|
CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF PESTICIDE REGULATION |
|
October 2003
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.
V. TRENDS IN PESTICIDE USE IN CERTAIN COMMODITIES
VI. Summary of Pesticide Use Report Data 2002 Indexed by COMMODITY This link downloads the compressed ASCII version. This version does not include figures. See UNZIP HELP)
Questions regarding the Summary of Pesticide Use Report Data or information regarding the availability and cost of the computerized database should be directed to: Department of Pesticide Regulation, Pest Management and Licensing Branch, P.O. Box 4015, Sacramento, California 95812-4015.Telephone (916) 324-4100.
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 1989 - 2002 Summary of Pesticide Use Report Data indexed by chemical or commodity reports can be found on DPR's web at www.cdpr.ca.gov. The Annual Pesticide Use Report Data (the complete database of reported pesticide applications for 1990-2002) are available on CD ROM. The files are in text (comma delimited format).
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 agricultural applications, and the acres/units treated.
The second report is indexed by commodity and lists the chemicals used, the
number of agricultural applications, amount of pesticides used, and the acres/units
treated.
I. INTRODUCTION
Development and Implementation of the Pesticide Use Reporting System
This 2002 Summary of Pesticide Use Report Data includes agricultural applications and other selected uses reported in California. The report represents a summary of the data gathered under full use reporting. The Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) uses the data to help estimate dietary risk and to ensure compliance with clean air laws and ground water protection regulations. Site-specific use report data, combined with geographic data on endangered species habitats, also helps county agricultural commissioners resolve potential pesticide use conflicts. Detailed, individual pesticide use report data may be obtained from DPR for in?depth, analytical purposes.To provide public access to the data as soon as possible, DPR is releasing the 2002 data before the majority of error corrections have been completed. Values have been substituted for some errors (see Outliers), but data correction is ongoing.
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 the state's 58 counties for
the electronic submittal of their pesticide use data. To further improve the
accuracy and timeliness of pesticide use data, DPR initiated the California
Electronic Data Transfer System (CEDTS) in 1994. This system allows growers
and pest control operators to electronically transfer application data to
the agricultural commissioners' offices. By the close of 1998, 36 counties
were capable of receiving data through the CEDTS program. Although response
to CEDTS from pesticide users was favorable, adoption of the reporting system
was slow. Many growers and pest control operators lack the time and expertise
to write the software that pulls together the necessary pieces of information
into a single pesticide use application database that meets DPR's standardized
data requirements. In response, private software providers and others began
introducing systems that allow use reporting via Internet Web sites in 1999.
In addition, new programs are being developed to allow nonagricultural users
of pesticides to file electronic reports.
Types of Pesticide Applications Reported
Partial reporting of agricultural pesticide use has been in place in California since at least the 1950s. Beginning in 1970, anyone who used restricted materials was required to file a pesticide use report with the county agricultural commissioner. The criteria established to designate a pesticide as a restricted material include hazard to public health, farm workers, domestic animals, honeybees, the environment, wildlife, or other crops. Restricted materials, with certain exceptions, may be possessed or used only by, or under the supervision of, licensed or certified persons and only in accordance with an annual permit issued by the county agricultural commissioner.
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:
• For the production of any
agricultural commodity, except livestock.
• For the treatment of postharvest agricultural commodities.
• For landscape maintenance in parks, golf courses, and cemeteries.
• For roadside and railroad rights-of-way.
• For poultry and fish production.
• Any application of a restricted material.
• Any application of a pesticide with the potential to pollute ground
water (listed in section 6800 (b) of the California Code of Regulations, Title
3, Division 6, Chapter 4, Subchapter 1, Article 1) when used outdoors in industrial
and institutional settings.
• Any application by a licensed pest control operator.
The primary exceptions to the use reporting requirements are home and garden use and most industrial and institutional uses.
How Pesticide Data Are Used
DPR undertook the expansion of use reporting primarily in response to concerns of many individuals and groups, including government officials, scientists, farmers, legislators, and public interest groups. It was generally acknowledged that the system for estimating dietary exposure to pesticide residues did not provide sufficient data on which to make realistic assessments; this often resulted in overestimates of risk. Farm worker representatives were also demanding more information to determine exposure and potential risk to those who handle pesticides or who work in treated fields.There are several key areas in which data generated by full use reporting are proving beneficial.
