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 risk Pesticide 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

Agricultural Pesticide Use by Type

Agricultural Pesticide Use by Risk

Agricultural Pesticide Use by Crop

Agricultural Pesticide Use on Cotton

Agricultural Pesticide Use on Apples

Agricultural Pesticide Use on Pears

Dormant Insecticide Use on Almonds

Agricultural Pesticide Use on Almonds

Pesticide Use by Almond Dormant OP Growers

Pesticide Use by Almond Dormant Bt Growers

Pesticide Use by Almond No Dormant Insecticide Growers

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