PRELIMINARY BENEFIT ANALYSIS
OF CHLOROBENZILATE
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS BRANCH
CRITERIA AND EVALUATION DIVISION
OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS
.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C.
JANUARY 1977
-------
Preliminary Benefit Analysis
of Chlorobenzilate
Mark A. Luttner
Economist
Economic Analysis Branch
Criteria and Evaluation Division
Office of Pesticide Programs
.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.
January 1977
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author gratefully acknowledges the assistance of the many State
entomologists and extension personnel whose names are referenced in the
report. Their contributions were very helpful to the development of the
analysis.
Dr. Harold W. Gaede, Jr., and Mr. Gary L. Ballard, staff economists
of the Economic Analysis Branch, reviewed draft reports and provided comments
on this analysis.
This report was prepared under the supervision of Dr. Arnold L. Aspelin,
Chief, Economic Analysis Branch, Criteria and Evaluation Division, and under
the general direction of Mr. Homer K. Hall, Project Manager for Chloroben-
zilate, Office of Special Pesticide Review.
The author expresses sincere gratitude for all of these contributions.
Mark A. Luttner
-------
PRELIMINARY BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF CHLOROBENZILATE
CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
A. PURPOSE OF ANALYSIS 1
B. SCOPE AND APPROACH 1
C. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 2
II. GENERAL PRODUCTION AND USE PATTERNS
A. PRODUCTION, IMPORTS AND EXPORTS 10
B. QUANTITIES USED BY SITE 13
C. EPA REGISTERED USES 15
III. BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF CHLOROBENZILATE USE ON CITRUS
A. CURRENT USE \NALYSIS 17
1. EPA Registrations of Chlorobenzilate and
Alternatives 17
2. Recommendations for Use of Chlorobenzilate
and Alternatives 17
a. State Recommendations 17
b. Federal Recommendations 21
3. Use of Chlorobenzilate and Alternatives .... 21
B. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF CHLOROBENZILATE AND
ALTERNATIVES
1. Pest Infestation and Damage 34
2. Comparative Performance Evaluation 41
a. Comparative Efficacy 41
b. Comparative Yield/Quality 45
c. Comparative Costs 45
C. ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
1. Profile of Impacted Areas 47
2. User Impacts 48
3. Market Impacts 57
4. Consumer Impacts 57
5. Social/Community Impacts 57
6. Macroeconomic Impacts 57
7. Limitations of Analysis . 58
-------
Page
IV. BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF CHLOROBENZILATE IN OTHER USES
A. INTRODUCTION 60
B. COTTON 61
1. Chlorobenzilate Use Levels 61
2. Chlorobenzilate Alternatives for Use on Cotton . 61
3. Impact Analysis: Use of Alternatives on Cotton 62
C. FRUITS, NUTS AND OTHER CROPS 66
1. Chlorobenzilate Use Levels 66
2. Impact Analysis: Use of Alternatives on
Fruits, Nuts and Other Crops 66
D. NURSERY AND GREENHOUSE CROPS 70
E. MARKET AND CONSUMER IMPACTS 71
REFERENCES 73
APPENDICES
78
-------
I.
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
A. PURPOSE OF ANALYSIS
B. SCOPE AND APPROACH
C. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
-------
I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
PURPOSE OF ANALYSIS
This report is a preliminary benefit analysis of the miticide
chlorobenzilate. This analysis is intended as in input to the risk/benefit
decision by the Administrator of EPA as to the continued registration of
chlorobenzilate under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act, as amended (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 135 et seq.).
A notice of rebuttable presumption against registration (RPAR) of
chlorobenzilate was issued in the Federal Register, Vol. 41, No. 103
(Appendix IA) on May 26, 1976. If the data on human health and/or environ-
mental risks cited in the RPAR are not successfully rebutted and risks
appear to outweigh benefits, the Administrator may announce intent to
cancel pesticidal registrations of chlorobenzilate under FIFRA. This report
analyzes the benefits of the continued use of the pesticide in question, as
mandated by FIFRA. As indicated by its title, this report is preliminary,
subject to further analysis and revision during the RPAR process including:
interagency review, a public comment period, and public hearings (if held).
SCOPE AND APPROACH
This report is a use-by-use economic impact analysis of the principal
uses of chlorobenzilate. The information presented in this report corresponds
to a specification of requirements for an economic impact analysis that
appeared in the Federal Register, Vol. 41, No. 102 (Appendix IB) on May 25,
1976. The Notice requires that the preliminary analysis identify the major
and minor uses of the pesticide, estimate the quantities utilized, identify
the registered alternatives and their availability, determine the change
in pesticide costs associated with the use of alternatives, and evaluate the
regulatory impact upon crop production and retail prices. This analysis
focuses on the leading uses of chlorobenzilate in terms of active ingredient
applied per year. The major site/pest combinations involved include citrus,
cottci, fruits, and nuts infested by numerous mite species.
The general approach taken in this analysis is to evaluate impacts of
shifting to alternatives at the user level (e.g., increased cost of pest
control to citrus growers) in affected areas and then project resulting
impacts at the commodity and consumer levels. Economic impacts on users are
considered by state/region, and at the U.S. level. Impacts are estimated
on a per-acre and a per-farm basis, 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 not investigated in detail because of the
generally low level of impacts upon users and consumers indicated in the
economic impact analysis.
-1-
-------
A basic assumption underlying the preliminary benefit analysis is that
the RPAR compound (chlorobenzilate) and its alternatives have comparable
efficacy and performance at recommended rates of application. The alter-
natives considered in the analysis were identified by state extension
personnel as pesticides most likely to be adopted for use by growers now
treating with chlorobenzilate. All alternatives used for the site/pest
combinations in the analysis are currently registered by EPA and are
included in the pest control recommendations of the major crop producing
states.
The time frame of this analysis is 1975, the most recent year for
which data are available for all of the crops analyzed. The major portion
of the analysis (citrus) relies heavily upon a 1975 pesticide use survey
completed for EPA by Doane Agricultural Service, Inc. (Doane, 1976) and
upon information obtained from extension personnel and current state
pesticide use guides.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Citrus
The most important use of chlorobenzilate is for control of mites on
citrus crops. In 1975, this use accounted for approximately 996,000 pounds
active ingredient, or 89.2% of all chlorobenzilate used in domestic agri-
culture (Figure 1). Of this total, 920,000 pounds (92.4%) was applied to
the three major citrus crops (oranges, lemons, grapefruit) with the
remainder applied to citrus varieties of lesser importance (limes, tangelos,
tangerines, etc).
Chlorobenzilate use on citrus is most heavily concentrated in Florida
(80.8% of citrus total) with a significant amount used in Texas (10.2%).
Arizona and California combined accounted for only 1.4% of the chloroben-
zilate used on citrus in 1975.
About 50 percent of U.S. citrus acreage is treated with chlorobenzilate
(more than 620,000 acres and 11,400 farms in 1975). Other miticides are
also widely used on citrus. In 1975, chlorobenzilate accounted for about
one-third of total acre-applications of miticides on citrus in the U.S.
Florida citrus growers make the most intensive use of chlorobenzilate as
two-thirds of citrus acreage is treated (80 percent of farms). Texas follows
with about half of citrus acreage treated with chlorobenzilate, while little
acreage is treated in California (1.6 percent in 1975).
Nationally, the cancellation of chlorobenzilate would increase annual
citrus production costs on affected acreage by $2.92 per acre, $159 per
average farm, or $1.8 million for the U.S. On a relative basis, grower
production costs would increase in the range of 0 to 1.2 percent for
citrus.
-2-
-------
Muuhk 1.
SUMMARY OF PREUM INAKY HENEKIT ANALYSIS
i:ui.okoh:nzu.atk usi: on citrus
A. USE:
B. MAJOR PESTS CONTROLLED:
C. ALTERNATIVES:
Major registered chemicals:
State/Pederal recommendationa:
Non-chemical controls:
Efficacy of alternatives:
Comparative performance:
Comparative costs:
Conclusion:
D. EXTENT OF USE (registered uses):
Active ingredient basis:
Units treated basis (1975):
n. Economic IMPACTS:
User:
Consumer;
Macroeconomics
p. LIMITATIONS OF ANALYSIS:
G. SOCIAL/COMMUNITY IMPARTS!
H. PKlNCtl'Al. ANALYST AND DATE I
Chlorobenzllate use on citrus (primarily lemons, oranges, grapefruit, with limited uao on limes, tuugclos,
tangerines and kumquats).
The citrus bud mite, citrus rod mite, citrus rust mite, flat mite, inciflc spider mite, six-spotted rnlto,
Texas citrus mile, Yuma spicier mite.
RPAR: none
Non-RPAR pesticides: carbophenothlon, dlcofol, ethlon, fenbutatln, oil, propargite( sulfur.
Number of alternatives recommended: Arizona, 7; California, 1; Florida, 14; Texas, 9; USDA, 7.
Predacious mites and Insects arc encouraged in citrus IPM programs.
Certain alternatives adequate for mito control; organophosphate alternatives may create outbreaks of Insect
pests (e.g., snow scale) by reducing population?) of beneficial predators and parasites.
Chlorobenzllate docs not Injure citrus fruit or trees; some alternatives are phytotoxic if applied im-
properly. No data available to quantify comparative effects upon citrus yield or quality.
pesticide
chlorobenzllate and combinations
carbophenothlon and combinations
dlcofol and combinations
ethion and combinations
fenbutatln and combinations
oil
propargite
sulfur
expendlture/acre-treatment (average)
7.64
11.78
14.74
13.92
30.00
8.65
17.00
2.56
Several non-RPAR miticides registered and recommended for use on citrus. Alternatives most limited for
citrus bud mite on California lemons (one alternative). In general, alternatives provide good control with
minimal negative impacts upon product yield, product quality and tree vitality. Certain alternatives
may create serious negative effects upon citrus IPM programs. Problems of alternative availability
should be minimal given the relatively small increase in demand for each alternative associated with
the potential loss of chlorobenzllate.
state
active ingredient
(1975)
(pounds) (percent)
lemons, oranges.
grapefruit:
Arizona
6,000
0.6
California
7,500
0.8
Florida
805,000
80.8
Texas
101,500
10.2
Sub-total
920,000
92.4
other citrus crops:
U.S.
75,700
7.6
Total
995,700
100.0
acre-treatments
growers
using
state
number pet
number
pet
chlorobenzllate:
Arizona
3,000 0.1
207
1.0
California
5,000 0.2
315
1.5
Florida
644,000 29.7
8,315
40.5
Texas
58,000 2.7
2,584
12.6
U.S.
710,000 32.7
11,421
55.6
alternatives
U.S.
1,459,000 67.3
9,115
44.4
all mltlcides
U.S.
2,169,000 100.0
20,536
100.0
state
"•OP
average cost
Increase
per acre-treatment
per farm
Florida
lemons
$ 4.86
$523
oranges
1.68
166
grapefruit
3.84
154
Texas
oranges
10.00
212
grapefruit
1.22
29
California
lemons
6.80
108
Arizona
lemons
0.00
0
User impacts for
"other citrus"
category cannot be determined due to lack of data
i on grower
Clven a total citrus production cost increase of $1,812 million, average annual per capita cost effect is
$0.0085 if all costs aro passed to consumers with no changes In citrus output levels.
Given the history of variable returns in citrus production, cost Increases absorbed at grower level may
discourage long term continued use of Home acreage for citrus production. Cost Increases may contribute
to regional shifts In citrus production (only if growers are unable to pass on production cost increases,
thereby reducing economic Incentive in high-cost production areas).
Analysis assumes comparable levels of mite control using chlorobenzllate alternatives at specified appli-
cation rates; assumes comparable citrus yield and qu.illLy between chlorohcnzllaLe and alternatives with
an equal number of acre-treatments. Although current recommendations suggest these arc reasonable assump-
tions they have not been confirmed by current data and analyses.
Certain alternatives are pesticides of greater toxicity than chlorobenzllate; use of these alternatives will
increase applicator bastards. Should the estimated cotit Increases cause regional shifts in production, dis-
location of citrus workers and other Input suppliers may result (this la unlikely given the relatively small
impact associated wilh the potent ial lost) of chlorobenzllate).
Mark A. Luttner, Economist
Economic Analysis Branch
Criteria and Evaluation Division
Off tee of Pesticide I'rograms
U.S. Environments! Protection Agency
comber 1 y 11>
-V
-------
The loss of chlorobenzilate as a citrus miticide would have varying
regional cost effects. In Florida, the cost of mite control without
chlorobenzilate would increase by $1,366 million per year. Florida
lemon growers presently using chlorobenzilate would experience pesticide
cost increases of $523 per farm, with lesser increases projected for
Florida orange and grapefruit growers.
In Texas, the cost of mite control on oranges and grapefruit would
increase by approximately $274,000 per year. Texas growers of oranges
and grapefruit would experience respective average cost increases of $212
and $29 per farm. In California, mite control costs on lemons would
increase by approximately $34,000, or $108 per grower now using chloroben-
zilate. Cost effects in Arizona would be negligible due to the small
amount of chlorobenzilate used in that state.
Consumer impacts associated with cancellation of chlorobenzilate are
projected to be minimal based on available data. Since the growers affected
by such an action represent a significant portion of U.S. citrus growers,
a large portion of the increased production costs may be passed on to final
domestic consumers. If all of the projected increase in citrus pesticide
costs ($1,812 million per year) are passed on to domestic consumers, a
per capita consumer impact of $0.0085 per year is anticipated (provided
citrus yields remain unchanged).
The loss of chlorobenzilate as a citrus miticide would lead to
problems in two areas: 1) possible negative environmental impacts asso-
ciated with the use of alternative miticides, and 2) a possible lack of
effective alternatives for certain mite species. Chlorobenzilate is
specific to mites and does not significantly alter other pest-predator
relationships. Certain alternatives for chlorobenzilate (particularly
organophosphates) may reduce populations of beneficial insects, thereby
necessitating additional chemical treatments to control citrus pests.
Additionally, some alternatives may injure citrus trees and/or fruit
under certain circumstances. However, it should be emphasized that a
number of the alternatives are currently being used for mite control on
citrus crops, with apparently satisfactory results.
Cotton
In 1975, approximately 19,500 pounds chlorobenzilate active ingredient
were applied to 39,000 acres of cotton, which represents only 0.41% of U.S.
cotton acreage planted (Figure 2). A regulatory action to cancel chloro-
benzilate use on cotton would have insignificant impacts upon growers and
consumers due to the small number of acres involved, the largenurrijgj^f
registered alternatives, and the minor cost increase ($3.2l^pSracrel^^
Total cotton miticide cost effects are estimated at $125,000 per year; if
passed on to final domestic consumers, a per capita impact of $0.0006 per
year would result.
-4-
-------
FIGURE 2.
SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY BENEFIT ANALYSIS
CHLOROBENZILATE USE ON COTTON
•SE:
AJOR PESTS CONTROLLED:
1TERNATIVES:
Major registered chemica 1 s:
State/Federal recommendations:
Nop-chemical roni-mlc-
Efficacy of alternatives;
.Comgarative perform,inrpr
Comparative costs:
Cone J
us ion:
fTENT OF USE:
Active Ingredient basis:
Units treated basis:
tONOMIc IMPACTS:
User:
umer:
Macroeconnmi" r •
SClAL/COMMUNITY IMPACTS:
Imitations of analyses:
^NCIPAl ANALYST AND DATE:
Chlorobenzllate use on cotton.
Several species of spider mites Infesting cotton (e.g., Pacific,
Schoene, strawberry, two-spatted).
RPAR pesticides: none /
Non-RPAR pesticides: aldicarb, carbophenothion, demeton, dicofol,
dicrotophos, disulfoton, ethion, methidathion, methyl parathion,
monocrotophos, parathion, phorate, propargite, sulfur.
USDA recommends the following alternative pesticides for mice control
on cotton: aldicarb, carbophenothion, demeton, dicofol, dicrotophos,
disulfoton, ethion, methyl parathion, monocrotophos, parathion, phorate,
sulfur. In general, the insect control guides of the U.S. cotton states
include some, but not all, of the miticides recommended by USDA.
Not investigated.
Not investigated.
Not investigated,
?er acre cost of alternatives relative to chlorobenzilate range from a
decrease of $4.74 to an increase of $7.19.
Numerous non-RPAR pesticides are both registered and recorarr-,ended for use
as alternatives to chlorobenzllate. Problems of alternative availability
should be minimal given the small increase in demand for each alternative
that would be related to the potential loss of clilorobe/izilate.
1975: 39,000 pounds active ingredient.
1975: 39,000 acres.
Cost increases for miticides estimated at $125,000 per year. $3.-1
acre now treated with chlorobenzllate.
Should cotton cost increase be passed on to domestic final consumers
(213 million), average annual per capita cost effect would be
Cotton acreage treated with chlorobenzllate represents 0.41., of U.S.
cotton acres. No impacts are indicated due to small number o acres
involved ard insignific int cost effect/acre.
Not investigated.
An in-depth analysis was not conducted.
Mark A. Luttner
Economic Analysis Branch
Criteria and Evaluation Division
Office of Pesticide Programs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
December 1976
-5-
-------
Fruits, Nuts and Miscellaneous Crops
Approximately 81,000 pounds chlorobenzilate active ingredient were
applied to 24,000 acres of fruits, nuts, and other crops in 1975. As the
data in Figure 3 indicate, the use of chlorobenzilate alternatives on
these crops would create a pesticide cost increase estimated at $69,000
per year, or $2.88 per acre now treated with chlorobenzilate. Numerous
alternatives are registered for use on the crops in this category; however,
it is conceivable that some of the crops in this large category may have
limited alternatives for certain pests. Should the projected cost increase
be completely passed on to final consumers of crops in this category, an
average annual per capita cost effect of $0.0003 is projected, provided
yields remain unchanged.
All Uses—Overall Impacts
The major impact of cancelling pesticidal uses of chlorobenzilate
would be increased costs of producing citrus fruit on about half of U.S.
acreage (primarily in Florida and Texas). On the average, citrus pro-
duction costs on affected acreage would increase $2.92 per acre (up to
1.2 percent). This Impact would total $1.8 million per year or $0.0085
per capita if passed on totally to consumers (Figure 4).
Very minor cost impacts would occur on cotton, fruits, nuts and other
miscellaneous crops (where only about 1 percent of U.S. acreage of such
crops is treated with chlorobenzilate).
The total dollar impact of cancelling all uses of chlorobenzilate is
projected to be $2,006 million or $0.01 per capita per year during the
initial years of a cancellation fully in effect, with no leftover stocks
in use. These impacts would be further expected to decline to negligible
levels after about 7 years. A straight line projection of total impacts
over 7 years is about $7.02 million or 3.3 cents per capita.
The 7 year time horizon is utilized for the long term projection
because new pesticide active ingredients take about that length of time
in research and development from the r.ime of discovery. It would be
expected that new products discovered after the effective date of
cancellation, together with existing products and new ones already discovered
coming to market would reduce economic impacts to negligible levels after
about 7 years.
-6-
-------
KJlllMK 3.
SUMMARY OF I'UKI,IMINAkY HIINKKTT ANALYSIS
CHLOKonKN/.l IJVTK USK ON FRUITS, NUTS AND MI S('KLl.ANKOUS CROPS
USE: Chlorobenzilutc unc on fiuits (nppleu, cherries^ pcarw), nuts (ultuonda, walnuts) , melorvn and ornamentals.
MAJOR IMiSTS CONTROLLED: Numerous mite spccieH (e.g., Europe/in red mites, brown mites) infesting those crops.
c- ALTERNATIVES:
.Major registered chomlcals: RPAR pesticides: none
Non-RPAR pesticides: carbophenothion, cyhexatin, demeton, diazlnon, dicofol,, dicrotophos, dinocap, ethion,
fenbutatin-oxide, monocrotophoa, parathion, proparpite, tetradifon.
State/Federal rocoronumdations: USDA recommends the following pesticides for mite control on the following specified crops:
apples: demeton, dicofol, ethion, oil (superior dormant), propargite, tetradifon;
pears: demeton, dicofol, ethion, oil (superior dormant) & lime sulphur, tetradifon, oil (superior dormant);
cantaloupe: carbophenothion, dicofol, parathion, tetradifon.
California recommends the following pesticides for mite control on the following crops;
melons: carbophenothion, demeton» dicofol, ethion;
almonds: carbophenothion, oil (supreme or superior), ethion;
walnuts: carbophenothion, dicofol, propargite, tetradifon.
Non-chemical controls: Not investigated.
Efficacy of alternatives: Not investigated.
Not Investigated.
Per acre cost of alternatives for walnuts relative to chlorobenzllate range from a decrease of $1.96 to
an Increase of $6.04; for applesf costs of alternatives per acre range from a $0.58 decrease to a $1.46
increase.
Numerous non-RPAR pesticides are both registered and recommended for use as alternates to chlorobenzllate
for the limited number of crops reviewed in the broad USDA-defined category of "other fruits and nuts".
However, it is conceivable that gome of the crops in this large category may have few or no chlorobenzllate
alternates. Problems of alternate availability should be minimal given the small Increase in demand for
each alternate that would be related to the potential loss of chlorobenzllate.
1975: 81,000 pounds of active ingredient applied to the USDA category "other fruits and nuts".
1975: 24,000 acres of crops in the USDA category "other fruits and nuts".
Cost increases for miticldes estimated at $69,000 per year. $2.88 per acre now treated with chloroben-
zllate.
Should mlticide cost Increase be completely passed on to domestic final consumers (213 million) of crops
in this category, average annual per capita cost effect would be $0.0003.
Little or no impact indicated due to numerous alternatives and minor use of chlorobenzllate on these crops.
However, it is conceivable that gome crops may have sizeable economic impacts if th-re are no registered
alternatives which are efficacious.
Not investigated.
An in-depth analysis was not conducted.
Mark A. Luttner
Economic Analysed Branch
Criteria and Evaluation Division
Office of Pesticide Programs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
December 1976
Comparative performance:
Comparative costs:
Conclusion:
D* extent of USE:
Active ingredient basis:
Units treated basis:
E* economic impacts:
User:
Consumer:
Macroeconomic:
P* SOCIAL/COMMUNITY IMPACTS:
G' LIMITATIONS OF ANALYSES:
PRINCIPAL ANALYST AND DATE:
7-
-------
FIGURE 4.
OVERALL SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF CHLOROBENZILATE
Extent of Use (1975)
Crop/Site
(Registered Uses)
Active Ingredien
Units of Treatment
Availability of
Economic Alternatives
Type
Extent
Significance
pounds
percent
number
percent
Total
Per
Unit
Citrus: oranges,
FL
805,000
72.1
acres
523,000
67.3
Numerous
grower costs:
$l,366,000/yr
$ 2.61
/acre
minor
ler»n3,
farms
8,314
80.1
164
/ f am
grapefruit
TX
101,500
9.1
acres
43,000
56.6
Numerous
grower costs:
274,000/yr
6.37
/acre
minor
farms
2,584
50.8
106
/faro
CA
7,500
0.7
acres
4,000
1.6
only one for citrus
grower costs:
34,000/yr
S.50
/acre
nominal
farms
315
4.1
bud mite
10S
/farm
AZ
6,000
0.5
acres
3,000
2.8
Numerous
grower costs:
no change
0
/acre
minor
farms
207
6.7
0
/farm
DS
920,000
82.4
acres
573,000
47.0
Generally numerous
grower costs:
1,674,000/yr
2.92
/acre
generally
farms
11,421
43.4
147
/farm
minor
other (limes,
US
75,700
6.8
acres
47,000
45.9
Generally numerous
grower costs:
138,000/yr
2.94
/acre
generally
tangerines.
farms
undetermined
minor
tangelos, etc)
all citrus
OS
995,700
89.2
acres
620,000+
50.9
Generally numerous
grower costs:
1.812 mil/yr
2.92
/acre
minor cost (0
farms
11,421+
All available alter-
yield/pro-
no change in-
159
/farm
to 1.2 pet in-
natives do not fit
duction:
dicated
crease in
well into IPM pro-
consumer cost:
1.812 mil/yr
0.0085/capita
annual produc.
grams (hazards to non-
(grower costs
costs/acre)
target species and
passed on to
applicators)
consumer)
Cotton:
us
39,000
3.5
acres
39,000
0.41
Many alternatives
grower costs:
125,000/yr
3.21
/acre
negligible
— - ,
available
yield/production:
none
consumer costs:
125,000/yr
0.0006/capita/yr
Fruits, Suts,
us
81,000
7.3
acres
24,000
± 1
Generally numerous
grower costs:
69,000/yr
2.88
/acre
negligible
Miscellaneous Crops
yield/production:
none
consumer costs:
69,000/yr
0.0003/capita/yr
All Uses
US
1,116,000
100.0
acres
715,000
Numerous; some
grower costs:
2.006 mil/yr
negligible
problems in citrus
yield/production:
no change
none
IPM programs.
consumer costs:
macroeconomic:
2.006 mil/yr/
negligible
0.01 /capita/yr
negligible
no significant
overall
national effects
on iricotie, em-
ployment or in-
flation
Principal Analyst and Date: Mark A. Luttner, Economic Analysis Branch, OPP, EPA, December 1976.
-------
II.
GENERAL PRODUCTION AND USE PATTERNS
A. PRODUCTION, IMPORTS AND EXPORTS
B. QUANTITIES USED BY SITE
C. EPA REGISTERED USES
-------
II. GENERAL PRODUCTION AND USE PATTERNS
PRODUCTION, IMPORTS AND EXPORTS
Chlorobenzilate is a chlorinated hydrocarbon miticide currently
produced by the Agricultural Division of Ciba-Giegy. The Farm Chemicals
Handbook (Meister Publishing Company, 1976) lists Ciba-Giegy as the sole
basic manufacturer of chlorobenzilate.
Production of chlorobenzilate in the U.S. is estimated to be in the
range of 2.0 to 2.6 million pounds active ingredient per year, based on
available studies. Production for 1971 was estimated to be 2.0 million
pounds (Lawless, et al., 1972). For 1973, production was estimated at
2.0 - 2.2 million pounds active ingredient and domestic supply for 1975
has been projected to be 2.6 million pounds (Little, 1974). Chlorobenzilate
is available in a number of different formulations but is most widely used
as an emulsifiable concentrate containing four pounds active ingredient per
gallon (Figure 5 is a current Ciba-Giegy sample label for this product).
The U.S. supply of chlorobenzilate consists primarily of domestic
production as imports are presumed to be nominal in a typical year. There
were no imports of chlorobenzilate into the United States from 1967 to
1973; in 1974, imports of 35,932 pounds were reported (U.S. Department of
Agriculture, 1976d).
Domestic use of chlorobenzilate accounts for about two-thirds of the
total supply of the chemical, with the remainder being exported. As of
1973, domestic use was estimated to be 1.4 - 1.5 million pounds of active
ingredient, with exports of 0.6 - 0.7 million pounds and total production
of 2.0 - 2.2 million pounds (Little, 1974) JL/. More recent or precise
data on total production, imports and exports of chlorobenzilate are not
available. The above estimates of production and use of chlorobenzilate
cannot be confirmed with confidential production and distribution data
available to the Agency from industry reports filed under Section 7, iTFRA,
1/ Exports of chlorobenzilate are suggested by reports of the U.S. Inter-
national Trade Commission (formerly U.S. Tariff Commission). Chloro-
benzilate is included in the category "All other cyclic insecticides
and rodenticides" in U.S. Tariff Commission (1971, 1972, 1973, 1974)
and U.S. International Trade Commission (1976) reports. However,
because chlorobenzilate is produced by a single firm, the Commission
does not permit access to detailed production or export information
that is of a proprietary nature.
-10-
-------
FIGURE 5
A I
/
&
y"
Z3
i/l i^"'0
For control of mites on
certain agricultural crops
and ornamentals
Five Gallons
U.S. Standard Measure
Active Ingredients:
Ethyl 4,4'-dichloro-
benzilate 45.5%
Xylene 43.5%
Jnert Ingredients:
Total:
_J1.0%
ioao%
EPA Est. NO.100-AL-1
EPA Reg. No.100-458-AA
Acaraben 4E contains 4 lbs.
chlorobenzilate per ga!.
aimon:
Keep out of reach of children.
See additional caution
statements left of container
seam.
Control No. 06680
See directions for use on right panel.
H
'j— -
i\*
CO A 130*261
-11-
-------
DIRECTIONS FOR USE AND CONDI-
TIONS OF SAl.E AND WARRANTY
IMPORTANT: Road tho ontire Directions
lor Use ;ind the Conditions o( Sale and
Y/nrranty belore using this product.
Conditions of Sale and Warranty
The Directions lor Use of this product
rclloct tho opinion of exports based on
field use and tests. Tho directions are
believed to be reliable and should be fol-
lowed carefully. However, it is impossible
to eliminate all risks inherently associated
With use of this product. Crop injury,
ineffectiveness or other unintended con-
sequences may result because of such
factors as weather conditions, presence
Of other materials, or the manner of use
or application all of which are beyond
the control of CIBA-GEIGY or tho Seller.
a\II such risks shall be assumed by the
Buyer.
CIBA-GEIGY warrants that this product
conforms to the chemical description on
the label and is reasonably fit for the
purposes referred to in the Directions for
Use, subject to the inherent risks referred
to above. CIBA-GEIGY makes no
other express or implied warranty
of Fitness or Merchantability or any
other express or implied warranty.
Irt no casa shall C!BA-GHIGY or the
Sailer bs liable lor consequential,
special or indirect damages result-
ing from the use or handling cf this
product. CIBA-GEIGY and the Seller
offer this product and the Buyer and user
accept it. subject to the foregoing
Conditions of Sale and Warranty which
•nay be varied only by agreement in
writing signed by a duly authorized repre-
sentative of CIBA-GEIGY.
General 'nlormation
Acaraben 4E miticide is an emulsifiable
Solution intended for application after di-
lution with water. The rates below are for
dilute sprays (rate per 100 gals, of water)
unless otherwise stated. In general, ap-
plication should be made when mites
first appear. For severe infestations, or if
conditions are favorable for mite buildup,
'cpeatod applications will be necessary.
Do not use with highly alkaline materials
Such as lime.
tJirections for Use
Agricultural Crops
Alntonds
European Red Mites, Pacific Spider Mites,
Grown Mites (Clover Mites), Two-spolted
Spider Mites: Use V? -Va pt. per 100 gals.
Of water and apply as full coverage sprays
Vvhen mites first appear. Repeat applica-
tions as necessary. Do not apply within
I days of harvest. Trented almond hulls
'nay be used for feed lor livestock.
Note: Do not apply to Knpnroil variety of
Mlmondr, since injury may occur.
Ai:;ii;ihon 4E is compatible with most
Commonly used lightweight summer oils.
Apples and Pears
Two-spotted Spider Mites, European Red
Mites, Brown Mites (Clover Mites), Mc-
Daniel Miter.: Apply Vi-% pt. per 100
gals, of water in full coverage sprays. Or
repeat applications alter 7-tO days par-
ticularly il the lower dosage is used. In
concentrate applications, apply 5-6 pts.
per acre in sulficient water to assure
thorough coverage. Applications should
not be made before second cover spray.
Note: Do no* apply to Delicious, Jona-
than, or Mcintosh apples since fruit in-
jury may occur on these varieties.
Do not apply to apples within 14 days,
or to pears within 7 days of harvest.
Cherries
Cherry Rust Mites: Apply Va pt. per 100
gals, of water after fruit harvest.
Note: Do not use on plums, prunes, or
peaches since injury may occur.
Citrus
Grapefruit, Oranges, Lemons, l.lmes,
Tangelos, Tangerines, Kumquals
Citrus Rust Mites: Appiy V4-Vz pt. per 100
gals, of water or 5 pts. per acre in suffi-
cient water to assure thorough coverage
when mites first appear. For severe in-
festations, or if conditions are favorable
for mite buildup, repeated applications
will be necessary.
Aerial Applications: Apply 11/z pts. in
10 gals, of water per acre as a supple-
mental treatment.
Flat Mites, Six-spotted Mites, Texas
Citrus Mites: Apply Vi pt. per 100 gals,
of water. Or apply 5 pts. per acre in suffi-
cient water to assure thorough coverage.
Citrus Red Mites, Purple Mites: Apply V2
pt. per 100 gals, of water. Or apr)ly 5 pts.
per acre in sufficient water to assure
thorough coverage for quick cleanup of
this pest. For seasonal control either re-
peated applications or use in combina-
tion with other miticides will be required.
Citrus Bud Mites, Pacific Spider Mites,
Yuma Spider Mites: Apply Vz-Va pt. per
100 gals, of water. Or apply 5-7V2 pts. per
acre in sufficient water to assure thor-
ough coverage.
Cotton
Spider Mites (Atlantic, Pacific, Schoene,
Two-spotted): Apply 1 qt. per acre insuf-
ficient water to assure thorough cover-
age when leaves start to show red and
yellow speckling. Direct spray so under-
sides of leaves receive thorough cover-
age.
Aerial Application: Apply 1 qt. in a mini-
mum of 3 gals, of water per acre.
Mote: Do not npply after bolls begin to
open. Do not graze or feed treated forage
or gin wastes to livestock.
Melons
Cnntaloupcs, Cnsabas, Crenshnws. Hon-
eydews, Muskmclons, Persian Melons
Two-spotted Spider Miles: Apply 1 qt
per acre broadcast in sufficient water to
assure thorough overage. When treat-
ing young plants that do not require
broadcast treatment, reduce the amount
of Acaraben
-------
as amended. Data from this source are incomplete and lacking in detail 1/.
Supplement A presents a summary of the Section 7 data now available for
Agency use regarding chlorobenzilate production and distribution.
Supplement A consists of confidential industry data intended for Agency
review purposes only, and is not to be released to persons or organizations
external to EPA.