Risk Assessment
Without information on actual pesticide use, regulatory agencies conducting risk assessment assume all planted crop acreage is treated with many pesticides, though most crops are treated with just a few chemicals. If the assumptions used by regulatory agencies are incorrect, regulators could make judgments on pesticide risks that are too cautious by several orders of magnitude, reducing the credibility of risk management decisions. The use report data, on the other hand, provides actual use data so DPR can better assess risk and make more realistic risk management decisions.
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
Under the reporting regulations, pest control operators must give
farmers a written notice after every pesticide application that includes the
date and time the application was completed, and the reentry and preharvest
intervals (respectively, the intervals between the time a pesticide is applied
and when workers may enter the field, and the time of application and when
a commodity can be harvested). This notice gives the farmer accurate information
to help keep workers from entering fields prematurely, and also lets the farmer
know the earliest date a commodity can be harvested.
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
The expanded reporting system provides DPR and the State Department of Health Services with complete pesticide use data for evaluating possible human illness clusters in epidemiological studies.Endangered Species
DPR is working with the commissioners to combine site-specific use report data with geographic information system-based data on locations of endangered species. The resulting database helps commissioners resolve potential conflicts over pesticide use when endangered species may occur. DPR and the commissioners can also examine patterns of pesticide use near habitats to determine the potential impact of proposed use limitations. With location-specific data on pesticide use, restrictions on use can be better designed to protect endangered species while still allowing necessary pest control.
Water Quality
In meeting the requirements of the Pesticide Contamination Prevention Act of 1985, site-specific records help track pesticide use in areas known to be susceptible to ground water contamination. Determinations can also be made from the records on whether a contaminated well is physically associated with agricultural practices. These records also provide data to help researchers determine why certain soil types are more prone to ground water contamination.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
Many pesticide products contain volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that contribute to the formation of smog. DPR worked with the state Air Resources Board to put together a State Implementation Plan under the federal Clean Air Act to reduce emissions of all sources of VOCs, including pesticides, in nonattainment areas of the state. DPR's contribution to the plan included accurate data on the amount of VOCs contained in pesticides and the ability to inventory the use of those pesticides through pesticide use reporting.
Pest Management
The Department uses the PUR database to understand patterns and changes in pest management practices. This information can be used to determine possible alternatives to pesticides that are subject to regulatory actions and to help determine possible impacts of different regulatory actions on 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 2003/2004.) 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 Summary of Pesticide
Use Report Data reports include summary trends of pesticides in several different
categories such as carcinogens, reproductive toxins, and ground water contaminants.
Processor and Retailer Requirements
Food processors, produce packers, and retailers often require farmers to submit a complete history of pesticide use on crops. DPR's use report form often satisfies this requirement.II. COMMENTS AND CLARIFICATIONS OF DATA
The following comments and points should be taken into consideration when analyzing data contained in this report:
Terminology
The following terminology is used in this report:
Number of agricultural applications - Number of applications of
pesticide product made to production agriculture. More detailed information
is given below under "Number of Applications."
Pounds applied - Number of pounds of an active ingredient.
Unit type - The amount listed in this column is one of the following:
A = Acreage
C = Cubic feet (of commodity treated)
K = Thousand cubic feet (of commodity treated)
P = Pounds (of commodity treated)
S = Square feet
T = Tons (of commodity treated)
U = Miscellaneous units (e.g., number of tractors, trees, bins, etc.)
DPR's pesticide product label database is used to cross-check data entries to determine if the product reported used is registered on the reported commodity. The DPR label database uses a crop coding system based on crop names used by the U.S. EPA to prepare official label language. However, this system caused some problems until DPR modified it in the early 1990s to account for U.S. EPA's grouping of certain crops under generic names. Problems occurred when the label language in the database called a crop by one name, and the use report used another. For example, a grower may have reported a pesticide use on "almonds," but the actual label on the pesticide product--coded into the database--stated the pesticide was to be used on "nuts." To eliminate records being rejected as "errors" because the specific commodity listed on the use report is not on the label, DPR modified the database. To designate a commodity not specifically listed on the label as a correct use, a qualifier code is appended to the commodity code in the label database. A qualifier code would be attached to the "almond" code when nuts are only listed on the label.
This system greatly reduces the number of rejections.
Plants and commodities grown in greenhouse and nursery operations represented a challenge in use reporting because of their diversity. Six commodity groupings were suggested by industry in 1990 and incorporate terminology that are generally known and accepted. The six use reporting categories are: greenhouse-grown cut flowers or greens; outdoor-grown cut flowers or greens; greenhouse-grown plants in containers; outdoor container/field-grown plants; greenhouse-grown transplants/propagative material; and outdoor-grown transplants/propagative material.
Tomatoes and grapes were also separated
into two categories because of public and processor interest in differentiating
pesticide use. Tomatoes are assigned two codes to differentiate between fresh
market and processing categories. One code was assigned to table grapes, which
includes grapes grown for fresh market, raisins, canning, or juicing. A second
code was assigned to wine grapes.
Unregistered Use
The report contains entries that reflect the use of a pesticide on a commodity for which the pesticide is not currently registered. This sometimes occurs because the original use report was in error, that is, either the pesticide or the commodity was inaccurately reported. DPR's computer program checks that the commodity is listed on the label, but nonetheless such errors appear in the PUR, possibly because of errors in the label database. Also, the computer program does not check whether the pesticide product was registered at the time of application. For example, parathion (ethyl parathion) is shown reported on crops after most uses were suspended in 1992. (These records continue to be researched and corrected.) DPR is continuing to implement methods to identify and reduce these types of reporting errors in future reports. Other instances may occur because by law, growers are sometimes allowed to use stock they have on hand of a pesticide product that has been withdrawn from the market by the manufacturer or suspended or canceled by regulatory authorities.Other reporting "errors"
may occur when a pesticide is applied directly to a site to control a particular
pest, but is not applied directly to the crop in the field. A grower may use
an herbicide to treat weeds on the edge of a field, a fumigant on bare soil
prior to planting, or a rodenticide to treat rodent burrows. For example, reporting
the use of the herbicide glyphosate on tomatoes - when it was actually applied
to bare soil prior to planting the tomatoes - could be perceived to be an error.
Although technically incorrect, recording the data as if the application were
made directly to the commodity provides valuable crop usage information for
DPR's regulatory program.
Adjuvants
Data on spray adjuvants (including emulsifiers, wetting agents, foam suppressants, and other efficacy enhancers), not reported prior to full use reporting, are now included. Examples of these types of chemicals include the "alkyls" and some petroleum distillates. (Adjuvants are exempt from federal registration requirements, but must be registered as pesticides in California.)Zero Pounds Applied
There are a few entries in this report in which the total pounds applied for certain active ingredients are displayed as zero. This is because the chemical (active ingredient) made up a very small percentage of the formulated product that was used. When these products are applied in extremely low quantities, the resulting value of the active ingredient is too low to register an amount.Acres Treated
The summary information in this annual report cannot be used to determine the total number of acres of a crop to which pesticides were applied during the year. Sometimes the product used contains more than one active ingredient. (In any pesticide product, the active ingredient is the component which kills, or otherwise controls, target pests. A pesticide product is made up of one or more active ingredients, as well as one or more inert ingredients.) For example, if a 20-acre field is treated with a product that contains three different pesticide active ingredients, a use report is filed by the farmer correctly recording the application of a single pesticide product to 20 acres. However, in the summary tables, the three different active ingredients will each have recorded 20 acres treated. Adding these values results in a total of 60 acres as being treated instead of the 20 acres actually treated. A similar problem occurs when the same field is treated more than once in the year with the same active ingredient.Number of Applications
The values for number of applications include only production agricultural applications. Applicators are required to submit one of two basic types of use reports, a production agricultural report or a monthly summary report. The production agricultural report must include information for each application. The monthly summary report, for all uses other than production agriculture, includes only monthly totals for all applications of pesticide product, site or commodity, and applicator. The total number of applications in the monthly summary reports are not consistently given so they are no longer included in the totals. In the annual PUR reports before 1997, each monthly summary report was counted as one application.In the annual summary report by commodity, the total number of applications
given for each commodity may not equal the sum of all applications of each active
ingredient on that commodity. As explained above, some pesticide products contain
more than one active ingredient. If the number of applications were summed for
each active ingredient in such a product, the total number of applications would
be more than one, even though only one application of the product was made.
The totals given in the annual summary report take into account such multiple
active ingredient products and counts each as only one application.
Outliers
In calculating the total pounds of pesticides used in these tables, DPR excluded values for rates of use which were so large they were probably in error. Errors occur, for example, when those reporting pesticide use shift decimal points during data entry. DPR specialists spent more than a year developing, testing, and implementing software to detect probable errors (outliers). Pesticide rates were considered outliers if (1) they were higher than 200 pounds of active ingredient per acre (or greater than 1,000 pounds per acre for fumigants); (2) they were 50 times larger than the median rate for all uses with the same pesticide product, crop treated, unit treated, and record type (that is, production agricultural or all other use); or (3) they were higher than a value determined by a neural network procedure that approximates what a group of 12 scientists believed were obvious outliers. Although these criteria removed less than one percent of the rate values in the PUR, some rates were so large that if included in the sums, they would have significantly affected total pounds applied of some pesticides. (The outliers are excluded from the total pounds in the summary reports but remain in the database.)For the years 1991 to 1998, we determined whether or not a use rate was an outlier based on the distribution of rates for all applications on each crop and pesticide during the year of its application. For the 1999 PUR we determined outliers in two stages. In the first stage, outliers were identified as data that came to DPR from the counties during the year but based on the distribution of rates from the previous year. This procedure allowed us to include outliers in the error reports sent back to the counties. In the second stage, the outlier program was run after all 1999 data were received using the distribution of rates for 1999. This procedure found additional outliers for new products and new uses. For the 2002 PUR, the data was processed in the same manner.
Beginning with the 1999 PUR data, values have been substituted where outliers
were identified in the first phase. Nulls were substituted in numeric fields
identified as outliers, and "???" were substituted in character fields identified
as outliers. A median rate value for use on a commodity/product combination
was substituted where a high rate per acre was the error. In addition, "Unknown"
was substituted where the reported site code was invalid.
III. DATA SUMMARY
This report is a summary of data submitted to DPR. Total pounds may change slightly due to ongoing error correction. The revised numbers will more accurately reflect the total pounds applied.Pesticide Use In California
In 2002, there were 172,086,290 pounds of pesticide active ingredients reported used in California. Annual use has varied from year to year since full use reporting was implemented in 1990. Reported pesticide use was 151 million pounds in 2001 (not all of Kern County PUR data was available), 188 million pounds in 2000, 203 million pounds in 1999, 214 million pounds in 1998, 205 million pounds in 1997, and 198 million pounds in 1996.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
Reported pesticide applications are only a portion of the pesticides sold each year. Typically, about two-thirds of the pesticide active ingredients sold in a given year are not subject to use reporting. Examples of non-reported active ingredients are chlorine (used primarily for municipal water treatment) and home-use pesticide products.
There were approximately 598 million pounds of pesticide active ingredients sold in California in 2002, 563 million pounds in 2001, 601 million pounds in 2000, 707 million pounds in 1999, 617 million pounds in 1998, 645 million pounds in 1997, 639 million pounds in 1996, 543 million pounds in 1995, and 625 million pounds in 1994. Prior years data are posted on DPR's web site at www.cdpr.ca.gov under programs & services/mill assessment/report of pesticides sold in CA.
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.
