October 2002

Any portion of this report may be reproduced for any but profit-making purposes.
For information on purchase of additional copies or of electronic data files, see order form on Page ii.
This report is also available on DPR's Web site <www.cdpr.ca.gov>.
If you have questions concerning this report, call (916) 445-4100.

Table of Contents

Order Form

I.  INTRODUCTION

II.  COMMENTS AND CLARIFICATIONS OF DATA

III.  DATA SUMMARY

IV.  TRENDS IN USE IN CERTAIN PESTICIDE CATEGORIES

V.  TRENDS IN PESTICIDE USE IN CERTAIN COMMODITIES

VI.  Summary of Pesticide Use Report Data 2001 Indexed by Commodity This link downloads the compressed ASCII version. This version does not include figures. (See UNZIP HELP)

Order Information

To continue to make the Summary of Pesticide Use Report Data available, it is necessary to charge for the costs of reproduction and mailing. The reports can also be downloaded free of charge from the Department's web site (www.cdpr.ca.gov).

The 1993 - 1999 Summary of Pesticide Use Report Data indexed by chemical or commodity reports are available on floppy disk in ASCII format (discontinued in 2001). Also available is the Annual Pesticide Use Report Data (the complete database of reported pesticide applications) on CD ROM. The 1990 - 2000 reports are available in text (fixed width), dBase, and GIS formats. Beginning with 2001 report, only the text version (comma delimited format) is available.

The Summary of Pesticide Use Report Data is available in two formats. One report is indexed by chemical and lists the amount of each pesticide used, the commodity on which it was used, the number of applications, and the acres/units treated. The second report is indexed by commodity and lists the chemicals used, the number of applications, amount of pesticides used, and the acres/units treated.

Please use the DPR Publications Order Form to order reports. (PDF, 170 kb).

I.  INTRODUCTION

Development and Implementation of the Pesticide Use Reporting System

To provide public access to the data as soon as possible, the Department of Pesticide
Regulation (DPR) is releasing the 2001 data before the majority of error corrections have been completed. Values have been substituted for some errors (see 'Outliers'), but data correction is ongoing. The data will undergo more extensive correcting.

Under full use reporting, which began in 1990, California became the first state to require reporting of all agricultural pesticide use, including amounts applied and types of crops or places
(e.g., structures, roadsides) treated. Commercial applications-including structural fumigation, pest control, and turf applications-must also be reported. The main exceptions to full use reporting are home and garden applications, and most industrial and institutional uses. Pesticide use reporting is explained in more detail below.

To enhance accuracy of the data, DPR contracts with agricultural commissioners in 56 of the state's 58 counties for the electronic submittal of their pesticide use data to DPR. This accounts for more than 99 percent of the total reported pesticide usage in the State.

Types of Pesticide Applications Reported

In addition, the State required commercial pest control operators (those in the business of applying pesticides, such as agricultural applicators, structural fumigators, and professional gardeners) to report all pesticides used, whether restricted or nonrestricted. These reports included information about the pesticide applied, when and where the application was made, and the crop involved if the application was in agriculture. The reports were entered into a computerized database and summarized by chemical and crop in annual reports.

With implementation of full use reporting in 1990, the following pesticide uses are required to be reported to the commissioner, who, in turn, reports the data to DPR:

The primary exceptions to the use reporting requirements are home and garden use and most industrial and institutional uses.

How Pesticide Data Are Used

There are several key areas in which data generated by full use reporting are proving beneficial:

Risk Assessment

After the passage of the federal Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) in 1996, complete pesticide use data became even more important to commodity groups in California and to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). FQPA contains a new food safety standard against which all pesticide tolerances must be measured. The increased interest in the state's pesticide use data, especially for calculating percent crop treated, came at a time when DPR was increasing the efficiency with which it produced its annual report. DPR was able to provide up-to-date use data and summaries to commodity groups, University of California specialists, U.S. EPA programs, and other interested parties as they developed the necessary information for the reassessment of existing tolerances.

