle and black
undated (271).
turpentine beetle, make up an important
species group. This term refers mainly
to loblolly, slash, ion gleaf, pond, and
shortleaf pines. The wood of these
trees Is moderately heavy, hard,
strong, and relatively shock-resistant.
Southern pines have a variety of uses;
building materials and pulpwood are the
most common (271). They are the only
renewable source of turpentine and
rosin, derivatives of crude gum (naval
stores). Table 30 describes the major
southern pines. This species group made
up over 63 percent of the total eastern
softwood inventory in 1970 (273).
More acres of commercial forest
land were in nonindustry private owner-
ship in this region than in any other.
Less acres were held by other public
owners (State, County, municipal). Only
about 7 percent of the forest land was
in National Forests (table 29).
Between 1982 and 1970, the number
of acres of Commercial forest land in
58
-------
small private ownership declined by
8,721,000 acres. Forest industry
holdings increased by 1,256,000 acres,
much of it purchased from small private
owners no longer interested or able to
retain the land. Much o1 the small
private holdings was cleared for agri-
cultural use, urban growth, reservoirs,
roads, and other nonforest uses (273).
This large withdrawal of land from
commercial forest use is in part
responsible for the increase in removal
of timber from 1962 to 1970. If an
acre of trees is changed from commer-
cial to recreational forest use, for
example, this counts as timber removal,
even though no trees have been cut.
Total annual removal of growing stock
in the South increased almost 44 percent
from 1962 to 1970. In 1962, removal in
this region made up 35 percent of the
total United States removal. By 1970
the Souths portion was 42 percent
(273).
Rocky Mountain : Climate and topog-
raphy limit this regions potential for
commercial forests. Much of the land Is
considered semiarid, and there are many
high elevations and steep slopes.
Management practices, including thinning
and logging, are difficult in the rugged
terrain, and large forested areas are
often inaccessible for several months In
winter. Most of the forested land Is
used for recreation or aesthetics. No
report of lindane use In commercial
forests was found for this region.
Pacific : Only California, Oregon,
and Washington are included In this
analysis. Hawaii does not have enough
timber volume or acres to be signifi-
cant, and Alaska does not appear to have
bark beetle problems.
Western Washington, western Oregon,
and northern California have a mild
climate with adequate rainfall and few
temperature extremes. The soil is gen-
arally rich and vegetation is plentiful.
Most commercial forest managers take
steps to keep hardwood from growing, to
release the land for the more profitable
conifer species.
Bark beetles appear to be a problem
only in central and southern California,
where the climate is drier. Lindane
was not reported in use in commercial
forests in this area.
Assumptions of the Analysis
The assessment of economic benefits
of lindane use in timber production is
based on several assumptions:
1) States with U.S. Department of
Agriculture personnel who responded
affirmatively to the questionnaire on
lindane use are the only ones presently
using lindans and interested in con-
tinuing its use. State Forestry
Department personnel were not contacted
on the Initial survey, and probably
should be contacted for their recommen-
dations, to confirm the above.
2) Future use of chemicals will be
for the same purposes as present lindane
use. Lindane is currently viewed as a
last resort, a chemical means of control
when all other measures are ineffective
or not feasible.
3) Lesser efficacy of chemical
alternatives (for timber production)
would increase spraying costs and quan-
tity of chemical used, because insect
populations would Increase if lindane
were not available for control.
User Impacts
Reported use of lindane in commer-
cial forests in 1976 was found. for only
three States--Arkansas, Georgia, and
North Carolina. Specific locations
within the State and ownerships involved
could not be determined.
At the present time, lindane is
most commonly considered to be a backup
method, useful when other chemical con-
trol methods fail or cannot be applied.
If lindane is not available, chemical
control of insects will probably cease.
A more restricted set of control meth-
ods, resulting from the 1088 of lindane
may increase insect damage. The degree
of this increase could not be estimated
because of the sporadic nature -of insect
outbreaks and a lack of knowledge about
pine beetle population dynamics.
59
-------
Seed Orchards
Impacts resulting from the loss of
lindane are expected to fall most heavily
on private forest land owners with
comparatively small acreage, rather than
on industry and public owners. These
small private owners cannot afford to
lose several acres to beetle attack, as
the large companies or National Forest
System does, because they have no
reserve to fall back on. Every acre
is important to them, and although no
data could be found to substantiate the
assumption, it is believed that these
owners rely on chemical control rather
than on silviculture to proteOt as much
as they candQ!
Limitations of the Analysis
No projections were made for future
levels of insect infestation. Use of
lindane by scattered, individual owners
of commercial forest land could not be
determined. Use of lindane on experi-
mental plots was not included. Data on
lindane use in three Southern States
could not be disaggregated for analysis
of impact of regulatory action con-
cernin g continued lind ane registration.
Years other than the most recently
reported were not included, as in many
cases data were not available, and may
show a different impact. Chemicals not
currently registered were not included
as alternatives, even though some do
have experimental use permits. If tests
show that chemicals, such as chiorpyri-
fos (Dursban 0 ), are more satisfactory,
use of these may increase.
Although lindane is accepted as the
most effective chemical for control of
bark beetle populations, no study could
be found that indicated the quantity of
an alternative needed to provide the
same level of control. Also, no studies
were found to compare levels of control
using silvicultural practices. Cost
figures of using alternatives could not
be compiled without these data.
10/ ThIs applies only to those
small owners who manage their woodland
acres for timber production.
Use of Lindane and Alternatives
Use of Lindane
Lindane is used in seed orchards
in the South only when needed. It was
apparently not used for bark beetles in
seed orchards in 1976 (319), but has
been used on individual trees in Vir-
ginias State seed orchards and forest
industry orchards (159). Usually, lin-
dane in oil is sprayed on trees damaged
by some natural force, such as lightning
or ice. When a tree becomes a potential
target for southern pine beetle attack,
the orchard manager wants it treated
at once. When the beetle is actually
discovered in the orchard, the manager
wants something immediately available to
protect other trees within a quarter-
acre of the infested trees (319).
Use of Alternatives
Lindane is the only registered
chemical for use On living trees.
Although endosulfan is registered for
bark beetle control, it is not used
in seed orchards because the labels
restrict its use to felled trees or
logs. Similarly, the nonchemical con-
trol method of cutting and removing the
infested tree is not popular.
Seed orchard managers are concerned
with saving the tree before the level
of infestation reaches the point where
cutting is necessary. An investment of
$2.5 million Is needed to stock 400
acres for tree improvement, or $6,250
per acre for a seed orchard (87).
Production of Seed
There are about 10,000 acres of
seed orchards In the Southeast, all used
for seed production. More than 90 per-
cent of the stock is either slash or
loblolly pine; the latter Is by far the
most common. Slash pine seed yields
6,000 plantable seedlings per pound, and
loblolly yields 8,000 With production
averaging 30 to 40 pounds of seed per
orchard acre, each acre of loblolly seed
60
-------
trees could produce from 240,000 to
320,000 plantable seedlings annually.
With new forests being planted at a rate
of 800 seedlings per acre in the South,
this seed orchard acre could produce
enough to restock 300 to 400 new acres
of forest land each year (319). One
forest industry company is planning on
its 400 acres of seed orchard to supply
enough new stock to reforest its 1.1
million acres of forest land as the
present inventory is removed (89).
Purpose
Genetically improved seeds produce
trees that yield 15 percent more wood
per acre at time of harvest (319). Some
experts are predicting gains as high as
20 percent, or even more (43).
Trees from genetically improved
seeds also grow faster. The forest
industry in the South presently realizes
a pulpwood harvest in 25 years and a
sawtimber harvest in 35 years (319).
Increased demand for wood products
can be met on existing acres of
commercial forest land by increasing
productivity on land held by small
private owners. Restocking with geneti-
cally superior strains will be a
necessary part of meeting this future
demand. Small private owners might be
more enthusiastic about timber improve-
ment If they could realize a return
during their lifetime. The faster
growth rate of trees from improved seeds
would make this possible for many of
them. Increased volume from improved
seed would also make timber-growing more
attractive to the small owner.
Economic Impact Analysis
Profile of Impact Areas
Description of a seed orchard.- -
Seed orchards are part of forest manage-
ment practices to increase productivity
of commercial forest land. Genetically
superior trees are identified and care-
fully selected for traits such as insect
resistance, disease resistance, growth
rate, straightness of tritnic, and other
desirable inherited characteristics (43).
A reproductively mature twig from this
parent tree is grafted to a 1- or 2-
year-old seedling and planted in the
orchard. The graft usually starts pro-
ducing seed 5 to 6 years later. By age
10, the seed orchard usually is in full
production (319).
A typical orchard may have 30 to
40 superior trees represented. All
trees with grafts from the same superior
parent tree form a clone, and will
therefore perform identically. If one
tree fails to meet orchard standards,
all of the trees in that row will. The
two qualities sought by the seed orchard
manager are good seed production (by
the orchard tree) and progeny that grow
well in the forest. All trees that fail
to meet those criteria are removed. The
orchard manager does not want insects
to make this choice for him (319).
Seed orchards are found among
Federal, State, and forest industry
ownerships. Small private timber grow-
ers generally do not participate in
this activity. According to the Forest
Service, 36 percent of all seed orchard
acreage in 1973 was in State ownership,
21 percent in Federal, and 43 percent
in forest industry. Although seed
orchards were found in 34 States, 80
percent of the total acreage was in the
South (274).
Ultimate consumers of seed orchard
output are mostly forest managers,
although anyone can buy seed from pub-
lic seed orchards. Seeds collected in
industry orchards are usually retained
by the company for use in its own
nurseries, and either are used immedi-
ately or are stored for future use.
User Impacts
Because lindane is used on an
as-needed basis rather than routinely,
impact of regulatory action is diffi-
cult to assess for any year. With no
suitable alternative for control of
southern pine beetle in seed orchards,
an increase in beetle population would
make seed production more difficult.
61
-------
Seed orchards could probably survive
without lindane, but higher losses of
trees could be expected (319).
Loss of trees because of unavail-
ability of lindane would lower seed
orchard productivity. The effect of
this lower productivity on the price of
seeds is uncertain.
Wild seed, that is, seed obtained
from nonorchard trees, has been valued
at $35 to $50 per pound in the South.
Orchard seeds have been valued as high
as $1,000 per pound (133). The differ-
ence in price reflects the investment
costs behind the production of seed and
the value of increased volume the seed
will produce, in a shorter time span.
Thus, if production of seed is disrupted
by insect damage because lindane cannot
be used, the seed orchard could lose a
considerable amount of money. This loss
will vary in value according to the
amount of genetic improvement repre-
sented in the seed.
Market Impacts
Most seed orchard owners also own
nurseries, which are the primary mar-
ket for seed. Decreased seed output
because of insect damage due to non-
availability of lindane would have some
impact on nurseries. The most obvious
impact is lower production of seedlings.
As seeds are transferred from orchard to
nursery In an internal accounting, no
estimate on costs can be determined at
this time. This impact would be greatly
softened if techniques for propagating
new trees, such as tree cuttings, can be
perfected for production on a commercial
scale. If there Is any surplus seed in
good years, It might be stored for use
in years when insect damage is high.
Consumer Impacts
Without lindane to control southern
pine beetle, seed orchard managers would
face greater risk of insect damage.
Loss of a productive seed tree would
impact the ultimate consumer - the
forest land owner - within a short time.
Without lindane to protect the orchard
in years of high levels of insect infes-
, seed output may be limited to
good years. Plans for timber stand
Improvement or to replant following a
harvest would then depend on insect
population.
Seed orchards are only partly
substitutable. Seed source is very
important in reforestation projects.
Factors such as soil type, elevation,
and climate have much to do with how
well a tree grows. One strain may do
very well along the Georgia coast, but
very poorly farther inland. Conditions
at the seed source should match the con-
ditions where the resulting trees will
be planted. If a seed orchard cannot
produce much seed because lindane Is not
available to control insects, the forest
land owner may not obtain maximum
results if forced to use seedlings from
seeds produced at an orchard with dif-
ferent conditions.
Macroeconomic Impacts
The extent of macroeconomic impacts
cannot be determined at this time.
Limitations of the Analysis
Experimental seed orchard plots
were not investigated. Sources con-
tacted reported that seed orchard
managers do not keep detailed records
of each pesticide used. Projections for
future demand for timber or for future
levels of Insect infestation were not
made. Reports of lindane use on pests
(other than the southern pine beetle)
referred to In RPAR responses were not
found; thus, those insects could not be
included in the benefit analysis.
Naval Stores
Current Use of Lindane
No record of current use of lindane
(or BHC) was found for naval stores
producers. It is , however,
in light of the increase in turpentine
beetle infestation over the last 5
years, that some small quantity is
being used for this site/pest (322).
62
-------
The major reason for the low use of
this chemical appears to be cost, not
effectiveness of control. Formulated
BHC sold for approximately $3.00 per
gallon in 1974, but by 1977 the price
had risen to $8.75 per gallon (322).
Crude gum prices had not risen at a
comparable rate.
Use of lindane is not routine, as
the insect is not an ever-present prob-
lem. Also, the same amount Is not used
from year to year, and in some years gum
producers may not use any lindane.
Because individual trees are
treated as the need arises, a per-acre
estimate of use is difficult to derive.
In addition, total acres treated would
vary considerably, depending upon the
level of beetle infestation, the number
of trees being worked, the price and
availability of the pesticide, and the
profit margin for the producer for any
year in question.
Current Use of Alternatives
No use of alternatives was
reported. Endosulfan would not be used
because of its restriction to logs.
Logging activity is not recommended In a
stand being worked for gum because of
the possibility of injuring a producing
tree. Thus, silvicultural methods are
also not possible alternatives. With
the problem of beetle infestation, an
owner would either have to wait until
the end of the 5-year period of extrac-
tion, which would increase the chances
of loss of timber, or he would have
to log the entire stand early and lose
potential gum production.
Use Impact Analysis
BHC has been used in the past for
control of the black turpentine beetle
in stands being worked for naval stores.
As the only manufacturer of technical
BHC in the United States is no longer
making it, existing stocks of domes-
tically produced BHC may already be
exhausted. BHC is being made in
Mexico at the present time and can
be imported. This lack of competition
and the added transportation costs of
imported BHC, along with associated
administrative costs such as tariffs,
may explain the recent high cost of BHC
to the consumer.
When the lindane substitution for
BHC is implemented, use of BHC will
cease. Gum farmers may then start using
lindane, because it will be the only
chemical registered for control of black
turpentine beetle. Total costs of
using chemical control are not expected
to change.
Economic Impact Analysis
Profile of Impact Areas
In the United States, gum naval
stores producers are found only In the
Southeast, in the longleaf -slash pine
timber region. This includes the south-
eastern tip of Texas, the southern half
of Louisiana, the southeastern portion
of Mississippi, the southern portion of
Alabama, the southern half of Georgia,
the southwestern area of South Carolina,
and all of Florida except the south-
central tip. In 1983. 4,622 producers
were found in these seven States,
employing 16,000 workers and adding $22
million to the regional economy. By
1973, the number of producers had fallen
to 1,042 in four States, with only 3,600
workers (36). By 1976, 845 producers
were working trees In four States,
producing a crop valued at $5.6 million
(table 31).
The owner of naval stores trees
may work the trees himself, or he may
lease out the work, and be paid a
certain portion of the revenue by the
lessee. Holdings include forest indus-
try, State, and small private owners.
Holdings range in size from less than
1,000 to 130,000 trees; most are less
than 30,000 (4). In 1972, 70 percent
of the producers were small private
owners, who used their gum revenues to
supplement their income from row crops
(36). The industry is still character-
ized by seasonal, supplemental Income.
Table 32 shows the average value of gum
per producer. The high average for
63
-------
Table 31.--Gum production by States, calendar year 1976
Faces Land area Volume of gum
Value of
State Producers worked involved produced
gum
Number Number Acres Barrels.!! Dollars
Georgia 700 4,500,000 204,545 84,042.00 4,819,808.70
Florida 35 390,000 15,600 7,283.64
Mississippi 30 160,000 8,421 2,988.16 171,370.98
Alabama 80 132,000 6,600 2,465.23 141,380.94
Totals 845 5,182,000 235,166 96,779.03 5,550,277.37
1/ Standard barrel of gum = 435 pounds net.
Source: Clements (36).
Florida owners may be accounted for by Trees of at least 9 inches dbh, and
the larger sized trees being worked (4). especially those with a large crown, are
because trees over 14 inches can be selected to be worked by the owner or
worked on two sides. leased to a gum producer.
Rosin and turpentine, refined Bark is shaved from a strip near
where
metal
products from crude gum, have a variety the base of tree,
a
of industrial uses (38). Some gum tur- gutter is nailed to channel the flow of
pentine is imported from Mexico, and in gum into the cup, a metal 2-quart can.
recent years large quantities of gum The outer and inner bark is then chipped
rosin have come from Portugal, the from a small area above the gutter, no
Peoples Republic of China, and other wider than the diameter of the tree.
countries. Additional competition comes This exposes the gum ducts, which are
from the petroleum Industry, as a sub sprayed with a 50 percent solution of
stitute for gum derivatives is obtained sulfuric acid to keep the ducts open and
from petroleum and is apparently widely allow the gum to flow for 2 weeks. At
used. that time, the b.ark is chipped again to
extend the face upward another 3/4 inch,
Production of crude gum.--Extrac- and the newly exposed wood is sprayed
tion of crude gum from living trees is with acid. This schedule Is repeated
usually done during the 4- to 6-year every 2 weeks from about mid-March to
period preceding harvest for timber. mid-November.
Table 32.--Average gum productiOfl calendar year 1976
Faces Faces Volume of of Value of
per per gum per gum per gum per
State producer acre producer.!! acre 21 producer
Georgia 6,429 22 120.0 $23.56 $ 6,885.44
Florida 11,143 25 208.1 26.78 11,934.76
Mississippi 5,333 19 99.8 20.35 5,712.37
Alabama 1,650 20 30.8 21.42 1,767.26
United States 6,133 22 114.5 $23.60 $ 6,568.38
1/ In standard barrels = 435 pounds net.
2/ Taken from table 31, using $57 .35/barrel.
64
-------
Schedules longer than 2 weeks can
be obtained by using a 60 percent acid
base, which can keep the gum flowing for
as long as 28 days. This is useful if
labor is scarce.
Larger trees can be worked for 10
years before harvest - 5 years on one
side, 5 years on the opposite side.
Quality of the wood is not affected by
gum extraction, and only minor growth
loss is experienced if the face is not
wider than the diameter of the tree (37).
Trees that have been damaged by
lightning, storms, drought, mechanical
injury, or improper extraction methods
are susceptible to attacks by both J !
and black turpentine beetles. Even
trees being worked under the best condi-
tions seem to attract beetles more than
do other trees; the extraction methods
put the tree under stress to increase
sap flow. Gum producers are urged to
cut out trees no longer being worked,
and to keep a watch for signs of the
presence of beetles. A careful producer
will spray infested trees at once,
before the entire stand is affected.
For the turpentine beetle, BHC has
Usually been used, at a rate of 1 gallon
of BHC (11 pct EC) in 14 gallons of No.
2 fuel oil.
One thorough application Is usually
sufficient for a season (37). The
sprayed tree is not worked for a month
or two, to allow it time to recover from
the beetle attack (322).
Projections for future use of lin-
dane in naval stores production are
dependent on future demands for crude
gum derivatives. Demand for domestic
gum, which yields a high-quality gum
rosin, will depend largely On inter-
national trade and the price and
availability of petroleum. Should the
petroleum substitute rise sharply in
price, natural gum derivatives may
become more attractive and eventually
bring a higher price to the producers.
If so, it may then be profitable for
producers to protect their capital by
using lindane.
User Impacts
Although lindane is not used regu-
larly or routinely by gum farmers, the
fact that it is available has some value
to them. They see this as a sort of
Insurance. If the beetle infestation
suddenly increases and necessitates
chemical control, that control can be
effective only if it is used before the
Insect population becomes unmanageable.
Without the assurance that this chemical
control is available at the time they
need it, gum farmers may not continue
to produce gum.
Limitations of the Analysis
No projections were made for future
levels of pest infestation and damage.
Cost of lindane per pound active ingre-
dient was assumed not to change. No
projections were made for future petro-
leum prices, future gum prices, or
future quantity demanded for gum.
Production budgets were not obtained
to determine at what point a gum farmer
could use chemical control without
financial loss. The amount of risk
acceptable to producers without chemical
control was not determined.
A glossary of terms for this
chapter is given on page 66.
Summary
In forest lands (commercial, seed
orchards, and naval stores), lindane Is
the only registered chemical for use on
living trees for insect control. Endo-
aulfan, a registered alternate, is
labeled for use on logs only, not living
trees. There are cultural, manage-
ment, and nonchemical alternatives
available, which are used under varying
situations, but not on a routine Indus-
trywide basis. Lindane is necessary as
another tool for the forestry mdustrye
Although the quantity of lindane used is
small, it is important that it be avail-
able to cope with existing infestations.
and outbreaks as they arise. It is
especially Important to small commercial
outlets and small woodlot owners.
65.
-------
Glossary of Terms
Buck - To saw felled trees into shorter cuts.
Cambium - The layer of cells that lies between, and gives rise to, wood and the inner
bark.
Clone - A group of plants derived by asexual reproduction from a single parent plant;
such plants are therefore genetically identical.
Conifer - A tree with cones and needle-shaped leaves that produces wood known
commercially as softwood.
Crown - The upper portion of a tree carrying the branches and foliage.
Defoliator - Any organism, but more particularly insects, that destroys foliage.
dbh - Diameter at breast height. Usually, the diameter of a tree at 4.5 feet above
average ground level.
Host - A plant or other organism that furnishes subsistence to or harbors a
parasite.
Naval stores - Products (such as turpentine, pitch, and rosin) obtained from resinous
conifers.
Nursery - An area in which seedlings are grown for forest planting.
Pheromone - A term commonly used to refer to a sex attractant substance used to lure
insects into traps.
Pitch tube - A tubular mass of resin that forms on the surface of the bark at
bark-beetle entrance holes.
Reforestation - The natural or artificial restocking of an area with forest trees.
Rotation period - The number of years between the establishment of a tree crop and
its final cutting at a specified age of maturity.
Seed orchard - A plantation of genetically superior trees, grown to produce frequent,
abundant, and easily harvested seed crops.
Seedling - A tree grown from seed; the term Is generally applied to a young tree that
has yet to reach the sapling stage.
Silvicultural control - A general term indicating the control of forest Insects and
diseases by maintaining healthy and vigorous fore8t stands through application
of accepted silvicultural principles (for example. thinning and harvesting
mature trees).
Thinning - The removal of trees from an Immature stand, to reduce competition and
thereby increase the health and vigor of the stand.
66
-------
CHAPTER 5
BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF LINDANE
USE ON LIVESTOCK
Current Use Analysis
EPA Registrations of Lindane
and Alternatives
Lindane is registered by EPA for
use on a variety of livestock arthropod
pests and on many classes of livestock--
beef cattle, hogs, pigs (swine), sheep,
goats, and horses--and livestock prem-
ises-barns, pens, sleeping quarters,
and shelters (table 33). These pests
include, but are not limited to, fleas,
flies, lice, mites, and ticks One of
the advantages of lindane to livestock
producers Is its effectiveness on this
broad spectrum of livestock sites and
pests. A livestock producer who pur-
chases a lindane product may find that
most or all of his pest problems can be
controlled by using just this one prod-
uct. Thus, he has fewer pesticides to
store and fewer to learn how to apply.
For most livestock uses, several
alternatives to lindane are registered.
The alternatives to lindane on major
pests of beef cattle and hogs/pigs are
shown in table 34. In this table,
alternatives for lice, ticks, and horn
flies are summarized for beef cattle,
and alternatives for lice and mites are
Summarized for hogs and pigs. For these
livestock/pest combinations, 18 pesti-
cide alternatives are registered, but 4
of them are under some stage of the RPAR
review. There are more than 10 alter-
native pesticides for each combination,
except for mites on hogs and pigs.
Here, only three alternatives are
registered and one of these, meth-
oxychior, is only registered for use
in combination with one of the other
two aiternatives--toxaphene tRPAR] or
malathion. This situation of a limited
number of alternatives to lindane for
mite control Is also typical for Other
livestock classes. In addition, a reg-
istered alternative does not necessar-
ily constitute an effective alternate.
Alternate materials may be more toxic
to use, not readily available, or not so
effective.
Throughout the remainder of this
report, subgroups of these alternatives
will be used. For the economic analysis
of benefits, only the combinations des-
cribed above and the alternatives listed
below were analyzed. Specific alter-
natives for each livestock class/pest
combination were selected from among
toxaphene ERPAR], coumaphos (Co-Ralฎ),
dioxathion (Delnavฎ), malathion, math-
oxychior, and ronnel (RPARI. The
particular combinations are pro sented
later in table 40.
Alternatives for analysis were
selected on the basis of animals
treated, as reported in the 1978
National Pesticide Usage Survey (270),
and recommendations of State special-
ists, as reported in the Biological
Survey for Lindane Assessment (69).
Recommendations for Use
of Lindane and Alternatives
State Recommendations
Lindane is recommended for control
of lice on beef cattle by 8 of 11 major
beef-producing States examined (table
35). For control of ticks and horn
flies on beef cattle , only 2 of the 11
States recommended lindane (tables 36,
37).
In six of nine States examined,
lindane is recommended for control of
lice on hogs and pigs 1 and for control
of mites in seven of the nine States
(tables 38, 38).
Eight or more registered alter-
natives to lindane are recommended for
each of the pests, except mites, when
all of the State recommendations are
aggregated. For control of mites on
87
-------
Table 33.-EPA registered uses of lindane for control of livestock pests
Fleas
Flies
Blow files
Fleeceworms
(wool maggots)
Horn flies
Screwworm flies
Stable flies
iCed (sheeptick!
shop ked)
Lice
Cattle tail lice
Hog lice
Longnosed cattle
lice
Shortnosed cattle
lice
Mites (scab! mange!
itch)
Chorioptic
Psoroptic
Sarcoptic
Mosquitoes
Ticks
Cattle fever!
Texas cattle
fever tick
Spinose earl
ear tick
Gulf Coast tick
Lone star tick
Winter tick
xxx xx
xxx xx
xxx xx
- - xx -
xxx xx
xxx xx
xxx xx
Ants
Little black ants
Odorous house ants
Box elder bug
Cockroaches
Fleas
Flies
House flies
Horn files
Stable flies
Gnats
Lice
Miciges
Mosquitoes
Mites (mange)
Psoroptic
Sarcoptic
xx -
x - -
xx -
x - - -
x - - x
- - x -
xx - x
- - - x
- - - x
- x - -
- - x -
xx - x
- - x -
- - x -
x - - -
- - x -
Livestock
classes
Livestock
.
to
to-
I- I
.
n
in
L
4 a
Pests of livestock
for which lindane
is registered as a
single active
control material
!
:
01
I I
In
o
Q
X
CA
-
to
0
(0
0. 4
4 (-
.01 0
toO
Pests of livestock
for which lindane
is registered as a
single active
control material
-
C.
L L.
I D 0
.00
14.4-
tJ
O
In
(0
In
c -o
= t In
.0 .0 4
to to to
to
C C 00
. 0 4 .0
to
1
to
4-
44
.0
C in
C
4- - 4- 4
a a 0
In to - - 4
0.0>. 0 to
x x
to L+ to
o - . ---
0 4. in
,, to o tot. to
= 04-0, 0 0
L LO 1,4 1 10
4 4 0 too to 4
01 4 ) 4) 4
ฐ
0 3
L 01 .0 0
fl I4 . l4 = 14
to oi= tO a -- -4 .4
C C = 0 C 0 0 0 = 4-
0 to 0 0 0a
a 00 4 0 4 1 0
i- .atouo - to tnu
4- 4 40 In 04
t L00 010001 4 >30
4 InC 4 . 0 00 a 0 - . 0 -
C) 4- tt r J
to
0 L
.0 4 41
CU 4-
.tI 4
0 01 0 ID
0 = 0
* 4- 0
too- to
04 001
>0 >0
J
to
4
.0
4
4-
C / I
x - xxx x - x - x
- - - x
- - - x
x
x - - X - X - XXX X - X - -
- -.x x -
x - - x
- xx - x - xx - x - x
- - - x - - - - x x - x
- - x - - - - x - - - -
- - xx - xxx xx - x
- - xx -
xxx xx
x - - - -
- x - - -
x
x
xxx xx
xxx x -
xxx xx
xxx xx
xx - xx
xxx xx
x - xxx
xxx xx
xxx x -
xxx x -
xxx x -
x - x - - x - x - -
- - x xx -
x
xx - - xxx xxx xxx - x
x - -
- - - x - - - x
- - x x - xx -
Spiders
ricks
1/ Selected examples of premises representative of the range of premises for which lindane is registered. Does not include all specific names
of premises from all lindane labels. Sources: (300,302).
-------
pests!! of beef
Table 34.--EPA registered alternatives to lindane for major
cattle, and hogs and pigs
Registered
alternatives
Beef
cattle
Hogs and pigs
Lice
Mites
Lice
Ticks
Horn flies
carbaryl (Sevinฐ) [ RPAR]
chiorpyrifos (Dursbanฎ)
coumaphos (Co-Ralฐ)
crotoxyphos (Ciodrin)
crufomate (Ruelene)
Vx
. /-
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
x
-
X
X
X
x
-
X
X
-
-
dioxathion (Delnavฎ)
famphur (Warbexฎ)
fenthion (Tiguvon TM )
phosmet (Imidanฎ/Prolateฎ)
malathion
X
-
X
X
X
X
-
-
X
X
X
X
-
X
X
X
-
X
-
X
-
-
-
-
X
methoxychior (Marlateฎ)
phenothiazine (Antiverm )
pyrethrins (synergized)
stirofos (Rabonฎ/Gardona )
ronnel (Korlanฎ) [ RPAR]
X
-
X
X
X
X
-
-
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-
-
X
X
X
-
-
-
toxaphene ERPAR]
trichiorfon (Dyloxฎ)
dichlorvos (Vaponaฎ/DDVP) [ RPAR]
X
X
X
X
-
X
X
X
X
X
X
-
1/ Considered major in terms of number of head affected and severity of damage
inflicted, and relative importance of lindane as a control.
2/ ) indicates that the pesticide is registered for the pest/livestock class
combination.
3/ - indicates that the pesticide is not registered for the pest/livestock
class combination.
4/ Methoxychior is only registered in combinations with malathion or toxaphene
for mite control on hogs.
Source: U.S. EPA, Compact Label File, 1976, unpublished.
hogs and pigs, only two registered
alternatives are recommended Tabular
summaries of the State recommendations
are presented in tables 35 to 39.
Federal Guidelines
Lindane is not listed by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture for any
of the three pests of beef cattle being
examined in this report, or mites on
hogs and pigs (259). The Agency does,
however, list lindane for control of
lice on hogs and pigs; sheep ked, lice.
and ticks on sheep; fleas, ticks, and
others in livestock areas (premises).
The Department lists at least six
registered alternatives for each, of the
pests, except mites. It makes no
mention of lindane for the control of
mites on hogs and pigs. Tabular sum-
maries of the Federal Guidelines are
contained in tables 35 to 39.
Use of Lindane and Alternatives
Lindane has been used since the
early 1950s to control pests of beef
cattle, hogs and pigs, sheep, and in
livestock premises. USDAs estimates
of ]indane used by agriculture depict a
fluctuating pattern of use through time
69
-------
Table 35.--USDA and major producing States recommendations fox EPA registered use
of lindane and alternatives for lice control on beef cattle
Compounds
registered
forlice
control on
beef cattle
USDA 1
0
z
ฐ
N
.
r -
N
In
V
)2
>
U
4-
e
J
N
a
.
U)
U)
U)
J.
N
L
N
V
C
V
t
ฐ
N
!
!
.2
J
N
.
.
N
!
!
b
N
Lindane [ RPARJ - +82 + + - - - + + +
Alternatives
coumaphos
(Co Ralฎ) + + + + + + + + + + +
crotoxyphos
(Ciodrinฎ) + +81 + - + l + - + - + +
crufomate
(Rueleneฎ) + + - + + + + + - - +
dioxathion
(Delnavฎ) + + + + - + + - +
fenthion
(Tiguvon ) - - - - - + - - + -
Imidanฎ/ U)
Prolateฎ - +
4-
malathion + + + + + + + - + + +
methoxychior
(Marlateฎ) + + - + + + - + + + +
pyrethrins
(synorgized) + +14 - -
stiro foe (Rabonฎ/
Gardona ) - +83 + - + +
ronnel (Korlanฎ)
[ RPARI + ๗ + + + + + + + + +
toxaphene
[ RPAR] + 2 + + - + + + + + +
trichiorfon
(Dyloxฎ) - + - - - - - + : - - +
dichiorvos
(Vaponaฎ/
DDVP) ERPAR] - 183 1
Notes :
+ = Compound is recommended by USDA and/or State(s) for lice control
on beef cattle.
1 = Clodrinฎ + Vaponaฎ (Ciovapฎ)
2 = lindane + toxaphene
3 = Rabonฎ + Vaponaฎ (Ravapฎ)
4 = Recommendation is for synergized pyrethrins.
1/ USDA (239).
70
-------
Table 36.--USDA and major producing States recommendations for EPA registered use
of lindane and alternatives for tick control on beef cattle
0
Compounds
I D
registered
for tick
o
con trol on
1/
beef cattle USDA N
ID
N
N
0%
w
I D
U)
c
N
>
.
c
J
N
0.
ฐ .
n
N
L
g
in
0
N
ID
C
ฐ
sA
N
o
.!
0
ID J
1.
1
0
z
t
U,
ฐ
J
N
01
X
)
10
N
O L
Lindane [ RPAR] - +
-
-
-
-
-
,
I
I
+
.0
ID
+11
+ 1184
Alternatives
=
coumaphos
(Co-Ral ) +11 +11
+
+1184
+
+
+73
.
>
ID +
+11
+/1 4
crotoxyphos
(Ciodrinฎ) + +81;2/a
a
-
+8a
+
V
C
E
4-
c
+
dioxathion
0
C
(Delnave) + +
+
-
-
+
+/3
0
0 -
-
+
malathion +11 +
+
+
+
L
+
.1-
-
+/] . 4
rnethoxychlor
(Manatee) - +
-
-
-
-
L
4-
E
.$.
stirofos (Rabonฎ!
C
0
E
0
Gardona ) - +/2
-
-
+
-
-
I )
-
I D
-
-
ronnel (Korlanฎ)
U
IRPARI +11 +11
+
+/1 4
+
+
+13
-
ID
+
-
toxaphene
IRPARI + -
-
-
/3
o
z
I
I
I
In
.0
ID
Z
-
+1184
Notes :
+ = Compound is recommended by USDA
control on beef cattle.
1 = ear tick ( Otobius megnini )
2 = lone star tick ( Amblyomma americanum )
3 = winter tick ( Dermacentor albipictus )
4 = Gulf Coast tick ( Amblyomma maculatum )
a = Clodrinฎ + Vaponaฎ
b = Lindane + toxaphene (See section tItled:
Toxaphene Combination.).
1/ USDA (258).
with a noticeable decline between 1971
and 1978 -- from 416,000 pounds to
176,000 pounds (table 40). Beef cattle
(79 ,000 pounds) and hogs and pigs
(91,000 pounds) accounted for 97 percent
of the estimated pounds of lindane
(a.i.) used on livestock In 1978. This
proportional distribution of use Is
probably accurate, but the absolute
quantities may be slightly overstated.
and/or State(s) for tick (species)
Comparative Costs of Lindane +
In this context, it should be noted
that Hooker, the sole supplier of
technical lindane in the United States,
estimated from a survey of ]indane
formulators that 139,000 pounds of
lindane were sold for livestock use in
1976 (98). The differences between
these two estimates may be accounted for
by unmeasured shifts In Inventories of
lindane products.
11
-------
Table 37 .---USDA and major producing States recommendations for EPA registered use
of lindane and alternatives for horn fly control on beef cattle
Compounds
registered
for horn fly
control on
beef cattle
USDA 1
N
a
ฐ
N
0%
UI
2
N
0%
>.
U
t
2
N
0%
0.
.
UI
UI
UI
N
0%
.
L.
N
C
N
.
z
2
N
.
N
0%
UI
,
N
0
Lindane [ RPAR] - + - - - - - +
Alternatives
coumaphos
(Co_Ralฎ) + + + + + + + + + + +
crotoxyphos
(Ciodrinฎ) + + 1 + - 1 + i + + - + +
crufomate
(Rueleneฎ) + + - - - + - - UI - - +
dioxathion
(Dolnavฎ) + + + + - + + + - + +
famphur
(Warbex ฎ) - + - - - - - -
phosmet
(Imidanฎ/
Prolateฎ) + - - - - + - - = - - +
malathion + + + + + + + + + + +
methoxychior +-
(Marlateฎ) + + - + + + - + + +
pyrethrins UI
(synergized) - + - - - - - - - +
stirofos
(Rabonฎ!
Gardona ) - + 2 + - - + - -
ronnel
(Korlanฎ)
[ RPARI + + + + + + + + + + +
trichlorfon
(Dyloxฎ) - + - - - + - - + +
dichiorvos
(Vaponaฎ/ U
DDVP)
[ RPARI - + - - - + - -
toxaphene
ERPAR] + + + + + + + + + + +
Notes :
+ = Compound Is recommended by USDA and/or State(s) for horn fly
control on beef cattle.
1 = Ciovapฎ (Giodrinฎ + Vaponaฎ)
2 Ravapฎ (Rabonฎ + Vaponaฎ)
I USDA (259).
72
-------
Table 38.--USDA and major producing State& recommendations for EPA registered use
of lindane and alternatives for lice control on hogs and pigs
V
Compounds
registered
forlice
control on
hogs and pigs
USDA 1 1
0
c
N
-
NI
V
c
V
N
>
.
c
N
V
t
C
c
N
I
n
N
V
.
L
.
0
z
0
C
!
N
ฃ
N
0
Lindane IRPAR]
+ +
+
+12
+12
+
+
Alternatives
.
V
coumaphos
=
V
(Co_Ralฎ)
+ +
+
+
+
+
>
V
+
-
crotoxyphos
(Ciodrin)
+ -
+
+
i
+
-
4-
0
-
-
dioxathion
(Delnav 5 )
+ -
-
-
-
+
+
0+
-
+
malathion
+ +
+
+
+
+12
+12
VU)
+
-
methoxychior
.
CL
-
(Marlateฎ)
+ -
+
+
+
E
stirofos
eo
(RabonฎJ
ON
Gardona)
- +
-
-
+
-
N
ronnel
0*
(Korlanฎ)
U)0
ERPARI
+ +
-
+
+
+
+
.OL
+
-
toxaphene
(RPAR]
+ +
-
+
-
+12
+12
o o
Z
Of the alternatives to lindane for
use on livestock, toxaphene (RPAR] was
used In the largest quantities - 2.4
million pounds in 1976 (table 40). Like
lindane, the quantity of toxaphene used
by farmers on livestock declined from
1971 to 1976; however, the use of the
other alternative chemicals -- methoxy-
chior, coumaphos, malathion, dioxathion,
ronnel (Korlan ) I:RPARI -- increased or
remained relatively constant during this
time period (table 40). Lindane and
its alternatives are applied primarily
as sprays and dips, but also as dusts,
washes, oil solutions, in back rubbers,
smears, fogs, and smokes. Based on
the understanding that most of the
lindane was applied as a spray, the
Lindane Assessment Team for Livestock
made the assumption for analytical
purposes that all Undane was applied
as a spray.
Notes :
+ = Compound is recommended by USDA and/or State(s) for louse control
on.hogs and pigs.-
1 = Ciovapฎ (Ciodrinฎ + Vaponaฎ)
2 = Compound is recommended for control of lice and mange mites
occurring together.
/ USDA (259).
2/ 1970 Recommendations were received as current in the OSPR file in 1975.
Source: State Pesticide Recommendations for Livestock for indicated years.
78
-------
Table 39.--USDA and major producing States recommendations for EPA registered use
of lindane and alternatives for mite 1/ control on hogs and pigs
0
Compounds
registered
for mange/scab
mite control on
hogs and pigs
USDA
.9
k
O
u
0 %
.E
0%
,.
.
.4
c
N
0%
!
Q
c
0 %
L
g
n
N
0%
u
.
u
.
z
ฐ
.
l
g
N
0%
.c
4-
0
n
N
0%
.-.
Lindane [ RPAR)
I
E
0
()
+
-I-
+
+
(,
C
o
4-.
Alternatives
u ,
t..c
o
lue
40
malathion
.
+
+
-
-I -
+
+
u E>
+
+
toxaphene
[ RPAR]
.
E
0
ZE
1
-
+
+
LO
. U4-
00
ZLC
+
Notes :
+ = Compound is recommended as a control material for mange (scab)
mites on hogs and pigs.
1/ EPA Site/Pest List of September 23, 1977 has lindane registration for sarcoptic,
chorioptic, and psoroptic mites (mange/scab/itch). Malathion + toxaphene mixtures
were found for control of chorioptic and psoroptic mite control.
2/USDA (259).
3/ 1970 Indiana recommendations are accepted as current in 1975 in OSPR file.
Source: State Pesticide Recommendations for Livestock for indicated years.
Although sales in pounds are
described above to provide the reader
with general background information, the
analysis was conducted on the basis of
number of animals treated. The quantity
of active ingredient applied per animal
is different for many of the pesticides;
therefore the relative importance of a
pesticide cannot be judged solely by
aggregate quantity used annually. Fpr
example, to treat lice on beef cattle,
lindane is applied at the rate of 0.0012
pound active Ingredient per animal,
whereas toxaphene Is applied at the
rate of 0.0200 pound active Ingredient
per animal -- almost 20 times greater
(table 44). The beef cattle population
In the United States, excluding Alaska
and Hawaii, was 107,734,000 animals In
1976 (284) Of this population, an
estimated 2,843,400 animals were treated
with lindane for lice in the United
States, 309,500 animals for ticks,
and 1,314,400 animals for horn flies
(table 41) (270). The major cattle
raising regions are: Mountain, Northern
Plains, Southern Plains, and States
included in the Corn Belt (283). Beef
cattle treatments with lindane for lice
occurred largely in these same regions,
except for replacement of the Mountain
Region with the Pacific Region.
Approximately 800,000 animals were
treated in each of the Corn Belt and
Northern Plains regions, 600,000 animals
In the Southern Plains, and 400,000
in the Pacific Region. The majority
of lindane usage for treating ticks on
beef cattle occurred in the Southern
Plains, with an estimated 266,000
animals treated Treatment for horn
flies with lindane was greatest in the
Southern Plains, with an estimated
414,000 animals treated., followed by the
Mountain Region, with 306 ,000 animals
treated, the Delta States, with 198,000
animals treated, and the Corn Belt, with
163,000 animals treated (table 41).
74
-------
Table 40.--Quantity of lindane and alternative pesticides used by farmers on
livestock, United States, 1964, 1966, 1971, and 1976
Pesticide and
Livestock class
196 42i 1966. 1
1971 1 1976 1
Lindane ERPAR]
1,000
Pounds
beef cattle
186 130
226 79
hogs and pigs
dairy cattle
143 124
19 24
164 91
14 3
sheep
poultry
other
10 6
2 5
. J - 4
4 2
5
.3 1
Total
360 293
416 176
Alternative pesticides
4,703 3,670
1,200 1,508
766 434
755 391
4,575 2,376
1,988 2,366
168 517
470 483
toxaphene [ RPAR]
methoxychior
coumaphos
ronnel ERPARI
malathion
dioxathion
602 735
- - 43
652 1,104
59 100
1/ Quantities of Pesticides Used by Farmers in 1964, Agric. Econ.
Report No. 131, ERS, USDA, Jan. 1968 (263).
2/ Quantities of Pesticides Used by Farmers in 1966, Agric. Econ.
Report No. 179, ERS, USDA, April 1970 (284).
3/ Farmers Use of Pesticides in 1971 Quantities, Agric. Econ.
Report No. 252, ERS, USDA, July 1974 (285).
4/ USDA, ESCS, 1976 National Pesticide Usage Survey, unpublished (270).
5/ Less than 500 pounds.
6/ Data not available.
In 1976, 54,873,000 hogs and pigs
were inventoried in the United States,
exclusive of Alaska and HawaIi (285).
Over 50 percent of these animals were
located in the Corn Belt, 30,350,000
animals (table . 42). The Northern
Plains, with 6,780,000 animals, had the
second largest number of hogs and pigs.
Treatment with lindane for lice on hogs
and pigs was concentrated in these two
regions, with an estimated 10,132,000
animals treated in the Corn Belt, and
2,736,000 animals treated in the
Northern Plains (270). Fewer hogs and
pigs were treated with l ndane to
control mites. The U.S. Department
of Agriculture estimated that 408,000
animals were treated in the Corn Belt,
395,000 anImals in the Northern Plains,
and 387 ,000 animals in the Laki States.
Performance Evaluation of Lindanc
and Alternatives
Pest Infestation and Damage
Introduction
Insects and insectrelated pests of
livestock/domestic animals can spread
from one area to another at an alarming
rate. As an example, the first horn fly
was discovered in New Jersey in 1883,
and in 10 years had spread throughout
the United States and Hawaii (144,254).
These pests can spread either under
their own power (fly), or by drifting on
the wind, floating on the water, or
hitch-hiking on infested animals,
animal products, bedding, and so forth,
unless they are controlled (254).
75
-------
Table 41.--Beef cattle population and number of animals treated with lindane by pest,
regions, and United States, 1976 .1!
Region
Beef cattle Number of animals treated at
population. J once for each pest
Lice Ticks Horn flies
Northeast
1,000
2,194 -
88,4
Appalachian
8,444 44.1
8.1 96.6
Southeast
7,619 66.8
198.4
Delta
6,432 9.8 35.1
Corn Belt
19,518 814.8 163.3
Lake
5,578 10.0
Northern Plains
.18,047 801.0
Southern Plains
20,892 604.2 266.3 414.3
305.9
Mountain
12,912 55.2
Pacific
6,098 437.5 47.5
U.S. Total
107,734 2,843.4 309.5 1,314.4
1/ Does not include Alaska and Hawaii.
2/ All beef cattle and calves on hand January 1, 1977. Does not include milk
cows that have calved and heifers over 500 pounds held for milk cow replacement.
USDA, February 2, 1977 (284).
3/ USDA, ESCS, unpublished (270).
4/ - = None reported.
Table 42. --Hog and pig population and number of animals treated
with lindane by pest, regions, and United States, 1976 1,
Region
Hog and Pig Number of animals treated
popuiational at least once for each pest
Lice Mites
Northeast
11000
1,224 63.6
Appalachian
Southeast
4 ,735 769.4
3,020 12.2
Delta
950 22.0
Corn Belt
30,350 10,132.0 408.7
Lake
5,570 625.3 387.0
Northern Plains
6,780 2,736.2 395.2
Southern Plains
1,108 49.4
Mountain
774 44.3
Pacific
290 10.9 5/
U.S. Total
54,801 14,401.7 1,254.5
1/ Does not include Alaska and Hawaii.
2/ All hogs and pigs kept for breeding
December 1, 1976. USDA, 1977 (285)..
3/ USDA, ESCS, unpublished (270).
4/ --a = None reported.
L Data not available for this region at this time.
and market on hand
76
-------
Site/Pest Relationships
The damage done by these pests
is primarily twofold: annoyance and
disease carrying. In addition to the
annoyance caused by Its physical
presence on or near the host animal,
the pest may produce a painful bite
by its feeding or blood-sucking habits.
Infested animals can become unthrifty or
even unmarketable because they stop
feeding, the meat or animal parts
(hides) are damaged, the work or milk
production decreases, and the animal
may ultimately die. Animais under
attack by insect pests will stop grazing
or feeding, and will bunch up to seek
shelter in trees and shrubs to avoid the
attack The affected animals tend to
bolt, scratch, twitch, or even bite to
get away from the pest annoyance.
When congregated in a group or even
seeking a protective shelter they
often wound themselves and each other.
This provides additional sores that
reduce marketability (meat and hides
primarily), and provides sites for
infections by disease-causing organisms
and other secondary invaders such as
the screwworm fly (12,18,49,144,254).
The livestock pests may be direct
carriers of livestock diseases (cattle
tick fever), or indirect carriers of a
disease that usually affects only humans
(Rocky Mountain spotted fever) (12).
The primary pests attacking the differ-
ent classes of livestock have previously
been discussed in broad categories.
The specific categories and pest/site
relationships are now discussed in
detail. Most pests that attack live-
stock are not host-specific (stay on
one host), with some exceptions, but can
move from horses to beef cattle, hogs,
sheep, or even to humans. Therefore,
the only factor that restricts the loca-
tion of a particular pest year after
year would be climatic limitations.
Many of these pests within a specific
group, such as ticks, have a typical
life cycle, which is discussed at
length. Any variance from this typtcal
life cycle will be discussed as applic-
able The geographic distributions,
damage done, hosts attacked, and
diseases transmitted are also discussed
as applicable (12,18,49,144,254,255).
Sanitation in livestock premises is
important and a continuing practice.