Table 1. Total pounds of pesticide active ingredients reported in each county during 2001 and 2002 and its rank among all 58 counties.
| County |
2001 total pounds |
Rank |
2002 total pounds |
Rank |
| Alameda |
306,658 |
39 |
318,298 |
39 |
| Alpine |
345 |
58 |
254 |
58 |
| Amador |
103,617 |
44 |
100,676 |
44 |
| Butte |
2,764,336 |
17 |
2,896,425 |
18 |
| Calaveras |
26,519 |
51 |
66,050 |
49 |
| Colusa |
1,681,849 |
25 |
1,846,599 |
23 |
| Contra Costa |
425,762 |
36 |
578,451 |
35 |
| Del Norte |
350,262 |
37 |
373,171 |
37 |
| El Dorado |
81,552 |
46 |
96,860 |
45 |
| Fresno |
24,792,033 |
1 |
28,703,387 |
1 |
| Glenn |
2,076,482 |
20 |
2,230,564 |
20 |
| Humboldt |
68,148 |
48 |
38,364 |
50 |
| Imperial |
7,124,214 |
7 |
6,347,098 |
9 |
| Inyo |
9,395 |
56 |
9,700 |
53 |
| Kern |
14,542,649 |
2 |
22,178,054 |
2 |
| Kings |
5,041,513 |
10 |
5,785,956 |
10 |
| Lake |
620,129 |
32 |
844,776 |
31 |
| Lassen |
78,482 |
47 |
179,677 |
43 |
| Los Angeles |
3,528,325 |
12 |
3,583,419 |
13 |
| Madera |
7,765,851 |
5 |
9,206,202 |
5 |
| Marin |
106,722 |
43 |
73,438 |
47 |
| Mariposa |
15,152 |
52 |
5,510 |
56 |
| Mendocino |
1,715,468 |
23 |
1,541,119 |
26 |
| Merced |
6,541,408 |
8 |
7,070,757 |
7 |
| Modoc |
99,460 |
45 |
195,310 |
42 |
| Mono |
135,867 |
42 |
1,830 |
57 |
| Monterey |
7,974,257 |
4 |
8,529,785 |
6 |
| Napa |
1,881,246 |
21 |
2,105,038 |
21 |
| Nevada |
43,631 |
50 |
66,156 |
48 |
| Orange |
1,556,861 |
26 |
1,702,534 |
24 |
| Placer |
324,311 |
38 |
309,280 |
40 |
| Plumas |
10,442 |
55 |
31,622 |
51 |
| Riverside |
3,391,524 |
13 |
3,352,561 |
15 |
| Sacramento |
2,833,621 |
16 |
3,977,435 |
12 |
| San Benito |
465,106 |
35 |
686,356 |
33 |
| San Bernardino |
471,889 |
34 |
472,476 |
36 |
| San Diego |
1,873,137 |
22 |
2,004,716 |
22 |
| San Francisco |
14,588 |
53 |
20,870 |
52 |
| San Joaquin |
7,535,029 |
6 |
9,586,222 |
4 |
| San Luis Obispo |
1,684,894 |
24 |
1,685,396 |
25 |
| San Mateo |
221,161 |
41 |
223,207 |
41 |
| Santa Barbara |
3,325,257 |
14 |
3,349,920 |
16 |
| Santa Clara |
713,318 |
31 |
661,738 |
34 |
| Santa Cruz |
1,533,447 |
27 |
1,535,262 |
27 |
| Shasta |
274,523 |
40 |
345,140 |
38 |
| Sierra |
3,723 |
57 |
7,442 |
55 |
| Siskiyou |
500,664 |
33 |
879,061 |
30 |
| Solano |
1,118,160 |
28 |
1,311,203 |
29 |
| Sonoma |
2,616,791 |
18 |
2,975,827 |
17 |
| Stanislaus |
4,240,332 |
11 |
4,614,767 |
11 |
| Sutter |
3,073,416 |
15 |
3,551,315 |
14 |
| Tehama |
739,301 |
30 |
818,802 |
32 |
| Trinity |
12,692 |
54 |
7,846 |
54 |
| Tulare |
12,830,835 |
3 |
12,757,249 |
3 |
| Tuolumne |
48,328 |
49 |
73,549 |
46 |
| Ventura |
6,430,535 |
9 |
6,482,850 |
8 |
| Yolo |
2,407,429 |
19 |
2,256,580 |
19 |
| Yuba |
972,243 |
29 |
1,432,139 |
28 |
| Total |
151,124,888 |
172,086,290 |
*Note: Not all of Kern County PUR data was available in 2001.