Worker Health and Safety

DPR's Worker Health and Safety Branch also uses the data for worker exposure assessment as part of developing an overall risk characterization document. Use data helps scientists estimate typical applications and how often pesticides are used.

Public Health

Endangered Species

Water Quality

Since 1983, DPR has had a program to work with the rice industry and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board to reduce contamination of surface water by rice pesticides. Using PUR data to help in pinpointing specific agricultural practices, more precise alternative use recommendations can be made to assure protection of surface water.

Air Quality

Pest Management

The PUR is used to help meet the needs of FQPA, which requires pesticide use information for determining the appropriateness of pesticide residue tolerances. As part of this process many commodity groups have created crop profiles, which include information on the pest management practices and available options, both chemical and nonchemical. Pesticide use data is critical to developing these lists of practices and options.

DPR manages several grant programs, pending availability of funding, to support projects to develop, implement, and demonstrate reduced-risk pest management strategies. (Due to a statewide budget shortfall, no money is available to fund new projects for fiscal year 2002/2003.) One of these programs is the Pest Management Alliance Grants. This program provides grant money to growers, commodity boards, farm advisors, urban site representatives, researchers, and government to identify critical pest management needs, environmental or human exposure issues resulting from pesticide use, and to develop a program to solve the critical problems. To help the groups in their evaluations of current pest management practices, DPR provides data on use of all pesticides on the Alliance crop or site. DPR and other funding agencies can also use the PUR to help evaluate the effectiveness of the programs they have funded.

DPR has published general analyses of statewide pesticide use patterns and trends. The first analysis covered the years 1991 to 1995, and the second more detailed analysis covered 1991 to 1996. These analyses identified high-use pesticides, the crops to which those pesticides were applied, trends in use, and the pesticides most responsible for changes in use. In addition, since 1997, the annual reports Summary of Pesticide Use Report Data include summary trends of pesticides in several different categories such as carcinogens, reproductive toxins, and ground water contaminants.

Processor and Retailer Requirements

II.  COMMENTS AND CLARIFICATIONS OF DATA

Terminology

Commodity Codes

III.  DATA SUMMARY

Pesticide Use In California

Such variances are and will continue to be a normal occurrence. These fluctuations can be attributed to a variety of factors, including changes in planted acreage, crop plantings, pest pressures, and weather conditions. For example, extremely heavy rains result in excessive weeds, thus more pesticides may be used; drought conditions may result in fewer planted acres, thus less pesticide may be used.

As in previous years, the greatest pesticide use occurred in California's San Joaquin Valley
(Table 1). Five counties in this region had the highest use: Fresno, Kern, Tulare, San Joaquin, and Madera.

Table 2 breaks down the pounds of pesticide use by general use categories: production agriculture, post-harvest commodity fumigation, structural pest control, landscape maintenance, and all others.

Pesticide Sales In California

Sales data are not yet available for 2001. There were approximately 601 million pounds of pesticide active ingredients sold in California in 2000; 705.9 million pounds in 1999; 625.9 million pounds in 1998; 653.9 million pounds in 1997; 699.5 million pounds in 1996; 543.1 million pounds in 1995; and 627.9 million pounds in 1994.

In addition, it should be noted that the pounds of pesticides used and the number of applications are not necessarily accurate indicators of the extent of pesticide use or, conversely, the extent of use of reduced-risk pest management methods. For example, farmers may make a number of small-scale "spot" applications targeted at problem areas rather than one treatment of a large area. They may replace a more toxic pesticide used at one pound per acre with a less hazardous compound that must be applied at several pounds per acre. Either of these scenarios could increase the number of applications and amount of pounds used without indicating an increased reliance on pesticides.

* Not all of Kern County PUR data was available at the time of publication. The statewide 2001 PUR database will be amended to include the Kern County data.

  Table 2.  Pounds of pesticide active ingredients, 1992 - 2001, by general use category.