Variable life cycles of the pests on
livestock, and the habits of most pests
not remaining on the hosts throughout
their life cycle, make pest control in
livestock premises and associated sites
important to prevent the continued rein-
festation of uninfested or previously
treated animals. Sanitation alone is
not enough. It is impossible, continu-
ally and adequately, to clean out all of
the cracks and crevices where arthropod
pests can hide, and to prevent alternate
hosts, such as birds and small rodents,
from entering these premises. There-
fore, insecticidal treatment of these
sites is often necessary for effective
pest elimination, or control, or both.
Lindane is one of the few materials reg-
istered for the broad-spectrum control
of pests in livestock premises areas,
especially for the more serious pests
such as ticks, lice, and mites. Another
important area includes the so-called
domesticated animals (other than
pets), such as horses and mules. Many
veterinary medications contain lindane
for control of the more serious animal
pests that affect animals that are main-
tained for work, pleasure, racing stock,
or as pets (300). The arthropod pests
of major importance to livestock (out-
lined in table 31) are discussed below.
Flies
Flies is a general term that
usually encompasses the biting and
nonbiting annoyance flies. Some flies
actually attack living and dead tissue,
or spend part of their life cycle inside
the hosts body.
A typical life cycle (for ifies
that do not infest tissue) is as fol-
lows. The flies overWinter as larvae or
pupae in the North. Breeding takes
place beneath manure piles and in other
breading grounds such as moist, warm
organic matter, which can include piles
of grass, decaying fruit and vegetables,
garbage, wastes from feed troughs, and
fth In the South or In heated
77
-------
Throughout the
buildings, some flies can overwintor as
adults. The female can lay from 100 to
150 eggs at one time; two to seven
batches are deposited by one female.
The eggs hatch in 8 to 30 hours into
legless larvae or maggots. The mag-
gots feed in the same area where the
eggs were laid and mature in 5 to 19
days. Then they usually migrate to a
drier area, form the hard puparia, and
pupate for 3 to 10 days. The entire
life cycle can be completed in 6 to 20
days, with a new generation started in 2
to 20 days.
Blow flies.--Some blow flies attack
cattle, sheep, dogs, and so forth. They
are similar to the screwworm, except
that they feed on dead as well as living
animals. The most important blow fly
attacks sheep.
The fleeceworm (wool maggot) or
black blow fly ( Phormia regina (Melgen))
most often attacks sheep, especially
the fine-wooled varieties such as the
Merino. Invasion comes where wool is
soiled with urine, feces, warm spring
rains, or any combination of these.
Adult flies appear in very early spring
and breed until checked by dry weather.
The life cycle can go from egg to egg in
about 3 weeks. The maggots feed in the
matted wool area and frequently invade
healthy tissue, which often becomes
inflamed and infested with other
organisms.
The horn fly ( Haematobia irritans
(Linnaeus)) Is a close relative of the
stable fly and creates the same harmful
effects as the stable fly. It pierces
the skin to suck blood, and not only
causes pain and annoyance, but It also
interferes with feeding and the resting
of animals This results In a cessation
of feeding, weight loss (1/2 pound per
day), and digestive disorders. This fly
Is present all summer long and hovers or
crawls over the backs, withers, or bel-
lies of cattle until It can bite, or is
temporarily brushed-off. This fly Is
always on or near the host, even though
it feeds only once a day. The adults
appear in the midwest about April, and
overwinter as larvae or pupae. Eggs are
laid only in fresh manure and remain
adundant until frost.
Host preference - Primarily cattle,
but also sheep, goats, horses,
dogs, and people working around
livestock.
Distribution -
United States.
Diseases - Associated with the
transmission of anthrax.
Special control - Prompt raking or
other dispersal of manure, if
practical. Otherwise, same as
for horse flies. A feed-through
material to prevent insect develop-
ment in manure is a possibility.
There are other flies that lay
their eggs directly in open wounds or
close to natural openings where the
larvae can bore into healthy tissue.
They spend some or most of their life
cycle within these wounds or throughout
the body of the host. Lindane does not
readily control the bot files of horses
or the cattle grubs, and therefore they
are not discussed. Lindane does, how-
ever, readily control the screwworm.
The screwworm ( Cochliomyia hoinini-
vorax (Coquerel)) attacks any warm-
blooded animal, including humans. Adult
acre WwOrIfls are active in the winter
months In the extreme south, and appear
farther north from April to mid-June.
The female is attracted to any cut or
scratch, especially those from other
insect bites, dehorning, or castration
operations. The eggs are cemented on
the dry skin near the wound. The eggs
hatch in 10 to 20 hours, and the larvae
tear out pockets in the healthy skin
near the original wound and secrete a
toxin that prevents healing and results
in a larger foul-smelling wound These
wounds attract more egglaying females,
and the animal may die if not treated.
The larvae feed for 4 to 10 days, then
drop to the ground, enter the soil, and
pupate. In 1 to 2 weeks, or 2 months
If temperatures are cool, the adults
emerge and the cycle begins again.
There are 6 to 10 generations a year,
depending upon location.
Host preference - Cattle, hogs,
horses, mules, sheep, goats, dogs,
78
-------
humans, and most other wild and
domesticated animals.
Distribution - Primarily In the
most southern part of the United
States, ranging northward to the
Carolinas, Illinois, Kansas, and
California.
Special controls - A very success-
ful eradication program has been
carried out In recent years using
the sterile male technique. Adult
males are sterUized with radiation
arid released Into the natural popu-
lation, where they are competitive
with the normal populations. After
mating, unfertile eggs result.
Otherwise, adjust management prac-
tices so that young stock are born
out of fly season (mid-November
to the first of April). Treat all
wounds promptly and control ticks,
flies, and other biting insects
that cause wounds attractive to the
ovipositing females.
The stable fly ( Stomoxys calcitrans
(Linnaeus)) Is one of the most seri-
ous of the biting flies. It attacks
primarily the legs and withers of live-
stock, or the ears of dogs. It takes
one or two drops of blood at a meal, but
has several meals a day. The female
must take a blood meal before she begins
to lay eggs. In northern climates, the
stable fly overwinters as larvae or
pupae; in southern climates, breeding is
continuous.
Host preference Cattle, hogs,
horses, mules, dogs, cats, sheep,
goats, humans, and most other wild
and domesticated animals.
Distribution - Entire United States;
most abundant In the Central United
States from Texas to Canada.
Diseases Associated with equine
encephalomyelitis.
Special controls - Larval control
is difficult because of water-
breeding habits. Drainage of wet
lands Is not always a feasible or
practical control method Animals
can be stabled during the day and
pastured at night, but this Is not
practical on a large scale. The
best control method is spraying
animals for confrol of adult flies.
The sheep ked (sheep tick) ( Melo-
phagus ovinus (Linnaeus)) is not a true
tick, but rather a wingless fly. It is
found throughout the year on the host
animal as an adult, or the nit stage,
which is actually the pupal case. The
sheep ked does not lay eggs, but the
larval stage is retained within the
female body and nourished there. When
mature, the larvae are glued to a hair,
especially around the neck and belly,
and become the darkened IIfljtt within 12
hours. Only one young is born at a
time, but each female can produce 10 to
20 larvae at the rate of one a week.
The ked never leaves the host. It
crawls over the skin and feeds by biting
the host and sucking blood. This causes
the host to rub, bite, and scratch at
the wool, which spoils the fleece.
Host animal - Sheep and goats.
Distribution - Wherever sheep and
goats are raised.
Special control - None. The most
successful control method Is an in-
secticidal dip for the host animal.
Lice
There are two groups of lice, the
biting lice and the sucking lice.
Sucking lice are by far the most
important and troublesome, because of
their tissue-piercing, blood-sucking
habits As a general rule, each type
of animal has its own kind of louse,
which does not feed on other animals.
Both groups of lice have similar
life cycles, and spend their entire life
on the host animal. The eggs (ruts) are
usually attached to the hair. The eggs
hatch and the young nymphs resemble
the adult except for their smaller size.
Lice are crablike in appearance and are
generally very small. Development
from egg to adult can take place In 2
to 4 weeks, depending on the species
and geographic location. Reproduction
continues all year long, and all life
stages (eggs, nymphs, and adults) are
found on the host at the same time. The
female lays about 20 eggs at a time and
can begin reproduction when only about
2 weeks old.
79
-------
Lice arc most abundant in the win-
ter months and early spring. The lack
of oiliness of the skin on the host
animal at this time of the year and the
long winter coat create ideal cover.
Biting lice.--When infested animals
are examined in the winter, large
patches can be seen in the folds of the
skin, on the head, neck, withers, and/or
along the inner surfaces of the legs.
These patches are clusters of lice.
They annoy the host animal by their
movement about the animal, with their
sharp claws, and feeding activities on
the hair, scales of skin, and scabs.
The lice also feed on dried blood that
has oozed out after the skin has been
gnawed or cracked open by the animal.
There are two important representatives
of this group.
The cattle biting louse (little red
louse) ( Bovicola bovis (Linnaeus)) is
usually found in colonies at the base of
the tail or on the withers. It is most
abundant in winter.
Host preference - Cattle, and some-
times deer.
The sheep biting louse (red headed)
( Bovicola ovis (Schrank)) eats off the
wool fibers that tangle and soil the
hair. The sheep biting louse is the
most serious louse of sheep.
The goat biting louse ( Bovicola
caprae (Gurit)) and the angora goat
biting louse ( Bovicola limbatus (Ger-
vais)), of course, attack goats.
Sucking lice.--The sucking lice
are, by far, the most serious of the
lice, because of their blood-sucking
habits Some species transmit diseases.
The irritation of these pests causes the
animals to rub and scratch, resulting in
denuded areas of skin and hair. Vital-
ity of the animal is lowered, and there
Is a loss of meat and milk production.
Four species of sucking lice are the
most important economIcally (144).
The longnosed cattle louse
nathus vitu]i (Linnaeus)) is especially
prevalent on young cattle and dairy
cattle. It is a slender species with a
long, broad head that is pointed in the
front.
The shortnosed cattle louse ( Haerna-
topinus eurysternj4 (Nitzsch)) is the
largest louse found on cattle, and it
prefers mature cattle. The head is only
a half longer than broad and bluntly
pointed in front.
The little blue cattle louse (Sole
noptes capillatus Enderlein) is similar
to the shortnosed cattle louse; the head
is even shorter and rounded in front.
It is only about half as large as the
shortnosed species and its eggs, which
are yellowish do not hatch if removed
from the host.
The hog louse ( Haernatopinus suis
(Linnaeus)) is the largest of the
sucking lice and is the only one found
on hogs. This louse is most noticeable
in cold weather, when clusters of lice
are found in small clumps on the inside
of the ears, in folds of skin about the
neck, or on the inside of the upper part
of the legs. Egglaying continues all
winter long, and there can be 6 to 12
generations a year.
Distribution - Wherever livestock
(swine) are raised. Lice usually
do not live if they are acciden-
tally knocked from the host, but
they will transfer from one host to
another (of the same species) by
direct contact.
pecial controls - None Dusts are
preferred for treatment during the
winter, but sprays and dipping can
be used. Hog oilers are usu-
ally not effective, because these
devices do not treat that part of
the host animal that is infested.
Mites
Scab, mange, and itch of livestock
can be caused by mites. Mites irritate
the host animal when they move about and
feed, which causes skin sores that even-
tually scab over. The host scratches
and rubs itself for relief; this results
in additional sores and loss of hair or
wool. These additional sores again scab
80
-------
over, and mites can be found in large
numbers beneath these scabs.
A typical life cycle (depending on
species) is as follows. The mite feeds
on the surface of the skin, burrowing
into the skin, hair follicle, or oil
glands. All stages of the mite can be
found by lifting the scab. From 1 to 2
dozen eggs are laid by the female in
small clusters at the base of the hair.
These eggs hatch in 2 to 10 days to
six-legged nymphs. After the first
molt they have eight legs and resemble
the adults; they mature in 1 to 2 weeks.
Each female can live a month or more
and lay up to 200 eggs. They can sur-
vive off the host for a short period.
In cold, wet weather, generations build
up very rapidly. Transmission from
one host to another is usually by
direct contact with infested animals
or objects against which they have
rubbed.
Host preference - Cattle, sheep,
horses, and goats. The finewooled
varieties of sheep are most often
infected Horses and goats are
affected less.
Distribution - Wherever livestock
is raised. Quarantines and dip-
ping have kept populations low,
and have even eradicated mite
populations in some areas.
Special controls - Usually handled
under regulatory quarantine pro-
grams. Dipping is the preferred
method of control. Living quarters
must aiso be treated.
The follicle or mange mite ( Demo-
dex app.) actually burrows into the
hair follicles and oil glands. The
nodules formed vary in size from a pin-
head to marble size and are fil]ed with
pus resulting from secondary infections.
Hides are severely damaged. Infes-
tations by this mite are hard to con-
trol and require frequent dipping or
Immediate slaughter of the host animal.
Common species Include the cattle
follicle mite ( Demodex bovis Stiles),
the dog follicle mite CD. canis Ley-
dig), the sheep follicle mite ( . ovis
Rail]iet), the goat follicle mite ( .
Caprae Railliet), the hog follicle mite
CD. phylloides Csokor), the horse fol
licle mite CD. egui Railliet), and the
cat follicle mite (D. cati (Meg nm).
The scab mites ( Chorioptic spp.
and Psoroptes spp.) are similar and live
on the skin surface. The chorioptic
lesions are more localized and usually
are confined to the leg and tail areas.
Common species include the scab mite
( Psoroptes egul (Baspail)), the sheep
scab mite (P. ovis (Hering)), and the
cattle mite ( Chiorioptes bovis) .
The mange or itch mites ( Sarcoptes
spp.) burrow into the skin where the
hair is sparse, and spread until large
portions of the body area are affected
with bumpy nodules. These nodules
burst and ooze serum, which hardens to
form scabs. Intense itching causes the
animal to rub and scratch; this opens
up new sores, which can be invaded by
bacteria and other secondary infections
such as the screwworm fly. Principal
species are the cattle itch mite (Sar-
coptes bovis Robin) and the itch mite
(S. scabiel (DeGeer)).
Ticks
Ticks, like mites, are not true
Insects. There are two types, the soft
and hard ticks, which refers to their
soft or hard outer exoskeleton.
Neither family lays its eggs on the
host Besides their bloodsucking
habits, ticks are important In the
transmission of such diseases as spotted
fever, relapsing fever, tularemia, and
Texas cattle fever.
A typical life cycle is as follows.
Eggs may be laid in various places, but
they are not laid on the host. The
young or seed tick (three pairs of legs)
climbs up on grass, walls, fence posts,
and so forth, until a host comes along
to which It quickly attaches Itself. It
remains on the host for several days,
feeding, then usually drops off to molt;
then it will climb back up on another
host. This time, In the nyxnphal stage
(four pairs of legs), It begins to feed
again. The female can lay up to 5,000
eggs Unhatched eggs can remain viable
81
-------
for 7 to 8 months, and the young ticks
can remain alive without a host for over
a year. A complete life cycle takes
about 60 days; there are three or more
generations a year in the South.
The hard ticks take only one blood
meal in each of their three develop
mental stages (called instars). They
usually have only two or three hosts
during development, whereas the soft
ticks have many hosts. The soft ticks
usually hide in crevices during the day
and feed on their host at night. The
term one host or three host tick
is often used. This simply refers to
the number of alternate hosts the tick
will use to complete its life cycle.
Alternate hosts include mammals (espe-
cially small rodents), birds, and even
reptiles. The cattle tick ( Boo philus
annulatus (Say)) is an example of a one
host tick that feeds only on cattle
during all three instars.
Transmission of diseases has long
been associated with insects, notably
with mosquitoes, and their role in the
transmission of malaria, yellow fever,
encephalitis, and other diseases. Ticks
are also vectors of many diseases that
are transmitted to livestock and humans.
The American dog tick ( Dermacentor
variabilis (Say)) and the Rocky Mountain
wood tick ( Dermacent andersoni Stiles)
both attack bovines, but rarely transmit
any disease to them; however, they do
transmit Rocky Mountain spotted fever to
humans.
A tick-transmitted disease of par-
ticular interest is the disease of Texas
cattle fever transmitted by the cattle
tick, previously mentioned. This tick
attacks cattle, horses, mules, and some-
times sheep, but the disease is only
transmitted to bovines This disease
has practically been eliminated from the
United States by regulatory quarantines
pasture rotations, and insecticidal
treatment of infested stock and stock
premises. Specific ticks of importance
to livestock are discussed below.
The cattle tick ( Boophilus annula-
tue (Say)) is a serious problem tick of
the Southern States because it transmits
Texas cattle fever. It spends its life
cycle on only one host. Females can lay
up to 5,000 eggs each.
Host preference Cattle. Also
und on horses, mules, deer, and
sometimes sheep.
Distribution - Now found only in
the extreme Southern part of the
United States (Texas, Florida).
Diseases Cattle tick fever or
Texas fever of bovines only.
Disease organism is a protozoa
( Babesia bigemifla) , which lives
inside the red corpuscle of the
blood.
Special contro - Quarantine. See
discussion under diseases The
vector tick cannot live in the
colder northern areas. Without
the tick, there can be no fever.
Eradication lfl the South was by
sprays, dips, and pasture rotations
(19061938).
The Gulf Coast tick ( Amblyomma
maculatu Koch) and the ear tick
( Otobiu megflini (Dug s)) have similar
habits; they infest the ears of the
host.
In the last nymphal stage, the ear
ticks outer skin is covered with short
peglike hairs (spinose stage), which
help it to remain attached to the
inside of the ear of the host. The
larvae leave the host and crawl in the
cracks about stables, fences, or trees;
they shed their skin and become adults.
The adults do not feed, and are not
found On the host. Eggs are laid on the
ground and when the seed ticks hatch
out, they attach themselves to the skin
of the host animal and crawl to the ear,
where they attach.
The larvae of the Gulf Coast tick
attack birds and other small mammals,
whereas the adults attack the ears of
livestock. Injury to the ears usually
attracts secondary pests, particularly
the screwworm fly.
Host preference - Cattle, horses,
mules, dogs, and sheep. Alternate
hosts include the quail, meadow
larks, and other ground birds.
82
-------
Distribution - Most prevalent in
Southwestern United States, In a
100-mile-wide coastal band from
South Carolina to Texas.
Special controls - None. Areas of
the ear (Inside and out) and the
base of the horns must be treated.
The lone star tick ( Amblyomma
americanum (Linnaeus)), larvae, nymphs,
or adults of which may attack humans or
domestic animals, can survive a year or
longer without food. Many wild mammals
and birds serve as hosts for the imma-
ture stages. The tlcktS bite is very
painful and may be followed by large
secondary sores.
Host preference Cattle, horses,
hogs, humans, birds, and most
other domestic and wild mammals.
Distribution - East of central
Texas, north of southern Iowa,
and east to Atlantic Coast, south
to Louisiana and Mississippi.
Diseases - Vector of Rocky Mountain
spotted fever in humans (Texas and
Oklahoma); suspected vector of Q
fever and tularemla.
The winter tick ( Dermacentor
albipictus (Packard)), like the cattle
tick, is a one host tick, which is pres-
ent on the host only during the winter
months (September to early spring).
Eggs are laid on the ground, and the
larvae bunch together in the warmer
months; when the weather becomes
cold, the tick attacks the host. Once
attached to the host, the tick completes
its life cycle and drops off only when
the adult stage is reached.
Host preference Includes cattle,
horses, elk, deer, and larger
domestic animals, and is a serious
pest of and diseasetransmitter to
moose in Minnesota north to Canada.
Distribution - Widely distributed
throughout North America and
Canada.
Other ticks that are associated
more with dogs and humans, but which may
attack livestock, include: 1) The Arner-
loan dog tick ( Dermacentor variabilis
(Say)) is distributed in the Eastern
United States and transmits Rocky
Mountain spotted fever in humans and
rodents; 2) the brown dog tick ( Rhipi-
cephalus sanguineus (Latreille)) is a
vector of canine spiroplasmosis and
anaplasmosis of cattle; 3) the Rocky
Mountain wood tick ( Dermacentor ander-
soni Stiles) is a vector of spotted
fever and tularemia. Only adults feed
on humans and large animals; larvae feed
on smaller anima]s.
Comparative Performance Evaluation
Comparative Efficacy
Lindane and each of Its major
alternatives were assumed to be equally
efficacious In the initial control of
the pests evaluated. Although data com-
paring the efficacy of these pesticides
were not available, this assumption
was based on Information provided by
livestock specialists contacted by the
assessment team.
The one possible exception to this
generalization is the effectiveness of
malathion In controlling mites on hogs
and pigs. Some of the specialists
believed that malathion was less effec-
tive than lindane and toxaphene on this
livestock class/pest combination; how-
ever, the assessment team reached a
consensus that, for a national level of
analysis, the best assumption was equal
efficacy for this pesticide, also.
Although these pesticides all kill
pests equally well initially, some have
different periods of residual effective-
ness, as indicated by the need for addi-
tional applications (table 43). Table
43 contains national averages of the
number of applications per year, which
reflect a combination of information
from the 1976 National Pesticide Usage
Survey, the Biological Survey for Lin-
dane Assessment, and a January 1978
meeting with livestock specialists in
BeltsviUe, Maryland. The frequency of
application required to control a pest
may vary by region of the country, but
these variations have been averaged Into
the national figures, inasmuch as In this
preliminary benefit analysis, impacts
were analyzed at the national level.
83
-------
Table 43.--Number of pesticide applications per year! for lindane and its major
alternatives, by livestock class and pest
Livestock
class
Pesticide
Pest
Lice
Ticks
Horn flies
Mites
Beef cattle
lindane [ RPARI
lindane ERPAR] +
toxaphene ERPARI
toxaphene ERPAR]
methoxychlor
coumaphos
dioxathion
ronnel IRPAR]
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
2
2
V--
3
3
--
4
3
3
3
4
--
--
--
--
--
--
- -
--
Hogs and Pigs
lindane ERPARJ
lindane (RPAR] +
toxaphene ERPAR]
toxaphene ERPAR]
coumaphos
ronnel (RPAR]
malathion
2
2
2
2
2
2
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
1
1
1
- -
--
1
1/ National averages selected by the Lindane Assessment Team for Livestock based
on information from the 1976 National Pesticide Usage Survey (270), the Biological
Survey for Lindane Assessment (69), and a meeting with livestock specialists, January
1719, 1978, at Beltsvile, Maryland (291).
2/ Dashes indicate that the pesticide named to the left in the row was not selected
as an alternative, or a whole column of dashes indicates that the pest named at the
top of the column was not selected for analysis for the class of livestock named to
the left.
An examination of table 43 reveals
that, on beef cattle, no alternative
pesticide requires more applications per
year than lindane, and most offer equal
control with one less application.
Consequently, it Is apparent that short
residual effectiveness is a disadvantage
of lindane as compared with many alter-
nate pesticides. In fact, much of the
lindane applied to cattle Is used in
combination with toxaphene, which has
longer residual effectiveness. In its
rebuttal, Hooker Chemicals and Plastics
stated, Further, to our knowledge,
lindane is not used as the sole active
Ingredient in a pesticide product avail-
able for livestock use (98). Lindanes
advantage is its fast knockdown of
pests. This is why it Is usually
combined with toxaphene IRPARI. This
combination was developed in Texas and
finds most of its usage in Texas, Okla-
homa, and the Missouri area. This is an
excellent combination, that is valued by
stockrnen. It combines the convenience
of the quick knockdown of lindane with
the slower and longer residual action
of toxaphene. Of the remaining major
alternatives, carbaryl, dichlorvos,
piperonyl butoxide, and ronnel are in
various stages of the RPAR process.
Residual effectiveness, as indi-
cated by number of treatments per year,
does not separate the pesticides when
treating lice or mites on hogs and pigs.
In the lower half of table 43, it can be
seen that there Is no difference In the
number of treatments per year among the
pesticides.
84
-------
Comparative Yield/Quality
No data were available comparing
differences in yield or quality of pro-
duction resulting from use of lindane or
its alternatives to control livestock
pests. It is recognized that animals
are stressed each time they are sprayed,
and that slight losses in yield might be
associated with the pesticides that
require an additional application to
control a pest. When one considers the
lack of data and the fact that there was
only a one -application-per-year differ-
ence among the pesticides, however it
was assumed in the analysis that there
were no yield or quality differences
regardless of which pesticide was used.
Comparative Costs
A comparison of pesticide annual
treatment costs per animal is tabulated
in table 44 for beef cattle and table 45
for hogs and pigs. The ranges of annual
treatment costs for beef cattle are 33
to 454 per animal for ]i.ndane products,
and 33$ to 624 per animal for the alter-
natives. For hogs and pigs, the ranges
of annual treatment costs are 164 to 35
per animal for lindane products and 18
to 494 per animal for the alternatives.
A detailed discussion on lindane/
toxaphene is presented in the next
section titled: Comparative Costs of
Lindane + Toxaphene Combination.
For beef cattle, the weighted
average treatment costs per animal for
the alternatives are greater than those
for lindane products, by 5$ for lice and
horn flies, and 84 for ticks. These
treatment costs are tabulated at the
right side of table 44 and are summar-
ized below:
For hogs and pigs, the weighted
average treatment costs of the alter-
natives are greater than those for
Undane products, by 64 per animal for
lice, and 2$ per animal for mites.
These treatment costs are tabulated at
the right side of table 45 and are sum-
marized below:
____ Lindane Alternatives Difference
$O.332 $0.389 $O.057
.175 .198 .023
The procedure and assumptions
underlying these treatment cost compari-
sons are described in the footnotes of
tables 44 and 45. It should be pointed
out that even though it may take more
applications of lindane to control a partic-
ular pest, the overall costs are lower.
Comparative Costs of
Lindane + Toxaphene Combination
To examine the effect of lindane
cancellation, a weighted average treat-
ment cost for llndane and another
weighted average treatment cost for its
alternatives were calculated for each
livestock class/pest combination. This
procedure assumed that animals treated
with lindane in the base year (1976)
would be distributed among the currently
used alternative pesticides if lindane
wore canceled Each alternative was
weighted by the number of animals
treated with the alternative in the base
year, which has the effect of propor-
tionally distributing more of the
animals previously treated with lindano
to the more popular alternatives.
This weighting procedure for the
alternatives was simple, because they
were all single active ingredient formu-
lations for which data were available.
For lindane, however, it was necessary
to weight the multiple-active-ingredient
formulation of lindane + toxaphene and
the single lindane formulation, and no
data were available separating animals
treated with the one from those treated
with the other. The 1976 National
Pesticide Usage Survey reported number
of animals treated by active Ingredient,
but not by combined formulations. The
Hooker rebuttal (98), and the livestock
specialists, indicated that of the ani-
mals treated with lindane, few (especially
beef cattle) were treated with single
active Ingredient lindane formulations.
Pest
Lice
Mites
____ Lindane Alternatives Difference
Lice $G.386 $O.435 $O.049
Ticks .383 .467 .084
Horn flies .335 .387 .052
85
-------
Table 44.-Treatment cost per animal for lindane and principal alternative pesticides in controlling pests on beef
cattle, United States, 1976
Application
Pest and rate per
Pesticide animal!
Retail price
per pound
a.i. V
Cost per treatment per animal
Treatments
per year . !
Annual treatment costs per animal
Increase in
By Weighted cost with-
pesticide average /out1indane
Pesticide Labor / Total
material
Lb a.i.
Dollars
Dollar
Number
Dollars
Lice:
iindane [ RPAR]
lindane [ RPAR] +
0.0012
.0007
14.80
!(13.30)
0.018 0.133 0.151
.044 .133 .177
3
2
0.453
0.386
toxaphene ERPARI
.0140
Alternatives:
toxaphene ERPARI
.0200
2.31
.046 .133 .179
2
.358
methoxychlor
.0200
3.75
.075 .133 .208
3
.624
coumaphos
.0025
16.24
.041 .133 .174
2
.348 .435
dioxathion
.0064
10.04
.064 .133 .197
2
.394
ronnel [ RPARJ
.0054
6.70
.034 .133 .167
2
.334
Ticks:
lindane ERPAR]
lindane [ RPAR] +
.0012
.0007
14.80
.QJ (13.30)
.015 .133 .151
.044 .133 .177
3
2
.453
.383
toxaphene [ RPARJ
.0140
Alternatives:
toxaphene [ RPAR]
.0200
2.31
.046 .133 .179
2
.358
.084
coumaphos
.0050
16.24
.081 .133 .214
3
.624
dioxathion
.0064
10.04
.064 .113 .197
3
.591
Horn flies:
J.indane [ RPAR]
lindane ERPARI +
.0012
.0007
14.80
!/(13.30)
.018 .067 .085
.044 .067 .111
4
3
.340
.333
toxaphene [ RPARJ
.0140
Alternatives:
toxaphene [ RPAR]
coumaphos
.0200
.0025
2.31
16.24
.046 .067 .113
041 .067 .108
3
4
.339
.432 .387 .052
methoxychlor
.0200
3.75
.075 .067 .142
3
.426
1/ Developed by the Assessment Team from information on manufacturers labels and State recommendations; assumes 0.5 gallon
finished spray solution per animal.
2/ Based on discussions with pesticide manufacturers, published price lists, and prices used in the Toxaphene Assessment Team
report; USDA/State/EPA, 1978 (246).
3/ Assumes 2 persons needed for spray applications. 1 at $4.50 per hour and 1 at $3.50 per hour; 1 minute per application per
animal for lice and ticks, and 1/2 minute per application per animal for horn flies.
4/ Taken from table 43.
5/ Treatment cost per animal, by pesticide, times the number of animals treated (table 41) with each pesticide for specific pests.
USDA, ESCS. 1976 (270).
6/ The retail price of Cooper-Tox Extraฎ, which is a combination of lindane (1.96 pct) and toxaphene (45 pct). is $13.30 per
gallon. It is mixed at the rate of 1 gallon of formulated product to 150 gallons of water. flth a spray rate of 0.5 gallon per
animal, this is enough solution to treat 300 animals. Therefore, the cost per application per animal for the lindane + toxaphene
mixture is $0.044 (t 13.30 per gallon 4 300 anintalsi.
-------
Table 45.---Treatment cost per animal for lindane and principal alternative pesticides in controlling pests on hogs and
pigs, United States, 1976
Application
Pest and rate per
Pesticide animal!
Retail price
per pound
a.i..a
Cost per treatment per animal
Treatments
per year.!
Annual treatment costs per animal
Pesticide Labor! Total
material
Increase in
By Weighted cost with-
pesticide average . / out lindane
Lb a.i.
Dollars
Dollars
Number
Dollar
Lice:
lindane [ RPAR]
lindane [ RPAR] +
0.0016
.0007
14.80
. !(13.30)
0.024 0.133 0.157
.044 .133 .177
2
2
0.314 0 332
.354
toxaphene ERPAR]
.0140
Alternatives:
toxaphene [ RPAR]
.0086
2.31
.020 .133 .153
2
.306
counaphos
.0025
16.24
.041 .133 .174
2
.348 .389 0.057
ronnel ERPAR]
.0100
6.70
.067 .133 .200
2
.400
malathion
.0250
4.52
.113 .133 .246
2
.492
Mites:
lindane ERPARI
lindane ERPAR] +
.0019
.0010
14.80
!/( 13.30)
.028 .133 .161
.066 .133 .199
1
1
.161 175
.199
toxaphene ERPAR]
.0210
Alternatives:
toxaphene [ RPAR]
.0200
2.31
.046 .133 .179
1
.179
malathion
.0250
4.52
.113 .133 .246
1
.246 .198 .023
1/ Developed by the Assessment Team from information on manufacturers labels and State recommendations; assumes 0.5 gallon
finished spray solution per animal.
2/ Based on discussions with pesticide manufacturers, published price lists, and prices used in the Toxaphene Assessment
Team report; USDA/State/EPA, 1978 (246).
3/ Assumes 2 persons needed for spray applications, 1 at $4.50 per hour and 1 at $3.50 per hour; 1 minute per application
per animal for lice and ticks, and 1/2 minute per application for horn flies.
4/ Taken from table 43.
5/ Treatment cost per animal, by pesticide, times the number of animals treated (table 41) with each pesticide for specific
pests. USDA, ESCS, 1976 (270).
!/ The retail price of Cooper-Tox Extraฐ, which is a combination of lindane (1.96 pct) and toxaphene (45 pct), is $13.30 per
gallon. For lice, it is mixed at the rate of 1 gallon of formulated product to 150 gallons of water. % ith a spray rate of 0.5
gallons per animal this is enough to treat 300 animals at a cost of $0.044 per animal ($13.30 per gallon ๗ 300 animals). For
mites, it is mixed at the rate of 1 gallon of formulated product to 100 gallons of water. With a spray rate of 0.5 gallon per
animal this is enough solution to treat 200 animals at a cost of $0.066 per animal ($13.30 per gallon ๗ 200 animals).
-------
As best could be determined, ani-
mals treated with single active ingredi-
ent formulations were reported under
MUndane in the 1976 National Pesticide
Usage Survey, and animals treated
with lindane + toxaphene formulations
were reported under toxaphene. Thus,
the annual treatment costs for single
active ingredient lindane formulations
were weighted by the number of animals
reported under lindane, and the annual
treatment costs for lindane + toxaphene
formulations were weighted by the number
of animals reported under toxaphefle.
The limitations of this procedure
are of concern, but the results seem to
be consistent with other information on
the approximate distribution, that is,
the weights for beef cattle were heavily
weighted in favor of the lindane + toxa-
phene combination (70 pct lindane +
toxaphene and 30 pct lindane), and the
weights for hogs and pigs were approx-
imately equally weighted (40 pCt lindane
+ toxaphene and 60 pct lindane). These
weights for hogs and pigs may be
unduly weighted toward the single active
ingredient formulation. In addition to
checking consistency of the weights, the
sensitivity of the final solution to
the weights was evaluated .i i This
sensitivity analysis concluded that the
effect on the Solution was not large
enough to be important. As the weights
were varied through a reasonable range,
the final result was increased by a
maximum of 6 percent or decreased by
a maximum of 11 percent.
Once the treatment costs were
weighted, the increase in treatment cost
per animal was calculated by subtracting
the weighted average treatment cost for
lindane from the weighted average treat-
ment cost for the alternatives.
11/ Beef: The livestock specialists indicated that little or no lindane was
used on beef cattle as a single active ingredient. Therefore, schemes heavily
weighted toward lindane + toxaphene combinations were examined. The most extreme
case was 0 pct treated with lindane as a sole active ingredient and 100 pct treated
with the combination. This extreme case increased the solution (change in treatment
cost) by $102,700 (from $233,600 to $336,300) or 44 pct. The more realistic case of
10 pct treated with lindane and 90 pct treated with the combination yielded a lesser
increase in the solution of $69,900 (from $233,600 to $303,500) or 30 pct.
Hogs and pigs: The livestock specialists were less sure of the actual lindane
versus lindane + toxaphene combination distribution for hogs and pigs, although there
was agreement that more lindane was used as a sole active ingredient than on beef
cattle. Reflecting this information, the following two pairs of weights were
examined: lindane - 25 pct, lindane + toxaphene - 75 pct; lindane - 50 pct, lindane
+ toxaphene - 50 pct. The first pair of weights lowered the solution by $191,700
(from $849,800 to $658,100) or 23 pct. The second pair of weights lowered the
solution by a lesser amount, $35,100 (from $849,800 to $814,700) or 4 pct.
Combination of Beef Cattle with Hogs and Pigs: The solution from the original
analysis was an increase in treatment costs of $1,083,400. As the purpose of this
sensitivity analysis was to examine the amount of change in this solution as the
weights were changed, the problem was resolved for each weighting scheme in the
sensitivity analysis, and the solutions were compared. The four solutions combining
beef cattle with hogs and pigs are tabulated below. The numbers in parentheses
express the differences between each solution and the original solution, as a percent
of the original solution ($1,083,400).
Beef Cattle
L 0 pct; L+T 100 pct L - 10 pct; L+T - 90 pct
L 25 pct; L+T 75 pct $994,400 (8 pct) $961,600 (11 pct)
L 50 pct; L+T 50 pct $1,151,000 (6 pct) $1,118,200 (3 pct)
The maximum increase in the solution as a result of the weighting scheme was 6
percent, and the maximum decrease was 11 percent.
Hogs and Pigs
88
-------
Economic Impact Analysis
Profile of Impact Areas
Historically, per-capita consump-
tion of beef has had a long upward
trend. Also, retail beef and pork
prices have generally trended upward
since the early 1970s.
The inventory of beef cattle on
farms increased steadily until 1975,
when it decreased due to a cost-price
squeeze. Dry weather and poor pastures
in recent years contributed to the
decline in beef cattle numbers. In
1976, the January 1 inventory of beef
cattle on U.S. farms (46 contiguous
States) was 106 million head (284). In
1976, 55 million head of breeding and
market hogs were inventoried on farms
on December 1 (285).
User Impacts
Normally, changing a factor of
production, for example, pesticide
availability, will be reflected in both
factor costs and production yield and/or
quality. Cancellation of lindane for
livestock uses, however, is estimated to
increase pest control costs slightly,
but have no effect on production, yield,
or quality in either the short or long
run. In the short run, no production
effects are expected because, as
described earlier in this report,
equally efficacious alternatives are
available whose use will not cause yield
or quality losses. In the long run, no
effect is expected because of the
increase in factor costs, which is so
small (maximum 8 per animal per year).
Virtually any change in market price per
cwt would have more effect on production
decisions than would this magnitude of
change in factor costs.
The impact of lindane cancellation
on livestock producers via increased
annual treatment costs is aggregated by
livestock class and pest in table 46.
The increase in total annual treatment
cost in the continental United States
was estimated at $1,083,400, a $233,600
increase for beef cattle and a $849,800
increase for hogs and pigs. The calcu-
lation of increase in aggregate annual
treatment cost in the United States was
made by multiplying the cost per animal
by the number of animals treated for
each livestock class/pest combination,
and summing these products. Realities,
which were not specifically analyzed
here, included supply availability and
local beliefs.
Market Impacts
A pesticide cancellation impacts
the product market by causing shifts
in supply, that is, by causing yield or
quality differences, or both, in the
product. Yield and quality changes
are not expected short run, but long
run they are, and market impacts are
anticipated.
Limitations of the Analysis
1) By conducting the analysis at
the national level, regional differences
in pest problems, numbers of pesticide
applications, and so forth, were not
accounted for. Data limitations pre-
vented a regional analysis, but with the
small magnitude of the impacts at the
national level and the lack of any
specific regional problems becoming
apparent during the analysis, this limi-
tation is not severe.
2) Production yield and quality
differences resulting from the use of
alternative pesticides were not analyzed,
because data for these comparisons were
not available. In the judgment of the
livestock specialists, however, there
are no important differences.
3) Data were not available com-
paring the number of animals treated
with lindane in single active ingredient
formulations and in combination formula-
tions with toxaphene. Consequently,
this distribution was made under assump-
tions as outlined in the section titled:
Comparative Costs of Lindane + Toxaphene
Combination. The effect of these
assumptions on the benefit estimate was
found to be small in a sensitivity
analysis.
89
-------
1/ Does not include Alaska and Hawaii.
2/ Taken from tables 41 and 42.
3/ Taken from tables 44 and 45.
Source: Calculated by Lindane Assessment
4) The survey used for data on
animals treated and to estimate distri-
butions of usage among pesticides was
not designed specifically for this type
of study. Consequently, data were
aggregated during both the collection
and data summarization phases of the
survey in ways which made it impossible
to break out data by method of applica-
tion (dip, spray, dust bag, oiler),
formulation (single active ingredient,
lindane + toxaphene), and to determine
the extent of double counting (from
animals being treated for more than one
pest at a time, or from animals being
treated with a pesticide product
containing more than one active ingre-
dient). The severity of this problem to
the analysis is unknown but is expected
to be small.
Summa y
Lindane is the only material (in
many cases) that is registered, or is at
Team for Livestock (291).
least the superior treatment for certain
pests of livestock. Lindane is the only
material registered for fleas, lice,
ticks, and psoroptic and sarcoptic mite
(mange/scab) control in and around live-
stock premises. Lindane is the only
registered material for the control of
V chorioptic, and sarcoptic
mite (mange/scab/itch) control on
cattle, and premises. Lindane is the
superior treatment for the control of
chorioptic, psoroptic, and sarcoptic
mite (mange/scab/itch) control on hogs,
and control of fleas and ticks in hog
premises. Lindane is the superior
treatment for the control of chorioptic,
psoroptic, and sarcoptic mites (mange/
scab/itch) control on sheep/goats and in
their bedding. Lindane is the material
of choice for control of ticks, lice,
and mites on horses. It should again be
pointed out that mange control is
classified as a quarantineable disease
and usually is handled under Federal/
State quarantine regulatory programs.
Table 46.--Annual user impacts from lindane cancellation for livestock uses: Change
in annual treatment costs for beef cattle and hogs and pigs, United States 11
Livestock class
and Pest
Number of
animals treated V
Increase in treatment cost i
Per animal
Total
Beef cattle
Lice
Ticks
Horn flies
1,000
2,843.4
309.5
1,314.4
Dollars
0.049
.084
.052
1,000 Dollars
139.3
26.0
68.3
Total
4,467.3
.052
233.6
Hogs and Pigs
14,401.7
1,254.5
.057
.023
820.9
28.9
Lice
1ites
Total
15,656.2
.054
849.8
u.s. Total
1,083.4
90
-------
CHAPTER 6
BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF LINDANE
USE ON PINEAPPLES
Current Use Analysis
EPA Registrations of Lindane
and Alternatives
Lindane has a special EPA registra-
tion for the control of symphylids in
Hawaiian pineapple production.
Lindane is generally applied with
one or more soil fumigants, which are
used primarily for nematode control.
The fumigants also provide initial syrn-
phylan control. At least four fumigant
compounds are registered by EPA for
symphylan control and include I3BC
or DBCP (1 ,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane),
EDB (ethylene dibromide), Teloneฎ (1,3-
dichioropropene), D D (a mixture of 1 , 3-
dichloropropene, 1, 2-dichloropropane and
related C 3 compounds), and chloropicrin.
Chloropicrin, however, apparently is not
utilized.
Volume III of the EPA compendium
of registered pesticides (296) lists the
application rates, use restrictions, and
other information concerning the above
symphylan pesticides for pineapples.
Use of Lindane and Alternatives
in Hawaii
According to State agricultural
statistics, Hawaiian pineapple produc-
tion has steadily declined in recent
years from 58,000 acres in 1972, down to
43,000 acres in 1977 (table 47). The
use of lindane, however, is confined to
about 72 percent of the planted acres.
Each year from one-fourth to one-third
of the acres are planted, and lindane is
applied at this time. That is, lindane
is applied once in either a 3- or 4-year
growing cycieJA/ One or more of
the fumigants, noted above, are applied
to some larger share of the planted
acreage, as they are utilized primarily
12/ Growing cycle duration is a
production decision variable.
Table 4 7.--Acreage in pineapple
production in Hawaii
Year
Acres
1972
58,100
1973
57,500
1974
55,000
1975
50,000
1976
48,000
1977
43,000
Sources: Adapted from Hawaii
Agricultural Reporting Service,
1977 (94); Pineapple Growers
Association of Hawaii, 1977 (198).
for nematode control. Attention will be
directed in this analysis toward those
acres annually affected by symphylans.
Lindane is utilized in addition to the
fumigants because the fumigants lack
the residual effect of lindane, and
reportedly do not control symphylans
surviving initial exposure. Moreover,
according to the industry, production
contingencies and unfavorable weather
Conditions may combine to preclude soil
tilth requisite to effective fumi-
gation (196). During the 3 or 4year
production cycle, about two-thirds to
three-quarters of the acreage is har-
vested annually, and about one-fourth to
one-third is planted. Apparently, it is
the early growth that is damaged by
infestation. Of the approximately
13,400 acres planted annually, 9,650
acres (about 72 pct) are subject to
infestation requiring lindane applica-
tion during the planting process (199).
Lindane is applied broadcast or in
a row, once or twice every 3 to 4 years.
The product used is a 100 percent
lindane formulation to be applied as a
water-dispersible spray or in a volatile
soil fumigant at 2 to 5 pounds of
formulated product per acre. Assuming
91
-------
that 2 pounds of lindane are applied
per acrJ / on the average affected
acre, this means that approximately
19,300 lb (9.7 tons) are applied for
symphylid control annually (that is,
9,650 x 2.0 = 19,300 ib). According to
the Pineapple Growers Association of
Hawaii, in fact, the annual range of
lindane varies between 9 and 24 tons.
Nevertheless, for 1976 the same growers
association reported to the Pacific
Biomedical Research Center use of only
9,105 lb. or 4.5 tons (197).
A national survey by EPA determined
that use of lindane on pineapples
involved 7,274 lb in 1974. This means
that about 1.96 percent of the total
U.S. agricultural consumption of lindane
was applied that year to Hawaiian
pineapples (297).
Usage figures for the alternatives
are not detailed, because in the strict-
est sense there are no alternatives;
rather, the various RPARd fumigants --
Telone , DD, and others nOW Serving as
primary symphylan and nematode controls
-- can be expected to remain in use at
current levels.
Performance Evaluation of Lindane
and Alternatives
Pest Infestation and Damage
The pests in question are soil
arthropods -- the tropical symphylan
( Hanseniella unguiculata Hansen) and a
similar symphylan saki-
murai Scheller). Pineapple roots are
damaged by symphylan chewing, especially
soon after planting. Pineapples are
typically planted in a field that has
been fallow for 6 monthS to a year.
Symphylans that survive the plantless
period are attracted to the succulent,
vigorously growing roots of newly
13/ All indications, including
industry reports of annual totals,
discussed above, and performance studies
(198) are that 2 lb/acre active ingre-
dient is the average use rate. Heavier
applications apparently have no yield
benefits.
planted pineapple. Injury, causes delay
in establishment of the root system for
various lengths of time, depending upon
the severity of infestation. In extreme
cases, growth may be delayed 3 months,
and such affected plants will be per-
manently stunted (196); however, actual
yield losses in unprotected fields have
not been reported.
High populations of both species of
symphylans tend to be associated with
high (40 inches +) annual rainfall, plus
high calcium levels in the soil. High
populations are generally restricted to
areas that contain large amounts of
crushed coral, for example, old railway
beds, stable sites, concrete remains in
foundations, and others (69).
Comparative Performance Evaluation
Comparative Efficacy
This section of the report presents
information regarding the efficacy of
lindane and other measures of control
for symphylans. Information is pre-
sented on fumigants to which lindane is
usually added as a supplemental control
compound. Performance information is
available for DD (1 , 3-dichloropropene,
1 , 2-dichioropropane and related C.
chlorinated hydrocarbons) and BI3C
(DJ3CP). Unfortunately, the available
test information does not provide an
assessment of the performance of Telone
and EDB, two fumigants that are widely
utilized today according to the
Pineapple Growers Association (199).
Following the sections dealing with
individual treatments, there is a
discussion of the relative efficacy of
the alternative control measures.
Lindane . --Lindane has been utilized
in recent years as an auxiliary treat-
ment for symphylan control on pine-
apples. It is generally applied in the
row or broadcast at the average rate of
2 lb active ingredient per acre. It may
be applied as a water-dispersible spray,
or through drip irrigation, or in a
volatile soil fumigant. The soil fumi-
gation procedure apparently is the most
common practice.
92
-------
Lindane is also used as a post-
planting rescue, but this is seldom
necessary according to the growers
association. Application is effected
through water dispersion or through drip
irrigation at 2 lb active ingredient
per acre (196).
It is reported that preplant soil
fumigation for nematode control, which
was developed prior to the advent of
lindane, is highly efficient in killing
symphylans whenever the fumigant is
properly placed into well pulverized
soil. As noted, sometimes production
schedules, or unfavorable weather
conditions, or both, result in soil
preparations that lead to poor soil
tilth. The full effect of fumigation
will not be obtained under these condi-
tions. Symphylans may cause substantial
damage to new roots at this point and
develop into a heavy infestation before
plants are established. Also, according
to evidence from tests conducted by
the industry:
.because fumigation leaves no
residual toxicity to the symphyl-
ans, reinfestation readily occurs
after about 6 months, regardless of
how well the fumigation was done.
Lindane, which has a good residual
toxicity, applied in combination
with a fumigant, provides good pro-
tection of pineapple roots after
fumigant effects fade away, partic-
ularly in the second 6 months and
thereafter in the cycle. Towards
the end of the second year, how-
ever, efficacy of lindane is
reduced and substantial infestation
may return. However, the plants at
this time are able to tolerate the
symphylans sufficiently to produce
a satisfactory ratoon crop (second
crop) toward the end ot the third
year II (196).
The advantages of lindane are as
follows:
1) Lindane has a residual effect
that outlasts the fumigants and, there-
by, use minimizes need for additional
pesticide application to control
symphylans.
2) Lindane is easy to apply in
that it can be applied with nernatode-
targeted fumigants at planting. In
fact, the new planting machines can cut
a furrow, lay plastic mulch, apply furni-
gants, fertilize, and plant pineapple
crowns or slips in a single operation.
The marginal cost of lindane application
is, thus, near zero (198).
3) Lindane can be applied when
soil conditions are subideal (not well
pulverized) and still offer effective
control (196).
There have been no agricultural
production disadvantages or problems
identified in the information available.