QUANTITIES USED BY SITE
The major use of chlorobenzilate, in terms of pounds active ingredient,
is for mite control on citrus. This use accounts for about 83 percent of
current consumption. Some reported use on citrus for other purposes (insects)
gives total citrus use approximately 90 percent of the U.S. consumption in
1975. The remainder is accounted for by use on cotton (3 percent) and on
fruits, nuts, ornamentals and miscellaneous crops (7 percent). Estimated
use for 1975 is summarized as follows:
active ingredient
pounds
percent
Citrus:
mites
996,000
82.8
other
87,000
7.2
total
1,083,000
90.0
Cotton
39,000
3.2
Fruits,
nuts, other
81,000
6.7
Total
1,203,000
100.0
The basis for these estimates is discussed in detail in the benefit
analyses for the respective uses (Sections III and IV).
Domes Lie consumption of chlorobenzilate is heavily concentrated in the
commercial citrus states (an overview of citrus production in these areas is
presented in Appendix HIE, "Citrus Production Summary"). The state of
Florida accounts for more than 70 percent of the U.S. total due to mite
.1/ These production and use estimates are in line with earlier studies
by the Department of Agriculture. Chlorobenzilate was not specifically
identified as an agriculturally used miticide in a 1964 U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture survey, although it may have been included in the
category "other miticides". In 1964, 1,136,000 pounds active ingredient
of "other miticides" were applied to 730,000 acres (U.S. Department
of Agriculture, 1968). Chlorobenzilate was reported as an agricul-
turally used miticide in 1966 and 1971 pesticide use surveys (U.S.
Department of Agriculture, 1970 and 1974a). The quantities of
chlorobenzilate applied to specified crops and the number of acres
treated in 1966 and 1971 are listed in Table 1 of Appendix IIA.
-13-
-------
control applications on citrus (see data presented in Section IIIA). The
remaining use is mostly accounted for by use on citrus and other crops in
California (Appendix IIB) and for various uses in other states, including
Texas and Arizona.
Chlorobenzilate use in Arizona was reported by the Department of
Entomology of the University of Arizona, which maintained pesticide use
records from 1966 through 1973 (Arizona, 1974). The total quantities of
chlorobenzilate (in pounds of technical material) used in Arizona during
these years are as follows (the proportion of these chlorobenzilate
quantities used for specific crops in any given year was not reported):
1966
1,300
1967
1,600
1968
5,400
1969
2,500
1970
9,400
1971
2,600
1972
1,000
1973
4,000
The U.S. Department of Agriculture surveys report chlorobenzilate use
by regions. States in the Southeast dominated chlorobenzilate use in both
1966 and 1971, accounting for 86.0% and 85.6% of the total use in the
respective years. According to this survey, chlorobenzilate accounted for
40.2% of the total quantity of miticides used in 1971. Table 2 of Appendix IIA
provides additional data on regional chlorobenzilate usage.
Total domestic use of chlorobenzilate is estimated in this analysis to
be about 1,203,000 pounds active ingredient for 1975, somewhat below the
estimate indicated for 1973 (Little, 1974). The basis for the 1975 estimate
is developed in section IIIA and serves as a basis for evaluating economic
impacts throughout this report.
-14-
-------
EPA REGISTERED USES
Chlorobenzilate is a miticide registered with the EPA for use on the
following crops and sites:
agricultural crops - almonds, apples, cantaloupes, cherries, citrus (lemons,
limes, oranges, grapefruit, tangelos, tangerines,
kumquats), cotton, melons (casaba, crenshaw, honey-
dew, Persian), pears, walnuts
ornamentals: (lawns and turf) - grass
(herbaceous plants and bulbs) - aster, carnations, chrysanthe-
mums, gladioli, iris,
marigold, phlox, snapdragon,
zinnia
(woody shrubs, trees and vines) - arborvitae, azaleas, birch,
boxwood, camellia, Douglas
fir, elm, hawthorn, hemlock,
holly, juniper, lilac, locust,
maple, oak, ornamental shrubs,
ornamental trees, pine, poplar,
rhododendron, roses, spruce,
willow, yew
domestic dwellings, medical facilities and schools, commercial establishments:
(areas other than edible product areas) - outdoor areas, boats, docks
The EPA Compendium of Registered Pesticides (U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1973) contains a complete list of sites, pests, registered application
rates and other relevant data regarding pesticides; the Compendium entry for
chlorobenzilate is presented in Appendix IIC.
-15-
-------
III.
BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF CHLOROBENZILATE USE ON CITRUS
A. CURRENT USE ANALYSIS
B. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF CHLOROBENZILATE
C. ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
-------
III. BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF CHLOROBENZILATE USE ON CITRUS
CURRENT USE ANALYSIS
EPA Registrations of Chlorobenzilate and Alternatives
Chlorobenzilate is EPA registered for control of the following mite species
on citrus: citrus rust, flat, six-spotted, Texas citrus, citrus red, purple,
citrus bud, Pacific spider. Several other pesticides are registered for the
control of citrus pests for which chlorobenzilate is now used. Table 1
presents those pesticides having coincident registrations with chlorobenzilate
for specific mite pests of citrus.
Recommendations for Use of Chlorobenzilate and Alternatives
State Recommendations
Chlorobenzilate is recommended for use against mites infesting citrus in
all of the commercial citrus states - Arizona, California, Florida and Texas.
In general, California recommends the fewest number of miticides for use
against any given mite species, with Florida recommending the largest number
of alternatives.
The following miticides are state recommended for use against mites
infesting citrus crops and are based upon detailed information presented in
Table 2:
a z inpho sme thy1
carbophenothion
chlorobenzilate
cyhexatin
dialifor
dicofol
dioxathion
ethion
fenbutatin-oxide
formetanate hydrochloride
hexachlorophene
oil
phosalone
propargite
sulfur
tetradifon
Zineb
Tabular summaries of the State recommendations for mite control on citrus
are presented in Appendix IIIA.
-------
Citrus Citrus Citrus Citrus Pacific Six-spotted Texas Yuma
Pesticide bud mite flat mite red mite rust mite spider mite Purple mite mite citrus mite spider mite
chlorobenzilate
LtO)GrA
L,0,G,M,A,N,K
L,0,G,M,A,N,K
L,0,G,M,A,N,K L,0,G,A
l,o,g,m,a,n
L,0,G,M,A,N,K
L,0,G,M,A,N,K
L,0,G,M,A,N,K
Aramite
0,G
0,G
carbophenothion
cube resins —'
L,0,G,M,A,N
L,0,G,A
L,0,G,M,A,N
L,0,G,M.A.N
L,0,G,M,A,N
L,0,G,M,A,N
L,0,G,M,A,N
cyhexat in
L,0,G,M,A
L,0,G,M,A
L,0,G,M,A
demeton
L,0,G
dialifor
L,0,G,M,A,N
L,0,G,M,A,N
L,0,G,M,A,N
dicofol
L,0,G,M
L,0,G,M,A,N,K
L,0,G,M,A,N,K
L,0,G,M
L,0,G,M,N,K
L,0,G,M,A,N,K
L,0,G,M,A,N,K
dioxathion
L,0,G,M,A,N
L,0,G,M,A,N
L,0,G,M,A,N
L,0,G,M,A,N
EPN
ethion
L,0,G,M,A,N,
L,0,G,M,A,N
L,0,G,M,A,N
L,0,G,M,A,N
L,0,G,M,A,S
malathion
L,0,G,M,A,N,K
L,0,G,M,A,N,K
L,0,G,M,A,S,K
L,0,G,M,A,N,K
L,0,G,M,A,N,K
oil
L)0)6jA
L,0,G,M
L,0,G,M,A,N L,0,G,A
0,G
L,0,G,M,A,N
L,0,G,M,A,N
L,0,G,M,A,N
oxydemeton-methyl
L,0,G
phosalone
L,0,G
rotenone
L,0,G,A
sulfur
0,G,M,A,N,K
L,0,G,M,A,N,K
L,0,G,M,A,N,K
L,0,G,M,A,N,K
L,0,G,M,A,N
L,0,G,M,A,N,K
tetradifon
',,0,G,M,A,N
L,0,G,M,A,N
L,0,G,M,A,N
aj Key: L = lemons
0 » oranges
G = grapefruit
M = limes
A = tangerines
N = tangelos
K = kumquats
jb/ Includes cube resins other than rotenone.
Source: Site/Pest/Chemical/Registered List of Substitutes for Chlorobenzilate, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976.
-------
Table 2
Summary of State and Federal Recommendations for Mltc Control on Citrus Crops
Mitjctde
Arizona SJ C n 11 fornla —^
Florida
c /
Texas
d/
USD A
chlorobenzi* «te
02inphofimethyl
carbophenothion
cyhexatin
dialifor
Citrus rust mite
X
X
X
X
X
dlcofol
dioxathion
ethion
fenbutntin-oxide
formetanate hydrochloride
hexachlorophene
oil
propargite
sulfur
jineb
chlorobenzilate
az inphosmethyl
carbophenothion
dialifor
dicofol
dioxathion
ethion
fenbutatin-oxlde
oil
propargite
tetradifon
Texas citrus mlte
chlorobenzilate
carbophenothion
cyhexatin
dialifor
dicofol
dlmethoate
dioxathion
ethion
formetanate hydrochloride
oil
Citrus red mite
phosalone
propargite
sulfur
tetradifon
chlorobenzilate
carbophenothion
dialifor
dicofol
dloxathlon
Six-spotted mite
ethion
oil
propargite
sulfur
chlorobenzilate
dicofol
oil
sulfur
False spider mite
-i9-
-------
Table 2 (cont'd.)
Summary of State and Federal Recommendations for Mite Control on CltruH Crops
Mlticlde
. . a/
Arizona —
b/
California —
Florida '
Texas
chlorobenzilate
cyhexatin
dlcofol
dioxathlon
cthlon
Two-spotted spider mltc
oil
proparglte
tecradtfon
chlorobenzilate
carbophenothion
dlcofol
dioxathlon
ethlon
fonnetanate hydrochloride
proparglte
phosalone
sulfur
chlorobenz1la te
carbopheno thlon
dlcofol
dioxathlon
ethlon
fonnetanate hydrochloride
phosalone
proparglte
sulfur
Citrus flat mite
Yuma spider mite
Citrus bud mite
chlorobenzilate
oil
a/ The Arizona citrus guide lists treatments for only three mites: citrus flat, citrus red and Yuma spider.
IJ California recommends chlorobenzilate In combination with tetradifon for citrus red mite, Pacific spider mite and two-spotted spider mite.
cf The Florida citrus guide notes four mite species: citrus rust mite and three spider mite species (Texas citrus, citrus red, six-spotted).
dj The Texas citrus guide notes three mite species: citrus rust, Texas citrus and false spider mite,
e/ Chlorobenzilate is recommended by USDA for citrus red mite in arid areas only.
Sources: Arizona, 1976
California, 1974
Florida, 1976
Texas, 1971
U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1974.
-20-
-------
Federal Recommendations
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1974)
recommends chlorobenzilate for use on a number of citrus crops to control
mites. Numerous alternatives are also recommended for several mite species.
The following miticides are included in the USDA recommendations for mite
control on citrus crops presented in Table 2:
azinphosmethyl ethion
carbophenothion oil
chlorobenzilate tetradifon
dicofol sulfur
dioxathion
A tabular summary of USDA recommendations for mite control on citrus is
found in Appendix IIIB.
Use of Chlorobenzilate and Alternatives
Chlorobenzilate is one of many miticides used on lemons, grapefruit and
oranges in the United States. Appendix IIIC contains that portion of the
1975 Doane survey (Doane, 1976) relevant to the use of chlorobenzilate and
its alternatives as citrus miticides.
Table 3 summarizes the available data on chlorobenzilate use as a
raiticide for the major citrus crops. The majority of citrus acre-treatments
involving chlorobenzilate were applied to oranges (75.8%), with a lesser
number applied to grapefruit (22.3%) and lemons (2.0%). Tables 4, 5 and 6
present data on the total acre-treatments of lemons, oranges and grapefruit
involving all miticides and the quantities applied of each type. The data
in these tables indicate that 13.4, 32.8 and 37.7 percent of the miticide
acre-treatments applied respectively to lemons, oranges and grapefruit in the
U.S. involved chlorobenzilate.
Table 7 summarizes the Doane data on chlorobenzilate use as a miticide
according to specific chlorobenzilate-containing treatments. Approximately
two-thirds (67.5%) of the treatments applied to lemons, oranges and grapefruit
were made using chlorobenzilate alone. The next most frequently used
treatments involved combinations of chlorobenzilate plus sulfur (15.9%) and
chlorobenzilate plus oil (13.8%). All other chlorobenzilate combinations
accounted for 2.8% of the projected treatments.
The 1975 survey also indicated some use of chlorobenzilate as an insec-
ticide. An estimated 2,000 acre-treatments on lemons, 20,000 acre-treatments
on grapefruit, and 36,000 acre-treatments on oranges were made using chloro-
benzilate as an insecticide during 1975. Since this analysis is concerned
only with the economic effects associated with chlorobenzilate in its
registered uses as a miticide, only these acre-treatments are considered.
-21-
-------
Table 3
Acre-Treatments Using Chlorobenzilate as a Miticide on Lemons, Oranges and Grapefruit,
by State and U.S., as Projected for 1975
State
Lemons
Oranges
Crop
Grapefruit
Total
Arizona
California
Florida
Texas
Total
2,000
5,000
7,000
14,000
Acre-Treatments—
1,000
515,000 122,000
23,000 35,000
538,000 158,000
3,000
5,000
644,000
58,000
710,000
Source: Doane, 1976.
-------
Table 4
Acre-Treatments and Quantities of Active Ingredient Applied for
Control of Mites on Lemonw, by Region and Total U.S., as
Estimated for 1975
Pesticide
California and Arizona
U.S.
Total Treatments
Quantity Applied a/
Total Treatments
Quantity Applied a/
Acres (1,000)
Pounds Active Ingredient
Acres (1,000)
Pounds Active Ingredient
- number -------
chlorobenzilate
4
6,000
11
13,750
chlorobenzilate/oil
3
7,500 + 54,000 gals
3
7,500 + 54,000 gals
total chlorobcmzilate treatments
7
14
dlcofol
4
12,000
5
15,000
dlmethoate
2
5,300
2
5,300
formetanate hydrochloride
2
7,500
2
7,500
Morestan
1
3,100
1
3,100
oil
44
792,000 gals
44
792,000 gals
proparglte
8
22,400
8
22,400
sulfur
6
360,000
7
420,000
dlmethoate/oll
7
18,700 + 126,000 gals
7
18,700 + 126,000 gals
ethion/oll
-
-
1
3,750 + 6,000 gals
oll/malathlon
7
126,000 gals + 70,000
7
126,000 gals + 70,000
other misc. chemicals
3
3
_
other misc. combinations
3
-
2
-
unidentified
2
-
2
-
total alternatives
89
-
91
-
total mltlcides
96
-
105
-
percent -------
chlorobenzilate
4.2
10.5
chlorobenzilate/oi1
3.1
2.9
total chlorobenzilate treatments
7.3
13.4
dlcofol
4.2
4.8
dlmethoate
2.1
1.9
formetanate hydrochloride
2.1
1.9
Morestan
1.0
1.0
oil
45.8
41.9
proparglte
8.3
7.6
sulfur
6.3
6.6
dlmethoate/oll
7.3
6.6
ethlon/oll
-
1.0
oll/malathlon
7.3
6.6
other misc. chemicals
3.1
2.9
other misc. combinations
3.1
1.9
unidentified
2.1
1.9
total alternatives
92.7
86.6
total mltlcides
100.0
100.0
a/ These data are estimates, calculated by multiplying total acre-treatments for each chemical or combination times the average of
the recommended application rates for California and/or Arizona, as specified in the citrus treatment guide of these states.
Where pesticides were reported used but not indicated in the treatment guides, application rates specified in the treatment
guides of other states were used. If no state recommended a pesticide, the average registered application rate was utilized
to develop the estimate of quantity applied.
Source: Doane, 1976; Florida, 1976; Arizona, 1976; Texas, 1971; California, 1974.
-23-
-------
Tnblo 5
Acre-TreatmentH and Quantities of Active Ingredient Applied
for Control oi Mlte« on Oranges, by Region and Total US, as Katlmatud for 1975
Ac ro Treatment a _____ Active InRrcdlent a/
Pesticide CA + AZ FL " TX US CA + AZ FL TX US
—1,000 ttcruH—-—-— — 1 j000 lbs, gals, etc*-
chlorobenzilate
-
345
13
358
431.25
22.75
454.0
chlorobenzi1ate/azinphosmethyl
-
-
3
3
-
5.25 +
6.0
5.25
+
6.0
chlorobenzilate/oil
-
60
7
67
75.0
+ 360.0
12.25 +
70.0
87,25
+
430.0
chlorobenzilate/sulfur
-
110
-
110
137.5
+ 5,500.0
137.5
+ 5,
,500.0
total chlorobenzilate treatments
-
515
23
538
-
-
-
azinphosmethyl
5
-
5
12.5
_
12.5
carbophenothlon
-
5
3
8
15.65
7.5
23.15
Delnex-8
-
13
-
13
NA
-
NA
dicofol
20
11
-
31
60.0 33.0
-
93.0
dimethoate
3
-
-
3
8.0
-
8.0
dioxathion
22
_
22
71.5
_
71.5
ethion
-
39
-
39
121.9
-
121.875
formetanate hydrochloride
3
-
-
3
11.25
-
11.25
oil
52
28
2
82
936.0 168.0
20.0
1,124.0
proparglte
43
-
-
43
120.4
-
120.4
sulfur
_
418
4
422
20,900.0
200.0
21,100.0
formetanate hydrochloride/oil
-
4
-
4
3.4
+ 24.0
-
3.4
+
24.0
carbophenothlon/oil
-
-
20
20
521.25
+ 834.0
30.0 +
48.0
551.25
+
882.0
oil/malathion
-
-
2
-
-
12.0
+
20.0
parathion/malathlon
6
-
_
6
15.0 + 60.0
-
15.0
+
60.0
methidathlon
-
-
1
1
-
3.75
3.75
other misc. chemicals
29
95
4
128
-
-
-
other misc. combinations
7
102
12
119
•-
-
-
unidentified
3
1
1
5
-
-
-
total alternatives
193
855
55
1,103
-
-
-
total miticides
193
1,370
78
1,641
chlorobenzilate
-
25.2
16.7
21.8
chlorobenzilate/azinphosmethyl
-
-
3.8
0.2
chlorobenzilate/oil
-
4.4
9.0
4.1
chlorobenzilate/sulfur
-
8.0
-
6.7
total chlorobenzilate treatments
-
37.6
29.5
32.8
azinphosmethyl
2.5
-
-
0.3
carbophenothlon
-
0.4
3.8
0.5
Delnex-8
-
1.0
-
0.8
dicofol
10.4
0.8
-
1.9
dimethoate
1.6
-
-
0.2
dioxathion
11.4
-
-
1.3
ethion
-
2.9
-
2.4
formetanate hydrochloride
1.6
-
-
0.2
oil
26.9
2.0
2.6
5.0
proparglte
22.3
-
-
2.6
sulfur
-
30.5
5.1
25.7
formetanate hydrochloride/oil
-
0.3
-
0.2
ethlon/oll
-
10.1
10.3
9.0
carbophenothion/oil
-
-
25.6
1.2
oil/malathlon
•
-
-
0.1
parathlon/malathion
3.1
-
-
0.4
methidathlon
-
-
1.3
0.1
other misc. chemicals
15.0
6.9
5.1
7.8
other misc. combinations
3.6
7.4
15.4
7.2
unidentified
1.6
0.1
1.3
0.3
total alternatives
100.0
62.4
70.5
67.2
total mitlcldee
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
of These dnt.a Are estimates, calculated by multiplying total acre-treatments for each chemical or combination times the. average of the recommended
application rates for each state. Where pcHtlcldcN were reported u«ed but not Included iu the state treatment gulden, application rates
specified In the gulden of other stnton were imod. If no Htate recommended a ponticldo, this Average registered application rate vaB utilized
to develop the eHtlmatu of quantity applied.
* Quantities of Al prc»Honi.ed in the tnhlc are in terms of 1,000 pounds for chemicals and 1,000 gallons for oil, e.p,., 5,25 + 6,0 ¦ 5,250 lbs of
chlorobenz 11 file + 6,000 gallon* of oil.
{Source; Donne, 1976; Arizona, 1976; California, 1974; Florida, 197fi; Texan, 1971,
-------
Table 6
Acre-Treatments and Quantities of Active Ingredient Applied
for Control of Mites on Grapefruit, by Region mid TotuL US, uh Estimated for 1975
Aero Treatments Active Ing red lent a/
Pesticide
CA + \?4
FL
TX
US
CA + A 7.
FL TX
US
i nnn
dilorobenzilate
-
90
20
110
_
112.5
35.0
147.5
c^hlorobenz I late/arsenate
-
7
-
7
-
8.75
+
57.75
8.75
+
57.75
chlorobenzilate/azInphosmethy1
-
-
7
7
-
-
12.25 +
14.0
12.25
+
14.0
Chlorobeii2i late/methldathi on
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
1.0
+
3.75
chlorobenz I late/oil
-
20
8
28
-
25.0
+
120.0 14.0 +
80.0
39.0
+
200.0
chlorobenzi late/sulfur
-
3
-
3
-
3.75
+
150.0
3.75
+
150.0
chlorobenzilate/sulfur/malathion
-
2
-
2
-
2.5
+
100.0 + 20.0
2.5
+
100.0
total chlorobenzilate treatments
-
122
35
158
-
-
-
-
Carbopheno thion
.
7
15
22
-
21.9
37.5
59.4
t>elnex-8
-
A
-
4
-
NA
-
NA
<4icofol
-
2
-
2
-
6.0
-
6.0
^thion
-
6
2
8
-
18.75
8.0
26.75
oil
2
-
6
8
36.0
-
60.0
96.0
fcropargite
4
-
_
4
11.2
-
-
11.2
Sulfur
6
91
-
97
360.0
4,550.0
-
4,910.0
dicofol/oil
-
15
3
18
-
45.0
+
90.0 9.0 +
18.0
54.0
+
108.0
<1 icofol/sulfur
-
1
-
1
-
3.0
+
50.0
3.0
+
50.0
ther misc. chemicals
2
16
7
25
-
-
-
-
Other misc. combinations
2
17
12
30
-
-
-
\ijiidentif led
-
-
1
1
-
-
-
-
total alternatives
16
189
58
262
-
~
—
~
total mlticldes
16
311
93
420
-
-
-
-
percent
Chlorobenzilate
_
28.9
21.5
26.2
Chlorobenzilate/arsenate
-
2.3
-
1.7
Chlorobenzilate/azinphosraethyl
-
-
7.5
1.7
c jilorobenzl late /me thidathion
-
-
-
0.2
Chlorobenzilate/oil
-
6.4
8.6
6.7
chlorobenzilate/sulfur
_
1.0
-
0.7
Chlorobenzilate/sulfur/raalathion
-
0.6
-
0.5
total chlorobenzilate treatments
-
39.2
37.6
37.6
carbophenothion
-
2.3
6.1
5.2
l>elnex-8
-
1.3
-
1.0
<3 icofol
-
0.6
-
0.5
c thion
-
1.9
2.2
1.9
oil
12.5
-
6.5
1.9
t>roparglte
25.0
-
-
1.0
Sulfur
37.5
29.3
-
23.1
tlicofol/oil
-
4.8
3.2
4.3
*Jicofol/suJ fur
-
0.3
-
0.2
TJinocap/oll
-
0.6
-
0.5
c thion/oil
_
8.7
3.2
7.1
cthion/sulfur
-
0.3
-
0.2
oil/carbophenothion
-
-
9.7
2.1
other misc. chemicals
12.5
5.2
7.5
6.0
other misc. combinations
12.5
5.5
12.9
7.1
Unidentified
-
-
1.1
0.2
total alternatives
100.0
60.8
62.4
62.4
total mlticldes
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
-------
Table 7
Acre Treatments Using Chlorobenzilate and Other Compounds as Miticides on Lemons,
Oranges and Grapefruit, Total U.S., as Projected for 1975
Crop
Chlorobenzilate treatment Lemons Oranges Grapefruit Total
no. pet. no. pct. no. pet. no. pet.
- Acre
Treatments
Chlorobenzilate
11,000
10.4
358,000
21.8
110,000
26.2
479,000
22.1
Chlorobenzilate/oil
3,000
2.8
67,000
4.1
28,000
6.7
98,000
4.5
Chlo rob enz il ate / s til f ur
- - -
- -
110,000
6.7
3,000
0.7
113,000
5.2
Chlorobenzilate/arsenate
- -
- -
7,000
1.7
7,000
0.3
Chlo robenz ilate/methi dathion
- - -
- -
- - - -
- -
1,000
0.2
1,000
0.05
Chlorobenzilate/azinphosmethyl
— — -
- -
3,000
0.2
7,000
1.7
10,000
0.5
Chlorobenzilate/sulfur/malathion
- - -
- -
- - - -
- -
2,000
0.5
2,000
0.1
Total Chlorobenzilate Treatments
14,000
13.2
538,000
32.7
158,000
37.6
710,000
32.7
All Other Miticides
92,000
86.8
1,105,000
67.3
262,000
62.4
1,459,000
67.3
Total Miticides
106,000
100.0
1,643,000
100.0
420,000
100.0
2,169,000
100.0
Source: Doane, 1976
-------
An estimate of the total quantity of chlorobenzilate used during 1975
can be made given certain assumptions and available information. Table 8
summarizes the data legarding quantities of chlorobenzilate used for pest
control on citrus crops in 1975, calculated using application rates recommended
in the citrus guides of the commercial citrus states and the available extent
of use data. Chlorobenzilate use on lemons, oranges and grapefruit in
Arizona, California, Florida and Texas during 1975 totalled 920,000 pounds
active ingredient. Mite control on other citrus crops (limes, tangerines, etc.)
accounted for 75,700 pounds active ingredient. Total chlorobenzilate use on
citrus crops for mite control in 1975 was 995,700 pounds. This use level
represents an increase of 41% over the 706,000 pounds chlorobenzilate active
ingredient reported used on citrus in 1971 (U.S. Department of Agriculture,
1974a).
The analysis indicates that insect control on citrus crops accounted for
87,000 pounds active ingredient in 1975. Total U.S. chlorobenzilate use on
citrus crops for all purposes during 1975 approximated 1.083 million pounds
active ingredient.
Miticide expenditures for lemons, oranges and grapefruit during 1975 are
presented in Tables 9, 10 and 11; average dollar expenditures per acre-
treatment for individual pesticides and combinations are also presented.
Treatments containing chlorobenzilate accounted for 9.0% of total U.S.
expenditures for mite control on lemons and averaged $9.93 per acre-treatment.
On oranges and grapefruit, chlorobenzilate treatments accounted for 34.6%
and 41.5% of total expenditures for mite control and averaged $6.03 and $7.23
per acre-treatment, respectively.
The number of lemon, grapefruit and orange growers using chlorobenzilate
and chlorobenzilate combinations as mite control treatments during 1975 are
presented in Table 12. The data indicate that 505 or 19.2% of the 2,630 U.S.
lemon growers used treatments containing chlorobenzilate in 1975. Of the
8,015 U.S. grapefruit growers, 4,626 or 57.7% used chlorobenzilate; 6,290
or 40.1% of the 15,695 U.S. orange growers also used treatments containing
chlorobenzilate during 1975. Of the orange growers using chlorobenzilate,
5,206 (82.8%) are located in Florida and represent 77.8% of the orang-
growers in the state. Almost two-thirds (65.8%) of the U.S. grapefruit
growers now using chlorobenzilate are in Florida, with a significant number
(32.4%) also found in Texas. An overwhelming majority (87.1%) of the U.S.
lemon growers using chlorobenzilate are located in California and Arizona.
Table 13 summarizes data on the number of growers using specific chloro-
benzilate treatments. Grapefruit growers used the largest number of different
treatments containing chlorobenzilate (7), while lemon growers used the least
number (2). Of all U.S. lemon, orange and grapefruit growers using chloro-
benzilate in 1975, 66.6% used this miticide without combining it with other
pesticides. Almost one-fifth (17.7%) used chlorobenzilate plus oil, and
a total of 1,788 growers (15.7%) used chlorobenzilate in combination with
other pesticides.
-27-
-------
Table 8
Chlorobenzilc.te Use on Citrus, 1975
— ¦ —— _____
Pest Site Area Acre-treatments— Quantity of Chlorobenzilat:e Applied
pounds active ingredient^/pct. of total
Mites
lemons, oranges,
Arizona
3,000
6,000
0.6
grapefruit
California
5,000
7,500
0.7
Florida
644,000
805,000
74.4
Texas
58,000
101,500
9.4
U.S.
710,000
920,000
85.0
c/
other citrus-
U.S.
46,500
75,700
7.0
Subtotal
all citrus
U.S.
756,500
995,700
92.0
Insects
all citrus
U.S.
58,000
87,000
8.0
Total
all citrus
U.S.
814,500
1,082,700
100.0
aj Acre-treatments for lemons, oranges and grapefruit and insect treatments were reported in Doane; mite
acre-treatments for "other citrus" derived from pounds active ingredient data assuming an average
application rate of 1.625 pounds.
W Pounds active ingredient were derived for each category as follows: Arizona, California, Florida, Texas:
acre-treatments reported by Doane for each state were multiplied by the average application rate recommended
in the state citrus guide (2.0, 1.5, 1.25, and 1.75 pounds a.i., respectively). Pounds active for mites
"other citrus" calculated assuming that the quantity of chlorobenzilate applied to specific crops is in
proportion to the acreage grown of each type; 920,000 pounds applied to lemons, oranges and grapefruit would
represent 92.4% of total citrus use (given that these crops represent 92.4% of domestic citrus acreage,
other citrus 7.6%, as presented in Appendix HID), therefore 75,700 pounds a.i., were applied to 7.6% of
acreage ("other citrus"). Pounds active for insect treatments calculated assuming an average application
rate of 1.5 pounds active ingredient.
_c/ "Other citrus" includes limes, tangelos, tangerines, citrons, temples and other miscellaneous varieties.
Sources: Doane, 1976 Arizona, 1976
Florida, 19 76 California, 1974
Texas A&M University, 1971
-------
Table 9
Expenditure* ond Average Kxpcnditure per Acre-treatment lor Control of
Mites on 1-cmonn, by Hop,Ion ami Total U.S., as Estimated for 1975
Cnl If orntn and Arlroim U.S.
Pesticide _ Expendttufp» Expenditure/Aero-treatment a./ Expendi turow Kxpc.nci 1 lurc/Acre-treatment j*/
dollars (],000) dollars dollars (1,000) dollars
number-
lorobenzilatc
70
17.50
110
10.00
Lorobenzilate/oil
29
9.67
29
9.67
:al chlorobcnzilate treatments
99
14.14
139
9.93
:ofol
61
15.25
70
14.00
lethoate
33
16.50
33
16.50
metanate hydrochloride
9
4.50
9
20.00
estan
20
20.00
20
20.00
862
19.59
862
19.59
ppargite
226
28.25
226
28.25
fur
20
3.33
22
3.14
lethoate/oil
29
4.14
29
4.14
lion/oil
-
-
25
25.00
./malathion
42
6.00
42
6.00
ier misc. chemicals
18
6.00
20
6.67
,er misc. combinations
77
12.00
24
25.67
dentlfled
20
10.00
20
10.00
al alternatives
1,417
15.92
1,402
15.41
al aiticides
1*516
15.79
1*541
14.68
orobenzllatc
4.6
7.1
orobenzilatc/oil
1.9
1.9
al chloroben2ilate treatments
6.5
9.0
ofol
4.0
4.6
ethoate
2.2
2.1
metanate hydrochloride
0.6
0.6
estan
1.3
1.3
56.9
55.9
pargite
14.9
14.7
fur
1.3
1.4
cthoate/oil
1.9
1.9
ion/oil
-
1.6
/malathion
2.8
2.7
er misc. chemicals
1.2
1.3
er mis*, combinations
5.1
1.6
dentified
1.3
1.3
al alternatives
93.5
91.0
al miticides
100.0
100.0
Calculated by dividing total expenditures by total acre-treatment for respective chemicals and combinations,
rce: Doanc, 1976.
-29-
-------
Table 10
Expenditures and Average Kxpcncliture per Acru-Trentmunt
for Control of Mites on Orangea, by Region and Total US, an Intimated for 1975
Expenditure Expendlture/Acre-Trentment a/
Pesticide
CA + AZ
Fi.