* This category includes pesticide applications reported in the following general categories: pest control on rights-of-way; public health which includes mosquito abatement work; vertebrate pest control; fumigation of nonfood and nonfeed materials such as lumber, furniture, etc.; pesticide used in research; and regulatory pest control used in ongoing control and/eradication of pest infestations.

** Not all of Kern County PUR data was available at the time of publication. The statewide 2001 PUR database will be amended to include the Kern County data.

USE TRENDS OF PESTICIDES ON THE STATE'S PROPOSITION 65 LIST OF CHEMICALS THAT ARE "KNOWN TO CAUSE REPRODUCTIVE TOXICITY"

Table 3B. The reported cumulative acres treated with pesticides that are on the State's Proposition 65 list of chemicals "known to cause reproductive toxicity". Use includes primarily agricultural applications. The grand total for acres treated may be less than the sum of acres treated for all active ingredients because some products contain more than one active ingredient. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use Reports.

Figure 1. Use trends of pesticides that are on the State's Proposition 65 list of chemicals that are "known to cause reproductive toxicity". Reported pounds of active ingredient (AI) applied includes both agricultural and non-agricultural applications. The reported cumulative acres treated includes primarily agricultural applications. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use Reports.

USE TRENDS OF PESTICIDES LISTED BY U.S. EPA AS CARCINOGENS OR BY THE STATE AS "KNOWN TO CAUSE CANCER"

USE TRENDS OF CHOLINESTERASE-INHIBITING PESTICIDES

Figure 3. Use trends of cholinesterase-inhibiting pesticides, which includes pesticides with organophosphate and carbamate active ingredients. Reported pounds of active ingredient (AI) applied includes both agricultural and reportable non-agricultural applications. The reported cumulative acres treated includes primarily agricultural applications. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use Reports.

USE TRENDS OF PESTICIDES ON DPR'S GROUNDWATER PROTECTION LIST

Table 6B. The reported cumulative acres treated in California with pesticides on DPR's groundwater protection list. These pesticides are the currently registered active ingredients listed in the California Code of Regulations, Title 3, Division 6, Chapter 4, Subchapter 1, Article 1, Section 6800(a). Use includes primarily agricultural applications. The grand total for acres treated is less than the sum of acres treated for all active ingredients because some products contain more than one active ingredient. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use Reports.

Figure 4. Use trends of pesticides on DPR's groundwater protection list. These pesticides are the currently registered active ingredients listed in the California Code of Regulations, Title 3, Division 6, Chapter 4, Subchapter 1, Article 1, Section 6800(a). Reported pounds of active ingredient (AI) applied includes both agricultural and reportable non-agricultural applications. The reported cumulative acres treated includes primarily agricultural applications. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use Reports.

USE TRENDS OF PESTICIDES ON DPR'S TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS LIST

USE TRENDS OF OIL PESTICIDES

Table 8B. The reported cumulative acres treated in California with oil pesticides. (See qualifying comments on U.S. EPA B2 carcinogen and Proposition 65 listing with Table 8A.) Uses include primarily agricultural applications. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use Reports.

Figure 6. Use trends of oil pesticides. As a broad group, oil pesticides and other petroleum distillates are on U.S. EPA's list of B2 carcinogens or the State's Proposition 65 list of chemicals "known to cause cancer." However, these classifications do not distinguish among oil pesticides that may not qualify as carcinogenic due to their degree of refinement. Many such oil pesticides also serve as alternatives to high-toxicity chemicals. For this reason, oil pesticide data was classified separately in this report. Reported pounds of active ingredient (AI) applied includes both agricultural and reportable non-agricultural applications. The reported cumulative acres treated includes primarily agricultural applications. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use Reports.

USE TRENDS OF REDUCED-RISK PESTICIDES

Table 9A. The reported pounds of reduced-risk pesticides applied in California. These active ingredients are contained in pesticide products that have been given reduced-risk status by U.S. EPA. Use includes both agricultural and non-agricultural applications. Zero values in early years likely indicate the pesticide was not yet registered for use. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use Reports.