Soil fumigantsli/.--DD and BBC
(DBCP) are the only fumigants used for
symphylan control for which data are
available; thus, analytic attention will
be focused on these compounds. Teloneฎ
and EDB are also utilized in mixtures
with these other compounds according to
type of nematode infestation and soil
conditions (199). For purposes of im-
pact analysis it is assumed that Teloneฎ
and EDB are comparable to DD and BBC
inasmuch as they have been utilized in
similar fashion with lindane according
to industry information (199). The evi-
dence suggests that DD or BBC without
lindane in a planting or preplant treat-
ment situation is a highly effective
symphylan control even under conditions
of high infestation. Early postplant
(1 to 6 months) of DD or BBC under
high infestation conditions has also
demonstrated substantial control and
yield response effectiveness. DD and
BBC are not considered effective by the
pineapple industry, however, and they
lack residual action beyond 6 to 9
months.
Advantages of soil fumigants are:
1) They are easy to apply.
2) Application costs are virtually
nil with the advent of the planting ma-
chines that enable the grower to mulch,
fumigate, and (with the newest machines)
to plant as well, all in one operation.
14/ DBCP is now under suspension
order; EDB is RPARd.
93
-------
Disadvantages of soil fumig ants are:
1) All of the above-named fumi-
gants apparently lack a residual effect
on symphylans.
2) Soil fumigants do not control
symphylans well if production or weather
conditions, or both, do not permit
sufficient pulverization of the soil for
adequate penetration of the fumigant.
Other compounds.--The pineapple
industry has evaluated, without success,
a number of materials in an effort to
find materials with superior performance
and lower cost. Aldrin/dieldrin, and
heptachlor/chlordane, were tried and
failed to meet growers expectations
for one reason or another; these com-
pounds, of course, are no longer avail-
able legally. Twelve or ganophosphates
(Cyanamid 18133, UC-13, Geigy GA-301,
Geigy GS-34438, Dasanitฎ, Dyfonateฎ,
diazinon, Co-Halฎ, Guthionฎ, Bay 25141,
Cyanamid 43064, and SD-7727) and one
miscellaneous compound (dimethyl disul-
fide) were also tried and found to be
unsatistactory. The fumigant Vorlexฎ
has also been tried, in addition to the
EDB and DBCP noted earlier. The
leading complaint with these soil insec-
ticides and fumigants is their insuf-
ficient persistence.
The growers are not clear on this
point, but apparently they have been
reluctant to switch over to the other
fumigants and insecticides evaluated
because of insufficient persistence.
The lack of persistency would apparently
raise costs where postplanting infes-
tations occur. Although consideration
has been given to the idea, there
are no reports of efforts to circumvent
postplantin g infestation with cultural
practices or any type of monitoring!
rescue treatment system. Tests have
been done on some postplanting fumiga-
tion, but only early in the growth
cycle. Whether this indicates prohibi-
tive cost of selective-rescue treatment
or an absence of developmental effort in
this area has not been reported by State
or industry sources.
Cultural practices . --Rotation of
pineapples with other crops has been
considered by the industry for its pest
control value; however, the precise
effect on symphylan populations has not
been discussed by the industry. Never-
theless, the industry has indicated
that rotation is not practical because:
1) It would double the acreage required
to maintain current output, and 2) there
is no other uniquely low-moisture area
suitable to pineapples (199,289).
Tolerant or resistant varieties.
No indication of pineapple varieties
that are resistant to symphylans has
been reported.
Summary review of efficacy and
yield data . - -The following discussion
reviews the available efficacy data
reflecting on both pest control and
yield response of lindane and the fumi-
gants EDB and BBC (DBCP). The three
compounds are reviewed in the same
section because the joint methods of
application have generated research that
treats performance of lindane and soil
fumigants in parallel fashion.
Apparently, few studies are avail-
able on this subject. All of the
studies have been conducted by the Pine-
apple Research Institute (PR I); three of
the PRI studies are found in references:
(200,201,202). None of these three
studies presents a particularly clear
case for the benefits of lindane; how-
ever, this may be due to inadequate
specification of the methodology in the
reports.
Several important points of eval-
uation emerge from these studies:
1) The test conditions are atypi-
cal from production conditions in regard
to managerial input, and also in respect
to infestation conditions and overall
yield results. The studies reveal
yields as high as 70 tons/acre; normal
yields according to State statistics are
approximately 50 tons/acre over each
cycle.
2) No clear quantitative conclu-
sions can be reached from these tests
regarding the value of DD or BBC
(DBCP) for symphylan control, because
the effects are confounded with lindane.
94
-------
3) Clear quantitative conclusions
regarding lindane are also impossible,
because the results appear to be
confounded with calcium levels in the
soil.
4) The studies seem to indicate
that lindane does have a long residual
action in comparison with DD or DBCP.
In the RPAR response, the industry
at one point argues the need for a con-
trol with a late growing cycle killing
capacity, but at the same time concludes
that toward the end of the second year
plants are sufficiently developed to
resist symphylan attack (196). This is
not consistent with test results and
interpretations, which indicate that the
critical period for damage is the first
3 to 6 months. Also, although the
evidence indicates that the toxicity
of preplant fumigants begins to fade
rapidly after 6 months, the second PRI
study mentions that postplant fumigation
with BBC at 6 months will limit losses
to some extent. In other words,
although symp hylan infestations can
occur after the first 6 months, it is
rare, and rescue treatment with a fumi-
gant at that point may minimize loss.
Under what conditions such treatment
would return its cost is not addressed
in the studies available. Overall,
the ambiguities in the evidence do not
lend much credence to the claim that
lindane offers a substantive production
benefit due to its unique capability
of controlling late infestation.
There may be merit, however, to the
industrys other claim, which asserts
that lindane controls early symphylan
infestations where weather and other
production conditions (not specified) do
permit sufficient pulverizaton of the
soil for proper penetration of fumigants
at planting. The tests made available,
however, do not appear to have tested
explicitly the interaction of soil tilth
and pesticide efficacy.
Comparative Cost
The foregoing studies of perform-
ance and yield response do not fully
clarify the value of fumigants in all
respects; however, the data summarized
in table 48 do indicate the comparative
advantages of fumigants and lindane/
fumigant treatments. The yield advan-
tages attributable to the 2 lb/acre
application of lindane range from 5
percent to 20 percent; the Unweighted
average is about 10.75 percent increase
in yield. These results, however, are
obtained under closely monitored experi-
mental conditions. The typical saving
from lindane treatment is apparently
still lower.
The comparative costs of using
lindane versus the alternative treatment
program, that is, using only fumigants,
reduces to a matter of materials costs.
Fumigants and lindane are applied by
the planting machines together with
fertilizers and mulch; thus, the cost
Table 48.--Summary of Pineapple Research Institute lindane studies
PRI
test
number
Percent cont
fumigant
rol over
only
Cycle yield/acre
(ton)
Lindane
fumigant
+
Fumigant
only
Loss by
percent
Months
after
planting
12
241/
36+
6.5.E7
100
97
46
44
42
6.5.E10
98
72
70
66
6
6.5.E32
86
55
71
56
20
6.5.E38
97
59
37
59
52
12
1/ After plant crop harvest.
2/ After ratoon crop harvest.
Source: Pineapple Growers Association of Hawaii, 1977 (198).
95
-------
a C I )
a a
.2
C I )
I d
U
Do cj,
.4.1
, .9 4 1 VC )
D a
t
- bO
o.Ic, .
14
k a<
14
I D
1 aa
.
a a
1441
0 L
a
a)
514
14 a a
4
8
a j c v
a 0
at 4 . 1 D
p 4
I . .-
I ,-
a)
41
a
4.1
U)
a
DO
a
a
a
8
.0
z
.
a)
9
H
a 14
4 I
40
o. -.
a
:
a
a)a)a)Caa)
. I S I I
a) 0 ) a) 41 a)
,O inco
cv ,I
a
1 4
, a
a)ฉฉ a )0)CV )
410a)I .4C )
1 1 a)
-
c J
a I D
a
a
a
:
a C a) a) 0)
i;
a
a
6
I
, C ) 0) a) 0) a
.
. .
ฃ
0 a) 10 4 1r.-4 ,- 4
4ฉ *. Ia) 4 10)
0) a) a) a) U)
a)
a)
I ; .
I
41 ..
r -.
.0
a
a
I
p 4 ,
I
i
I I-0)0)a)ฉ
I I a) a)
C) a) r-
o
W 0
a
1 M
a)
a
OI . I I S
. a)r..ICC)a)a)
,- tCIg Ig )ID W
a
b
,a
. a ) ฉa) a )
3 a)a)c q 4r4 -4
z
. .l
- .
IDo U )0)N
-N
0)0) 0 3 0 ) 0) C )
414141414141
for application of either or both con-
trol substances is nearly zero (198).
As noted, postplant fumigation either
by itself or with lindane has been
tested for possible enhancement of
]indane applied at planting on sym-
phylans, but without significant yield
results (200); therefore, past planting.
techniques are not evaluated here as
alternative control procedures.
Apparently, the only control costs
associated with either symphylan control
procedure are material costs of using
lindane in the prevailing llndane/
fumigant treatment procedure; that is,
because lindane is the only material
utilized solely for symphylans, it is
the only aspect of the available treat-
ment procedures Incurring cost. The
industry places the cost of lindane at
$88,000 annually. If 9,650 acres are
currently subject to treatment, then
cost per treated acre Is $8.12 (75 pct
of the 13,400 annually planted acres)
(196). No data are available that
reflect an average of treatment condi-
tions, in summary, the additional cost
of using lindane for the chemical con-
trol of symphylans Is $9.12 per acre.
Table 49 reflects the number of
farms, acreage, production, disposition,
price, and value of the pineapple
industry.
Economic Impact Analysis
Method and Assumptions
The report assesses the social and
aggregate economic consequences of
restriction of lindane use to control
symphylans In Hawaii pineapple produc-
tion. It relies on information supplied
by the industry through responses to
rebuttable presumptions against lindane
and DBCP (utilized for pineapple
neinatode control) The analysis also
relies on personal communication with
Industry representatives, USDA/State
and EPA cooperative Impact assessment
team reports, and other information as
available The following procedural
specification and assumptions were used
In the preparation of this analysis:
96
-------
1) This report compares the
results of two separate symphylan con-
trol scenarios: the first effectively
assumes the continued availabifity of
lindane for current symphylan use in
pineap pies; the second assumes that it
will not be available.
2) Although the generally accepted
practice is to use an average of several
years to establish a base for acreage,
yield and price impact analyses (to
avoid extreme fluctuations in any given
year), this analysis relies on the most
recently available data. This has been
done because a review of the data
indicates that rather than being cyclic
in nature, the industry in Hawaii has
experienced a marked downward trend in
acreage, and upward trend in prices. It
was therefore felt that use of the most
recent year, 1977, as opposed to a
3 -year average would more realistically
represent the current pineapple
Situation.
3) Although there is some varia-
tion in cultural practice, the procedure
is to plant the pineapple, wait 18 to 20
months before harvesting the first crop
(called the plant crop), wait 12 to 14
additional months before harvesting the
second crop (called the first ratoon),
then allow the land to lie fallow for 2
to 12 months before repianting. This
entire period is called a production
cycle, and is generally of a 4-year
duration; sometimes, however, fields are
short-cycled and plowed up and planted
after 3 years. A second ratoon crop is
Sometimes harvested 12 to 14 months
after the first ratoon, which extends
the actual productivity of a field to
the 4-year limit; this is rare, however.
This report will assume that the typical
Cycle is 4 years, including fallow time.
4) The future availability of new
Substitute chemicals has also been
addressed,, but as of this writing none
has been found Should new compounds be
found, and registered, they could lessen
the impacts presented in this analysiS.
This would be a distant possibifity,
however, and thus would not lessen the
impacts in the present and the immediate
future.
5) It Is assumed that the price of
fumigants now utilized for symphylan
control (to which lindane is currently
added for longer residual control) will
not change; however, some of these
fumigants are RPARd or suspended and
may not be available, depending upon
their individual assessments.
User Industry and Market Impacts
Although some loss information is
provided through empirical evidence
(table 48) presented in the previous
section indicating test plot yields of
from 5 to 20 percent, the industry
apparently does not view these figures
as representative. The industry esti-
mates a crop loss of 25 percent on
heavily infested areas, which comprise
0.5 percent of the planted area. In
moderately infested areas, the loss Is
projected to range between 3 and 5
percent of the crop (196). The loss
rate for the portion of acreage lightly
infested has not been specified; there-
fore, the data are not adequate to
estimate loss pro rated on the basis of
level of Infestation Nevertheless, the
industry has supplied an overall esti-
mate for loss due to the unavailability
of lindane of 0.8 percent of the total
crop.
Loss to the industry would not be
recorded until the second year of a
growing cycle, at which time fumigants
would be utilized without the lindane
additive. At this point, 18 to 20
months, the first plant crop harvest
would occur In the third year, and
every year thereafter, both plant crop
and ratoon crops would be Impacted.
This conclusion is based on the fact
that approximately one-third of the
acreage is planted each year, while the
other two-thirds is being harvested.
Thus, one-half of the harvest acreage is
at the first harvest stage or plant crop
harvest, and the other half of the
harvest acreage is the second harvest
(about 34 months into the cycle) called
the first ratoon crop. About 80 percent
of the total yield of a pineapple field
Is derived from the plant crop harvest;
the balance Is generally derived from
the first ratoon crop (289). ThIs means
thUt any direct economic Impact on the
97
-------
ฉ ฉ CM N N
N C C
C c
+ Cc ฉ ฉ
-4 -4
ฉ ฉ e u N
Q N CO CO
CO U,
+ CM
It,
ฉ o - ฉ ฉ
ฉ C ,, C C ฉ ฉ
cca cccc
COCDฉฉCO CM
+CMU U CM (
I I I I
- 4
ILt CMCMฉ
Lr U,
I uca -
C, U,U,U U
III I
- . 4
C,, C ฉ
. . . .
ICc U u
I (t)O)
U
III-4 I
CO
CO CO CO CO CO CO
I I I I CM I
4*
4,
ฉฉฉฉฉ I
CO
CM 4*
4 * 4*
ฉฉ C)
CO
ฉ
CO
- 4
a,
m CO ,
CO๘ ๘.-t
-.r-CO N>
- 4j.4
14 I - , C I )
-
- 4
.
oa
:
cn
ฉ
-.4
4,
a,
14
-4 -4 a)
C l ) C l )
- 4
4-
U U)
>
a,
;
Cl )
4 -4
o
4.
oo,
+ - ,
a,
a
.
cyc 4-
CO C)
N
. ,. 4
2. =
-4
4-
.
4.
4 _I
00)
N
I-
L) .E
Cl)
a) ,C
1.4 Cl) 4-I
a,
CO
0
C l )
.0
o ._
4-. C l )
.4-.
4- .
CO 0
a) .4
.0
0>
4 -. 1.4
.
(4-4
0
04- 1
dl) C.)
.0
C.) I .-
0 Cl
a) 0 .
z o
C
-4
0 4
d l )
.0
0 0-4 0
CO 0
a) 0.0
--4
00
C l )
4.
0
I l )
0
0.0
014
.E
I - . )
1. ,
.4.
a,
0
0
4 -
C-,
0
0
.4
0.
1.4
Cl)
a,
C l )
1.4
C
4-4
C l)
a,
1.4
0
C l )
0
a)
-4
Cl)
a)
14
4-
ฉ
U,
0)
CO
CM
0
0
0
0
0
a)
0
Cl)
0
0
0
1 .4
I-I
Cl)
0.
a)
C l )
U,
a,
pineapple crop would be allocated at the
rate of 60 percent the second year of
the cycle and 40 percent in the third
year of the cycle on each field.
Deriving an industry impact value
also depends on a knowledge of the pro-
duction budget and the respective prices
of the portion of a crop supplying fresh
and process markets. Unfortunately, the
oligopolistic ownership pattern does not
permit access either to accurate budget
or pricing information. Therefore, it
was necessary to utilize an average
commodity value for fresh and process
pineapple at the wholesale level based
on industry estimates of crop loss esti-
mated for the loss of lindane control of
symphylans (table 50). As noted, the
industry estimates a crop loss of 0.8
percent per annum, resulting in a
reduction of yield of 5,150 tons and
$515,000. This places the value of the
crop at $100 per ton (this is assumed to
be a weighted average of fresh and
process grade pineapples at the farm
level).
Computing Industry impact on firm
or geographic basis Is not feasible in
the absence of key infestation, budget,
and pricing Information. Primary impact
to the industry stemming from loss of
control on presently treated acreage can
be computed, however, from available
information. The analysis will be based
on the above loss estimates supplied by
the industry. These data appear to be
based on the 1977 experience and expec-
tations for the near future. This
analysis will treat 1978 as the base
year for possible regulatory loss of
lindane, and will examine the effects on
Income streams over a 4-year cycle of
production.
The effects on the pineapple Indus-
try of the loss of lindane are presented
In table 50. The revenue loss from the
third year and every year thereafter,
following removal of lindane, Is esti-
mated to be higher than the second
year because twice as much acreage Is
affected From the third year forward,
however, a plant crop and a ratoon crop
make up the total affected harvest.
98
-------
Also, because the ratoon crop is smaller
than a plant crop on the average, it
will, be assumed that the plant crop
yield is about 60 percent of the cycle
harvest for a planted field. These
factors have been reflected in the
annual loss allocation formula used in
table 50.
The average value of the crop loss
anticipated is placed by the industry at
$515,000 1978 dollars. However, since
the cost of symphylan control would go
down with the elimination of lindane, by
an amount equal to the cost of lindane,
the direct average annual cost to the
industry would be $427,000 per year from
the second year following lindane regis-
tration cancellation through 1981. The
present value of the total loss through
1981 would be $1,018,367 (table 50).
Profile of Impact Areas
Pineapple is grown on the islands
of Kauai, Njihau, Maui, Molokal, Lanai,
and Oahu, which are included in the
Counties of Kauai, Maui, and Honolulu.
The distribution of farms and acreage by
island is shown in table 51. According
to this information and the industrys
RPAR response, the affected production
areas (In fact, the only areas in
Production today) consist of the 2 farms
On Oahu and the 14 located on Maui,
MO1 kal, and Lanai (65).
User and Consumer Impacts
Insufficient data are available on
Production budgets, pricing, and market
Position of the domestic (Hawaiian)
industry relative to the international
SUPpliers to calculate the total net
income impacts on affected areas of use,
or impacts on the retail consumer
Prices. Certain conclusions are
Warranted, however, given the highly
Competitive international market situa-
tion in pineapple production. It is
Uflh1k ly, when one considers the avail-
ability of foreign supplies, that the
Projected crop loss through 1981 of
15,450 tons valued today at $1.02 rail
11 0fl could be passed along to tlie
00 flsumer -- especially the process
Table 51.--Location of pineapple
production in Island of Hawaii, 1976
Farms
Acres
Hawaii
0
0
Kauai/Nilhau
0
0
Maui/Molokai/Lanai
14
32,000
Oahu
2
16,000
Source: Hawaii Agricultural Reporting
Service, 1977 (94).
pineapples which comprise the bulk of
production. Moreover, there are poten-
tial indirect impacts to the overall
industry incurred by the increased cost
associated with efforts to maintain
uniform annual production for maximum
economics in warehousing and marketing
which attend fluctuations In production
and inventories (196).
In short, beyond the 4-year period
for which the $1.02 million Impact
figure is relevant, the overall economic
impact to the Industy could be higher,
as the effects of lost market share and
downward fluctuations in inventory
ripple through the industry. In fact,
with DBCP (one of the major nematode
fuinigants and a source of some symphylan
control) now suspended and subject to
cancellation, the question of overall
jeopardy to the production aspects of
the industry is certainly relevant.
On the other hand, the consumer
impacts stemming from a possible loss of
pineapple production in Hawaii would
appear to be nil, inasmuch as foreign
Imports could fill the gap.
As noted earlier production of
pineapple has declined (table 49) from
947,000 tons In 1972 to the 643,750 tons
projected for 1977. The decline in
production Is apparently attributable to
a loSs f: market shares to the Phil-
ippines and other foreign producers.
DeSpite increased foreign imports, the
value of the Hawaii pineapple crop has
continued to cthnb upward, at the farm
level (tthl649).
99
-------
Table 52.--Principal Hawaii crops ranked by value, 1975 and 1976
Crops
Rank
Value of
production
Perc
all
ent of
crops
1975
1976
1975
1976
1975 1976
Sugar
1
1
1,000_Dollars
74.2
13.0
62.1
20.4
237,000 161,400
Pineapple
2
2
41,600 53,000
1.8
2.4
Macadamia nuts
3
3
5,754 6,307
1.8
2.4
Papayas
4
4
5,668 6,134
0.6
1.0
Anthuriurns
5
5
1,988 2,500
Coffee
6
6
1,399 2,283
0.4
Lettuce
7
7
1,373 1,643
0.4
0.6
0.6
Potted foliage plants
10
8
540 1,550
0.4
0.5
Tomatoes
8
9
1,325 1,241
Head cabbage
9
10
1,160 1,218
0.4
Source: Hawaii Agricultural Reporting Service, 1977 (94).
Hawaii produces 25 percent of the
total world volume of canned pineapples,
or B million cases. Another 8 million
cases of juice are produced annually,
and 72,000 tons of fresh pineapple,
representing 50 percent of the fresh
pineapple consumed in the United States
(199).
Gross income reported from the
pineapple production in Hawaii in 1976
was between $120 and $150 million at the
retail level. Farm level sales data in-
dicate that pineapples are the second
leading crop in Hawaii*(table 52)--20.4
percent of the farm level sales in 1976.
The vast majority of pineapples
are utilized for process production.
For example, 611,000 tons were utilized
In processed products in 1976, and
69,000 tons went to. the fresh market.
The breakdowns for farm value and market
value by disposition of pineapple crops
are presented in tables 53 and 54.
Social and Community Impacts
Where policy impacts agricultural
production, social and community Impacts
are generally an after shock of loss
in farm revenue In a local area. The
loss of farm income can result in cut-
backs in farm labor and, in turn, a loss
of spending and tax monies to support
community services. Economically, such
reduction can negatively impact farm
support industries and processors, and
community retail sales and services, as
well as the quantity and quality of pub-
lic services. Sociologically, economic
impacts of sufficient intensity would
first be detectable in family life, as
income and job losses create psycho-
logical pressures. The previously work-
ing family would have to join the non-
working members In the labor market and
adjust to a lower standard of living.
This in turn would create family dis-
cord, or pressure for migration to new
employment centers, or both. Migration
of a sizable work force can, in turn,
impair citizen satisfaction with, and
access to, social and political institu-
tions In both the out and in migration
areas. Such outcomes spread the effects
to people not directly dependent on
agricultural industries for employment.
Research or data reflecting on
these questions will be useful for
decisionmaking if, in fact, it appears
that both the lindane and DBCP decisions
should go against the industry. That
is, to the extent the Hawaiian pineapple
industry Is jeopardized consideration
of those directly and indirectly depend-
ent on the industry would be Important.
Year-round workers number 2,360 on
plantations and 1,440 in canneries (with
some overlapping). These 3,800 jobs
increase to a little over 12 000 at the
100
-------
Table 53. Pineapples: Number of farms, acreage, production, disposition, price, and value, State, 1972-76
Disposition Farm price Value of
Acreage Production Processed Fresh / Fresh , production
Year Farms used (fresh (fresh market Processed market (fresh
for crop weight) weight)i weight)
1,000
Number Acres 1,000 Tons Dollars per ton
1972 36 58.0 947 906 41 43 120
Million
dollars
43.9
1973 33 57.5 810 748 62 43 120
39.6
1974 20 55.0 700 641 59 49 150
40.3
1975 20 50.0 720 857 63 48 160
41.6
1976 16 48.0 680 611 69 63 210
53.0
1/ Pack statistics (year beginning June 1) were converted to calendar year fresh weight equivalents using
between census of agriculture, annual Hawaii pack data, and monthly Pineapple Growers Association pack data.
relationships
2/ Estimated--reflects value of fresh fruit delivered processing plant door.
sales.
3/ Estimate to reflect value at wholesale establishments for local sales and shipper dock for mainland foreign
Source: Hawaii Agricultural Reporting Service, 1977 (94).
Table 54.--Pineapples: Processor production, fresh sales, and value, State, 1972-76
Processor production It Fresh market sales
(24 size 21/2 canS, weight 45 lb/case) Value ?J Quantity
Frozen canned fruit
Canned Canned concentrate and Shipped
fruit juice juices juices Local Mainland Foreign
Value it
Million
1,000 Cases dollars 1,000 Tons
1972 11,108 7.400 580 140.5 10.2 30.0 0.3
Million
dollars
4.9
1973 9,550 6,600 810 135.0 10.5 51.4 0.3
7.4
8.9
1974 8,110 4,400 400 118.2 16.0 43.2 0.2
175 8,380 4,800 430 126.6 15.3 47.2 0.2
1976 !/NA NA NA 105.5 18.2 50.2 0.1
10.1
14.5
1/ Pineapple Growers Association of Hawaii (year beginning June 1).
2/ Value of canned fruit and juices and byproducts shipped out-of-State and sold within State; Bank of Hawaii.
3/ Market News Service. State Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Commerce.
4/ Value FAS shipping point for outshipments, delivered wholesalers local sales.
5/ NA = not available.
Source: Hawaii Agricultural Reporting Service 1977 (94).
-------
Table 55. --Agricultural employment: Workers on farms, State, annual average
197276
Total farm employment
Hired
workers by type
of farm
Unpaid
Year
Self
employed
family
Hired
Sugar
Pineapple
Other
farm
operators
15+
workers
1972
3,030
1,560
11,210
5,570
2,950
2,690
1973
3,050
1,550
10,770
5,560
2,590
2,620
1974
3,040
1,660
10,180
4,440
2,320
3,420
1975
3,060
1,720
11,040
5,190
2,290
3,560
1976
2,890
1,560
11,240
5,070
2,360
3,810
Source: Hawaii Agricultural Reporting Service, 1977 (94)
Table 56.--Agricultural employment: Hired workers by type of farm, by islands, 19761 /
Island
Sugar
Pineapple
Other
Jan.
Apr.
July
Oct.
Jan.
Apr.
July
Oct.
Jan.
Apr.
July
Oct.
Hawaii
1,480
1,550
1,640
1,600
0
0
0
0
1,780
1,770
1,800
1,990
Kauai
1,320
1,350
1,440
1,340
0
0
0
0
220
260
300
300
Maui/Molokai/Lanai
1,300
1,320
1,420
1,300
820
1,100
2,760
1,060
580
540
610
660
Oahu
680
780
880
880
650
650
1,640
740
1,110
1,140
1,080
1,100
State
4,780
5,000
5,380
5,120
1,470
1,750
4,400
1,800
3,690
3,710
3,790
4,050
1/ Estimates for week which includes 12th of each survey month.
Source: Hawaii Agricultural Reporting Service, 1977 (94).
-------
peak of the season (June-August).
Pineapple workers wages totaled $47
million in 1976 (199). Data on the
levels of plantation employment are
presented in tables 55 and 56.
Many of the seasonal workers are
students from the mainland, whereas the
permanent work force is made up of
Hawaii residents. I3oth classes of work-
ers have experienced erratic employment
throughout the United States in recent
years; however, the problem for the
permanent agricultural worker may be
most serious. Many are of minority
heritage, with more than one family
member dependent on agriculturally
related activities for income. Agricul-
tural labor is allegedly scarce in the
pineapple industry. Shrinking employ-
ment opportunities in agriculture can
present a real problem because some
of the skills are not transferable to
rionagricu1tural sectors.
Whether Hawaiian communities can
absorb some part, or all, of this work
force without substantial social fric-
tion is a problem, the solution of which
may require closer attention.
Macroeconomic Impacts
Although the cancellation of un-
dane has the potential to cause economic
hardship for growers In the affected
areas, the aggregate impact Is not of
major macroeconomic significance. If
however, more than one decision un-
favorable to the Industry should occur
(for example, DBCP and lindane), the
effects of market share loss to foreign
producers could be more significant.
Limitations of the Analysis
1) Pineapple production Is assumed
to remain constant In all areas affect-
ed by the loss of lindane through 1980.
If additional acreage Is placed In pro-
du tt 0 , It Is possible that some or all
of the projected losses in yield from
lo of lindane could be offset.
2) The analysis utilized a limited
Composite acre and loss approach. This
did not permit accurate assessment
of impacts on an island or firm level,
but minimized the evaluation dif-
ficulties caused by annual and
geographical variations in symphylan
damage and production losses. The
composite approach also obscures the
effect of diversity in managerial
approach and pineapple field charac-
teristics.
3) The crop loss estimates used in
the analysis were supplied by industry
representatives and are not supported by
quantitative analysis.
4) Market and consumer price Im-
pact conclusions were developed in the
absence of quantitative information
regarding international supply and
domestic market shares. It was assumed
that international supplies would fill
domestic shortfalls In Hawaiian sup-
plies, because of strong competitive
pressure from these sources.
5) The analysis did not explicitly
consider the potential impacts of dif-
ferentially higher symphylan damage to
market grade pineapples. Rather, it has
been assumed that the Industry took this
possibility into consideration in devel-
oping the loss estimates that they
supplied.
6) Although It Is not known, for
the purposes of this report it is
assumed that the fumigants Telonee and
EDB are comparable in symphylan control
to DD and DBCP.
Summary
Lindane Is the only insecticide
registered for the control of symphylans
on Hawaiian pineapple. It is used In
conjunction with four soil furnig ants,
some of which are on the RPAR list.
Lindane Is utilized in addition to the
fumigants because these fumigants lack
the residual control necessary for
symphylan control. No nonchemical
alternatives, except the management
practlce of not planting in old beds
and moist fields (conducive to symphylan
development), are available.
103
-------
CHAPTER 7
BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF LINDANE
USE ON ORNAMENTALS
Current Use Analysis
EPA Registrations of Lindane
and Alternatives
Lindane is registered to control a
number of pests on ornamental plants,
both woody ornamentals and floral or
foliage plants. These plants include
several types of wood borers on woody
ornamentals, and thrips, leafminers, and
borers on floral and foliage plants.
Table 57 presents a list of se-
lected woody ornamental pests and the
alternative registered chemicals. The
general lack of alternatives should be
noted. Alternatives are generally
available for the floral and foliage
plant pests, with some exceptions.
Recommendations for Use
of Lindane and Alternatives
State recommendations and product
labels do not always refer to the spe-
cific pest, but use a descriptive group
name, such as flatheaded borers, wood-
boring beetles, shade tree borers, and
so forth. The general categories appear
to be the cause for inconsistent State
recommendations. Therefore, for the
purposes of this analysis, the following
rates and procedures will be used.
These have been derived from a survey of
State recommendations coupled with label
directions. Lindane is available as a
20 percent EC (1.7 lb/gal), a 5 percent
EC, and a 25 percent WP. Rates for spe-
cific insect control in the remainder of
this section have been calculated (lb
a.i.), using the 20 percent EC formula-
tion; rates for the other formulations
should be adjusted accordingly.
Flatheaded Borers
Bronze birch borer.-The rate
applied is 0.63 to 0.85 lb a.i./100
gallons of water (3 to 4 teaspoons per
gallon) applied three times, at 2-week
intervals. In the southern areas, the
first spray is applied in early May, and
in the colder north, the first spray is
delayed until late May. Sprays are
applied, where possible, by hydraulic
sprayers; homeowners use 1- to 3-gallon
compressed-air sprayers.
Table 57.-Chemical alternatives to lindane registered for control of
selected woody ornamental pests
Pests
Alternative registered
chemicals
Non-RPAR
RPAR
Flatheaded Borers
Bronze birch borer
none
none
Flatheaded appletree borer
none
none
Lepidopterous Borers
chiorpyrifos/endosulfan
none
Lilac borer
Dogwood borer
endosulfan
Rhododendron borer
none
none
Peachtree borer
none
none
Lesser peachtree borer
none
none
Roundheaded Wood Borers
none
none
Locust borer
104
-------
Flatheaded appletree borer.--The
rate of lindane used in protective spray
applications is 0.65 lb a.i./100 gallons
(2 tablespoons/gallon) applied as a
thorough coverage. The first spray is
applied in late spring and is repeated
at least twice (perhaps four times) at
2-week intervals until adult egglaying
ceases. For spot treatments, apply 1
percent lindane formulated with pene-
trating oil as a coarse spray or with a
paint brush to infested areas. Alterna-
tively, this solution or a solution of
lindane as recommended for protective
sprays is injected into the borer
tunnels by using a forcefeed oilcan.
Lepidopterous Borers
The rate of lindane as a protective
treatment is 0.63 to 0.85 lb a.l. per
100 gallons of water (3 to 4 teaspoons/
gallon) applied when moths first emerge.
Sprays are applied, where possible,
by hydraulic sprayers; homeowners use
1- to 3-gallon compressed-air sprayers.
Timing and number of spray applica-
tions:
Lilac borer --A single application
about 7 to 10 days after first emergence
is necessary for control of this pest.
In Ohio, adult emergence occurs in late
May and June.
Rhododendron borer.--Ifl southern
Ohio, apply the first spray about May 1,
followed by a second spray about July 1.
To allow for the later emergence of the
moths in northeastern Ohio, the sprays
are applied 2 to 3 weeks earlier.
Lesser peachtree borer.-Ifl south-
ern Ohio, apply the first spray in early
April and repeat four times at 4-week
intervals. In northeastern Ohio the
sprays are applied 3 weeks later.
Instead of spraying, homeowners and
PCOs may apply the above dilutions
by paintbrush. Also, the same dilu-
tions may be Injected into borer
holes with a forcefeed oilcan to kill
larvae.
Dogwood borer.--Ifl Ohio, apply
the first spray in early to mid-May
and repeat twice at 5 to 6-week
intervals.
Timing and methods of application
of alternative chemicals are the same as
those given for lindane.
Lilac borer . -- Chlorpyrifos (Durs-
banฎ) - apply 1 quart (1 lbJa.i.) of the
4 lb/gal formulation or 2 quarts of the
2 lb/gal formulation per 100 gallons of
water. Equivalent rates per gallons of
finished spray are 2 teaspoons of Durs-
banฎ M or 4E and 4 teaspoons of Dursbanฎ
2E. Endosulfan (Thiodanฎ) - apply 1/2
to 1 lb a.i./100 gallons of water of the
5OWP or 2EC formulations. Equivalent
rates per gallon of finished spray are 1
to 2 tablespoons of Thiodanฎ 5OWP or 2
to 4 teaspoons of Thiodanฎ 2EC.
Dogwood borer . - -End osulfan (Thio-
danฎ) - apply 1/2 to 1 lb a.1. per 100
gallons or 1 to 2 quarts of Thiodanฎ 2EC
(2 lb/gal) per 100 gallons of water.
Equivalent rates per gallon of finished
spray are 1 to 2 tablespoons of Thiodanฎ
5OWP or 2 to 4 teaspoons of Thiodanฎ
2EC. A 3EC (3 lb/gal) formulation of
Thiotlanฎ is also marketed for this use.
Rhododendron borer, peachtree bor-
er, and lesser peachtree borer. - No
registrations for the use of any other
chemical product could be found for
control of these pests on ornamentals.
Roundheaded Wood Borers
Locust borer . - -Protective treat-
ments should be considered as a single
application of lind ane at 0.63 lb a i. /
100 gal Of water applied in late August
or early September.
Use of Lindane and Alternatives
Descriptions of Nonchemical and Chemical
Control Methods
Bronze birch borer -- Nonghemical
contr๓i.--1) Sanitation - Pruning and
destruction of dead or dying branches in
early May prevent emerging beetles from
reinfesting the tree. All pruning
wounds should be dressed. 2) Cultural
105
-------
Table 58.--Total Undane use by reporting States I
Pest/Site
Lilac Lilac Dogwood Bronze birch Locust T
State borer/lilac borer/ash borer/dogwood borer/birch borer/locust o a
lb a.i. acres lb a.i. acres lb a.i. acres lb a.i. acres lb a.i. acres lb a.i. acres
Idaho 5.2 4 1,275.00 250.0 1,280.2 254.0
Indiana 500.0 500 20.00 10 1,290.0 645 4,200 700 800.00 200.0 6,810.0 2,055.0
Kentucky - 80 20 - - 80.0 20.0
Maryland 9.0 9 68.00 20 153.0 30 140 35 370.0 94.0
Ohio 49.4 38 135.15 53 76.8 15 600 100 1.25 .5 862.6 206.5
Tennessee 4,000.0 1,000 4,000.0 1,000.0
Total 563.6 551 223.15 83 5,519.8 1,690 5,020 855 2,076.25 450.5 13,402.8 3,629.5
1/ All data from the Biological Survey for Lindane Assessment (69).
Table 59 --Lindane use -- Number of treatments and pounds active used by reporting State 11
Pest/Site
Lilac Lilac Dogwood Bronze birch Locust
State borer/lilac borer/ash borer/dogwood borer/birch borer/locust
treatment (T) treatment (T) treatment (T) treatment (T) treatment (T)
number lb a.i./ number lb a.i./ number lb a.i./ number lb a.i./ number lb a.i./
of T T of T T. of T T of T T of T T
Idaho 2 1.3 1 5.1
Indiana 1 1.0 1 2.0 2 1 3 2 2 2.0
Kentucky - - - - -- -- - - -- 2 2 -- --
Maryland 1 1.0 2 1.7 3 1.7 2 2 - -
Ohio 1 1.3 1 2.55 4 1.28 3 2 1 2.5
Tennessee - -- - 4 1 -- -- -
Total 5 4.6 4 6.25 13 4.98 10 8 4 9.6
Average 1.25 1.15 1.3 2.08 3.25 1.25 2.5 2.0 1.33 3.2
It All data from the Biological Survey for Lindane Assessment (69).
-------
control - Slow-growing birches on poor
sites are frequently attacked. Planting
trees in light, well-drained soils, pro-
viding adequate moisture during dry
periods, and maintaining a fertilization
program recommended for the area in-
creases the vigor of the tree and
minimizes borer attack. 3) Resistant
varieties - Iowa recommends that river
birch trees be planted instead of
white-barked varieties The river birch
is indigenous to North Central States,
and is very resistant to the bronze
borer. Because its bark is not white,
river birch is not an acceptable
alternative to white-barked birch.
Bronze birch borer -- Chemical
็ ontrol.--Residual chemical sprays are
aimed at egglaying adults and/or newly
emerged larvae prior to their tunneling
Into the bark. Therefore, timing of a
general protective spray is of utmost
importance in obtaining effective con-
trol. Sprays should be directed to give
thorough wetting and soaking of all bark
surfaces, with special attention given
limbs and branches in the uppermost part
of the tree.
Flatheaded appletree borer -- Non
mical control . --1) Sanitation - Prune
and destroy dead branches before beetles
emerge. 2) Cultural control - Wrap
trunks of newly transplanted trees with
high-grade wrapping paper or burlap
from ground to lower limbs to prevent
egglaying. Shading of south side of
newly transplanted trees is also
recommended because beetles tend to be
attracted to sunny locations. Mainte-
nance of tree vigor through adequate
Watering and fertifization minimizes
borer attack
Flatheaded appletree borer -- Chem-
1 control.--Chemlcal sprays are pre-
ventive treatments aimed at egglaying
adults and/or newly emerged larvaq
Prior to their tunneling into the bark.
Therefore, timing of protective treat-
ments is of utmost importance in obtain-
ing effective control. Treatment should
be applied to give a thorough wetting
and soaking of all bark surfaces; it Is
not necessary to treat the foliage.
Lepidopterous borers -- Nonchemical
control.-Removal of infested trees.
Lepidopterous borers - - Chemical
control . - -Protective chemical sprays are
aimed at killing newly hatched larvae as
they attempt to tunnel their way into
the bark. The location, timing, and
number of sprays applied are of prime
importance if control measures are to be
effective. Therefore, sprays are di-
rected at all bark surfaces, especially
the main stem, for all but the lesser,
peachtree borer, where scaffold limb
coverage Is most important.
Locust borer -- Nonchemical con-
trol.-Old stagheaded brood trees
should be removed during the dormant
period, and should be either peeled or
burned to destroy overwintering larvae.
Planting of superior varieties is also
recommended.
Locust borer -- Chemical control.- -
Residual chemical sprays are preven-
tive treatments aimed at egglaying
adults and newly emerged larvae prior
to their tunneling into the bark.
Therefore, the timing of the protective
treatment is of the utmost Importance in
obtaining effective control. Treatments
should be applied to give a thorough
wetting and soaking of the trunk and
of the main stems.
Extent of Use
Hooker Chemicals (98) reports a
total usage of 74,840 lb for ornamental
plants, as well as homeowner use. This
figure is greater than the usage that
can be accounted for by other sources.
Use in Commercial Production
of Woody Ornamentals
According to data from the USDA
lindane questionnaire (89), 13,402 lb of
lindane reportedly were used for com-
mercial woody Ornamentals. Table 58
presents use estimates by reporting
States. Table 59 presents the number
of treatments, pounds a.i. of lindane
used per treatment, and the averages
by reporting States.
107
-------
Use in Residential Areas
Estimates on extent of residential
use are not available. The National
Arborist Association (1977) reports a
usage of 3,580 lb by their member firms.
No estimate could be found on pounds
applied by individual homeowners.
Performance Evaluation of Lindane
and Alternatives
Pest Infestation and Damage
Flatheaded Borers/Metallic Wood Borers
(13,112 ,171)
Flatheaded borers are pests of
orchard, shade, and forest trees. The
adult beetles are commonly referred to
as metallic wood borers, and larvae as
flatheaded borers. Adults of this group
are usually a bronze, greenish, or other
metallic color. The immature stage
(larva) has a small head and dorso-
ventrally flattened thoracic segments.
Larvae are primarily phloem or inner
bark borers; they destroy the cambium,
and occasionally they may tunnel into
the heartwood.
Flatheaded Appletree Borer
( Chrysobothris femorata (Olivier))
Hosts.--Deciduous hardwoods and
fruit trees, including black walnut,
boxelder, beech, black and white oaks,
elm, hickory, sycamore, maple, yellow
poplar, apple, and pear.
Damage.--Llmb dieback or tree mor-
tality is the first indication of at-
tack. Closer observation will reveal
large patches of dead bark where one or
more larvae were feeding. A single
larva may kill a small tree. Galleries
in the inner bark are packed with fine
frass (byproducts of larval tunneling
and waste material). Dead tissue should
be pruned to living tissue and the wound
dressed. Often, a large limb will be
lost or the entire tree may die. Newly
transplanted or disturbed trees are
most susceptible to atttack Flatheaded
appletree borer is not a common problem
in the nursery.
Pest status.--The appletree borer
is a sporadic pest, but is extremely
damaging when and where it occurs. It
attacks almost all shade and fruit
trees, especially those in a weakened
condition. Attacked trees must receive
prompt attention or the infestation will
intensify and the tree may be killed.
Although the appletree borer has been
called the most troublesome borer in
ornamental plantings and nurseries in
Ohio (171), its damage potential rather
than its common occurrence causes most
concern. The appletree borer is chronic
in its presence and devastating when it
occurs. Although it is widely distrib-
uted, it is not so common and destruc-
tive to as many trees as is the bronze
birch borer. It must be controlled when
it does attack.
Life history.--Larvae overwinter in
wood and pupate the following spring.
Adult emergence occurs throughout June
and July in Ohio and neighboring States.
Elsewhere it may emerge throughout the
summer. There is one generation per
year. Oviposition occurs on sunny sides
of trees in bark crevices or at wounds.
Healthy trees may be capable of repel-
ling larval attack. Larvae feed in the
phloem until fall, when they construct
overwintering cells in wood.
Distribution : --Although the flat-
headed appletree borer occurs predomi-
nantly in the eastern and central
States, it occurs throughout the United
States and most of Canada.
Bronze Birch Borer
( Agrilus anxius Gory)
Hosts.--Whjte-barked birch ( Betula
app.), and also reported on beech ( Fagus
app.), and aspen ( Populus spp.).
Damage.--Top dieback is the first
symptom of attack; the entire tree will
die if control measures are not imple-
mented. An examination of the bark sur-
face will reveal raised areas in sinuate
patterns. These areas coincide with
subcortlcal galleries that are con-
structed by larvae and packed with frass
(undigested and unconsumed wood fibers).
108
-------
D-shaped adult emergence holes may be
observed by late spring or early summer.
If damaged trees are pruned and sprayed,
they may recover. Trees are often
damaged badly and sometimes they are
destroyed before a proper diagnosis and
treatment can be made. Consequently,
preventive practices are a necessity.
Pest status . -Bronze birch borer
has become a serious pest throughout its
range, especially on trees planted off-
site or those growing along road cuts or
similar disturbances. Although bronze
birch borer is said to attack only trees
in a weakened condition, most landscape
white birches in north central and
northeastern States apparently are vul-
nerable to its attack. Nursery workers
must use preventive sprays to produce
white birches; landscape managers expect
annual attack and tree loss if they do
not spray. Dead and dying birches, re-
sulting from bronze birch borer attack,
can be found in all midwestern and
northeastern towns and cities during the
summer of every year. Infested nursery
plantings of birch are often condemned;
thousands of specimen landscape trees
are killed annually by this pest in the
northern half of the United States.
Life history.--LarVae overwinter In
crescent-shaped cells in wood just be-
neath the bark. In spring, the larvae
pupate and emerge during May, June, and
July as greenish-bronze beetles. The
newly emerged beetles feed briefly on
nonhost tree foliage. The flight and
egglaying period begins In late spring
and continues Into August. Eggs are
deposited singly or In groups on the
sunny side of birches, under cracks or
crevices in the bark. The eggs hatch In
approximately 10 days, and the newly
hatched larvae bore into the camblal
region where they make their typical
frass-fiUed galleries that score the
wood The larva may require 1 or 2
years to complete its development,
depending on the time of oviposition,
the condition of the host tree, and the
latitude. Nearby susceptible trees must
be protected with insecticidal sprays
and proper cultural practices. Although
adults may feed at the base of twigs on
partially defoliated trees (131), they
are not destructive.
Distribution . --The bronze birch
borer is indigenous to North America,
and occurs throughout Southern Canada
and Northern United States, south to
Virginia, and westward to Idaho and
Washington.
Lepidopterous Borers
(57,64,112,168,170)
The larvae of several species of
moths bore in roots, stems, or trunks of
shrubs and trees and often cause consid-
erable damage.
Clearwing Moth Borers
The common name of clearwing moth
Is derived from the fact that the fore-
wings commonly have few scales and hind-
wings may be nearly devoid of scales
except at their posterior margin.
Clearwings are clay fliers, many of them
resembling, physically and behaviorally,
stinging wasps. Although adults are
short-lived and fragile and cause no
damage to plants, larvae can seriously
damage or kill their hosts by mining In
the cambial region and constructing gal-
leries in supportive tissue (xylem).
Trees may be girdled or weakened so that
they break during high winds or snow-
storms. Although some clearwing adults
are distinguishable, taxonomic skill is
required to identify larvae and many
adults. The life cycles and seasonal
histories of these clearwing moths are
similar Insecticidal sprays effective
against one of them should be similarly
effective against the others, providing
they are properly timed. Consequently,
members of this group can be consid-
ered alike in terms of control: Lilac
borer/ash borer ( Pod ose sia syrlngae
(Harris)), dogwood borer ( Synanthedon
scitula (Harris)), lesser peachtree bor-
er (S. pictipes (Grote a Robinson)), and
rhodod nd ron borer (S. rhododendri
Beutenmiiller).
Hosts .--Lilac borer = lilac ( Syrin-
g X E! . and cultivars), privet (Li-
gustrum spp.), and ash ( Fraxinus sppT.
109
-------
Dogwood borer = dogwood ( Cornus flori-
da), pecan ( Carya ilinoensis) , and
galls of many other trees and shrubs.
Peachtree borer and lesser peachtree
borer = Prunus spp. Rhododendron borer
= rhododendron ( Rhododendron spp.),
mountain laurel ( Kalmia latifolia) , and
azalea ( Rhododendron spp.).
Damage.--Clear wing moth borers are
chronic and sometimes acute pests of
trees and shrubs in the nursery and in
the landscape. They seldom damage trees
in undisturbed forests. Larvae feed
beneath bark in phloem tissue, destroy
the cambium, and construct galleries in
supportive tissue. Dead twigs or limbs
and loosened bark are the first indica-
tions of clearwing moth larval activity.
The keen observer may notice sawdust
(frass) protruding from holes in the
bark before limb dieback occurs. The
clearwing identification can be con-
firmed by collection of pupal skins pro-
truding from infested trees. Specific
identification must be confirmed by a
taxonomist. Peachtree borer * lesser
peachtree borer, and dogwood borer pupal
skins may be found from spring through
summer; lilac borer skins will be pres-
ent only about 6 weeks in late spring
and early summer. Damaged bark on land-
scape trees should be removed and the
wound treated. Dead twigs and branches
should be removed and preventive sprays
should be used during the oviposition
period of the next generation.
Pest tuS.-Cl6arWiflgS are most
likely to attack trees in the open,
including nurseries and the landscape.
Forest trees in undisturbed stands are
seldom attacked. Trees in forests con-
verted to parks with walkways and picnic
facilities and such are susceptible to
attack, as are newly transplanted trees.
Members of this pest group have
increased nursery production costs for
decades, and have precluded culture of
some species and varieties In some loca-
tions. Lilac borer has precluded
economical production of French hybrid
lilacs and green ash in parts of Ohio.
Dogwood borer is a chronic pest of
plantation and landscape dogwoods,
especially those that receive mechanical
injury or are growing on poor sites.
Peachtree borer and lesser peachtree
borer are chronic pests of Prunus spp..
both in the landscape and the nursery.