TX
US
CA + h'l
FL
TX
US
chlorobenzllate
_
2,225
114
2,339
_
6.45
8.77
6.53
chlorobenzilate/azinphosmethyl
-
-
8
8
-
-
2.67
2.67
chlorobenzilate/oil
-
326
45
371
-
5.43
6.43
5.54
chlorobenzllate/sulfur
-
385
-
385
-
3.50
-
3.50
total chlorobenzilate treatments
-
2,936
167
3,103
-
5.70
7.26
5.77
azlnphosmethyl
29
-
29
5.80
-
-
5.80
carbophenothion
-
46
14
60
-
9.20
4.67
7.50
Delnex-8
-
150
-
150
-
11.54
-
11.54
dlcofol
123
118
-
241
6.15
10.73
-
7.77
dimethoate
17
-
-
17
5.67
-
-
5.67
dioxathion
136
_
136
6.18
-
-
6.18
ethlon
-
431
-
431
-
11.05
-
11.05
formetanate hydrochloride
52
-
-
52
17.33
-
-
17.33
oil
712
124
6
842
13.69
4.43
3,00
10.27
propargite
282
-
-
282
6.56
-
-
6.56
sulfur
-
953
6
959
2.28
1.50
2.27
formetanate hydrochlorlde/oll
-
26
-
26
-
6.50
-
6.50
ethlon/oil
-
1,169
22
1,191
-
6.41
2.75
8.10
carbophenothion/oil
-
-
34
34
-
-
1.70
1.70
oll/malathion
-
-
-
9
-
-
-
4.50
parathion/malathlon
36
-
-
36
6.00
-
-
6.00
methidathion
-
-
7
7
-
-
7.00
7.00
other misc. chemicals
568
124
23
715
19.59
1.31
5.75
5.59
other misc. combinations
88
431
54
564
12.57
4.23
4.50
4.74
unidentified
46
20
9
75
15.33
20.00
9.00
15.00
total alternatives
2,089
3,592
175
5,856
10.82
4.20
3.18
5.31
total mitlcldes
2,089
6,528
342
8,959
10.82
4.76
4.38
5.46
chlorobenzilate
34.1
33.3
26.1
cblorobenzllate/azinphosmethyl
-
-
2.4
0.1
cblorobenzilate/oll
-
5.0
13.1
4.1
chlorobenzllate/sulfur
-
5.9
-
4.3
total chlorobenzilate treatments
-
45.0
48.8
34.6
azlnphosmethyl
1.4
-
-
0.3
carbophenothion
-
0.7
4.1
0.7
Delncx-8
-
2.3
-
1.7
dlcofol
5.9
1.8
-
2.7
dimethoate
0.8
-
-
0.2
dioxathion
6.5
_
_
1.5
ethlon
-
6.6
-
4.8
formetanate hydrochloride
2.5
-
-
0.6
oil
J4.1
1.9
1.7
9.4
propargite
13.5
-
-
3.1
sulfur
-
14.6
1.7
10.7
formetanate hydrochlorlde/oll
-
0.4
-
0.3
ethion/oil
-
17.9
6.3
13.3
carbophenothion/oil
-
-
10.1
6.4
oll/malathion
-
-
-
0.1
parathion/malathlon
1.7
-
_
0.4
Bicthldathion
-
-
2.0
0.1
othor misc. chemicals
27.2
1.9
6.8
8.0
other misc. combinations
4.2
6.6
15.8
6.3
unldent ifled
2.2
0.3
2.7
0.8
total alternatives
100.0
55.0
51.2
65.4
total mitlcldes
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
a/ Calculated by dividing total expenditures by total acre-treatments for the respective chemicals and combinations.
Source; Dosnc, 1976*
- 30-
-------
Table 11
Expenditures and Average Expenditure per Acre-Trcntment
for Control of Kites on Grapefruit, by Region and Totul C/S, as Fotlmnted for 1975
Expenditure Expendlturo/Acre-Treotment a/
Pesticide
CA + AZ
PL
TX
US
CA + AZ
FL
TX
US
dollars
dolJara
chlorobenzllate
-
599
176
775
_
6.66
8.80
7.05
chlorobenzilate/arsenate
-
33
-
33
-
4.71
-
4.71
chlorobenzilate/azinphosmethyl
-
-
23
23
-
-
3.29
3.29
chlorobenzllate/methidathion
»
-
-
13
-
-
-
13.00
chlorobenzllatc/oii
-
147
85
232
-
7.35
10,63
8.29
chlorobenzllate/sulfur
-
23
_
23
_
7.67
7.67
chlorobenzHate/sulfur/malathlon
-
12
-
12
-
6.00
-
6.00
total chlorobenzllate treatments
-
814
284
1,111
-
6.67
8.11
7.03
carbophenothlon
-
85
40
125
_
12.14
2.67
5.68
Delnex-8
-
62
-
62
-
15.50
-
15.50
dlcofol
-
17
-
17
.
8.50
-
8.50
ethlon
-
81
8
89
-
13.50
4.00
11.13
oil
21
-
40
61
10.50
-
6.67
7.63
proparglte
79
_
-
79
19.75
_
-
19.75
sulfur
21
240
-
261
3.50
2.64
-
2.69
dlcofol/oll
-
70
55
125
-
4.67
18.33
6.94
dlcofol/sulfur
-
23
-
23
-
23.00
-
23.00
dlnocap/oll
-
19
-
19
-
9.50
-
9.50
ethlon/oll
289
12
301
10.70
4.00
10.03
ethlon/sulfur
-
10
-
10
-
10.00
-
10.00
oil/carbophenothlon
-
-
46
46
-
-
5.11
5.11
other misc. chemicals
15
74
34
123
7.50
4.63
4.86
4.92
other misc. combinations
12
153
60
212
6.00
9.00
5.00
7.07
unidentified
9
8
17
9.00
_
8.00
17.00
total alternatives
157
1,123
303
1,570
9.81
5.94
5.22
5.99
total oiltlcldes
157
1,937
587
2,681
9.81
6.23
6.31
6.38
chlorobenzllate
30.9
30.0
28.9
chlorobenzilate/arsenate
-
1.7
-
1.2
chlorobenzilate/azlnphosmethyl
-
-
3.9
0.9
chlorobenzllate/methidathion
-
-
-
0.5
chlorobenzilate/oil
-
7.6
14.5
8.7
chlorobenzilate/sulfur
_
1.2
_
0.9
chlorobenzilate/sulfur/malathlon
-
0.6
-
0.4
total chlorobenzllate treatments
-
42.0
48.4
41.4
carbophenothlon
-
4.4
6.8
4.7
Delnex-8
-
3.2
-
2.3
dlcofol
-
0.9
-
0.6
ethlon
-
4.2
1.4
3,3
oil
13.4
-
6.8
2.3
propargltr
50.3
2.9
sulfur
13.4
12.4
-
9.7
dicofol/oll
-
3.6
9.4
4.7
dicofol/aulfur
-
1.2
-
0.9
dlnocap/oll
-
1.0
-
0.7
ethlon/oll
14.9
2.0
11.2
ethion/sulfur
-
0/5
-
0.4
oil/carbophenothlon
-
-
7.8
1.7
other mlac. chemicals
9.6
3,8
5.8
4,6
other misc. combinations
7.6
7.9
10.2
7.9
unidentified
5.7
_
1.4
0.6
total alternatives
100.0
58.0
51.6
58.6
total mltlcides
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
a/ Calculated by dividing total expenditures by total arrc-trcatraenta for the respective chemicala and
combinations.
Source: Donne, 1976
-11-
-------
Table 12
Growers of Lemons, Oranges and Grapefruit Using Chlorobenzilate
by State/Region and U.S., as Projected for 1975
Number of Growers using Growers using chlorobenzilate
State/Region growers chlorobenzilate as % of total growers
Arizona & California
lemons 2,490 440 17.7
oranges 6,740 - - 0.0
grapefruit 1,640 82 5.0
Florida
lemons a/ 140 65 46.4
oranges 6,690 5,206 77.8
grapefruit 3,550 3,044 85.7
Texas
oranges 2,265 1,084 47.9
grapefruit 2,825 1,500 53.1
U.S.
lemons 2,630 505 19.2
oranges 15,695 6,290 40.1
grapefruit 8,015 4,626 57.7
aj Includes Texas.
Source: Doane, 1976.
-------
Table 13
Growers Treating Lemons, Oranges and Grapefruit with Chlorobenzilate, Chlorobenzilate
Combinations and Other Miticides, Total U.S., as Projected for 1975
Crop
Chlorobenzilate treatment Lemons Oranges Grapefruit Total
no. pet. no. pct. no. pet. no. pet.
Chlorobenzilate
316
12.0
4,792
30.5
2,500
31.2
7,608
28.9
Chlorobenzilate/oil
189
7.2
947
6.0
889
11.1
2,025
7. 7
Chi o rob enz il at e / s ul f ur
393
2.5
332
4.1
725
2.8
Chlorobenzilate/azinphosmethyl
158
1.0
219
2.7
377
1.4
Chlorobenzilate/arsenate
486
6.1
486
1.8
Chlorobenzilate/methidathion
82
1.0
82
0.3
Chlorobenzilate/sulfur/malathion
118
1.5
118
0.4
Total Chlorobenzilate Users
505
19.2
6,290
40.1
4,626
57.7
11,421
43.4
Total Miticide Users
1,882
71.6
12,362
78.8
6,292
78.5
20,536
78.0
Non-users of Miticides
748
28.4
3,333
21.2
1,723
21.5
5,804
22.0
Total Growers
2,630
100.0
15,695
100.0
8,015
100.0
26,340
100.0
Source: Doane, 1976.
-------
Tables 14, 15 and 16 disaggregate the grower data for lemons, oranges and
grapefruit according to individual miticides used during 1975. More U.S.
lemon growers treated with oil than any other miticide in 1975, while orange
growers used sulfur more frequently than other miticides. More U.S. grapefruit
growers used chlorobenzilate than used any other individual miticide in 1975.
U.S. lemon growers used chlorobenzilate primarily to control bud mites
in 1975, while chlorobenzilate plus oil was used most often to control red
spider mites (Table 17). Tables 18 and 19 indicate that chlorobenzilate
and its combinations were used by most U.S. orange growers to control citrus
rust mites. In general, the data in Tables 17, 18 and 19 indicate that
miticides are most frequently employed to control red spider mites on lemons
and citrus rust mites on oranges and grapefruit.
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF CHLOROBENZILATE AND ALTERNATIVES
Pest Infestation and Damage
Mites damage citrus trees by sucking the juices out of leaves, twigs and
shoots. Types of damage include spotting, distortion and heavy leaf-drop in
severe infestations (Florida, 1974). Chlorobenzilate may be used on citrus
crops (oranges, lemons, grapefruit, limes, tangelos, tangerines and kumquats)
to control the following mites (Ciba-Geigy, 1976):
Citrus rust mite Citrus red mite
Flat mite Citrus bud mite
Six-spotted mite Yuma spider mite
Texas citrus mite Pacific spider mite
Certain mites such as the citrus rust, citrus red and Texas citrus mites,
feed on the fruit as well as non-fruit tree parts and cause russeted (rust
colored) fruit (Brogdon and Lawrence, 1974). Overall, mites reduce the
vitality and yield of citrus trees, and in the case of russeting, reduce the
grade of the fruit (Pratt, 1958).
The principal pests of Florida citrus are the citrus rust mite
and the citrus snow scale (Brogdon, 1976). The citrus rust mite damages
citrus fruit by puncturing the epidermal cells and sucking out the
juice therein; injured fruit is often smaller in size and is reduced
in grade for the fresh market (Pratt, 1958).1/
Mite control is particularly important in those areas that produce
citrus for the fresh market. Since there is strong demand in this market
for unblemished fruit, rust mite must be controlled in order to prevent
If The fruit damage (russeting) caused by most mites is strictly cosmetic;
their feeding does not have any effect on the internal quality of the
fruit, although the fruit may be down-graded (Ziegler and Wolfe,
1975).
-34-
-------
Table 14
Number of Crowers Treating nml Bone Acres Treated for Control of
Mites on Lemons, by Region and Total U.S., aa Estimated for 1975
festicldo
'iw°teMlllue
0rob®n?:llate treatments
J}C°fol
for"1"""6
CuH"S hydrochloride
oil n
ptoPargit
•«lfur
S-S'""
U/»«lathlo„
°thet inter ,
other "c* chemicals
Ul>lll«ntifJe"'blratl"nS
°Ul »ltic1(jCB
"O IM..
¦«WeB
percent
percent
10.6
7.0
17.6
4.9
2.9
1.7
3.3
30.4
6.5
2.8
2.8
5.2
4.2
7.0
3.3
68.3
31.7
100.0
12.0
7.2
19.2
5.2
3.0
1.7
3.3
31.1
6.9
2.9
2.9
1.8
5.3
4.3
3.8
3.3
69.8
30.2
100.0
4.6
3.4
8.0
4.6
1.1
2.3
1.1
25.3
9.2
6.9
1.1
3.4
3.4
2.3
1.1
59.8
40.2
100.0
10.7
3.3
14.0
4.3
1.1
2.2
1.1
23.9
8.7
6.5
1.1
1.1
3.3
3.3
2.2
1.1
62.0
38.0
100.0
for 8rowers treating includes some double-counting, since most growers use more than one pesticide during a growing season,
chem*'? Were ca^cutod from the Doane data by dividing total acre-treatments by the average number of applications reported for the respective
5°ut,
CS.
c®ls and combinations.
D°ane, 1976,
-35-
-------
Table 15
Number of Growers Treittlng And Base Acres Treated for Control of
Mltea on Oranges, by Regior and Totul U.S., as Estimated for 1975
Pesticide
CA + AZ
Growers Trent lnp.
«/
FL
TX
U.S.
CA + AZ
Base Acres Treated
FL
TX
U.S.
No. of growers
1,000 acres
chi ^k^sllatc/nzlnphoamethyl
chW°?enzUfl^/oil
tot«l te/sulfur
chlorobenzllate treatments
8n°thi0n
hydrochloride
^^^glte
;uojfut
hydrochloride/oll
O"fea^on°n/011
*"52iS("*1"thl<>n
ifte, "hl°n
%""• chemicals
'*l "Itlcldea
"0,,1«ctdes
«&£J*»«l.te
^C^e^u"tnlnPh0Smethyl
to*ai c!,uiate/sulfur
°tobenzllate treatments
S-8n°thiDn
-------
Table 16
Number of Crowur» TrentinR and Base Acres Treated for Control of
Mites on Grapefruit, by Region ami Total U.S., nu Kstinmtud for 1975
2./
PeeticIde
cu^ensllate
^iorrn2UatG/arscnate
^\Wiil^e/azlnpUometbyl
cM„ °^°nzi^te/motliidathion
°robenzilacc/oil
chlor°!jenzllate/sulfur
fnz^^ate/8U^tur/ma^at^i°n
c«lorobenzili\tc treatr.ents
^tTothlon
"«of01
"hton
11 0
^°P«rgite
"Ifu, u
Nol/ou
ap/oli
•on/oil
i0n/»alfu
'tbt,
"hi,
HJ;
•the^ophenothion
nJBc * chemicals
*c. combinations
"lde»tlfled
l»Ul
"i'lclde
W'icWe8
ii°l0l>«ns}iat:e'
-------
Tests performed during 195 7 near Harlingen, Texas by Dean (1959)
evaluated a chlorobenzilate-sulfur combination, an Aramite-sulfur
combination, and sulfur for control of citrus rust mites and spider mites
on grapefruit (Table IIIG-2 of Appendix 1IIG). Applications of all materials
in June and September resulted in low levels of citrus rust mites (less than
1 mite per leaf for all treatments). Thorough application techniques and
heavy rains in June kept spider mite populations at low levels (0.2 - 4.3
mites per leaf) through August for all treatments. Increases in spider
mite populations during September - November resulted from favorable
weather conditions for mite development and poor conditions for miticide
effectiveness. Control of spider mites was termed "erratic" with little
or no benefit found with the addition of chlorobenzilate or Aramite
to sulfur.
A series of experiments were conducted from 1951 to 1957 in three
California lemon orchards to ascertain the relative effectiveness of
several miticides against the citrus bud mite (Jeppson et al., 1958).
Table IIIG-3 (Appendix IIIG) summarizes the results of the tests, which
evaluated Aramite, chlorobenzilate and petroleum oil formulations. The
studies showed that petroleum oil treatments kept mite populations low
(less than 10% of buds infested) over a longer period of time when applied
in September, October or November, and that one oil application was in-
sufficient to maintain low populations throughout the year. Aramite was
most effective when applied at the same time as oil but was consistently
less effective than oil regardless of time of application. During the two
years beginning October 1953 to August 1955, one summer application
of chlorobenzilate resulted in low (less than 10% infested buds) bud
mite populations for the entire year. Chlorobenzilate treatments later
than October did not effectively control mite populations for an entire
year.
Recent tests conducted by Dean (1974) in Texas evaluated several
compounds for control of Texas citrus mites and citrus rust mites in plots
comprised mainly of orange trees. Chlorobenzilate was utilized twice during
the test period; in December 1971, chlorobenzilate was applied to a plot
following a control failure. On November 2, 1973, chlorobenzilate, ethion,
and a combination of propargite with a wetting agent were applied to the
plot areas. The results (Table IIIG-4) indicated that Texas citrus mites
were more numerous following applications of ethion than chlorobenzilate
or propargite. Nineteen days after treatment with ethion, propargite and
chlorobenzilate there were respectively 67, 2 and 1 Texas citrus mites per
80 leaves sampled. Citrus rust mites were more effectively controlled by
ethion and chlorobenzilate than by propargite. Seventy days after treat-
ment with ethion, chlorobenzilate and propargite there were 0, 1 and 18
citrus rust mites per 80-leaf sample, respectively.
Bailey and Dean (1962) evaluted zineb and maneb for citrus rust mite
control in Texas during the period 1959-1961. Other compounds (tetradifon,
dicofol) were added to zineb or maneb for control of false spider mites
and Texas citrus mites. Different combinatory treatments containing zineb
-44-
-------
and maneb provided good control (28 or fewer rust mites per 160-leaf sample)
after extended periods (September 1959 to April 1960 and September 1960 to
February 1961). The addition of dicofol to zineb and maneb provided ex-
cellent control (4 or fewer mites on 160 leaves) of both false spider
mites and Texas citrus mites when applied in August of 1959 and 1960.
Combinations of tetradifon with zineb or maneb provided levels of control
similar to that achieved with tue dicofol combinations over shorter periods
of time. Table IIIG-5 of Appendix IIIG summarizes the results of these
field tests.
Comparative Yield/Quality
An evaluation of yield and quality comparisons between chlorobenzilate
and its alternatives is not included in the analysis because of data
limitations. Comparative estimates of the cost-effectiveness between
chlorobenzilate and its alternatives are not included in the preliminary
analysis due to a general lack of such data in EPA Registration files and
the open literature. The analyses assume that the considered alternatives
provide yields and product quality comparable to chlorobenzilate treatments
since they are EPA registered and widely recommended by state entomologists.
Comparative Costs
The comparative costs between chlorobenzilate and its combinations and
the alternatives are listed in Table 21. The per-acre cost of a chlorobenzilate
treatment ranges from $2.67 to $17.91, with average $8.97 per acre-treatment
expenditure for all chlorobenzilate treatments. The alternative pesticides
range in cost from $2.00 to $30.00 per acre-treatment, with an average
$15.01 per acre-treatment expenditure for all alternatives. The difference
in cost between the average of all chlorobenzilate treatments and the average
of all alternatives is $6.04 per acre-treatment (this calculation is for
comparative purposes only and does not reflect the method of analysis used
to derive the change in pesticide costs associated with the potential can-
cellation of chlorobenzilate).
-45-
-------
Table 21
Comparison of Pesticide Costs of Chlorobenzilate
and Alternatives for Control of Mites on Citrus
Pesticide Expenditures Per Acre-Treatment
ran average
Chlorobenzilate
5.71 - 17.50
11.61
Chlorobenzilate/arsenate
4. 71
4.71
Chlorobenzilate/azinphosmethyl
2.67 - 17.91
10.29
Chlorobenzilate/methidathion
13.00
13.00
Chlorobenzilate/oil
5.43 - 17.81
11.62
Chlorobenzilate/sulfur
3.50 - 7.67
5.59
Chlorobenzilate/sulfur malathion
6.00
6.00
Carbophenothipn
8.78
8.78
Dicofol
8.50 - 18.35
13.43
Ethion
11.05 - 15.70
13.38
Fenb ut a t i n- oxi de
30.00
30.00
Oil
4.43 - 19.59
12.01
Propargite
17.00
17.00
sulfur
2.00 - 3.33
2.67
Carbophenothion/oil
14.78
14.78
Dicofol/oil
18.33
18.33
Dicofol/sulfur
23.00
23.00
Ethion/oil
8.41 - 25.00
16.71
Ethion/sulfur
10.00
10.00
a/ Expenditures per acre-treatment fall into a range due to variations
in pesticide prices and differences in amounts applied per acre-
treatment.
Sources: Doane, 1976 Tex-Ag Company, 1975
Dean, 1976 Bullock, 1976
-------
ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Profile of Impacted Areas
Citrus is one of the most important fruit crops grown in the U.S. In
1975, average per capita consumption of fresh citrus in the U.S. accounted
for 35.2 percent (28.9 pounds) of total per capita consumption of fresh
fruit (82 pounds) (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1976a).
In 1973-74, the value of oranges, grapefruit, lemons, limes, tangerines,
tangelos and temples produced in the U.S. was approximately $925 million
(U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1975). The United States is the world's
largest producer of citrus, accounting for 34.8 percent (13.1 million metric
tons) of the 37.6 million metric-tons of citrus produced in the 23 leading
countries (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1976c). Domestic production of
oranges, grapefruit, lemons, limes, tangerines, tangelos, and temples
combined has increased from 150.4 million boxes in 1963-64 to 314.0 million
boxes in 1973-74, an increase of 109 percent during this period (U.S.
Department of Agriculture, 1975).
A total of 1.322 million acres of citrus crops (bearing and non-bearing)
exists in the U.S., with the majority located in four states: Arizona,
California, Florida and Texas. Total grower numbers of all citrus crops
are undetermined; however, Doane (Doane, 1976) reported 26,340 U.S. growers
of lemons, oranges and grapefruit combined. An in-depth discussion of U.S.
citrus production is presented in Appendix HID.
Profitable production of citrus crops is dependent upon numerous factors
other than pesticides. Factors such as weather, the market price of citrus
crops, prices of other inputs (e.g., land, labor, fertilizer) and competition
from foreign markets have major impacts upon citrus production costs and
returns. Pesticides, an important input for citrus production, constitute
about one-fourth of total annual variable production costs in many cases.
For example, the combined cost of chemical control of insects, diseases and
weeds for California lemons represented 22.5 percent of on-tree cash costs
(does not include management, interest on investment or depreciation) in
1975 (Burns, 1975). In Florida, the combined cost of chemical control of
insects and weeds for Valencia oranges represented 27.1 percent of production
costs in 1974-75 (Anderson and Muraro, 1975a). These data point out that,
while pesticides are an important input, many other factors are of equal or
greater importance to successful citrus production.
-47-
-------
User Impacts
A recent Doane survey (Doane, 1976) reported 768,000 acre-treatments
of chlorobenzilate and chlorobenzilate combinations were applied on lemons,
oranges and grapefruit in 1975. Of this total, 710,000 (92.4%) and 58,000
(7.6%) acre-treatments were respectively projected as citrus :nite and insect
treatments. There is no reliable method to predict which pesticide(s) would
be relied upon as an alternative treatment(s) should a regulatory action
cause the loss of chlorobenzilate as a citrus miticide. Many pesticides
are registered for some or all of the mites for which chlorobenzilate is now
used. Further, Cooperative Extension Service recommendation guides in the
four major citrus states generally include some, but not all, of the regis-
tered alternatives. The exclusion of some alternatives is probably related
to problems of efficacy, applicator safety and/or disruption of ongoing
integrated pest management programs.
The derivation of cost effects associated with the use of chlorobenzilate
alternatives in this analysis is based on the assumption that the chloroben-
zilate acre-treatments will be replaced by a comparable number of alternative
acre-treatments. Although somewhat arbitrary, this approach will provide an
approximation given data limitations.
This analysis considers only those cost effects resulting from the loss
of chlorobenzilate as a citrus miticide. While the Doane report indicates
some use of chlorobenzilate as an insecticide on lemons, oranges and grape-
fruit, chlorobenzilate is only registered for use on citrus as a miticide.
Although chlorobenzilate is either used inappropriately as an insecticide
or is inaccurately reported to Doane, only those applications reflecting
registered uses will be included in the assessment of economic impacts in
this analysis.
This cost effect analysis is also based upon information contained in the
citrus pest recommendation guides of the states of Arizona, California,
Florida and Texas (Arizona, 1976; California, 1974; Florida, 1976; Texas,
1971), and information received from entomologists specializing in citrus
pests (Brogdon; Bullock; Dean; Langston; Jeppson; Kennett; Townsend; Tuttle).
The chlorobenzilate alternatives used in the analysis were identified as
follows: from the list of citrus miticides reported by Doane as used in a
particular state, those chemicals not listed among recommended miticides in
the citrus guide for that state were deleted; from the remaining miticides
listed as used in each state, the miticides not mentioned by state entomologists
as likely to be used in place of chlorobenzilate were deleted. For example,
dimethoate is reported as being used on lemons in California and Arizona, but
it is not included among those chemicals recommended for mite control in the
citrus guide of either state; therefore, dimethoate was not included as an
alternative for chlorobenzilate in the lemon analysis for California and
Arizona.
-48-
-------
For each state and crop, the total chlorobenzilate acre-treatments
allocated to each alternative is obtained by dividing the total chloro-
benzilate acre-treatments by the number of alternatives identified in the
above manner.
The cost of treatment with the alternative is obtained by multiplying
the associated number of acre-treatments by the expenditure per acre-treatment
derived from the Doane data. In certain instances, the expenditure data in
the Doane material was perceived as being either excessively low or high,
which may have been due to reporting errors. In these cases, expenditure
data was recalculated utilizing current pesticide price lists and the
recommendation guides for each state. Tables 22, 23 and 24 present the
data used to estimate the production cost effects associated with the use
of chlorobenzilate alternatives on oranges, lemons and grapefruit. The
analysis indicates relatively minor cost effects would be associated with
the loss of chlorobenzilate as a citrus miticide. Estimated cost impacts
for U.S. growers of oranges, lemons and grapefruit if chlorobenzilate were
not available are $1,094 million, $.068 million and $.512 million, respectively.
The total estimated cost impacts for these crops combined is $1,674 million
(Table 25).
Data regarding chlorobenzilate use on "other citrus" (citrus crops other
than lemons, oranges and grapefruit) is extremely limited. This analysis
indicates that 75,700 pounds chlorobenzilate active ingredient were applied
to "other citrus" in 46,500 acre-treatments in 1975 (Table 8). Assuming a
cost impact per pound chlorobenzilate utilized on "other citrus" as occurs
per pound applied to lemons, oranges and grapefruit permits computation of
the total cost impact for "other citrus". 1/ The total U.S. cost impact for
"other citrus" crops is estimated at $138,000 per year should chlorobenzilate
be cancelled as a citrus miticide. A lack of data regarding number of
growers of "other citrus" using chlorobenzilate in the areas in which these
crops are produced does not permit evaluation of the cost impact on a per
farm or regional basis.
If all citrus cost increases are completely passed on to final domestic
consumers, the per capita cost effect resulting from the loss of chloroben-
zilate for use on "other citrus" crops approximates $0.00065 per year. The
estimated production cost effect from all citrus crops combined totals $1,812
million per year, or $0.0085 per capita if completely passed to final
domestic consumers.
The state most affected by a possible suspension/cancellation action on
chlorobenzilate is Florida. With an estimated change in pesticide costs of
$1,674 million for U.S. lemon, orange and grapefruit growers, Florida accounts
for $1,366 million or 81.6% of the total impact for these crops. Florida
oranges and grapefruit respectively account for $.864 (47.7%) and $.468
million (25.8%) of the total U.S. citrus cost impact.
1/ The total cost impact resulting from the cancellation of the continued
use of 920,000 pounds chlorobenzilate active ingredient on lemons,
oranges, and grapefruit approximates $1,674 million per year, or $1.82
per pound a.i. annually.
-49-
-------
Table 22
Comparison of Pesticide Costs Using Chlorobenzilate and Alternatives on Oranges, by State and Total U.S., Estimated for 1975
Pesticide treatment
Florida «/
Texas b/
Total U.
S.
Expenditure per
acre-treatment
Acre-treatments
Cost c/
Expenditure per
acre-treatment
Acre-treatments
Cost cf
Acre-treatments
Cost c/
chlorobenzilate
$ 6.45
345,000
$2,225,000
$ 8.77
13,000
$114,000
358,000
$2,339,000
chlorobenzllate/sulfur
3.50
110,000
385,000
110,000
385,000
chlorobenzilate/oil
5.43
60,000
326,000
6.43
7,000
45,000
67,000
371,000
chlorobenzilate/azinphosmethyl
2.67
3.000
8.000
3.000
8,000
Total
515,000
$2,936,000
23,000
$167,000
538,000
$3,103,000
carbophenothion
$
$
$ 8.78
3,286
$ .29,000
3,286
$ 29,000
dicofol
10.73
103,000
1,105,000
18.35
3,286
60,000
106,286
1,165,000
ethlon
11.05
103,000
1,138,000
15.70
3,286
52,000
106,286
1,190,000
propargite
17.00
3,286
56,000
3,286
56,000
fenbutatin-oxide
30.00
3,286
99,000
3,286
99,000
ethion/oil
8.41
103,000
866,000
15.81
3,286
52,000
106,286
918,000
carbophenothion/oll
14.78
3,286
49,000
3,286
99,000
sulfur
2.28
103,000
235,000
103,000
235,000
oil
4.43
103.000
456,000
103.000
456.000
Total
Change In pesticide cost
515,000
$3,800,000
$ 864,000
23,000
$397,000
$230,000
538,000
$4,197,000
$1,094,000
a/ The number of Florida acre-treatments for alternatives is derived by dividing the total chlorobenzilate treatments by the number of alternatives
reported by Doane that vere also defined as probable alternatives by state entomologists.
bf The derivation of Texas data is similar to Florida except for the expenditure/acre-treatment of alternatives, which was determined by using an
average recommended rate of application and prices from a Tex-Ag. Company price list; prices for fenbutatin-oxide 50WP and dicofol were provided
by a Texas state entomologist.
c/ Cost data for pesticide materials only; application mode (tank mix using a ground spray rig) and cost were assumed equal for respective acre-
treatments using chlorobenzilate or its alternatives; cost data was rounded to the nearest $1,000.
Source: Doane, 1976.
Tex-Ag Company, 1975.
Dean, 1976.
-------
Table 23
Comparison of Pesticide Costs Using Chlorobenzilate and Alternatives on Lemons,
by State and Total U.S., Estimated for 1975
Arizona a/, if
California hi, Af
Florida c/
Total U.S.
Pesticide tre&ttsent
Expenditure per
acre-treatrsent
Acre-treatments
Cost e/
Expenditure per
acre-treatment
Acre-treatments
Cost ej
Expenditure per
acre-treatment
Acre-treatments
Cost e/
Acre-treatnents
Cost ef
chlorobenzllate
chlorobenzilate/oil
$10.40
2,000
$21,000
$17.50
9.67
2,000
3.000
$35,000
29.000
5.71
7,000
$40,000
11,000
3,000
$ 96,000
29.0C0
Total
2,000
$21,000
5,000
$64,000
7,000
$40,000
14,000
S125.003
iicofol
ithlon
oil
soif-jr
ethion/oil
$15.25
14.08
3.33
666
666
666
$10,000
9,000
2,000
5
19.59
5,000
$
98,000
9.00
11.25
5.28
2.00
25.00
1,400
1,400
1,400
1,400
1,400
$13,000
16,000
7,000
3,000
35,000
2,066
2,066
6,400
2,066
1,400
$ 23, "3
I5,c:j
105,0C0
5.K.?
35.000
Total
2,000
$21,000
5,000
$98,000
7,000
$74,000
14,000
$193,000
Change In pesticide cost
$ 0
$34,000
$34,000
$ 6S,000
a/ The Arizona data was derived from Doane except for the expenditure/acre-treatment for chlorobenzilate and ethion, which were determined by using
~~ application rates given is the Arizona citrus guide and prices from the Tex-Ag company; alternatives were identified by the miticides reported
in a Doane survey that were also defined as probable alternatives by state entomologists.
*?/ ike California data ves derived from Dcane; the alternative was identified by a state entomologist and the California citrus guide,
e/ The Florida data vas derived from Doane except for oil and ethion, which were determined from prices stated by Bullock and application rates
""" recemended in the Florida citrus guide.
d/ Dcane reported California and Arizona as a single regional unit; for purposes of estimation, the data were disaggregated on the basis of
~~ chlorcbes2ilate use in California during 1974, which reported that approximately 5,000 acres of lemons were treated with chlorobenzllate; the
3,000 acre-treatoents of 1 ere as with chlorobenzllate/oil, as reported by Doane, was allocated tq California since the citrus pest guide of that
state specifically reccmends this combination while Arizona does not.
e/ Cost data for pesticide materials only; application mode (tank mix using ground spray rig) and cost were assumed equal for respective acre-
treatments using chlorobenzllate or its alternatives; cost data was rounded to the nearest $1,000.
Sources: Tex-Ag Company, 1975' California, 1974 Florida, 1976
Arizona, 1976 Bullock, 1976 California Department of Food and Agriculture, 1975.