Table 9B. The reported cumulative acres treated in California with each reduced-risk pesticide. These active ingredients are contained in pesticide products that have been given reduced-risk status by U.S. EPA. Use includes primarily agricultural applications. Zero values in early years likely indicate the pesticide was not yet registered for use. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use Reports.

Figure 7. Use trends of reduced-risk pesticides. These active ingredients are contained in pesticide products that have been given reduced-risk status by U.S. EPA. Reported pounds of active ingredient (AI) applied includes both agricultural and reportable non-agricultural applications. The reported cumulative acres treated includes primarily agricultural applications. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use Reports.

USE TRENDS OF BIOPESTICIDES

Table 10B. The reported cumulative acres treated in California with each biopesticide. Biopesticides includes microorganisms and naturally occurring compounds, or compounds essentially identical to naturally occurring compounds that are not toxic to the target pest (such as pheromones). Use includes primarily agricultural applications. The grand total for acres treated is less than the sum of acres for all active ingredients because some products contain more than one active ingredient. Zero values in early years likely indicate the pesticide was not yet registered for use. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use Reports.

Figure 8. Use trends of biopesticides. Biopesticides include microorganisms and naturally occurring compounds, or compounds essentially identical to naturally occurring compounds that are not toxic to the target pest (such as pheromones). Reported pounds of active ingredient (AI) applied includes both agricultural and reportable non-agricultural applications. The reported cumulative acres treated includes primarily agricultural applications. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use Reports.

V.  TRENDS IN PESTICIDE USE IN CERTAIN COMMODITIES

Information used to develop this section was drawn from phone interviews with pest control advisors, University of California Cooperative Extension farm advisors and specialists, researchers, commodity association representatives, and growers. The information collected was analyzed by DPR staff using their extensive knowledge of pesticides, California agriculture, and pest management practices to draw conclusions about possible reasons fro changes in pesticide use. Thus, these explanations are based on anecdotal information, not rigorous statistical analyses.

Reported pesticide use in California in 2001 totaled 151 million pounds, a decline of 37 million pounds from 2000 and the lowest reported pounds applied statewide since full use reporting started in 1990. The active ingredients with the largest decline in use by pounds were sulfur, petroleum oils, and methyl bromide. Sulfur use declined from 2000 to 2001 by 16 million pounds (25%) yet still remained the most highly used pesticide in 2001, both in pounds applied and acres treated. By pounds, sulfur accounted for 31% of all reported pesticide use. Sulfur is a natural fungicide favored by both conventional and organic farmers. Petroleum oil use declined by 5 million pounds (14%), and methyl bromide use declined by 4 million pounds (39%).

DPR data analyses have shown that pesticide use varies from year to year depending upon pest problems, weather, acreage and types of crops planted, economics, and other factors. Sulfur use, as well as other pesticide use, declined on table and raisin grapes in 2001 possibly because of low commodity prices. Low commodity prices for almond, cotton, rice, and lettuce may have also contributed to decreased use of many pesticides. Growers will try to reduce expenses (such as pesticide applications) if they expect lower prices for their crops. In addition, in 2001, disease and weed pressure were low in most crops resulting in less fungicide and herbicide use. Although acreage decreased for some crops, this decrease was too small to explain most of the decrease in pesticide use. Decreased methyl bromide use can be attributed to fewer new plantings of grapes and some other crops, increased cost, and additional regulatory restrictions placed on its use.

Not all of Kern County PUR data was available at the time of publication. When we receive Kern County data, we will add carrots and oranges to our summary. In 2000, 44% of the pounds reported on carrots and 24% of the use on oranges were from Kern. Based on the data currently received from Kern, only 30% of the use on carrots and 17% of the use on oranges are from Kern County suggesting that many records of use on carrots and oranges have not yet been received.