They are also extremely damaging in
peach and cherry orchards. Nursery
producers must rely upon roguing (dis-
carding of infested nursery stock) and
preventive sprays to produce pestfree
crops.
Life history.--Larvae overwinter in
galleries in wood. Lilac borer larvae
construct an exit hole the following
spring, pupate just beneath the bark,
and emerge over a period of about 6
weeks (June through mid-July in north-
eastern Ohio - earlier farther south).
Some dogwood and lesser peachtree borers
do the same. Others feed for a time
before pupating, and consequently emerge
later in the summer. Both dogwood borer
and lesser peachtree borer may emerge
throughout the summer. Peachtree borer
larvae feed through the spring, begin
pupating in June, and fly from late June
through early September. Peak flight
usually occurs in mid-August in north-
eastern Ohio. Females mate and oviposit
the day they emerge; individual ovi-
position may continue for 3 or 4 days.
Eggs require 10 to 14 days incubation,
after which larvae hatch and bore
beneath the bark. All species produce
one generation per year.
Distribution --Southeastern Canada
and New England, westward to Colorado
and southward to Texas.
Roundheaded Wood Borers/Longhorned
Beetles
Roundheaded wood borers/long-
horned beetles (Cerambycldae) include
many serious pests of orchard, shade,
and forest trees The majority of
species breed in dead wood of trees and
shrubs; others breed In either slightly
weakened or healthy trees and shrubs.
Locust Borer
Damage.-Infested trees are physi
caily weakened by larval tunnelings and
are very susceptible to wind breakage.
110
-------
The most obvious signs of infestation
are the presence of numerous dead or
broken limbs. Trees growing on poor
sites are especially susceptible to
attack and suffer serious damage from
locust borer, during periods of
prolonged drought.
Pest status . -The locust borer
prefers trees that are at least 4 years
old, but the incidence of attack de-
creases once a tree attains a diameter
of 15 cm.
Life history.--In September and
early October, eggs are deposited in
bark crevices and near wounds. Newly
hatched larvae bore into the inner bark
and construct hibernation cells in which
they overwinter. The larvae resume
feeding in spring, and reach maturity
in July, having tunneled extensively
throughout the. heartwood. The larvae
pupate in July or early August, and the
adult beetles emerge In September.
Emergence coincides with the flowering
of goldenrod, and the beetles can be
found feeding on the pollen of these
flowers. The life cycle varies In
different parts of the country according
to differences in climatic conditions.
Dlstrlbution.--ThlS indigenous pest
has increased in Importance, as black
locust has been planted widely as a
roadside and reforestation tree. Black
locust and locust borer are now distrib-
uted throughout the United States.
Comparative Performance Evaluation
Comparative Efficacy
Chiorpyrifos (Dursban) is as
effective as liridane for those pests
for which It Is registered. Endosul
fan (Thiodanฎ) Is only 50 percent as
effective as lindane. All data on
comparative efficacy were reported
in the responses to the USDA lindane
survey (69).
Comparative Costs
The comparative prices of the
alternative chemicals are as follows:
Control costs per acre would depend upon
chemical used, pest controlled, and num-
ber of applications per year.
Economic Impact Analysis
Profile of Impact Areas
The top 30 States in nursery pro-
duction accounted for 95.94 percent of
the open-grown acreage. i ! This acreage
was spread evenly among the States. No
one State dominated the total. The top
acreage State, California, accounted for
only 7.35 percent of the total acreage,
yet provided 43.5 percent of the sales.
Three States reporting lindane need for
nursery production ranked in the top
five (by acreage) and accounted for 18.5
percent of the total sales. In these
three States, however, only a portion of
the total crop would be affected by
removal of lindane.
The ranking In table 60 is by
sales, and In table 62, by acreage. It
was felt that acreage would be less var-
iable over time than volume of sales.
Most ornamental crops are in nursery
plots for more than 5 years; thus,
acreage data perhaps give a reasonable
indication of the capital investment.
Regional and species production
data concerning the nursery industry are
difficult to obtain because of a lack of
collected data and disclosure problems.
An indication of the possible impact
upon the nursery industry of the removal
of lindane can be partially seen from
total Industry data.
15/ All acreage and sales data
compfi d from 1974 U.S. Census of Agri-
culture, United States: Summary of
State Data, Vol. 1, Part 51, Chapter
II I, Table 13, U.S. Dsp. of Commerce,
Bureau of Census, Washington, D.C.,
Dec. 1977 (295).
Chemicals Price/lb a.i .
lindane
chiorpyrifos (Dursbanฎ)
endosulfan (Thiodanฎ)
$8.12
13.70
4.85
111
-------
Table 60.--Major nursery production
States - - Value of sales V
State Value of sales
1/ Source: U.S. Department of Com-
merce, 1977 (295).
With the exception of Indiana (1.8
percent of the total U.S. nursery acre-
age), which listed the use of lindane as
a necesary no-alternative insecticide on
13 tree crops, and the other 11 States
reporting need, the highest number of
tree crops with no alternative to Un-
dane for insect control was 4 tree
crops. The median number of varieties
grown by firms with sales of $25,000
or more is between 41 and 250 varieties
(table 61).
Although it is recognized that some
tree crops may contain a number of vari-
eties of the affected species, it re-
mains unlikely that the total removal of
the production of 4 to 11 crops would
curtail total production in very many,
if any, firms. Additional data on
lindane as it is used in the nursery
industry and on ornamentals can be found
in tables 62 to 70.
User Impacts
For the majority of growers of
woody ornamentals and floral crops in
the United States, the removal of
lindane is expected to have a less than
major impact. This is especially true
of growers in the high production areas.
The exception is growers of woody orna-
mentals that concentrate heavily in the
production of birch and locust, and
which are located in areas where these
plants are especially vulnerable.
It must also be remembered that not
all firms sell shade, flower, and fruit
trees (table 61, column 5), and that the
percentage of total sales accounted for
by shade, flower, and fruit trees by
many of the firms is between 18 and 29
(table 61, column 6) of their total
sales. The impact upon a few select
nurseries in the States reporting need
may be sizable; however, the impact
upon the horticultural industry as a
whole would not be sizable.
Georgia reports losses of $5.9
million annually due to dogwood borers.
No additional data were provided.
Consumer Impacts
Two consumer impacts should be
noted, for white birch and for dogwocd.
Both are preferred ornamentals. White
birch is a difficult species to grow,
and the loss of lindane would increase
this problem. An impact might be that,
in some regions, the consumer would be
forced to replace white birch with the
less preferred species, river birch,
which is not white-barked. Nursery
workers do not consider river birch a
substitute for white birch. The major
long-term impact would eventually be
esthetic. Consumer impact in dogwood
areas is much more difficult to deter-
mine. In some areas, dogwood is a major
source of civic pride and helps to form
a portion of the basis for a tourist
trade. The economic comments of Georgia
are directed to this problem.
Macroeconomic Impacts
None was determined or expected to
Limitations of the Analysis
Many of the States that are major
producers of ornamental crops did not
return replies stating a need for lin
dane use. Much of the reported need was
in vague terms, and often an economic
backup was not provided.
Million dollars
California 127.80
Florida 42.77
Ohio 25.56
Illinois 21.57
Pennsylvania 19.89
Oregon 19.72
New Jersey 18.87
New York 17.94
Total _______
United States 294.12
Percent
43.5
14.5
8.7
7.3
6.8
6.7
6.4
6.1
100.0
exist.
112
-------
Table 61.-The nursery industry: Background information for 1975
Firm size
Number
firms
of
Total
employees
Income
from growing
plantsl
Shade, flower,
and fruit trees
Average annual
expenditure for
insecticides
grown
by firms
in 19752!
fiddle Median
50 pct
Firms Volume of
selling sales
Peak
Basic season
1,000 Dollars
1,000 1.000
Percent
Percent Percent
Percent
Number Number
12 100 41
25 100
2,800
18.8 56.0
85
56 18
30 150 80
100 300
1,700
26.9 45.4
87
61 23
3.8
42 200 120
300 500
280
6.7 14.8
91
72 29
5.3
250 108
500 1.000
140
5.9 11.3
91
68 24
5.1
100 500 250
.000+
95
11.8 21.7
90
83 25
Total
5.015
70.1 149.2
1/ Other income is derived from selling supplies and related items.
/ 25 percent of the firms grew less; 25 percent of the firms grew more.
lources: Ezell, 1978 (67); McGraw. 1978 (139).
Table 62.-Tree crops on which lindane was needed for borer control, reporting States, 1976
States
reporting !
o
-
fl
m 0
a
a a
.- D-. ( I D
.-,
a a
c
.-. 0 . .
National nursery
production acreage 2 !
Percent
Pennsylvania
Ohio
- U - - E
XX - X -
- - - - - -
E E E - - -
2
6
6.3 2
6.2 3
5
Tennessee
E u u
-
3
2.9 14
Iowa
U
1
15
Oklahoma
U U E
3
16
Maryland
Indiana
X X X E -
E X F X F
- - - F E -
E E F - - -
6
E E E E F E E 15
2.4
1.8 19
1 7 20
1.1 is souri
U 11 11
26
Georgia
Kentucky
Arkansas
E
U U E
U il U E
-
- - -
1
3
4
1.0 29
0.2
-
Idaho
- - X -
E - - E -
3
32.3
Total
9 9 7 5 3
3 2 2 2 1 0
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Legend: E Statement of need -- economic data supplied.
li Statement of need -- written comments only.
X Alternative to lindane reported available.
1/ States responding to the Biological Survey for Lindane Assessment (69). 2/ Data compiled from 1974 U.s.
Census of Agriculture. United States: Summary and State Data. Vol. 1, Part 51. Chapter III, table 13, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Washington. D.C., December 1977 (295).
-------
Table 63.--Lilac borers on lilac: Cost of lindane and alternative insecticides and production loss for
reporting Statesi!
Item
Unit
Indiana
Ohio
Maryland
Idaho
To
tal for
Cost of lindane and alternative
acres
do.
500
100
15
200
4
States
Total production .W
Treatment areaY
Lindane cost per acrel
Total lindane cost .
dollars
do.
22.85
5,700.00
38
25.21
950.00
9
22.85
200.00
4
50.42
Chiorpyrifos cost per acre
Total chiorpyrifos cost. !
Cost difference 2 /
do.
do.
do.
41.00
10,400.00
4,700.00
41.40
1,600.00
650.00
41.40
400.00
200.00
200.00
41.40
150.00
50.00
7,050
12,550
5,500
1/ Chiorpyrifos was reported as effective as lindane in Indiana, Ohio, Maryland, and Idaho. All table data
from the Biological Survey for Lindane Assessment (69). 2/ Lilacs are kept in nurseries for about 6 years.
They are susceptible to borers during the last 3 years. 3/ Determination by the Assessment Team based on survey
for 1976 and their knowledge of lindane use patterns on ornamentals. 4/ Includes material cost and application
cost. Differences between States due to varying application rates and number of times applied. 5/ Row 3 times
row 2. 6/ Row 5 times row 2. 7/ Row 6 minus row 4.
Table 64. -Lilac borers on ash: Cost of alternative and loss in production for reporting States.L/
Item
.
Unit
.
Indiana
Maryland
Ohio
Total for
Cost of lindane and alternative
acres
do.
10
60
150
3 States
Total production
Treatment areaV
Lindane cost per acre /
Total lindane costs
dollars
do.
45.70
457.00
20
86.70
1,734.00
53
50.00
Chlorpyrifos cost per acre
Total chiorpyrifos cost.
do.
do.
83.00
830.00
166.00
3,320.00
2,650.00
83.00
4,841
Increase in cost
4,399.00
8,549
without lindane!!
do.
373.00
1,586.00
1,749.00
3,708
1/ Chiorpyrifos was reported as effective as lindane in Maryland and Ohio. It was 11 pct less effective in
Indiana. All table data from the Biological Survey for Lindane Assessment (69). 2/ Ash is kept in nursery for
about 6 years. It is most susceptible to borers during the last 3 years. 3/ Difference between States due to
varying application rates and number of times applied. 4/ Row 3 times row 2. 5/ Row 5 times row 2. 6/ Row 6
minus row 4.
-------
Table 65.--Dogwood borers on dogwood: Cost of lindane and alternative insecticides and production loss for reporting Statesi
Item Unit Indiana Maryland Ohio
Total for
Tennessee 4 States
Cost of lindane and alternatives
Total production acres 650 60 75
Treatment areaV do. 645 30 30
Lindane cost per acre ! dollars 45.70 85.00 100.00
Total lindane cost 1! 1,000 dollars 29.50 2.50 1.50
1,000
1,000
91.40
91.40 124.90
Endosulfan cost per acre dollars 86.20 71.20 86.20
Total endosulfan cost 1,000 dollars 55.60 2.10 2.60
Increase in cost without lindane do. 26.10 .40 1.10
86.20
86.20 146.50
5.2 21.60
Loss in production
Value per acre 1,000 dollars 12,600.00 36,000.00 36,000.00
Value of production on treated acres 2 ! 1,000 dollars 8,127.00 1,080.00 1,080.00
14,000.00
14,400.00
50
Reduced effectiveness of alternative percent 50 50 50
Value of production loss !! 1,000 dollars 4,063.50 540.00 540.00
Total reduction in grower income! do. 4,089.60 539.60 541.10
7,200.00 12,343.50
7,195.00 12,365.10
1/ Endosulfan was considered to be 50 pct as effective as lindane in all reporting States.
All table data from the
Biological Survey for Lindane Assessment (69).
2/ Dogwood is nurserygrown 4 to 7 years, 5 years in Tennessee; it is most susceptible during the
3/ Difference between States due to varying application rates and number of times applied.
later years.
9 times
10.
4/ Row 3 times row 2. 5/ Row 5 times row 2. 6/ Row 6 minus row 4. 7/ Row 8 times row 2.
8/
row
9/ Row 11 minus row 7.
Table 66.-Bronze birch borer on birch: Cost of no alternative to lindane production loss for
reporting States!
Item Unit Indiana Kentucky Maryland
Total for
Ohio 4 States
Cost of lindane and treatment
Total production acres 700 33 50
Treatment areal do. 470 20 35
150
100
Lindane cost per acre dollars 137.00 91.50 91.50
137.00
13.70 83.12
Total lindane cost 1,000 dollars 64.39 1.83 3.20
Loss in production
Value per acre dollars 30,000.00 30,000.00 30,000.00
Value of production on treated acres 1 1,000 dollars 14,100.00 600.00 1,050.00
30,000.00
3,000.00 18,750.00
18,750.00
Value of production loss do. 14,000.00 600.00 1,050.00
Total reduction in grower incomes ! do. 14,036.00 598.00 1,047.00
3,000.00
2,986.00 18,666.88
1/ All table data from the Biological Survey for Lindane Assessment (69).
2/ Determination by the Assessment Team based on Survey and their knowledge of lindane use patterns on ornamentals.
3/ Row 5 times row 2. 4/ Row 7 minus row 4.
- -
-------
Table 67.-Locust borer on locust: Cost of no alternative to lindane production loss for
reporting States!
Item Unit Indiana Idaho Ohio
Total for
3 States
Cost of lindane and alternative
Total production acres 200 1,700 1.0
Treatment area do. 200 250 .5
Lindane cost per acre / dollars 91.40 70.00 49.63
Total lindane cost do. 18,280.00 17,500.00 24.81
35,805.00
Loss in production
Value per acre dollars 15,000.00 60,000.00 60,000.00
Value of production on treated acresl 1,000 dollars 3,000.00 15,000.00 30.00
Reduced effectiveness of alternative percent 80.00 100.00 80.00
Value of. production loss . ./ 1,000 dollars 2,400.00 15,000.00 24.00
Total reduction in grower income. . do. 2,382.00 14,982.00 23.98
17,424.00
17,388.00
1/ All table data from the Biological Survey for Lindane Assessment (69).
2/ Difference between States due to varying application rates and number of times applied.
3/ Row 3 times row 2.
4/ Row 5 times row 2.
5/ Row 6 times row 7.
6/ Row 8 minus row 4.
Table 68.-Summary of costs: States reporting need for lindane on ornarnentals and supplying
economic data
Cost difference of
Item Unit lindane and Loss in Total cost
Number
alternative production to producers
of years
Lilac borer on lilac dollars 5,500 5,500
annual
Lilac borer on ash do. 3,708 3,708
annual
Dogwood borer on dogwood do. 21,600 12,343,500 12,365,100
4 years
Bronze birch borer on birch do. 83,120 18,750,000 18,666,880
5 years
Locust borer on locust do. 35,805 17,424,000 17,388,000
3 years
-------
Table 69.-Summary of approximate yearly costs: States reporting need for lindane on ornamentals and supplying
economic data
Yearly
Item Unit loss! Indiana Ohio Maryland
Idaho Ten
nessee Kentucky
Lilac borer on lilac dollars 5,500 X X X
X
Lilac borer on ash do. 3,708 X X X
Dogwood borer on dogwood do. 3,091,300 X X X
X
Bronze birch borer on birch do. 3,733,760 X X X
X
Locust borer on locust do. 5,796,000 X X
Total do. 12,630,268
X
1/ Table 68, Column 4 ๗ column 5.
Table 70.--Summary table of annual costs: States requesting continued use
of
lindane on
ornamentals and
providing economic data
Lilac Lilac Dogwood Birch
Locust
State borer on borer on borer on borer on
borer on
Total
lilac ash dogwood birch
locust
Pennsylvania
Ohio 0.650 0.583 135.3 599.0
7,991
8,724.5
Tennessee 1,798.9
1,798.0
Oklahoma
Maryland .200 .529 134.9 209.0
344.6
Indiana 4.700 .373 1,022.4 2,807.0
794
4,628.5
Missouri
Georgia 1, x
Kentucky 119.6
119.6
Arkansas
Idaho .050
4,994
4,993.0
1/ Georgia reported a 5.9 muon dollar annual loss, but supplied no supportive data.
-------
One of the States reporting need,
Indiana, supplied an extremely large
volume of data. These data were care-
fully analyzed by the study team and
summarized in the tables.
Data concerning the volume and
sales of growing stock by cultivar, by
State, were not available. Many growers
are reluctant to release sales data
and insecticide use volume. Hopefully,
this problem can be solved in the future
by a more intensive survey made by the
Nurserymans Association.
The question arises as to why
alternative insecticides to lindane are
available on dogwood, ash, and lilac in
some States and not in others. Possibly
available alternatives were not used, or
their use was not reported.
This analysis is based almost
solely on data supplied by the States in
response to the Biological Survey for
Lindane Assessment (69).
Summary
Lindane is registered for all of
the major boring insects and leafminers
on woody ornamentals, floral, and
foliage plants. On woody ornamentals,
endosulfan (Thiodanฎ) is registered
only for lilac borer and dogwood
borer, and is less effective than
lindane. C hiorpyrifos (Dursbanฎ) is
just as effective as lindane, but is
registered only for lilac borer.
There are no alternative chemical
controls for the locust borer, the
bronze birch borer, and the leaf-
miners.
CHAPTER 8
BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF LINDANE
USE ON CHRISTMAS TREES
Lindane
Current Use Analysis
EPA Registrations of Lindane
and Alternatives
Lindane is currently registered for
control of a number of insect pests
found in Christmas tree plantations.
The most serious pests are the pine
regeneration weevils (or reproduction
weevils): northern pine weevil
( Pissodes approximatus Hopkins), pales
weevil ( Hylobius pales (Herbst)), pine
root collar weevil ( Hylobius radicis
Buchanan), and white pine weevil (
Engelmann spruce weevil and Sitka spruce
weevil) ( Pissodes strobi (Peck)). The
balsam woolly aphid (adelgid) ( Adelges
piceae (Ratzeburg)) can also be a
serious pest where Fraser fir is grown
(the Appalachian region of North Caro-
lina and Tennessee). These weevils,
also known as debarking weevils, often
become serious pests in Christmas tree
plantations, as well as in conifer nurs-
eries and newly reforested areas. The
adults consume bark and phloem, and
often girdle the seedlings and small
twigs on the larger trees. They have
become increasingly important in Christ-
mas tree production in the eastern and
north central States of the United
States.
Chemical Alternatives
Oxydemeton-methyl (Metasystox-Rฎ)
is currently registered for use against
the white pine weevil. Phosmet (Imi-
danฎ) is registered for use only as a
top dip treatment of white pine seed-
lings for pales weevil at time of
planting. Carbofuran (Furadanฎ) is
registered for control of pales weevil
only on seedlings -- in a clay slurry
root dip or as granules in the soil
around seedlings when they are planted
in the field. Chiorpyrifos (Dursbanฎ)
is not registered for this use; it is
registered only for reforestation.
118
-------
Nonchemical Alternatives
Cultural ๔ontrol of pine root
collar weevils in the Lake States
(Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin) may
be effected by early basaF pruning of
the bottom 12 to 18 inches of the stem,
and removal of leaf litter (duff) from
an area 12 to 18 Inches in diameter
around the base of the tree. Pruning is
done when the trunk reaches about 1 inch
in diameter at the base, and the tree
is being shearedi ! for the first time.
Populations of adult weevils are reduced
because the adult weevils cannot
tolerate the heat and light reaching
the soil beneath the pruned trees (325,
327,328).
Pales and northern pine weevil can
be controlled by complete removal of
stumps and slash before June; this kills
the weevils before they emerge. The
other alternative, to delay replanting
of trees for 2 years following final
clearing of the land, is feasible only
in areas where large blocks of land can
be harvested in the same year and the
land is not adjacent to a pine forest.
Few Christmas tree plantations in
eastern States meet either of these
requirements.
No cultural control methods have
been suggested for the other insect
pests included here.
Use of Lindane and Alternatives
Introduction to Christmas Tree
Production
Christmas trees are often grown on
marginal land, which is too rocky,
steep, or low in fertility for other
18/ Shearing is the process of
trimming current years growth from ends
of laterals and terminals to form the
tapered shape desirable in a Christmas
tree. Pruning Is the removal of
undesirable growth, regardless of age;
often entire branches are pruned,
because of disease or deformities.
crops. As a result, trees tend to grow
at different rates, and a plantation may
have trees of widely varying sizes.
Trees planted side by side, at the same
time, may reach marketable size several
years apart. Thus, growers of these
trees do not have a clear acre to
replant. As trees are cut selectively
from the field, new seedlings are
planted in their place; this mekes
cultural practices for pest control very
difficult.
Some growers have a 11 choose and
cut operation, that is, they sell
directly to the consumer rather than to
a wholesaler. The buyer comes to the
plantation in late fall to choose a
Christmas tree. This may bring the
grower a higher price per tree, but it
also results in an irregular harvest and
replanting pattern.
Growers may keep their own records
of pesticides used, but data of this
nature are not collected by any public
or private organization on a regular
basis. In an effort to obtain figures
for total pounds of lindane used, number
of acres treated, and other relevant
data, USDA sent out questionnaires to
extension and research personnel. Also,
followup contacts were made by EPA with
Individuals who prepared a rebuttal
referring to this use. In addition, the
National Christmas Tree Association
(NCTA) was asked to suggest names of
individual growers who could discuss
conditions in their areas. These
growers were contacted by telephone. In
addition, the EPA economist met with an
individual grower in western Virginia
and a group of growers in southeastern
Pennsylvania. These growers seemed to
be fairly knowledgeable about practices
in their areas.
After a review of the rebuttals, an
examination of the USDA questionnaire
responses, and discussions with growers
in several States and entomologists at
State universities, the decision was
made to include only those insects that
had been identified as currently being
controlled by lindane as a regular
practice.
119
-------
Table 71.-Estimated use of lindane for control of major insect pests in
tree plantations, 1977
Christmas
State
App
Insect p
lications
er year
Pounds active
ingredient per acre
Reported
by
Pa.
pales weevil
2
2.55
(122)
Va.
Md.
white pine weevil
pales and white pine weevils
1
I/NA
.17
1.60
(236)
(82)
N.C.
balsam woolly aphid
NA
NA
(329)
N.H.
Ohio
md.
Mich.
Wis.
Minn.
white pine weevil
pales and northern weevils
white pine weevil
pine root collar weevil
pales and pine root collar weevils
reproduction weevils
1
. /1
1
. J1
i/i
. J1
1.00
.75 (foliar)
3.00 (stump)
1.00
.50
.25
.75
(69)
(69)
(69)
(69)
(69)
(69)
1/ NA = Not available.
2/ Each acre treated twice in a 10-year period.
Sources: Biological Survey for Lindane Assessment (69); Gimpel, 1977 (82); Koch,
1977 (122); Tannehil, 1977 (236); and Winkworth, 1977 (329).
None of these methods revealed
any use of lindane in the Pacific
Northwest -- an important Christmas
tree-producing region, or for the Rocky
Mountains, New York, or States south of
North Carolina. This analysis focuses
only on those States in major Christmas
tree-producing areas or where lindane
use was reported to be critical.
Use of Lindane
Even though the quantity of lindane
used annually could be obtained from a
limited number of individual growers,
total pounds a.i. for the entire
industry could not be extrapolated
because the total number of growers is
unknown. Estimates of acres in
production that need treatment annually
are also unobtainable.
Per-acre rates of use vary
according to the specific target pest,
the level of infestation, and the
cultural pratices used by the grower.
For pales weevil control, for example,
some growers treat fresh stumps with a
lindane/kerosene solution, followed by a
foliar application of lindane/ water on
new trees. Other growers use two annual
foliar applications of lindane/water on
all trees. Table 71 shows the range of
rates by States that reported these
data.
The method of application used also
depends on the target pest, the finan-
cial resources of the grower, and the
nature of the land. Various types of
equipment, ranging from hand-operated
power equipment to tractor-drawn
hydraulic sprayers, are used, but no
aerial applications are allowed.
Use of Alternatives
There is no use of control methods
other than lindane for these insect
pests.
Performance Evaluation of Lindane
and Alternatives
Pest Infestation and Damage
The weevils named at the begin-
ning of this chapter are all in the
order Coleoptera, family Curculionidae
(beetles/weevils). The life cycles and
seasonal histories of pales and northern
pine weevils are almost identical.
120
-------
Insecticidal sprays applied for control
of one species will also control the
other. Consequently, this group of
pests is often considered alike for pest
control purposes.
Life History
White pine weevils lay their eggs
in the terminal leader (upper end of the
tree trunk). After the eggs hatch, the
larvae move down the leader, eating the
inner layers as they go.
Adults of the other three weevils
overwinter in loose duff or top soil be-
neath trees. Pales weevil and northern
pine weevil larvae can survive winter in
stumps or attached roots below the soil
line. Adults become active, mate, and
oviposit when temperatures reach about
10 to 15ฐC. They produce only one gen-
eration per year, usually in the spring.
Overwintering larvae become adults in
June; larvae from winter- or springlaid
eggs become adults by August.
Damage
White pine weevil.Most pines
grown in Christmas tree production are
hosts for these weevils. Eastern white
pine and Norway spruce are heavily
attacked by the white pine weevil in
many eastern States; jack pine is also
vulnerable in the north central States.
As a result of larval attack within the
terminal leader, this portion of the
tree dies back. When new growth begins
the next year, each of the uppermost
branches competes for a dominant posi-
tion. If one succeeds, the tree then
has a noticeable crook in the trunk. If
one does not dominate, a forked trunk
develops. Either result greatly reduces
the value of the tree.
Pine root collar weevil.This pest
is present in all States from the
Atlantic seaboard south to Virginia and
west to Minnesota. Infestations become
most severe in pure pine plantations,
especially those on poor sites. Trees
over 1 inch In diameter at the ground
line are susceptible to attack. Scotch
pine is the most severely damaged.
It is least tolerant of attack and
succumbs quickest. Damage appears
first as flagging (turning red) of
twigs and small branches on established
trees. Repeatedly infested trees under
4 inches in diameter at the ground line
die about 3 to 4 years after the first
infestation. Jack and red pine, which
are planted extensively within the
weevils range, are also heavily
attacked. Eastern white pine is rarely
attacked, unless it is adjacent to, or
planted with, the highly susceptible
species (328).
Pales and Northern pine weevils.- -
All pines of eastern North America are
subject to attack by pales weevil. In
the same area, spruces, hemlock, juni-
per, cedar, Douglasfir, true firs, and
cypress also suffer damage. Adult weev-
ils feed heavily on the bark, destroying
the cambium and girdling the tree.
Pales is often responsible for extremely
heavy seedling mortality (227).
Comparative Performance Evaluation
White Pine Weevil Control
Lindane and oxydemeton-methyl
(MetasystoxRฎ) are the only chemicals
registered for control of this pest. No
grower who uses oxydemeton-methyl could
be located, although the chemical is
recommended by some States (for example,
Virginia, Pennsylvania). Other States,
(for example, .1aine, Indiana) recommend
it with caution, apparently because of
the higher toxicity of oxydemeton-methyl
relative to lindane. Tests in Maine
using small forest plots have shown that
oxydemetonmethyl effectively controls
the white pine weevil (247).
Pales/Northern Pine Weevil
Imidanฎ and carbofuran cannot be as
effective as lindane as currently used,
because root and top dips at the time of
outplanting provide no protection for
trees that are already established.
These alternatives would provide satis-
factory control only in the seedling
stage in plantations where entire acres
are established at one time.
121
-------
Chiorpyrifos is not considered
because of the restriction of its use to
reforestation.
Stump and slash removal, if carried
out diligently, will probably be as
efficacious as lindane for control of
pales and northern pine weevils. Let-
ting a field lie fallow for 2 years
following final harvest is not expected
to give satisfactory control, because
weevils may breed in neighboring stands
and return to reinfest the new planting.
Pine Root Collar Weevil
The only methods of control are
lindane or cultural practices recom-
mended by Wilson and Rudolph in the Lake
States (327). No studies are available
to determine comparative performance of
these two control methods.
Tests using the cultural practices
suggest that pruning and litter removal
from under the tree will suppress weevil
populations to acceptable levels for
about 5 years (325), during which time
little serious damage would be expected.
This also, however, extends the produc-
tion period 1 year, to allow the crown
to reach marketable height. This extra
year increases the risk of added losses
to disease, frost, and other insects.
Cultural practices, begun in year 3,
would give the tree some protection
until year 8. If the insect infestation
had been heavy to begin with, popula-
tions may begin to increase near the end
of the rotation. In the last year
before harvest, therefore, these trees
would be vulnerable to attacks by the
increasing weevil populations.
Failure to remove litter from the
field and control the Vegetation between
trees by mowing twice a year could
attract pales or northern pine weevils.
Growers would then have to begin u sing
the cultural practices to control these
pests, which would add greatly to their
costs.
This analysis focuses on only a
limited number of the several insect
pests for which lindane is registered.
While growers are using lindane to
control weevils, because of the non-
selectivity of lindane, pests of lesser
importance are also being Controlled
incidentally. If lindane registration
is canceled, the cultural practices
used to control the weevils may not
he effective against the other pests.
Without any control, damage from these
other insects could become significant.
Comparative Yield/Quality
No change in quality of trees
marketed or number of trees that meet
minimum grading standards will occur if
the judgments on comparative efficacy
are correct. At this time we cannot
evaluate these judgments, because
cultural practices have not been used
commercially. If the cultural control
methods do not provide equivalent con-
trol, the number of trees that survive
will be reduced. Without effective
control of pales weevil in Pennsylvania,
losses of trees up to 4 years old could
reach 75 percent. Additional losses of
established trees could be 10 to 15
percent the first year after the first
cutting, 25 percent the second year, and
50 percent every year thereafter (80).
The quality of trees that do
survive will also be impacted if alter-
natives are not as effective. Stress
from insect attack could be expected to
affect tree appearance. Some growers
with long-standing reputations for
beautiful trees have indicated reluc-
tance to offer lower quality trees for
sale and would count these trees of low
quality as additional yield loss.
Comparative Costs
Each of the alternatives involves
higher production costs for the
growers interviewed. The cultural
control methods substantially increase
labor costs.
White pine weevil.--The equipment
used for applications of lindane or of
oxydemeton-methyl is the same; there-
fore, only chemical costs are compared
here.
122
-------
Use Impact Analysis
The cost of lindane to one grower
is $1.33 per acre ($13.30 per acre over
the rotation period). 0 xydemetonmethyl
will cost from $1.54 to $3.08 per acre,
depending on how much is needed for
adequate control. Added costs of the
alternative are from 21 per acre to
$1.75 per acre, or $2.10 per acre to
$17.50 per acre over the production
period.
Pales weevil.--The Pennsylvania
growers reported spending $40 per acre
each year for lindane, sticker, and
application, or a total of $600 per acre
for production of Douglas-fir over 15
years, and $400 per acre for Scotch pine
over 10 years. Stump removal is not a
yearly activity. The total cost of
removing stumps over a 10-year Scotch
pine rotation is an estimated $1,637 per
acre. Thus, control costs for these
growers would increase from $400 per
acre to $1,637 per acre, or from $40
each year per acre to an average of
$163.70 per acre each year. For
Douglasfir, the comparative costs are
$600 per acre over 15 years and $2,353
per acre for the alternative. In
average terms, this is $40 per acre each
year compared with $156.87 per acre per
year.
Pine root collar weevil.--Costs of
using lindane were estimated at $21 per
acre for Michigan, once over an 8year
rotation. Increases in costs attrib-
utable to cultural control practices
could be as high as $697 per acre over
a 9-year rotation. The impact will
depend on yield, because control costs
are related to the number of trees
that need attention. Changes in costs
were derived from references: (120,122,
128,211).
In average terms, this is $2.63
per acre per year using lindane, com-
pared with costs of cultural practices
per acre per year of $77.44 (no yield
loss), $73.44 (10 pct added yield loss),
and $69.56 (20 pct loss). Loss of
revenue from added losses was not
considered here as a Cost. If it
were added in, cost impacts would be
even greater.
If lindane is canceled for use in
Christmas tree production, total
pesticide use by growers would probably
drop, because for many, it is the only
pesticide used annually. Growers might
temporarily increase use of chemicals
such as car bofuran, which involves a
different treatment method; however,
continued use of carbofuran over time is
not anticipated, because carbofuran
would not give proper control in areas
where all trees in a block are not
harvested at the same time.
If lindane is reregistered for use
by certified applicators only, use would
probably remain unchanged. All growers
will have to become certified applica-
tors.
Economic Impact Analysis
Profile of Impact Areas
Major areas of Christmas tree
production are the Pacific Northwest,
the northern Lake States (Wisconsin,
Michigan, Minnesota), and the Northeast,
principally New York and Pennsylvania
(90). The industry is locally important
in other States with large metropolitan
areas, such as Ohio, Virginia, and
Maryland, and is growing in importance
in several southern States.
The predominant species of tree
grown in each region depends upon the
local climate, soil, growing season,
experience of the grower, and market
preferences. Scotch pine predominates
in the Lake States, and Douglasfir is
becoming very popular in Pennsylvania.
Many growers are unable to switch to
another species to avoid or minimize
insect problems. Douglasfir and the
true firs are more site-selective than
the pines. This is especially true of
Fraser fir, which grows only in certain
areas of North Carolina, eastern
Tennessee, and southwestern Virginia.
The National Christmas Tree Associ-
ation estimates that 30 million trees
are sold each year; Scotch pine and
123
-------
Table 72.Production estimates for Christmas trees (by selected States)
State
Annual harvest Total trees growing Total acres
Source
Thousands
Pa.
2,500 46,000 46
(168)
Mich.
4,500 55,000 55
(123)
Minn.
3,000 12,000 12
(222)
Wis.
3,000 30,000 30
(48)
Va.
4045 3,000 3
(137)
N.Y.
7,200 72,000 60
(50)
Sources: Cunningham, 1978 (48); Dickson, 1977 (50); Koelling, 1977 (123);
McElwee, 1977 (137); Palpant, 1977 (188); and Smith, 1977 (222).
Douglas-fir are the most popular nation-
wide. Approximately 3,500 growers
belong to professional associations, and
the NCTA estimates that there is a total
of 10,000 growers. Christmas trees are
planted on approximately 450,000 acres,
and 85 million seedlings are planted
each year (162). Growers point out that
the trees they sell from plantations do
not deplete the forests, because these
trees were planted specifically for
ornamental use in or around the home,
much the same as flowers are planted
in nurseries.
Table 72 shows estimated acres in
Christmas tree production in key States.
How realistic these estimates are is not
known, because State agencies do not
keep records of this nature; however,
many State employees who provided these
estimates have personal experience with
growing trees or know the growers in
their State. How many of these acres
are treated with lindane also could not
be determined, nor could production by
each species be identified.
User Impacts
Impacts projected if lindane were
no longer available vary according to
the pest.
White Pine Weevil
Impacts for growers of white pine
and other host species vary according to
the amount of lindane being used. A
comparison of lindane and the alterna-
tive, oxydemetonmethyl (Metasystox-Rฎ),
indicates that there will be an increase
in costs per acre from 21 to $1.75.
The comparative chemical costs are
indicated below:
lindane
(20 pct EC,
2 lb/gal) 0.1
Metasystox_Rฎ
(25 pct EC, 0.8 to 1.54 to
2 lb/gal) 0.16 $19.25 +3.08
Increase in
chemical cost
(per acre)
The amount of the alternative
needed per acre was derived from the
label: 1 gallon of Metasystox-R in 24
gallons of water, using 2 to 4 gallons
of finished spray per acre. Inasmuch as
this chemical has not been used in
Christmas tree production, the actual
amount of finished spray that growers
will need to provide equivalent control
cannot be determined.
Costs for the chemical alone will
increase by an estimated 214 to $1.75,
depending upon how much of the finished
spray Is used. Impacts on other growers
Chemical
Gall
acre
Price! Total
gal chemical cost
($/acre)
1.33
$13.30
$0.21 to
$1.75
124
-------
with a white pine weevil infestation
will depond upon their level of infesta-
tion and the amount of chemical needed
for control.
Equipment costs.-The costs will be
the same. The grower may have to adjust
existing equipment by changing nozzles,
and so forth, for the alternatives.
Pales Weevil
This pest is particularly important
in areas where Christmas trees are grown
under marginal conditions. Under these
conditions, trees grow at varying rates,
so that harvest of an acre is extended
over several years. Continual har-
vesting provides the weevil with ideal
breeding conditions, from which it can
spread to nearby seedlings and young
trees. Without lindane, the only
alternative for growers facing a weevil
infestation is to remove each stump
shortly after the tree is cut. This
applies to all trees - marketable ones
cut for sale and unmarketable ones
removed to make room for fresh stock.
Assumptions.--This analysis of
economic impacts is based on the assump-
tions numbered below. For details on
numbers used, see references; (120,122,
128,211). The entire analysis for pales
weevil is based on data provided by the
group of growers in Pennsylvania, and is
applicable only to them. Whether it
applies to other growers depends upon
their infestation problems and produc-
tion budgets.
1) Insect populations are cyclic,
and any increase is due to ineffective
control methods.
2) Prices will remain constant
over the production period ($8 for
Doug1asfir $5 for Scotch pine).
3) Lindane, when used, is mixed
with water at label rate and applied
twice a year as a foliar spray. Stumps
are not treated.
4) Scotch pine will not reach mar-
ketable size until year 8; Douglas-fir,
year 12.
5) Scotch pine is planted in a 6 x
6 ft spacing; Douglasfir, 5 x 5 ft.
6) Harvest per acre is spread
unevenly over several years.
7) Losses are replaced only in the
year following planting.
8) Growers can sell all of the
trees they offer for sale.
9) Two stumps can be removed per
hour, using a mattock, at a labor rate
of $3 per hour.
10) In cultural control, each stump
is removed and burned shortly after its
tree is harvested.
11) Stump removal will give the
same level of control as that currently
achieved with lindane.
12) The land used by these growers
is marginal.
Procedure . A composite bud get was
prepared based on costs supplied by
individual growers in Pennsylvania.
Copies of this were sent to State
extension personnel for verification of
its usability and appropriateness (120,
122,128,211). This budget is used not
as an average or even a typical budget,
but rather as an example of a hypo-
thetical grower, based on actual data.
The discounted present value of a
future sum of money is the amount of
money which, if invested today at a
given interest rate for the given length
of time, would yield an amount equal
to the future sum. For our Christmas
tree analysis, the sum of the present
values of the costs and revenues for
each year in the rotation can be u ed
for comparisons of alternative coqkrol
methods. Costs such as land and return
to management are not included in these
budgets; therefore, the final sum cannot
really be called the present value of
the entire operation.
Table 73 compares the cost of con-
trol of pales weevil on Douglas-fir with
lindane and by using stump removal.
Comparable data are shown for Scotch
pine in table 74.
The difference between the present
value using lindane and the present
value using stump removal indicates
the per-acre value of lindane to the
Christmas tree operation in a given
125
-------
Table 73.-Present value of variable costs 1/ and revenues, Douglasfir
production, Pennsylvania, 1977, for pales weevil control
Year of
production
Present value
(using lindane)
Present value
(using stump removal)
1
Dollars per acre
Dollars per acre
656
294
2
454
781
3
565
858
4
658
919
5
751
1,003
6
845
1,090
7
951
1,189
8
1,067
1,299
9
1,187
1,413
10
1,300
1,520
11
1/12
..?/13
1 114
1 /15
1,406
1,099
41
1,334
1,961
1,621
1,309
332
780
1,071
1/ Costs included are overhead, planting (seedlings and labor), brush
control, pest control, mowing, shearing, harvest, and sales preparation.
2/ Years in which sales are made.
Table 74.-Present value of variable costs !1 and revenues, Scotch pine
production, Pennsylvania, 1977, for pales weevil control
Year of
production
Present value
(using lindane)
Present value
(using stump removal)
1
Dollars per acre
Dollars per acre
212
661
2
348
762
3
469
849
4
585
933
5
717
1,066
6
841
1,191
7
1/8
958
618
1,309
970
1/9
32
578
1/io
457
395
1/ Costs included are overhead, planting (seedlings and labor), brush
control, pest control, mowing, shearing, harvest, and sales preparation.
2/ Years in which sales are made.
126
-------
rotation period for these growers. For
Douglas-fir, the per-acre value is $890;
for Scotch pine, $852. This is the
loss that the operation would incur if
lindane could not be used. Because
other costs (for example, land, certain
taxes, buildings) are not included, It
cannot be determined whether growers
will still be able to meet all expenses
in Douglas-fir production by using stump
removal; it is obvious, however, that
loss of lindane will make Scotch pine
production a losing proposition for
these particular growers.
For details and derivations of
figures, see the next section titled
Mathematics of discounting and
references: (120,122,128,211).
Mathematics of discounting.--Com-
pounding is a familiar process to anyone
who has a savings account. The princi-
pal today is known. The future value of
that principal, in year n, can be found
by:
P 0 (1+i 1 )(1+1 2 )(1+i 3 ) . . . (1+i ) =P
where P 0 = principal or present value
i = interest rate
n = years
Pn
= future value;
thus: P 0 (1 + 0 n =
This is the value of the principal,
P 0 , left to draw compound interest for
n years (34).
Discounting is the reverse of
compounding. If the future value is
known and the length of time and
interest rate given, the original or
present value can be found by:
P
n
P 0 =
(1 +
For this analysis, 6 percent was
used as the discount or interest rate,
as an alternate rate of return for the
growers investment funds.
Explanation of production costs.- -
Overhead includes expenses such as
insurance, office space, equipment main-
tenance, supervisory personnel, and
utilities. 12/ The costs for planting
in year 2 are for the replacement seed-
lings. This will vary according to how
many of the original planting survive,
but an average of 10 percent was used
for this analysis. Brush control in
the first 3 years consists of chemical
and application costs of herbicides to
minimize competition until the seedlings
become fully established. In later
years, mowing between rows or along fire
lanes is the only vegetation control
method employed by these growers.
Because trees grow at varying
rates, not all trees reach the stage
where shearing is needed in the same
year. Shearing costs also increase over
time, because more time is needed for
larger trees.
Pest control costs were computed to
include lindane, sticker, and applica-
tion costs. The group reported using
6 pints of product per acre, twice a
year. Application included estimates
for tractor and sprayer rental, along
with an operator.
Harvest costs are those expenses
incurred in removing trees from the
field. All trees are eventually
harvested. Sales preparation includes
tinting (some pines turn yellow every
fall), tagging, sorting, and wrapping
for shipping.
Pine Root Collar Weevil
This pest is reported to be
increasing in the Lake States (326,331),
which creates difficulties in deter-
mining the impact of lindane cancella-
tion. Assumptions used in this analysis
include:
17/ Overhead can be derived by sum-
ming all such costs over the rotation,
dividing by the number of acres the
grower has and by the number of years in
the rotation.
127
-------
1) Data from the Michigan State
University (MSU) study (211) are still
valid, when corrected for inflation.
2) Damage caused by this weevil
will increase without control.
3) Growers will be able to sell
all marketable trees for $5, wholesale
price.
4) Additional labor will be avail-
able, at a wage rate of $3 per hour.
5) All costs will remain constant
over the rotation.
6) The changeover from using un-
dane to using cultural control methods
involves no timelag.
7) Implementation of the cultural
control alternatives will require twice
as much time, thereby doubling shearing
costs. (Costs for the first year of
shearing were doubled here, because
basal pruning was already included in
the MSU study.)
8) Simazine will be applied every
year for control of the additional grass
growth under trees brought about by the
cultural control method.
9) Trees grow at a more uniform
rate in Michigan than in Pennsylvania.
10) Ninety percent of the total
trees survive; 80 percent are market-
able, with the use of lindane.
11) Lindane is applied once during
an average rotation: year 4 of an
8-year rotation.
12) Impacts on affected growers in
Michigan will also be experienced by
similar growers in Minnesota and
Wisconsin because - of the relative
uniformity of weevil problems and
production practices in these States.
13) The cultural control alterna-
tive will delay harvest 1 year.
14) Mowing twice a year (except
for the last year) will be included in
the cultural control method to avoid
attracting pales or northern pine weevil
populations.
Procedure.--Data were taken from
the MSU study and were updated to re-
flect current labor and equipment costs.
Production figures for Scotch pine were
chosen because that species is the most
popular both with consumers and the
pine root collar weevil. The study
included data for 7-year, 8-year, and
9year rotations; the 8-year rotation
figures were chosen for this analysis.
The alternative, using cultural prac-
tices, makes this a 9-year rotation.
Variable costs and revenues were
summed annually and discounted to find
the present worth of the rotation (table
75), similar to the analysis for pales
weevil in Pennsylvania. The following
results show the impact of lindane can-
cellation in Christmas tree production
(Scotch pine) in Michigan:
Added
Present
Impa t
Percent
3rldd
worth
cf
change
Method loss
($/aare)
c nceJJat n
lindane
1,151
cultural
none
487
664
-57.7
cultural
10
pct
311
840
-73.0
cultural
20
pct
131
1,020
88.6
Although expenditures for lindane
are minimal (estimated here at $21 per
acre every 8 years), the benefits from
using it appear to be significant. The
impact of lindane cancellation (that is,
loss in present value if cultural con-
trol must be used) could be at least
$664 per acre. This may force some
growers out of production if they cannot
meet costs which were not included in
these calculations (for example, income
taxes, land certain equipment).
Losses could be more than the mini-
mum shown here ($664 per acre) because
this figure does not take yield loss
into consideration. Weevil populations
can still find suitable breeding sites
in nearby forests, and increases in
infestation levels of this pest have
already been noted. Thus, the impact of
lindane cancellation would probably be
stated more realistically as a decrease
in present worth of at least 73 percent
(significant), a decrease from $1,151
per acre to $311.
Conclusions
White pine weevil.--One Virginia
grower faces minor increased costs (es-
timated at 214 to $1.75 per acre) if the
alternative is as effective as lindane.
128
-------
Table 75.--Present value of variable costs 1 ! and revenues, Scotch pine Christmas
tree production, Michigan - 1977 (using alternative control methods for pine root
collar weevil)
Value per acre
(cumulative)
Year
Lindane
Cultural control
No
yield loss
10
pct Added loss
20
pct Added
loss
1
$192
$204
$204
$204
2
287
32].
321
321
3
469
578
578
578
4
593
760
760
760
5
693
932
932
932
6
7
8
9
798
/3O1
aI1,151
1,093
1,264
.a295
V487
1,093
1,254
.aI388
V311
1,093
1,245
.486
.a 1131
1/ Costs included are overhead, planting, brush control, mowing, shearing, weevil
control, harvest, and sales preparation.
2/ Years in which trees are sold. Source: (211).
If oxydemeton-methyl does not give
adequate control, revenue will fall as
well. This particular grower is unable
to grow other species of trees because
of limitations of the microclimate.
Pales weevil.--The Pennsylvania
growers will not be able to continue
producing Scotch pine Christmas trees
without lindane, because costs of con-
trol by stump removal exceed revenue.
Although the growers are already phasing
out this species and replacing it with
Douglas-fir, this process will be
greatly accelerated without lindane.
Costs of control by stump removal
will increase by 50 percent (from $3,497
to $5,250, over the 15year rotation)
for Douglas-fir, making the net revenue
smaller. If this is not enough to cover
other costs of production (for example,
land, income taxes), this group of
growers will also have to discontinue
growing Douglas-fir.
Pine root collar weevil.--With no
yield loss and added production costs
of cultural practices leading to a loss
of present value of at least 58 percent,
Michigan growers would find it impossi-
ble to continue to produce Scotch pine
Christmas trees.