-------
Table 24
Comparison of Pesticide Costs Using Chlorobenjsilate and Alternatives on Grapefruit,
by State and Total U.S., Estimated for 1975
Florida a/ Texas b/ Total B.S. c/
Pesticide treatment
Expenditure per
acre-treatment
Acre-treatments
Cost d/
Expenditure per
acre-treatment
Acre-treatments
Cost if
Acre-treatments
Cost &J
chlorobenzilate
$ 6.66
90,000
$
599,000
$10.22
20,000
$204,000
110,000
$ 803,000
chlorobenzilate/sulfur
7.67
3,000
23,000
3,000
23,000
cfalorobenzllate/arsenate
4.71
7,000
33,000
7,000
33,000
chlorobenzllate/oil
7.35
20,000
147,000
17.81
8,000
142,000
28,000
2S9.000
chlorobenzilate/methidathion
13.00
1,000
13,000
1,000
13,000
chlorobenzilate/azinphosmethyl
17.91
7,000
125,000
7,000
125,000
chlorobenzllate/aulfur/malathlon
6.00
2.000
12.000
_ _ -
2.000
12.000
Total
122,000
$
814,000
36,000
$484,000
158,000
$1,298,000
carbophenothion
$
$
$ 8.78
7,200
$ 63,000
7,200
$ 63,000
dicofol
8.50
17,429
148,000
17,429
148,000
ethioo
13.50
17,429
235,000
15.70
7,200
113,000
24,629
348,000
oil
5.28
17,429
92,000
17,429
92,000
sulfur
2.64
17,429
46,000
¦
17,429
46,000
dicofol/oil
18.33
7,200
132,000
7,200
132,000
dicofol/sulfur
23.00
17,429
401,000
17,429
401,000
carbophenothion/oil
14.78
7,200
106,000
7,200
106,000
ethion/oil
10.70
17,429
186,000
15.81
7,200
114,000
24,629
300,000
ethion/sulfur
10.00
17,429
174.000
17.429
174.000
Total
Change In pesticide cost
122,000
$1,282,000
$ 468,000
36,000
$528,000
$ 44,000
158,000
$1,810,000
$ 512,000
a/ The Florida alternatives were identified by nitlcIdes reported in Doane that were also defined as probable alternatives by state entomologists.
if The Texas data for acre-treatments were derived from Doane; expenditures were determined from a current Tex-Ag Company price list and recommended
~~ rates of application found in the Texas citrus guide; alternatives were identified by miticides reported in Doane that were also defined as
probable alternatives by state entomologists,
cj The U.S. data for acre treatments containing chlorobenzilate was reported in Doane; cost data was reported in Doane for Florida and was derived
for Texas from state -provided data.
if Cost data for pesticide materials only; application mode (tank mix using ground spray rig) and cost were assumed equal for respective acre-
treatments using chlorobenzilate or its alternatives; cost-data was rounded to the nearest $1,000.
Sources: Doane, 1976 Tex-Ag Company, 1975 Texas. 1971 Dean. 1976.
-------
The estimated cost impact for U.S. lemon growers currently using
chlorobenzilate is minor. Production cost increases of approximately
$34,000 are estimated for both California and Florida, with little or no
change projected in Arizona (Table 25).
Table 26 presents the estimated production cost effects on a per
grower basis for oranges, lemons and grapefruit. The potential loss of
chlorobenzilate would most heavily impact the following citrus growers
presently using the miticide: lemon and grapefruit growers in Florida,
orange growers in Texas and lemon growers in California.
Florida lemon and grapefruit growers presently using chlorobenzilate
would respectively experience estimated production cost increases of
$523 and $154. The aggregate national impact associated with the estimated
increase in production costs of Florida lemons is expected to be insignificant
due to the small number (65) and proportion (2.5%) of U.S. lemon growers.
Texas orange growers and California lemon growers presently using
chlorobenzilate would respectively experience estimated production cost
increases of $212 and $108.
Tables IIIE-1 and IIIE-2 of Appendix HIE present citrus pest treatment
costs in Florida. Table IIIE-1 presents grapefruit treatment costs in the
Indian River area of Florida, while Table IIIE-2 concerns orange treatment
costs in the central Florida citrus production area. Average treatment costs
per acre in Tables IIIE-1 and IIIE-2 are $26.24 and $26.78, respectively;
the average cost for the eight different treatments is $26.51. Assuming
these treatment costs are typical for the U.S. and that the cost per lemon
acre-treatment approximates $26.51, the derivation of the cost effects
associated with the potential loss of chlorobenzilate can be estimated on an
acre-treatment basis. The percent increase in cost per acre-treatment for
lemons, oranges and grapefruit using chlorobenzilate alternatives are found
in Table 27. The relative increases in costs per acre-treatment were
estimated to range from a low of no change for Arizona lemons to a high of
37.3% for Texas oranges.
Tables IIIE-3 and IIIE-4 of Appendix HIE present production cost budgets
for grapefruit and oranges in Florida. Annual total production costs per
•acre for grapefruit and oranges in Florida are $331.05 and $324.32, respectively.
Per acre production costs for California lemons is an approximate $900
(Appendix IIIF), which is probably also representative of lemon production
costs in Arizona. A limited number of comparisons between the changes in
mite control costs relative to budgeted citrus production costs are found in
Table 27.
The estimated Increases in citrus production costs, which are based on
a limited number of budgets, range from a low of no change for Arizona lemons
to 1.2 percent for Florida grapefruit. It is probably reasonable to assume
that the percentage increase in production costs for other citrus crops
where no production budgets were available would similarly be of minor
magnitudes.
-53-
-------
Table 25
Summary of Pesticide Cost Changes Associated with the Nonavailability of Chlorobenzilate for Use on Lemons,
Oranges and Grapefruit, by State and Total U.S., as Estimated for 1975
Crop
Florida
Texas?/
California^
Arizona^
Total U.S.
Change In
Pesticide Cost
Z Change
Change in
Pesticide Cost Z Change
Change in
Pesticide Cost
Z Change
Change in
Pesticide Cost
Z Chanee
Change in
Pesticide Cost
Z Change
Lemons
$34,000
85.0
$-—
$34,000
53.1
$0
0
$1,094,000
35.3
Oranges
864,000
29.4
230,000 137.7
68,000
54.4
Grapefruit
468,000
57.5
44,000 9.1
512,000
39.4
Total
1,366,000
36.0
274,000 42.1
34,000
53.1
0
0
1,674,000
37.0
af The Florida and Texas data for lemons was aggregated in Doane; however, since little commercial lemon acreage exists in Texas,
all chlorobenzilate acre treatments were allocated to Florida.
b/ Doane reported no uses of chlorobenzilate on oranges or grapefruit in California or Arizona.
Source: Doane, 1976.
-------
Table 26
Summary of Grower Production Cost Changes Associated with the Nonavailability of Chlorobenzilate
for Use on Lemons, Oranges and Grapefruit, by State and Total U.S., as Estimated for 1975
Growers using Acre-treatments Estimated Average Average
chlorobenzilate of chlorobenzilate change in change in change in
and and pesticide pesticide pesticide cost per
State Crop combinations a/ combinations a/ cost per grower acre-treatment
Florida
lemons
65
7,000
$ 34,000
$523
$ 4J36
oranges
5,206
515,000
864,000
166
1.68
grapefruit
3,044
122,000
468,000
154
3.84
Texas
oranges
1,084
23,000
230,000
212
10.00
grapefruit
1,500
36,000
44,000
29
1.22
California b/
lemons
315
5,000
34,000
108
6.80
Arizona b/
lemons
125
2,000
0
0
0.00
a/ As reported in Doane.
bj Doane reported 440 lemon growers in California and Arizona combined; the number of growers using chlorobenzilate in
each of these states were determined by the respective number of acre-treatments previously derived; of 7,000 acre-
treatnents involving chlorobenzilate in California and Arizona, 5,000 yere alloted to California (based on a reported
treatment of 5,000 acres during 1974) and the remaining 2,000 were allocated to Arizona. The 440 growers in
California and Arizona using chlorobenzilate were similarly disaggregated with this 5 to 2 ratio.
Sources: Doane, 1976
California Department of Food and Agriculture, 1975.
-------
Table 27
Production Cost Changes Associated with Nonavailability of Chlorobenzilate
for Use on Lemons, Oranges and Grapefruit as a Percent of Spray Treatments
and Production Costs Per Acre, by State and Total U.S., as Estimated for 1975
Average pesticide
% change in
% change in
cost change per
spray treatment
annual production
State
Crop
acre-treatment
cost/acre-treatment a/
cost/acre b/
Florida
lemons
$ 4.86
18.3
N.A.
oranges
1.68
6.3
0.5
grapefruit
3.84
14.6
1.2
Texas
oranges
10.00
37.3
N.A.
grapefruit
1.22
4.6
N.A.
California
lemons
6.80
25.6
0.8
Arizona
lemons
0.00
0
0
N.A. = not available.
a/ Based on average spray costs per acre-treatment of $26.24 (grapefruit), $26.78 (oranges) and
$26.51 (lemons)—see Appendix HIE for derivation,
b/ Based on average annual production costs in Florida of $331.05 (grapefruit),and $324.32 (oranges)
~ (includes only variable production costs). For California and Arizona, lemon production costs
per acre are estimated as $900 (includes variable and non-variable costs of production).
Appendix IIIF contains cost derivation data.
Sources: Anderson and Muraro, 1975a, 1975b. Burns, 1976.
-------
Market Impacts
The data presented in Table 12 indicate that 40.1 percent of the U.S.
orange growers used chlorobenzilate as a miticide in 1975 (Doane, 1976).
The respective percentages for the U.S. lemon and grapefruit growers are
19.2 and 57.7 percent. Citrus yield and grower revenue effects associated
with the potential loss of chlorobenzilate are uncertain and the ability
of growers to pass on increased production costs in the market would be
affected by such factors as characteristics of demand and supply, percent of
the total market output attributed to chlorobenzilate-using growers, and
the market strength of grower organizations.
Consumer Impacts
Since chlorobenzilate use is widespread among U.S. citrus growers, it
may be reasonable to assume that growers affected by the potential loss of
chlorobenzilate could shift most of the production cost increases on to
the consumer. If the total citrus production cost increase was completely
passed on to the domestic final consumers under the assumption of no
reduction in yields, the consumer price impact would be minimal. Given the
total increased production cost estimate of $1,812 million and a U.S.
population of 213 million, the annual per capita cost impact would be $0.0085.
Social/Community Impacts
This analysis does not include an evaluation of social or community impacts
which tatgresult following the potential cancellation of chlorobenzilate.
However, to the extent that such an action would increase citrus production
costs, the economic incentive for producing citrus in certain areas may be
reduced. This situation could result in the dislocation of citrus growers
and/or grove laborers. However, because of the insignificant impact
projected in this analysis, the occurrence of such social impacts appear to
be very unlikely.
Macroeconomic Impacts
Due to the relatively insignificant impact projected in this analysis,
there appear to be no effects of importance on a macroeconomic level.
-------
Limitations of Analysis
This analysis was performed under certain limitations in data and given
the use of critical assumptions which further analysis may show to be not
entirely appropriate. These limitations include:
1. A general lack of comparative cost-effectiveness data between chloro-
benzilate and its alternatives.
2. A lack of data with regard to possible changes in product yield or
quality caused by the loss of chlorobenzilate.
3. The assumption that an equal number of citrus acre-treatments using
alternatives would provide mite control on a level comparable to the
reported number of chlorobenzilate acre-treatments.
58-
-------
IV.
BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF CHLOROBENZILATE IN OTHER USES
A. INTRODUCTION
B. COTTON
C. FRUITS, NUTS AND OTHER CROPS
D. NURSERY AND GREENHOUSE CROPS
E. MARKET AND CONSUMER IMPACTS
-------
IV. BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF CHLOROBENZILATE USE ON NON-CITRUS CROPS
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this section is to identify the non-citrus crop uses
of chlorobenzilate, determine the extent of use on these crops, and
evaluate the economic effects upon the production of these crops associated
with the potential cancellation of chlorobenzilate.
Chlorobenzilate is registered as a miticide for use on a number of
crops other than citrus; these crops include almonds, apples, cherries,
cotton, melons and walnuts. Chlorobenzilate is also registered for use
as a miticide on ornamentals such as holly, spruce, arborvitae, hemlock,
taxus, azalea, lawns and shrubbery.
Of these minor uses of chlorobenzilate, cotton plus the deciduous
fruits and nuts appear to be the most important, in terms of the quantities
of chlorobenzilate used. The U.S. Department of Agriculture was the
only source indicating any chlorobenzilate use for these categories. In
1971, 51,000 acres of cotton were treated with 25,000 pounds of chloroben-
zilate; 24,000 acres of fruits and nuts (including avocados, almonds,
walnuts, and others) were treated with 81,000 pounds of chlorobenzilate
(U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1974a). These uses accounted for 106,000
pounds, or 13.1% of the chlorobenzilate applied as an agricultural miticide
in 1971.
This analysis indicates that chlorobenzilate use on non-citrus crops
during 1975 may have been as high as 120,000 pounds of active ingredient
on 63,000 acres. Cotton accounts for approximately 39,000 pounds active
ingredient (39,000 acres), while fruit and nut crops account for an
estimated 81,000 pounds active ingredient (24,000 acres).
60-
-------
COTTON
Chlorobenzilate Use Levels
Chlorobenzilate appears to be a pesticide of minor importance to
the cotton industry. Chlorobenzilate use on cotton in 1971 represented
only 3.1% of the domestic agricultural use of this miticide (U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture, 1974a). In addition, chlorobenzilate was not
listed among the pesticides used on cotton during 1973-1974 in a recent
Doane survey (Doane, 1975).
The level of chlorobenzilate use on cotton during 1975 is estimated
as follows:
1. The ratio of cotton acres treated with chlorobenzilate to the
number of cotton acres planted in 1971 (51,000 : 12,355,000) applied
to cotton acres planted in 1975 (9,493,000) yields an estimated
39,000 cotton acres treated with chlorobenzilate in 1975.
2. At the recommended application rate of 1 pound active ingredient
per acre (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1976), the estimated
39,000 cotton acres treated with chlorobenzilate in 1975 requires
39,000 pounds chlorobenzilate active ingredient 1/.
The 1975 estimate of cotton acres treated with chlorobenzilate
(39,000) represents 0.41% of the 9,492,600 acres of cotton planted in
the U.S. during 1975 (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1976b).
In general, there are numerous chlorobenzilate alternatives for
control of the spider mite species infesting cotton. The U.S. Department
of Agriculture recommends the following pesticides for control of spider
mites on cotton (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1974):
1/ The 1971 survey indicates that chlorobenzilate was used at an appli-
cation rate of about 0.5 pounds per acre (25,000 pounds applied to
51,000 cotton acres). However, current use patterns on cotton in
California (California Department of Food and Agriculture, 1974, 1975)
and current recommendations indicate an average use rate of 1 pound
chlorobenzilate active ingredient per acre on cotton.
Chlorobenzilate Alternatives for Use on Cotton
aldicarb
carbophenothion
chlorobenzilate
demeton
dicofol
dicrotophos
disulfoton
ethion
methyl parathion
monocrotophos
parathion
phorate
sulfur
-61-
-------
The Cotton Council — lists pesticides recommended for the control
of spider mite infestations of cotton in its annual publication (U.S.
Department of Agriculture, 1976). The Council recommends chlorobenzilate
for control of four spider mite species: Pacific, Schoene, strawberry,
and two-spotted. Alternative pesticides recommended by the Cotton
Council for control of these spider mite species are presented in Table 28.
Impact Analysis: Use of Alternatives on Cotton
The comparative costs between chlorobenzilate and the numerous
alternative pesticides for use on cotton can be determined from the data
in Table 28 and current pesticide price lists. An average of the appli-
cation rates recommended by the Cotton Council is used to estimate the
comparative pesticide cost data presented in Table 29.
The analysis indicates that the pesticide component of the treatment
cost for chlorobenzilate alternatives ranges from $0.71 to $12.64 per
acre. Should chlorobenzilate be cancelled as a cotton miticide, 10
of 14 recommended alternates would have a lower pesticide cost per acre.
Under a worst case assumption (that efficacious control of the cotton
spider mites can only be achieved with alternates more expensive than
chlorobenzilate) aldicarb, dicofol, methidathion, and propargite would
have increased use if chlorobenzilate were cancelled. Assuming that the
number of chlorobenzilate treated acres is equally allocated to each of
these four alternatives, the increased pesticide cost of mite control on
cotton without chlorobenzilate would approximate $125,000 ($3.21 per acre)
per year. Table 30 presents the derivation of pesticide cost increase
estimates.
1/ Cotton Council refers to an annual conference of entomologists and
technicians from 14 cotton States, the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
the National Cotton Council of America and Cotton Incorporated. The
Council meets-on an annual basis to review cotton insect research
and to develop pest control recommendations for the coming year.
-62-
-------
Table 28
Recommended Dosages Per Acre of Chlorobenzilate and Alternatives
for Control of Spider Mites on Cotton
Miticide
Pacific
Spider Mites
Schoene
Strawberry
Two-spotted
Chlorobenzilate
Aldicarbit'
Carbopheno thion
Demeton
Dicofol
1.0
0.8 - 1.6
1.0
0.25 - 0.5
0.38
1.0
0.6 - 1.0
0.38
0.8 - 1.6
1.0
0.6 - 1.0
0.25 - 1.0
0.38
0.8 - 1.6
Dicrotophos
Disulfo ton^'
Ethion
Methidathion
Methyl Parathion
Monocrotophos
Parathion
PhorateS.'
Propargite
Sulfur
0.25 - 1.0
1.0
0.6
0.6 - 1.0
0.8 - 1.6
0.1 - 0.25
0.5 - 1.0
0.25 - 0.5
1.0
0.6 - 1.0
1.0 - 1.5
0.8 - 1.6
45 - 50
0.125 - 0.25
0.5 - 1.0
0.5 - 1.0
1.0
0.6
0.5 - 1.0
0.125 - 1.0
0.5 - 1.5
0.8 - 1.6
20 - 50
a/ In-furrow granule treatment at planting.
b/ In~furrow granule treatment at planting or 0.5 pounds per hundred-
weight of planting seed.
cj In-furrow granule treatment at planting or 1.3 to 1.5 pounds per
hundredweight of planting seed.
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1976.
-63-
-------
Table 29
Pesticide Costs Per Acre of Chlorobenzilate and Alternatives
for Control of Spider Mites on Cotton
Miticide
Cost/Pound ,
Active Ingredient—
Application Rate/
Acre=-
Pesticide .Cost/
Acres'
Chlorobenzilate
3.45
1.00
5.45
Aldicarb
15.80
0.80
12.64
Carbophenothion
3.51
0.625
2.20
Demeton
10.00
0.38
3.80
Dicofol
4.99
1.20
5.99
Dicrotophos
4.06
0.175
0.71
Disulfoton
3.20
0.75
2.40
Ethion
3.93
0.875
3.44
Methidathion
10.00
1.0
10.00
Methyl Parathion
1.65
0.6
0.99
Monocrotophos
4.21
0.75
3.16
Parathion
2.00
0.56
1.12
Phorate
4.20
1.0
4.20
Propargite
5.04
1.2
6.04
Sulfur
0.15
35.0
5.25
a/ Prices for aldicarb, dicrotophos, disulfoton, methyl parathion, and
monocrotophos from Parvin et. al., 1976; Prices for carbophenothion,
chlorobenzilate, demeton, dicofol, ethion, methidathion, and
parathion from a Tex-Ag Company, 1975 Price List; price for phorate
taken from E-Z Flow Chemical Company, 1976; sulfur price estimated
following pattern of numerous current price lists,
b/ Average of application rates presented in Table 28.
cj Represents only pesticide costs and does not consider costs associated
with application.
Sources: Parvin et.al., 1976
E-Z Flow Chemical Company, 1976
Tex-Ag Company, 1975
-£4-
-------
Table 30
Comparison of Pesticide Costs of Chlorobenzilate
and Alternatives for Control of Spider Mites on
Cotton, Total U.S., Estimated for 1975
Miticide
Pesticide .
Cost/Acre^
Acres Treated
Total
Pesticide Cost—
Chlorobenzilate
$ 5.45
39,000
$213,000
Aldicarb
12.64
9,750
123,000'
Dicofol
5.99
9,750
58,000
Methidathion
10.00
9,750
98,000
Propargite
6.04
9,750
59,000
39,000
$338,000
Change in
$125,000
miticide cost
.a/ Represents only pesticide costs and does not consider costs associated
with application.
-65-
-------
Table 30
Comparison of Pesticide Costs of Chlorobenzilate
and Alternatives for Control of Spider Mites on
Cotton, Total U.S., Estimated for 1975
Miticide
Pesticide .
Cost/Acre^
Acres Treated
Total ,
Pesticide Cost—''
Chlorobenzilate
$ 5.45
39,000
$213,000
Aldicarb
12.64
9,750
123,000'
Dicofol
5.99
9,750
58,000
Methidathion
10.00
9,750
98,000
Propargite
6.04
9,750
59,000
39,000
$338,000
Change in
miticide cost
$125,000
a,/ Represents only pesticide costs and does not consider costs associated
with application.
-65-
-------
FRUITS, NUTS AND OTHER CROPS
Chlorobenzilate Use Levels
The noncotton and noncitrus uses of chlorobenzilate are spread over
a wide range of agricultural commodities and comprise only a small pro-
portion of domestic chlorobenzilate use. The most recent U.S. Department
of Agriculture survey on agricultural pesticide use (U.S. Department of
Agriculture, 1974a) indicates that less than ten percent of domestic
chlorobenzilate use in 1971 was for fruit and nut crops; 81,000 pounds active
ingredient were estimated to be applied to 24,000 acres in 1971. Doane did
not report any use of chlorobenzilate on apples, pears or cherries in the
1975 survey of pesticide use on specialty crops (Doane, 1976).
The California pesticide data (Appendix IIB) shows that chlorobenzilate
use on fruits, nuts, vegetables and other crops has variied considerably
from year to year. However, average use of chlorobenzilate on these
crops during the period 1970 to 1974 was 15,080 pounds.
Impact Analysis: Use of Alternatives on Fruits,
Nuts and Other Crops
Since California is a major producer of fruit, nut and vegetable
crops, chlorobenzilate use patterns in that state may be representative
of the entire U.S. 1/. It is assumed that chlorobenzilate use on this
crop category has remained relatively constant in recent years and that the
1971 survey data (81,000 pounds active ingredient applied to 24,000 acres
of "other fruits and nuts") is representative of current national
chlorobenzilate use for this crop category (U.S. Department of Agriculture,
The major fruit and nut crops for which chlorobenzilate is registered
are: almonds, apples, cherries, melons (cantaloupes, casabas, crenshaws,
honeydews, muskmelons, Persian melons), pears and walnuts. In general,
numerous chlorobenzilate alternatives are registered and recommended for
these crops. For example, miticides (in addition to chlorobenzilate)
recommended for control of spider mites on walnuts in California include
(California, 1973):
1/ In 1971, fruits treated with chlorobenzilate in California included
apples (150 acres), sweet cherries (10 acres), grapes (110 acres)
and pears (107 acres); nuts included almonds (14,173 acres) and
walnuts (624 acres). The ratio of fruits to nuts treated with
chlorobenzilate is 1:39 (California Department of Agriculture, 1971).
1974a)
carbophenothion
dicofol
dioxathion
ethion
oils
phosalone
propargite
-66-
-------
The following chlorobenzilate alternatives are recommended by
California (California, 1973a) for control of several mite species on
apples:
Tables 31 and 32 present cost data for chlorobenzilate and alternates
for two California crops (walnuts and apples). Certain of the
chlorobenzilate alternatives can be applied at a lower cost per acre.
However, under a worst case assumption only the higher cost alternatives
will be considered in the analyses.
These analyses estimate the comparative cost between chlorobenzilate
and its higher cost alternatives for fruit and nut crops as follows:
1. The average per acre pesticide cost increase associated with the
potential loss of chlorobenzilate for representative fruit (apples)
and nut (walnut) crops is respectively $0.86 and $2.91.
2. in 1971, the ratio of acres of fruits to acres of nuts treated with
chlorobenzilate in California was approximately 1:39.
3. Extrapolating the California rates of fruit to nut acres treated with
chlorobenzilate to U.S. fruit and nut acreage treated with chloro-
benzilate (24,000 acres) indicates a breakdown of 600 acres of fruits
and 23,400 acres of nuts.
4. Multiplying the cost effect per acre for fruits ($0.86) and nuts
($2.91) respectively by 600 and 23,400 acres, indicates a total U.S.
pesticide cost increase of $69,000 per year for fruits and nuts.
carbophenothion
cyhexatin
dicofol
ethion
propargite
tetradifon
-67-
-------
Table 31
Pesticide Costs Per Acre of Chlorobenzilate and Alternatives
for Control of Mites on Walnuts
Miticide -1
Cost/Pound .
Active Ingredient—
Applicaticy Rate/
Acre
Pesticide Cost/
Acre
Chlorobenzilate
5.45
1.5
8.18
Carbophenothion
3.50
2.0
7.00
Dicofol
6.22
1.0
6.22
Dioxathion
4.88
2.0
9. 76
Ethion
5.84
2.0
11.68
Oil
1.55/gal.
5 gal.
7.75
Phosalone
6.32
2.25
14.22
Propargite
7.23
1.20
8.68
.a/ Miticides recommended in the 1973 California Walnut Treatment Guide,
b/ Prices for carbophenothion, chlorobenzilate, dicofol, ethion, and
phosalone and propargite are from an Occidental Chemical Company, 1976
price liot; the price for dioxathion is from a Tex-Ag Company, 1975
price list.
cj Application rates taken from California 1973 Pest and Disease Control
Program for Walnuts, based on application of 400 gallons of spray
per acre where applicable.
Sources: California, 1973c
Occidental Chemical Company, 1976
Tex-Ag Company, 1975.
-68-
-------
Table 32
Pesticide Costs Per Acre of Chlorobenzilate and Alternatives
for Control of Mites on Apples
Miticide^
Cost/Pound^.'
Active Ingredient
Application Rate/ Pesticide Cost/
Acre^' Acre
Chlorobenzilate
5.45
0.375
$2.04
Carbophenothion
3.50
1.00
3.50
Cyhexatin
24.00
0.125
3.00
Dicofol
6.22
0.47
2.92
Ethion
5.84
0.25
1.46
Propargite
7.23
0.30
2.17
Tetradifon
7.08
0.25
1.77
a/ Miticides recommended for use in the 1973 California Apple Treatment Guide,
b/ Prices for carbophenothion, cyhexatin, dicofol, ethion, propargite are from
a 1976 Occidental Chemical Company price list; price for tetradifon is from
a 1975 Western Farmers Association price list,
c/ Application rates for all miticides are from a 1973 California Apple pest
control guide except carbophenothion which is assumed to be applied at the
rate of 400 gallons of spray per acre as found in EPA Compendium of
Registered Pesticides.
Sources: Occidental Chemical Company, 1976. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1973. Western Farmers Association, 1975. California, 1973a
-69-
-------
NURSERY AND GREENHOUSE CROPS
Very little chlorobenzilate is used for mite control on nursery,
greenhouse or other floricultural crops. Certain home and garden
general-purpose products for control of pests on ornamentals contain
chlorobenzilate. However, the quantity of active ingredient involved
in this use is extremely limited and alternatives appear numerous.
Some chlorobenzilate may be used in commercial plantings of ornamentals
but this use also appears to be very limited.
There was no reported use of chlorobenzilate on nursery and green-
house crops in a 1971 pesticide survey (U.S. Department of Agriculture,
1974a). The California pesticide use data (Appendix IIB) indicates
average annual use of chlorobenzilate on ornamentals, trees and turf
in California in recent years was 60 pounds active ingredient. Assuming
this use pattern is typical of the United States as a whole, up to 3,000
pounds chlorobenzilate active ingredient may be used in these applications
per year. Due to the insignificant quantity of chlorobenzilate used
for mite control on ornamental crops and the large number of registered
alternatives (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976) available for
these uses, any impact resulting from a cancellation of chlorobenzilate
appears to be negligible. Therefore, a separate analysis concerning
this category is not included in the report.
-70-
-------
MARKET AND CONSUMER IMPACTS
This analysis indicates that the potential cancellation of chloro-
benzilate for use on non-citrus crops would have insignificant effects
upon growers, marketers and consumers of these crops. The reasons are:
1. Only small quantities of chlorobenzilate are used for mite control
on cotton and a wide variety of fruit and nut crops.
2. Numerous chlorobenzilate alternatives are both registered and
recommended for use on cotton, fruits, nuts and other crops.
3. Certain of the alternatives can be used at a lower pesticide cost
per acre.
Should the cancellation of chlorobenzilate result in the use of
higher-cost alternatives on non-citrus crops, the total estimated
pesticide cost increase is $194,000 per year. Of this total, cotton
accounts for $125,000; fruits, nuts and other crops approximate $69,000.
If the total non-citrus production cost increase was completely passed on
to final domestic consumers under the assumption of no reduction in
yields, the consumer impact would be minimal. Given the estimated
production cost increase of $194,000 and a U.S. population of 213 million,
the annual per capita cost impact would be $0.0009.
-71-
-------
REFERENCES
-------
REFERENCES
Anderson, C. L. and R. P. Muraro, Budgeting Costs and Returns in
Central Florida Citrus Produttion 1974-75, University of Florida,
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Gainesville, Florida,
June, 1975.
Anderson, C. L. and R. P. Muraro, Budgeting Costs and Returns in
Indian River Citrus Production 1974-75, Economic Information
Report 31, University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural
Sciences, Gainesville, Florida, July, 1975.
Arizona, University of Arizona, Cooperative Extension Service, 1976-77,
Arizona Citrus Insect Control, Tucson, Arizona, 1976.
Arizona, University of Arizona, Department of Entomology, Agricultural
Use of Pesticides in Arizona, July, 1974.
Bailey, Jack C. and H.A. Dean, Zineb Versus Maneb For Citrus Rust Mite
Control, Journal of the Rio Grande Valley Horticultural Society,
Volume 16, 1962.
Brogdon, James E., Extension Entomologist, University of Florida,
Gainesville, Florida, personal communication, August 6, 1976.
Brogdon, James E. and Fred P. Lawrence, Insects and Mites of Florida
Citrus, University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural
Sciences, Gainesville, Florida, November, 1974.
Bullock, Dr. Robert C., Entomologist, Agricultural Research Center,
Ft, Pierce, Florida, personal communication, September 16, 1976.
Burns, Alfred J. and Joseph C. Podany, "California-Arizona Fresh
Oranges: Marketing Patterns,¦ Prices, Costs, Margins and Grower
Returns", in Fruit Situation, U. S. Department of Agriculture,
Economic Research Service, Washington, D. C., June, 1976.
Burns, Robert M., Farm Supervisor, University of California Cooperative
Extension Service, Ventura County, California, personal communication,
October 5, 1976.
Burns, Robert M., Sample Lemon. Production Costs - Citrimatlon for
Ventura County, University of California Cooperative Extension
Service, Ventura County, California, May, 1975.
California Department of Agriculture, Pesticide Use Report 1970,
Sacramento, California, 1971.
California Department of Agriculture, Pesticide Use Report 1971,
Sacramento, California, 1972.
California Department of Agriculture, Pesticide Use Report 1972,
Sacramento, California, 1973.
-------
California Department of Food and Agriculture, Pesticide Use Report 1973,
Sacramento, California, 1974.
California Department of Food and Agriculture, Pesticide Use Report 1974,
Sacramento, California, 1975.
California, University of California, Division of Agricultural Sciences,
1973 Pest and Disease Control Program for Apples, January, 1973a.
California, University of California, Division of Agricultural Sciences,
1973 Pest and Disease Control Program for Walnuts, January, 1973c.
California, University of California, Division of Agricultural Sciences,
Pest and Disease Control Program for Pears, January, 1973b.
California, University of California, Division of Agricultural Sciences,
1974-75 Treatment Guide for California Citrus Crops, 1974.
Ciba-Geigy Corporation, Agricultural Division, 1976 Sample Labels,
Greensboro, North Carolina, 1976.
Dean, Dr. H. A., Entomologist, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station,
Weslaco, Texas, personal communication, September 13, 1976.
Dean, H.A., Control of Eutetranychus banksi Mc.G. on Citrus with Dusts
During 1957, with Residue Analysis, Journal of the Rio Grande Valley
Horticultural Society, Volume 13, 1959.
Dean, H.A., Texas Citrus Mite Control on Grapefruit with Various Post-
Bloom and Summer Treatments, Journal of the Rio Grande Valley Horti-
cultural Society, Volume 25, 1971.
Dean, H.A., Citrus Mite Control With Certain Acaricides 1970-73, (un-
determined journal source), 1974.
Doane Agricultural Service, Inc., Information and Research Division,
Projected Use of Insecticides on Corn and Cotton, report no. 3 of
"Current Pesticide Use and User Profiles for Selected Pesticide
Intensive Crops", EPA Contract 68-01-1928, St. Louis, Missouri,
October, 1975.
Doane Agricultural Service, Inc., Information and Research Division,
Current Pesticide Use and User Profiles for Selected Pesticide
Intensive Crops, report no. 4 of "Pesticide Use Data on Selected
Specialty Crops", EPA Contract 68-01-1928, St. Louis, Missouri,
January, 1976.
E-Z Flow Chemical Compnay, 1976 Price Book, Lansing, Michigan, 1976.
Florida Department of Agriculture, Florida Crop and Livestock Reporting
Service, Citrus Summary 1975, Orlando, Florida, December 1975.
-------
Florida, University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural
Sciences, Florida Citrus Spray and Dust Schedule 1974, Gainesville,
Florida, 1974.
Florida, University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural
Sciences, Citrus Spray and Dust Schedule 1976, Gainesville, Florida,
January, 1976.
Jeppson, Dr. Lee R., Entomologist, University of California, Riverside,
California, personal communication, September 12, 1976.
Jeppson, L.R., M.J. Jesser, and J.O. Complin, Control of Mites on
Citrus with Chlorobenzilate, Journal of Economic Entomology, Volume 48,
No. 4, August, 1955.
Jeppson, L.R., M.J. Jesser and J.O. Complin, Factors Affecting Populations
of the Citrus Bud Mite in Southern California Lemon Orchards and
Acaricide Treatments for Control of This Eriophyid, Journal of
Economic Entomology, Volume 51, No. 5, October, 1958.
Kennett, C. E., Citrus Entomologist, University of California, Berkeley,
California, personal communication, September 13, 1976.
Langston, Dr. David, Entomologist, University of Arizona, Phoenix,
Arizona, personal communication, September 20, 1976.
Lawless, Edward W., Rosmarie von Rumker and Thomas L. Ferguson, The
Pollution Potential in Pesticide Manufacturing, Environmental
Protection Agency Technical Studies Report TS-00-72-04, Washington,
D.C., June, 1972.