Use is given by pounds of active ingredient applied and by acres treated. Acres treated means the cumulative number of acres treated; the acres treated in each application are summed even when the same field is sprayed more than once in a year. (For example, if one acre is treated three times in a season with an individual active ingredient, it is counted as three acres treated).

Grapes
Wine grapes: Total pounds of active ingredient (AI) on wine grapes decreased by 4.8 million pounds from 2000 to 2001 (from 27.7 million pounds to 22.8 million pounds, an 18% decrease). The acres treated decreased by 0.6 million acres (7.1 million to 6.5 million acres, an 8% decrease). Wine grape acreage showed a small increase of 2,000 acres from 2000 to 2001 (from 568,000 acres to 570,000 acres, a 0.4% increase) (CASS 2002b). From 2000 to 2001, the price per ton increased from $628 to $679 per ton for red wines and decreased from $500 to $491 per ton for white wines (CASS 2002c).

About 83% of the decreased pesticide use was due to less sulfur (from 23.7 million pounds to 19.7 million pounds, a 17% decrease). In addition to sulfur, oryzalin, methyl bromide, calcium hydroxide, copper oxychloride sulfate, and fenamiphos showed major decreases in use. Fungicide use (such as sulfur, copper oxychloride sulfate, myclobutanil, iprodione, benomyl, copper hydroxide, and mancozeb) decreased primarily because disease pressure was low. The dry 2001 spring lead to reduced powdery mildew pressure. Fungicide use may have also decreased because of greater use of a computer model for predicting powdery mildew development, allowing growers to reduce the number of applications. In contrast, lime sulfur use increased by 50,885 pounds (from 83,666 to 134,555). Lime sulfur, which had been widely used about 10 years ago, costs less and may have replaced some of these fungicides. Potassium bicarbonate became available to use in 1998. Since that time, its use has generally increased possibly because it is acceptable for organic production, and organic acreage has increased. Tebuconazole is a very popular new fungicide product that we would expect growers to use more in the future as reports of its success circulate.

Use of the fumigant methyl bromide decreased, in part because the federally-mandated phaseout has decreased supply and increased cost. In addition, DPR restrictions, including buffer zones and acreage restrictions, have also impacted use. Use of fenamiphos also decreased. Fenamiphos is a nematicide that is used to treat acreage before it is planted. Since fewer acres were planted to new vineyards, the need to treat acreage before it was planted has decreased.

Overall, the use of insecticides decreased from 2000 to 2001, since leafhopper and mite pressure was low, in general. Cryolite use decreased by 115,063 pounds from 2000 to 2001 (from 272,053 to 156,900 pounds, a 42% decrease). It is being replaced by new alternatives like imidacloprid which increased from 5,751 to 6,632 pounds and from 119,390 to 146,492 acres treated. Also, some wineries ask their growers not to use cryolite because it can be detected in the wines. Methomyl use decreased, although growers will use it late in the season when they are concerned about mealybugs. However, growers try to avoid using methomyl due to worker illness concerns. Although the use of potash soap rose from 8,010 pounds in 2000 to 11,345 pounds in 2001, that use is still more than 50% less than in previous years (1993-1999).

The warm, dry growing season of 2001 delayed weed germination, thus decreasing the need for herbicide applications. Among herbicides, the largest decrease in use was for oryzalin. (A factory explosion significantly reduced the availability of oryzalin statewide.)

Table grapes and raisins: Total pounds of AI on raisins and table grapes decreased by 7.2 million pounds from 2000 to 2001 (from 26.8 million pounds to 19.6 million pounds, a 27% decrease). The acres treated decreased by 2.7 million acres (9.5 million to 6.8 million acres, an 28% decrease). Raisin grape acreage showed a small decrease of 4,000 acres from 2000 to 2001 (from 287,000 acres to 283,000 acres, a 1.4% decrease), and table grape acreage decreased 2,000 acres from 2000 to 2001 (from 100,000 acres to 98,000 acres, a 2.0% decrease) (CASS 2002b). For raisins, the price decreased from $125 per ton in 2000 to $86 per ton in 2001; for table grapes, the price decreased from $118 per ton in 2000 to $87 per ton in 2001 (CASS 2002c).