Overall.--Some eastern growers,
such as the group in Pennsylvania,
have been able to lessen their insect
problems by switching from Scotch pine
to other species less susceptible to
weevils. Douglas-fir grows well in some
parts of Pennsylvania and brings a
higher return, even though growers have
to wait longer before realizing any
income. Douglas-fir, however, is sub-
ject to damage from spring frost in the
East and needs well-drained sites. Not
many eastern growers have sites good
enough for Douglas-fir.
Many Scotch pine sites in the Lake
States and Virginia are also unsuited
for Douglasfir. Furthermore, as less
Scotch pine is grown, these insects,
finding their usual breeding and feeding
sites gone, will begin to infest stands
of other species, such as spruce and
Douglas-fir, which heretofore have not
been bothered very much.
Impacts on growers in other Christ-
mas tree-producing areas cannot be
easily determined, because data such as
those used in the preceding analyses are
difficult to gather. As growers differ
in so many ways, a total impact figure
would hide the distributional effects of
lindane cancellation.
129
-------
Market Impacts
Without reliable estimates on
efficacy of alternative control methods,
it is difficult to determine the impact
of lindane cancellation on supply of
Christmas trees. It appears that pro-
duction costs will increase. If yield
declines, bringing a loss in income as
well, growers probably would contract
acres in production, rather than expand.
When supply would be impacted depends
upon the species of tree and the weevil
pest in question.
Consumer Impacts
Impact of Lindane cancellation will
be felt by consumers over several years.
If there is a decrease in supply, con-
sumers will have fewer trees to buy,
lower quality pines, and less variety
of trees to choose from. The price of
Christmas trees following lind ane
cancellation will depend upon factors
such as the continued availability of
trees from areas presently free of
infestations, consumer acceptance of
lower quality trees, and relative prices
of artificial trees, which are part of
the petroleumbased industry.
Social and Community Impacts
Uncertainty about the efficacy and
ultimate profitability of the alterna-
tive control methods (particularly the
previously discussed cultural control
practice of stump removal) raises the
possibility of a phaseout of most, if
not all, Christmas tree production
of pines and possibly white firs,
especially in Wisconsin, Minnesota,
Michigan, Virginia, and Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania will not be considered
here because in many areas Douglas-fir
is expected to replace Scotch pine
regardless of regulatory actions. The
eastern part of the State may suffer
total loss of Christmas tree production,
because the climate and soil are unsuit-
able for substitute species; however,
because data on the acreage involved
were not available, labor release from
Christmas tree phase-out in this area
was not considered.
A production phase-out would mean a
gradual shrinkage of seasonal production
jobs associated with the industry over
the growing cycle (7 to 10 years) in
those regions of each State affected
by the problem weevils. Present dis-
tribution of economic levels of these
pests has not been discerned; therefore,
this analysis will proceed with the
assumption that economic infestations
occur in all growing areas of the States
in question.
Preliminary indications are that
job losses could impact on workers
traditionally characterized by high un-
employment and underemployment diffi-
culties. In the following section,
an attempt will be made to estimate
the number of jobs involved and the
gravity of the social impact problem
for affected workers in each of the
prospectively impacted producing States.
Minnesota
Minnesota is an important Christmas
tree-producing State. It is estimated
that there are between 275300 growers
of various sizes in Minnesota, who
cultivate 12,000 acres (table 76).
According to industry sources, about 75
percent of the plantation trees grown in
Minnesota are grown in the following
counties: Sherburne, Isonti, Chicago,
Cass, Dakota, Washington, Sterns, and
Itasca (88). There are four major oper-
ations for which a grower would employ
labor: planting, shearing, tinting, and
harvesting (221).
In Minnesota, planting operations
generate 126 jobs, shearing 833, tinting
467, and harvesting 188; thus, 1,614
jobs of varying time spans are involved
in the States Christmas tree industry.
Michigan
Michigan is one of the largest
Christmas tree-growing States. Approx-
imately 4 to 5 million trees (table 76)
are harvested annually by 700 to
1,000 growers. Only about 100 of
these are full-time producers and they,
of course, have the largest tree farms
130
-------
Table 76.--Production estimates for Christmas tree industry in impact States
State
Annual
harvest
Total number
trees in stand
Percent
sheared annually
Total
acreage
Source
Michigan
4,500,000
55,000,000
85
55,000
(123)
Minnesota
1,500,000
12,000,000
80
12,000
(222)
Wisconsin
3,000,000
30,000,000
60
30,000
(48)
Virginia
43,000
3,000,000
65
3,000
(137)
Sources: Cunningham, 1978 (48); Koelling, 1977 (123); McElwee, 1977 (137); and
Smith, 1977 (222).
and employ the bulk of the labor in the
industry (231). About 80 percent of
the Michigan Christmas tree industry is
concentrated in the following nine
counties: Grand Traverse, Missaukee,
Lake, Kalkaska, Osceola, Wexford,
Allegan, Muskegon, and Ottawa (231).
Michigan production utilizes hired
seasonal labor in four operations:
planting, shearing, tinting, and har-
vesting (table 77). There are 55 million
acres in production in what is typically
a 10year rotation pattern; thus, there
are the same types of seasonal jobs, as
previously described (123).
According to the figures derived
from these procedures, the Michigan
Christmas tree industry generates 113
jobs for planting, 4,870 jobs for
shearing, 188 jobs for tinting, and
1,406 jobs for harvesting, for a total
of 6,577 seasonal jobs.
Wisconsin
Annual Christmas tree production
in Wisconsin is from 2.5 to 3 million
trees harvested (table 76), a large
share of the national total. The trees
are grown by approximately 440 indi-
vidual producers on a total of about
30,000 acres (160) (table 76). It is
estimated that about 85 percent of the
tree industry is concentrated in only
five counties: Waushara, Portage,
Adams, Wood, and Jackson (30).
As for the other Lake States, sev-
eral operations in production involve
employment of labor, and much of
this labor is seasonal. These are:
planting, shearing, pesticide spraying,
and harvesting. Pesticide spraying,
however, apparently is done largely by
contract pest control operators or by
the growers. This item will therefore
be omitted from consideration at this
time, although it is conceivable that
some segment of the pest control indus-
try is primarily dependent on Christmas
tree grower contracts.
According to figures derived from
expert State sources, the Wisconsin
Christmas tree industry generates sea-
sonal labor requirements at substantial
levels. The industry requires the equiv-
alent of 188 jobs to help plant, 1,250
jobs to shear, and 1,442 jobs to harvest,
for a total of 2,880 jobs (table 77).
Virginia
The majority (80 pct) of the 3
million Christmas trees grown in the
State of Virginia (table 76) are con-
centrated in the Shenandoah Valley
counties of Rockingham, Rockb ridge,
Augusta, Floyd, and Grayson. The
industry is relatively small; Virginia
harvests between 40 and 45 thousand
trees annually (table 76).
According to a study by Virginia
Polytechnic Institute, there are three
operations in Christmas tree production
in Virginia that entail significant
amounts of temporary labor. These
include those operations previously
described (137,138).
131
-------
Table 77.-Required hired labor estimates for Christmas tree production in impact States
State
Planting
Shearing
Tinting
Harvesting
Source
(trees
per
hour)
Machine
Hand
(trees/hour)
(trees/day)
Minnesota
300
1/-.
50
40
25
(222)
Michigan
500
V
40
400500
10
(123)
Wisconsin
500
500
60
1.
6.5
(48)
Virginia
140
376
42
J--
5.6
(128)
1/ Indicates an insignificant labor requirement in this State.
Sources: Cunningham, 1978 (48); Koelling, 1977 (123); Leuschner and Sellers, 1975
(128); and Smith, 1977 (222).
Christmas tree production in
Virginia generates the equivalent of
40 jobs for planting, 292 jobs for
shearing/pruning, and 48 jobs for har-
vesting, for a total of 380 temporary
jobs.
Worker Impact
An estimated 11,451 seasonal jobs
in the key impact States are subject to
gradual dissolution as the insect damage
resulting from the absence of pest con-
trol protection is manifested in stand
reductions over the rotation period (7
to 10 years).
Although 11,451 jobs are estimated
to be involved, it is quite likely that
this figure inflates the actual number
of workers involved. Many of the same
workers perform the various seasonal
tasks, and therefore estimates of the
amount of overlap are difficult to
obtain without a survey of employer
records. It is a matter of record that
a majority of the shearing/pruning tasks
are accomplished by student and house-
wife labor during the late spring and
early summer. Shearing positions
comprise 63 percent of all jobs in
production. The other 37 percent of
the jobs for planting, tinting, and
harvesting fall outside summer vacation
months (the season when housewives and
students are available), and very likely
involve a substantial amount of double
counting. Because there are three
nonshearing operations involved, the
number of workers could be as small as
one-third of the estimated 4,206 posi-
tions required for these tasks (that is,
1,400 workers). If one assumes that
the same workers do the nonshearing
tasks, the total number of required
positions is reduced to 8,646 workers
(that is, 1,400 + 0.633(11,451) = 8,646)
employed by the industry in the four
States in question.
This does not represent a very
large number of workers for the States
in question; it easily reduces to less
than 1 percent of the labor force in
each State. Nevertheless, the social
characteristics of this labor force and
the circumstances of the labor markets
in which they are employed (particu-
larly the Lake States) do suggest the
possibility of considerable readjustment
problems for the impacted workers.
According to industry sources in several
States, shearing is done largely by high
school and college students, and by
housewives. Planting, tinting, and har-
vesting are done by transients and other
marginal workers (30,75). Teenagers and
women are, of course, two of the more
problematic populations with respect to
underemployment and unemployment.
132
-------
Table 78.--Unemployment rates, by county, for major Christmas tree-producing areas in
major Christmas tree-producing States
Average
County 1975
Part of standard
Average metropolitan
1976 13/1977 .1, statistical area
1/ The monthly statistic is not seasonally adjusted.
Sources: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1975 to
In addition, these jobs, and
presumably most of the workers, are
situated in predominantly rural areas
(table 78), where alternative job oppor-
tunities are limited. An examination
of socioeconomic characteristics of
these areas suggests that opportunities
are limited to agricultural, forestry,
and a few light manufacturing indus-
tries. If the worker prefers forestry
or agriculturally related employment,
1977 (250,251,252,253).
The analysis has focused primarily
on Lake State producers, because this is
where most of the pest control problems
would occur. Unfortunately, the employ-
ment problem has been substantial in
this region. Table 78 indicates the
Michigan
9.4
8.1
Allegan
7.7
6.8
Grand Traverse
9.7
11.0
Kalkaska
22.6
23.4
Lake
9.7
10.4
Missaukee
15.7
15.8
Muskegon
9.5
8.3
Osceola
14.9
15.0
Ottawa
7.2
5.8
Wexford
12.5
12.6
Minnesota
5.9
5.9
6.4
Cass
4.4
6.2
10.8
Chicago
9.4
9.1
8.4
Dakota
6.0
5.8
5.3
Isanti
5.7
6.1
7.1
Itasca
7.0
8.3
11.8
Sherburne
5.4
6.7
8.0
Stearns
5.5
6.8
8.1
Washington
6.9
6.7
6.1
Wisconsin
6.9
5.6
6.4
Adams
8.0
6.2
7.2
Jackson
8.2
6.4
8.0
Portage
5.1
4.1
4.9
Waushara
8.7
5.7
6.8
Wood
7.5
5.6
7.1
Virginia
6.4
6.1
Rockingham
8.3
5.4
Rockbridge
17.1
11.9
Floyd
3.8
2.9
Grayson
7.5
5.9
Augusta
7.8
6.7
Muskegon - Norton Shores
Muskegon Heights
Grand Rapids
Minneapolis/St. Paul
Minneapolis/St. Paul
St. Cloud
St. Cloud
Minneapolis/St. Paul
however, his
pounded by
reducing the
mechanization
or her problem is corn-
national trends that are
use of labor through the
of these industries.
133
-------
State and county unemployment rates for
1975, 1976, and March of 1977. Data
were not available for 1975 in Michigan,
but for 1976, the data indicate a high
State unemployment figure -- 9.4 per-
cent; yet seven of the nine leading
production counties exceeded the
State unemployment rate. In March of
1977, this relative balance remained
unchanged; typically, Christmas tree-
producing counties experience higher
unemployment than do other counties
(250 ,251).
The average unemployment rate in
Minnesota is much lower for the same
period -- 5.9 to 6.4 percent. Never-
theless, in the eight leading counties,
four or more exceed the State unem-
ployment levels throughout this period
(250 .251).
The situation is similar in Wiscon-
sin, where four of the five leading
production counties equal or exceed the
State figures in 1975, 1976, and 1977.
Although Wisconsin rates are lower
than Michigan, several of the leading
producing counties appear to have
experienced unemployment in excess of 7
percent throughout much of this period.
The Virginia unemployment rates
were not identified for 1977, but the
unemployment rate in four of the five
Virginia counties exceeds the State
average in 1975 and two of the counties
exceeded the State average in 1976. In
relation to the Lake States, the Vir-
ginia situation does not appear to be
quite as problematic. Nevertheless,
there could be worker dislocation prob-
lems, particularly in Rockbridge county,
if losses in production should parallel
further high unemployment.
Limitations of the Analysis
1) Extension personnel in some key
States did not respond to the lindane
use questionnaire.
2) The growers contacted by EPA
cannot be taken as representative of the
industry, because it was not practical
to identify all growers and determine
what is typical.
3) Total use of lindane or the
alternatives could not be determined
from the search methods used.
4) A profile of the industry as a
whole could not be determined accu-
rately, as many small growers remain
unidentified. The NCTA can describe
only those growers who are members.
5) Although the balsam woolly
aphid was reported in North Carolinas
response to the RPAR, not enough data
could be found for an analysis.
6) Total production costs for each
species could not be determined. Value
of the land was left unknown.
7) Total impacts could not be
determined. Time restrictions also
prevented an analysis of impacts on all
users. Areas such as New England,
where acres in production were reported
to be very small, were omitted from
this analysis.
8) No assessment was made of the
potential impact on future Scotch pine
production in Wisconsin and Minnesota
by growers transferring their produc-
tion of this species from the Pacific
Northwest because of diseases presently
controlled by EBDCs [ RPARI.
9) Comparative efficacy of cul-
tural control methods (relative to
lindane) has not been fully determined
for Christmas tree production.
Summary
Lindane is the only insecticide
registered for the control of all of the
insect pests attacking Christmas trees.
Metasystox-Rฎ is only registered for
the control of one of the pests, the
white pine weevil. There are no non-
chemical alternatives for controlling
the balsam woolly aphid and the white
pine weevil. The nonchemical methods
that will control the other pests are
stump removal, basal pruning, and duff
removal; however, these methods are
not practiced routinely by the industry,
and generally they double the cost.
Top dips and root dips of transplants
are effective only for the initial
planting season. Except for white
pine weevil control, alternatives cost
approximately two times more than the
lindane treatments.
134
-------
CHAPTER 9
BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF LINDANE
USE ON PECANS
Current Use Analysis
EPA Registrations of Lindane
and Alternatives
Lindane is registered by EPA for
control of phylloxera and shoot curcuio
on pecans. Based on information
provided by a USDA survey (118), shoot
curculio is not considered to be of eco-
nomic importance on pecans; therefore,
it is not considered in this analysis.
Eight other active ingredients are
registered by EPA for pecan phylloxera
control (299): dicofol, dinoseb (tn-
ethanolamine salt of). malathion, diaz-
inon, pyrethrins, piperonyl butoxide,
oils, and mineral oil.
Endosulfan is also registered by
EPA for control of pecan phylloxera in
Mississippi and Louisiana. Permission
was granted under Section 24c of the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) for control
of this pest for 5 years beginning
April 1, 1977 (Mississippi) and May 27,
1977 (Louisiana).
Recommendations for Use
of Lindane and Alternatives
State Recommendations
For the 11 major pecan-producing
States that use lindane for pecan phyl-
loxera control, malathion is recommended
as an alternative in 6 States, and endo-
sulfan and oil in 2 States (table 79).
Federal Guidelines
The USDA guidelines for pecans do
not include liridane as a control agent
for pecan phylloxera. As indicated in
table 79, malathion is the only insecti-
cide listed in this publication (259).
Use of Lindane and Alternatives
Lindane is most frequently used
on managed groves of improved pecan
varieties where one treatment is applied
during the first 2 weeks of April.
A oneperson air-blast or air-delivery
sprayer, spraying 30 gallons of dilution
per tree, is registered by EPA; however,
20 gallons of dilution are satisfactory
Table 79 .--Summary of State recommendations and Federal guidelines
for phylloxera control of pecans, selected States
Item 11
Insecticide
Lindane
Malathion
Oil
Endosulfan
Alabama
-
X
Arkansas
X
X
-
-
Georgia
Louisiana
X
-
X
X
-
-
-
X
Mississippi
Oklahoma
X
X
X
X
X
X
-
Texas
-
-
X
USDA
-
X
-
-
1/ Auburn University, 1975 (2); University of Arkansas, 1975 (10);
University of Georgia, 1977 (78); Louisiana State University, 1976 (130);
Mississippi State University, 1976 (155); Oklahoma State University,
1975 (186); Texas A M University, 1975 (242); and U.S. Department of
Agriculture, 1974 (259).
135
-------
Table 80.--Number of pecan trees, lindane-treated pecan trees, and quantity of
lindane used, selected States, base year
/ Number of trees obtained from the 1974 Census of Agriculture (295); includes
improved and native varieties on farms with sales of $2,500 and over.
2/ Based on data from the Biological Survey for Lindane Assessment (69).
3/ Number of trees times label rate of 0.075 pound 1 active ingredient per tree.
4/ Alabama, Arkansas, and Louisiana. Lindane usage was not reported for these
States. The Lindane Assessment Team assumed that the extent of lindane usage in
these 3 States was equal to the weighted average of treated bearing and nonbearing
trees as reported for the 4 States.
for controlling insects on trees over 35
feet tall (39,78,242). Enough spray
should be applied to wet the highest
and innermost portions of the tree.
Approximately 33 ,600 pounds of
lindane are used to control phylloxera
on 447,800 pecan trees in Alabama, Ar-
kansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Oklahoma, and Texas (table 80). These
States have about 4.5 million pecan
trees or about 76 percent of the U.S.
total (295). Lindane use ranges from
a high of 19 percent of the bearing and
nonbearing trees in Mississippi to a
low of 3 percent in Georgia (table 80).
Other insecticides used for phyl-
loxera control include malathion and
oil. Malathion is used in Arkansas,
Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas (15,63,
114,142), and oil is frequently applied
for control of this pest in Texas (142)
and Oklahoma (237). Endosulfan is used
in Louisiana and Mississippi. No data
are available regarding the quantity of
these a Iternatives used on either a
State or on a U.S. basis.
Performance Evaluation of Lindane
and Alternatives I 7
Pest Infestation and Damage
The pecan phyllox era, Phylloxera
devastatrix Pergande, is a small but
destructive insect, which can cause
severe damage to pecan trees. Damage
results when the insects feed on the
twigs, leaves, and developing nuts.
During feeding, these insects produce a
substance that stimulates abnormal
tissue development in the plant, and
results in the formation of characteris-
tic phylloxera galls that enclose the
insects. If abundant, this insect can
reduce pecan yields during the year of
the infestation by 60 to 90 percent
(21,63,175). When severe infestations
are not controlled, tree vigor and the
future production may be adversely
affected. Additionally, recent research
18/ Much of the information used in
this section was provided by Dr. George
G. Kennedy, Assistant Professor at
North Carolina State University.
State
Pecan
trees V
Lindane-treated
trees
Lindane usage
(a.i.) on
bearing and
nonbearing
trees /
Bearing + Bearing
nonbearin g
Bearing + Bearing
nonbearing nonbearin
+ Bearing
g
1,000
1,000
Percent
L! !00
LJ Q 9
1,000 Lb
Georgia
1,359
1,212
3
40.8
36.4
3.1
Mississippi
255
202
19
48.4
38.4
3.6
Oklahoma
532
421
8
42.6
33.7
3.2
Texas
Other States
. i
1,549
836
1,171
567
15
iio
232.4
83.6
175.6
56.7
17.4
6.3
7 States
4,531
3,573
10
447.8
340.8
33.6
136
-------
Table 81.-Effectiveness of insecticides applied as follar treatments
for phylloxera control on pecan, Shreveport, Louisiana 197273
Treatment!
and Year
Type
formulation
Pounds
per 100
actual
gal
Mean number
infestations
of
V
1972
endosulfan
50
pct WP
0.75
3.50
malathion
5
lb/gal EC
.75
44.87
untreated
291.12
1973
endosulfan
2
lb/gal EC
.40
0
(2 appl.)
endosulfan
2
lb/gal EC
.75
0.25
endosulfan
2
lb/gal EC
.40
1.38
untreated
20.75
1/ Applied with an air-blast sprayer; 8 singletree replications.
2/ In 1972, the number of galls per 20 terminals per tree was
determined; in 1973 the number of terminals infested with galls per 40
terminals per tree was determined.
Source: Calcote and Bagent, 1974 (24).
in Oklahoma indicates that phylloxera
galls are used as egglaying sites and
harboring locations for another eco-
nomically important insect, the hickory
shuckworm ( Laspeyresia caryana (Fitch))
(17). Thus, the impact of the hickory
shuckworm on yields will be highly
correlated with effectiveness of lindane
alternatives for controlling phylloxera.
The life cycle of the pecan phyl
loxera is as follows: 1) in the spring
females, the stem-mothers, develop from
overwintering fertilized eggs; 2) the
stem-mothers produce eggs, which give
birth to asexual females; 3) the asexual
females give birth to males and females;
and 4) the fertilized eggs produced by
these females in the fall give birth in
the spring to the stem-mothers. The
feeding by the stem-mothers in the
spring is the only time the phylloxera
directly affects yields.
Comparative Performance Evaluation
No field test data could be found
comparing the relative effectiveness of
lindane and alternative insecticides for
pecan phylloxera control. This section
of the report is based upon the results
of nonlindane experiments conducted dur-
ing 1972 and 1973; the information was
provided by numerous State entomologists
contacted during the course of the anal-
ysis, and the results of a recent survey
of major pecan-producing States (118).
Field tests for control of pecan
phylloxera using several insecticides
were conducted in 1972 at Shreveport,
Louisiana (24). In that year, 40-year-
old Caspiana pecan trees each received
approximately 42 gallons of spray by
air-blast equipment; the materials
tested included endosulfan and malathion
(table 81).
In 1973, Schley variety pecan trees
were each treated with 30 gallons of
spray material; the insecticides tested
included endosulfan, plus a wetting
agent (table 81).
Although the research did not
include lindane, lindane has been used
for pecan phylloxera control in Alabama,
Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, Okla-
homa, and Texas (63,96,114,118,233).
Strother (233) stated that lindane
137
-------
should control this pest as well as
BHC. Ellis (63) feels that l.indane
provides control, but observations
indicate that control may be slightly
less with BHC. Ellis also stated that
hard data are not available to confirm
his hypothesis. Boethel (16) indicates
that lindane being a closely related
compound (to BHC), it may perform in a
similar manner. We have been hesitant
to recommend lindane this season due to
a lack of data demonstrating its effec-
tiveness.
Some entomologists indicate that
alternatives to lindane may also have
limitations. For example, organophos-
phates (such as malathion) lack residual
control and must be applied two or three
times during the period following bud
break to provide a level of control
equivalent to BHC or lindane (63,233).
Consequently, application and insecti-
cide costs will be greater than those
for lindane, where one treatment is
normally required. Weather, lack of
equipment, or labor, or any combination
of the three, may impinge upon the use
of organophosphates. During the 2- to
3-week period following bud break, when
the insects hatch and begin to feed,
the aforementioned factors may act as
constraints upon effective control.
Although oil (dormant) is nontoxic to
humans, it has not been proved effective
for phylloxera control (175). Its use
requires that trees be sprayed during
the winter; this represents a major
change in growers practices.
Several entomologists contacted
indicated that endosulfan is very effec-
tive for phylloxera control (16,63,142,
233). These observations are based only
on experimental testing, however,
because endosulfan is not federally
registered for control of pecan phyl-
loxera on pecansJ!/
Kennedy (118) recently conducted a
survey in selected pecan-producing
States on lindane use for the control of
pecan phylloxera (table 82). Of the
insecticides registered for control of
phylloxera on pecans (299), one treat-
ment of malathion (1.5 pounds a.i. per
acre per year) in Georgia is approxi-
mately 65 percent as effective as one
treatment of lindane (0.8 pound a.i.
per acre per year). Published data on
research experiments are available.
For Mississippi, two treatments of
malathion (3.75 pounds a.i. per acre
per year) are only 75 percent as
effective as one treatment of lindane
(1.5 pounds a.i. per acre per year) in
reducing pecan phylloxera.
Oil is a recommended alternative in
Oklahoma. One treatment of oil is 65
percent as effective as one treatment of
lindane, and yields are reduced by 33
percent.
In Texas, the lindane application
rate is 0.37 pound a.i. per acre per
year. Oil, the only recommended alter-
native, is 75 percent as effective as
one treatment of lindane, and yield
reductions are 2 to 3 percent.
Comparative Costs
The costs of treating pecans for
pecan phylloxera, using lindane and
three of the registered alternatives
(malathion, oil, and endosulfan), are
presented in table 83. Growers substi-
tuting endosulfan for lindane can expect
costs of production to decline 234 per
tree per year, assuming that all other
factors remain constant. Where mala-
thion is used, costs of production will
increase $7 per tree per year. With
oil, costs will increase $1.18 per tree
per year.
19/ Endosulfan is registered by EPA
under Section 24c of FIFRA beginning
April 1, 1977, for pecan phylloxera
control in Mississippi. It is also
registered for pecan phylloxera control
under Section 24c of FIFRA in Louisiana
beginning May 27, 1977.
Economic Impact Analysis
Profile of Impact Areas
Pecans are produced commercially in
11 States in the United States. Georgia
and Texas, the leading States, account
138
-------
Table 82.-Use of lindane and alternatives in selected States, 1978
State!
Insecticide
Untreated
Lindane
Malathion
Oil
Georgia
lb a.i./acre/yr
0.8
1.5
aNR
treatments/season
effectiveness (pct)!/
Mississippi
1.0
1.0
6070
NR
NR
--
510
lb a.i./acre/yr
1.5
3.75
NR
treatments/season
effectiveness (pct)- /
1.0
2.0
75
NR
NR
30
Oklahoma
lb a.i./acre/yr
1.14
NR
/3.5
gal
treatments/season
effectiveness (pct). /
1.0
NR
NR
1.0
65
40
Texas
lb a.i./acre/yr
0.37
NR
3.5
gal
treatments/season
effectiveness (pct). !
1.0
NR
NR
1.0
75
20
1/ Information not available for other States in study -- Alabama, Arkansas, and
Louisiana.
2/ Not reported in survey.
3/ Relative to lindane.
4/ 3.5 gallons of dormant oil per 100 gallons.
Sources: Holloway, 1978 (96); Kennedy, 1977 (118).
Table 83.Seasonal cost of lindane and alternative Insecticides per pecan tree,
base year
Insecticide
Label
rate 1,
Price
per Cost/tree/application
unit Material Labor and Total
(a.i.)1 eguipmentII
Appli-
cations
per
seasoni/
Seasonal
cost per
tree
Per tree
Dollars
Number
Dollars
lindane
0.075 lb
15.00 1.13 0.55 1.68
1.0
1.68
malathion
.067 lb
4.36 2.92 .55 3.47
2.5
8.68
oil
.7 gal
3.30 2.31 .55 2.86
1.0
2.86
endosulfan
.150 lb
6.00 0.90 .55 1.45
1.0
1.45
1/ Assumes that 20 gallons of diluted spray will treat one average-size pecan tree
with the use of an air-blast sprayer.
2/ Sources of material prices were as follows: lindane, Boethel, 1978; malathion
(50 pct EC), C. J. Martin Company, 1978; oil, B 8 G Company, 1978; endosulfan (50 pct
WP), Boethel, 1978.
3/ Johnson, 1977 (108).
4/ Number of applications per season based on Information from State entomologists
and the Biological Survey for Lindane Assessment (69).
139
-------
Table 84.-Pecan production in principal producing States, 1/ selected years
State . i
4-Year
1974 1975 1976 1977 average
Proportion
of total
States using lindane
Million pounds
11.0 20.0 5.0 40.0 19.0
Percent
10
Alabama
Arkansas
1.2 3.5 1.0 4.0 2.4
1
Georgia
58.0 75.0 52.0 75.0 65.0
36
Louisiana
3.0 32.0 2.0 32.0 17.2
9
Mississippi
3.0 6.0 1.5 14.0 6.1
3
Oklahoma
2.5 20.0 2.3 24.0 12.2
7
Texas
States not using lindane
. ./
38.0 68.0 20.0 36.0 40.5
2.5 5.0 2.5 6.0 4.0
23
2
Florida
New Mexico
13.2 13.1 11.5 13.0 12.7
7
North Carolina
2.2 2.2 2.8 2.0 2.3
1
South Carolina
2.5 2.0 2.5 3.5 2.6
1
United States
137.1 246.8 103.1 249.5 184.1
100
1/ Data obtained from Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts, Annual Summary, 1976 and 1977.
2/ Use of lindane (to control pecan phylloxera) based on data obtained in the
Biological Survey for Lindane Assessment (69).
3/ These States were not in the study, and are shown here to give a total
perspective. Pecans are also produced in Arizona, California, Illinois, Kansas,
Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, and other States to a lesser extent.
They were excluded from the study because comparable historical production data were
not available.
Table 85.--Utiized pecan production, bearing trees, yield per tree, value of
production, and price per pound, selected States, base year
State
Utilized
productionh!
Bearing
trees T
Yield
per tree /
Value of
utilized
production 1
Price per
poundi!
Georgia
Million pounds
1,000
1,212
Pounds
54
$1,000
37,545
Cents
58
65.0
Mississippi
6.1
202
30
3,172
2
Oklahoma
12.2
421
29
5,553
46
Texas
Other States
! /
40.5
38.7
1,171
567
35
68
20,121
17,680
50
46
7 States
162.5
3,573
84,071
52
1/ 1974-77 Annual average production. Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts. Annual
Summary 1976 and 1977, USDA, SRS, ESCS, FrNt 13(77 and 78), Washington, D.C.
2/ Taken from table 80.
3/ Utilized production divided by bearing trees.
4/ Value of utilized production divided by utilized production.
5/ Alabama, Arkansas, and Louisiana.
140
-------
for approximately 36 percent and 23
percent, respectively, of domestic
production (197477 average) (table
84).
In most areas, pecans are subject
to an alternateyear bearing phenomenon.
This is extremely pronounced on native
and seedling varieties Production and,
therefore, values of production vary
widely from one year to the next
(table 84). The production for 1977
is more than double the production
for 1976, and 1 percent more than
production in 1975.
Utilized production in the seven
States studied averaged about 163
million pounds, or about 88 percent of
average 1974-77 u.s. production of 184
million pounds (tables 84 and 85).
Pecan yield per tree ranges from a low
of about 30 pounds in Mississippi and
Oklahoma to a high of 68 pounds in
Alabama, Arkansas, and Louisiana. The
average annual pecan price received
by growers in the seven States during
the 197477 period was 52 cents per
pound.
The annual per-capita consumption
of pecans in the United States ranged
from 0.27 to 0.52 pound during the
1960-75 period, and averaged 0.363
pound per year from 1970 to 1975.
For the year 1976, the preliminary
per-capita consumption for pecans was
0.3 pound, or about 16 percent of the
estimated percapita consumption of 1.9
pounds of all nuts in the United States
(286).
User Impacts
In the seven impact States, the
lindane alternatives are endosulfan,
malathion, and oil (table 79).
The cost of treating pecan trees
for phylloxera control with the use of
lindane is approximately $1.68 per tree
per year; the alternatives range from
$1.45 to $8.68 per tree per year (table
83). The net change in treatment
costs using EPA-registered alternatives
ranges from a decrease of 23$ to an
increase of $7 per tree per year. If
one assumes that all other variables of
production remain constant, the owner of
a hypothetical 20-acre pecan grove with
12 trees per acre would incur additional
costs of $1,685 per year if malathion
were used. If oil were used, however,
costs of production would increase only
$283 per year. Costs of production will
decline $55 per year if endosulfan
replaces lindane in Mississippi and
Louisiana.
From pecan crop budgets developed
at the University of Georgia (108),
total fixed and variable costs per acre
(excluding land and irrigation) are
$538 per acre per year. In comparison
with lindane use, if an average of 2.5
applications of malathion are used,
total costs are expected to increase as
much as 15.1 percent per acre per year.
A grower using oil could expect costs
of production to increase 2.5 percent
per acre per year, whereas a pecan
grower in Mississippi or Louisiana could
expect costs of production to decline
0.1 percent per acre per year if endo-
sulfan is used.
If lindane is not available, it is
estimated that more than 50 percent of
the lindane-treated trees would be
treated with oil, and approximately
75,000 trees would not be treated for
phylloxera control (table 86). Mala-
thion and endosulfan would account for
approximately 70,000 trees and 60,000
trees, , of the previously
lindanetreated trees.
Without lindane, phylloxera control
costs are estimated to increase by
$631,000 for the seven impacted States
(table 87). Control costs in Georgia
are estimated to increase by $286,000;
the control costs in Mississippi are
estimated to decline sligntly ($11,000),
because endosulfan costs less than
lindane.
V ith the use of the alternative
insecticides, reductions in yield are
expected in six of the seven impacted
States (table 88). No yield reductions
are expected to occur in MiSSisSippi
141
-------
Table 86.--Number of pecan trees (bearing and nonbearing) treated with lindane, and
distribution of these trees among the alternatives, selected States, base year
Lindane-
treated
State trees!
Number of
trees treated with
alternatives and untreated
Malathion
Oil
Endosulfan
Untreated
1,000
Pct 1,000
Pct 1,000
Pct 1,000
Pct 1,000
Georgia 40.8
100.0 40.8
-
Mississippi 48.4
100.0 48.4
Oklahoma 42.6
37.5 16.0
25.0 10.6
37.5 16.0
Texas 232.4
Other States J 83.6
15.5 13.0
80.0 185.9
54.0 45.1
13.3 11.1
20.0 46.5
17.2 14.4
7 States 447.8
69.8
241.6
59.5
76.9
1/ Taken from table 80; includes bearing and nonbearing trees.
2/ Based on data obtained from the Biological Survey for Lindane Assessment
(69).
3/ Alabama, Arkansas, and Louisiana. Weighted average based on data from the other
4 States.
1/ Number of treated trees (table 84)
insecticide.
2/ Alabama, Arkansas, and Louisiana.
if lindane is totally replaced with
endos ulf an .i&I Gear gia and Oklahoma
pecan growers who substitute malathion
for lindane are estimated to experience
average yield reductions of 25 percent,
whereas users of oil in Oklahoma and
Texas can expect reductions of about 33
percent and 2.5 percent, respectively.
times seasonal cost per tree of each
Yields on untreated acreage in the
impacted States may decline about 60
percent. Although no data are available
to project yield changes associated with
a cancellation of lindane use in other
States, estimates for the other States
were derived from Georgia, Mississippi,
Oklahoma, and Texas data.
20/ It is assumed that all growers
are completely knowledgeable about the
recent registration of endosulfan in
Mississippi for use on pecan phylloxera.
For the seven impacted States,
pecan production is estimated to decline
1.5 million pounds if alternative insec-
ticides are used to replace lindane.
Table 87.--Annual treatment cost with lindane compared with alternative control
measures on pecans, selected States, base year!
State
Cost of using Increase in treat
alternatives on impacted trees ment costs compared
Lindane i4alathion Oil Endosulfan Total with lindane
$1 .000
Georgia
68.5 354.1 354.1 285.6
Mississippi
81.3 70.2 70.2 (11.1)
Oklahoma
71.6 138.9 30.3 169.2 97.6
Texas
Other States.a
390.4 531.7 531.7 141.3
140.4 112.8 129.0 16.1 257.9 117.5
7 States
752.2 605.8 691.0 86.3 1,383.1 630.9
142
-------
U)
S
-4
U)
C QU)
U)
- .- ij c e i
-4
II
-4
p I
I I CL
.0
NI
U)
a) C 4
C t) C4N
S
-.14 -4 -4
4-
:
-4
LI)
, I tC
.14 . .-
NI
U)
II
I .IN: C o Co
- . -4 CC
LI) C )
I I
I I
C) C) U)
I I
NI
1 u ) C)C )
N N C) U)
U) I C I Ct) C 4
-4
C) C) C)
N
Co C N C C CC C
CC C l ) N U) Cl)
C) C) Co
_ .4 C O C ) U)
U) N Co C-- Co
ith
C)
14
a)
(ra
U)
C.)
a)
0
C)
. 0
4- .
0
14
-4
0
C)
a)
CC
4-
,0
a)
C)
I - .
C)
C)
4-
U)
4-.
(.0
, 0
0 (
-4
C)
0
.Q)
9-
(.4
a)
a)
a)
-4
0
C .)
a)
0
-4
a)
C)
a)
4- .
U)
CC C)
-4
a) C)
a)
.
o U)
C.) a)
14
C)
C)
a) C C
U)
C)
. 0
a). - .
. . L
U )C)
4 4-
(CU)
-4
C / DC , )
U) a)
C)
( Ca)
I
00
C)o)
( CU)
(CU)
. 0.0
o e
U)C)C)
,0 b bC
.. -.-- -.-.
ICCIC- -ICOI
The estimated value of lost pecan
production is $742,000 for the seven
States (table 89). The largest impact
is expected in Georgia ($281,000),
followed by Oklahoma ($177,000).
Without lindane, grower returns
would decline in the seven States by
$1.4 million, about 2 percent of the
average annual value of production
of $84.1 million (table 90). On a
per-bearing tree basis, the greatest
impacts are estimated to occur in
Georgia and Oklahoma - $16 per tree
and $8 per tree, respectively. In
Mississippi, a small increase in returns
is indicated, inasmuch as endosulfan
is assumed to be as efficacious as
lindane, and the seasonal treatment
costs are lower.
The impacts on individual growers
are not analyzed, because of the diverse
nature of pecan production. The tree
spacing in groves varies widely, as
many growers may have only a few
scattered trees in pastures or near
farmsteads.
Social and Community Impacts
This analysis does not contain an
assessment of the social or community
impacts that may occur if lindane is
canceled for use on pecans. Current
data limitations are too extensive to
permit the evaluation of these impacts;
however, growers will have reduced
revenues if malathion or oil is used as
an alternative to lindane. To the
extent that reduced returns will lower
the economic incentive for producing
pecans, the number of active groves
may decline; however, the nature
and extent of such impacts cannot be
evaluated under the current data limi-
tations.
Macroeconomic Impacts
The limited use of lindane for
pecan phylloxera control (118) in Loui-
siana, Mississippi, Texas, Arkansas,
Oklahoma, and other pecan-producing
States (24) is not expected to have any
significant 1 macroeconomic effects.
0
aD
4-
CC
C)
14
4-a
a)
a)
4-
a)
I-
C
U)
C)
C
C.)
4-a
C.)
U)
U)
a)
U)
4-.
C C
a)
14
C)
-4
CC
C l
a)
(I )
a)
a)
0
4-.
C.)
a)
0
C
14
C
a)
4-a
CC
C)
14
4-.
a)
a)
C C
-4
a)
U)
0
C
a)
L )
0
a)
C
. 0
4-
CC
C C
4 -.
CC
C.)
a)
U)
U)
.0
U)
C)
4-.
Ca
4-
C, )
C
C)
C.)
U)
U)
C / )
U)
a)
U)
C
a)
C
4-
U)
C;
a-.
CC
a)
14
C)
4-
CC
C L
a)
U)
a)
a)
C
4-a
C)
a)
0
a)
1-a
a).
a)
U)
C.)
C)
a)
C)
U)
U)
C)
1-.
C.)
U)
a)-
Co
Co
C)
aD
U)
U)
. 0
U) .
4- .-4
0.0
00
1 4a)
4-4
U) .- .
U)
143
-------
Table 89.-Pecan production and value of production using lindane and alternatives,
selected States, base year
State
Using lindane
Using alternatives
Decrease in
Produc-
PriceV
Value of
Produc
Price , /
tjOflV
production
tionJi
Value of
production
value of
1,000 Lb
Cents
$1,000
1,000 Lb
Cents $1,000
production
$1,000
Georgia
1,966
58.0
1,140
1,474
58.3 859
281
Mississippi
1,152
52.0
599
1,152
52.3 602
(+3)
Oklahoma
977
46.0
449
589
46.2 272
177
Texas
Other States 1,
6,146
3,556
50.0
46.0
3,073
1,774
5,900
3,445
50.3 2,968
46.2 1,592
105
182
7 States
14,097
49.9
7,035
12,560
50.1 6,293
742
1/ Taken from table 88.
2/ Taken from table 85.
3/ Derived by using -1.38 demand elasticity (WEMC), 1,537,000 pounds of lost
production (table 88) and 184,125,000 pounds total production (table 84).
4/ Alabama, Arkansas, and Louisiana.
State
Pecan
growers!!
Increase in Decrease in Decrease in
cost of 2/ value of return to
production production
Change in
returns per
ฑ
Number
growers
$1,000
bearing tree
Dollars
Georgia
1,872
286 281 567
Mississippi
364
(11) (+3) (+14)
Oklahoma
269
98 177 275
Texas
Other States
. /
1,582
881
141 105 246
118 182 300
8.16
1.40
-5.29
7 States
4,968
632 742 1,374
4.03
1/ Data obtained from 1974 Census of Agriculture. Includes improved and native
varieties on farms with sales of $2,500 and over.
2/ Taken from table 87.
3/ Taken from table 89.
4/ Change in returns (col. 6) divided by lindane-treated bearing trees (table 80).
5/ Alabama, Arkansas, and Louisiana.
2) A 4-year average, 1974-77,
was used to derive estimates of pecan
yields per tree, price per pound, and
value of production. An even number of
years was used because pecan production
alternates annually between high and low
production.
Table 90.--Pecan growers, total and pertree change in returns to growers using
alternatives to lindane, selected States, base year
Assumptions, Procedures,
and Limitations
1) The numbers of pecan growers
and bearing and nonbearing pecan trees
were obtained from the 1974 Census of
Agriculture, the latest year for which
comprehensive data are available.
144
-------
3) The number of lindane-treated
pecan trees, distribution of these trees
among alternatives to lindane, number of
applications per season, and change in
yield using alternatives to lindane were
developed by the Lindane Assessment Team
based on information in the 1976
Biological Survey for Lindane Assessment
(69) and discussions with State
entomologists.
4) The application rate per tree
(lb a.i.) for Lindane and the
alternative insecticides was derived
from manufacturers labels.
5) Retail insecticide prices for
1977-78 were obtained from distributors
in the pecan-producing areas. It was
assumed that alternative insecticide
prices would not change and would be
available in sufficient quantities to
replace lindane.
6) A limitation of the study was
the lack of estimates for three of the
seven States in which lindane is used to
control phylloxera. Estimates for the
three States (Alabama, Arkansas, and
Louisiana) were derived by extrapolation
from the other four States (Georgia,
?.lississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas) for
which data were available.
7) Data limitations prevented
assessing the impact of increased
hickory shuckworm infestations, which
are directly affected by controlling
pecan phylloxera.
8) One effect not quantified in the
analysis is the value of the cover crop
in pecan groves to livestock producers
using malathion or oil to control
phylloxera. EPA restrictions do not
allow livestock grazing under trees
treated with lindane or endosulfan.
Summary
Without lindane for the control of
the pecan phylloxera, treatment costs
for alternative materials will increase,
and pecan production and yields are
expected to decrease (7 to 11 States
affected). Lindane registrations should
be retained on pecans for phylloxera
control, as another management tool, for
those States that still want to use it.
There are no known nonchemical control
alternatives.
CHAPTER 10
BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF LINDANE
USE ON PETS
Current Use Analysis
EPA Registrations of Lindane
and Alternatives
Lindane is registered by the
Environmental Protection Agency for
control of the following insect pests on
dogs, cats, and their premises (300):
Ticks, fleas, lice, and mites.
Numerous alternative insecticides
are registered by EPA for control of
these pests. Table 91 summarizes the
insecticides that have coincident
registrations with lindane for control
of the pet pests listed above.
Recommendations for Use
of Lindane and Alternatives
A review of the pet pest control
recommendations in many State insect
control guides indicates that only a few
States recommend lindane for use in
direct application on dogs and cats.
Table 92 presents an overview of lindane
and the most commonly used alternatives
recommended by the States and suggested
by USDA.
Federal Guidelines
The U.S. Department of Agriculture
(259) lists only malathion as an
145
-------
Table 91.-EPA registration of lindane and
control of specified insect pests on pets
1/ D = dog, C = cat, P = premises.
Source: EPA, 1976 (300).
alternative to lindane for tick control
in pet premises. Malathion, alone, is
listed for flea control on cats, dogs,
and their premises (table 92, and refer-
ences 2,10,25,74,76,119,130,146,152,155,
156,157,166,176,178,183,191,239,241,257,
304).
Use of Lindane and Alternatives
The EPA microfiche (300) indicates
that 41 registered lindane or lindane
combination pesticides are used for flea
control on dogs and cats; 22 for ticks;
21 for lice; and 21 for mites. These
are used to treat the 41.3 million dogs
and 23.1 million cats in the United
States (1975). During 197576, con-
sumers spent $100 million on flea and
tick remedies (195).
Limited information is available
from rebuttals and USDA publications on
dogs and cats. 1 looker Chemical Company
states that during 1976, 30,484 pounds
of gamma isomer were used for lindane
products on pets.
alternative pesticides for
and their premises
Performance Evaluation of Lindane
and Alternatives
Pest Infestation and Damage
This section of the report
cusses some of the dog and cat pests
which lindane is registered, and
damage caused by each.
Ticks
There are two ticks that are
on dogs and cats and on the home
ises that are of concern: the
dog tick ( Rhipicephalus sanguineus
reille)) and the American dog
( Derrnacentor variabilis (Say)).
Host.--All ticks feed exclusively
on the blood of vertebrates. Ticks feed
not only on dogs, but also on many small
rodents, and on domestic livestock.
Brown dog tick hosts are different from
those of the American dog tick. Although
the brown dog tick occasionally feeds on
other animals, its prime host Is the dog.
Pesticide
Pest
1/
Ticks
Fleas
Lice
Mites
lindane [ RPAR]
DCP
DCP
DC
DC
carbaryl [ RPARJ
DCP
DC ?
DC
chiorpyrifos
P
coumaphos
D
D
crotoxyphos
P
diazinon
DP
DP
dichlorvos [ RPARJ
DCP
DC?
DC
malathion
DCP
DC ?
DC
DC
methoxychior
DC
DCP
DC
propoxur
P
P
pyrethrins
DCP
DC?
DC
resmethriri
P
ronnel [ RPAR}
DP
DP
rotenone IRPAR]
DCP
DCP
DC
DC
stirofos (Rabonฎ)
P
toxaphene [ RPAR]
P
d Is-
for
the
found
prem
brown
(Lat
tick
146
-------
Table 92.--Comparative performance of Undane and alternative pesticides in
registered pesticide products recommended for tick, flea, lice, and mite control
Pest
Dogs
Cats
Premises
Ticks
lindane [ RPARI
4/23
0/23
115/23
- USDA
carbaryl [ RPARI
11/23
11/23
12/23
malathion
11/23
5/23
11/23
USDA
rotenone [ RPARI
9/23
3/23
1/23
dichiorvos [ RPAR]
5/23
3/23
7/23
Fleas
lindane [ RPARI
4/23
1/23
1/23
carbaryl [ RPAR]
18/23
18/23
15/23
malathion
16/23 - USDA
12/23
USDA
19/23
- USDA
dichiorvos [ RPAR]
11/23
11/23
6/23
Lice
lindane [ RPAR]
/3/5
0/5
Premises
are not
malathion
5/5
2/5
treated
carbaryl [ RPARI
3/5
5/5
methoxychior
3/5
1/5
pyrethrins
3/5
3/5
dichiorvos ERPARI
2/5
2/5
Mites
lindane ERPAR]
?J1/3
0/3
Premises
are not
malathion
2/3
2/3
treated
phenol
2/3
0/3
pine tar oil
2/3
0/3
sulfur
2/3
0/3
turpentine
2/3
0/3
1/ The data are shown as the number of States recommending/total number of States
from which recommendations were available. USDA is noted after the State recom-
mendation wherever a Federal guideline was given (259).
2/ Only 5 States reported.
3/ Only 3 States reported.
This tick rarely attacks humans, but it
may become a considerable nuisance
in homes frequented by infested dogs.
The adult American dog tick readily
feeds on humans, but while in the larval
stage it concentrates on small rodents.
Pest status . --Household infestations
result when sports enthusiasts, hikers,
and other outdoor enthusiasts and their
dogs come home with undiscovered ticks
still attached to them. The brown dog
tick is probably the most troublesome as
a household pest. It seldom attacks
animals other than dogs, and Is usually
found where dogs are present in or
around the house. It may transmit
disease among dogs and/or weaken them,
if present on the animal in sufficient
numbers.
Damage.--Certain ticks carry the
causal organisms of diseases such as
Rocky Mountain spotted fever, relapsing
fever, tularernia, and Texas cattle tick
fever. Another threat to humans is a
poorly understood condition called tick
paralysis. While the tick is feeding,
the host may be affected with a paraly-
tic condition, which develops gradually
and may result in death. The paralytic
symptoms disappear rapidly after removal
of the tick, and usually there appear to
be no serious effects. The American dog
tick transmits the Eastern type of Rocky
Mountain spotted fever It Is also an
147
-------
important carrier of tularemia and
bovine anaplasmosis. It may also cause
canine paralysis. The brown dog tick
may transmit disease among dogs, and
will devitalize these pets when it is
present in sufficient numbers.
Life history.There are four
stages in the life cycle of ticks: the
egg; the six-legged larvae (seed ticks);
nymphs; and adults. Larvae and nymphs
receive blood meals in their transforma-
tion from one stage to t e next; adult
females need blood to lay eggs. The
male tick takes little blood, mates with
females while they are on the dog, and
then dies. The female drops off the dog
to lay eggs, and then dies. The female
may lay from 1,000 to 3,000 eggs in
cracks of the roofs of kennels or base-
boards, walls, or ceilings of buildings
where ticks migrate after feeding.
Growing ticks feed on dogs, but hide in
cracks of buildings between feeding
periods. Life cycle from eggs to adult
is slightly less than 2 months. The
freshly laid egg usually remains dormant
from 19 to 60 days before hatching into
the larval stage. The seed tick
attaches itself to a host, and becomes
engorged with blood in 3 to 6 days.
After engorgement, the seed tick drops
from the host and hides in protected
places. All stages of the tick may be
found resting or hiding in many places
in the house -- under the edge of a rug
is a favorite place, especially for egg-
laying. Ticks have a strong urge to
climb upward, and may also be found
behind baseboards and moldings, around
door and window frames, on curtains and
furniture, in the cracks of flooring,
and behind pictures. Obviously, the
treatment of pet premises is essential
in tick control.
Djstrjbutjon.__The brown dog tick
is one of the most widely distributed
ticks in the world, and there are
records of its occurrence on a number of
hosts. By far the most common of these
hosts is the domestic dog. The brown
dog tick is virtually restricted to this
host in the United States. In other
parts of the world this tick seems to
have a somewhat wider range of hosts.
These ticks are frequently found out-
doors most of the year (South), and are
found outdoors during the warm months in
the Northern States. Ticks are found
chiefly outdoors in grassy and other low
vegetative areas, where they are most
numerous along paths and trails.
Nonchemical control . -Keep grass
and weeds mowed.
Chemical control.--Control measures
are directed at all mobile stages,
larva, nymph, and adult, while on the
premises or on an animal.
Fleas
Fleas attack humans and domestic
animals. This report will only be
concerned with the dog flea ( Cteno-
cephalides canis (Curtis)), and the cat
flea (C. fells (Bouch )).
Host.--The most troublesome flea in
homes is the common cat flea, which is
also a pest of dogs and people. The dog
flea looks and acts like the cat flea,
but is less common. The true human
flea, a wary pest, is the least common.
Pest status.--Adult fleas live on
the blood of animals and must have it in
order to reproduce. Each species of
flea lives and feeds on a certain kind
of animal, but when hungry, fleas attack
a wide variety of warm-blooded animals,
including humans. Flea infestations in
homes and farm buildings usually become
evident after the host animals have been
removed. Under these conditions, fleas
continue to develop from eggs previously
laid, and if no animals are present they
will bite humans.
Damage.Fleas do not cause damage
to property, but their infestations on
cats and dogs may lead to poor health
for the animals. The presence of fleas
is also a nuisance to people.
Life history.--Only the adult flea
sucks blood. The adults are small,
wingless, dark reddish-brown insects,
with laterally compressed bodies and
three pairs of legs that are well
148
-------
developed for jumping. Fleas lay eggs
on cats, dogs, and other warm-blooded
animals. The eggs drop off, and soon
hatch into slender white larvae or
worms. The larvae are scavengers that
feed on dirt, body wastes, and many
kinds of debris. In about 15 days they
mature into adult fleas. The adults
immediately begin to search for animals
upon which to feed. A life cycle from
egg to adult requires a month or more,
depending upon climatic conditions.
Distribution.--FleaS are pests of
humans and their domestic animals all
over the world. Although most fleas
prefer animal hosts other than humans,
many can and do feed readily on humans
when infestations are heavy or when
other hosts are not readily available.
The dog flea and cat flea are the most
widespread and abundant. Each kind
attacks dogs and cats. The human flea
( Pulex irritans Linriaeus), a severe pest
in many areas, lives on numerous ani-
mals. It is often found on hogs, and it
breeds in hog houses. It also lives on
dogs, cats, goats, domestic rats, and on
wild animals, such as skunks, coyotes,
and badgers. It is most often found in
the Mississippi Valley, in Texas, and
westward to the Pacific Coast.
Nonchemical control . --Fleas can be
controlled in the home by a combination
of good housekeeping and the use of an
insecticide. Thoroughly clean infested
rooms with a vacuum cleaner; include
carpets, rugs, upholstered furniture,
and other items on which eggs or larvae
may occur. To control fleas on the
premises, all infested debris should be
removed, infested bedding of pets should
be washed or destroyed by burning, and
debris on the ground around kennels and
poultry houses shoUld be removed.
Chemical cont i . --Control measures
are directed at the larval stage living
in the premises, and at the adult flea
on the premises or on an animal.
Lice
There are two types of lice, biting
lice and sucking lice, that attack
domestic animals. The lice of concern
in this report are the dog biting louse
( Trichodectes canis (DeGeer)), the cat
louse ( Felicola subrostratuS (B urmeis-
ter)), and the dog sucking louse
( Linognathus setosus (Olfers)).
Host.-Suckiflg lice are parasites
of most mammals, except for bats, marsu-
pials, and the carnivores (exclusive of
the dog family). Lice are usually host
specific, that is, they do not change
from one host to another, but spend
their entire life cycle on one host
animal.
Pest status.--Information on this
insect is meager. Problems with this
parasite are usually minor or are
restricted to a local situation.
Darnage.--No data were available on
damage caused by this parasite.
Life history.--The eggs are at-
tached to the hair of the host, and the
entire life cycle is spent upon the body
of the host. The insects usually are
unable to survive for more than a few
days when removed from the host. The
eggs of lice differ from those of most
other insects in that they are glued to
mammal hairs, and they possess a dis-
tinct cap or operculum. Most nymphs
differ from the adults in that they have
less hairs on their bodies, they have
fewer scierotized plates, and they are
sex ually undifferentiated. Most sucking
lice spend their entire life as ecto-
parasites on mammals.
able.
Distribution.--No data were avail-
Nonchernical control.--No data were
available.
Chemical control . --Control measures
are directed at all mobile stages,
larva, nymph, and adult, while on the
animal.
Mites
Mites (Acarina) attack humans and
domestic animals. The mites that are
149
-------
cited in this report are those found on
cats and dogs, and on home premises.
They are as follows: dog follicle mite
( Dernodex canis Leydig), ear mite
( Otodectes cynotis (Hering)), scab mite
( Psoroptes egui (Raspail)), itch mite
( Sarcoptes scabiei (DeGeer)), and
mange mite ( Notoedres cati (Hering)).
Host.--Mange, often referred to as
parasitic dermatitis, is caused by mites
burrowing into skin and causing an
infection. In general, there are three
different types of mange - Demodectic
or red mange, Otodectic mange, and
Sarcoptic mange. Otodectic mange is
confined to the inner ear of dogs and
cats. Infested animals usually have a
gray deposit in the ear. They may con-
stantly shake their heads, have fever,
and appear depressed. These mites do
not burrow into the skin, but can be
found under the scabs in the ear, which
are caused by the feeding. Red mange
on dogs is most frequently found around
the eyes and nose, and on the foreleg.
These mites cause lesions, which appear
as small hairless patches with small
reddish pimples or pustules, particu
larly around the hair follicles. The
skin is feverish and thickened in the
affected areas. The entire life cycle
of the mite is completed under the skin
pustules, which makes control of this
mite extremely difficult. Sarcoptic
mange is usually found on the head of
dogs, where the affected area is
wrinkled, thickened, and covered with
a yellowish crust. The intensive itch
associated with these mites causes
great discomfort to the infested animal.
In advanced stages, the mange may be
found over the animals entire body.
These mites burrow into the outer layer
of the skin, where the females deposit
eggs. The young mites are usually found
on the skin.
Pest status.-Scabies is one of the
most important disease conditions caused
by mites. Scabies, which is also known
as mange, itch, Norwegian itch, and craw
craw, occurs throughout the world.
Sometimes the mites cause only mild
infection, but often scabies causes
serious skin irritations, with secondary
infections leading to severe allergic
reactions.
Darnage.--Itch mites on domestic
animals are almost indisting uish able
from human Sarcoptes . Cases of mange in
humans, which probably originated from
animal infections, are usually short-
lived. The itch and mange mites that
burrow in the skin (N. cati ) cause a
severe, sometimes fatal, infection in
cats. A comparatively common infesta-
tion of cats and dogs, known as parasit-
ic otitis, closely resembles Psoroptes .
These mites literally swarm in the ears
of the host, causing much discomfort,
tenderness of the ears, auricular
catarrh, loss of appetite, and wasting
and twisting of the neck. Most of the
genera of itch mites in the family
Psoroptidae may be lumped together as
scab mites. These do not burrow into
the skin, but remain on the surface,
often causing irritations while living
between the scab and the tissue.
Life history.--Sarcoptes scabiei
(DeGeer)-itch mite. The gravid female
mite deposits her rather large oval eggs
at intervals in the tortuous tunnel that
she makes in the epidermis. Usually she
remains in the burrow for her lifetime,
depositing eggs at 2- to 3-day intervals
(for about 2 months). The hexapod larvae
hatch in 3 to 5 days. Larvae move freely
over the skin, and they and the nymphs
are frequently found in hair follicles.
Within 4 to 6 days after the egg hatch-
es, the nymph transforms into a male or
immature female, which makes a temporary
gallery in the skin before mating. Ma-
turity is reached in 10 to 14 days after
eggs hatch. The follicle mites do not
burrow, as do Sarcoptic mites, but live
at the base of hairs of the host, pierc-
ing the skin and causing inflamation.
An exudate follows, which partially har-
dens to form a scab. As mites multiply,
bites and itching increase; more serum
oozes out to form a loose, humid crust.
The parasitized areas increase and the
skin becomes hardened and thickened, a
condition known as scab.
Distribution . - -Mites affect both
humans and domestic animals worldwide.
150
-------
Nonchemical control.--There are no
adequate nonchemical control measures.
Chemical control.-Chemicals are
used to control mites at animal infes-
tation sites, while the mites are in the
nymph or adult stages.
Comparative Performance Evaluation
Comparative Efficacy
Although lindane is registered to
control insect pests on dogs and cats,
current data indicate that lindane is
not widely used for this purpose. Less
than 3 percent of total lindane pro-
duced, or 30,484 pounds, is used to
treat 64.4 million dogs and cats for
fleas, ticks, lice, and mites.
Lindane is useful for dogs, but is
highly toxic to cats in the concentra-
tions necessary for parasite control.
Ohio is the only reported State that
recommends lindane for control of fleas
on cats. No other State recommended
the use of lindane on cats. Numerous
alternatives are available for pest
control on cats.
For tick control, 4 of 23 States
recommended lindane - Florida, Missis-
sippi, Montana, and Ohio; for flea con-
trol, also 4 of 23 States - California,
Mississippi, Montana, and Ohio. For
lice control, 3 of 5 States recommended
lindane - Mississippi, Montana, and
Ohio; and for mites 1 of 3 States
recommended lindane -- Mississippi.
The lack of recommendations and
widespread use of lindane does not
indicate that this insecticide is of
minor importance for pest control on
pets and their premises. There are
other newer registered alternatives on
the market that people have a tendency
to switch to, but many are RPAWd.
Comparative Yield/Quality
It would appear that the loss of
lindane for use on cats will have no
overall impact, because lindane appar-
ently is toxic to cats. When the RPARd
Table 93.-Cornparison of pesticide costs
of lindane and alternatives for pest
control on dogs, cats, and their
premises
lindane (RPAR]
$2.55 $3.33/qt
malathion
4.00 5.45/qt
1.35/lb
carbaryl
[ RPAR]
.45
0.75/lb
rotenone,
dust [ RPAR]
.35
alternatives are considered, there would
not be an impact from the loss of
lindane for use on dogs and their
premises.
Comparative Costs
Alternatives are marketed in dif-
fering concentrations, packages, and
manners; thus, precise comparison is not
possible. In general, however, alterna-
tives are either competitively priced or
are slightly more expensive than lindane
for pet use. Table 93 lists prices for
lindane and selected alternatives.
Economic Impact Analysis
Little information is available on
dogs and cats with respect to pesticide
usage. According to the Pet Food Insti-
tute, there are 41.3 million dogs and
23.1 million cats in the United States.
These numbers represent only those
animals that are maintained as pets.
The derivation of cost effect
associated with the potential cancella-
tion of lindane on dogs, cats, and their
premises is based on the following:
1) The 64.4 million pets that have
a potential for being treated with
lindane for fleas, ticks, lice, or mites
can be effectively treated with alter-
native registered pesticides.
2) Available information indicates
that there is limited use of lindane on
dogs, and especially on cats for flea,
tick, lice, and mite control. Lindane
is not a prominent choice of the States,
because it is highly toxic to cats (in
concentrations that are necessary for
parasite control).
151
-------
3) Lindane and effective alterna-
tives are generally in the same price
range. But, even if lindane cost a
little more, its consumption is a small
percentage of the total consumer expen-
ditures, and therefore any economic
impact would be too small to measure.
4) Again, we should note that over
30,000 pounds of lindane have been used
for parasite control on pets. This
represents only about 3 percent of the
total production, and a small percentage
of the pet market. Both in the short
and long run, therefore, the economic
impact from the cancellation of lindane,
for use on pets, would be minimal.
Summary
Lindane is registered for the
control of all of the major arthropod
pests that attack pets, including ticks,
fleas, lice, mites, and pet premises.
Control of pet premises is important
in the prevention of reinfestation of
untreated or recently treated animals.
There are many registered alternatives,
yet when the RPARd compounds are
removed, essentially what are left are
the pyrethrins, malathion, and methoxy-
chior for the major pests, and malathion
and the phenols, oil, sulfur, and
turpentine treatments for mites.
CHAPTER 11
BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF LINDANE
USE ON EXISTING STRUCTURES
Current Use Analysis
EPA Registrations of Lindane
and Alternatives
Lindane is registered by EPA for
the group of wood-boring insects gen-
erally called the powderpost beetles.
Lindane is also registered for control
of drywood termites. Table 94 contains
a list of possible registered alter-
natives to lindane for both powderpost
beetle and drywood termite control.
Recommendations for Use
of Lindane and Alternatives
State Recommendations
A review of available State
recommendations On powderpost beetle
control indicated that lindane and
pentachiorophenol [ RPAR] are the
chemicals most commonly recommended
for spray treatments. Methyl bromide
and sulfuryl fluoride are included as
fumigation chemicals (table 95). Not
included in table 95 are recommen-
dations for chlordane, which was a
common recommendation, but is now
canceled.
The University of Arkansas Cooper-
ative Extension Service (10) and the
Virginia Cooperative Extension Service
(309) point out that painted or other-
wise finished wood surfaces resist
reinfestation by powderpost beetles.
Federal Guidelines
USDA (259) lists lindane as the
only chemical for the control of powder
post beetles. It also suggests that
wood that has been structurally damaged
be replaced.
Use of Lindane and Alternatives
At present (1977), the extent to
which lindane is used for controlling
wood-destroying insects for existing
structures is uncertain. Prior to its
suspension and cancellation, chlordane
was the chemical of choice for this use.
A representative of a large PCO firm
estimated that 140,000 homes per year
were treated for pow derpost beetles
prior to the suspension of chiordane
(193). The Implication given Is that
most treatments were with chiordane.
Existing stocks of chlordane can still
be legally used. It is probable that
152
-------
Table 94.-Alternatives to lindane for control of existing structure pests, 1978
Pest
Non-RPAR
RPAR
Powderpost
beetles
Copper naphthenate
Methyl bromide
Sulfuryl fluoride
Coal tar
Creosote (Coal tar)
Creosote oil
Pentachiorophenol
Source: EPA, 1976 (300).
Table 95.--Sumrnary of selected State recommendations for powderpost beetle control
State
Recommended
chemical
Lindane
Pentachiorophenol Methyl
bromide Sulfuryl fluoride
[ RPAR]
ERPAR]
Arkansas
X
Indiana
X
X
Iowa
X
Michigan
X
X
Minnesota
X
North Carolina
X
X
South Carolina
X
x
x
Alabama
X
Florida
x
Sources: University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service, 1975 (10); Purdue
University Cooperative Extension Service, 1975 (204); Iowa State University Extension
Service, 1977 (105); Michigan State University Cooperative Extension Service, 1972
(146); University of Minnesota Cooperative Extension Service, 1975 (152); North
Carolina State University, 1977 (178); Clemson University Cooperative Extension
Service, 1974 (39); Auburn University Cooperative Extension Service, 1975 (2); and
Florida Agricultural Extension Service, 1976 (74).
chiordane is still being used, although
lindane is the obvious choice to replace
chiordane as the supply of chiordane
becomes depleted for this use. It would
appear that lindane use for control of
wood-destroying insects in existing
structures would be changing from a very
low level to a potential market of 5,000
to 10,000 poundst active ingredient
annually.
Performance Evaluation of Lindane
and Alternatives
Pest Infestation and Damage
Pow derpost beetles (PPBs) include
three main types of wood-destroying
insects: anobiids, lyctids, and bostri-
chids. The damage from the beetles is
evidenced by a powderlike sawdust and
exit holes in infested wood from 1/16 to
1/8 inch in diameter (219). There are
significant differences in the type of
wood attacked by the various species
collectively called pow der post beetles.
The differences determine the control
measures required.
Anobiids include species that at-
tack both hardwoods and softwoods. The
damage to homes may remain undetected
for 10 years, because infestations
develop slowly. The life cycle under
favorable conditions may be 1 or 2
years, although under less favorable
153
-------
Comparative Performance Evaluation
conditions tne life cycle could be 5
years or more. Anobiids create exit
holes about 1/8 inch in diameter. Their
infestations also produce frass, which
is loosely packed when softwoods are
infested and more tightly packed when
hardwoods are infested. Well estab-
lished infestations may create 30 or
more exit holes per square foot in
infested timbers. The exit holes in
wood indicate that adult beetles have
emerged. Reinfestations can, however,
occur every year, so that several gen-
erations of larvae can be present in a
piece of wood at any one time (323).
Infestations usually start in areas
such as crawl spaces under homes. Under
warm, humid conditions the infestations
spread upward through wall timbers and
to furniture in the home (323,324). The
tunneling caused by the larvae can even-
tually weaken structural timbers. The
exit holes produced by adults create
noticeable damage to wood finishes.
Lyctids, or true powderpost
beetles, only damage hardwood products.
Lyctid damage is characterized by
numerous 1/8-inch round exit holes and
fine, talcurnlike powder. The normal
life cycle for lyctids is about 1 year,
although adverse conditions may lengthen
the life cycle to 2 1/2 to 4 years.
Infestations (eggs or larvae) almost
always occur in hardwoods before they
are placed in the home (323,324).
Lyctids damage only hardwoods with pores
large enough to receive their eggs
(323,324). Thus, softwood framing is
not susceptible to lyctid infestation.
Bostrichids, or false powderpost
beetles, are similar to lyctids in
their habits (323,324). Some species,
however, attack and breed in both soft-
woods and hardwoods (59). Another
difference is that adults bore into the
wood to prepare egg tunnels instead of
depositing eggs in wood pores or cracks.
The damage caused by bostrichids
includes the riddling caused by the
creation of egg galleries by adults, and
the tunneling filled with frass caused
by larvae (59).
Comparative Efficacy
Based on EPA registrations, State
recommendations, and Federal Guidelines,
alternatives to lindane for control of
powderpost beetles fall into three cate-
gories: alternative chemical sprays,
fumigation, and nonchemical control
methods.
With the cancellation of chiordane,
the remaining chemical spray, which is
both registered and recommended by some
States, would be pentachiorophenol (PCP)
[ RPAR]. Methyl bromide and sulfuryl
fluoride would be the chemicals avail-
able for fumigation; both are registered
by EPA and recommended by some States,
Nonchemical control involves physical
replacement of infested wood, where
practical. Non pesticidal chemical
control includes application of paint,
varnish, wax, and other materials, which
seal the pores in wood to prevent
egglaying by the adult lyctid beetles.
In one comprehensive literature
survey (132), several researchers
findings reported that lindane, penta-
chiorophenol, and methyl bromide
effectively killed pow derpost beetles.
In studies for controlling lyctus
powderpost beetles (113), lindane and
pentachiorophenol in combination were
found to be effective for at least 5
years. The same researchers found that
fumigation with methyl bromide killed
active infestations of lyctus powderpost
beetles, although no prevention of
reinfestation was obtained. In a
response (261) to the RPAR for lindane,
the USDA stated that sulfuryl fluoride
is considered effective against wood-
boring insects such as powderpost
beetles, although the registrations
for sulfuryl fluoride are limited in
scope. As with methyl bromide, sulfuryl
fluoride offers no residual protection
for wood against possible reinfestation.
Comparative Costs
Table 96 provides, comparisons of
the cost for treating for powderpost
154
-------
beetles with lindane and the probable
alternative chemicals. One major
0 finding is that the chemical cost
C
C) C component of treatment is rather minor
o
o o compared with total treatment cost. The
. ._. o treatment cost figures are derived from
C !) ฉ ฉ information in Pesticide Chemical News
C)
0 (193), and responses to a USDA survey of
o States concerning uses of lindane.
C) I - u
ฉ .2
0 The large difference in cost
ฉ 0
C ) between using a chemical spray and using
4 -,
-4
fumigation would indicate that these two
C)
approaches are not direct alternatives.
The economic threshold of damage for
fumigations is obviously substantially
ฉ b
o higher than for the chemical spray-type
4 ฉ ฉ ฉ
-i treatment. The U.S. Department of
a, ., ..- - Agriculture (256) indicates that fumiga-
C) N tion is to be used for infestations that
are too severe to be treated by spot-
U
spray treatments. Thus, fumigation has
been and will continue to be reserved
for infestations that are not treatable
by other methods. Thus, conclusions
based on c
omparisons between the cost of
C)
spraying and of fumigation would over-
a, state the economic impacts.
0 ) U,It
C!) C . . 0 ) 0 Use Impact Analysis
o - --4
ft
0) 0 4 - I The cancellation of chlordane for
C) 00
o powder post beetle control makes any use
0
U, Impact analysis of lindane tentative.
Chiordane had been the favored means of
E chemical control of the powderpost
o -
beetle. Thus, any restriction on ]in-
(J)
dane would affect the potential use of
C i ,
O
o 1 . 4 lindane and its alternatives as opposed
to the current use of lindane and alter-
0
ฐ ฐ natives for powderpost beetle control.
C
. u- Generally, structures that would have
C)
C) C 8 been treated with lindane could be
1.4 C!) C) treated with PCP with no change in over-
all cost.
Economic Impact Analysis
. 4 - I
a
C) User Impacts
4. C ) I. I 4 4
4 1.4 o
cn -c The users of lindane for powderpost
. a, - .-u beetle control are generally professiofl
a,
0 al pest control operators (PCOs). As
c U, pointed out in the comparative cost
Ic I 0 ,1 analysis, the cost of the chemical is a
LL
u relatively minor component of the total
155
-------
cost of treating for powderpost beetles.
If an alternative chemical (penta
chiorophenol) is available, at only a
slightly higher price, there should be
no significant cost impacts on the PCO
industry.
Market Impacts
The conclusions of the cost anal-
ysis indicate that no significant market
impact would occur if lindane were
restricted or banned.
Consumer Impacts
The cost analysis indicates that no
significant consumer impacts are likely.
Summary
Lindane is an essential tool to
PCOs for control of powderpost beetles,
old house borers, and carpenter ants in
structures. Furnigants involve a com-
pletely different type of control proce-
dure and cost substantially more to apply.
CHAPTER 12
BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF LINDANE
USE ON HOUSEHOLD PESTS
Current Use Analysis
EPA Registrations of Lindane
and Alternatives
Lindane is registered by EPA for
control of the following insects found
in the home: ante, centipedes, clothes
moths, house fly, odorous house ant,
cockroaches, bed bugs, chats, little
black ants, sowbugs, carpet beetles,
mosquitoes, scorpions, spiders, water
bugs, and silverfish.
This analysis will examine the
lindane registrations for the control of
the carpet beetle and the clothes moth
only. There are only eight registra-
tions for pesticides containing lindane
to control these two pests; five of
these are registered for both pests
(299,300). This is no.t surprising
inasmuch as both pests are related and
can be controlled in a similar manner.
A number of products that do not contain
lindane are registered for control of
these two pests.
Recommendations for Use
of Lindane and Alternatives
State Recommendations
Recommendations for the control of
carpet beetles were obtained from 32
States. Recommendations for the control
of clothes moths were obtained from 29
States. These recommendations are
detailed in references: (304,305).
Briefly summarized, these products
include chlordane (until supplies are
exhausted), chiorpyrifos (Dursbanฎ),
diazinon, dieldrin (until supplies are
exhausted), dichlorvos (DDVP) [ RPARJ,
malathion, methoxychior, naphthalene,
paradichioroben zene, ethylan (Per-
thane ), piperonyl butoxide [ RPAR],
propoxur (Baygonฎ), pyrethrins, ronnel
ERPAR], rotenone [ RPAR], and Strobane
(until stocks are exhausted) for
control of carpet beetles. The fol-
lowing chemicals are recommended
by the States for homeowner use to
control clothes moths: alkyl dimethyl
benzyl ammonium chloride, carbon
tetrachlorjde, chiordane (as above),
diazinon, dichiorvos (DDVP) ERPAR],
ethylene dichioride, methoxychlor, naph-
thalene, paradichlorobenzene, ethylan
(Perthaneฎ), pyrethrins, ronnel ERPAR],
rotenone [ RPARI, Strobane TM (as above),
and resmethrin (Synthrinฎ).
For a summary of State recom-
mendations, see table 97. The State
recommendations do not indicate any
geographical pattern of usage, but
they do, in fact, represent a wide
area of use across the United States
(304,305).
156
-------
Table 97.-State recommendations of registered products for control of
carpet beetles and clothes moths
Recommended chemicals
Number of
State
recommendations
Carpet beetle 1
Clothes moth
chlordane (until stocks are depleted)
chiorpyrifos (Dursbanฎ)
19
1
15
1 N/R
diazinon
20
10
dieldrin (until stocks are depleted)
1
N/H
dichlorvos (DDVP) ERPAR]
5
7
ethylan (Perthane)
4
6
lindane [ RPAR]
8
8
malathion
18
N/R
methoxychior
11
12
naphthalene
12
11
paradichlorobenzene
14
17
piperonyl butoxide [ RPARI
3
N/R
propoxur (Baygone)
5
N/R
pyrethrins
5
4
ronnel (Korlane) ERPAR]
6
4
rotenone ERPARI
1
1
terpene polychiorinates (Strobane )
2
3
(until stocks are depleted)
alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride
N/R
0
carbon tetrachloride [ RPAR]
ethylene dichioride
N/H
N/R
0
0
resmethrin (Synthrinฎ)
N/R
1
1/ Total State recommendations available, 32.
2/ Total State recommendations available, 29.
31 N/R = not registered for use on this product.
Federal Guidelines
Use of Lindane and Alternatives
The U.S. Department of Agriculture
lists the use of lindane to control the
carpet beetle and the clothes moth in
homes and other residential dwellings.
It also suggests the use of diazinon,
, methoxychior, naphthalene,
paradichlorobenzene, ethylan, and ronnel
for both pests, and Strobane and chior-
dane until stocks are depleted. It also
lists, as alternatives to lindane, the
following chemicals for control of the
clothes moth only: diazinon, methoxy-
chlor, naphthalene, paradichlorobenzene,
ethylan (Perthaneฎ), ronnel, and res-
methrin (Synthrin ), as well as
Strobane and chiordane, until stocks
are exhausted (304,305).
Application Methods for Lindane
in the Control of Carpet Beetles
and Clothes Moths
are:
The application methods for lindane
1) Use 0.5 pct solution spot-spray
on rugs, and in closets and storage
areas.
2) Use pressure commercial moth
proofer to treat susceptible fabrics.
3) Use 1 pct dust in hard-to-reach
places.
4) Use 1 pct EC at the rate of 1 to
2 pints/lOO linear feet.
5) Shelf paper - apply to nonfood
areas as required.
157
-------
6) Smoke - place tablet on floor of
closet, light, close door.
Application Methods for Alternatives
to Lindane in the Control of Beetles
and Clothes Moths
Carpet beetles and clothes moths
can be controlled with diazinon, mala-
thion, nap hthalene, paradichlorobenzene,
methoxychior, and dichlorvos.
The application methods for dia-
zinon are:
1) Spray 0.5 pct solution on base
boards, edges of carpets, and crevices.
2) Apply 2 pct dust in hard-to-
reach spots.
3) Spray 0.5 pct commercially
prepared pressure spray directly on
furniture and garments.
The application methods for mala-
thion are:
1) Use 3 pct spot-spray on rugs,
closets, storage areas, and cracks.
2) Use 4 to 5 pct solution treat
area under heavy furniture and edges of
rugs.
The rates of application for naph-
thalene are:
1) Use 1 lb/100 ft 3 .
2) Use 1 lb/50 ft 3 .
3) Use 2 to 3 lb/100 ft 3 .
The rate of application recommended
for paradichlorobenzene is 1 lb/laO
ft 3 of storage space.
The application methods for meth-
oxychior are:
1) Use 5 pct spray lightly on sur-
face and underside of rugs and pads.
2) Use 10 pct spray directly on
item if there is no objection to the
dust that forms.
3) Commercially prepared pressure
moth proofer -- spray directly on the
fabrics.
The application methods for di
chiorvos are:
1) Use 20 pct resin strip as
recommended in the product use instruc-
tions.
spray.
2) Use 0.18 pct solution as a spot
Estimates of Quantities of Lindane Used
by Type of Application
Lindane is applied in three ways to
the home area. It is contained in shelf
paper, which is applied to non food areas
such as chests, drawers, closets,
storage cabinets, mop and broom closets,
basement areas, and so forth. It is
applied as a spray on surfaces where
the pests appear, travel, or enter the
premises. Specifically, it is sprayed
on, under, and around edges of carpets,
and sprayed upon clothing, blankets,
and other woolens. The third type of
application is as a smoke. The tablet
or pellet, when lit, forms a cloudlike
fog that fills the entire closet or
enclosed area.
Although estimates of lindane usage
are difficult to obtain, three estimates
of usage in the home are available. One
is provided by the manufacturer of lin-
dane, Hooker Chemical Company (98).
Another is provided by the USDA/State!
EPA national impact assessment team.
The first is 31,971 lb a.i., of which
12,488 lb a.i. are used for shelf paper,
and the balance of 19,483 lb a.i. are
used for other purposes (98). The
second estimate is 83,788 lb (261).
This second estimate has no breakdown
of the various uses in the home and
may, indeed, include human uses and
ornamentals. A third estimate of
household usage was from EPA (214).
This estimate shows no usage in house-
holds. The first estimate, by Hooker
Chemical Company (98), is probably
the best estimate we have at this
time.
Performance Evaluation of Lindane
and Alternatives
Pest Infestation and Damage
Carpet Beetles
Carpet beetles damage fabrics and
household furnishings; they do their
primary damage while in the larval
158
-------
stage. They attack clothing and a wide
range of household furnishings, blan-
kets, comforters, rugs, carpets, drapes,
pillows, hair, mattresses, brushes, and
upholstery. Other items in the beetle
diet include hoof, horn, feathers, wool,
fur, dried animal products, pollen,
certain spices, and cereals. Synthetic
fibers contaminated with spilled food
also provide a food source.
Pest status.These beetles are
serious pests of personal, home, and
commercial products. They are abundant
and are easily distributed throughout
our living and working environment.
Carpet beetles are one of a few species
that have the ability to utilize the
protein keratin. This capability to
convert wool and various animal products
into food is the basis of the fabric
problem.
Life history.-Carpet beetles pass
through the egg, larva, pupa, and adult
stages in their development. It is in
the larva stage that this beetle causes
damage to fabrics and animal products.
Each female carpet beetle can produce 30
to 100 eggs in a 3week period. The
larvae develop through 5 to 12 molts,
and may live from 3 to 9 months or as
long as several years. Duration of the
pupa stage is about 6 to 24 days.
After emerging from the pupae skin, the
adults remain dormant for 1 to 2 weeks.
Distribution of carpet beetles.
Adult beetles move about easily by
flying from one site to another. They
may come from outdoor bird or rodent
nests. House attics nay also harbor
wasp, bird, or rodent nests. Carpet
beetle eggs and larvae are usually
carried into homes on secondhand
clothing and upholstered furniture.
These beetles are widespread in both
warm and cold regions throughout the
United States.
Clothes Moth
Clothes moths are pests that also
damage fabrics and household furn-
ishings. The larvae are a frequent pest
of clothing, carpets, rugs, upholstery,
fabrics, brush bristles, blankets, hair
from pets, fur, and stored wool prod-
ucts. They eat away the nap of the
woolen cloth and feed on the surface,
leaving irregular furrows or holes in
the fabrics. In furs, the hairs are cut
away at the base; this causes loose fur
and exposes the hide.
Pest status.-Clothes moths, like
carpet beetles, are a serious pest to
personal, home, and commercial fiber
products. These few species can
cause much unobserved damage, and often
they are detected too late to prevent
economic loss.
Life history.Clothes moths have a
complete metamorphosis. Adults are
unable to feed, and it is the larva
stage that damages fabrics. Adult
females can mate and lay eggs the same
day they emerge from the cocoon. Nor-
mally, adults live about 15 to 30 days.
In colder weather they may live longer.
The small white eggs are attached with a
gelatinous substance among the threads
of a suitable food material. The female
may lay from 40 to 200 eggs. The eggs
hatch within 4 to 10 days during the
summer, or 30 or more days in winter.
The larvae molt four or five times.
Depending upon availability of food, the
larvae remain in this stage from 35 days
to 2 1/2 years. The larva spins a
cocoon and remains in this stage for
about 8 to 40 days. In a heated build-
ing, the life cycle will approach 55
days to 4 years. The completed cycle is
normally 65 to 90 days.
Distribution of clothes moths.-
Webbing clothes moths occur throughout
the world. The case-making clothes
moths are common in the northern United
States, and the plaster bag worm types
are more frequently found in the
southern regions. The adult moths can
make short flights from house to house,
but are more readily moved about as eggs
or larvae on infested materials. These
moths are rarely seen flying around
lights at night, but prefer the dark and
tend to live in dark corners or in folds
of fabric.
159
-------
Table 98.--Cost of lindane products and some alternatives used in homes to control household pests
Active
Quantity
Product ingredient
(percent
a.i.) Price Pests controlled
Guardian lindane 1 gallon $11.50 Bed bugs, clothes moths, carpet
20 pct beetles, fly and mosquito control
Narnco lindane 5 gallons unknown Flies, mosquitoes, gnats, ants,
20 pct roaches, silverfish, spiders,
bed bugs, clothes moths
Dill lindane various unknown Ants, carpet beetles, clothes moths,
gallons bed bugs
20.1 pct
Raid (solid) 22DDVP .5 pct $1.99 Flies, mosquitoes, moths, gnats,
silverfish
Black Flag cinerin 120 oz 1.59 Flies, mosquitoes, moths, gnats,
piperonyl .5 pct wasps, hornets, roaches,
butoxide waterbugs, ants
Raid (flying piperonyl 12.4 oz 1.79 Flies, mosquitoes, moths, gnats,
insect killer) butoxide .5 pct wasps, roaches, waterbugs, silver
pyrethrins fish, centipedes, sow bugs, carpet
beetles, bed bugs
Raid (house pyrethrins 13.5 oz 2.27 Flies, moths, roaches, silverfish,
and garden piperonyl .5 pct carpet beetles, ants, bed bugs,
bug killer) butoxide garden pests
Real Kill (ants pyrethrins 11 oz 1.39 Roaches, waterbugs, silverfish, ants,
and roaches piperonyl .5 pct carpet beetles, moths, mosquitoes
killer) butoxide
Roach and malathion .5 pct 3.35 Roaches, carpet beetles, moths
Insect Spray
Moth Proofer ethylan 14 oz 1 25 Clothes moths, carpet beetles
.5 pct
Spectracide pyrethrins 18 oz 2.98 Roaches, ants, flies, mosquitoes,
diazinon .5 pct wasps
Sources: (9,35,44,51,109,145,212,214,307).
-------
C ornparative Performance Evaluation
Comparative Efficacy
Based on State recommendations,
there appear to be numerous alternatives
to lindane for use in the home, which
are preferred over lindane (table 98).
Apparently there are alternatives that
are at least as effective as lindane.
Comparative Costs
The percontainer costs of lindane
products and some alternatives are given
in table 98. These data were obtained
either from the manufacturer of the
product or by observation in local
retail outlets selling household pesti-
cide products. The comparative costs
of application of the various products
cannot be calculated because informa-
tion on the frequency of application of
the various pesticides has not been
received. Also, information on the
relative efficacy of the various chemi-
cal and nonchemical controls of the two
pests in the home has not been located.
Economic Impact Analysis
User Impacts
There are two types of users of
lindane for household use. The Pesti-
cide Control Operator may use lindane
for control of carpet beetles and
clothes moths; however, there are only
three labels still registered for PCO
use on these two pests in the home.
Lindane is not the chemical of choice
for use in the home.
The other user of lindane in the
home is the householder. There are five
labels available for use by an individ-
ual for use in the home. These include
lindane-treated shelf paper and lindane
smoke products. These products have
alternatives that appear to be at least
as effective as lindane products cur-
rently used In the home.
Competitive products are available
to effect control at approximately the
same cost to the user.
Consumer Impacts
Social and Community Impacts
Not investigated.
Limitations of the Analysis
The preceding analysis has certain
drawbacks, which are explicitly stated
below. These limitations include the
estimates of household usage and avail-
ability of efficacy data.
The first source of usage data was
the report from Hooker Chemical and
Plastics Corp. (98), the manufacturer of
lindane in the United States. This
report did not identify precisely where
the pesticide lindane was used. The
sites within the home were broadly de-
fined (see Application Methods section).
The second estimate from the USDA (261)
included within its estimate other uses,
such as ornamentals, human lice use, and
so forth. The third estimate was a
survey of households for pesticide use
within the home. This survey did not
ask for pesticidetreated shelf paper.
however, and therefore the only
significant use of ]indane in the home
was probably missed (214).
The limitations of the sources com-
bine to make the analysis sensitive to
changes in the estimates of lindane used
in the home. The estimates form the
basis of the economic impact. Thus,
any changes in data base of household
usage due to unreliable data or invalid
assumptions could affect the final
impact assessment.
Efficacy data on lindane and its
alternatives were limited, and confined
to opinions of the entomologist (EPA,
Registration Division) and to a survey
of State recommendations. No published
information was located on efficacy.
Summary
Lindane is registered for the con-
trol of carpet beetles and clothes moths
in the home. There are many suitable
alternatives, even when the compounds on
the RPAR list are considered.
161
-------
CHAPTER 13
BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF LINDANE
USE ON CUCURBITS
Current Use Analysis
EPA Registrations of Lindane
and Alternatives
Lindane is registered by the Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency for control
of aphids, cucumber beetle (striped and
spotted), cutworm, melonworm, pickle-
worm, squash bug, squash vine borer,
white grub, and other insects, on
cucurbits (cantaloup, cucumber, pumpkin,
squash, and watermelon). Based on
information provided by the USDA survey
(118), and individuals in the field (20,
79,85,107,228), pickleworm and squash
vine borer (sometimes striped and/or
spotted cucumber beetles) are the
insects of economic importance on cucum-
bers and squash currently being treated
with lindane in Florida, Georgia, and
South Carolina.
Fifteen other active ingredients
are registered by EPA for squash vine
borer and pickleworm control on squash
and cucumbers (300). These include:
calcium arsenate [ RPAR}
carbaryl (Sevin ) [ RPARJ
cube resins other than rotenone
diazjnon
ethion (Nialate)
malathion
rnethoxychlor
naled (Dibrom )
parathion
phosphamidon (Dimecron )
rnevinphos (Phosdrin )
pyrethrins
rotenone [ RPAR]
ryanodine (Ryanex)
toxaphene ERPAR].
Methomyl (Lannateฎ) is also regis-
tered for control of pickleworm on
cucumbers (slicing and pickling) in
North Carolina and South Carolina. Per-
mission was granted under Section 24c of
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticjde Act for control of this pest
for 5 years beginning March 15, 1977
(North Carolina) and July 7, 1977 (South
Carolina) .11/
In addition, Section 24c registra-
tions for methomyl are held by Florida,
Georgia, and Texas for pickleworm con-
trol on squash. Permission was granted
to these States on September 27, 1977
(Florida), February 1, 1978 (Georgia),
and December 8, 1977 (Texas). !/
Recommendations for Use
of Lindane and Alternatives
State Recommendations
Lindane is recommended for use on
cucurbits in Florida, Georgia, North
Carolina, and South Carolina. Florida
listed the greatest number of alterna-
tives (five) for pickleworrn control on
cucumbers and squash, and North Carolina
and South Carolina listed the fewest
(three) for squash vine borer and
pickleworm control. No recommendations
for squash vine borer and pickleworm
control are available for Texas.
The following insecticides are
recommended by States for squash vine
borer and pickleworm control on cucum-
bers and squash:
endosulfan
carbaryl ERPARI
lindane ERPARI
m evinphos
methomyl
parathion.
A tabular summary of State recom-
mendations for squash vine borer and
pickleworm control is presented in table
99.
Federal Guidelines
The USDA suggests the following
insecticides for pickleworm and squash
vine borer control: carbaryl [ RPAR],
21/ This information was provided
by Sherry Sterling, State Action
Section, EPA, regarding special local
needs.
162
-------
Table 99.--Suinmary of State recommendations and Federal guidelines for squash vine
borer and pickleworm control on cucumbers and squash
State
Insecticide
Carbaryl Endosulfan
ERPAR]
Lindane
[ RPAR]
Methomyl
Mevinphos Parathion
FlorjdaV
x x
x
x
x
Georgia
X X
X
X
North Carolina
X X
X
South Carolina
X
X
X
Texas
no recommendations
for squash
vine
borer
and
pickleworm
control
USDA
X X
X
1/ Includes recommendations for cucumber beetle, melonworm, and squash bug control
on cantaloups and watermelons.
Sources: State pesticide recommendations for this use (39,71,79,178,245).
endosulfan, and lindane ERPARI. Metho-
myl, mevinphos, and parathion are not
suggested as alternatives (table 99)
(259).
Use of Lindane and Alternatives
Lindane is frequently applied to
cucurbits as many as eight times during
the growing season (85,118) at 5- to 7
day intervals (228). A tractor-mounted
or high-clearance sprayer spraying 100
gallons of dilute spray per acre is
recommended and EPA-registered .21/
Less insecticide is needed for pest
control if the nozzles are arranged such
that the spray covers the entire plant.
Data available from a recent USDA
survey (118) and from entomologists
(20,67,85) indicate that approximately
22/ Mr. Don Lander and Dr. Jom
Montelaro of the University of Florida
indicate that many growers in Florida
use 24 to 30 Teejet nozzles on booms 42
feet long. The tractor speed for spray-
ing an insecticide should range between
2.5 and 3.0 miles, with an average boom
pressure of 250 to 300 lb/in 2 . The
North Carolina Agricultural Chemicals
Manual iiAdicates that high-pressure
(200 lb/jflh) sprayers aid in vegetable
insect control on cucumbers, melons,
squash, summer squash, and pumpkins.
2,800, 8,000, and 800 acres of cucurbits
in Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina,
respectively, were treated with lindane
in 1978 (table 100). Lindane reportedly
is not used on cucurbits in Texas and
Pennsylvania (92,118,139,141). This
represents 22 percent of the total
cucurbit acreage in the three States,
and 12.2 percent of fresh market cucum-
bers and squash acreage in the United
States. .. ?. ?J Lindane may also be
used to control squash vine borer and
pickleworm in other States; however, no
data are available. Thus, U.S. cucurbit
acreage treated with lindane may be
slightly higher than indicated.
A growers chemical costs can be
estimated from the number of acres
treated in these States, the total
pounds active ingredient used, and the
number of farms using lindane. From a
label for a lindane formulation of 25
percent by weight gamma isomer, the
23/ Data from Georgia and Florida
are for 1976. Dr. Freddie Johnson, Uni-
versity of Florida, could not estimate
the percent of total cucurbit acreage
treated with lindane. He did indicate,
however, that approximately 10 percent
of all squash and cucumber acreage is
treated with the chemical. The 1977
fresh market cucumber and squash acreage
is 56,310 and 38,527, respectively.
163
-------
maximum application rate of dilute spray
for pickleworm and squash vine borer
control on cucumbers and squash is 200
gallons of dilute mixture per acre.
Some State recommendations indicate,
however, that 100 gallons of dilute
spray/acre/treatment provide adequate
control (79,178). If one assumes the
latter rate of dilution, growers in
Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina
used approximately 1,050, 8,000, and
1,500 pounds of active ingredients,
respectively, at costs of about $11,300
Table 100.-Total cucurbit acreage treated
and expenditures for the chemical in
197 677
(Florida), $86,700 (Georgia), and
$16,300 (South Carolina) (table 100).
Approximately 76 percent of the $114,319
spent for lindane in these three States
is attributed to use of the chemical in
Georgia. Owing to a lack of data,
pounds active ingredient consumed, and
growers costs in other States cannot be
determined.
Little data are available that
estimate the total number of farms
growing cucurbits and using lindane;
with lindane, pounds active ingredients,
Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina,
Item
State
Florida
Georgia
South Carolina
Total
Total cucurbit acreage
27,900
10,500
14,600
53,000
Total cucurbit acreage
treated with lindane
2,790
8,000
800
11,590
Percent of total acreage treated
10.0
76.2
5.5
21.9
Number of applications
.V1-2
4
3.6
Pounds a.i. consumed/app./acre
J
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
Pounds a.j. consumed
1,046
8,000
1,500
10,546
Insecticide cost . ../
$11,339
$86,720
$16,260 $114,319
1/ Data from Florida and Georgia are for 1976. Florida cucurbits are defined as
squash (11,900 acres) and cucumbers (16,000 acres). Approximately 2,500 acres of
cantaloups were grown in the State during 1977, but less than 250 acres were treated
with lindane (107). This acreage is not included in the analysis. Georgia cucurbits
are defined to include squash (5,000 acres) and cucumbers (5,500 acres) (118); data
from South Carolina are for 1977 fresh market and pickled cucumbers.
2/ The seasonal number of lindane applications is assumed to average 1.5 for this
analysis. Dr. Freddie Johnson of the University of Florida recommends that cucurbit
growers alternate the chemicals used for control of pickleworm and squash vine borer
on cucumbers and squash during the same season. Other chemicals used for control of
these pests include carbaryl, endosulfan, and methomyl.
3/ Mr. R. P. Griffin, Clemson University, indicates that this 800 acres receives 7
or 8 applications per season (85).
4/ Based upon the lindane label rate of 0.25 lb a.i./100 gallons of water, and the
assumption that 100 gallons of dilute spray will treat 1 acre.
5/ Lindane: 25 pct WP; $2.71/lb of formulation (telephone conversation with Joe
Paulk, Woolfolk Chemical Works, Inc., Fort Valley, Georgia, May 23, 1978).
Sources: Griffin, 1978 (85); Kennedy, 1977 (118); USDA, 1977 (262); and USDA,
SRS, 1977 (287).
164
-------
Table 101.--Total number of farms applying lindane, and total insecticide cost per
farm in Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina, 1976-77
Item
State
Florida
Georgia
South Carolina Total
Pounds a.i. consumed!
Weighted avera e farm
size (acresL
Farms applying lindane. !
Pounds a.i. consumed/farm
Insecticide cost 1,
Insecticide cost/farm
1,046
27.6
102
10.3
$11,339
$111.17
8,000
8.5
793
10.1
$86,720
$109.36
1,500 10,546
14.4 19.1
56 951
26.8 11.1
$16,260 $114,319
$290.36 $120.21
1/ Taken from table 100.
2/ Derived from 1974 Census of Agriculture, United States Summary, 1977.
3/ The number of farms applying lindane in Florida and South Carolina was deter-
mined by dividing the weighted average farm size into the total cucurbit acreage
treated with lindane from table 100. Dr. A. Leon Stacey, Extension Entomologist at
the University of Georgia, indicates that approximately 400 squash growers use the
chemical. The calculated number of cucumber growers using lindane (393 farms) was
calculated from the 1974 Census of Agriculture.
4/ Taken from table 100.
however, Dr. A. Leon Stacey, Extension
Entomologist at the University of
Georgia, indicates that approximately 80
percent (400 growers) of the 500 squash
growers in Georgia use the chemical
(table 101). li! Dr. Stacey could not
estimate the number of Georgia growers
using lindane on cucumbers; however,
the average size of a Georgia cucumber
farm is 14 acres (295). If one assumes
that this has remained relatively con-
stant, and that 5,500 acres of cucumbers
were treated in 1976, then 393 cucumber
growers used the chemical in 1976
(table 101).