Little, A. D., Inc., Initial Scientific and Mini-Economic Review of
Chlorobenzilate, prepared for Criteria and Evaluation Division,
Office of Pesticide Programs, U. S. EPA, Washington, D. C., August, 1974.
Meister Publishing Company, Farm Chemicals Handbook 1976, Willoughby,
Ohio, 1976.
Occidental Chemical Company, pesticide products price sheets, Lathrop,
California, January 26, 1976.
Parvin, D. W., J. M. Anderson, S. H. Hooker, Jr., F. T. Cooke, Jr., Cost
of Production Estimates for Major Crops, Mississippi Delta, 1976,
Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station Bulletin 843,
Mississippi State, Mississippi, February, 1976.
Pratt, Robert M.„ Florida Guide to Citrus Insects, Diseases and
Nutritional Disorders in Color, University of Florida, Agricultural
Experiment Stations, Gainesville, Florida, April, 1958.
Tex-Ag Company, Dealer Price List, Mission, Texas, November 20, 1975.
-75-
-------
Texas A&M University, Texas Agricultural Extension Service, Texas
Guide for Controlling Pests and Diseases on Citrus, College Station,
Texas, 1971.
Texas Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, 1974 Texas Fruit and Pecan
Statistics, Austin, Texas, March, 1975.
Townsend, Kenneth G., Assistant in Extension Entomology, Agricultural
Research and Education Center, Lake Alfred, Florida, personal
communication, September 15, 1976.
Tuttle, Dr. D. M., Entomologist, Yuma Experiment Station, University
of Arizona, Yuma, Arizona, personal communication, September 14, 1976.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Statistics 1975, Washington,
D.C., 1975.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Fruit
Situation, Washington, D.C., June, 1976a.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Fruit
Situation, Washington, D.C., September, 1976c.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service and Forest
Service, Guidelines for the Use of Insecticides, Washington, D.C.,
February, 1974.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 29th
Annual Conference Report on Cotton Insect Research and Control,
Washington, D.C., February, 1976.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Stabilization and Con-
servation Service, Tie Pesticide Review 1975, Washington, D.C.,
July, 1976d.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Crop Reporting Board, Statistical
Reporting Service, Acreage, Washington, D.C., June 30, 1976b.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Farmers
Use of Pesticides in 1971 . . . Quantities, Washington, D.C.,
July, 1974a.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Sfervice, Quantities
of Pesticides Used by Farmers in 1964, Washington, D.C,, January, 1968.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Quantities
of Pesticides Used by Farmers in 1966, Washington, D.C., April, 1970.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Compendium of Registered
Pesticides, Washington, D.C., 1973.
76
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Site/Pest/Chemical/List of Registered
Substitutes for Chlorobenzilate, Technical Services Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs, EPA, October 23, 1976.
U.S. Government Printing Office, Federal Register Volume 41, Number 102,
Washington, D.C., May 25, 1976.
U.S. Government Printing Office, Federal Register Volume 42, Number 103,
Washington, D.C., May 26, 1976.
U.S. International Trade Commission, United States Production and Sales
of Pesticides and Related Products, 1975 Preliminary, Washington, D.C.,
1976.
U.S. Tariff Commission, United States Production and Sales of Pesticides
and Related Products, 1970 Preliminary, Washington, D.C., 1971.
U.S. Tariff Commission, United States Production and Sales of Pesticides
and Related Products, 1970 Preliminary, Washington, D.C., 1972.
U.S. Tariff Commission, United States Production and Sales of Pesticides
and Related Products, 1972 Preliminary, Washington, B.C., 1973.
U.S. Tariff Commission, United States Production and Sales of Pesticides
and Related Products, 1973 Preliminary, Washington, D.C., 1974.
Western Farmers Association, farm chemicals price list, July 1, 1975.
Ziegler, Louis W., and Herbert S. Wolfe, Citrus Growing in Florida,
University Presses of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, 1975.
-77-
-------
APPENDICES
IA. FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE, VOLUME 41, NUMBER 103
IB. FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE, VOLUME 41, NUMBER 102
IIA. USDA SURVEY DATA FOR CHLOROBENZILATE
IIB. CALIFORNIA CHLOROBENZILATE USE DATA
IIC. EPA COMPENDIUM ENTRY FOR CHLOROBENZILATE
IIIA. STATE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MITE CONTROL ON CITRUS
IIIB. USDA RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MITE CONTROL ON CITRUS
IIIC. DOANE SURVEY DATA FOR CHLOROBENZILATE
HID. CITRUS PRODUCTION SUMMARY
IIIE. SPRAY PROGRAM AND PRODUCTION COSTS FOR FLORIDA CITRUS CROPS
IIIF. PRODUCTION COSTS FOR CALIFORNIA LEMONS
IIIG. FIELD TEST EFFICACY DATA OF CHLOROBENZILATE AND
ALTERNATIVE MITICIDES
-------
APPENDIX IA
FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE VOLUME 41, NUMBER 103
-------
imt, H8-7i OPP-3CWQO/3)
PESTIC50S PROGRAMS
Nollco oi Preauiitpften #n?'.h «
The' Bcmicy A'hnftiiatnUcii'
Of H:e Ofttffo oi rv.?i'«5d« Pr»>.yr.;nJV. X*-»-
vlronriu-iHal V»ote;txn Agrney (rVA),
has tJ«!toir.tlyeic"'«>r(l <0 cn>. l«; i.y
prwflsMlen on .u!y 3, 1076, p: iu,
on t":'."' :»¦ :i
trillion 0:1« I iiVJ Of ills-:;: utOH
MO 1/c,' SftMH). OtfiiVi Kj.'.i) «]' !!ic:i'
J'CWiU.lions jti'ovijlcs tir.'t a v .i>u*-.il.it
j.'ip.nmiist^oii w i -v.i -
Utii-iod rcf.! (tniiioo Slv.il v ;; it r.r .
InililiUtiS n tv t-r--
,U)V t/1' tho < ;lit. it.',. tor i'ls!; I lorllS
in 'io Ci'i*. icii.ii'iiHii;. jf u :.'i
mim*J Uif,; hwi-Ii ii j.vtK.fi .'uv>t
milk.'rVitoA or ra:i-'irili i,5 <;i
• ti. ii.i'TT' ••¦iUi > l>
ciuhv. "II".: riy.^'tiin' I>s nolilir.:. t/>
-------
noti«:us
r'ili;>! ira.), (!»»!. ho 1i;f. U;o <>i>;v»r- on l.ol.h ra"s of Pttrwo't't "r'sirmn rnts. V1VHA Oiba-Uoti.'V lsl>ein>: js;:r-
tiarl.y |r> : ;ihnr.:. rvi'l. II.'.' ill ivb'.'.M i\,.)i j d-cj;,ir.it Vi.l;. wixat UtiivMy Ca.ialU to Tt.' licil 10It11 ni V'i i'l W tlliii. Ihfl
lb: pi; '.in i >n iii lir.ofur'-.nco vvl' H tb'rl from i.»Ui ttr.f 101 iWislaiM. /Viluiui; t proi i
1 11: i " >. 'j i,<-. A-mry i.; l".V>s.!t v.-t:Tw.-ul.y iirU^ tuul So tonuilo I« vdr:v.i: ibih M.:nty fnr twHie hv.iiocl'"^
'.'I'.it-y l«i ii:!oiii »V!C /»••.! 0 1'isr.: t'-i' tii.'Jo r;>t;i >Wf; fs-tf 5i> Mt-T JM »1a$
Iran'".. :>¦!"iiv.'c!! i>« lin; j,nil U0 mr.l-' msd i«*unlc r.UM ,.<0, l."ac ionruluir reasons. the iV>>nly
/!, I..I 'i\ »)i tin' p!«; .H;'.n|i;:>n v.'i'i'O lV.i !)fi0 '".V'..v'il'.'S U'cDl I.lie i*ii. AontillWtl'nt'U' tl:ic'rU't'tnn.Ml
m! i .i .i I'i: i i Mi i:i I i ¦ ; i:,- r lti!il.:irf. 1 i ¦- ' >i;i, *'!¦'!*. Ui: t ;i r"Vu!.{:i!)lr ifi fsi.'.; ;
n! if 'i'1;!'' jv-M.'u.'t, un t" if. a::i.l .'.itiU'l uiiestino. liver, :v»:iUj 1 re'.!-.!vai:a»l> a*'ii fvi!iti'ui vi r,':1,!'.-
t ,iU>. .•r<1 i» coniiii; r.i-i s;:i.;ou. nt«crca*:. UMneys. .•alrenuic-i, boiii\ tvaiion >M .••• sln-irlf: . t.i rio wtTP !>ro-i.crvf. 1 roin ilivp* ch'oiv!). ii iv a!.! ."ri :> tt
Tf v'.".r.;l?.ttvo number of rntnul.^ in 11 ,r.v,. j•.»:>;: : -iriipii'-H
, i. :. ! .¦ i1 ¦'!1 vi' ui'lfrl 1 i:'•! ;- i'i;''i.' 1v.'i.'i'f '¦->' \t> •-1?''i'i:'1 ll'.r I... r;!' '-; p'O M -:. ii>
Ii :¦. '11* ' ^ :l i ' l'-' '.V i.i Ik"! i;1 I; oit- mv¦C'\' n"iu\il:'. Mit".r. i1"1.;*. liit* iwU V;i \\ '' v. !*ih ;-i'¦ ¦ vi ic-
M! . ' il.''. 1'i1'' '«:f i:s*::!!• I'.) ' •i .'::'! tl v.-'j'Iivjt: «">" ."i.i'ictIon-' C I'. i." i''1 ' \f.vi :' r".
j.-.i'f.'i !i'.-l.-t! :ri:.-" rvlifM U ia >.!>",¦^;-c! in Hiaalo l'-vl U piiiu "k,i oi pt: : \l. ¦< .. ,r.\
iljii i'l'.',..'d tb.-.i :" • *.:»«. :•.; y \vr-r. . iifri-M": t-!Ii -.tv ! ; Xt«| 5C0 d,«i> »."•*<• i'-fitule ;•.'»••; v-^sc: jsi-t or ; c •!)vm>1> in «!.¦:•* w the {-n-
(ill l>i. ¦ ( ,! .'ilM.Ut1il. A il.T'. i>.:» '"'.'.i.M! i." | e i.Vi^yf^,,! I'.litl'jT W'..Vii OM'.i t u::o!v to if-;:''! i.i
!l1..' viS. 'i 'i'1 1.:'i v-i ; or! ii> !'nr- c"">'¦ i'-...'l iuU-1?. i:11. :'h>'0'i:c iniyc-): •'f'V.v!-;: u. i°.'i
Jr.; ri', \v'i t'.;". .i iia:o iiicrif. t-r fx- five.-, no iii'iv.-.'iijfa v.-ufU-.-r.' tli**:- tho r-..iir>nt L.y Ascnoy t».-;
{•co.:«s tVsc o.'iii.-:*1;! '~>r As is v;viv cb'tv.c;? in vl".i c^ntn?'. p;«:itSci.''c i -: r-xcivJ ; i! i;
t.i.ii'iu'. x v". i 'M;!'- f ''Y." V'...! JI i .'M m .:' y p,-c;, ;¦: lir-v i.. X'"1 oi'.lei' v.1 i.>n >U! w it i*'.-1,-. i-i'ii -j-1;, .;'t for! b i.i ^ u f > i
be icoitli'-:}. in :i p.n (y. sw.-k- tViorcnU'.2i vo-cv?i'.u>.lHn i*f t?''-- Ktucly. tb;j (a,; iniH v..r mor.
in:: 'iC';1'vo-jihtra- ii-'.T i.. piv: ;- A!. Ilio tir.i" n-vc or •
nv.y cus to whi.-her c-^1'7 rcsut^lii'-j tUc »issue find o;niL !>v i<;! i .itic.n p'.!;ir,i;s i.--;<:^nve i's
Hie t.•!.(•,.'".(it*.. o;-ial f.ncs v Jivivonirioniul- r.ihr?!' invemn-.tioii up« v/hic'i tiiis rei?ort l ./vai/U of't.'io pn~um-.»!it.:n. iu: •¦•v.y
bi-ioiii.s if.'in xne of th« J» t.ticula out- is I :;,-ev;. &u»>u:il cvlrtcn-v. ps tc vhi-foiT the- eoc-
I no ''Kkj. T^ir, J.i>•nta ':i *'noar:'n;\:l\rrlLi A ot t-Jic I'ift of cViIwobw-v''•• i-.i ... ;u, i>v
va ;x:. i'v .^..1.1 It. nu,i.c i.t !¦.... i. tw j-ill of crm cxivc.-ii'.v. t:y li'i.qjnoaijnou- . .
vatic''] (.»: lr, itc.iy t'.ir imit o. u Vcr ''jr.'.. c' Mrv V!, >, Oiki-nM".*, •5l<-v;K'lU ..l- >•'•••
\>i ,'JcUitu Corp orxiiJi^h^^dvr:-'A^o'-cv v!un. rat»«!r-: c;«rr«u'y hi rnrtiw
)'c.s'1 'jf '.ii'c Clilory- iv co'.l'-i'.'ortf the IK'; •>»'• U:ij ".ivJ;* " iirciiuc.'i
i. TiT-nuU: ..-i u;.i ".it t.-.co!. w or.- vv>-1'.-' *;s?rot ttivAs." t;ccls*>:j ).S(ui «>i hs a>- Luw^-.i!
iverl I'-iO vi* Vc- «i HcSr, sut fivi'i ..... — - ... - — - -
hi OT"jI- 3 C ilecivnni- Kl*\ V.- v-\\ ^
V' :.,Uii-'v'io.i c; v. y.-':.V'r'.\c *¦v x'
Wi'Lr;' o! -.:v r:.3 •• * " - ---- ... - ... .
i if'.o, i 'mi/.iriuc, iiiui Jit'CU.n'.H.-i'.'C Act V'.'r., < 'lu j-wl Co., tu .. l'A« Wmim-M. Mv'i., i
' )*i1'; ? iV) , (*.i> r'.itMI'KlOi I. At m Cii.NMi':.:! r-i. rjt.1., r/rt
i;i ( i\\ c-niv- 'it..-., -w, v-a ii^n n'-.v VmU. w.v.
H\ * ''vV- l C * 11 t ?> ('J / '\ ^ ^ />LvLiCM» V.O. )I-'X 111*2,
" r.I pt-wwMvu) s!jiiK '
U «' J>? '.S> ** ,!> *
In evppri- (.<; .v^nih-'ri''.? C«»r., vx> N»f| Vost (>?.V »<«.,
!ii:u.>iu.'.]t?i) ij:c"..*-ius la ui'('. 1C1 I'I'»j¦ >¦' 'r-_ >',!.,
, , , . i t »><.•>¦»
pc»:ur0 '• * ^ 1 AV'.l: :rlU. v CUta oI'.'va C\,vr.'i .ti Vt'o;V.\Ltd., r/jSchhcxn,
cii'oH'? ti-i rc»'.i!l. vi cvut N',;ri. '•
MiV.*. A •- i ij:;v ir. -i. il. W. '.".lUt'S. »>.:«!! .•{•.».. !>¦ •.. N'l.n!; J-! m.n. • >. sv.i'J'iH*...
r! PI.; 3 r;'.?.y o; tt,«¦.«>¦ >.* i.uu,,- ^ ,-\V! 1'r' i T".'' 1 *'' °
ivi'.J i J()I <¦' '!iC.i.V ill Til/ i( . it., 1' r'. ilov , ! in. ^'711
f.; V:-?u. •'. -1. KiUiv-uil .'';•••> 1 -"<•"»
C;f.v.".i» i'ii'jl i'.'a.ii. ) I'M Uii.:'V.. rer.tii^: Uv? '
1TS"Uft 'l. ' ;'v .¦.•i.ii«-n» .'•opUrania lof rc^lstr&UOii iy? |«
(nuTs-.fi'.se i v SiiMi^lOU MliiC . ...... . t ...
t. . . ., .. . . A;.o»:'unt »•? \ V- rn.-:s--r
U.-'M v:\- r 4^V. ¦¦¦'¦'J. tV\|c u-y\\;iUn n...
' ' *4 ' * * • «V - • • \ 1'' ) (' l • ' I •» . V i i i»\ • t i » v I'chi I <¦'»., In*.. !•:! Ni»iOn*rn <#1.1; (,*J 1 i »{«* '
i'-1 •'« t-tMi*.. All ,1'iv^i v ; *::vo n.v.
• ' ( . r>y\,}i ..I : i,!' A.'Mt > I (•»., Ct„*t t'r »!:•«*.{ »lt OltMai.v* Divisha, Kl. m. .v:;; 1' I » i
' • V , v' ' : V \ n.
>'>; » i I \ •» \M:\i >-V.K)\\>sK\s. ;sUx. U,u: A: H?.x 3A-*. Mi l\%. aUM iC-i
'iiti-KifJ /!. i i£*:» > l.V >•' ,ii 1 w ; ;t in- i-i • .
J. <• i ' tin • i,k •»., t/. t , 4. • . „f <*'»•'»-• •¦Vutv MM- U CI, h?C; • ;•' : ¦«
< 1 4 ><• In .iia.i' U'-A u>\ M.n ...mm,*.. ?\o. h..v ..'.v. ij uvr. roi- m,w.
l».5?h I rcir»i Mi'O.l lv> *J\? tl C *4> it.i.Co.. /¦»!' •» , A\«\, l'la»U 4 •%%'*•.<, Milflw i*l, Si. .'.'"V. 'Hi''. CM-.. •!•••:»'if.-
(-*»u-.ip <:•••!.'!)>. llfiT.h'HV.;;' 'M-vr i •portrvl n. w. ^ ....
tn tv» i.T-wli' nr.i'P. ~.«. f«../i-. [•:: I •<<(»i.,fVv-.'..ml. ttit:;.. .. imI '¦"•( :•"• >•.•'• '• - -i ~ .«.•*-« • ;•
A ;;l'.l'.iy i lictl by II. Huu>. otx A'"1 ""1 'IVv- w'-: *'•" ,{"M yi'" ,,
oi' i , ./ ,* * " ' 7..' .
#1 . ... . ... Inl>ovr ivi't'.iniotn ami u? p»v: »»f t»w.v »*r^tU» •. •
¦",u',!,! ,11 1,u;-,Hr-v ' KM ion »r it:ff n>>'.!lt.';l i.»y 'ih« tuH : -
ii ,a:ii•. (ii .t I tin' rlm.Ht: fi'.ti'l. i'l ('.hlMiib.'ii/i'i :l ; liwi rc :.i; lr,'.i;:n sukI I'.l'X). to .i«i!.tn.v.i: .hav, way •.><, rv,-,
-81-
-------
Noiicrs
III-. JTw.-V«U*. Mia .Mlni'.i- t( Of »>l\v\VI( -f>;W, fid !»?*«• |V; •«>;! v'i ! • : i.:; i;\l «ni!; !t>
i™i iv. ¦ iM" !'i.';y. I .:i'i'a'iMi: liowu. :'.r;u'l. < n' I I'nui;,.!'.'., 'Jin. -liV.. i'.\.r i'm. '.>=!!•• . i nv-i, v. *l>". ',.\o
r.i| I'l.'iy:: ill ll ]•';> I. Ti v.'i i . -I'M M r'.f-.W. •VjU'hinpS.'u • •. it:»;.»». :>v -V ! 'O ii':-'
( vi:' . Hi .; »i\;iy lie ;;ui>mil.l' <1. Not l. If i»i*:utlc b>::ut\ l.» t'.xi . v,.sUv \vi"l '• i» ::v: m ) \o *.iv
ill ll-': >if. -1;--i!. i>f tlu: rtf.i'iioy ;m!l v j^.c j.a i. p .v ,¦! !•*.• 1 \>i..
i *: 4 r i;' j. .',<<< t i:n : rlii,v;:''.l i \ r 'I'wi'.l • ion Ilii'i'i. "t'ii;- roiM!>:'-(ilx .vv. i i;i! ; V; •*:.••• :-'•••[ i. ia
(•.' i t ;ui.';il i! c, .'my ir.f «'l° lito i': -tr th" iricilil'yjr;; lmUii i'.\i "CIV - i "tv jvi.t. ni .'.ii. . ,!i>. ::!:•! '.v. : i; ill:; c!.
1 i-r nry nl.iri' fuicml a-ai- y i;» 3.1Coimucul* :«r.il ioi'oriis.UU'.i iv- |)1!( . . ..
i, r. ifi/fl Ik .v.i.irni'. tvrilton ami «•- a:'';! i' ii»!!'IMl.'itii'M l>i, lo lilt! "n'O- I: -! 1 !»? l:Vi'(!.v it. l:i ;v-r- :'i:\ ' .1
lion tw"I'll ••••'¦.W.rulir.n ami ten- i-.-a-d vluliur n \io-.i. •? .-.-.nil !.c v-~ .1 iVy.w . ¦'¦¦¦: m..' •.-
-H2-
-------
APPENDIX IB
FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE VOLUME 41, NUMBER 102
-------
21402
NONCES
(FRL 548-21
HEALTH RISK AND ECONOMIC IMPACT
ASSESSMENTS OF SUSPECTED CAR-
CINOGENS
Interim Procedures & Guidelines
In Issuing the Interim Procedures and
Guidelines tor Health Risk and Eco-
nomic Impact Assessments of Suspected
Carcinogens, I think it appropriate to
state once again EPA's approach to reg-
ulatory action lor suspect carcinogens.
Cancer is the second ranking cause of
death in this country; it has a particu-
larly severe impact on the affected indi-
viduals and their families in terms at
phystoal and mental suffering eco-
nomic coats..There is evidence that a
substantial amount of human cancer is
caused by chemical and physical agents
in the environment. Bioass&y programs,
currently testing hundreds of substances,
are beginning to show that some impor-
tant industrial and agricultural chemi-
cals are carcinogenic "for animals and
are, therefore, candidates for regulatory
action.
The EPA, by lawrhas responsibility to
regulate many agents which may either
cause or promote the development of
cancer. At present, EPA is charged with
the responsibility to prohibit or restrict
the use of carcinogenic, pesticides. EPA
also has authority to regulate those car-
cinogens which are emitted directly to
the outside air by stationary sources
(such as factories) and motor vehicles, or
discharged into water from point sources,
or found in drinking water. Other agen-
cies such as the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration and the Food and
Drug Administration also have responsi-
bilities to regulate carcinogens. It is im-
portant to emphasize that there are se-
rious regulatory gaps wHich permit un-
derstandable exposure of the public to
carcinogens. I have strongly advocated
the passage of a toxic substances bill to
help close those gaps.
Regulatory action against chemical
carcinogens is relatively new. Until the
late 1950's, no agents, either chemical
or physical, had been regulated in this
country on the basis of their carcino-
genic aetion with the sole exception of
Ionizing radiation, which had been
known to cause cancer since the turn of
the century. Standards of permissible ex-
posure to ionizing radiation were set by
the arbitrary use of safety factors ap-
plied to exposure levels that were known
to have produced damaging health ef-
fects. It was not assumed that these per-
missible exposure standards were safe
but rather that they represented upper
limits of exposure with the understand-
ing that actual exposures were to be kept
as low as possible. In the debate over the
health effect-, of radioactive fallout from
atomic weapons in the 1950's, the evi-
dence for a no-threshold concept for
cancer induction emerged, which sup-
ported the idea that there is no such
thing as a completely safe dose; in other
words any exposure, however small, will
confer some risk of cancer on the ex-
posed population.
Evidence has accumulated that indi-
cates that the no-threshold concept can
also be applicable to chemical carcino-
gens. On the basis of this concept, the
first significant regulatory legislation re-
lating to chemical carcinogens, the
Delaney Clause of the Pure Pood and
Drug Act, imposed a complete ban cm any
food additive that showed evidence of
tumorigenic activity for humans or ani-
mals. This statutory requirement repre-
sents the approach of eliminating all
risk. However, it has become increasingly
clear that in many areas risks cannot
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41, NO. 10J—TUESDAY, MAT IS, im
-84-
-------
NOTICES
21403
be eliminated completely without unac-
ceptable social and economic conse-
Quences.
Consonant with tills view, the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, Rodenticide Act
(Fifra), which is the enabling legis-
lation for the control of health hazards
for pesticides, requires a balancing of
risks and benefits as the basis for final
regulatory action. We, thus, have a com-
parable conceptual basis for the regu-
lation of chemicals as for iopizing radia-
tion where the philosophy has been to
eliminate or reduce exposure to the
greatest extent possible consistent with
the acceptability of the costs involved.
I believe that It is important to em-
phasize the two-step nature of the deci-
sion-making process with regard to the
regulation of a potential carcinogen. Al-
though different EPA statutory authori-
ties have different requirements, in gen-
ial two decisions must be made with
regard to each potential carcinogen. The
first decision is whether a particular sub-
stance constitutes a cancer risk. The sec-
ond decision is what regulatory action,
" any, should be taken to reduce that
risk.
With respect to the first decision—
whether a particular substance consti-
tutes a cancer risk—in very few cases is
't Possible to "prove" that a substance
Will cause cancer in man, because in most
instances the evidence is limited to ani-
mal studies. In this regard, a substance
^"1 be considered a presumptive cancer
risk when it causes a statistically sig-
nificant excess Incidence of benign or
r^alignant tumors In humans or animals.
However, the decision that a cancer risk
"toy exist does not mean that the EPA
*'"1 automatically take regulatory ac-
tion. In the case of pesticides, the deci-
sion that a presumptive cancer risk exists
Will trigger the detailed and independent
and economic assessments that form
lne basis for the second decision, namely,
What, if any, regulatory action to take
J® eliminate or restrict the use of the
Pesticide. In other regulatory areas, for
example those under the Clean Air Act,
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
°r the Safe Drinking Water Act where
* large number of suspect carcinogens
exist in the atmosphere or public
water supplies, the detailed risk benefit
•assessment will, because of limited
Agency resources, necessarily have to
carried out on a priority basis in terms
which agents appear to be the most
"WPortant.
' Once the detailed risk and benefit
"halyses are available, I must consider
r1® extent of the risk, the benefits con-
ferred by the substance, the availability
2* substitutes and the costs of control of
JT® substance. On the basis of careful
Review, I may determine that the risks
so small 'or the benefits so great that
r® Action or only limited action is war-
fjjhted. Conversely, I may decide that
J®® risks of some or all uses exceed the
and that stronger action is es-
sential,
considering the risks, it will be nec-
!?*ary to view the evidence for carclno-
¦eiucity in terms of a warning signal, the
strength of which is a function of many
factors including those relating to the
quality and scope of the data, the char-
acter of the toxicological response, and
the possible impact on public health.
It is understood that' qualifications re-
lating to the strength of the evidence for
carcinoge nicity may be relevant to this
consideration because of the uncertain-
ties in our knowledge of the qualitative
and quantitative similarities of human
and animal responses. In all events, it
is essential in making decisions about
suspect carcinogens that all relevant in-
formation be taken into consideration.
In my opinion, the current guidelines
represent a significant improvement in
the Agency's approach to the processes of
decision-making for carcinogens by pro-
viding improved procedures for making
risks and benefit assessments while pro-
viding the maximum opportunity for
public review of the Agency's delibera-
tions. However, while these guidelines
should improve Agency procedures, I do
not view them as representing a change
In the Agency's cancer policy. Earlier
regulatory decisions involving various
pesticides were also based in each case
on a comprehensive evaluation of the
scientific evidence and a careful weigh-
ing of risks and benefits. These decisions
in every instance resulted in selective
control measures rather than a complete
prohibition of use.
I want to emphasize that I will not
permit these new procedural guidelines
to unduly delay regulatory decision-mak-
ing. I will be closely reviewing them to
assure that they do not do so. If they do
cause undue delay, they will be revised.
I would like to point out that these
guidelines provide a means of organizing
available information rather than re-
quirements for the acquisition of new in-
formation.
I believe that the approach presented
here is a significant step toward the ob-
jective of achieving real benefits in im-
proved public health while avoiding the
burden of undesirable regulatory action.
I recognize that the aspect of cancr:r re-
search dealing specifically with the issues
Involved in decision-making is relatively
undeveloped, but hopefully the commit-
ment of this Agency and other Federal
agencies to the development of new
knowledge in this area will Improve the
scientific basis for regulatory decisions
and that the Interim Procedures and
Guidelines will thereby benefit from pe-
riodic revision.
I consider it extremely important that
the leading government agencies work
closely with each other and with experts
outside the government in the field of
carcinogenicity in the development of
government procedures and policies con-
cerning cancer. I am publishing these
interim procedures and the guidelines in
the Federal Register not only to provide
public notice of the approach which EPA
will be following in our current activities
but also to stimulate commentary from
all sources upon that approach. I am also
furnishing copies of these Interim Pro-
cedures and Guidelines to and request-
ing the views of the Secretaries of Health,
-85-
Education, and Welfare, Interior, Labor,
Commerce and Agriculture and also the
Council on Environmental Quality, the
National Academy of Sciences, the Na-
tional Science Foundation, El'A's Pesti-
cide Policy Advisory Committee and
EPA's Science Advisory Board, among
others. I also plan to meet personally
with leading authorities in this area as
part of a continuing process to discuss
these cancer policies and exchange in-
formation aiui views.
Russell Train,
Administrator.
May 19, 1916.
Inierim Administrative Procedures for
Regulatory Decisions Involving Sus-
pected Carcinogens
Procedures described In this paper pro-
vide a more uniform Agency Approach to
regulatory decisions involving cancer risk.
Proceduie A applies to pesticide decisions
Involving the cancellation, suspension and
registration of potentially carcinogenic
pesticides. Procedure B applies to other se-
lected Agency decisions where the pivot
factor in the decision Is cancer risk.
'I ho purpese of these procedures is to
a.-sure that appropriate analyses of the risks
and bench Is of suspected carcinogenic chem-
icals are performed as part of the regulatory
process. Appendices I and II establish gukle-
llnes for risk assessment and economic im-
pact analyses. These guidelines are proce-
dural guidelines and are not Intended to
afreet the substantive regulatory standards
of any statist?. Therefore, the assessment of
the risk posed by potentially carcinogenic
substances will be made pursuant to the
individual standards of the applicable
statute and regulations. Furthermore, these
analyses will be carried out wlthm the con-
straints of Agency resources and will not
delay actions by the Agency to address ur-
gent environmental problems.
The Cancer Assessment Group (CAG) Is
an advisory body comprised ol' senior scien-
tists from within the Agency with a liaison
member from the Department of Health,
Education and Welfare. It will also utilize,
as appropriate, expert consultants and
advisors from various Federal Agencies and
the private sector. The CAQ will conduct
analyses of data related to rLsk and make
recommendations to the lead program otlice
and the appropriate Working Group con-
cerning tho risk associated with each sus-
pect carcinogen. These analyses will be di-
rected towards risk assessment and will bo
conducted Independently Of economic im-
pact analyses. The CAG will also review
the final risk assessment portion of the
regulatory package.
APtM.ICADIl.rrV
For all decisions Involving tho cancella-
tion. suspension, rcrcglstration and registra-
tion of potentially carcinogenic pesticides.
Procedure A will be followed Inclusive of the
preparation of (1) a risk assessment pursu-
ant to the interim guidelines contained In
Appendix I and (2) an economic Impact
analysis pursuant to the interim (guideline
contained In Appendix II.
For the following rulemaking, where the
pivotal factor In the decision la cancer risk,
the procedures outlined in EPA Order lOOO.a
will be followed, and in addition, a risk
assessment pursuant to Appendix 1 will be
prepared and will be reviewed in accordance
with Procedure B:
1. Proposed regulations to augment the
current list of toxic substances published
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOl. 41, NO. 103—-TUESDAY, MAY 25, 1976
-------
21404
NOTICES
pursuant to Section 307(a) of the FWPCA
and any standard proposed under this aug-
mented list.
2. Primary drinking water regulations or
revisions thereof under Section 1412 of
SDWA.
3. Additions to or revisions of the water
quality criteria (pursuant to Section 304(a)
of FWPCA) currently pending publication,
except that detailed exposure patterns and
estimates of cancer risk need not be pre-
pared.
4. Proposed technology-based regulations
or revisions pursuant to Sections 301, 304,
308. 307(b) and 307(c) of the FWPCA (pro-
posed after April 1, 1977), and Section 111 of
the CAA, except that detailed exposure pat-
terns and estimates of cancer risk need not
tie prepared.
For all other rulemaking under existing
legislation which involves the regulation of a
Potential carclnogen(s), and which is not
currently under development, the determina-
tion of whether and to what extent to use
Appendix I and Procedure B will be made at
the time the Administrator approves the
plan for such rulemaking.
Where the development of a surrogate
Parameter Is being proposed to regulate
one or more potential carcinogens and per-
haps other pollutants (e.g., ft total organic
carbon standard for drinking water), the
Nsk assessment, as required above, will ad-
dress at least one of the potential carcino-
gens and should address, to the extent feasi-
ble, as many of the others as possible.
All risk assessments need only be based on
currently available information. These pro-
cedures do not require the undertaking of
research or monitoring to expand the avail-
able data base.
A. Procedure for pesticide decisions in-
volving potential carcinogens. This procedure
l» similar to tlie current procedure for In-
formal rulemaking set forth by EPA Order
1000.6.
1. Formation of the working group. The
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Pesti-
cides, in cooperation with the Office of Plan-
ling and Management, establishes a working
group.