Total pounds of fungicide used (sulfur, myclobutanil, iprodione, benomyl, copper hydroxide, copper oxychloride sulfate, mancozeb, copper, ziram, and benomyl) continued to decrease from 2000 to 2001. Because 2000 and 2001 were low on disease pressure, use of these fungicides decreased. Unlike the trend in wine grapes, tebuconazole (a new active ingredient) and potassium bicarbonate use in table grapes and raisins decreased from 2000 to 2001 probably due to lower crop prices for the raisin and table grape growers. Since it was less expensive, use of lime sulfur increased from 2000 to 2001 (a 15% increase).

Like the trend in wine grapes, use of fumigants (methyl bromide, 1,3-dichloropropene, and sodium tetrathiocarbonate) decreased, in part due to growers not planting new acreage.

Overall, use of insecticides decreased. Cryolite use decreased by 565,141 pounds (a 37% decrease); use of dimethoate also decreased. These AIs are being replaced by kaolin (a new active ingredient) and imadicloprid to control glassy-winged sharpshooter and other pests. Experimental results from pyridaben show that it provides good mite control and is used instead of propargite for safety reasons and because mites have not developed resistance as they have to other miticides. Propargite use decreased 54%.

Herbicide use in general decreased because 2001 was a warm, dry year, which delayed weed germination. Growers used less herbicide by narrowing the width of the sprayed row and using new spray technology to reduce the rate of application. Also growers probably replaced some herbicide applications with more cultivation. Growers selected a particular herbicide based largely on cost which may explain why use of trifluralin (a less expensive material) increased.

Almonds
Total pounds of AI used on almonds decreased by 1.5 million pounds (13%), from 11.6 million pounds in 2000 to 10.1 million pounds in 2001, and acres treated decreased by 2.2 million acres (7.3 million to 5.1 million acres, a 30% decrease). California almond acreage was unchanged from 2000 to 2001 (595,000 acres) (CASS 2002d), though the percentage of non-bearing acreage decreased from 16% to 13%. This decrease indicates fewer new plantings in recent years, which may have affected herbicide and fumigant use. Kern, Merced, Stanislaus and Fresno counties remain the largest almond producing counties.

The decrease in commodity prices was the biggest contributor to less pesticide use. Almond prices decreased over the two-year period from $0.97 per pound in 2000 to $0.90 per pound in 2001 (NASS 2002a). In addition, the California almond industry is involved in a long-term program to reduce pesticide use by demonstrating effective alternative pest management practices to growers and pest control advisors.

Methyl bromide use decreased by 67%, from 171,825 pounds in 2000 to 56,888 pounds in 2001. Chloropicrin and metam-sodium use increased from 2000 to 2001. They continue to replace methyl bromide as fumigants for new plantings. Diazinon and chlorpyrifos use continued to decrease as growers find alternatives for control of peach twig borer. Fungicide use, particularly in the San Joaquin Valley, decreased due to dry weather conditions during and after bloom. Most pre-emergence herbicides (simazine, oxyfluorfen, norflurazon, and oryzalin) decreased as growers try to reduce costs. Oryzalin was not available to growers during most of 2000 and all of 2001 due to factory shutdown, which explains the dramatic decrease of oryzalin use. The year 2001 was somewhat dry and did not require as many post-emergence sprays with a combination of glyphosate and oxyfluorfen.