According to the 1974 Census of
Agriculture, the average size squash and
24/ Dr. A. Leon Stacey indicates
that there are approximately 500
squash growers in Georgia, producing
approximately 5,000 acres of squash.
According to the 1974 Census of
Agriculture (295), 243 farms harvested
1,273 acres of squash. No additional
data could be located verifying either
one of the two sources.
cucumber farms in Florida are 23.6 and
31.5 acres, respectively. If one assumes
that this has not changed significantly,
then approximately 51 squash farms and
51 cucumber farms used lindane in 1977
(table 101).
As indicated in table 100, approxi-
mately 800 acres of South Carolina
spring and fresh market cucumbers were
treated with lindane in 1977. By using
the calculated average size of a South
Carolina cucumber farm as determined in
the 1974 Census of Agriculture (14.4
acres), and assuming that the average
farm size has remained relatively con-
stant, then 56 growers used the chemical
in 1977 (table 101). An estimate of the
number of growers using lindane in other
cucurbit-producing States cannot be
determined owing to a lack of data.
Use of Alternatives
Other insecticides used for squash
vine borer and pickleworm control on
squash and cucumbers include end osulfan,
methomyl, parathion, carbaryl ERPARI,
165
-------
and mevinphos. Most Florida growers
use combinations of carbaryl ERPAR],
endosulfan, and methomyl for control of
these pests (2O).i / Harrisi J and
Stacey (228) imply that carbaryl ERPAR],
endosulfan, and methomyl are used in
Georgia cucurbit farms, and a signifi-
cant amount of methomyl is used to treat
cucurbits grown in South Carolina (67).
Texas cucurbit growers are presently
using carbaryl [ RPAR], endosulfan, and
parathion (91, 139). Unfortunately, no
data are available regarding the present
extent of use of these alternatives
either on a State or on an aggregate
U.S. basis.
Performance Evaluation of Lindane
and Alternatives
Pest Infestation and Damaga I
Pickleworms on Cucumbers and Squash
The pickleworm ( Diaphania nitidalis
(Stoll)) is a serious economic pest of
cucumbers and squash; if uncontrolled,
it can completely destroy a crop.
Damage results from young larvae feeding
on leaves, growing tips of vines, or
within blossoms, or instar larvae boring
into the fruit and stems. The most
injurious feeding takes place in the
fruit. Damaged fruits are unfit for
human consumption because of the excre-
ment and tunneling of the larvae. When
infestations are heavy, the young fruit
and flowers, especially of squash, may
be destroyed before they are full grown.
25/ Although mevinphos and para-
thion are recommended for use in
Florida, Mr. Jim Brogdon states that
both these insecticides will not be used
because they are both highly toxic
insecticides.
26/ Information provided May 15,
1978 by Emmett D. Harris, Jr., Extension
Entomologist, University of Georgia,
Athens, Georgia.
27/ Much of the information used in
this tion was provided by Dr. George
G. Kennedy, Assistant Professor, North
Carolina State University, Raleigh, N.C.
(118).
Low to moderate levels of infestations
of pickleworm may pass unnoticed in the
field, only to be discovered when the
fruits are processed. The severity of
this problem is further exacerbated by
the fact that processors consider the
presence of a single infested fruit to
mean that the entire field is infested
(100).
The adult pickleworm is a nocturnal
moth. It has yellowishwhite wings,
with a broad yellow-brown border, and a
wingspan of approximately 1 inch. The
larvae are whitishgreen, with two black
spots on each segment in the early
instars. The last instar larvae are
uniformly green or copper-colored.
The pickleworm does not overwinter
in States such as Georgia and South
Carolina. Each spring, reinfestation
occurs as the moths move northward
from their overwintering sites in semi-
tropical areas, such as southern Flor-
ida. Typically, the first pickleworms
are found in Georgia between May and
early June. Eggs are deposited singly
or in small clusters on hairy spots on
the plant, such as blossoms and young
leaves. The larvae feed and develop as
described above; when mature, they spin
a thin cocoon and pupate. Several gen-
erations are passed during the growing
season, before the onset of cold weather
destroys the population.
Squash Vine Borer on Squash
The squash vine borer is a clear-
winged , Melittia sat yrinif ormis
(Htibner) (Lepidoptera: Aegeriidae), but
there are also two or three related
species that have similar habits and
controls. Damage to pumpkins, squash
(the preferred hosts), and other cucur-
bits is caused by larvae tunneling
inside the stems, often causing a sudden
wilting of entire runners or even the
entire plant. The presence of squash
vine borer larvae is characterized by
green-yellow excrement around the larval
entrance holes in the sides of the vine.
In the midst of this excrement is a
thick, white, wrinkled, brown-headed
caterpillar up to 1 inch long.
166
-------
Squash vine borers overwinter as
larvae or pupae in cocoons 1 to 2 inches
below the soil surface. Adults emerge
in the spring, mate, and deposit small
eggs singly on stems and leaf stalks,
especially toward the base of the
plants. The eggs hatch in 7 to 14 days,
and the larvae bore into the stem, where
they continue to feed for about 4 to 6
weeks.
Most squash vine borers are found
near the base of the plant; however,
later in the season, they may be found
throughout the stem and even in the
fruits. Upon completion of their devel-
opment, the larvae leave the plant and
enter the soil, where they pupate.
Adults arising from these pupae produce
the second larval generation which,
because of its greater abundance, is
more damaging than the first generation.
Fully developed larvae and pupae of this
second generation overwinter. There may
be additional generations in the South.
Comparative Performance Evaluation
Little field test data could be
found comparing the relative effec-
tiveness of lindane and alternative
insecticides for pickleworm and squash
vine borer control on cucumbers and
squash. This section of the report is
based upon the results of experiments
conducted between 1963 and 1966, and
contains information provided by numer-
ous State entomologists contacted during
the course of the analysis, and the
results of a recent survey of major
squash- and cucumber-producing States
(118).
Field tests for control of pickle-
worms on cucurbits with several insec-
ticides were conducted between 1964 and
1966, at Culiman and Clanton, Alabama.
Early Summer Crookneck squash and
Boston Pickling cucumber varieties were
field-seeded in June or July. The
planting dates were used to encourage a
pickleworrn infestation during develop-
ment of the crop. Approximately 40
gallons of finished spray material were
applied per acre with a knapsack
sprayer. Treatments on squash were
initiated at bloom in most experiments,
and the first applications to cucumbers
were made at early fruitset. Three to
five applications were made at weekly
intervals.
Results of insecticide evaluations
for pickleworm control on squash are
summarized in table 102. Pickleworm
damage in the five experiments ranged
from 22.5 to 75 percent in the untreated
check. Most insecticides applied as
foliar sprays afforded a high degree of
protection in each experiment. In addi-
tion to the recommended insecticides,
carbaryl IRPARI, lindane [ RPAR], and
parathion, other materials found to be
highly effective against the pickleworm
included endosulfan, 1 lb/acre; GC6506,
0.5 lb/acre; and GS13005, 1 lb/acre.
Other materials tested significantly re-
duced pickleworm injury in most experi-
ments, but were not usually as effective
as the materials tested in table 102.
As indicated (table 102), all ma-
terials tested, including the fungicide
check, resulted in a highly significant
degree of pickleworm control on cucum-
bers. Light to moderate phytotoxicity
was noted on cucumbers treated with
American Cyanamids EIC compound.
Pickleworm damage was not heavy in these
experiments, and the lack of damage was
apparently due to a preference for
squash, which was grown adjacent to the
cucumber test in both years.
Squash yields following treatment
with recommended and accelerated rates
of insecticides applied as dusts are
shown in table 103. No significant dif-
ferences were recorded in yield (number
and weight) of squash among the various
treatments, even at rates up to 80 lb of
5 percent carbaryl/acre. Pickleworrn
damage was less than 5 percent on the
untreated plots, and the degree of con-
trol probably had very little effect on
yields. No phytotoxicity was observed
in any treatments.
Insecticides applied daily during
the major fruiting period had no signif-
icant effect on squash yield as compared
with weekly treatments and not treated
167
-------
Crookneck squash , Culiman and
carbaryl 4.0
carbaryl 2.0
carbaryl 1.0
parathion 0.5
GS13005 1.0
GS13005 .5
GC6506 .5
TDE 1.0
lindane .25
malathion 1.5
Am. Cyan. EIC 1.0
Am. Cyan. EIC .5
diazinon 1.0
naled 1.0
naled .5
endos ulfan
endos ulfan
Thuricideฎ 90T. !
Untreated check
4.7 a
6.7 abc
5.2 ab
4.7 a
12.6 bc
13.4 bc
13.9 bc
15.7 cd
23.4 de
26.8 de
75.0 c 31.5 e 63.1 d
4.8 a
3.4 a
a 4.5a
abc
bc
bc
4.5 a
13.9 a
54.2 b
1/ Means that share a common
level by Duncans test.
2/ 90 Trillion spores/g.
3/ Means that share a common
level by Duncans test.
4/ The treated check received maneb and
insecticides
Source:
.
Table 102.-Effectiveness of insecticide treatment for control of pickleworm
Crookneck squash and cucumbers
Pounds
active!
Percent fruit damaged by picklewormsi! in
experiment
Treatment acre
1
2
3
4
5
on
5.1 ab
Clanton, Alabama, 196466
0.6 ab
0 a 6.Oa
1.8 abc
3.8 bc
5.9 c 39.0 b
6.1 ab
2.0
11.3
20.9
24.1
1.0
.5
1 qt
25.2 bc
31.0 c
Treatment
22.5 d
Pounds Percent
active! pickleworm damage . /
acre 1965 1966
Cucumbers, Cuilman,
Alabama
lindane
0.25
0
a
0 a
Am. Cyan. EIC
1.0
0
a
endosulfan
.5
0
a
GC6506
.5
0 a
Thuricideฎ 9OTS
2 qt
0 a
malathion
1.5
0
a
.24
a
carbaryl
1.0
.3
a
2.65
a
GS13005
Treated check
1.0
1/--
.4
a
1.85
2.85
a
a
Untreated check
0
5.1
b
17.25
b
letter do not differ significantly at the 5 percent
letter do not differ significantly at the 1 percent
Morestan 2.0 and 0.25 lb/acre. In 1966
applied with maneb and dinocap, 2.0 and 0.25 lb/acre.
Canerday, 1967 (31)
168
-------
daily in the a.rn. as compared with those
treated in the pm. Squash flowers
tagged in the evening were found open
at daylight on clear, sunny days and
most were closed by 8 or 9 a.m. Inas-
much as the squash plant i dependent
primarily on honey bees for pollination,
early morning insecticidal applications
may have adversely affected pollination,
resulting in subsequent deformation or
abortion of unpollinated fruits. The
failure of the yield differences to test
significantly at the probability level
employed makes this observation incon-
clusive.
Between 1963 and 1966, four experi-
ments were conducted at Gainesville,
Florida to evaluate the control of
pickleworm on summer squash. All
of the treatments in 1963 reduced the
damage due to pickleworm significantly,
and all except naled and endothion
reduced the injury more than 90 per-
cent (table 104). Carbaryl [ RPAR] was
the most effective treatment, but it
was not significantly better than
phosphamidon, lindane, UC-8305, or
endosulfan.
In 1965 tests (table 104) Banol
(carbanolate), Furadanฎ (carbofuran),
carbaryl [ RPAR], and endosulfan all
protected the squash. GC-9160 and
Thuricideฎ ( Bacillus thurin giensis Ber-
liner) did not reduce the injury sig-
nificantly over that in the check.
Lindane was not evaluated in the tests
conducted during this year.
In the first experiment in 1966
(July and August) all of the treatments
except trichlorfon gave better than 90
percent injuryfree fruit (table 105).
Because of bad weather, only one
insecticide application was made in the
second 1966 test (September and Octo-
ber). In this experiment lindane was
not tested. All chemicals (trichlor
fon, CP-47114, carbaryl, Ortho 9006,
GS- 13005, endosulfan, and Thuricide )
reduced the injury significantly (table
105). Thuricide appeared to be far
better in this experiment than when it
was used in 1965.
None of the insecticides, in any
experiment, was phytotoxic to squash.
Precautions and remarks in the 1978
North Carolina Agricultural Chemicals
Manual for pickleworm control on cucum-
bers and squash indicate that methomyl
may induce leafminer infestation. For
leafminer control, diazinon and naled
are recommended.
Entomologists (118,2281a J indicate
that methomyl induces outbreaks of leaf-
miners in Georgia and North Carolina.
Leafniiners cause little economic loss;
however, they are vectors of a virus
called watermelon mosaic virus. Ninety-
five percent of the mosaic virus in
Georgia squash fields is the watermelon
mosaic virus (228).
Oatman and Kennedy (181) found
significantly more (total) mines by the
vegetable leafminer in the methomyl-
treated plots (26,041 and 22,570, re-
spectively) than in the untreated check
(13,897 mines). These differences were
due in part to methomyls adverse ef-
fects on parasites normally attacking
this leafminer, and its inability to
control this insect. Methomyl, there-
fore, is not an effective alternative
insecticide.
Carbaryl [ RPAR] and endosulfan also
have limitations, as improper applica-
tions of these products may result in
bee kills (45,79,228).. !J Recommen-
dations indicate that all materials
toxic to bees should be applied late in
the evening or in the early mornings,
when pollinators are not active.
Brogdon (20) could not estimate
the relative effectiveness of lindane
alternatives for the control of squash
vine borer and pickleworm on squash and
cucumbers in Florida. A recent study
by Adlerz (1), however, indicates that
hiLannateฎ, Nudrinฎ, Boistarฎ, Sevinฎ
ERPARI, and Dyloxฎ ! consistently
28/ The common names for Lannateฎ,
Nudrinฎ, Bolstarฎ, Sevin , and Dyloxฎ
are methomyl, methomyl, suiprofos,
carbaryl, and trichlorfon.
169
-------
Table 103.--Yield of squash following treatment with recommended and accelerated
rates of insecticides applied as dusts, Cu.llman, Alabama, 1964
Treatment
(percent)
Pounds
dust/acre
Pounds
active/acre
Average
plot yield
number
weight
zineb 6
33
2
62
6.82
parathion 2
25
0.5
53
7.48
carbaryl 5 + zineb
6
20
1 + 1
52
7.19
malathion 5
30
1.5
51
6.96
carbaryl 5
40
2
51
6.55
lindane 1
25
0.25
48
6.27
carbaryl 5
20
1
48
6.23
untreated
o
0
48
6.12
lindane 1 + zineb 6
25
0.25 + 1.25
47
6.20
carbaryl 5
80
4
46
5.50
LSD 0.05
NS
NS
Source: Canerday, 1967 (31).
Table l04.Effectjveness of insecticide treatment for control of
pickleworm on Early Yellow Summer Crookneck squash, 1963 and 1965
Treatment and
formulation
Pounds active!
ioa gallons
Percent uninjured
sguash I
-
1963
carbaryl 5 Aqua /
phospharnidon 4 EC
1.0
0.5
100.0 a
99.0 a
lindane 25 UP
0.25
98.7 a
UC8305 4 EC
endosulfan 2 EC
trichlorfon 50 s V
rnevinphos 2 EC
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.25
98.1 ab
96.2 abc
93.9 bcd
93.9 bcd
diazinon 2 EC
1.0
91.2 bcd
naled 8 EC
endothion 50 SP
1.0
1.0
83.6 cd
82.5 d
Check
51.1 e
1965
Banol 75 WP
Furadanฎ 50 WP
1.5
1.0
100.0 a
98.8 ab
carbaryl 50 WP
endosulfan 50 WP
Gardona 75 WP
1.0
1.0
1.0
97.9 abc
93.8 abc
86.7 bc
Matadilฎ 80 UP
1.0
81.9 c
CC9879 25 UP
1.0
70.9 d
GC9160 50 UP
Thuricideฎ 90T
FLIJBL
1.0
0.25
60.8 de
59.3 de
Check
50.7 e
1/ Numbers not followed by the
at the 5 percent level.
2/ Aqua = aqueous suspension; SP = soluble powder.
3/ FLWBL = flowable-liquid suspension.
Source: VJaites and Babeck, 1968 (313).
same letter are significantly different
170
-------
Table 105.Effectiveness of
pickleworm on Early Yellow
1966
1/ Numbers not followed
at the 5 percent level.
2/ SP = soluble powder.
3/ FLWBL = flowable-liquid suspension.
Source: Waites and Babeck, 1968 (313).
gave good control. In tests that were
not repeated, good results were obtained
with Thiodanฎ, Phosvelฎ, and the syn-
thetic pyrethroid Pydrin. Brogdon also
indicated that because other insecti-
cides or combinations of insecticides
are more effective against more of the
insect complex, lindane is not used.
Summary
No yield reductions are expected to
occur in Florida and South Carolina if
carbaryl tRPAR], endosulfan, or meth-
omyl rqplace lindane on cucurblts (46.
67,85). I Based on research cited
in this report, no yield reductions with
the use of lindane alternatives are
expected to occur (table
29/ Carbaryl Is recommended for use
in South Carolina to control the cucum-
ber beetle on cucumbers.
30/ Cook (46) indicates that endo-
sulfan is only 80 percent as effective.
insecticide treatment for control of
S urn mer C rookneck squash, July-October,
Treatment and
formulation
Pounds active/
100 gallons
Percent uninjured
squash!
July - August
1
99.2 a
CP47114 4 EC
lindane 25 WP
0.25
98.9 a
endosulfan 2 EC
1
95.7 ab
Furadanฎ 50 WP
0.5
94.7 ab
Ortho 9006 6 EC
1
94.5 ab
Furadanฎ 50 WP
1
94.4 ab
carbaryl 50 WP
1
94.3 ab
Ortho 9006 6 EC
0.5
93.4 ab
Gardonaฎ 75 WP
trichiorfon 50 spA!
1.5
1
91.7 ab
85.3 b
Check
71.9 c
September - October
1
100.0 a
trichiorfon 4 EC
trichiorfon 50 SP
1
100.0 a
CP47114 4 EC
1
100.0 a
carbaryl 50 WP
Ortho 9006 6 EC
1
0.5
100.0 a
98.0 abc
GS13005 40 EC
1
97.7 abc
endosulfan 2 EC
1
97.5 abc
CP47114 4 EC 0.5
Thuricideฎ 9OTS FLWBL . 2 qt
Thuricideฎ SS FLWBL 1 qt
Thuricideฎ SS FLWBL 2 qt
Check
91.5 abc
85.0 abc
88.2 bc
76.2 c
54.5 d
by the same letter are significantly different
171
-------
Table 106.--Estimated yield/acre and percent yield reduction using Lindane and
alternatives for squash vine borer and pickleworm control in Florida, Georgia,
and South Carolina, 1976-77
Site, pest, and State
Insecticide
Lindane Carbaryl Endosulfan Methomyl
[ RPARI ERPARI
Bushels
Cucumbers (pickleworm)
226.9() 226.9(0 pct) 226.9(0 pct)
F1orida- 1
Georgia-
175.0() 144.4(1025 pct) 157.5(515 pct) 135.6(2025 pct)
South Carolina 1
141.7() - -NR 141.7(0 pct) 141.7(0 pct)
Squash (pickleworm and
156() 156(0 pct) 156(0 pct) 156(0 pct)
squash vine borer)
Florida- -
Georgia 2 -
350() 262(1425 pct) 289(1421 pct) 289(1421 pct)
1/ The 3yea& weighted average yield/acre (197577) for fall fresh market cucumbers
in Florida is 108.9 cwt/acre (Vegetables; 1977 Annual Summary; Acreage, Yield,
Production, and Value; USDA, SRS). No field data are available from Florida
indicating the percent yield reduction of lindane alternatives; however, research
(313) indicates no significant change in yield among the alternatives.
2/ Methomyl is not registered by EPA for pickleworm control on cucumbers in
Florida.
3/ According to the USDA Survey (118), the State average cucumber yield per planted
acre in 1976 was approximately 175 bushels/acre, or 84.1 cwt. Yield losses using
carbaryl are expected to range between 10 and 25 percent (19,228). If endosulfan is
the chosen alternative, growers may expect a 5 to 15 percent decline (228).
Entomologists (19,118,228) indicate that yield losses may be as high as 20 to 25
percent using methomyl.
4/ Entomologists (67,85) do not indicate that yields will change significantly if
growers switch to any of the recommended lindane alternatives (endosulfarL and
methomyl). Yields will not change (46) using endosulfan; however, a 20 percent yield
loss is expected using methomyl. Approximately 600 and 200 acres of the fall and
Spring fresh maket crop, respectively, in South Carolina are treated with lindane.
5/ NR = not recommended or reported to be used.
6/ The 2year weighted average yield/acre (1976-77) for all squash including
processing in Florida is 156 bushels/acre (71).
7/ According to the USDA Survey (118), the State average cucumber yield per planted
acre in 1976 was approximately 350 bushels/acre. Yield losses using carbaryl are
expected to range between 14 and 25 percent (228). Estimated yield losses win range
between 14 and 21 percent if rnethomyl or endosulfan is used. Estimated yield losses
(118) will be approximately 20 percent using methomyl (compared with lindane).
172
-------
Georgia cucumber yield losses of as
much as 20 to 25 percent are expected
with methomyl (19,118,228) for pickle
worm control (table 106). Estimated
yield losses (19,228) with carbaryl
[ RPARI will range between 10 and 25
percent, compared with lindane; and
estimated yield losses on Georgia
cucumbers, with endosulfan, will range
between 5 and 15 percent (228).
Yield losses on squash in Georgia
using lindane alternatives are expected
to be as high as cucumbers (228) ;? ../ and
between 14 and 25 percent with carbaryl.
Estimates provided by Harris.?! indicate
that yield losses on squash will range
between 14 and 21 percent if growers use
methomyl or endosulfan. Kennedy (118)
estimates that yield losses will be
approximately 20 percent with methomyl,
compared with lindane (table 106).
No data are available to project
changes in yield with the cancellation
of lindane use in other States.
Comparative Costs
The costs of treating cucurbits for
squash vine borer and pickleworm with
lindane and three of the EPA-registered
alternatives -- carbaryl, endosulfan,
and methomyl -- are presented in table
107. These data are based on repre-
sentative price lists, data in State
recommendation guides, and information
provided by State entomologists con-
tacted during the analysis.
Growers substituting carbaryl for
lindane in the Southeastern United
States can expect insecticide costs to
decline 564Vacre (table 107). With four
applications per crop, the total season
cost/acre is expected to fall $2.24.
The insecticide and application
costs per acre for endosulfan and
methomyl are $5.81 and $10.76, respec-
tively. This represents an increase of
48 /acre/application (endosulfan), and
$5.43/acre! application (methomyl) com-
pared with lindane. With four applica-
tions/acre, the total season costs with
endosulfan and methomyl are $23.24
($1.92 acre increase) and $43.04 ($21.72
acre increase), respectively.
Use Impact Analysis
Data are not available for the ex-
tent of lindane use in all of the
cucurbit-producing States; therefore, an
aggregate impact estimate cannot be
developed. According to the USDA survey
(118) and entomologists, however, grow-
ers in South Carolina will treat most,
if not all, of the cucumber acreage
with methomyl (67) (table 108). . J
As previously indicated, lindane is
used in combination with other insecti-
cides for control of squash vine borer
and pickleworm in Florida. Depending
upon the relative availability, pre-
vious experience, and other factors
associated with lindane alternatives,
growers will use carbaryl, endosulfan,
or methomyl.- Although no data
are available indicating the relative
preference of one for another, it is
assumed that each chemical will treat
approximately one-third the total squash
acreage currently treated with lindane.
Methomyl, however, is not registered for
pickleworm control on Florida cucumbers.
Therefore, it is assumed that carbaryl
and endosulfan will each treat half the
cucumber acreage currently treated with
lindane (table 108).
Georgia growers are expected to
apply methomyl for pickleworm control on
squash and cucumbers (118). Although
squash vine borer is of economic impor-
tance on squash, met homyl is not regis-
tered by EPA for control of this insect.
31/ In South Carolina, methomyl is
registered under Section 24c of FIFRA
for 5 years beginning July 7, 1977 for
pickleworm control on cucumbers.
32/ Mevinphos and parathion are
also EPA-registered and recommended for
pickleworm and squash vine borer control
in Florida. Brogdon (20) does not think
growers will use these chemicals because
they are highly toxic. Parathion may
not be used within 15 days of harvest of
cucumbers and squash.
173
-------
C
E
14
0
C,
-4
0
.
14
C)
14
0
a,
.-4 C13
-4
-4
0
14
4 .4
C)a ,
1.40
O dD
+4
C,
Ca,
dl)L)
4-a
I)
0
0
4-a
C)
E
14
N
-4
0 )
C I )
CI )8
Lt)I
C I )
14 0
C )
E
z
0
C,
O 1.4
. C)
-
o
C) cc 4 .a
-4 0 c
O ,..
C ) 4.4
C I ) C I ) 4
0cc
ฉ
E
C, )
4_4 C)
C I ) C
o cd
bC C
4-a
014
0
Co
. I S
C ) C) C)
.i
N ,-4 CO
N Co N
S I S
.4
Co C)
C .4
S
U) Co
S
--4
S
,0
C,
S
4
-S
-S
04;9
C) 5 i-$
_ 5--
a)
5-,
C) E
U) 0
a) C
C 1.i C
aD
C) a)
C ,,
S
.4
C,
C ,,
S
U)
-4
N
.
-4
N
.
C
- 4
.4
N
.
C 5 . )
LCD C)
,.4 ,-4
S
C ,, Co
4. -C )C ) I ..C0C1) r-l C
a,
0a a, 14 00 4-
a) -
C) 4.4 144
C C CO 14a)S._
C bO O Q)
C D C )
:,-i-
1414 U)
C )Cl)
o
4 . 4 bO C)U)a)C 0
.c - .
E N EE
14
C) LCD .4
.c bC 2 2
0 -
I U) + - 9 4 0 0
, CflC)I 144 4 E 0
1.4 ฉ
2 c ฐ
ieE
8
0
_ CO
14 0 4- Q ) Cf ) . 4Eฐ
CoC ) 4 I
Q 4 C)CI)N . 4 4-i --4
-0a 0 I
5-,
5 C C X4 0
I_) a) .;
C5 - ) 4C5 5 U 0
a) O, Q 0cC
Coa)OC4 J 4 44 4- 5-C) $ 4
C ) o a,
N C).i - a
E . - CY
1 4 (I)
a) 2
4 . 4
CI) a),. . 4 .4 a) U)
U)
, Cc U) C 14 -ฐ
- ctC . 0 14 C
8z
o tI) -
o - Q -C )
14
4
o 14C
o 14ฉ C C C .0
o_ i 2
C 14 0 J , ,..O 0
- -,g
a
-4
Z4C)a) 4 . 4 .
a) _,.C c . 1 .c 0
-5
C )
IHi
ON , C C1 )0
4-40) -, 0b c ,C
4 - 4 O0 - a ct
4 C
O
ฉ 2 U ) C4.J 4
o-
a) .14 LCD
N 14
. 0
14
O i .+ . ,4J C )a) 4CU
a) 4..4.
C - CQO0 O C
0 2 . .
E a)a)CI ) 014
C l ) U) a).- a
. 5
, ci ( . . .a C) (14
8 0
v - . 4C )O0 8 14a)
C)
N
S
-4
I
174
-------
Table 108.-Estimated cucurbit acreage treated with EPAregistered. alternatives if
lindane is not available in Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina, 1977.1
State and total
Insecticide
Endosulfan
Methomyl
Total
Carbaryl [ RPAR]
Florida
AcreapplicatiOnS. i
Number of applications
Acres
1,795.0
1.5
1,196.7
1,795.0
1.5
1,196.7
595.0
1.5
396.7
4,185
1.5
2,790
Georgia
Acreapplications
Number of applications
Acres
3,000
1.5
2,000
3,000
1.5
2,000
26,000
.3.42
4,000
32,000
4
8,000
South Carolina
0
6 ,000
6
000
Acreapplications
Number of applications
Acres
0
0
0
0
0
7.5
800
,
7.5
800
Total
32,595
42,185
Acreapplications
Number of applications
Acres
4,795
1.5
3,196.7
4,795
1.5
3,196.7
6.21
5,196.7
3.64
11,590
1/ The number of required applications is based on information received from State
entomologists and registration requirements cited in this report (Georgia and
Florida, 4 acre_applications/acre; South Carolina, 7.5 acreapplications/aCre). In
Florida, lindane is used in combination with other chemicals (1.5 acre-applicatioflS/
acre).
2/ It is assumed that each chemical (carbaryl, endosulfan, and methomyl) will treat
onethird of the total squash acreage, whereas endosulfan and carbaryl will each
treat only half of the cucumber acreage.
3/ Number of applications is a weighted average of applications for squash (2.5
applications of methomyl on 4,000 acres) and cucumbers (4 applications of methornyl
on 4,000 acres).
Sources: Brogdon. 1978 (20); Griffin, 1978 (85); and Kennedy, 1977 (118).
Growers are expected to replace
four lindane applications with four
methornyl applications on 4,000 cucumber
acres for pickleworm control. No more
than two or three methomyl applications
will be made on 4,000 squash acres.. i
33/ No data available from Georgia
indicating the chemical or combination
of chemicals for control of the squash
vine borer and striped and spotted
cucumber beetle If liridane Is not avail-
able. Owing to similarities in climate
and cultural practices with Florida, It
Is assumed that insecticides or combina-
tions of insecticides will be used
because these are considered more
effective against more of the insect
complex, Brogdon (20).
Thus, 26,000 acreapplications of
rnethornyl (16, ooo acre-applications on
cucumbers and 10,000 acre-applications
on squash) will be made by Georgia
cucurbit growers.
Lindane Is registered by EPA, rec-
ommended, and used for control of the
striped and spotted cucumber beetle and
squash vine borer. Other chemicals reg-
istered by EPA and recommended for con-
trol of the aforementioned Insects are
endosulfan and carbaryl. Because these
chemicals are not presently used on
squash (118), no data are available
regarding current use of these chemicals
In Georgia. Growers will most likely use
these, however, because no other chemi-
cals are recommended for use in Georgia.
175
-------
Therefore, it is assumed that half the
squash acreage (4,000 acres) currently
treated for squash vine borer will
receive one or two applications of
carbaryl, and the remaining acreage will
receive one or two applications of
endosulfan (table 108).
Economic Impact Analysis
Profile of Impact Areas
Cucumbers
Cucumbers (fresh market and pick-
les) are produced commercially in 16
States in the United States. Approx-
imately 51,300 acres of fresh market
cucumbers were harvested in 1977, an 8
percent increase over 1975 production
levels (47,450 acres harvested in 1975).
Cucumber production for pickles,
however, declined approximately 12
percent in 1977 (compared with 1975).
In 1975, 140,170 acres of cucumbers for
pickles were harvested, whereas in 1977,
only 123,990 acres were harvested (287).
Yields per acre for fresh market
and pickled cucumbers have increased an
average of 5 cwt (10.4 bushels) and 0.26
ton, respectively, between 1975 and
1977. Increases in fresh market cucum-
ber yields per acre, as well as area
harvested, resulted in production
increases of 663,000 cwt (1,381,250
bushels) during .the same years; how-
ever, 1977 total cucumber production for
pickles was 46,150 tons lower than the
1975 production level (674,250 tons).
Florida fresh market cucumber
production between 1975 and 1977
accounted for 38.5 percent (5,924,000
cwt/15,413,000 cwt = 0.3847 or 38.5 pct)
of all fresh market cucumbers grown In
the United States. In South Carolina,
fresh market cucumber production during
the same years accounted for 7.8 pct
(1,200,000 cwt/15,413,000 cwt = 0.778 or
7.8 pct) of the U.S. total. Other major
fresh market cucumber-producing States
include California, South Carolina,
Texas, New Jersey, New York, North
Carolina, and Virginia.
Most cucumbers for pickle produc-
tion are grown in Michigan and North
Carolina, accounting for 29.8 percent
(577,300 cwt/1,935,650 cwt = 0.298 or
29.8 pct) of total production (287).
Other States producing the remainder of
the cucumbers for pickles in the United
States include California, Colorado,
Maryland, Ohio, Texas, and Wisconsin
(287). Alabama, South Carolina, and
Mississippi, the only southeastern
States producing a substantial amount
of cucumbers for pickles, accounted for
5.8 percent of total production (112,450
tons/1,936,150 tons = 0.580 = 5.8 pct)
between 1975 and 1977 (South Carolina
production during the same years was 3.7
percent of total production).
Squash
Production data for squash are
extremely limited. According to the
1974 U.S. Census of Agriculture,
squash was harvested on 38,527 acres
in the United States (295). Florida,
California, New Jersey, Texas, New
York, and Michigan accounted for over
60 percent of the total acreage in this
country (295). Almost one-third of
the aforementioned amount (19.6 percent
of total squash production) was grown
in Florida.
In 197576, 11,400 acres of squash
were harvested in Florida, averaging 154
bushels per acre. Approximately 1.8
million 42-pound bushels were produced,
valued at $6.53/bushel. The total value
of production was $11.5 million. The
following season (197677), 12,000 acres
of squash were harvested in Florida,
averaging 158 bushels per acre. Approx-
imately 1.9 million bushels were sold,
averaging $4.89 per bushel, or $11.2
million to all growers of the crop
(table 109).
Data from the USDA survey (118)
indicate that 5,000 acres of Georgia
squash were planted in 1976; however,
the 1974 U.S. Census of Agriculture
(295) reports that 1,273 acres of squash
were harvested that year in the State.
A third source of information could not
be located verifying either one of these
176
-------
Table 109.--Florida squash production, 1975-77
Crop and quarter
Acreage
Yield
per
acre
Unit
Production
sold
Value
per
unit
Total
1,000
dollars
Planted Harvested
1,000
Dollars
Acres
Units
Units
per unit
Squash.!! 197576
11,900 11,400
154
42lb
1,761
6.53
11,508
Total 197677
12,600 12,000
158
bushel
1,893
5.89
11,156
1/ Includes processing.
Source: Florida, 1973 (71).
two; however, it is probable that 3,700
additional acres of squash may have been
produced in Georgia. Data could not be
located indicating squash production,
price, and value by State for other
States in the United States.
Per-Capita Consumption of Cucurbits
Annual per-capita consumption for
fresh market cucumbers and for cucumbers
for pickles in 1976 were 3.4 pounds and
7.9 pounds, respectively. Between 1959
and 1967, per-capita fresh market cucum-
ber consumption averaged 2.96 pounds,
with a mode of 3.0 pounds. In the fol-
lowing years (196876), percapita
consumption averaged 3.16 pounds (the
mode was 3.1 pounds), an increase of 0.2
pound percapita (262, 300).
Percapita consumption of pickles
for 1976 was 7.9 pounds. Pickle con-
sumption between 1959 and 1976 ranged
from 4.5 pounds in 1960 to 8 pounds in
1973. Between 1959 and 1967 per-capita
pickle consumption averaged 5.73 pounds,
but was approximately 7.76 pounds In
the following 9 years (196876). Since
1959. per-capita pickle consumption
increased an average of 0.183 pound
(262, 287), indicating either a change
in the demand curve or a change in the
quantity demanded.
At the present time, no data are
available for current per-capita squash
consumption in the United States; how-
ever, per-capita pumpkin and squash
consumption in the United States for
1976 was 0.8 pound (262, 287). Between
1959 and 1975, pumpkin and squash per-
capita consumption ranged from 0.5 to
0.7 pound; however, it was 0.6 pound
in 9 out of 18 years (262, 287), indi-
cating that per-capita demand for the
commodity has remained constant.
User Impacts
As Indicated in table 107, the
cost of treating cucurbits for insect
control using lindane is approximately
$5. 33/acre/application with alternatives
ranging from $4.77 to $10.76. The net
change in treatment costs using alterna-
tives registered by EPA ranges from
56 to $5.43 for one application. If
one assumes that all other variables of
production remain constant, 19 acres of
cucumbers or squash treated with four
applications of methomyl will cost
approximately $413 more to produce than
four applications of lindane. i/ If
endosulfan is used, cost of production
would increase by only $36.50, but
production costs are expected to decline
$46.56 If carbaryl replaces lindane.
Squash and cucumber production
budgets developed at Clemson University
(40) indicated that the total fixed and
variable costs per acre for these crops
34/ As shown in table 101, the
weighted average-size cucurbit farm in
Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina is
approximately 19 acres.
177
-------
Table 110.-Estimated change in total fixed and variable costs of production for
squash and cucumbers using lindane alternatives in Florida, Georgia, and South
Carolina, 1976
Site
Insecticide
Lindane
[ RPAR]
Carbaryl
ERPAR]
Endosulfan
Methomyl
Cucumbers (fall slicers)
Total fixed and
variable costs!
$883.65
$881.41
$885.57
$905.36
Percent change
()0.25 pct
(+)0.22
pct
(+)2.45
pct
Yellow squash
(fresh market)
Total fixed and
variable costs!
623.32
621.08
625.24
645.04
Percent change
(-)0.4 pct
(+)0.3
pct
(+)3.5
pct
1/ Based on the assumption that 4 applications of the alternative insecticide
replace 4 applications of lindane.
Source: Clemson, 1976 (40).
are $623.32 and $883.65, respectively
(40). If one assumes that four
applications of methomyl replace Un-
dane, total fixed and variable squash
production costs per acre would in-
crease approximately 3.5 percent to
$645.04. Total fixed and variable
cucumber production costs per acre with
methomyl will only increase 2.45 per-
cent, to $905.36/acre. Carbaryl IRPARI
and endosulfan will not change total
fixed and variable costs of production
by more than 0.5 percent (table 110).
South Carolina
In South Carolina, the 800 acres
currently treated with seven or eight
applications of lindane/acre per season
will be replaced by a similar number of
methomyl applications. It will cost
South Carolina cucumber growers
replacing lindane with methomyl an
additional $32,580.
If one assumes 7.5 applications!
acre per season, costs of production
will increase $40.73/acre, or $586.51 to
35/ Total fixed and variable costs
include (a) preharvest and harvest vari-
able costs, and (b) machinery, irriga-
tion machinery, and tractor fixed costs.
the average cucumber grower. Each
of the estimated 56 growers using the
chemical will incur additional insecti-
cide costs averaging $582. . Z! No yield
losses are ei pected in South Carolina;
thus, harvest costs should not decline.
Florida
Most Florida cucurbit growers cur-
rently use insecticides or combinations
of them which are more effective
against more of the insect complex
(20). The average lindane application
rate is 1.5 treatments per season, and
therefore costs of production are ex-
pected to decline 84 /acre with carbaryl;
however, 1 5 applications of endosulfan
are 72 /acre more costly than a simi-
lar number of lindane applications.
Thus, the estimated total changes in
insecticide costs to all Florida growers
replacing lindane with alternatives on
cucumbers and squash are approximately
$100 and $3,200, respectively. Because
no yield losses are expected in Florida,
harvest costs should not decline.
36/ As shown in table 101, the
averagesized cucurbit farm is 14.4
acres in South Carolina.
37/ Approximately 56 South Carolina
cucumber growers used lindane In 1977.
178
-------
Table 111.--Estimated total change in production and gross revenue to cucurbit growers in Georgia, 1976
Estimated Estimated mean
Mean yield! mean yield! yield/planted Total
Acres planted planted acre acre using lindane decreased
Site/Pest treated acre using lindanel alternative . ! production
Bushels
Cucumbers (pickleworm)
4,000 175.0 175.0 135.6 156,600
Total
reduction in
gross revenue!!
Dollars
840,008
Squash (pickleworin and squash vineborer)
4,000 350.0 350.0 262.5 350,000
2,061,500
2,901,508
Total 8.000
1/ No data are available indicating the mean yield/planted acre using lindane It is assumed that the mean
yield/planted acre and the estimated mean yield/planted acre using lindane are the same.
2/ In a worst case situation, yields may decline in Georgia as much as 22.5 percent on 4,000 acres of treated
cucumbers and 25.0 percent on 4,000 acres of treated squash (table 106). Georgia growers are expected to use
methomyl for pickleworm control on cucumbers and squash, and carbaryl or endosulfan for squash vine borer
control on squash. 3/ The values of production per unit of cucumbers and squash are $5. 33/bushel and $5. 89/
bushel, respectively. Sources: Kennedy, 1977 (118); and USDA, SRS, 1977 (287).
T1P3
c, i
,.CD CD 0 0 CD
I -
r+
CD 030 0
O 0 3P1
03 .b t rP
CD
g
0 10.ฐ) q03
1 cn r+
b3r* 3 0 CD 0 m CD 03
CD
.a3cD r C)C3 0
I D 0
O0 cD
ฐ
03C 3 0
CD
qp
0O CD CJ1C r+
CD .
03
O
,-
rl CD 03 r Qi 0
.
.-QCD
DCD C D C D
i j CD 0
CD
0 CD 03
C D0CDr+r+I03U
0 030 CD
1JJi
.c 1
00 03CD
-------
Table 112.--Estimated change in insecticide costs if lindane is not vailable to
cucurbit growers in Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina, 1976-77!
Site/Pest
and State
Insecticide
Carbaryl [ RPARI Endosulfan Methomyl Total
Dollars
Cucumbers (pickleworm)
()672 (+)576 ()96
Florida
Georgia
(+)86,880 (+)86,880
South Carolina
(+)32,580 (+)32,580
Squash (pickleworm and
squash vine borer)
()333 (-i-)286 (+)3,231 (+)3,183
Florida
Georgia
()1,680 (+)1,440 (+)54,300 (+)54,060
Total
()2,685 (+)2,302 ()176,991 (+)176,6o7
1/ The estimated changes in insecticides were derived by multiplying the difference
in the insecticide and application cost per acre between lindane and its alternatives
(table 106) and the estimated cucurbit acreage treated with the alternatives if
lindane is not available (table 109 and reference (295)).
Due to the increased costs of
alternative insecticides, control costs
to Georgia cucurbit growers are expected
to increase $140,940. Cucumber and
squash growers using methomyl in the
State will incur approximately 62 per-
cent ($86,880) and 29 percent ($54,300),
respectively, of the cost. The impact
to squash growers using endosulfan is
slight (table 112).
Based upon crop budgets cited
previously in this analysis (39).
(a) contract harvest and hauling,
(b) grading, packing, and brokerage
fees, and (c) container costs vary
directly with changes in yield. By
using the estimated mean yield per
planted acre for the lindane alterna-
tives identified in table 111, Georgia
cucumber and squash harvest costs per
acre should decline approximately $99
and $61, respectively. By multiplying
the estimated change in harvest costs
per acre by the number of acres treated,
total harvest costs are expected to
decline almost $396,000 and $245,000
($641,000 total on Georgia cucumbers and
squash, respectively) (table 113).
As identified in table 114, the
estimated total impacts to Georgia cu-
cumber and squash growers are expected
to be approximately $531,000 and
$1,871,000, respectively. In both
instances, the majority of the impact is
attributed to the reduction in gross
revenueA V
Summary
As shown in table 114, the esti-
mated total change in harvest costs
using lindane alternatives in Georgia is
approximately $640,600. The total
reduction in gross revenue to those
affected growers is $2.9 million. Yield
losses in Florida and South Carolina
are not expected to occur; therefore,
harvest costs and total gross revenue
should not change.
The unavailability of lindane to
cucurbit growers in Florida, Georgia,
and South Carolina should change insec-
ticide costs approximately $176,600.
Georgia cucumber and squash growers
will incur almost 80 percent (140,940/
176,607 = 0.80 or 80 percent) of the
total impact, with South Carolina fol-
lowing. No significant impact is seen
to Florida cucurbit growers (table 114).
40/ The total reduction In gross
revenue assumes maximum yield loss.
180
-------
a)
U)j
E U )U) U )
o C.)
4-. Cl)
4 - .
0 - .
U)
4 4
U) 000
Cl )
C. ) 4- .
U)
- . 4 . 4 14
d
0)
a) 4 $4
Q ) U)
# a) U)
- 0
4 U)Cl)
C l ),a) ,0 0
P c C.)
-
a) -
U) U)Q )
4-. 14
CUc C.)
U)
4. 4. U) #
C .0U)a)
2_ a)
H
C) U)
U) Ii U) . 4
4 C.) $4
U) U) U) 140)
a) -4.. 0 a)
. a) .1-. 4-4.
Cl)
U) 0 4
C.)
I
4 .
0)4)
a)
a) -.. OL
.-. a)
4-. C.)
H
a) a)C 4 U)
4) 1414
- 4 C.)
U) C l ) Cl) a)4
a) 4.4 . a) Cl)
C) 4- C.)
-4
C l )
a)
p 4
4,
4-.
C l )
U)
$4
U)
0
U)
- 4
Lb
C .,
- 4
C-
Cl,
N
-4
LI) LI)
C l ) N
ฉ Cl)
Lb
C )
Lb ฉ
C-,,
. I
Lb Lb
C )
U) C - ,,
Lb
N
C l;
Lb Lb
U)
$4
U)
4.
C
p Lb
I L I)
-S
14
I Lb
I lb
z
I Lb U)
I Cl)
I Lb 0
- 4
- 4
C)
Ii
Lb Lb Lb
Lb Lb Lb
C C
LI
0 ) U) U)
C .) C Lb
I I I
-, .__ -.
Lb
Lb
Lb
U)
C .)
N
Lb Lb Lb
Lb Lb Lb
Lb Lb Lb
Lb U)
C, C l )
Lb -4
Lb
CC
N
C
-4
U)
a).
I - .
0
C)
a)
U)
14
U)
0
I - i
4-.
-I
C
I - I
C.)
0
C.)
a)
Cl)
a)
Cl)
a)
14
Cl)
C)
a)
C l )
a)
a)
a)
a)
U)
a)
C )
14
C)
C l )
14
a)
a).
U)
- 4
CI )
C
C.)
4..
U)
C)
14
Cl)
a)
a)
a)
U)
a)
C.)
C l )
4-.
0
4- .
a)
C)
4 -
Cl)
a)
.4-
4..
U)
C .)
-4
-4
C)
-4
a)
Cl)
The total impact to growers in the
three States is estimated to be $2.4
million. Because data limitations will
not allow for measurement of the entire
impact, no estimate is provided for
other cucurbit-producing States.
Market and Consumer impacts
The use of alternative pesticides
to lindane will not significantly alter
U.S. cucurbit production levels. First,
only 12.2 percent of the fresh market
cucumber acreage in the United States is
treated with the chemical, and yield
loss forecasts were made on only 8.4
percent (8,000 acres out of 94,837 acres
of fresh market cucumbers and squash)
of the total U.S. acreage. Second, of
the 53,000 acres of cucurbits grown in
the three States, yield losses are only
predicted on 15.1 percent (8,000 acres)
of the total acreage. Although cucum-
ber yields, squash yields, and grower
revenue effects have been estimated for
Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina,
maximum losses in yield are assumed due
to the unavailability of data.
Cucurbit yield and grower revenue
effects associated with the potential
loss of lindane are uncertain. Individ-
ual nonlindane users (particularly In
Georgia) may experience short-run wind-
fall profits, but their magnitude cannot
be calculated. The costs of Increased
production will be absorbed by consumers
to the extent that costs are passed on
by the growers. Owing to data limita-
tions, a more precise estimate cannot
be made. It has been shown, however,
that yield losses will occur In certain
States with lindarie alternatives. Many
of these alternatives are more toxic
to use for the applicator, and are more
of a hazard to beneficial insects. Four
of the alternative chemicals are now
In various stages of the RPAR review.
Macroeconomic Impacts
The limited use of lindane for
picideworm and squash vine borer control
in Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina
is not expected to have any significant
macroeconomic effects.
Lb
C-
C)
I
-4
Lb
Lb
U)
U).
C,
Lb
I C )
IC)
-4
I I
I I
a)
I-p
C
-a
C S )
I-p
.2
a)
0
0
I-I
181
-------
Table 114.-Estimated total change in costs of production and revenues to growers in
Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina, 1976 771
Estimated Estimated Estimated total
Estimated total change total net change in
total change in in insecticide reduction in costs of
Site/Pest harvest costs costs using gross revenue production and
and using lindane lindane using lindane revenues
State alternative alternative alternative to growers
Dollars
Cucumbers (pickleworm)
Florida 0 ()96 0 ()96
Georgia ()395,600 (+)86,880 (๗)840,008 (+)531,288
South Carolina 0 (+)32,580 0 (+)32,580
Squash (pickleworm
and squash vine borer)
Florida 0 (+)3,183 0 (+)3,183
Georgia ()245,000 (+)54,060 (+)2,061,500 (+)1,870,560
Total (-)640,600 (+)176,607 (+)2,901,508 (+)2,437,515
1/ Based on data provided in tables 101 and 113.
Social and Community Impacts
This analysis does not contain an
assessment of the social or community
impacts that may occur if lindane is
canceled for use on cucurbits. Current
data limitations are too extensive to
permit the evaluation of such effects.
Available data indicate that such an
action will affect larger growers who
must rent beehives, rather than smaller
growers who can rely upon wild bees for
pollination. Such an action will also
reduce the profitability of cucurbit
production if increases in grower costs
cannot be passed on to other market
levels.
Limitations
This report was prepared under the
following limitations:
1) Up-todate State recommenda-
tions for lindane use on cucurbits were
not available from all of the cucurbit-
producing States. Many States have
recently obtained 24c registrations for
methomyl use on cucumbers and squash
to control pickleworm.
2) Current lindane use data were
not always available. In most instances,
2-year-old information was heavily
relied upon. Comparisons were often
made between this information and the
latest available lindane use data.