2. OFP/worklng group responsibility. The
Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), In con-
sultation with the Working Group, is re-
sponsible for developing a Data Summary Re-
Port, a Position Document (including health
risk assessment and the economic impact
analysis) and a proposed Federal Register
notice at the appropriate points In the reg-
ulatory process. Guidelines for health rl.sk
assessment and economic anlaysis are in-
cluded as Appendices X and XI,
3. Review of a suspect chemical prior to
"¦^registration or the Issuance of a rebuttable
presumption against registration (RPAR).
a. Data relevant to the carcinogenicity of a
Pesticide is submitted to the CAG for review
and comment. Following review by the CAO,
4 Data Summary Report Is prepared by OPP
•»d the Working Group. This report includes
R summary of all available data relevant to
carcinogenicity.
b. a draft Position Document Including the
"«ta Summary Report, a summary of the
Issues surrounding potential regulatory ac-
tions, and a proposed Federal Register notice
aro presented to the Pesticide Chemical Re-
view Committee (PCRC) which includes a
•"•"presentatlve from the CAG.
c. On the basis of PCRO comments, the
W'P and the Working Group revise the draft
Position Document and the Federal Reg-
ister notice. The PCRC reviews the revised
package.
d. The package recommending a rereg-
istratlon or the Issuance of a RPAR goes
to the Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Pesticide Programs for a final decision,
4. Post-RPAR: Issuance of a notice of In-
tent to cancel, suspend or reregister.
a. After a RPAR is issued, and rebuttal
Information If any is submitted, the OPP
and the Working Group develop a iV.un Po-
sition Document. This document includes
a summary of all Information avallab'e in
rebuttal of the RPAR. a recommended Unit-
ing on whether or not the presumption
against registration has been rebutted (in-
cluding the risk assessment), economic Im-
pact analysis as necessary, a summary of the
issues surrounding potential regulatory ac-
tions, and a draft Fedkkal ItKc;isn:a notice.
b. Tlie final Position Document Is re-
viewed by PCRC and the risk assessment is
reviewed by CAG.
c. If the decision is to reregister the prod-
uct. a notice to this effect, is published
In the Federal Register.
d. If the decision is to cancel or sus-
pend the product, the proposed notice of
intent to cancel or suspend Is forwarded to
USDA and the Scientific Advisory Panel for
comment, pursuant to the 15)75 amend-
ments to Section 6(b) of FIFRA. However.
If it is determined that suspension of the
pesticide is necessary to prevent an immi-
nent hazard to humans, the 197.5 amend-
ments provide for waiver of the require-
ment for consultation with USDA and the
Scientifilc Advisory Panel.
The notice of intent to register, cancel
or suspend, including the risk assessment
and economic impact analyses, is circu-
lated for General Counsel and Assistant
Administrator concurrence and forwarded
to the Administrator for a final decision.
B. Other rulemaking to regulate carcino-
gens. All other Agency decisions involving
carcinogenesis as the pivotal factor will
follow EPA Order 1000.6 with the following
additions:
1. The CAG will review the relevant data
during the development of the rulemaking
ar.d make recommendations to the lead ollice
and the working group regarding the inter-
pretation of the data and provide other
advice, as appropriate, concerning tlie risk
assessment.
2. The CAG will review that portion of
the rulemaking package containing the risk
assessment. CAG comments will be pre-
sented to the Steering Committee.
C. External scientific review. In addition
to 'the external reviews required by statute
and the 1000.0 process, other external scien-
tific review will be obtained In appropriate
cases as determined by tlie lead program
omco. Tills review may take place at any
time In the development of the regulatory
package.
While risk and economic Imparl, analyses
may be reviewed externally, regulatory rec-
ommendations will not normally be sub-
mitted for external review, Itcvicwcrs for
risk analyses may be from the Science Ad-
visory Board, National Cancer Institute, or
other appropriate Institutions.
Ari'KNUtX I
INTERIM CUIREMNK EOR r.MICINf iC.f.N IIHH
ASSESSMENT
1.0 Introduction. This preliminary guide-
line describes the general framework to bo
followed In developing an analysis ol' car-
cinogen risks mid some snllent principles to
be used In evaluating the quality of data
and formulating Judgments concerning the
nature and magnltudo of the cancer Im/.ard
from suspect carcinogens.
This guideline is to be used within the
policy framework already provided by appli-
cable statutes and does not alter such poli-
cies. The guideline provides a general format
for analysing and organizing available data.
It does not Imply that one kind of data or
another Is prerequisite for regulatory action
to control, prohibit, or allow the use of a
carcinogen. Also, the guideline docs not
change any statutory-prescribed .standards
as to which party lias the responsibility of
remonstrating the safety, or alternatively the
risk, of an agent.
The analysis of health risks will be carried
out independently from considerations of
the socio-economic consequences of regula-
tory action.
Tlie risk assessment document will con-
tain or identify by reference the background
material essentia! lo substantiate the evalu-
ations contained therein.
2.0 General Principles Concerning the
Assessment of Carcinogenesis Data. The
central purpose of the health risk assess-
ment. 1 is to provide a judgment concerning
the weight of evidence thai an agent is a
potential human carcinogen and. If so. how
great an impact it is likely to have on public
health.
Judgments about the weight of evidence
involve considerations of the quality and
adequacy of the data and the kinds of re-
sponses induced by the suspect carcinogen.
The best evidence that an agent is a human
carcinogen conies from epidemiological stud-
ies in conjunction with confirmatory animal
tests. Substantial evidence is provided by
animal tests that demonstrate the Induction
of malignant tumors in one or more species
including benign tumors that are generally
recognized as early stages of malignancies.
Suggestive evidence Includes the induction
ol' only those nonllfe shortening benign
tumors which are generally accepted as not
progressing to malignancy, and indirect tests
of tumorigenic activity, sncli as mutagenic-
ity, in-vitro cell transformation, and ini-
tiatinn-promolion skin tests in mice. Ancil-
lary reasons that bear on Judgments about
carcinogenic, potential, e.g.. evidence from
systematic studies that relate chemical
structure to carcinogenicity should bo in-
cluded in the assessment.
When an agent Is judged to l>c a potential
human carcinogen, estimates should be made
of lis possible Impact on public health at
current and anticipated levels of exposure.
The available techniques lor assessing the
magnitude of cancer risk to human popula-
tions on the basis of himal data only are
very crude due to uncertainties in the ex-
trapolation of dose-response dn(a lo very low
dose levels and also because ol dilleicii< es In
levels or susceptibility of animals and lilt-
mans. Hence. I lie risk csllmul.es should be
regarded only as rough indications of eiicci.
Where appropriate, a range of estiiimtcs
should be given on tlie basis of several
modes of extrapolai ion.
Rxprrt scientific Judgments in the are,a- of
toxiculoi v. pathology, biometry, and epidei.i
lology are required lo resolve imc.eri.uiuii<
about l.lie quality, tidequ.icc. and iiitcrpii la-
tum of experimental and epidemiologv itaia
to be used for the risk itsse i::menl.
M.O Format of the Risk Analyst;.
:i.l Kxpositre Patterns. This sen ion h.ntld
summarize the known nod possible mode- o(
exposure allenilant to the varlou ; u .c , Ol the
' Tills health risk
-------
NOTICES
21405
agent. It should Include or identify by refer-
ence available data on factors relevant to
effective dosage, physical and chemical
parameters, e.g., solubility, particle size for
aerosols, skin penetration, absorption rates,
etc. Interaction of agents which may produce
synergistic or antagonistic ed'eel should
ulso he Indicated, if iw.uluhle.
a.2 Metabolic Characteristics. This section
should sumniari/.e i:nown metabolic charac-
teristics including transport, late svnd ex-
cretion, and hioehemi'ud similarities to other
^•"Own cl;is;;es of r:iifit hiyh and
low dose iovf Is and should provide eoinp.vri-
sons between relevant. species as v.oll as varia-
tion^ in different .strains of eorlal i species.
ii-ii r«Jxperi:»\enlal <'urcinov,ononis Studies.
Available experimental reports should bo
h*biihj}ir!/ed. H some experiments arc to be
rejecu-u for the ris!; assessment, fcive re jsons
f"r doiuj; so. Rep;ints oi Key p> pes ai.d
import.:? should be t'irhukd as j.ppe.id.oes to
tl>(- analysis.
Judgements .should be pf»/\ idee! on the
'! Ual I t,y of the experj mi u lal di'.ta end Iheir
intiM pretat ions for eivh si u® Judgements should be Included re-
the relevance of -the mode of ex-
P^Ure used In animal studies to that nsso-
with human exposure.
4.0 Summary, The summary section of
the risk assessment should provide a state-
ment which encompasses answers to the fol-
lowing questions: (1) How likely is the agent
to l>e a human carcinogen? (2> If the .tj'.ent
Is n human carcinogen, what Is the esti-
mate! impart on human health?
Appkndix II
luititiM kuii.ki.in:: fob economic impact
anm.yh"' en-* piioi'o.an r.K AUi a*kirv actions
to coNiitoi. C'.acii'.'or.KNic j'::srr:lDi:s
•J'1 c n.:rpo o of this [„ uu^uh'H! is to deiinc
I- o I'.icti is to ije considered and the proce-
dure.i io be utiii. cd in asseusln'j the economic
ImpiK't rr.-u-ltli i; from futrre ro; u'.nlory ac-
tio. .s. (as dc;:rvli)c(l below) alfesUng carein-
o;;e !;¦ j "¦ tuicii's. Kconcinic impact assess-
ment for other regulatory acuo. s to co.itrol
env ri.niuenial eaiclnoj/cn.-i v. ill follow e::lnb-
lishec! at:<;n:'y pneedure:;.
The prhifip.U c.'jncer.. In the economic
u-ialysi; will be the as ts>.nieni oi oeonomle
lnipaol.> on pesticides i:sers aiul on the ccn-
ti iiiu-rs of the procluci.s of t:-e l scrs. The
Impacts on pe'tlelde mnnufact)>rers are not
(vtrinniie to thin type of regulatory decision,
in v.hirlt the rl k of the use of a pesticide Is
e:i'..p'. vcti to the benefit of those v.scs.
As ij eel i>i t!:ls guideline the economic im-
pact "I the regulation is equated to the an-
u i >at I'll ltr.ui iii henellt from use of tho
pc.'iLicit'O. For agricultural pesticides the
analysis will focus on the Impacts on farm-
ers, farm productivity, and consumer costs
as-ocir.ieU with farm productivity. Similarly,
analy es of other pesticides will focus on the
lmpac'.s oil other user groups and related ef-
fects cn the economy.
Ucyululury procedures. The purpose of this
section of the guidelines is to define how
the economic Impact analysis fits into the
rtj'Ulutory framework for pesticide-related
act Urns.
if u ;,C';UcU's0 meets cr c^ceeda criteria de-
li; cd i;i 40 CFR 1G2.11, a Rebuttable Prc-
iiiimpl:on AcaiUPt Registration (Rf'ARI will
be i:sued. The Agency will analyse any rc-
buttul l.u'ormution that is submitted; it may
al„o take into account other available in-
formation to determine whether the RPAR
has been rebutted. At the conclusion of t! .s
risk assessment, the Administrator will bo
presented with sufficient evidence to deter-
mine if the use of a pesticide poses the Yisk
of a significant adverse effect. If such is the
case, then the Administrator must determine
what tjpe of regulatory response Is war-
ranted.
In making that decision, 40 CPU 102.11
provides that the Administrator will be pro-
vided with a preliminary assessment of the
benefits of the use of the pesticide. Further-
more, S 162.11 essentially provides: (l) That
If the risks appear to outweigh the bene-
fits, the Administrator will issue a notice of
intent to cancel, which may lead to a full
adjudicatory hearing on tho question of
whether the pesticide causes or will cause
unreasonable adverso Directs on the environ-
ment. or (2) If tho benefits appear to out-
weigh the risks, the Administrator will either
issue a notice of Intent to hold a hearing
(adjudicatory or non-adjudlcatory) or a
notice of Intent to register. Such notice of
intent to register provides an opportunity for
a hearing upon request (accompanied by
submission of a statement of factual rea-
sons) of an interested party that a hearing Is
warranted. The decision to cancel reached at
this time will not result in the removal of a
product from the market If the decision is
contested. Instead, any such regulatory ac-
tion will be preceded by a hearing to weigh
fully the risks and benefits of the uses of a
product.
-.87-
Thc benefit evidence provided to the Ad-
ministrator at this staye is by definition a
preliminary st.ifr analysis. A specific effort
will be made by the Agency to contact par-
ties that have an interest in the use of the
pesticide and to attempt to solicit their com-
ments on the benefits of the pesticide under
review. In pswU-'uUir, EPA tntiwls that the
U.S. Department of Agriculture will be heav-
ily relied upon from the earliest stages of
re lev.- to provide its special expertise and
data '•eso'.iiv"; oi! us
I^e. au e of the in:; y variable:* rurround-
i': t'le 'uvi't • ie ur-cs of different pcsU-.ides,
the benefit or economic impact analysis
must c f necessity be done on a case-by-case
basis. All relevant economic considerations
ratre.! in crittcl ins of the preliminary bene-
fit anahsis will be addvefsod prior io final
a ' N'-n.
(: .»<•• f; ¦/ 7; ¦ r. o-r-mic impact atutyics
E.ise;'. up ii all t.1: ¦ available iufo.ruuvlion,
a preliminary analy is will be developed.
!'
-------
APPENDIX IIA
USDA SURVEY DATA FOR CHLOROBENZILATE
-------
Table IIA-1
Chlorobenzilate Use on Specified Crops, Total U.S., 1966 and 1971
1966 1971
Crop
Pounds applied a/
Acres treated
Pounds applied a/
Acres treated
Cotton
32,000
25,000
25,000
51,000
Citrus
421,000
565,000
706,000
417,000
Apples
10,000
9,000
_ _ _ _
- - - -
Other fruits & nuts
- _ _ _
81,000
24,000
Nursery, greenhouse
and other
2,000
<500
_ _ _ _
- - - -
Total
465,000
599,000
812,000
492,000
a./ Active ingredient
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1970 and 1974a.
-------
Table IIA-2
Chlorobenzilate Use by Region, 1966 and 1971
1966 1971
Region Pounds applied a/ Acres treated Pounds applied a/ Acres treated
Lake states b/
Southeast c/
Pacific d/
10,000
400,000
55,000
8,000
542,000
49,000
695,000
117,000
410,000
82,000
Total U.S.
465,000
599,000
812,000
492,000
a/ Active ingredient.
b/ Includes Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin,
cJ Includes Alabama, Florida, Georgia and South Carolina,
d/ Includes California, Hawaii, Oregon and Washington.
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1970 and 1974a.
-------
APPENDIX IIB
CALIFORNIA CHLOROBENZILATE USE DATA
-------
APPENDIX IIB
Table IIB-1
Chlorobenzilate Use in California, by Crop, 1970-1974
Crop/Site
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
¦D J
active ingri
sdlent
Citrus fruit a/
12,668
18,687
12,779
12,212
11,503
Cotton
15,201
9,570
18,009
17,393
37,050
Deciduous fruits
and nuts hj
17,136
23,372
30,996
2,140
910
Vegetables cj
184
151
92
421
_ _ _
Ornamentals, trees
and turf dJ
109
41
117
- - -
31
Other crops ej
334
10
1,365
144
_ _ _
Government agencies f j
90
442
123
72,962
142
Residential and
structural
1,235
145
493
602
353
Not reported
36
_ _ _
- _ _
- - -
_ _ -
Total
47,003
52,421
63,975
105,875
49,988
,a/ Includes citrus, grapefruit, lemons, limes, oranges and tangerines,
b/ Includes almonds, apples, avocados, sweet cherries, grapes, peaches,
pears, plums and walnuts.
c/ Includes head lettuce, all melons, mustard and onions,
d,/ Includes conifers, ornamentals, roses, turf and miscellaneous and
timber trees.
e/ Includes alfalfa, sweet corn, field corn and fallowland.
£/ Includes city agencies, county and city parks, University of
California and other agencies.
&/ Totals may vary due to rounding.
Sources: California Department of Agriculture, 1971, 1972 and 1973;
California Department of Food and Agriculture, 1974 and 1975.
92
-------
APPENDIX IIC
EPA COMPENDIUM ENTRY FOR CHLOROBENZILATE
-------
EPA Compendium of Registered Pesticides
ETHYL 4,4'-DICHLORORENZILATE*
PRINCIPAL FORMULATIONS: EC, UP, D, Pr.
TYPE PESTICIDE: Acaricide
Livestock Tolerances
0.5 ppm. in meat, fat, and meat byproducts of cattle and sheep.
Site and Pest
Dosage
actual
Tolerance, Use, Limitations
AGRICULTURAL CROPS
Almonds
Brown mite
European red mite
Pacific spider mite
Twospotted spidar mite
Apples
Brown mite
HcDaniel spider i..ite
European red mite
0.25-0.37 lb./
100 gal. water
(EC.WP)
0.25-0.37 lb./
100 gal. water
(EC,WT)
0.2 ppm.
21 day preharvest Interval through
3.0 lb./A. Foliage application.
Treated hulls may be used for
livestock feed.
Some products may cause injury
to the variety Kapareil.
Foliage application.
5.0 ppm.
14 day preharvest interval through
5.0 lb./A. "Foliage application.
Do not use on Delicious, Jonathan,
or Mcintosh varieties as fruit
injury may occur.
Foliage application. Do not
apply before second cover spray.
0.25-0.5 lb./lOO Foliage application. Do not
Twospotted spider mite gal. water(EC), apply before second cover spray.
0.25-0.37 lb./ For severe infestations, apply
100 gal. water twice 7-14 days apart.
(VIP)
*chlor.obenzilatc; Acaraben
Issued: 7-30-73
-94-
-------
Site and Pest
Cantaloupes
EPA Compendium of Registered Pesticides
ETHYL 4,4* -DIC1IL0R0BENZILATE
Dosage Tolerance, Use, Limitations
actual
5.0 ppm.
No preharvest interval through
1.6 lb./A. Foliage application.
Twospotted spider mite 1.0 lb./A.(EC), Foliage application. For EC,
1.4-1.6 lb./A.(D) when treating young plants that
do not require broadcast treat-
ment, reduce dosage in propor-
tion to the area being treated.
Cherries
Cherry rust mites
Citrus
Citrus rust nite
Citrus flat mite
Citrus red mite
Sixspotted mite
Texas citrus mite
Citrus bud mite
Pacific spider mite
Yuma spider mite
Cotton
0.37 lb./lOO
gal; water(EC,WP)
0.125-0.25 lb./
100 gal. water
(EC, TO)
0.25 lb./lOO
gal. water
(EC.WP)
0.25-0.37 lb./
100 gal. water
(EC.WP)
NF.
Do not exceed 4.0 lb./A.
For postharvest application only.
5.0 ppm.
No preharvest interval through
3.75 lb./A. Foliage application.
Foliage application.
Foliage application. For sea-
sonal control of citrus red
mite, either repeated applica-
tions or combinations with other
acaricides are needed.
Foliage application.
0.5 ppm (cottonseed).
Do not apply after bolls begin
to open.
Do not graze or feed treated
forage or gin waste to livestock.
Issued: 7-30-73
-95-
-------
EPA Compendium of Registered Pesticides
ETHYL 4,4' -D1CHL0R0RF.NZILATE
Site and Pest
Cotton (continued)
Pacific spider mite
Schoene spider mite
Strawberry spider mite
Twospotted spider
mite
Dosage
actual
1.0 lb./A.
(EC,WP)
1.0 lb./A.
(EC)
Tolerance, Use, Limitations
Melons
(Refer also to Cantaloupes)
Twospotted spider
mite
1.0 lb./A.(EC)
Pears
Brown mite
McDaniel spider mite
0.25-0.37 lb./
100 gal. water
(EC,WP)
/
European red mite 0.25-0.5 lb./lOO
Twospotted spider mite gal. water(EC),
0.25-0.37 lb./
100 gal. water
(WP)
Walnuts
European red mite
0.25-0.37 lb./
100 gal. water
(EC,WP)
Foliage application. Apply when
leaves start to show red and
yellow speckling. Direct spray
to undersides of leaves.
Foliage application. Apply when
leaves start to show red and
yellow speckling. Direct spray
to undersides of leaves.
5.0 ppm.
No preharvest interval through
1.0 lb./A. Foliage application.
Foliage application. When
treating young plants that do
not require broadcast treatment,
reduce dosage in proportion to
the area being treated.
5.0 ppm.
7 day preharvest interval through
5.0 lb./A. Foliage application.
Foliage application. Do not
apply before second cover spray.
Foliage application. Do not
apply before second cover spray,
For severe infestations, apply
twice 7-14 days apart.
0.2 ppm.
Do not apply after husks begin
to split nor exceed 4.0 lb./A.
Foliage application.
Foliage application.
Issued: 7-30-73
-96-
-------
EPA Compendium of Registered Pesticides
Site and Pest
ORNAMENTALS
(Lawns and Turf)
Grass
Clover mite
ETHYL 4,4'-DICIILOROBENZILATE
Dosage Tolerance, Use, Limitations
actual
0.25-0.37 lb./
100 gal. water
(EC,WP)
(Herbaceous Plants and Bulbs)
Carnations
Carnation mite # 0.225%(Pr.)
Carnation bud mite
Twospotted spider mite
Chrysanthemums
Cyclamen mite
Privet mite
Twospotted spider mite
Gladioli
Twospotted spider
mite
0,225%(Pr.)
0.225%(Pr.)
To control mite populations and
and prevent their migration to
adjoining buildings. Apply as
a drenching spray. Repeat in
7-10 days if needed. Refer also
to treatment of shrubbery and
domestic dwellings.
Thoroughly treat plants. Repeat
as needed. Do not apply when
temperature exceeds 90°F. For-
mulated with 0,0-dlsthyl 0-(2-
isopropyl-6-methyl-4-pyrimldinyl)
phosphate; pyrethrins; and
piperonyl butoxide.
Refer to directions above for
Carnations.
Refer to directions above for
Carnations.
Issued: 7-30-73
-97-
-------
Site and Pest
EPA Compendium of Registered Pesticides
ETHYL 4,4'-DICHLOROIJENZILATE
Dosage
actual
(Woody Shrubs, Trees, and Vines)
Shrubbery
Clover mite
Arborvitae
Spider mites
(including spruce
epider mite, two-
opotted spider mite)
Azaleas
Cyclamen mite
Privet mite
Southern red mite
Twospotted spider
mite
0.25-0.37 lb./
100 gal. water
(EC,WP)
0.25-0.37 lb./
100 gal. water
(EC,WP)
0.225%(Pr.)
0.225%(Pr.)
0.25-0.37 lb./
100 gal. water
(EC.WP)
0.225%(Pr.)
Tolerance, Use, Limitations
To control mite populations and
prevent their migration to
adjoining buildings. Apply as
a drenching spray. Repeat in
7-10 days if needed. Refer also
to treatment of lawns and
domestic dwellings.
Foliage application.
Thoroughly treat small plants
and spot treat large ones. Re-
peat as needed. Do not apply
when temperature exceeds 90°F.
Formulated with 0,0-diethyl
0- (2-lsopropyl~6-methyl-4-
pyrimidinyl) phosphate;
pyrethrinB; and piperonyl
butoxide.
Refer to Pr. directions above for
Arborvitae.
Foliage application.
Refer to Pr. directions above for
Arboritae.
Issued: 7-30-73
-98-
-------
EPA Compendium of Registered Pesticides
ETHYL 4,4' -DICHLOROi>HiNZILATE
Site and Pest
Boxwood
Twospotted spider
mite
Camellia
Southern red mite
Elm
European red mite
Twospotted spider mite
Hawthorn
Twospotted spider
mite
Hemlock
Spider mites
(including spruce
spider mite)
Holly
Southern red mite
Dosage
actual
0.225%(Pr.)
0.225%(Pr.)
0.225%(Pr.)
0.225%(Pr.)
0.25-0.37 lb./
100 gal. water
(EC,WP)
Juniper
Spruce spider mito
Twospotted spider mite
0.225%(Pt.)
Tolerance, Use, Limitations
Refer to Pr. directions above for
Arboritae.
Refer to Pr. directions above for
Arboritae.
Refer to Pr. directions above for
Arboritae.
Refer to Pr. directions above for
Arboritae.
Foliage application.
0.25-0.37 lb./ Foliage application.
100 gal. water
(EC,WP)
0.225%(Pr.)
Refer to Pr. directions above for
Arboritae.
Refer to Pr. directions above for
Arboritae.
Issued: 7-30-73
-------
EPA Compendium of Registered Pesticides
ETHYL 4,4'-DICHLOROBENZILATE
Site and Pest
Locust
European red mite
Dosage
actual
0.225%(Pr.)
Oak
Southern red mite
Pine
Spruce spider mite
Poplar
Clover Elite
Rhododendron
Southern red mite
Twospotted spider mite
Rosea
European red mite
Southern red mite
Twospotted spider
mite
0.225%(Pr.)
0,225%(Pr.)
0.225%(Pr.)
0.225%(Pr.)
0.225%(Pr.)
Tolerance, Use, Limitations
Refer to Pr. directions above for
Arboritae.
Refer to Pr. dii'ections above for
Arboritae.
Refer to Pr. directions above for
Arboritae.
Refer to Pr. directions above for
Arboritae.
Refer to Pr. directions above for
Arboritae.
Refer to Pr. directions above for
Arboritae.
0.25 lb./lOO
gal. water(EC,WP)
0.225%(Pr.)
Foliage application.
Refer to Pr. directions above for
Arboritae.
Spruce
Spider mites
(including spruce
spider mite)
0.25-0.37 lb./ Foliage application.
100 gal. water
(EC,WP)
0.225%(Pr.)
Refer to Pr. directions above for
Arboritae.
Issued: 7-30-73
-100-
-------
EPA Compendium of Registered PeBticides
Site and Pest
Taxus
Twospotted spider
mite
ETHYL 4,4'-DICHLOROBENZILATE
Dosage Tolerance, Use, Limitations
actual
0.25-0.37 lb./ Foliage application.
100 gal. water
(EC, WP)
DOMESTIC DWELLINGS, MEDICAL FACILITIES AND SCHOOLS
COMMERCIAL ESTABLISlfrlENTS
(Areas Other Than Edible Products Areas)
Outdoor Areas
Clover mite
0.25-0.37 lb./
100 gal. water
(EC,WP)
Boats
Docks
Spiders
0.01%(Fr.)
To control mite populations and
prevent their migration to
adjoining buildings. Apply as
a drenching spray to lawns and
shrubbery within 10-15 Teet of
buildings. Also treat the
foundation and outside walls
to the height of the first floor
windows. Repeat in 7-10 days
if needed.
Treat bo^ts by spraying exterior
fittings and around all openings
such as around canvas tops» side
curtains, windows and hatches.
Treat docks by spraying all
hiding places such as underside?.,
fenders, and crocks. Wet sur-
faces and allow co dry without
wiping. Formulated with
chlordane.
Issued: 7-30-73
-101-
-------
APPENDIX IIIA
STATE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MITE CONTROL ON CITRUS
-------
jTto
fee c^-c>^
CblorobenzlZjcm: State Iccaani^Kinu
SIT5/?SST
! Cl:
rus.
!Ci
i Ci'
i Tu=.
rus Flat Mite
rus Bed Mite
Spider Mite
pssnciOE
ChlorobenziZate
/ c*rs i
„ ___^_ M*<» «f •clival
tT.nwwsTj rowWTtoi, /-r.
' •chrvtf* Miti I
Wl'Jm? ANOUHEN TO APPLY
Alternatives Listed
Carbophenothior
(Trlthion)
14
Forme tar.ate
(Carzol)
Dicofol (Kelthane)
Dioxathlon
(Delnav)
Ethion
30
Propargile
(O^ite)
14
Pfi 5s» Icae
(Zcior.c)
i 14
i
Sulfur
! o
i
i 2.0
! Use on foliage; for control
J of red tite either repeated
I applications or combinations
j with other acarlcides are
i needed.
2.5-3.75 Apply to foliage; thorough
• coverage is necessary.
SAFETY RESTRICTIONS
R£?3t E.VC£S
I
See label restrictions for i Conmercial citrus
chemical combinations. J insect control 1975-
L'niversity of Arizona,
I Cooperative Exter.slcn
Service and Agricult-.
ural Expericent Station
I 48-Hour Re-entry Interval.
3.5-4.0 | Apply as thorough outside
coverage spray.
| See label restrictions for
i application numbers and
J Intervals.
2.0 Apply thoroughly to foliage; .
j for control of citrus red
' mite either repeated appli-
cations or combinations -°ith
other .icarlcldcs are needed.
2.0-3.0
: 2.0-3.0
I
~r
Apply to foliage.
Apply to foliage.
2.0-3.0 ! Apply to foliage.
j 3.0-4.0 • Apply to foliage.
I
Dust
Wettailei
75-100 j
(
60-100 ! Apply Spray thoroughly.
1
1
See label restrictions for
cheaical combinations.
Do not repeat application
within 3 months If fruit is
present during, first
application.
Do not feed or graze clover
crops grown in treated
groves.
Minizurc of 90 days between
applications. 24-Hour Re-
entry interval.
Do not apply more than twice
per season.
Do not apply core than 3
cover sprays per season.
Minitcua of 21 days between
treatments. 24-Hour Re-
entry interval.
Do not apply when teapera-
ture reach 10CfF.
-------
ChiorobenziUte:State Recomendations: California
SITZ/PZS7
I
PCSTICIDS
Citrus - Logons
Citrus bud r.ite
Chlorobenzilate
I
t-
0
¦ts
1
Chlorobenzilate
+
Oil (medium grade)
STRAY HARVEST
tSTHVAl
| RATS
9 ot •ctX**
fCRWIATXOM | /ottt vnless
• otherwise noted
WHERE AMO WHEN-TO APPLY
or
Oil (narrow range
415)
Alternatives listed
Oil: (medium grade)
Oil (narrow range
415)
EC
1.5 lb/A i
(1.5qts.4E0
j /A). ;
EC
i(MS or LV) i
0-1561 b/1 Ool
igal (5 oz |
J4EC/100 gal:)
As needed - July through
Sept. preferred.
Also controls:
Citrus rust mite
Six-spotted mite
(TDC)
EC
In
0.1561b/100 As needed
gal (5 oz j
4EC/100 gal;) Also ccrtrols:
} + '
Emulsive ,1.6-1,8gal/
100 gal)
Emulsion
! or
2.0 gal/100
I 9al.
Brown soft scale
California red scale
Citrus red mite
Citrus rust mite
Purple scale
Six-spotted mite
Yellow scale
(Black scale)
High dosage of narrow range
only for July or Aug.
applications.
jEmulsive n.6-l.8gal/! May and June and/or Sept.
;100 gal I through Oec.
Emulsive '1.2-1.4gal/i
;100 gal. !
; (to
i or
12.0 gal/100
¦ qal
! (TC)
Emulsive 1.2-1.4gal/
100 gal.
(TC)
Also controls:
Brown soft scale
California red scale
Citrus red mite
Purple scale
Yellow scale
(Bltck scale)
SAFETY RESTRICTIONS
REFERENCES
Treatment guide for
California citrus crops
1974 - 1975.
Soil moisture should be at
maximum berfor application.
Discontinue when temperature
reaches 95 F. or humidity
is less than 20%.
(TC)3 Thorough coverage. (TDC)® Thorough distribution coverage. (M3)= Mist spray. (t.V)« Low volume*
N»t«i : Other pests controlled - if listed parenthetically, certain qualicatlons exist consult state
recommendations for control of that particular pest.
-------
Chlorobenzilate: State Recommendations - California (con't.)
SIT2/?3ST
PE3TICIOS
! Citrus - Granges and ianions
Citrus rust mite
Chlorobenzilate
Alternatives listed
Sulfur
STOAT HARVEST . FOftNUtATIO*
iKTiT.VAL !
RATS I
fowlj of actlva.
Acre unless j
otSerwise noted!
WHERE ANO W11ES TO APPLY
i
EC
Citrus - Oranges and Lemons
Yur.a spider mite j Chlorobenzilate
HP
0.257b/l00| As needed. Thorough distri-
i g?.l (0.5pt- bution coverage.
!4EC/100gal}
! j Also controls:
i f -
: Citrus bud mite
i Six-spotted mite
j J
j 4.01L-/100 j Apply as outside coverage,
j " gal. ; Apply f.'ov. through Kay.
i
Also controls:
Six-spotted mite
i
EC
Alter
;atives listed
Sulfur
Sulfur
j 0.251b/100
•gal (0.5pt/
|4EC 100 ga
Oust
Dust
100 lb.
WP
j 60 lb.
(minimum)
As mites appear. Thorough
coverage spray.
)
Also controls:
Citrus flat mite
Apply Oct. to March 15.
Also controls
Citrus flat mite
Di cofol
(Kelthane)
safety restrictions
EC | 0.41b/100 i As mites appear.
igal (O.Spt | Thorough distribution coverage,
j 4EC/100 gap
! Also controls:
REFERENCES
Treatment guide for
California citrus crops
1974 - 1975.
Avoid applications during
or preceeding high temper-
atures.
Do not apply within 2 month
of an oil application.
Avoid applications during or
preceeding high temperature^,
Do not apply within 2 months
of an oil application.
Citrus Flat-mite
_ I
(.
L
Note : Check state recoasaendations for gallonage of spray materials required for each method of application.
1
J-*
0
U1
1
-------
Flartda CottSBer-clal.
£ATS*~
SZZZ/rZST
PZSTIC10S
CJ tr--s
ChloroberzilJLe
I
' Fikh/i #f
sanMnsT.nwuno. i
WJIERS ASW WHE.V TO APPLY
LC
Citrus Rust Kite
Alteraatli-es Listed
Forr.etjr.r.te hydrochloride
(Carzo!) I
WSP
. 1.25 lb |
<1.25pt/500*al)
I
10.5j—1.15 lb Allow 30 days between
(5-10oz/500gal) applications.
Aiinphosnethyl
(Guihicn)
ICyhexatln {Plictran)
I
7 I LC
one application)
28 I
Two applications)
0 I WP
i 2.5 1b I
|C5pt/500gal)
)L.25-1.875 lb
,<20-30oz/500
I Sal)
Sulfur
Dlaliior (Torak)
Carbophenoth'>n
(Trithioa)
Ethion
VP
j 50 lb 1
<251b/500gal)
i L
See recommendations fox
build, up of other pests.
EC
j u.O lb
; (a.Opt/
I 500i;.-.l)
4-
0-14
I
fc.5-3.75 lb
(1.25-1.88pi
81b SC/500g4l)
Preferred application
in lace fall and winter.
LC
2.5-3.75 lb I
jC2.5-3.75pt/
, 500gal)
Dioxachion (Delnav) I
! LC
! 4.0 lb. *«
,(2pt/500gal)
Preferred use In late
fall and winter.
SAFZTY RESTRICTIONS
rs?siz:;css
Do not use In alkaline
solutions.
Florida Insect Control •
Guide, Sept; 1, 1975. j
Do not use on lices or
tangclos. Do not use in
alkaline solutions.
Do not apply nore than 2
times per fruit year.
Do not use on tangelos. Do
not tank alx with oil. Do
not apply to leaons vhen
yellow fruit is present.
Avoid applying to new "flush
growth as foliar dat^age may i
occur. Do not apply oil
within 4 weeks of Plictran.
Do not use in combination
with oil eculsion; do hot
apply within 3 weeks of oil.
Do not ap^ly more than 2
tir.es per yenr. Do not appl^
twice to same fruit within 3
months*
May injure grapefruit if
applied with oil.
No harvest interval if not
.aore than 2.51b AI/A and 30
days between applications;
14 devs if used at not core
than 3.75 lb. AI/A. .Vote
spray harvest increases for
higher rates when used as
scalicide.
No interval through 7.5 lb j
AI/A; Do not repeat within j
90 days on grapefruit, oranges
tangclos, and tangerines; I
:o not apply more than 2 |
tinles/scason on tangerines.
Note Spray harvest intfervais
established for high rates i
when used as scalicide.
Do not apply to lenions and
lir.es core than twice/year;
do not reapply within 4
ncr.ths. On other cirrus do
not re-apply within 3 months!
if fruit is present at first
application.
- - All rates assuce 1,000 gal. finished spray applied per acre*
-------
CHZJRJSZXZTZATZ * State Becoasundat ions — 1lorida Cofmeyrciml (con t. )
t
t-1
0
Nl
1
SZZT/TZS7
PSS7ICI3S
I
1 r-*m
t <•«•
!«:
ras (cent.)
rus F- u s t y.ite (coat.
Dicofol (Kelthane)
?ropargite (Coaite)
jmr nunsr • roa.rvwncw
iKfTtrAt
/ o*rs * /
•rcinida of metlvt
S*ec* uttlext I
WVtviif n^tCd ;
WHSS A.VO VHS.V TO APPLY
-f
21
J !
EC j 5.0 Hi j test use in late fall and
]C5pt./500gaj) winter. Confine use where
Trithion, Ethion, and Delnav
arc no longer useful. Should
noc be used in groves in-
fested with snow scale unless
j j scalicide is also used.
LC J 2.6 ib ; Kla. registration for "citrus"
f25ox/5C0gap CPA registration for oranges,
! * grapefruit an«l lenons.
-u
SAFSTY RESTRICTIONS
Oil
j 0.5-1.02 j
| Emulsion itj
i water
\
Do not use in alkaline^
sprays.
Do not apply core than 2
tines per year. Do.not
use in highly alkaline
solutions; do not tank aix
with oil; do noc apply wit>
in two weeks of an oil
treatment.
rtsrztzsczs
Florida "Insect Control
r,uidef «ept. 1, 197S,
Do not apply when trees ar<
near or at wilting stage.
Do not apply within 3 weeks
of sulfur application. !
Kay reduce crcp following
year if applied after
October 1; may retard
coloring of fruit and soli<
formation in juice.
Spider Mites - Chlorobenzilate is of little value against spider mites*
All rates assu*r.c 1,030 gal. finished spray applied per acre*
C!IUj?.CI>HNZIIaT2 - State Hecor.reniation5 Florida Home GardenjCOooryard)
sirz/rzsr
!
PESTICIDE
Xite
|Chlorob.\:zilate
Alternatives
Dicofol (Kelthane)
jEchion
i | ZA7Z %J j
_ IPovf.-i» o( 4;t|w
: w.»ts. . reinjUTicii J
'' 1VX|* ' nitCb
I I
0' | Not listed
( Excellent where available )
KUDIS ANO WEN TO APPLY
Thorou;; coverage of leaves
and fruit Is essential.
I
7 118-jZ EC lpc/50gals.|
0 j25%EC ilpt/50gals.j
Ethion + oil
25ZEC
!80-50%
eaui.slon
SdFCT RESTRICTIONS
R£?Z3£!CC£S
Florida Insect Control
Cuide, Sept. 1, 1975.
I
Do not repeat application
within 90 days.
lpt/50gals.; 2 applications not reconaen- Do not apply during winter
+ ded (Per Year) but If or when wilt signs appear.
3pt/50gals.| applied, do not re-apply j Do not oIx with sulfur or
for 6 weeks. j c^ply within 3 weeks of
sulfur application.
1/All rates listed are for formulations Indicated*
-------
I
I-1
0
OS
1
SITS/PEST
Pi^STICIDS
SiuEKS xwv ««e» w s»a
»tfc(75'«); 7.5 ' Zineb la unsatisfactory
(5 lb/500gal) under Iwayy infestations.
21
7 or 28
ui:g i4.o !
(2 qt/500Bal)
Texas Guide for I
Controlling Pests and ,
Diseases on Citrus sL- ;
559. (6.71?)
UEC
2-.X
,4.0
p qt/500gal)
"f.To I
<1 gal/500gal)
Do not apply within 90 days
o£ previous application.
30 J
5 I
itEC
I 5.5 I
(2.5pt/500gil)
<'vpt/500galj NABAC Is unsatisfactory for
concentrate sprays.
UP
! 50
,(251b/500gal)
Dio:s-2pt/500|
I I
Dicofol(Kelthane)
Oil
Sulfur
»z c
i
(2qt/500gal
I VP
, 10 Cal/A.
|(5 gal/500
i i 1. vati
j 50 1
(251b/500gal)
Do not re-opply vlthln 3
months If frulc Is present
at first application.
Do not us* oil if hunldlty
Is less than 30X. Do not
apply to drought-stricken
trees. Do not apply In
combination with or vlthln
30 days of sulfur.
Do not use with oil or
within 30 days of 'oil
spray.
: Citrus (Susser Prograc)
;
; False Spider Xlt« - Use
jCitrus (Fall Prograz)
jSust >!l:e - t'se sase tutorials as post-bloom
sane materials as pos
1 T
alse Spider Jilt# - Use! sace rate-rial as posti-bloom.
t-blooa.
I
* Par acre ra'.s assumas that 1,000 gal. of finished spray applied.
-------
APPENDIX IIIB
USDA RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MITE CONTROL ON CITRUS
-------
USDA. RECOMMENDATIONS -FOB. MITE COSTROL OTS CXTKDS CROtS
CROP AND INSECT
INSECTICIDE
TOLERANCE
l/i. p. *.)
UCDA
MIN. DAYS
FROM LAST
APPLICATION
TO HARVEST
OR FEEDING
FORMULATION
POUNDS OF ACTIVE
INGREDIENT TO APPLY
UNLESS OTHERWISE
INOICATEO
WHERE ANO WHEN TO APPLY
safety restrictions
PER 100 GAL.
PER ACRE
CITRUS
Mite, c'tn;* bud
iA;5r:3 ti-c'cJonii
In :rid arj£S
Summer oil, light
medium or medium
Exempt
0
EC
1.75
36 gal.
September-November and
April-May.
Summer oil, light
medium +
chlorobenzilete
Exempt + 5
0
EC + EC or
WP
1.75+0.15
36 gal. + 3
When needed.
Chlorobenzilate
5
0
EC or WP
0.15
1.5
Thorough coverage with
conventional sprayer when
needed, preferably July-
Septctnber.
Allow 3 weeks between oil and
sulfur sprays. Do not apply oil
to drought stricken trees or
trees near wilting; or when soil
Is very dry or temperature is
unusually high. Oil sprays
applied in the fall may inhibit
solids formatter. in the juice and
retard coloring of fruit, and
shoulj not be applied within
60 days of anticipaieo harvest.
EC or WP
1.5
With mist blower at needed
preferably July or September.
Mi'.i, citrus red
tP^s-iYchiiS citri)
lr. arid arsas
Summer oil, light
medium or
medium
Exempt
0
EC
1.75
55 gal.
On navel oranges, use light
medium oil August through
September or medium oil to
September 15. On grapefruit
and other oranges use light
medium or medium oil
August-October. On lemons;
medium oil In April and May;
and/or September-December.
-r -
-------
:SCP AO INSECT
INSECTICIDE
TOLERANCE
(/>. p Iff. J
MIN. DAYS
fROM LAST !
APPLICATION
TO HARVEST
OR FEEDING
FORMULATION
POUNDS OF ACTIVE \
INGREDIENT TO APPLY ]
UNLESS OTHERWISE
INDICATED
WHERE AND WHEN TO APPLY ^
PER >00 GAL.
PER ACRE
WP
--
4
With mist blower as mites
appear.
Tetradifon*
2
0
WP
0.25
3.75
Thorough coverage with
conventional sprayer as
mites appear.
WP
••
2.5
With mist blower as
mites appear.
Oicofol*
10
7
EC
0.4
4-6
Thorough coverage with
conventional sprayer as
mites appear.
EC
3
With mist blower as mites
oppear.
Dtoxathion*
2 £
0
EC
0.4
4-6
Thorough coverage with
conventional sprayer as
mites appear.
Ethlon
2
21**
ECorWP
0.35
3.5-& 25
EC
--
4
With mist blower as mites
appear.
Carbophenothion*
2 fruit
10 dehy-
drated pulp
•nd meal
14
WP
0.4
4-6
Thorough coverage with
conventional sprayer as
mites appear.
1
i
1
V
A
i
SAFETY RESTRICTIONS
CITRUS (Con.)
Mite, citrus red •
(Panonychus citri)
In arid areasTCon.)
Oo not apply tetradifon
more than once per
season while fruit it
present. Co not use on
kuniquats.
Do not ure dicofol in
highly alkaline sprays.
Do not use chlorcban-
zilate on citrus citron,
kuniquats, limes, or
tangelos.
Do not apply dioxatnion
on citrus citron or
kumquats. Oo not apply
on lemons or limes more
than twice a year; allow
at least 4 months
between applications. On
oranges, grapefruit,
tsngelos, i>nd tangerines,
make applications at
least 3 months apart
if fruit i» present
during the first
application,
Oo not feed or graze
cover crops grown In
orchards-treated with
dioxathicn.
Limit use of ethlon to
one application on
lemons and limes end to
two applications per
crop on tangerines. Oo
not repeat soplication
within 00 0-/S on grape-
fruit, orar,g.;j, tangelos, end
tangBrir.es. Oo not use on
citrus citron or kumcjuats.
Do not use oarbsphenothlon
in home plantings; should
be applied only by a
trained operator. Allow 30
days between applications of
carbophenothion.
¦No time lim'.t on grapefruit, oranges, tangelos, end tangarirws.
-------
asd inssc r
insecticide
tolerance
(p. p. m. *
FROM LAST
APPLICATION
TO HARVEST
OR FEEDING
FORMULATION ^
1N GREW fcWf- ftT T ,
UNLESS OTHERWISE \
INDICATED 1
-~-i
PEFi 100 GAL.
PER ACRE
1
CITRUS (Con.)
Yitee, citrus r?d
!?i-onychus.ciiri).
Tents citrus
(r-tctrany-pus
fellisl). ir-.d six
sported iSotetranychus
sexrr.ficclstus)
in f,jrr.;d areas
Carbophcnothion
2 fruit
10 dehy-
drated pulp
and meal
2.8
2
14
EC or WP
0.25-0.37
2.5-3.75
Post bloom as needed; may
spot grapefruit if
applied after June.
Dioxathion
Ethion
0
21"
EC
EC
0.25
0.25
2.5
2.5
Fall, winter
Dicofol
10
7
EC
0.25-0,37
2.5-3J5
Late spring, fall, winter
Tetradifon*
2
0
WP
0.25
2.5
Post bloom or fall.
Summer oil
Exempt.
42
Emulsion
0.7 gal.
7 gal.
Post bloom, June 1-July 15.
Mite, citrus rust
{PnvllocoDtruta
c:e\of£)
Azinphosmethyl
Carbophenothion
Dicofol
2 fruit
S dried pulp
2 fruit
10 dehydra-
ted pulp and
meal
10
28'"
14
7
EC
EC or WP
EC
0.25
0.25-(X37
0.5
2.5
2.5-3l78
5.0
Post bloom, late spring,
fall or winter. In
Florida, preferred use is
in late fall and winter
for combined control of
rust mites and spider mite*
In Texas, carbophenothion
may spot grapefruit if applied
after June.
Chlorobenzilate* ""
5
0
EC or WP
0.12
1.25
Post bloom as needed.
Dioxathion
2.8
0
EC
0.25
2.5
Fall, winter
Ethion
2
21"
EC or WP
0.25
2.5
Sulfur
Safe
0
Wettable
D
S
40-100
Post bloom as needed.
Mite, false spider
(Srevietipus spp.)
In r.umid areas
Chlorobenzilate*
5
0
EC or WP
0.25-0.5
2.5-&75
Summer.
Dicofol
10
7
EC
0.25
2.5
As mites appear.
Sulfur
Saf?
0
Wettable
5
50
Summer.
Summer oil
Exempt
0
EC
1.6 gal.
16 gal.
As needed, June 1-
September 15.
SAFETY RESTRICTIONS
Do not use azinghos-
methyl or carbopheno-
thion in homo plantings;
should be applied only
by a trained operator.
Allow 30 days between
applications of
carbophcnothion.
Limit use of dioxathion
as indicated in last
column on
Limit use of ethion to
or.e application on
lemons and limes and to
two applications per
crop on tangerines. Oo
not repeat application
within 90 days on grape-
fruit, oranges, tangelos, and
tangerines. Oo not use on
citrus citron or kumquats.
Oo not use dicofol in
highly alkaline sprays.
Do not apply tetradifon
more than once per
season while fruit is
present. Do r.ot use on
kumquats.
Allow 3 weeks between oil and
sulfur sprays. Do not apply oil
to drought stricken trees or
trees near wilting; or when soil
is very dry or temperature li
unusually high. Oil sprays
applied in the fall may inhibit
solids formation in the juice and
retard coloring of fruit, and
should not be applied within
60 days of anticipated harvest
In Florida do not apply
after July IS.
Do not apply ajeinphos-
methyl more than twice
per season.
•Not effective in some areas. To tetradifon, add chlorobenzilate, 1.5 lb. per acre. If many adults are present
"No time limit on grapefruit, oranges, tangelos, and tangerines.
••*7 cloys if applied only once while fruit is present. Do not do any work Involving contact with trees within 7 days after treatment.
... on citrus citron, kumauats, limes, or tangelos. Chlorobenzilate may be applied at 5 lb. per aero on oranges and 7.5 lb. on lemons.
-------
APPENDIX IIIC
DOANE SURVEY DATA FOR CHLOROBENZILATE
-------
4>-
I
TABLE 7: NUMBER OF ACRES GROWN, ACRES TREATED, ACRES NOT TREATED, GROWERS, USERS, AND
NON-USERS OF MITICIDES, TOTAL TREATMENT ACRES, AND TOTAL DOLLARS BY AREA,
AS ESTIMATED FOR 1975.
CROP:
PRODUCT;
Lemons
Mi t i c1des
D
Acres Grown(OOO)
Acres Treated(OOO)
Acres Not Treated(OOO)
Number of Growers
Users of Miticides
Non-Users of Miticides
Total Treatment Acres(OOO)
Total Dollars(OOO)
2)
Total U.S.
92
57
35
2630
1882
748
106
1546
Cal ifornia
&
Ari zo ni a
87
52
35
2490
1746
744
97
1521
1) Does Not Include Multiple Applications
2) Includes Multiple Applications
Source: 1972, 1973, and 1974 Doane Specialty Crops Studies.
-------
TABLE 2: ~
CROP: Lemons
PRODUCT: Miticides
AREA: Total U.S.
Tunf% Af »fc . , Expenditures Total Treatments^
Type of Chenncal Dollars Pet. Acres Pet.
(000) foom
Ethion/Oil
Acaraben
Carzol
Cygon
Kelthane
Mores tan
Oil
Omite
Sulfur
I Acaraben/Oil
P Cygon/Oil
V Oil/Ma lathi on
Other Misc. Chemicals
Other Misc. Combinations
Uni denti fied
Subtotal
No Answer
Total
25
1.6
1
1 .0
110
7.1
11
10.5
9
0.6
2
1.9
33
2.1
2
1.9
70
4.6
5
4.8
20
1.3
1
1.0
862
55.9
44
41.9
226
14.7
8
7.6
22
1 .4
7
6.6
29
1 .9
3
2.9
29
1.9
7
6. 6
42
2.7
7
6.6
20
1.3
3
2.9
24
1.6
2
1.9
20
1.3
2
1.9
1541
100.0
105
100.0
5
1
1546
106
Growers
T reatina
Avg. No. of
Growers
Pet.
Appl ications
48
2.6
1.0
316-
17.2
1.1
46
2.5
1.0
78
4.3
2.0
136
7.4
1.3
88
4.8
817
44.5
2.0
181
9.9
1.0
76
4.1
1.3
189-
10.3
1.0
76
4.1
7.0
139
7.6
2.3
112
6.1
1.0
100
5.5
1.0
88
4.8
2.0
1835
*. *
* -k
47
1882
1) Includes Multiple Applications
Source: 1972, 1973, and 1974 Doane Specialty Crops Studies.
-------
TABLE 2: TOTAL TREATMENT ACRES, GROWERS TREATING, AND AVERAGE NUMBER
OF APPLICATIONS BY TYPE OF CHEMICAL APPLIED, AS ESTIMATED FOR 1975.
CROP: Lemons
PRODUCT: Miticides
AREA: California an'd Arizona
1)
Tun , , Expenditures Total Treatments Growers Treating Avg. No. of
Type of Chemical DoAl*Vs ?ct- AcresPet. Growers Pet. Applications
(000) (000)
Acaraben 70 4 c * . 0
Carzol 9 ' * 26= 15-6 1.0
Cygon 33 2 2 ? ? i tl 2'5 1,0
Kel thane 61 40 4 4*2
horestan 20 1.3 , , 0 J-J 1-0
nmit. 862 56-9 44 45"8 757 44'f 2 0
c we 226 14-9 8 8.3 163 gi H
Sulfur 20 1 ^ A c. r> ™
Acaraben/Oil 29 l'g 3 -3*1 ,JJ 1-°
Cygon/0il 29 1 ? t'I 17^ 10'3 T-0
Oil/Malathion 42 2^8 7 7*3 i'l 7,0
Other Misc. Chemicals 18 \'.Z 3 3*-j Xi\
Otherwise-. Combinations 77 5.1 3 3"] -17c ,$*1
Unidentified 20 1 3 ? 1't 10'3 K5
CKi i-i 2 2-1 82 4.8 2.0
Stl'bt0ta] 1516 100.0 96 100.0 1701 * * * *
No Answer 5
1 45
T0ta1 152! 97 1746
1) Includes Multiple Applications
Source: 1972, 1973, and 1974 Doane Specialty Crops Studies.
-------
TABLE 7: NUMBER OF ACRES GROWN, ACRES TREATED, ACRES NOT TREATED,
NON-USERS OF MITICIDES, TOTAL TREATMENT ACRES, AND TOTAL
AS ESTIMATED FOR 7 975.
GROWERS, USERS, AND
DOLLARS BY AREA,
CROP: Grapefruit
PRODUCT: Miticides
Cal i forni a
Total U.S.
F1ori da
Texas
& Arizona
Acres Grown(OOO)
1)
Acres Treated(OOO)
209
132
42
35
167
115
40
12
Acres Not Treated(OQO)
42
17
2
23
Number of Growers
8015
3550
2825
1640
Users of Miticides
6292
3195
2605
492
Non-Users of Miticides
1723
355
220
1148
2)
Total Treatment Acres(OOO)
420
311
93
15
Total Dollars(OOO)
2681
1937
587
157
1) Does Not Include Multiple Applications
2) Includes Multiple Applications
Source: 1972, 1973, and 1974 Doane Specialty Crops Studies.
-------
TABLE 2: EXPENDITURES, TOTAL TREATMENT ACRES, GROWERS TREATING, AND AVERAGE NUMBER
OF APPLICATIONS BY TYPE OF CHEMICAL APPLIED, AS ESTIMATED FOR 1975.
CROP: Grapefruit
PRODUCT: Miticides
AREA: Total U.S.
Expenditures
Total Treatments
Growers
T reatinq
Avg. No. of
Type of Chemical
Dol lars
(000)
Pet.
Acres
(000)
Pet.
Growers
Pet.
Appl ications
Acaraben
775
28.9
no
26.2
2500
39.8
1.2
Ethi on
89
3.3
8
1 .9
567
9.0
1.0
Kelthane
17
0.6
2
0.5
176
2.8
1 .0
Sulfur
261
9.7
97
23.1
2254
35.9
1.3
Tri thi on
125
4.7
22
5.2
356
5.7
1.5
Oil
61
2.3
8
1 .9
404
6.4
1.7
Ethi on/Oi1
301
11 .2
30
7.1
1334
21.2
1.1
Acaraben/Sulfur
23
0.9
3
0.7
332
5.3
1 .0
Oni te
79
2.9
4
1 .0
65
1.0
2.0
Delnex-8
62
2.3
4
1.0
176
2.8
1 .0
Acaraben/Arsenate
33
1 .2
7
1.7
486
7.7
1 .0
Acaraben/Oil
232
8.7
28
6.7
889
14.2
1 .2
Acaraben/Supracide
13
0.5
1
0.2
82
1 .3
1.0
Acaraben/Guthi on
23
0.9
7
1.7
219
3.5
1 .8
Ethion/Sulfur
10
0.4
1
0.2
77
1.2
2.0
Karathane/Oi1
19
0.7
2
0.5
77
1.2
1.0
Kelthane/Oi1
125
4.7
18
4.3
208
3.3
1 .2
Kelthane/Su1 fur
23
0.9
1
0.2
77
1.2
1.0
0 i 1 / T r i t h i o n
46
1 .7
9
2.1
112
1.8
1.4
Acaraben/Sulfur/Malathi on
12
0.4
2
0.5
118
1.9
1.0
Continued
-------
TABLE 2:
CROP:
PRODUCT:
AREA:
EXPENDITURES, TOTAL TREATMENT ACRES, GROWERS TREATING, AND AVERAGE NUMBER
OF APPLICATIONS BY TYPE OF CHEMICAL APPLIED, AS ESTIMATED FOR 1975. (Continued)
Grapefruit
M i t i c i d e s
Total U.S.
Type of Chemical
Other Misc. Chemicals
Other Misc. Combinations
Unidentified
Subtotal
No Answer
Total
1)
Expendi tures.
Total Treatments
Growers
T reating
Avg. No. of
Dol 1 ars
Pet.
Acres
Pet.
Growers
Pet.
Appl i cat ions
(000)
(0C0)
123
4.6
25
6.0
527
8.4
1.1
212
7.9
30
7.1
768
12.2
1.4
17
0.6
1
0.2
109
1 .7
1.0
2681
100.0
420
100.0
6279
*. *
*. *
13
2681
420
6292
1) Includes Multiple Applications
Source: 1972, 1973, and 1974 Doane Specialty Crops Studies.
-------
TABLE 2: EXPENDITURES, TOTAL TREATMENT ACRES, GROWERS TREATING, AND AVERAGE NUMBER
OF APPLICATIONS BY TYPE OF CHEMICAL APPLIED, AS ESTIMATED FOR 1975.
CROP: Grapefruit
PRODUCT: Miticides
AREA: California & Arizona
Expendi tures
Total Tre
1)
atments
Growers
T reatinq
Avg. No. of
Type of Chemical
Do! 1 ars
Pet.
Acres
Pet.
Growers
Pet.
Appl i cat ions
(000)
(000)
Oil
21
13.4
2
12.5
156
32.5
1.0
Omite
79
50.3
4
25.0
65
13.5
2.0
Sulfur
21
13.4
6
37.5
91
18.9
1 .0
Other Misc. Chemicals
15
9.6
2
12.5
129
27.G
1 .0
Other Misc. Combinations
12
7.6
2
12.5
77
16.1
2.0
Uni denti fi ed
9
'5.7
26
5.4
1.0
Subtotal
157
100.0
16
100.0
479
"k :k
* ~
No Answer
13
Total
157
16
492
1} Includes Multiple Applications
Source: 1972, 1973 ard 1974 Doane Specialty Crops Studies.
-------
TABLE 2: EXPENDITURES, TOTAL TREATMENT ACRES, GROWERS TREATING, AND AVERAGE NUMBER
OF APPLICATIONS BY TYPE OF CHEMICAL APPLIED, AS ESTIMATED FOR 1975.
CROP: Grapefruit
PRODUCT: Mi t icicles
AREA: Florida
Expendi tures
Total Treatments
Growers
T rsatinq
Avg. No. of
Type of Chemical
Dol1 a rs
Pet.
Acres
Pet.
Growers
Pet.
Applications
(000)
(000)
Acaraben
599
30.9
90
28.9
1875
58.7
.1 .2
Ethi on
81
4.2
6
1 .9
374
11.7
1.0
Kelthane
17
0.9
2
0.6
176
5.5
1.0
Sulfur
240
12.4
91
29.3
2163
67 .7
1.3
Trithion
85
4.4
7
2.3
137
4.3
1.0
Ethion/Oil
289
14.9
27
8.7
1003
31 .4
1 .0
Acaraben/Sulfur
23
1.2
3
1 .0
332
10.4
1.0
Delnex-8
62
3.2
4
1.3
176
5.5
1.0
Acaraben/Arsenate
33
1 .7
7
2.3
486
15.2
1 .0
Acaraben/Oi1
147
7.6
20
6.4
233
7.3
1.0
Ethi on/Sulfur
10
0.5
1
0.3
77
2.4
1 .0
Karathane/Oi 1
19
1.0
2
0.6
77
2.4
1.0
Kelthane/Oi1
70
3.6
15
4.8
96
3.0
1.0
Kelthane/Sulfur
23
1.2
1
0.3
77
2.4
1.0
Acaraben/Sulfur/Malathion
! 12
0.6
2
0.6
118
3.7
1.0
Other Misc. Chemicals
74
3.8
16
5.2
96
3.0
1.0
Other Misc. Combinations
153
7.9
17
5.5
252
7.9
1.0
Subtotal
1937
100.0
311
100.0
3195
* . *
* . *
No Ansv/er
Total
1937
311
3195
1) Includes Multiple Applications
Source: 1972, 1973, and 1374 Doane Specialty Crops Studies.
-------
TABLE 2: EXPENDITURES, TOTAL TREATMENT ACRES, GROWERS TREATING, AND AVERAGE NUMBER
OF APPLICATIONS BY TYPE OF CHEMICAL APPLIED, AS ESTIMATED FOR 1975.
CROP: Grapefruit
PRODUCT: Miticides
AREA: Texas
1)
Expenditures
Total Treatments
Growers
T reatinq
Avg. No. of
Type of Chemical
Do! 1 ars
Pet.
Acres
Pet.
Growers
Pet.
Appli cations
(000)
(000)
Oil
40
6.8
6
6.5
248
9.5
2.0
Acaraben
176
30.0
20
21 .5
625
24.0
1 .4
Efchi on
8
1.4
2
2.2
193
7.4
2.0
Tri thi on
40
6.8
15
16.1
219
8.4
1.9
Acaraben/Oil
85
14.5
8
8.6
656
25.2
2.0
Acaraben/Guthion
23
3.9
7
7.5
219
8.4
1 .8
Ethi on/Oi1
12
2.0
3
3.2
331
12.7
2.0
Kelthane/Oi1
55
9.4
3
3.2
112
4.3
3.0
Oil/Tri thi on
46
7.8
9
9.7
112
4.3
1.4
Other Misc. Chemicals
34
5.8
7
7.5
302
11 .6
1.3
Other Misc. Combinations
60
10.2
12
12.9
521
20.0
2.0
Unidentified
8
1 .4
1
1 .1
83
3.2
Subtotal
587
100.0
93
100.0
2605
*. *
* *
No Answer
Total
587
93
2605
1} Includes Multiple Applications
Source: 1972, 1973, and 1974 Doane Specialty Crops Studies.
-------
fo
LO
TABLE 1;
CROP:
PRODUCT:
NUMBER OF ACRES GROWN, ACRES TREATED, ACRES NOT TREATED, GROWERS, USERS, AND
NON-USERS OF MITICIDES, TOTAL TREATMENT ACRES, AND TOTAL DOLLARS BY AREA,
AS ESTIMATED FOR 1975.
Oranges
Miticides
Acres Grown(OOO)
1)
Acres Treated(OOO)
Acres Not Treated(OOO)
Number of Growers
Users of Miticides
Non-Users of Miticides
Total Treatment Acres(OOO)
Total Dollars(OOO)
2)
Total U.S.
917
635
282
15695
12362
3333
1643
9013
Florida
640
480
160
6690
6234
456
1370
6528
Texas
34
33
1
2265
2084
181
78
342
California
& Arizona
243
122
121
6740
4044
2696
195
2143
1) Does Not Include Multiple Applications
2) Includes Multiple Applications
Source: 1972, 1973, and 1974 Doane Specialty Crops Studies.
-------
TABLE 2: EXPENDITURES, TOTAL TREATMENT ACRES, GROWERS TREATING, AND AVERAGE NUMBER
OF APPLICATIONS BY TYPE OF CHEMICAL APPLIED, AS ESTIMATED FOR 1975.
CROP: Oranges
PRODUCT: Mi tic ides
AREA: Total U.S.
1)
Expendi tures
Total Treatments
Growers
T reatinq
Avg. No. of
Type of Chemical
Dol lars
Pet.
Acres
Pet.
Growers
Pet.
Applications
(000)
(000)
Acaraben
2339
26.1
358
21 .8
4792
39.3
1.4
Carzol
52
0.6
3
0.2
194
1.6
1 .0
Cygon
17
0.2
3
0.2
194
1 .6
1 .0
Delnav
136
1 .5
22
1 .3
486
4.0
1.0
Ethi on
431
4.8
39
2.4
1016
8.3
1.1
Kelthane
241
2.7
31
1 .9
612
5.0
1.0
Oil
842
9.4
82
5.0
2083
17.1
1.1
Omi te
282
3.1
43
2.6
572
4.7
1 .0
Sulfur
959
10.7
422
25.7
4557
37.3
1.2
Tri thi on
60
0.7
8
0.5
420
3.4
1.1
Guthi on
29
0.3
5
0.3
156
1 .3
1 .0
Delnex-8
150
1 .7
13
0.8
249
2.0
1 .0
Acaraben/Oil
371
4.1
67
4.1
947
7.8
1.1
Acaraben/Sulfur
385
4.3
110
6.7
393
3.2
1 .0
Acaraben/Guthion
8
0.1
3
0.2
158
1.3
3.0
Carzol/0 i1
26
0.3
4
0.2
143
1.2
1 .0
Ethi on/Oi1
1191
13.3
147
9.0
2640
21.6
1 .0
Oil/Trithion
34
0.4
20
1.2
175
1.4
1 .8
011/Mai athi on
9
0.1
2
0.1
134
1.1
2.0
Parathion/Malathion
36
0.4
6
0.4
230
1 .9
1 .0
Supraci de
7
0.1
1
0.1
42
0.3
1.0
Conti nued
-------
TABLE 2: EXPENDITURES, TOTAL TREATMENT ACRES, GROWERS TREATING, AND AVERAGE NUMBER
OF APPLICATIONS BY TYPE OF CHEMICAL APPLIED, AS ESTIMATED FOR 1975. (Continued)
CROP:
PRODUCT:
AREA:
Oranges
Mi tici des
Total U.S
Expendi tures
Total Treatments
1)
Avg. No. of
Type of Chemical
Dol 1 ars
Pet.
Acres
Pet.
G row e rs
Pet.
Appl ications
(000)
(000)
Other Misc. Chemicals
715
8.0
128
7.8
1194
9.8
1.0
Other Misc. Combinations
564
5.3
119
7.2
1091
8.9
1.1
Unidentified
75
0.8
5
0.3
216
1.8
1.5
Subtotal
8959
100.0
1541
100.0
12208
*. *
* -k
No Answer
54
2
154
Total
9013
1643
12362
1) Includes Multiple Applications
Source: 1972, 1973, and 1974 Doane Specialty Crops Studies.
-------
TABLE 2: EXPENDITURES, TOTAL. TREATMENT ACRES, GROWERS TREATING, AND AVERAGE NUMBER
OF APPLICATIONS BY TYPE OF CHEMICAL APPLIED, AS ESTIMATED FOR 1975.
CROP: Oranges
PRODUCT: Miticides
AREA: California & Arizona
1)
Expenditures
Total Treatments
Growers T
reatinq
Avg. No. of
Type of Chemical
Dol1 a rs
Pet.
Acres
Pet.
Growers
Pet.
Appl ications
(000)
(000)
Carzol
52
2.5
3
1.6
194
5.0
1.0
Cygon
17
0.8
3
1.6
194
5.0
1.0
Delnav
136
6.5
22
11 .4
486
12.5
1.0
Kelthane
123
5.9
20
10.4
194
5.0
1.0
Oil
712
34.1
52
26.9
1490
38.3
1.0
Omi te
282
13.5
43
22.3
572
14.7
1.0
Guthi on
29
1 .4
5
2.5
156
4.0
1.3
Parathion/Malathion
36
1.7
6
3.1
230
5.9
1 .0
Other Misc. Chemicals
568
27.2
29
15.0
805
20.7
1.0
Other Misc. Combinations
88
4.2
7
3.6
463
11.9
1 .5
Unidentified
46
2.2
3
1 .6
117
3.0
1.3
Subtotal
2089
100.0
193
100.0
3890
*. *
*. -v
No Answer
54
2
154
Total
2143
195
4044
1) Includes Multiple Applications
Source: 1972, 1973, and 1974 Doane Specialty Crops
Studies.
-------
TABLE 2: EXPENDITURES, TOTAL TREATMENT ACRES, GROWERS TREATING, AND AVERAGE NUMBER
OF APPLICATIONS BY TYPE OF CHEMICAL APPLIED, AS ESTIMATED FOR 1975.
CROP:
PRODUCT:
AREA:
Oranges
Miticides
Florida
1)
Expendi tures
Total Treatments
Growers
T reating
Avg. No. of
Type of Chemical
Dol lars
Pet.
Acres
Pet.
Growers
Pet.
Appl i cat ions
(000)
(000)
Acaraben
2225
34.1
345
25.2
4252
68.2
1.4
Ethi on
431
6.6
39
2.9
1016
16.3
1.1
Kelthane
118
1 .8
11
0.8
418
6.7
i .0
Sulfur
953
14.6
418*
30.5
4451
71 .4
1.2
Tri thion
46
0.7
5
0.4
218
3.5
1 .2
Oil
124
1 .9
28
2.0
480
7.7
1.0
Ethi on/Oil
1169
17.9
139
10.1
2219
35.6
1.0
Acaraben/Sulfur
385
5.9
110
8.0
393
6.3
1 .0
Delnex-8
150
2.3
13
1.0
249
4.0
1 .0
Acaraben/Oil
326
5.0
60
4.4
561
9.0
1.0
Carzol/Oi1
26
0.4
4
0.3
143
2.3
1 .0
Other Misc. Chemicals
124
1 .9
95
6.9
137
2.2
1.0
Other Misc. Combinations
431
6.6
102
7.4
287
4.6
1.0
Unidenti fi ed
20
0.3
1
0.1
31
0.5
Subtotal
6528
100.0
1370
100.0
6234
* • *
No Answer
Total Users
6528
1370
6234
1) Includes Multiple Applications
Source: 1972, 1973, and 1974 Doane Specialty Crops Studies.
-------
TABLE 2: EXPENDITURES, TOTAL TREATMENT ACRES, GROWERS TREATING, AND AVERAGE NUMBER
OF APPLICATIONS BY TYPL OF CHEMICAL APPLIED, AS ESTIMATED FOR 1975.
CROP: Oranges
PRODUCT: Miticides
AREA: Texas
1)
Expenditures
Total Treatments
Growers
T reatinq
Avg. No. of
Type of Chemical
Del 1 ars
Pet.
Acres
Pet.
Growers
Pet.
Applications
(000)
(000)
Acaraben
114
33.3
13
16.7
540
25.9
1.2
Oil
6
1.7
2
2.6
113
5.4
2.0
Sulfur
6
1 .7
4
5.1
106
5.1
2.0
Trithion
14
4.1
3
3.8
202
9.7
1.5
Acaraben/Oi1
45
13.1
7
9.0
386
18.5
2.3
Acaraben/Guthion
8
2.4
3
3.8
158
7.6
3.0
Ethi on/Oi1
22
6.3
8
10.3
421
20.2
2.7
Oi1/Tri thion
34
10.1
20
25.6
175
8.4
1 .8
Supraci de
7
2.0
1
1 .3
42
2.0
1.0
Other Misc. Chemicals
23
6.8
4
5.1
252
12.1
1.3
Other Misc. Combinations
54
15.8
12
15.4
475
22.8
2.4
Unidentified
9
2.7
1
1.3
68
3.3
1.0
Subtotal
342
100.0
78
100.0
2084
*. *
*. *
No Answer
Total
342
78
2084
1) Includes Multiple Applications
Source: 1972, 1973, and 1974 Doane Specialty Crops Studies.
-------
APPENDIX HID
CITRUS PRODUCTION SUMMARY
-------
APPENDIX HID
CITRUS PRODUCTION SUMMARY
Citrus crops make up a significant portion of agricultural production
in the United States. Of the 24,781,000 tons of fruit crops produced in the
United States in 1974, citrus crops (oranges, tangerines, grapefruit, lemons,
limes tangelos, temples) accounted for 13,393,000 tons or 54.0% of the total
tonnage (U. S. Department of Agriculture, 1975). The U. S. Department of
Agriculture has projected total citrus production for the 1975-76 crop year
at 14,461,000 tons (U. S. Department of Agriculture, 1976a).
Domestic citrus is produced commercially in four states. These states,
ranked in order of importance according to percent of total citrus produced,
are as follows (U. S. Department of Agriculture, 1976a):
1974-75 Production
State (1,000 Tons) % of Total
Florida 10,337 70.9
California 3,187 21.9
Arizona 573 3.9
Texas 485 3.3
Total 14,582 100.0
Oranges, grapefruit and lemons are by far the most important domestic
citrus crops. The quantities and percent of total citrus production repre-
sented by oranges, grapefruit and lemons for the 1974-75 crop year are as
follows (U. S. Department of Agriculture, 1976a):
1974-75 Production % of Total
(1,000 tons)
Oranges 10,245 70.3
Grapefruit 2,496 17.1
Lemons 1,118 7 »6
Sub-total 13,859 95.1
All other citrus 723 5.0
Total 14,582 100.0
-130-
-------
Orange production is concentrated in Florida and California, which
provided approximately 96.3% of total U. S. orange production in 1974-75.
Grapefruit production is concentrated in Florida (76.0% of total) and
California (8.8%). Lemon production occurs primarily in California and
Arizona, which provided 75.5 and 24.5% of total lemon production, respec-
tively. Florida also accounts for most of the production of limes,
tangelos, tangerines and temples. The above data, as well as other citrus
production information, is presented in Table 1.
An exact enumeration of total U. S. acreage committed to citrus
production during 1975 is currently not available. A recent Doane
survey (Doane, 1976) reported the following citrus crop acreages:
lemons, 92,000; grapefruit, 209,000; orange, 917,000. The total acreage
for these citrus crops is 1,218,000; however, this does not include citrus
crops such as limes, tangerines, etc. The Florida Citrus Summary 1975
(Florida Department of Agriculture, 1975) provides the following bearing
acreage breakdown of principal citrus fruits by state:
This data is incomplete in two respects: (1) it includes only bearing
acreage, and (2) it considers only principal citrus crops and excludes lemons,
honey tangerines and K-early citrus fruit.
Tables 2 through 5 present citrus acreage by crop for Arizona, California,
Florida and Texas, respectively. Based on the assumption that trees from one
to three years old are not of bearing age (Texas Crop and Livestock Reporting
Service, 1975), .1975 citrus production would be obtained from trees set
prior to 1972. Given this assumption and the state information in Tables
2 through 5, the data indicate that total bearing citrus approximates
1,218,840 acres in the
-------
Table IIID-1
Citrus fruit: Production, 1973/74, 1974/75, and indicated 1975/76='
1/
Crop ami Mn'.c
r-H-xes
Ton nqulv.iliMl
UUIl/Od
1V/U//6
Utilised
1973/74 | 19/1 /7 5
1U75/7U
19/3/74
If) 74/75
J,000 (•i.AOt*
J,000
1,000 'xi.vi s2
1,000 tens
),000 tons
J,000 tons
Oranges:
Early, IV.Mvmmui and Navol v^riorUes®:
Cnlifrwnla
21,900
2D,000
27,000
821
1,050
1,013
Plot id,i ...
92,100
96,600
98,000
4,145
4,34 ;
4,44 6
Texas .
A.P. 00
2,!) 30
3.P0.1
1 79
3 25
162
Arizona
•100
920
750
17
35
m-
ToU! .
116, 650
1 2f>,450
130,350
5,16.-;
5,55V
S.64&
V.ilunU.io:
Cnlifoi r,la
18,SCO
27,100
23,000
694
1,01 e
803
riorida
73,700
76,700
76,000
3,317
3,452
3,420
To/as
2,.100
1,610
2,600
102
OR
1 11
Arlironii
2,!lfc0
4,050
2,700
111
15?
101
Total
07,1,60
109,4 CO
104,300
4,224
4,033
4,495
All Oranfies;
California
40,400
SE.100
50,000
1.515
2,006
1,876
Florida
165,800
173,300
174, (J00
7,462
7,799
7,066
Texas
0,600
4,540
6,400
zei
193
273
Arizona
3,410
4,970
3,450
128
1C7
129
Total oranyes
216,210
237,910
234,650
9,386
10,245
10,144
Grape-fruit:
Florida .ill
4C,1 00
44,COO
49,000
2,045
1,896
.2,083
Seedless , .,
38,100
37,4 CO
xl.OOO
1,620
3,590
1,743
Pink
1 2,200
11,500
13,000
519
489
553
Whl'e
20,900
25,000
28,000
1,101
3.,101
1,190
Oilier
10,000
7,200
8,000
425
306
34 0
Texas
10,700
7,310
11.000
42 &
292
440
Arlaoiw-
2,050
2,7/0
3,100
66
89
99
California
4,6T0
6,700
6,000
153
219
196
Desert Va'.icys
2,360
3,750
3,300
70
120
ICO
Otlwr ateas
2,SCO
2,f>50
2 700
77
9W
90
Total (trupurud
65,500
61,3/0
69,) 00
2,692
2,496
2,CIS
Lemons:
Call fornid
14,900
22,200
16,500
£66
844
627
Arljorui
2,9C0
7,200
2,400
no
274
91
Tolai ismons
17,800
29,400
18,900
676
1,118
718
Limos;
Florid;.
i,oro
1,100
1,000
42
44
43
Tanjplos4:
Florida
3,700
4,700
5,500
167
212
248
Tanni'i'lncs:
Florid;,
2,800
3,100
3,400
133
147
16ii
P.M.'OP.j
tiao
610
050
26
23
24
CHllfurcU
1,300
1,540
1,500
51
C8
f>f,
Total t.inyw 'r.iiS
4,840
5,250
5,550
210
228
24?
Torrtul'ji:
Florida
5,300
!>,300
5,500
239
239
24D
Total ,, .
314,400
34!, ,130
310,2'iO
1 ."<,412
14,582
1.4.461
1 Tlit. stop yr-'3f Willi frliicm of Uk; 11/u yrar iirid onUv with
corrpifltioc. of Imi'vv;SI njii3-Call1orniu
»nd Atl/oni, /!> Ihi.j H-,>rlcl.-., 90 Tavas, 05 lt>s.;
fSrapcfrull-Ctillfornl.i, Dawirt Valleys, end Ailjoria. G4 lt>s..j other
Calllornlii .neai, <;? lbs.; riurhiK, US lb*. .ni'J Tc-xas fit) ILn.j
Source: U. S. Department of Agriculture, 1976a.
Lnrnons, 70 l'».} U,.iC.4-«iO IL»s.; 1 ,inaalOi-5)0 Ibs.s
'Iftiioorincf'California tno A'von, 75 l.'e.; n.;
'I cmp1<» 90 Ids.} * Navel and Mitcnll*n«::>iM v.irl-,ti«» in C'liUrnli
end Art/onn. Early ;>n0 K1id:cJiori vyilitio; In riofli-'i and 1 > -.-is,
inciiuilnii small Ciiisntltliv. of Unyuilncs tn "lixns. * K*ci ifi«-»
K'i:jrly cllru* trull.
*'3 Trsj.jao, juni" mo
-132-
-------
Table IIID-2
Arizona Citrus: Acreage by Type^
, , —r,—t,
Central A
j\'_
V, i" Son
> .\rlv.,in:i
„ .
'IV^al
Variety
Hearing
[V>r -l>c;\i-in(i
Nwi-hi\iiini:
IVa.-iui',
N.in —!.*¦¦» v ln;i
All
citrus
Acres
Valencia
5,250
—
12,too
100
17,61)0
100
17, rr.O
Navel
I, MO
1>:)0
l'.)0
...
¦1, 71 0
n;-2>)
—
:>oo
1,720
--
l,7fid
All oran;;cs
10,090
OPO
13,000
100
>1,oso
i,£>K)
c:>, tiio
Will It;
1 ,4!i0
100
i, :.u)o
IH0
".,','50
8.H 0
(i.'VIO
iir') OHirili
2,050
700
1,130
:? JO
3, :>00
i, f;: o
5, 1 )>i
All ;rrapt'fnilt
fi, 500
1,100
2,7.10
i, k:o
U, 200
, 5!!0
i), ;-70
l.o mono
3,3:10
720
1 !,0li0
7,830
!3f>0
y, r.r.o
2i,:uo
Ttiri.-.rM'li.t.'K and
Tari|/.t:!o«
2,im
J 30
3,220
*20
o, aoo
330
0,1:50
To tnl
22,500
2,030
32,120
<1,370
Si 5, lj'20
ta.rioo
r.a,i20
1/ Aeroi'K'' :is of March, 1975.
2/ Includes ,'icrongc tn Maricopa, Pima and Pinal countloo.
Sources Florida Department of Agriculture* 1975.
Table IIID-3
California Citrus Acreage by Type and Year Set—^
Year set
Navel and
¦thur
(ifiiiil'.i'S
Valencia
oranges
V/hllo
grapefruit
Hoc!
grapefruit
Lemons
l.tmcs
'1 niuw'ol
and
tin{;or;i
Tru'.i't.ri nes
All
citrus
Acres
! 0!50 (¦. earlier
.11,575
¦3ti,S73
0,981
2,769
28,539
207
289
1,311
128,717
H)(!0-'H
27,191
31,33(1
78-1
079
3,085
121
1,702
2,47.3
67,720
lO'i.i
0,926
6,273
48
111
l,73<>
23
524
3P7
19,031
i :Hh".
K,«Zl
4, ftG7
160
3f>l
2,051'
18
495
330
17,102
10f>7
7, 9 ~>3
2,178
190
5.50
3, o;^2
23
1577
280
15,1)12
ll»lH
5,8 til)
2,709
272
1,01C
4,2(33
10
592
;
1,082
1,338
318
1,505
3,«2f)
U
8V5
300
13,248
»070
3,370
C43
125
888
4,128
8
538
22i",
9,932
ion
2,501
712
250
1,030
2,270
17
487
i::5
7, 101
i im
2,730
851
834
1,566
•1,389
fl
391
137
10,a84
1973
1,187
713
760
873
2,925
11
331
1Z5
fi.JfflO
1974
787
711
357
893
2,142
1
320
105
9,313
Total
127,201
89,107
11,116
iii.ruiri
80,802
5.19
7,281
(i.iiiy
310,101
1/ Acreage as of December, 1974,
Source: Florida Department of Agriculture, 1975.
-133-
-------
Table IIID-4
Florida Citrus Acreage by Type, 1974-75
Variety Bearing Acres
Early & Midseason 314,800
Late (Valencia) 295,500
All Round Oranges 610,300
Seedy 23,300
White Seedless 61,100
Pink Seedless 31,000
All Grapefruit 115,400
Meyer 1,600
True 6,000
All Lemons 7,600
Temples 21,900
Tangelos 18,900
Limes 4,300
Honey Tangerines 9,100
Tangerines 19.400
All Citrus 806,900
Source; Florida Department of Agriculture, 1975.
Table IIID-5
Texas Citrus Acreage by Type and Age Group-'
1/
Aj-.c in yours
' to 8
I to H
'Ho 12
13 •
To I :il
Kavly
illKl
mk!«»won
ValftiK-ias
Total
125
3,355
11,020
i j , r>r.o
vjr,
1,005 •
2, I'M
fi,K20
fliiO
•i, :ir,t>
8,210
1H,370
ltuby
Hcd
3,205
7,«I0
•I, 130
21,350 If), 150 31,500 3 3,100
titiir
Uuby
Othnr
Acres
.'iHO
30
:vo
:ir>o
too
3, MO
•1,210
'Mdwti-
Hcd
5,3!>0
S,3f>«
y Acreage as of'January 1, 1975. Souvee: Ses page *at« source*, itum 4.
y Includes lemons, taneelos and tnngerirwp.
Source-! Florida Deportment of A&rimilture, 1975.
't- it;i I
8, 1M
I, H!)0
20,0:15
IV., 10')
cuhev 2/
r»co
!'»t*o
Ail
citrtta
(0,315
JZ.WO
is. !•»»
7 t,w>
-134-
-------
Table IIID-6
Arizona
California^
Florida^
Texas^
Total
Total Citrus Acreage by Types and
States, TJ. S., .as Estimated for 1975
Bearing
Acres
i I'll .
55,620
292,265
806,900
64,055
1,218,840
Non-bearing
Acres
12,500
23,139
57,198
10,345
103,182.
Total
Acres
68,120
315,404
864,098
74,400
1,322,022
1 See Table 2 for derivation of bearing and non-bearing acres.
2 See Table 3; bearing acres include those set prior to 1972;
non-bearing acres set during and after 1972.
3 See Table 4 for bearing acres; derivation of non-bearing
acreage assumes no net change in total acreage between
December, 1973 and 1975 values,
4 See Table 5; bearing acrss include those older than
3 years of age as of January 1, 1975; non-bearing acres
include those 3.-3 years of age as of January 1, 1975.
Data regarding numbers of citrus growers is limited. Doane (Doane, 1976)
reported the following data on the number of citrus growers during 1975:
Crop
Lemons
Grapefruit
Oranges
Florida
*
3,550
6,690
* Number not reported.
Source: Doane, 1976
Number ot Growers
Texas
*
2,825
2,265
California
& Arizona
2,490
1,640
6,740
Total U. S.
2,630
8,015
15,695
-135-
-------
APPENDIX HIE
SPRAY PROGRAM AND PRODUCTION COSTS FOR FLORIDA CITRUS CROPS
-------
Table IIIE-1
uy i.i'X'd I;! vC t-.• k; ' :.i; •?•;;; v P'.2
.ft L. * •.)! .
70
¦ O '>1
• V* J
, BO
16:n0
I?-- M i*. A «
$ 5.1)9
16. SO
$'12.19
r\ /% c
4> 1/. c. S
io.no
$14.05
. F>0
1S 30
Total
IB
Source: Anderson and Muraro, 1975b.
S37
-------
Table IIIE-2
Spray program used in budget based on custom rates and two 500
yu'llon tanks per acre
I torn Amount/A. Cost
Post bloom
Chlorobenzilate 2 pints $ 4.47
Zinc -15 lbs. 4.95
Borates 1.25 lbs. .03
Manganese 15 lbs. .94
Sticker 1 pint .80
Application 2 tanks 17.26
Total $£8^72
Summer oil
Ethion 6 pints $ 8.88
Oil 8 gal. 9.28
Copper, 53% cu 3 lbs. 2.82
Application 2 tanks 17.26
Total $30.24
Fall miticide
Sulphur 70 lbs. $ 3.85
Application, aerial $0.6/1b. 4.20
Total $ 8,0'i
Grand total $75 ._0V
Supplemental nriticide
Delnav 5 pints $14.05
Sticker 1 pint .80
Application 2 tanks 17.26
Total $32,J2
Source: Anderson and Muraro, 1975a.
-138-
-------
Table IIIE-3
Estimated annual per sere costs and returns for a mature White Seedless grapefruit on Sour 'Oren
rcotstock, Indian Rivar area, Florida. 1S74-75
Item
Description
Amount
rtsvsnua
318 t-\es t5 $1.30
$604.20
II- Expenses
Spray progrea-
per til ize~
r ih">
Application
Hc2c Control
fo,v middles
Nov imcer trees
Fijll vires
Karfcic-ck
?ri;nino (nalr.ienance)
To&pins
Hregies
Removing brush
Irrigation -(flood)
Trsa reolace-nent
Rcr:vt trees
Frepsra rite
Plane resets
Kater
Ftrt*7fz?r
Ma~ccE;r.rsi
From Table 3
15-0-16, 625 lbs.
2 0 $2.50
5 times per year
4 tisr.as per year
by hand
2 lbs. Krovar II, Incl. appl
5 appl. total 18 in./yr.
2.1 trees per acre
use of round builders
including 2.1 crsas per acre
Incli-rr'ng application
52 of gross sal
III. Total specified costs
Return to-1 and and trees
35.85
5.00
23. SO
15.54
4.69
13.53
12.27
9.73
13.0*
11.35
5.90
8.87
2.23
5.02
1C4.97
41.85
57.31
35.20
28.00
IV.
33.50
-*•"!
. C. i
$331.03
$273.15
Source: Anderson and Muraro, 1975b.
-------
Estimated annual per sere costs and returns for a mature 'Valencia' grove producing citrus fo^
processing in Central Florida, 1974-75
ItSiS
Description
Arount V::ur grev*
I.
Revenue
333 boxes @$1.50
$433.50
II.
Expenses
Spray program
From Table 3
75.01
Fertilizer
Material
16-0-16, 832 lbs.
$45.5S
Application
2 ®$2.89
5.78
52.37
Delcmi te
V
Material
1/3 ton @$9.00
3.00
Application
1 ton every third year
1.03
4.03
Weed control
Material
Krovar II, 2 lbs./acre
10.10
Application
2.62
12.72
Discing
Twi ce/year
7.53
Choosing
Twice/year
7.38
Pruning (maintenance)
{$105/hr. * 8.5 a./hr.) * 4 years
lopping
3.09
Hedging
{$55.5G/hr. * 4 a./hr.) * 4 years
Cheooing brush
Custom, rate
3.69
Irrigation
13.2 inches/year
94.?!a
Tree replacement
Pull trees ana
1.4 trees/acre
15.21
rerove
Prepare site,
(Include trees)
plant and ring
9.65
1'ater
1.83
Fertilizer
(Includes application)
4.95
Bank and unbank
3.35
f "
K=r. agerr.^n t
5% of gro-s sales
24,53
III.
Total specified costs
IV.
Return to land and trees
•i-T -tc "! O
Y i 4 v • . O
aIncludas $72.61 per acre
of fixed costs; operating costs are
$22.30 per
acre.
Source: Anderson and Muraro? 1975a.
-------
appendix iiif
PRODUCTION COSTS FOR CALIFORNIA LEMONS
-------
COOPERATIVE EXTENSION UNI V [; RSI T Y OF C ALIFOKNI A V EN I UK A COUN T Y
ECONOMICS
for "Ventura County
May 197 5
SAMPLE LEMON PRODUCTION COSTS
CULTURAL OPERATIONS
Fertilization:
Irrigation:
Insect Control:
Disease Control:
Rodent Control:
Weed Control:
Pruning & Brush Chopping:
Frost Protection:
Tree Replacement:
Miscellaneous:
CASH OVERHEAD
Taxes:
Maintenance & Repair:
General Expense:
Nitrogen application; zinc
and/or manganese spray
2 ac. ft. water @ $25/ac. ft.
Labor
Spring & fall spray
plus one thrips spray
Brown Rot
Gummosis & other
Fall sterilant treatment
& spot sprays
Alternate year - machine top
& hand prune
Wind machines & heaters
SAMPLE COSTS
PER ACRE
$ 80
50
50
)
Subtot 1
Buildings, pickup, tractors
& irrigation
Subtota1
165
40
130
90
40
645
175
50
40
265
TOTAL ON-TREE CASH COSTS 2/
910
1/ Savings of 5-10% if in Land Preserve.
2/ Charges for management, interest on investment, and depreciation are
not included in these sample costs.
Robert M. Burns
Farm Advisor
-J.42-
684 Bucna Vista Street, V«*nturo, California 93001
Phone: 648-6131, Ext. 2284
Th* UmvnrMty of California's Cooperative Txtrnmon Proqrnmi nr« available to nil, wilhoul iftyard lo rar«, color, or national origin.
»,. «' • . ... • -I ... K . I#. » M •••«* f . It . I - Ml.,. • . . r,.|.| •
-------
APPENDIX IIIG
FIELD TEST EFFICACY DATA OF CHLOROBENZILATE
AND ALTERNATIVE MITICIDES
-------
Table IIIG-1
Numbers of Texas Citrus Mites and Eggs Per 80 Leaves
Before and After Indicated April Treatments to Grape-
fruit Trees in Experimental Plots at Sharyland
During 1966-68.
Sampling
Treatment
Date
4/11/66
5/11
6/16
6/28
3/30/67
5/2
5/22
6/11
6/23
3/18/68
4/22
5/13
6/3
6/17
After
T rcatmcnt
Days
Treatments
29
65
77
28
48
68
80
20
41
62
76
4/12
4/4
4/2
443 oil
Dicofol
Date Mites Eggs Mites Eggs
0
37
10
98
2
61
421
579
3
0
1
46
8
1
1.0% i
0
35
16
306
1.0% i
0
142
956
2334
3
1.0% i
1
3
80
25
0
0
15
1
107
1
8
69
279
0
0
2
21
2
0
13
17
288
1
23
166
820
0
0
8
57
7
412 oil
Mites Eggs
8
0
10
10
218
18
292
950
935
5
2
10
230
11
1
.0%1
0
15
13
428
.0%'
14
858
2521
1905
3
.0%i
3
16
445
42
Chlorobcnzilate-
Tctradijon Azinphosmethyl
Mites
1
0
14
5
118
3
26
315
533
2
1
5
50
9
Eggs Mites
1
0
9
1
403
2
2
50
763
1112
10
2
16
5
99
25
14
0
32
6
199
0
25
191
267
3
0
4
174
17
Eggs
0
78
17
533
0
52
26-1
264
0
0
4
278
57
1 1.0 lb zineb included
2 1.0 lb M-45 included
Source: Dean, 1971.
-J.44-
-------
Table IIIG-2
Populations of Eutetranychus Banksi McG. Mites
and Eggs and Citrus Rust Mites in Miticide (dust)
Tests Conducted at the Crockett Grove Near Har-
lingen, Texas During 1957.
31r Chlorobcnzilatc-
Sulphur1 Sulphur1 3 Aram it c-sulphur1
Date
MPL2
EPL2
RML2
MPL
EPL
RMPL
MPL
EPL
RMPL
6-4
18.3
18.9
18.0
5.0
3.9
.8
6.3
5.4
25.9
6-83
6-24
7-18
2.8
.8
1.7
.3
.9
.1
1.2
1.2
1.4
1.4
.3
.01
.8
.2
.4
.1
.8
.1
8-1
.6
.9
.02
2.2
3.2
.02
.8
.8
.02
8-19
.8
1.0
.1
4.3
4.7
.03
1.2
1.0
.1
9-4
1.4
1.4
.1
9.2
9.0
.1
2.6
2.6
.1
9-18
3-3
3.6
.1
10.3
13.0
.6
9.2
14.1
.1
9-2CH
10-21
11-25
10.9
3.4
24.0
3.8
.03
.1
27.7
.4
29.0
.5
.02
.03
14.2
3.1
33.0
4.0
.7
.04
193% dusting sulphur, 3"7f Chlorobcnzilate (52% sulphur in 1st application, 42%
sulphur in 2nd application), and 3 7c Aramite-sulphur,
2 Ml'L, E. banksi mites per leaf; EPL, £. banksi eggs per leaf; RMPL, citrus rust
mites per leaf.
3 .65, .8, and .6 pound per tree of each material, respectively.
4 .75, .7, antl .8 pound per tree of each material, respectively.
On 6-18-57, 4-6 rain; on 9-22-57, 2-3" rain.
Source: Dean, 1959.
-145-
-------
Table IIIG-3
Number of Weeks After Spray Treatment Until 10%
of the Buds in Three Southern California Lemon
Orchards Became Reinfested With Citrus Bud Mite
Kkconmiio One n.\ut>
Fill.mouk Ouciiaiu) (San Dikco (,'iji-stv) Tl'htin Oikiiakd
(Ventiiia Corntv) (Oiiavoe Cointy)
Chlorobin/.ilate
Month Aramite, Petroleum Oil, Petroleum Oil, Clilorolien/.il.itc,
OK Sl'llAV Sept. 1051 to Sept. lll.il to Oft. 105.! to Oc t. 1053 to Oc t. 1051 tn Apr. 1 !»*..{ U>
Application Aug. 1034 Aug. 1052 Sept. 1!)53 Sept. 10.51 Sept. 1055 Mar. 1051
January
24
39
22
32
30
36
February
—
—
15
21
26
—
March
13
17
11
34
27
28
April
10
17
10
22
20
16h
May
9
14
7
52
52°
14
June
0
24
6
52
52=
52
July
10
31
5
52
52"
52
August .
2
15
45
52
52°
52
September
95b
41b
42
48
52c
52
October
35
30
52b
52b
52*
47
November
82
33
29
48
40
43
December
—
28
52
30
39
• Spray# applied to dilTerent plots tlie fir.it week of each month of years indicated in column heading.
b Result of first application. Results of applications the following year continued at top of column.
0 Hot weather in September caused a reduction in bud mite populations in the checks; therefore, comparative data on length of effectiveness of treatmeots
applied at these times were of questionable value.
Source: Jeppson et. al., 1958.
-146-
-------
Table IIIG-4
Effect of Spray Treatments on Populations of Texas Citrus Rust Mites
Date
Days i
After |
Sprays
A'
(*
TCM*>
TCME0
CRM*
TCM
TCME CRM
TCM
TCME
CRM
01/30/73
0
14
0
5
9
1
2
12
0
01/31*
6.3 oz Omite + 9.5 oz Sprint
12.5 oz ctliion
15.8oz Vydat
02/09
9
3
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
03/01
29
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
04/04
63
1
2
0
0
0
0
38
46
0
05/08
97
5
14
7
24
30
0
115
279
64
05/23
112
27
64
3
11
15
2
263
684
71
05/29
118
84
123
22
123
96
0
930
,898
552
05/30"
6.3 oz Omite + 9.5 oz Splint
12.6 oz cthion
06/20
21
0
27
0
4
17
0
126
312
934
07/05
36
42
127
18
41
102
6
83
231
1,444
07/18
49
703
1.162
129
593
1,070
9
63
95
1,474
07/22°
6.3 oz Omite + 9.5 oz Sprint
12.6 oz ethion
6.3 oz Omite + 9.5 oz Sprint
08/22
31
8
1
39
10
0
2
3
0
42
09/06
46
4
2
13
10
8
0
13
8
10
09/26
66
47
10
53
62
47
3
41
13
32
10/26
96
32
27
24
102
92
2
17
7
42
11/02"
6.3 oz Omite + 9.5 oz Sprint
12.6 oz ethion
4.1 oz chlorobenzilate
11/21
19
2
7
0
67
62
0
1
4
0
12/19
47
5
3
0
48
8
0
23
23
13
01/11/74
70
69
29
18
76
206
0
14
12
1
01/30
89
74
64
65
381
274
6
64
4b
12
02/12
102
61
86
100
83
130
13
22
41
0
• Mites/80 leaves; b Texas citrus mites; c Texas citrus mite eggs; d Citius lust mites; • Rates/100 gal; ' No acaricide applied.
Source: Dean, 1974.
-147-
-------
Table IIIG-5
Spray Treatments Applied in a Substation No. 15
Grove and Their Effect on Citrus Rust Mites, Texas
Citrus Mites, and False Spider Mites
Zincb })lus Tcdion or Kclthmc1 Mtmcb i>lus Ted ion or Kelthane1
Date
1U12
TCM3 TCM1C* FSM5
FSMEo
/D/2
TCM3 TCME* FSM5 FSME6
4- 7-59
32
22
2
4-29-59
46
56
....
....
....
5- 6-59
Zineb — Tcdion
Maneli
—
Tcdion
5-25-59
....
....
....
....
....
.
6-26-59
12
....
6
4
....
7-28-59
40
10 16
....
14
6
2
2
8-18-59
92
44 66
....
180
42
48
10
8-20-59
Zineb — Kelthane
Maneb
— Kelthane
9-14-59
8
....
....
....
....
11-11-59
4
——
4
4
12-16-59
8
2 4
4
__
1- 4-60
6
....
12
....
....
4
2-11-60
10
2
8
__,L
.....
3- 9-60
6
4 8
....
28
2
6
4-11-60
12
4 4
24
....
....
4-19-60
Zineb — Tedion
Maneb
—
Tedion
5-25-60
2
6
2
4
J
6-17-60
——
—
2
....
....
.
7-25-60
4
2 6 6
4
42
6
8
2
8-17-60
36
28 30
34
44
10
4.
8-24-60
Zineb — Kelthane
Maneb
Ce] thane
9-16-60
....
2
....
2
....
2
10-18-60
- .
2
___
11L_ _
11-15-60
0
__
4
....
12-16-60
10
....
10
—...
ri-T.
1-23-61
8
10
T,...
2
....
2-20-61
8
2
4
16
2
6
2
2
3-30-61
176
2 2
—.
208
4-17-61
Zinob — Tedion
Maneb
—
Tedion
5-18-61
8 4
8
....
6- 8-61
6
8
4
7-14-61
14 8
6
2
.2
.2
2
8- 3-61
....
2
2
....
8
2
....
—
l Dosages of the following materials per 100 gallons of mixture: 1 lb. 75% WP zineb,
1 lb. 80% WP maneb, 1 lb. 25% WP Tedion and 1 quart 18.5% EC Kelthane,
Triton 15-1956 was added to each maxture at the 2 ounce rate.
3 Citrus rust mites on 160 leaves.
8 Texas citrus mites on 1G0 leaves.
* Texas citrus mite eggs on 160 leaves.
8 False spider mites on 160 leaves.
• False spider mite eggs on 160 leaves.
Source: Bailey and Dean, 1962.
-148-
------- |