Cotton
Total pounds of AI on cotton decreased by 1.2 million pounds from 2000 to 2001 (from 9.3 million to 8.1 million pounds, a 13% decrease), and acres treated decreased by 2.2 million acres (12.2 million to 10.0 million acres, an 18% decrease). Use of all pesticide types (insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, and defoliants) decreased with the largest decrease occurring in herbicides. Insecticide use decreased from 1.8 million to 1.5 million pounds (18%); defoliant use decreased from 4.4 million to 4.1 million pounds (7%); herbicide use decreased from 1.6 million to 1.1 million (30%); and fungicide use decreased from 82,000 to 58,000 pounds (29%). Of the major pesticide uses reported, the only increases were in glyphosate, naled, endosulfan, cyfluthrin, imidacloprid, carbofuran, endothall, diuron, and thidiazuron.

Cotton acres planted decreased from 920,000 acres to 870,000 acres, a 5% decrease (CASS 2002a), so the decrease in acres planted cannot explain most of the decrease in pesticide use. Lower cotton prices may explain some of the reduced pesticide use. In 2000, market year average prices for Pima cotton were $1.01 per pound, down to $0.94 per pound in 2001. The same trend occurred for upland cotton ($0.52 per pound in 2000 to $0.435 in 2001) (NASS 2002).

Insecticide use in general decreased because of lower pest populations, especially lygus bugs and mites. Aphids and whitefly populations were higher late in the season but were probably not treated more than usual. Use of most defoliants decreased from 2000 to 2001. The only exceptions were diuron and thidiazuron, which are used at lower rates. Defoliant use varies from year-to-year depending on weather conditions before harvest which has a large effect on cotton defoliation. Different chemicals work better in different conditions. Also, there has been a relative increase in Pima cotton acreage which requires somewhat different defoliants.

Herbicide use, except for glyphosate, decreased probably because of increased plantings of glyphosate-resistant cotton. Traditionally, growers use pre-plant herbicides. However, glyphosate-resistant cotton allows glyphosate treatment during the growing season. Cyanazine is used mostly in cotton in California. Its use peaked in cotton at 577,000 pounds in 1995. Since 1995, its use has dropped dramatically each year. From 2000 to 2001 its use decreased by 25,000 pounds (from 40,000 pounds in 2000 to 15,000 pounds in 2001, a 63% decrease). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified cyanazine as a major ground water contaminant. Under a voluntary agreement reached several years ago between the U.S. EPA and Du Pont Agricultural Products, use of cyanazine is being phased-out; use of existing stocks is to cease by December 31, 2002.

Strawberry
Total pounds of AI on strawberries increased by 0.15 million pounds from 2000 to 2001 (from 7.74 million to 7.89 million pounds, a 2% increase). Acres treated decreased by 0.15 million acres from 2000 to 2001 (1.03 million to 0.88 million acres, a 15% decrease). In 2000, the total acreage planted to strawberries was 26,339. Of that total, 25,022 acres were fumigated and 1,317 acres were not treated with fumigants (California Strawberry Commission). In 2001, total acreage planted to strawberries decreased to 25,143 acres. Of that acreage, 23,886 acres were fumigated and 1,257 acres were not fumigated. In 2000, the market year average price of strawberries was $61.40 per hundredweight (Cwt; 1 Cwt = 100 pounds); in 2001 it increased to $70.60 per Cwt (NASS 2002b)¹.

Strawberry production relies on several pesticides (such as the fumigants methyl bromide, chloropicrin, 1,3-D, and metam-sodium) that are generally used at high rates. Fumigants are applied at high rates, in part, because they usually are used to treat a volume of space rather than a surface area such as the leaves and stems of plants. Thus, the pounds applied is large even though the number of applications or number of acres treated may be relatively small. Fumigants accounted for about 89% of all pesticide active ingredients by pounds applied in strawberries. Methyl bromide use decreased by 457,355 pounds from 2000 to 2001 (from 4.2 million to 3.8 million pounds, an 11% decrease). This decrease in methyl bromide use is likely due to an increase in its cost and
expanded restrictions that DPR placed on field applications. Methyl bromide was replaced by other fumigants (chloropicrin, 1,3-D, and metam-sodium) whose use increased by 806,000 pounds.

The use of the major fungicides (sulfur, captan, thiram, iprodione, and myclobutanil), decreased from 2000 to 2001 by 158,000 pounds, likely due to the dry weather in 2001. The dry weather likely resulted in less disease pressure. Growers use the fungicide fosetyl-al to control soil borne diseases. Its use also decreased by 1,201 pounds from 2000 to 2001; however, no clear explanation appears to exist for this decrease.

¹The California Strawberry Commission provided the following information about prices that growers received for strawberries in 2000 and 2001. In 2000, the yearly weighted average price for fresh market strawberries was $5.59 per crate (1 crate = 11.5 pounds) and $3.89 per crate (1 crate = 18 pounds) for processed strawberries. In 2001, the yearly weighted average price increased to $7.00 per crate for fresh market and to $5.20 per crate for processed strawberries.

Tomato (Processing)
Total pounds of AI on processing tomatoes in 2001 decreased by almost 3 million pounds (from 10.7 million pounds in 2000 to 7.7 million pounds in 2001, a 28% decrease). Treated acreage was down 516,000 acres (from 2.4 million to 1.9 million acres, a 21% decrease). Tomato acreage decreased by 31,000 acres (from 289,000 acres in 2000 to 258,000 acres in 2001, an 11% decrease) (CASS 2002a).

A major factor in the reduction of pesticides used was the reduction in acres planted. Also, growers in the Sacramento Valley and Northern San Joaquin Valley (San Joaquin County) used almost 70% transplants as opposed to direct seed in 2001. Because transplants go in later, at the lay-by stage, there would probably be a reduction in the use of pre-emergent herbicides, as well as a reduction in some insecticides and fungicides that would be used only at the early seedling stage.

Another factor is the shift in planted acres from the Sacramento and Northern San Joaquin Valleys to the Southern San Joaquin Valley. Pesticide use is reportedly lower due to reduced insect pressure (earlier harvest) and reduced disease pressure (lower rainfall and hot spring conditions in 2001 with 9 days in May over 100 degrees in Fresno County).

In addition, the price for processing tomatoes was down forcing growers to reduce input costs. This low price may help to explain the decreased use of glyphosate, which is used to control weeds on ditch banks and other non-crop areas; glyphosate use was down 57% in 2001 as compared to 2000.

Rice
Total pounds of AI on rice decreased by 1.2 million pounds from 2000 to 2001 (from 7.1 million to 5.9 million pounds, a 16% decrease). Total acres treated with pesticides decreased by 0.4 million acres from 2000 to 2001 (from 2.3 million to 1.9 million acres, a 19% decrease). Total acres of rice planted decreased by 77,000 acres from 2000 to 2001 (from 550,000 to 473,000 acres, a 14% decrease) (CASS 2002a). The market average price for rice decreased from ($4.99 per Cwt) in 2000 to ($3.60) per Cwt in 2001 (NASS 2002b).

AIs used for weed control accounted for the largest portion of the decrease in total pounds of AIs used. Molinate, thiobencarb, and triclopyr accounted for 57% (681,299 pounds) of the 1.2 million pound decrease in total pounds of AIs used. The lower rice acreage explains the decrease in most pesticides. Other reasons for the decreased use of molinate and thiobencarb include increased weed resistance and the availability of the new herbicide cyhalofop-butyl. In addition, delayed phytotoxic syndrome (herbicide breakdown product becomes phytotoxic to rice) in certain areas contributed to reduced use of thiobencarb.

Although propanil use increased slightly (24,269 pounds, an 18% increase) from 2000 to 2001, this increase is substantial given the reduced rice acreage in 2001. Factors contributing to increased propanil use include: its increased use in place of molinate and thiobencarb (due to resistance issues), and its increased use in place of bensulfuron for control of sedges and broadleaf weeds resistant to bensulfuron.

Carbofuran was not used in 2001 since its registration was cancelled. Combined use of la