3) Lindane user and nonlindane
user information (for example, number
of farms, average farm size, number of
lindane applications) could not always
be substantiated. Where data from two
separate sources differed additional
data could not be located that would
verify either one of the two.
4) Little efficacy data (from
research and on-farm tests) are avail-
able for lindane and other chemical
alternatives. The data used have not
been substantiated with other independ-
ently conducted tests.
5) The analysis also lacks cur-
rent economic-related information (for
example, squash production data, price
elasticity of demand, current crop pro-
duction budgets from different States,
and value per unit of production).
6) In all instances, the State
mean yield per planted acre and lindane
mean yield per planted acre were assumed
182
-------
to be equal. Owing to data Limita-
tions, a precise estimate cannot be
determined.
7) The analysis relies heavily
upon information and opinion provided
by persons with expertise in cucurbit
production. It is assumed that the
information that was provided represents
the best available information on the
subject.
8) Secondary costs associated with
lindane alternatives could not always be
evaluated or quantified (for example,
economic loss to beekeeperS whose
hives are damaged by applications of
highly toxic insecticides, and leafminer
infestation resulting from the use of
methomyl).
9) A lack of quantitative infor-
mation on the cost_effectiveness of
lindane relative to the registered
alternative insecticides. Such data, if
available, would permit the evaluation
of any changes in cucurbit yield or
quantity associated with the cancel-
lation of lindane.
Summary
Lindane is registered for the con-
trol of many insects on cucurbits, but
of prime importance are the pickleworm
and squash vine borer. Of the I egis-
tered alternatives, carbaryl (Sevin) is
already pre RPARd. The others, endo-
sulfan, mevinphos (Phosdrine), methomyl
(Lannateฎ), and parathion, are all more
toxic materials (acute oral LD 50s);
they are more toxic to the applicators
and beneficial insects. The use of
mevlnphos can significantly Increase
costs. Yield losses (up to 25 pct) are
predicted in Georgia with the use of
alternatives.
REFERENCES
1. Adlerz, W. C. WAS Agricultural
Research Center, LeeSbUrg, Flor-
ida. PicklewOrm control on
cantaloupS and summer squash.
[ Unpublished report]; 1977.
2. Alabama. Auburn University, Coop-
erative Extension Servico. Alabama
insect control guide. Revisions
issued 2175; 1975.
3. Alrutz, J. Chapman Chemical Com-
pany, Memphis, Tennessee. Personal
communication, February 7, 1977.
4. American Turpentine Par mers As-
sociation, Valdosta, Georgia.
Personal communiCation, September
19, 1977.
5. American Wood_Preservers Associa-
tion. Wood Preservation Statistics
1972. WashingtOn, D.C.; 1973.
6 American Wood_Preservers Associa-
tion Wood Preservation Statistics
1974. WashingtOn, D.C.; 1975.
7. American Wood_Preservers Associa-
tion. Wood Preservation Statistics
1975. WashingtOn, D.C.; 1976.
8. Annual Planning Report. Michigan
Balance of State Prime Sponsor.
Volume I; 1978.
9. AR Chemical Corp. Guardian Lin-
dane. 20% (label) EPA Reg. No.
712241, Registration Division,
OPP, EPA; March 1978.
10. Arkansas, University of. Coopera-
tive Extension, Division of Agri-
culture and U.S. Department of
Agriculture, cooperating. Insec-
ticide recommendations for Arkan-
sas. Publication MP 644; 1975.
11. Arsenault, R. D. Koppers Co. Inc.,
Pittsburgh. Personal communica-
tion, January 4, 1977.
12. Baker, E. W., T. M. Evans, D. J.
Gould, W. B. Hull, and H. L.
Koegan. A manual of parasitic
mites of medical or economic
importance. Tech. Pubi. of the
National Pest Control Associa-
tion, Inc., New York; 1956.
13. Baker, W. L. Eastern forest In-
sects. USDA Forest Service Misc.
Pubi. 1175, 642 pp.; 1972.
14. Bode, L. E., B. J. Butler, and
D. E. Kuhiman. Planter box
seed treatments: Mixing and
application. American Society of
Agricultural Engineers; 1976.
183
-------
15. Boethel, D. J. Assistant Professor
of Entomology, Louisiana Agricul-
tural Experiment Station and
Cooperative Extension Service,
Shreveport. Personal communica-
tion, May 6, 1977.
16. Boethel, D. J. PersonalcommUfliCa
tion, February 2, 1978.
17. Boethel, D. J., J. T. Criswell, and
R. D. Erkenbary. Incidence of
hickory shuckworm in galls of
Phylloxera spp. on pecans. J.
Econ. Entomol. 67: 692693; 1974.
18. Borrer, D. J., D. M. Delong, and
C. A. Triplehorn. An introduc-
tion to the study of insects.
Holt, Rhineh art and Winston,
New York; 1976.
19. Bradley, C. W. B. Rodlenberry,
Inc., Cairo, Georgia. Personal
communication, January 13, 1978.
20. Brogdon , J. Extension Entomol-
ogist, University of Florida,
Gainesville. USDA. Personal
communication, May 19, 1978.
21. Brook, T. A. Pest Management
Specialist, Cooperative Extension
Service, Mississippi State, Miss-
issippi. Personal communication,
1977.
22. Browns, L. E., D. L. Dahisten,
F. M. Stephen, and J. M. Wenz.
Lindane registration should not
be retained: Lindane in fore s-
try...a continuing controversy.
USDA Forest Service General Tech.
Rep. PSW-14. Pacific Southwest
Forest and Range Experiment Sta-
tion, Berkeley, Calif.; 1976.
23. Buchanan, R. Buchanan Mills, Inc.,
Montgomery, Alabama. Personal
communiCation, March 30, 1977.
24. Calcote, V. R., and J. L. Bagent.
Phylloxera control sought. Pecan
South 1(5); September 1974.
25. California, University of. Califor-
nia Extension Service, College of
Agriculture. Common ticks affect-
ing dogs. OSA-230; March 1970.
26. California, University of. Cali-
fornia Extension Service. College
of Agriculture. Flea control in
and around the home. OSA-17 4
September 1974.
27. California, University of. Cali-
fornia Extension Service, College
of Agriculture. Pest and disease
control program for barley, wheat
and oats. Leaflet 228; 1975.
28. Calkins, C. 0., and V. M. Kirk.
Distribution and movement of
adult false wireworm in a wheat
field. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am.
66(3):527532 1973.
29. Calkins, C. 0., and V. M. Kirk.
Food preference of a false wire-
worm, Eleodes suturalis . Environ.
Entomol. 2(1):105-108; 1973.
30. Campbell, H. Christmas tree pro-
ducer, Wautoma, Wisconsin.
Personal communication with Kath-
erine McClelland, EPA, July 1977.
31. Canerday, T. D. Control of the
pickleworm on cucurbits. J. Econ.
Entomol. 60(6); December 1967.
32. Carlson, R. B., and L. F. Wilson.
Zimmerman pine moth. USDA Forest
Pest Leafi. 106. Washington,
D.C.; 1967.
33. Chapman. R. K. Status of insec-
ticide resistance in insects
attacking vegetable crops. Misc.
publ. Entomol. Soc. Am. 2: 27-39;
1960.
34. Chiang, A. C. FundamentalmethodS
of mathematical economics. Mc
Graw-Hill, Inc., New York; 1967.
35. Ciba-Geigy Corp. Spectracide -
Professional Home Pest Control
(label) EPA Reg. No 100477,
Registration Division, OPP, EPA.
Personal communication, March
1978.
36. Clements, R. W. Gum production -
An economic opportunity in the
South. Naval Stores Review
83(6); November-December 1973.
37. Clements, R W. Manual, Modern gum
naval stores methods. USDA For-
est Service. General Tech. Rep.
SE-7 Southeastern Forest Exper-
iment Station, Asheville, N C.;
December 1974.
38. Clements, R. W. USDAForestServ-
ice, Southeastern Forest Experi-
ment Station, Olustee, Florida.
Personal communication, July 21,
1977.
39. Clemson University. Cooperative
Extension Service Agricultural
chemicals handbook; November
1973.
184
-------
40. Clemson University. Department of
Agricultural Economics and Rural
Sociology. Selected vegetable
budgets; 1976.
41. Clemson University. Agricultural
chemicals handbook. OR-E; 1976.
42. Colorado State, University of. Co-
operative Extension Service Ex-
periment Station. Insect control
handbook for Colorado; 1977.
43. Colvin, J. w. Mississippi Super
Seeds to be available by 1980.
Forest Farmer 37(1); October
1977.
44. Continental Chemiste Corp. Moth
Cloud Tablets, (label) EPA Reg.
No. 495-8, Registration Division,
OPP, EPA; March 1978.
45. Cook, J. Forest Entomologist,
Mississippi Forestry Commission,
Jackson. Personal communication,
June 22, 1977.
46. Cook, w. Charleston, South Caro-
lina. personal communication,
May 15, 1978.
47. Cunningham. 0. UniversitY of Wis-
consin, Departmt flt of Natural
Resources, Madison. Personal
communication, September 20,
1977.
48. Cunningham, 0. University of Wis-
consin, Department of Natural
Resources, Madison. Personal
communicatiOn, April 5 and 28,
1978.
49. Davidson, R. H., and L. M. PeairS.
Insect pests of farm, garden and
orchard. John Wiley and Sons,
Inc., New York; 1966.
50. Dickson, A. Coordinator of Con-
tinuing Education in Forestry.
University of New Brunswick.
Formerly of Cornell University.
Fredericton, N.B., Canada.
Personal communiCation, August
31, 1977.
51. Dill, J. J., Co. Dill Llndane 20
EMS (label) EPA Reg. No. 690044,
Registration Division, EPA;
March 1978.
52. Doggett, C. A. Staff Forester, Pest
Control, North Carolina Depart-
ment of Natural and Economic
Resources, Division of Forest
Resources, Raleigh. Personal
communication, March 21, 1977.
53. Doiph, R. E., Jr. Supervisory
Entomologist, USDA Forest
Service, Region 6, Portland,
Oregon. Personal communication,
April 26, 1977.
54. Dow. Dui-sban House Insecticide
(label) EPA Reg. No. 464-343,
Registration Division, OPP, EPA;
March 1978.
55. Dow. Korland (label) EPA Reg.
No. 464208; March 1978.
56. Downing, C. L. Director, Forest
Insect and Disease Management,
USDA Forest Service, Region 2,
Lakewood, Colorado. Personal
communication, April 18, 1977.
57. Duckworth, W. D.,andT. D. Eich-
lin. A classification of the
Sesiidae of America north of
Mexico. (Lepidoptera:Sesiidae).
Calif. Dep. Food and Agric.,
Lab. Serv./Entomol. Occasional
paper No. 26, 54 pp.; 1977.
58. Eaton, C. B. Jeffrey pine beetle.
USDA Forest Pest Leaflet 11.
Washington, D.C.; 1956.
59. Ebeling, W. Urban entomology. Uni-
versity of California, Division
of Agricultural Science; 1975.
60. Eckenrode, C. J. NYS Agricultural
Experiment Station. The seed
corn maggot; 1977.
61. Eckenrode, C. J., N. L. Gauthier,
D. L. Danielson,andD. H. Webb.
Seed corn maggot: Seed treat-
ments and granule furrow appli-
cations for protecting beans and
sweet corn. J. Econ. Entomol.
66:, 11911194; 1973.
62. Eckenrode, C. J., G. E. Harman,
and D. H. Webb. Seed-borne
microorganisms stimulate seed
corn maggot egg laying. Nature
(London) 256: 487488; 1975.
63. Ellis, H. C. Extension Entomolo-
gist. Cooperative Extension Ser-
vice, Tif ton, Georgia. Personal
communication, May 9, 1977.
64. Englhardt, G. P. The North
America clear-wing moths of the
family Aegerlldae. Smithsonian
Institution, USNM Bull. 190,
222 pp.; 1956.
65. Evans, C. D.,R. W. Simunek, P. T.
Allen, and H D. Reinsel. Bal-
ance sheet of the farming sector.
185
-------
Agricultural Information Bull.
No. 376, USDA Economic Research
Service, Washington, D.C.; Sep-
tember 1974.
66. Evenden, J. C., and K. C. Wright.
Douglas-fir beetle. USDA Forest
Pest Leafi. 5. Washington, D.C.;
1955.
67. Ezell, D. Department of Horticul-
ture, Clemson University, Clem-
son, South Carolina. Personal
communication, May 15, 1978.
68. Federal Register. Volume 43,
No. 141; July 21, 1978.
69. Fertig, S. N. Biological Survey for
Lindane Assessment - completion
of lindane questionnaires. A
USDA Agricultural Research Ser-
vice Memorandum to State Liaison
Representatives; August 31, 1977.
70. Fitch, A. First and second report
of the noxious and beneficial and
other insects of the State of New
York, p 336; 1956.
71. Florida, University of. Agricul-
tural Extension Service. Insect
control guide; 1973.
72. Florida, University of. Agricul-
tural Extension Service. Insect
control guide; 1974.
73. Florida, University of. Agricul-
tural Extension Service. Insect
control guide; 1975.
74. Florida, University of. Agricul-
tural Extension Service. Insect
control guide; 1976.
75. Frelk, C. President, National
Christmas Tree Growers Associ-
ation, Wisconsin. Personal
communication with Katherine
McClelland, EPA, July 1977.
76. Georgia, University of. College of
Agriculture, Cooperative Exten-
sion Service. Insect pests of
Georgias outdoor recreational
areas and their control. Bull.
796; December 1976.
77. Georgia, University of. College of
Agriculture, Cooperative Exten-
sion Service. Selected vegetable
budgets; 1976.
78. Georgia, University of. College of
Agriculture, Cooperative Exten-
sion Service. Pecan insects and
diseases and their control; March
1977.
79. Georgia, University of. College of
Agriculture, Cooperative Exten-
sion Service. Insect control on
cucumbers, melons, squash and
pumpkins; 1977.
80. Gesell, S. G. Extension Entomolo-
gist, Pennsylvania State Univer-
sity, University Park. Personal
communicatiOn, November 2, 1977.
81. Gillis, J.L., Jr. Gum naval stores.
Forest Farmer, Manual Edition
34(5); March 1975.
82. Gimpel, W. F., Jr. Supervisor,
Plant Protection, Maryland
Department of Agriculture, An-
napolis. Personal communication
with E. David Thomas, November
25, 1977.
83. Glascock, H. R., Jr. Smallforest
wood: Who needs? Who pays? J.
Forestry; August: 75; 1977.
84. Godbee, J. R., Jr. Forest Entomol-
ogist, Georgia Forestry Commis-
sion, Macon. Communication to D.
J. Boundy, Hooker Specialty
Chemicals, Niagara Falls, N.Y.,
December 14, 1976.
85. Griffin, I I. P. Clemson University,
Clemson, South Carolina. Personal
communication, May 15, 1978.
86. GriffithS, I). V. Susceptibility of
plants to attack by wireworms,
Agriotes spp. Ann. Appl. Biol.
79(1):713; 1974.
87. Haessler, F. W. Land use and
forest practices, Union Camp,
Savannah, Georgia. Personal com-
munication with Bruce Grefrath,
March 9, 1977.
88. Hagman, C. Secretary-Treasurer,
National Christmas Tree Growers
Association. Personal communica-
tion with Katherine McClelland,
EPA, July 1977.
89. Hall, J. F. National Forest Prod-
ucts Association Response to
Rebuttable Presumption Against
Registration of Lindane. EPA
RPAR Rebuttal #44 (30000/10);
June 20, 1977.
90. Hansen, B. G. The Christmas tree
industry: A preliminary report.
American Christmas Tree Journal
18(3); August 1974.
91. Harding, J. Texas Agricultural
Experiment Station, Weslaco,
186
-------
Texas. Personal communication,
May 12, 1978.
92. Harding, J. Clemson University,
Clemson, South Carolina. Person-
al communication, May 15, 1978.
93. Harris, C. R. Seed corn maggot
resistance to aidrin in Illi-
nois. J. Econ. Entomol. 6:
957958; 1969.
94. Hawaii. Agricultural Reporting
Service, Statistics of Hawaiian
Agriculture, Honolulu, Hawaii;
June 1977.
95. Hofaker, T. H. Entomologist.
USDA Forest Service, Region 3,
Albuquerque, New Mexico. Per-
sonal communicatiOn, April 18,
1977.
96. Holloway, R. Pest Impact Assess-
ment Specialist. Texas Agricul-
tural Extension Service, College
Station. Personal communication
with G. M. McWhorter, April 25,
1978.
97. Holt, H. Indiana response to USDA
lindane questionnaire. Purdue
University, West Lafayette;
1977.
98. Hooker Chemicals and Plastics
Corporation. Response to the
Rebuttable Presumption Against
Registration and Continued Reg-
istration of pesticide Products
Containing Lindane. OPP 30000/10
Niagara Falls, New York; 1977.
99. Howe, W. L., W. J. Schroeder, and
K. G. Swenson. Seed treatment
for control of seed corn maggot
and seed decay organisms. N.Y.
Agric. Exp. Stn. Geneva Bull.
752; 1952.
100. Hughes, G. R. C. W. Averre,
and K. A. Sorensen. Agricul-
tural Extension Service, North
Carolina. Growing pickling cu-
cumbers in North Carolina; 1974.
101. Hunt, R. Forester. Department of
Forestry, State of California,
Sacramento. Personal commu nica-
tion, April 25, 1977.
102 Illinois Crop Reporting Service.
Corn planting practices, with
comparison. springfield; Sep-
tember 8, 1976.
103. Illinois, University of. Coop-
erative Extension Service.
Suggested insecticide guide -
Insect control for field crops.
Circ. 899; 1975.
104. Iowa State University. Bronze
birch borers and their control.
IC419 (Dec.); 1974.
105. Iowa State University. Summary of
Iowa insect pest control recom-
mendations for 1977, IC328
(Rev. Jan.); 1977.
106. Johnsey, R. Forest Entomologist,
Department of Natural Resources,
State of Washington, Olympia.
Personal communication, April 1,
1977.
107. Johnson, F. University of Florida,
Gainesville, Personal communi-
cation, May 23, 1978.
108. Johnson, J. L. Extension Econ-
omist-Farm Management. Coop-
erative Extension Service.
Estimated per-acre costs and
returns for pecan enterprise.
Athens, Georgia; November 1977.
109. Johnson, S. C. Son., Inc. Raid
Liquid Ant Roach Killer
(label) EPA Reg. No. 4822-110,
Registration Division, OPP,
EPA. Personal communication,
1978.
110. Johnston, H. R. Insect control.
Southern Lumberman; May 15,
1952.
111. Johnston, H. R., and R. J. Kowal.
New insecticides for the pre-
vention of attack by ambrosia
beetles on logs and lumber.
Southern Lumberman; December
15, 1949.
112. Johnston, H. R., and H. H. Lyon.
Insects that feed on trees and
shrubs. Comstock Pubi. Assoc.
Cornell University Press, 464
pp.; 1976.
113. Johnston, H. R., R. H. Smith, and
R. A. St. George. Prevention
and control of lyctus powder-
post beetle. Southern Lumber-
man; March 15, 1955.
114. Jones, B. F. Extension Entomolo-
gist, University of Arkansas,
Fayetteville. Personal com-
munication, May 9, 1977.
115. Kansas State University. Kansas
field crop insect control recom-
mendations; 1976.
187
-------
116. Keen, F. P. Insect enemies of wes-
tern forests. USDA Misc. Pubi.
No. 273. Washington, D.C.; 1952.
117. Keen, F. P. The western pine
beetle. USDA Forest Pest Leafi.
1. Washington, D.C.; 1966.
118. Kennedy, G. G. North Carolina
State University, School of
Agriculture and Life Sciences.
Lindane Use: Summary from Ques-
tionnaires. Raleigh; 1977.
119. Kentucky, University of. Coopera-
tive Extension Service. Control
of household insects. ENT-29
(July); 1975.
120. Kidd, W. E., Jr., J. H. Brown,
K. L. Carvell, F. C. Cech, and
W. L. MacDonald. Christmas
tree culture and marketing.
Pubi. 525, Cooperative Extension
Service, West Virginia Univer-
sity, Morgantown; July 1975.
121. Kline, L. N. Forest Entomologist,
Oregon Department of Forestry,
Salem. Personal communication,
April 20, 1977.
122. Koch, J., R. Tobias, D. Craul,
M. Koch, andJ. Serbin. Christ-
mas tree growers, Reading,
Pennsylvania. Personal com-
munication, June 27, 1977.
123. Koelling, M. R. Extension Spe-
cialist in Forestry, Michigan
State University, East Lansing.
Personal communication, Sep-
tember 28, 1977.
124. Kowal, R. J. Control of wood-
boring insects in green logs
and lumber. Forest Products
Research Society Proc. 3(469
479); 1949.
125. Kowal, R. J. Southern pine beetle.
USDA Forest Pest Leafi. 49.
Washington, D.C.; 1966.
126. Kulash, W. M., and R. J. Monroe.
Field tests for control of wire
worms attacking corn. J. Econ.
Entomol. 60(3): 1119; 1955.
127. Laut, J. G. Staff Forester-Insect
and Disease, Colorado State
Forest Service, Fort Collins.
Personal communication, April
21, 1977.
126. Leuschner, W. A., and W. A. Sel-
lers. Division of Forestry and
Wildlife Resources, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State
University, Blacksburg. The
economics of producing and
marketing Christmas trees.
FWS 175; 1975.
129. Livingston, R. L. Forest Ento-
mologist, Idaho Department of
Lands. Coeur dtAlene. Personal
communication, May 19, 1977.
130. Louisiana State University. LSU
Cooperative Extension Service.
Insect control guide, Bull.
1838; March 1976.
131. MacAloney, H. V. White pine wee-
vil. USDA Forest Pest Leafi.
21. Washington, D.C.; 1967.
132. Malls, A. Handbooks of pest con-
trol. The behavior, life, his-
tory, and control of household
pests. Gulf Research and Devel-
opment Company, MacNair-Dorland
Company, New York; 1963.
133. Mann, W. F., Jr. Status and
outlook of containerization in
the South. J. Forestry 75(9);
September 1977.
134. Maryland, University of. Recom-
mendations for ornamentals.
Bull. 258 (Rev.); 1977.
135. Mason, A. H., and J. S. Bowman.
New Hampshire response to USDA
lindane questionnaire, Durham;
July 8, 1977.
136. Massachusetts, University of. In-
sect and disease control guide
for trees and shrubs; 1975.
137. McElwee, H. L. Extension For-
ester, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University,
Cooperative Extension Service,
Blacksburg. Communication with
Dr. Norman E. Lau, July 18,
1977.
138. McElwee, R. L. Extension For-
ester, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University,
Blacksburg. Personal commun-
ication with Robert Reynolds,
EPA, January 12, 1978.
139. McGraw, D. Extension Horticul
turalist, Texas A M University,
College Station Personal com-
munication, May 12, 1978.
140. McGregor, M. USDA Forest Service,
State and Private Forestry,
Region 1, Missoula, Montana.
188
-------
Personal communication, April
20, 1977.
141. Mcllveen, G. Extension Entomol-
ogist, Texas A6M University,
College Station. Personal com-
munication, May 12, 1978.
142. McWhorter, M. Extension Entomol-
ogist, Texas A M University,
College Station. Personal com-
munication, May 12, 1978.
143. Merck Company, Inc. The Merck
Veterinary Manual, 4th Edition,
Rahway, New Jersey, 967 pp.;
1973.
144. Metcalf, C. L., W. P. Flint, and
R. L. Metcalf. Destructive and
useful insects, their habits
and control. McGraw-Hill Book
Company, New York; 1962.
145. Meyer, T., Inc. Meyers Lindane
Spray (label) EPA Reg. No.
8549, Registration Division.
app, EPA; March 1978.
146. Michigan State University. Coop-
erative Extension Service, East
Lansing. Wood damaging insects
in the home. Ext. Bull. E497;
April 1972.
147. Michigan State University. Coop-
erative Extension Service, East
Lansing. Management of biting
insects in recreation areas.
Ext. Bull. E708; May 1972.
148. Michigan State University. Coop-
erative Extension Service, East
Lansing. Insect control in
small grain crops. Ext. Bull.
E829; 1975.
149. Michigan State University., Coop-
erative Extension Service, East
Lansing. controlling pests of
trees and shrubs - Guide for
home gardens; (Rev. March1975).
150. Milen Industries. Response of
Millen Industries to Notice of
Rebuttable Presumption Against
Registration and Continued Reg-
Istratlon of pesticide Products
Containing Llndane; June 15,
1977.
151. Miller, R. L., and K. Roach. In-
sect pests of Christmas trees.
Ohio Cooperative Ext. Serv.
Bull. 819; 1967.
152. Minnesota, University of. Co-
operative Extension Service.
Insecticide suggestions to
control household insects in
1975. Bull. 389; 1975.
153. Minnesota, University of. Co-
operative Extension Service.
Insecticide suggestions to
control insect pests of field
crops in 1976. Bull. 388;
1976.
154. Mississippi State University.
Cooperative Extension Service.
Parasite control for cats and
dogs. Publ. 906; June 1975.
155. Mississippi State University.
Cooperative Extension Service.
Pecan insect and disease control
in commercial orchards; March
1976.
156. Missouri, University of. Insect
control recommendations, MX-3;
1976.
157. Montana State University. Co-
operative Extension Service,
Materials for insect control in
Montana. Bull. 1109; March
1975.
158. Montelaro, J., and D. Lander.
Extension Staff, Vegetable Crops
Specialists, University of Flor-
ida, Gainesville Personal
communication, May 17, 1978.
159. Morris, C. L. Insect and Disease
Investigations, Virginia Divi-
sion of Forestry, Charlottes-
ville Personal communication,
July 20, 1977.
160 Mountford, R Executive Secretary
of the Wisconsin Christmas Tree
Growers Association, Poinette,
Wisconsin. Personal communica-
tion with Katherine McClelland,
EPA, July 1977.
161. Nachod, L. H. Staff Forester,
Louisiana Forestry Commission,
Woodworth. Personal communi-
cation, March 11, 1977.
162. National Christmas Tree Associa-
tion Facts about Christmas
trees. Milwaukee, Wisconsin;
(Undated].
163. National Forest Products Associa-
tion (NFPA). The need for and
use of the gamma isomer of
benzene hexachioride in the
southern hardwood lumber
industry; April 15, 1977.
1 8 9
-------
164. National Hardwood Lumber Associa-
tion. An introduction to the
grading and measurement of hard-
wood lumber, Chicago; [ Undated].
165. Nebraska, University of. Insect
control guide for corn and sor-
ghum. Nebraska EC 761509; 1975.
166. Nebraska, University of. Insect
control guide for household and
pets. Nebraska EC 771506; 1975.
167. Nebraska, University of. Insect
control recommendations for
ornamental plants and turf.
Nebraska EC 771502; 1977.
168. Neilsen, D. G. and C. P. Balder
ston. Evidence for intergeneric
sex attraction among Aegenhids.
Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 66:
227228; 1973.
169. Neilsen, D. G., and C. P. Balder
ston. Evaluation of insecticides
for preventing reproduction of
pales and northern pine wee-
vils in pine stumps. J. Econ.
Entomol. 68:205206; 1975.
170. Neilsen, D. G.,andF. F. Purring-
ton. Flight periods of Podoses-
ia and comments on the monotypic
status of the genus. (Lepidop-
tera:Sesiidae). Ann. Entomol.
Soc. Am. 67: 959960; 1974.
171. Neiswander, R. B. Insect and mite
pests of trees and shrubs. Ohio
Agric. Res. and Dev. Center
Res. Bull. 983, 54 pp.; 1966.
172. New Jersey. Rutgers, the State
University of. Pesticides for
New Jersey; 1976.
173. New Mexico State University.
Cooperative Extension Service.
Control pecan insects, Las
Cruces; April 1975.
174. New Mexico State University.
Cooperative Extension Service.
Home and garden insect control
guide. 400-J-16; (Rev. March
1977).
175. Newsheim, 0. N. Extension Pest
Coordinator, Oklahoma State
University, Stiiwater. Per-
sonal communication, 1977.
176. New York. Cornell University,
Cooperative Extension Service.
New York State insecticide,
fungicide, and herbicide recom-
mendations; 1976.
177. New York. Cornell University,
Cooperative Extension Service.
New York State insecticide,
fungicide, and herbicide recom-
mendations; 1977.
178. North Carolina State University.
School of Agriculture and Life
Sciences. North Carolina agri-
cultural chemicals manuals;
1978.
179. North Dakota State University.
Cooperative Extension Service.
Insect control guide for safe
use of pesticides; 1977.
180. Northum, J. 1977. Arkansas For-
estry Commission, Little Rock.
Personal communication, March
21, 1977.
181. Oatman, E. B., and G. G. Ken-
nedy. Methomyl-induced outbreak
of Liriomyza sativae on tomato.
J. Econ. Entomol. 69(5); 1976.
182. OBrien, R. D. Insecticides, ac-
tion and metabolism. Academic
Press, New York; 1967.
183. Ohio State University. Coopera-
tive Extension Service. Pes-
ticides for pets. Bull. 512;
1975.
184. Ohio State University. Coopera-
tive Extension Service. In-
sects, pests of field crops.
Bull. 549; 1976.
185. Ohio State University. Coopera-
tive Extension Service. Insects
and mite control on ornamentals.
Bull. 549; 1977.
186. Oklahoma State University. Co-
operative Extension Service.
Oklahoma pest control recommen-
dations; 1975.
187. Oklahoma State University. Co-
operative Extension Service.
Agents handbook of insect,
plant disease and weed control;
1975.
188. Palpant, E. Forester, Forest
Resources Lab., Pennsylvania
State University, University
Park; August 3, 1977.
189. Paper Products, Inc. Response of
Paper Products Inc. to Notice of
Rebuttable Presumption Against
Registration and Continued Reg-
istration of Pesticide Products
Containing Lindane; June 1977.
190
-------
190. Pennsylvania State University.
Extension Service. University
Park. Agronomy guide; 1975.
191. Pennsylvania State University.
Extension Service. University
Park. Pest control sugges-
tions - Fungicides, insecti-
icides, miticides, nematicides,
selection, application, and
safety; 1977.
192. Perrin, R. K. North Carolina
State University at Raleigh,
Department of Economics and
Business, Raleigh. Personal
communication, October 12,
1977.
193. Pesticide Chemical News. Food
Chemical News, Inc. 4(46);
October 13, 1976.
194. Pet Food Institute. Annual Report
(N.Y.); 1976.
195. Pet Industry Distributors Associa-
tion. Chicago, Illinois, Annual
Report; 1977.
196. Pineapple Growers Association of
Hawaii. Use of lindane to con-
trol symphylans damaging pine-
apple roots; April 15, 1977.
197. Pineapple Growers Association of
Hawaii. Personal communication
with W. Takahasi, Pacific
Biomedical Research Center,
September 6, 1977.
198. Pineapple Growers Association of
Hawaii. Personal communication
between John J. Tolan, Executive
Vice President, PGAH, and
Mark Luttner, Economist, EPA,
September 19, 1977.
199. Pineapple Growers Association of
Hawaii. Benefit of the use
of 1 ,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane;
October 18, 1977.
200. Pineapple Research Institute.
Lindane-DD preplanting fumiga-
tion for symphylid control in
Kauai. Hawaiian Pineapple
Company, Field PRI No. 3332 -
[ Unpublished]; 1960.
201. Pineapple Research Institute.
Additional field trials of
lindane-DD praplant fumigation
for symphylid control in Dole
fields 332 and 5401 Lanai, PRI
No. 6.5.232 - [ Unpublished];
1962.
202. Pineapple Research Institute.
Lindane dosages in DD-lindane
preplant fumigation applied by
the plantation machinery in the
Hawaiian Pineapple Company
Field. PRI No. 6.5E38 -
[ Unpublished]; 1963.
203. Purdue University. Cooperative
Extension Service. How to con-
trol fleas. Publ. E-8; May 1969.
204. Purdue University. Cooperative
Extension Service. Powder-post
beetles. Pubi. E73; November
1972.
205. Purdue University. Cooperative
Extension Service. Insect pests
of shade trees and shrubs - A
guide for commercial nurserymen
and arborists E41 (Rev. April);
1975.
206. Purdue University. Cooperative
Extension Service. The bronze
birch borer and its control.
E50 (Rev. July); 197,6.
207. Purdue University. Cooperative
Extension Service. Entomology
E-Series Publications; 1977.
208. Purdue University. Cooperative
Extension Service. How to con-
trol ticks. Publication E11;
April 1977.
209. Remion, M. C. Forester-Ento-
mologist, South Carolina State
Commission of Forestry, Colum-
bia. Personal communication,
March 28, 1977.
210. Rottgering, B. H., R. Blomstrom,
R. W. Gustafson, and J. R.
Pierce. Lindane: A useful
approach to bark beetle control.
Is lindane - in forestry...a
continuing controversy. USDA
Forest Service. General Tech.
Report PSW-14 Pacific South-
west Forest and Range Experiment
Station, Berkeley, California;
1976.
211. Rudolph, V. J. Costs and returns
in Christmas tree management.
Research Report 155. Agric.
Exp. Stn., Michigan State
University, East Lansing; 1972.
212. Safeway Supermarket. Price of
household pesticides used for
control of carpet beetle/clothes
moths; March 1978.
191
-------
213. Sargent, C. S. Manual of the
trees of North America. Vol. 1,
2nd Edition, Dover Publications,
New York; 1949.
214. Savage, E. P. Household usage
of selected pesticides con-
taining lindane by usage site
for each EPA region; December
23, 1977.
215. Scholl, C. G. Assistant State
Entomologist, State of North
Dakota, Department of Agricul-
ture. Personal communication,
April 4, 1978.
216. School for Christmas Tree Growers.
Cornell University, Department
of Natural Resources, Ithaca,
New York; 1975.
217. Sechriest, R. E., H. B. Petty,
and D. E. Kuhlman. Toxicity of
selected insecticides to Clivina
impressifrons . J. Econ. Entomol.
64(1): 210213; 1971.
218. Sheads, B. Fairfax County For-
ester, Virginia Division of
Forestry, Charlottesville. Per-
sonal communication, December
28, 1977.
219. Short, D. Drywood termites, pow-
der-post beetles and other wood
infesting insects. Department
of Entomology and Nematology,
Institute of Food and Agricul-
tural Sciences, University of
Florida, Gainesville; [ Undated]
220. Simmons, G. A. Michigan response
to USDA Jindane use question-
naire. Michigan State Univer-
sity, East Lansing; 1977.
221. Smith, M. E. Executive Secretary,
Minnesota Christmas Tree
Growers Association, St. Paul.
Personal communication, October
24, 1977.
222. Smith, M. E. University of Min-
nesota, St. Paul. Personal
communication with Katherine
McClelland, EPA, October 24,
1977.
223. Smith, M. E. Minnesota Christmas
Tree Growers Association, St.
Paul. Personal communication,
April 5, 1978.
224. Smith, R. H. Red turpentine
beetle. USDA Forest Pest Leafi.
55. Washington, D.C.; 1961.
225. Smith, R. H., and R. E. Lee.
Black turpentine beetle. USDA
Forest Pest Leafl. 12. Washing-
ton, D.C.; 1967.
226. South Dakota State University.
Cooperative Extension Service.
South Dakota insecticide recom-
mendations. EC 683; (Rev. 1976).
227. Speers, C. F. Pales weevil. USDA
Forest Pest Leafi. 104; 1967.
228. Stacey, A. L. Extension Entomolo-
gist, Tifton, Georgia. Personal
communication, May 17, 1978.
229. Stapp, R. R. Transmittal of re-
port on lindane usage on carpet
beetles. Personal communica-
tion, August 24, 1977.
230. Stevens, R. E. Fir engraver
beetle. USDA Forest Pest Leafl.
13. Washington, D.C.; 1956.
231. Stone, T. Vice President of the
National Christmas Tree Growers
Association, West Olive, Michi-
gan. Personal communication
with Katherine McClelland, EPA,
July 1977.
232. Stripe, L. USDA Forest Service,
Region 4, Ogden, Utah. Personal
communication, April 18, 1977.
233. Strother, C. R. Extension Ento-
mologist, Auburn University,
Auburn, Alabama. Personal com-
munication, May 5, 1977.
234. Struble, G. R. California five
spined Ips. USDA Forest Pest
Leafl. 102, Washington, D.C.;
1966.
235. Struble, G. R., and F. C. John-
son. The mountain pine beetle.
USDA Forest Pest Leafl. 2.
Washington, D.C.; 1967.
236. Tannehil, J. Christmas tree grow-
er, Staunton, Virginia. Personal
communication, October 22, 1977.
237. Tpylor, G. Assistant Professor,
Oklahoma State University,
Stiiwater. Personal communi-
cation, December 5, 1977.
238. Tennessee, University of. Exten-
sion Service. You can control
household pests. Pubi. 349;
(Rev. June 1975).
239. Tennessee, University of. Exten-
sion Service. The flowering
dogwood in Tennessee. Publ.
589; (Rev. February 1976).
192
-------
240. Tennessee, University of. Exten-
sion Service. Insect control
for shrubs. EC 780; (Rev. May
1976).
241. Texas MM University. Extension
Service. Texas guide for
controlling household insects.
L-311; November 1972.
242. Texas MM University. Extension
Service. Suggestions for con-
trolling insects and diseases on
commercial pecans; March 1975.
243. Texas MM University. Extension
Service. Suggestions for con-
trolling insects and mites on
corn, sorghums, and small
grains. MP 339; 1976.
244. Texas MM University. Extension
Service. Shade tree borers
fact sheet L1004 (Rev. 475);
1976.
245. Texas MM University. Extension
Service. Texas guide for con-
trolling insects on commercial
vegetable crops; 1976.
246. Toxaphene Assessment Team. Bio-
logical estimates and partial
budgets related to the use of
toxaphene and its alternatives.
USDA/State/EPA. Washington,
D.C.; 1978.
247. Trefts, H. Regional Entomologist.
State of Maine Department of
Conservation. Greenville. Per-
sonal communication. February
21, 1978.
248. Turpin, F. T. Wireworrn attacking
corn in Indiana. Yield losses
and insecticidal control. [ Un-
published manuscript - Submitted
to J. Econ. Entomol.]
249. Twardus, D. C. Current status of
southern pine beetle threat.
Forest Farmer 36(2); November-
December 1976.
250. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Area employment and unemploy-
ment, 1975 annual averages.
PWEDA/AR/02, microfiche, Wash-
ington, D.C.; 1975.
251. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Monthly employment and unemploy-
ment by county, microfiche,
Washington, D.C.; 1976.
252. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Geographic profile of employment
and unemployment, 1975. Report
481, Washington, D.C.; 1977.
253. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
State and county employment and
unemployment, January - March
1977. PWEDA/MR-77OS. NTIS!
UB/C/144055, June, Springfield,
Virginia; 1977.
254. U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Keeping livestock healthy -
Yearbook of Agriculture. U.S.
Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C.; 1942.
255. U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Insects - Yearbook of Agricul-
ture. U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C.; 1952.
256. U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Controlling wood-destroying bee-
ties in buildings and furniture.
Leafi. No. 558; July 1973.
257. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
ARS and Forest Service. Con-
trolling household pests. Home
and Garden Bull. No. 96; (Rev.
March 1976).
258. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
ARS and Forest Service. Con-
trolling fleas. Home and Garden
Bull. No. 121; (Rev. June 1976).
259. US. Department of Agriculture,
ARS and Forest Service. Guide-
lines for the use of insecti-
cides. Agriculture Handbook No.
452, Washington, D.C.; 1974.
260. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
ARS. Control of insects
affecting livestock. NRP No.
20480, Washington, D.C.; 1976.
261. U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Response to lindano RPAR. Wash-
ington, D.C.; June 1977.
262. U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Agriculture statistics. U.S.
Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C.; 1977.
263. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
ERS. Quantities of pesticides
used by farmers in 1964. Agric.
Econ. Report No. 131, Washing-
ton, D.C.; 1968.
264. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
ERS. Quantities of pesticides
used by farmers in 1966. Agric.
Econ. Report No. 179, Washing-
ton, D.C.; 1970.
193
-------
265. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
ERS Farmers use of pesticides
in 1971 -- Quantities. Agric.
Econ. Report No. 252, Washing-
ton, D.C.; 1971.
266. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
ERS Evaluation of pesticide
supplies and demand for 1976.
Agric. Econ. Report No. 332,
Washington, D.C.; 1976.
267. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
ERS. Fruit situation. TFS-204,
Washington, D.C.; September
1977.
268. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
ERS. Fruit situation. TFS-205,
Washington, D.C.; November
1977.
269. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
ERS. Handbook of agricultural
charts. Agriculture Handbook
No. 524, Washington, D.C.;
1977.
270. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
ESCS. National pesticide usage
survey. Washington, D.C.
[ Unpublished]; 1976.
271. U.s. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service. Important trees
of eastern forests. Southern
Region, Atlanta; [ Undated].
272. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service. Eastern forest
insects. Misc. Pubi. No. 1175,
Washington, D.C.; 1972.
273. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service. The outlook for
timber in the United States.
Forest resource report No. 20,
Washington, D.C.; July 1974.
274. U.s. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service. Forest tree
seed orchards. A directory of
industry, State, and Federal
forest tree seed orchards in the
United States; October 1974.
275. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service. Strategy for
control of southern pine beetle
in the Southeastern United
States. USDA environmental
impact statement. Southeastern
Area, Atlanta; November 29,
1974.
276. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service. Products of
American forests. Misc. Pubi.
No. 861, Washington, D.C.; 1975.
277. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service. Silvics of for-
est trees of the United States.
Agriculture Handbook No. 271,
U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C.; 1975.
278. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service. Special forest
products for profit. Agric.
Inf. Bull. No. 278, U.S. Gov-
ernment Printing Office, Wash-
ington, D.C.; 1975.
279. U.s. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service. Forest insect
and disease conditions in the
United States. [ Unpublished];
1976.
280. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service. Demand and
price situation for forest
products, 1976. Washington,
D.C.; 1977.
281. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service. Forest Service
pesticide use report for FY 1976
and transition quarter. Wash-
ington, D.C.; 1977.
282. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
SRS. Agricultural statistics.
Washington, D.C.; 1970.
283. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
SRS. Agricultural statistics.
Washington, D.C.; 1977.
284. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
SRS. Cattle. LuGn 1 (277),
Washington, D.C.; 1977.
285. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
SRS. Hogs and pigs. MtAn
4(12 77), Washington, D.C.;
1977.
286. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
SRS. Noncitrus fruits and
nuts suppi., midyear suppi.
Washington, D.C.; July 1977.
287. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
SRS. Vegetables. 1977 Annual
summary acreage, yield, produc-
tion, and value. Vg 222 (77),
Washington, D.C.; 1977.
288. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Stabilization and Conservation
Service. The pesticide review
1975, Washington, D.C.; July
1976.
194
-------
289. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
State, and EPA. Cooperative
assessment of DBCP use in
agriculture; November 7, 1977.
290. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
State, and EPA. Biological
survey for lindane assessment.
Washington, D.C. [ Unpub-
lished]; 1977.
291. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
State, and EPA. National live-
stock meeting on pest control.
Beltsvile, Maryland; January
1719, 1978.
292. U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of the Census. 1972 Cen-
sus of manufacturers. Logging
camps, sawmills and planing
mills. MC72(2)24A, Washington,
D.C.; 1975.
293. U.S. Department of Commerce.
Statistical abstract of the U.S.
Washington, D.C.; 1975.
294. U.S. Department of Commerce.
Lumber production and mill
stocks. Series: MA24T(75)1.
Washington, D.C.; 1976.
295. U.S. Department of Commerce.
1974 Census of agriculture
summary and State data. Wash-
ington, D.C.; 1977.
296. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. EPA Compendium of Reg-
istered Pesticides -- ethylene
dibromide; 1 , 2 -dibromo-3-chloro-
propane; 1, 3-dichioropropene;
chioropicrin; 1, 2-dichioropro-
pane, 1, 3-dichioropropene and
related C 3 compounds; lindane.
pp. IIIE9.19.5, IIIC24,
IIID7.17.6, IIID22.122.3,
IIID21.121.4, HIL-2.12.12.
297 U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. National study of
agricultural government and
industrial uses of pesticides
conducted by the Human Effect
MonitorIng Branch, Technical
Services Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs; August
1976.
298. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Pesticide enforcement
policy statement No. 5. Federal
Register 41(184): 4114241147;
September 21, 1976.
299. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Office of Pesticide
Programs. BHC: Position Docu-
ment 1, 41 FR 46024 of October
19, 1976.
300 U S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Technical Services
Division, System Support Branch,
microfiche; October 1976.
301. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Technical Services
Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs. Cucurbits/pickle worm
and squash vine borers/lindane;
October 1976.
302. U S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Office of Pesticide Pro-
grams. Lindane: Position Docu-
ment 1. Washington, D.C.; 1977.
303. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Rebuttable Presumption
Against Registration and Contin-
ued Registration of Pesticide
Products Containing Lindane.
Federal Register 42(33): 9816
9823; February 17, 1977.
304. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Ecological Effects
Branch, CED, Office of Pesticide
Programs. State recommenda-
tions for chemical control of
carpet beetles, of products
registered with EPA; August 24,
1977.
305. U S Environmental Protection
Agency. Ecological Effects
Branch, CED, Office of Pesticide
Programs. State recommendations
for chemical control of clothes
moths, of products registered
with EPA; August 24, 1977.
306. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. EPA Price Lists; 1978..
307. Van Waters Rogers. NAMCO 20%
Lindane in Oil (label) EPA Reg.
No. 550112, Registration Divi-
sion, OPP, EPA; March 1978.
308. Vermont, University of. Insect
control in home grounds - trees
and shrubs. Brieflet 1182;
(Rev. 277, 1977).
309. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University, Cooperative
Extension Service. Virginia
Insect control guide. Control
Series 141; 1976.
195
-------
310. Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State University, Coop-
erative Extension Service.
Virginia pest management guide -
chemical control of insects,
plant diseases, weeds. P-M
Series 1; January 1977.
311. Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State University, Coop-
erative Extension Service.
Wood-infesting beetles in the
homes. Publication 431; January
1977.
312. Wagner, F. G. Experience with
stain, decay and insects in
mid-south log storage yards.
Southern Lumberman 232(2874);
1978.
313. Waites, R. E., and D. H. Babeck.
Evaluation of insecticides for
control of the pickleworm on
summer squash. J. Econ.
Entomol. 61(4); August 1968.
314. Wallerman, E. H. The locust
borer. USDA Forest Service,
Forest Pest Leafi. No. 71; (Rev.
June 1970).
315. Waistad, J. D., J. B. Hart, Jr.,
and S. C. Cade. Carbofuran -
Clay root dip protects loblolly
pine seedling from debarking
weevils. 3. Econ. Entomol. 66;
1973.
316. Washington State University.
Cooperative Extension Service.
Chemical insect control hand-
book; 1975.
317. Washington State University.
Chemical insect control hand-
book; 1977.
318. Weicherding, P. J., and M. E.
Smith. Extension Foresters.
Minnesota response to USDA
]indane use questionnaire;
1977.
319. Weir, R. Director, Cooperative
Tree Improvement Program,
North Carolina State tJni-
versity at Raleigh. Personal
communication, September 23,
1977.
320. Western Extension Marketing Com-
mittee, Task Force on Price and
Demand Analyses. A handbook on
the elasticity of demand for
agricultural products in the
United States. WEMC Publication
No. 4; July 1967.
321. Williams, G. Naval Stores Spe-
cialist, Georgia Forestry Com-
mission, Helena. Personal
communication, 1977.
322. Williams, G. Naval Stores Spe-
cialist, Georgia Forestry Com-
mission, Helena. Personal
communication, July 25, 1977.
323. Williams, L. H. Recognition and
control of wood-destroying
beetles. Pest Control 41(2);
February 1973.
324. Williams, L. H. Identifying wood-
destroying beetles. Pest Control
41(5); May 1973.
325. Wilson, L. F. Pruning and litter
removal of soil scraping con-
trols. The pine root collar
weevil in young red pine planta-
tions. J. Environ. Entomol.
2(325328); June 1973.
326. Wilson, L. F. Michigan State Uni-
versity, Department of Forestry,
East Lansing. Personal communi-
cation, January 9, 1978.
327. Wilson, L. F., and V. 3. Rudolph.
Early basal pruning controls
some Christmas tree pests.
Am. Christmas Tree 3 14(3);
August 1970.
328. Wilson, L. F.,andD. C. Schmiege.
Pine root collar weevil. USDA
Forest Pest Leafi. No. 39, Wash-
ington, D.C.; 1965.
329. Winkworth, R. C. Director, North
Carolina Department of Natural
Resources and Community Develop-
ment, Division of Forest Resour-
ces Response to Rebuttable
Presumption Against Registration
of Lindane. EPA RPAR Rebuttal
No. 59 (30000/10); September 6,
1977.
330. WisconsIn, University of. Cooper-
ative Extension Service. Pest
control in forage and small
grains, weeds-insectsdiseases.
A 181; 1976.
331. Wisconsin Pesticide Impact Assess-
ment Team. Lindane/BHC Report.
Response to USDA lindane use
questionnaire; 1971.
196
U.B. OV WT PRXNTIbIG OFlIcE 1 8 O 726835/14 4
------- |