Table 2. Pounds
of pesticide active ingredients, 1992 - 2002, by general use categories.
| YEAR |
Production Agriculture |
Postharvest Fumigation |
Structural Pest Control |
Landscape Maintenance |
All Others* |
Total Pounds |
| 1992 |
156,664,418 |
1,811,128 |
5,319,391 |
1,250,624 |
15,445,580 |
180,491,141 |
| 1993 |
172,492,706 |
1,703,738 |
4,687,296 |
1,317,791 |
7,811,172 |
188,012,703 |
| 1994 |
175,408,663 |
2,004,123 |
5,186,253 |
1,325,560 |
7,430,770 |
191,355,369 |
| 1995 |
187,577,922 |
3,770,169 |
4,839,368 |
1,382,563 |
7,563,928 |
205,133,950 |
| 1996 |
182,375,369 |
1,847,859 |
4,738,168 |
1,259,332 |
7,607,753 |
197,828,481 |
| 1997 |
189,796,122 |
1,608,996 |
5,184,905 |
1,231,788 |
6,957,906 |
204,779,717 |
| 1998 |
198,568,999 |
1,655,875 |
5,930,988 |
1,405,312 |
6,783,731 |
214,344,905 |
| 1999 |
185,457,062 |
2,019,542 |
5,673,321 |
1,403,635 |
7,858,042 |
202,411,602 |
| 2000 |
172,220,535 |
2,134,698 |
5,165,170 |
1,395,493 |
6,727,099 |
187,642,995 |
| 2001 |
137,276,887 |
1,425,407 |
4,922,554 |
1,288,100 |
6,211,940 |
151,124,888 |
| 2002 |
156,509,065 |
1,869,350 |
5,467,113 |
1,439,222 |
6,801,540 |
172,086,290 |
* 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.
IV. TRENDS IN USE IN CERTAIN PESTICIDE CATEGORIES
Reported pesticide use in California in 2002 totaled 172 million pounds, an increase of 21 million pounds from 2001. Production agriculture, the major category of use subject to reporting requirements, accounted for most of the overall increase in use. Applications for production agriculture increased by 19 million pounds.
The active ingredients with the largest uses by pounds were sulfur, petroleum oils, metam-sodium, and methyl bromide. Sulfur use increased by 6.5 million pounds (14 percent) and was again the most highly used pesticide in 2002, both in pounds applied and acres treated. By pounds, sulfur accounted for 31 percent of all reported pesticide use. Sulfur is a natural fungicide favored by both conventional and organic farmers. Petroleum oil use increased by 2.3 million pounds (15 percent), metam sodium use increased by 4.2 million pounds (37 percent), and methyl bromide use declined by approximately 21,000 pounds (0.3 percent).
Major crops that showed an overall increase in pesticide pounds applied from 2001 to 2002 included processing tomatoes (3 million pounds increase), raisin and table grapes (3 million pounds), carrots (2.2 million pounds), almonds (2.1 million pounds), potatoes (1.6 million pounds), and wine grapes (1.5 million pounds). Major crops or sites with decreased pounds applied included cotton (0.9 million pounds), bermudagrass (0.4 million pounds), public health (0.2 million pounds), and sugarbeets (0.1 million pounds).
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. For most of the 14 crops investigated, pest problems were low in most areas in 2002. Prices for some crops improved in 2002 but in general economic conditions for growers were a major concern. Acreage of most of the 14 crops increased which would explain some of the increase in pesticide use.
Pesticide use is reported as the number of pounds of active ingredient and the total number of acres treated. The data for pounds include both agricultural and nonagricultural applications; the data for acres treated are primarily agricultural applications. The number of 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 in the tables and graphs in Sections IV and V of this report.)
Use declined in some pesticide categories and increased in other categories. Most of the increase in pounds applied was due to increases in the fumigants metam-sodium and 1,3-dichloropropene, which partly replaced use of methyl bromide. (Fumigants are applied at high rates, in part, because they treat a volume of space rather than a surface area such as the leaves and stems of plants. Thus, the pounds applied are large even thought the number of applications or number of acres treated may be relatively small.) Some of the major statistical changes from 2001 to 2002 include:
• Chemicals classified as reproductive toxins increased in pounds applied from 2001 to 2002 (up 1.8 mi