Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T17:20:02.087Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Economic Analysis of Cotton Management Strategies Integrated Pest

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Peter S. Liapis  and
L. Joe Moffitt
Peter S. Liapis
Affiliation:
Natural Resource Economics Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington D.C. and theUniversity of California
L. Joe Moffitt
Affiliation:
Natural Resource Economics Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington D.C. and theUniversity of California
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In an attempt to combat problems of insect resistance and the increasing cost of new insecticides, integrated pest management (IPM) systems have been developed for many crops, including cotton. Cotton IPM systems include such components as scouting to determine when control actions should be taken, planting trap crops, and using short season varieties of cotton. Regardless of the component(s) of IPM systems for cotton, when a decision is made that a direct control action is warranted, the control action most often used is the application of insecticides. Thus, although IPM strategies may reduce the frequency of insecticide applications and consequently reduce the possible problem of insecticide resistance, the use of conventional, broad-spectrum insecticides continues to be the primary control tool when insect outbreaks occur.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , July 1983 , pp. 97 - 102
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Day, R. “Probability Distribution of Field Crop Yields.” J. Farm Econ. 47(1965):713–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Debach, P.Biological Control by Natural Enemies. London: Cambridge University Press, 1974.Google Scholar
Farnsworth, R. L. “A Decision Theoretic Analysis of Alternative Pest Control Strategies: A Case Study of Cotton Growers in California.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, 1980.Google Scholar
Hadar, J., and Russell, W. R.. “Rules for Ordering Uncertain Prospects.” Amer. Econ. Rev. 59(1969):25–34.Google Scholar
Huffaker, C. B., and Messenger, P. S., eds. Theory and Practice of Biological Control. New York: Academic Press, 1976.Google Scholar
Liapis, P. S. “Economic Aspects of Integrated Biological and Chemical Control for Insect Pest Management: Heliothis spp. Control on Cotton.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland, 1982.Google Scholar
Mood, A. M., Graybill, F. A., and Boes, D. C.. Introduction to the Theory of Statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1974.Google Scholar
Phillips, J. R., Nicholson, W. F., Teague, T., Bernhardt, J., and Mueller, T. F., “Community Insect Management Programs.” In Summary Proceedings: Cotton Biological Control Conference, pp. 43–49. Dallas 1981.Google Scholar
Pratt, J. W. “Risk Aversion in the Small and in the Large.” Econometrica 32(1964):122–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichelderfer, K. H., and Bender, F. E.. “Application of a Simulative Approach to Evaluating Alternative Methods for the Control of Agricultural Pests.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 61(1979):258–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, J. W., and Badger, D. D.. “Analyzing Pest Control Strategies for Cotton with an Environmental Impact Matrix.” S. J. Agri. Econ. 6(1974): 179–83.Google Scholar
Teague, P. W. “An Economic Evaluation of the Effect of Selected Production Practices on Revenue Generated from Cotton Production in the Southeast Arkansas Delta.” Unpubl. ms., University of Arkansas, 1981.Google Scholar
Yassour, J., Zilberman, D., and Rausser, G. C., “Optimal Choices Among Alternatives Technologies with Stochastic Yield.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 63(1981):718–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar