Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T08:22:54.651Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mining pesticide use data to identify best management practices

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 December 2007

Emily Oakley ,
Minghua Zhang  and
Paul Richard Miller
Emily Oakley*
Affiliation:
Department of Land, Air and Water Resources, University of California Davis, CA 95616, USA.
Minghua Zhang
Affiliation:
Department of Land, Air and Water Resources, University of California Davis, CA 95616, USA. California Department of Pesticide Regulation, Sacramento, CA 95814, USA.
Paul Richard Miller
Affiliation:
Department of Land, Air and Water Resources, University of California Davis, CA 95616, USA. Department of Rural Engineering, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Brazil.
*
*Corresponding author: eaoakley@lycos.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper reports on the initial findings of an ongoing research project to capture differences in pest management strategies and decision-making among growers using the California Pesticide Use Reports (PUR) database. Analysis was performed for prunes in Sutter and Yuba counties to identify on-farm innovation by analyzing the PUR for best management practices to reduce pesticide use. Results showed that large variations in pesticide use were present in 2000, with a range of less than 5 kg to more than 41 kg of pesticide applied per hectare (ha) crop planted in Sutter County and a range of less than 2 kg to close to 30 kg per ha crop planted in Yuba County. Among the 42 growers selected cultivating more than 80 ha, five growers in Sutter County and three growers in Yuba County in 2000 were identified as low pesticide use growers. The results indicated a surprising number of low to no fungicide users and an even higher number of growers using no herbicides in both counties. Twenty-nine viable low pesticide use growers were identified overall among the total 294 growers in the Sutter and Yuba counties. However, there were no spatial patterns of where these low pesticide use growers' fields were located. The transition from higher-risk active ingredients (AIs) to reduced-risk AIs used by many of the low pesticide users suggests intentional substitution. Initial yield data indicate that quantity and quality were not adversely affected by low use growers employing reduced-risk pesticides, fewer (AIs) per field, and lower rates per chemical than their moderate to high use counterparts. Diverse collaborators consisting of university researchers, environmental and community organizations, state government scientists, and growers worked together throughout the entire project, beginning with defining the research parameters, then interpreting the results, and finally suggesting practical applications for the outcomes. The paper also highlights the effectiveness of using such collaborative research relationships to explore low pesticide use alternatives, to directly exchange research findings with growers, and to encourage a farmer-to-farmer extension model.

Keywords

active ingredient (AI)farmer-to-farmerinformation cyclinglow pesticide useon-farm innovationPesticide Use Reports (PUR)reduced-risk
Type
Research Article
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 22 , Issue 4 , December 2007 , pp. 260 - 270
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

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

1 California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR). 2000. Pesticide Use Reporting: An Overview of California's Unique Full Reporting system. CDPR, Sacramento, CA.Google Scholar
2 Ridgley, A. and Brush, S.B. 1992. Social factors and selective technology adoption: the case of integrated pest management. Human Organization 51(4):367–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3 Shennan, C., Cecchettini, C.L., Goldman, G.B., and Zalom, F.G. 2001. Profiles of California farmers by degree of IPM use as indicated by self-descriptions in a phone survey. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment 84:267–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4 Brodt, S., Klonsky, K., Tourte, L., Duncan, R., Hendricks, L., Ommart, C., and Verdegall, P. 2004. Influence of farm management style on adoption of biologically integrated farming practices in California. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 19(4):237–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2004. Pesticide Alternatives. Available at Web site: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/controlling/alternatives.htm.Google Scholar
6 Richards, P. 1985. Indigenous Agricultural Revolution. Westview Press, Hutchinson.Google Scholar
7 Warner, K.D. 2006. Extending agroecology: grower participation in partnerships is key to social learning. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 21(2):84–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8 Chambers, R., Arnold, P., and Thrupp, L.A. (eds). 1989. Farmer First: Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research. Intermediate Technologies Publications, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9 Glynn, C.J., McDonald, D.G., and Tette, J.P. 1995. Integrated pest management and conservation behaviors. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 50(1):25–29.Google Scholar
10 Bugg, R. and Van Horn, M. 1998. Ecological soil management and soil fauna: best practices in California vineyards. In Hamilton, R., Tassie, L., and Hays, P. (eds). Proceedings of the Viticulture Seminar: Viticultural Best Practices. Mildura Arts Center, Mildura, Victoria, Australia.Google Scholar
11 Community Alliance with Family Farmers Foundation and Almond Board of California. 1995. BIOS for Almonds: A Practical Guide to Biologically Integrated Orchard Systems Management. CAFF Foundation, Davis, CA.Google Scholar
12 Selener, D., Chenier, J., and Zelaya, R. 1997. Farmer to Farmer Extension: Lessons from the Field. International Institute for Rural Reconstruction, Quito.Google Scholar
13 Oakley, E. 2002. Putting the Pesticide Use Reports to work for farmers. CAFF Farmer to Farmer June (21):1.Google Scholar
14 Hendricks, L. 1995. Almond growers reduce pesticide use in Merced county field trials. California Agriculture 49(1):5–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15 Epstein, L., Bassein, S., and Zalom, F. 2000. Almond and stone fruit growers reduce OP, increase pyrethroid use in dormant sprays. California Agriculture 54(6):14–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16 Zhang, M., Wilhoit, L., and Gieger, C. 2005. Dormant OP use trend on California almonds. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 105:41–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17 Campos, J. and Zhang, M. 2004. Reduced-risk pest management on winegrapes. Practical Vineyard and Winery (March–April):5–19.Google Scholar
18 Rogers, E.M. 1995. Diffusion of Innovations. 4th ed.The Free Press, New York.Google ScholarPubMed
19 Heintz, C. 2004. To promote a reduced-risk system of almond production through alternative practices. A Pest Management Alliance Project final report year 4. California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR), Sacramento.Google Scholar