Using Pesticide Use Data to Evaluate IPM Programs

Larry Wilhoit

Department of Pesticide Regulation

Topics of Discussion

Evaluating IPM programs: pesticide use and risk

Sources of pesticide use report (PUR) data

Some examples of using pesticide use data to evaluate IPM programs

Conclusion

Evaluating IPM Programs

Have IPM programs increased the adoption of IPM?

Has adoption of IPM resulted in economic benefits to growers?

Has adoption of IPM resulted in less risk to human health or the environment?

Have IPM programs increased the adoption of IPM?

Many definitions of IPM

Pesticides are only one possible component of IPM

PUR data cannot determine use of IPM

PUR data can help determine levels of risk

Has adoption of IPM resulted in economic benefits to growers?

PUR can provide only one component of costs to growers

Need other data on pesticide costs, other pest management related costs, and yields

Has adoption of IPM resulted in less risk to human health or the environment?

Many definitions of riskPesticide risk determined by various lists High risk lists

OPs and carbamates Reproductive toxicity Carcinogens Groundwater protection

Low risk lists U.S. EPA reduced risk pesticides Biopesticides

Sources of Pesticide Use Data

Pesticide sales data Several European countries, New York, California

Pesticide use surveys Belgium, Netherlands, U.K., U.S., Wisconsin

Pesticide use reporting U.K., Oregon, New York, California

California Pesticide Use Report (PUR)

California PUR started in 1950’s

Current full use reporting system started in 1990

PUR contains two types of data Production agricultural applications All other kinds of uses by commercial applicators

(post harvest, landscape, structural) No home and garden use

California Pesticide Use Report (PUR)

Information collected from production agricultural uses Pesticide product used Amount of product used Crop treated Area of the crop Area treated Date of treatment Location of the treatment Grower or operator identifier Method of application

PUR Data Quality

Probably about 90% of actual use goes unreported

Error rate less than 0.5%

Data compares closely to most other data sources

Data from 1990 and 1991 have far more errors than later years

Important to check for errors, especially rates of use

Measures of pesticide use

Pounds of active ingredients

Cumulative acres treated

Percent acres treated

Number of applications

Number of growers or fields treated

Rates of use

Agricultural Pesticide Use in California

0

50

100

150

200

250

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Po

un

ds

AI

(Mil

lio

ns)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Acr

es T

reat

ed o

r P

lan

ted

(M

illi

on

s)

POUNDS AI ACRES TREATED ACRES PLANTED

Agricultural Pesticide Use by Type

0

5

10

15

20

25

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Acr

es T

reat

ed (

mill

ion

s)

FUNGICIDE HERBICIDE INSECTICIDE SULFUR OTHER

Agricultural Pesticide Use by Risk

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Acr

es T

reat

ed (

Mil

lio

ns)

HIGH LOW OIL OTHER SULFUR

Agricultural Pesticide Use by Crop

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Acr

es T

reat

ed (

Mill

ion

s)

COTTON GRAPE ALMOND GRAPE, WINE ALFALFA

Agricultural Pesticide Use on Cotton

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Ac

res

Tre

ate

d (

Mill

ion

s)

HIGH LOW OIL OTHER

Agricultural Pesticide Use on Apples

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Acr

es T

reat

ed (

Th

ou

san

ds)

HIGH LOW OIL OTHER

Agricultural Pesticide Use on Pears

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Acr

es T

reat

ed (

Th

ou

san

ds)

HIGH LOW OIL OTHER

Dormant Insecticide Use on Almonds

0

20

40

60

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Per

cen

t A

cres

Tre

ated

OP PYRETHROID

Dormant Insecticide Use on Almonds

0

20

40

60

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Per

cen

t A

cres

Tre

ated

BT OIL NO_INSECTICIDE

Agricultural Pesticide Use on Almonds

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Acr

es T

reat

ed (

Th

ou

san

ds)

HIGH LOW OIL OTHER

Pesticide Use by Almond Dormant OP Growers

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Per

cen

t D

orm

nat

OP

Gro

wer

s

OP Pyrethroid Bt Oil alone No insect

Pesticide Use by Almond Dormant Bt Growers

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Per

cen

t D

orm

ant

Bt

Gro

wer

s

OP Pyrethroid Bt Oil alone No insect

Pesticide Use by Almond No Dormant Insecticide Growers

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Per

cen

t N

o D

orm

ant

Inse

ctic

ide

Gro

wer

s

OP Pyrethroid Bt Oil alone No insect

Other Possible Uses of PUR

Determine IPM use by grower and compare pesticide use of IPM users versus other users Analyze pesticide resistance problems Look for pesticide rotations Look at changing rates of use

Look for correlations between pyrethroid use and miticides Correlate pesticide use with detections in surface water

Conclusions

PUR data can be used to evaluate IPM programs not by identifying IPM use but by determining potential risk

PUR data should be supplemented with information from other sources

Conclusions

Production agricultural pesticide use in California has not changed much from 1992 to 2001

Pesticide use has decreased from 1998 to 2001, especially high risk pesticides

Low risk pesticide use has increased in the 1990’s

Reductions in high risk pesticides have been especially prominent in cotton and almonds