Welcome to the Department of Pesticide Regulation
Back to 2004 Pesticide Use Reporting (PUR) Menu



Summary of
Pesticide Use Report Data
2004
Indexed by Commodity



CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PESTICIDE REGULATION
California Environmental Protection Agency
1001 I Street
Sacramento, California 95814-3510
Arnold Schwarzengger, Governor
Alan Lloyd, Secretary for Environmental Protection
Mary-Ann Warmerdam, Director
Department of Pesticide Regulation



January 2006

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.
This report is also available on DPR's Web site
If you have questions concerning this report, call (916) 324-4100.


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 2004 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 or email questions to Linda Lichtenberger

ORDER FORM

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.

The 1989 - 2004 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 1990-2004) 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 2004 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 as well as 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.

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.

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:

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 a county agricultural commissioner.

In addition, the State required commercial pest control operators 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

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 asking for 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, even 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. 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, the State Department of Health Services, and the Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment with complete pesticide use data for evaluating possible human illness clusters in epidemiological studies.

Endangered Species

DPR works with the county agricultural 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 where 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

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.

In 1985, the Pesticide Contamination Prevention Act of 1985 was passed, and it requires site-specific records to 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.

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.

The PUR data have been used to support and assess grant projects for a grant program conducted by DPR to develop, demonstrate and implement reduced-hazard pest management strategies from 1995 to 2003. Due to the statewide budget shortfall, funds are not currently available to offer grants. However, the PUR data is used in several projects that build on work conducted in our grant program in the almond and stonefruit industries. In these and other projects, the PUR data are used to address regional pesticide use patterns and environmental problems such as water and air quality. The data are also used to better understand current changes in pesticide use.

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 products 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.)

COMMODITY CODES

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 validation 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 are researched and corrected as time and resources allow.) DPR continues to implement methods which 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 APLLIED

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 record 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 same logic applies to the annual summary report by chemical.

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. Beginning with 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 the current year data were received using the distribution of rates for that year. This procedure found additional outliers for new products and new uses. We currently use the two-stage procedure.

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 2004, there were 180, 272,161 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.  For example, reported pesticide use was 176 million pounds in 2003, 172 million pounds in 2002, 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, and 205 million pounds in 1997.

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). Four counties in this region had the highest use:  Fresno, Kern, Tulare, and San Joaquin.

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.

The pounds of pesticide active ingredient sold in California in 2004 has not been finalized and is not currently available. There were 645 million pounds sold in 2003, 598 million pounds in 2002, 563 million pounds in 2001, 601 million pounds in 2000, 707 million pounds in 1999, 617 million pounds in 1998, and 645 million pounds in 1997. Prior years data are posted on DPR's web site under programs & services/mill assessment/report of pesticides sold in California.

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 or amount of pounds used without indicating an increased reliance on pesticides.

Table 1. Total pounds of pesticide active ingredients reported in each county and rank during 2003 and 2004.

  2003 Pesticide Use 2004 Pesticide Use
County Pounds Applied Rank Pounds Applied Rank
Alameda 444,850 37 269,261 41
Alpine 184 58 109 58
Amador 101,889 45 117,736 43
Butte 3,062,292 17 2,962,210 18
Calaveras 57,827 49 92,203 45
Colusa 2,088,248 22 1,809,678 23
Contra Costa 991,115 30 556,561 36
Del Norte 371,176 38 369,627 39
El Dorado 103,487 44 105,982 44
Fresno 27,256,367 1 29,434,260 1
Glenn 2,284,461 21 2,399,082 20
Humboldt 106,514 43 86,266 46
Imperial 6,809,038 8 6,072,783 10
Inyo 51,129 50 27,579 51
Kern 22,905,081 2 23,882,466 2
Kings 5,233,435 11 5,903,039 11
Lake 786,874 32 704,033 32
Lassen 61,347 47 70,447 47
Los Angeles 4,070,598 12 3,674,348 13
Madera 8,614,993 6 8,512,876 6
Marin 59,156 48 56,552 49
Mariposa 16,185 53 24,557 52
Mendocino 1,475,689 27 1,162,903 28
Merced 6,839,552 7 7,707,805 7
Modoc 232,839 42 385,516 37
Mono 24,729 52 1,119 57
Monterey 9,329,416 5 9,114,603 5
Napa 1,934,856 24 2,236,410 21
Nevada 42,098 51 34,792 50
Orange 1,669,090 25 1,469,915 26
Placer 267,931 41 374,618 38
Plumas 14,447 54 11,931 53
Riverside 3,340,585 14 3,242,339 16
Sacramento 3,583,177 13 3,283,459 15
San Benito 743,723 34 624,510 33
San Bernardino 517,631 36 619,459 34
San Diego 2,491,139 20 2,108,419 22
San Francisco 12,085 55 10,794 54
San Joaquin 10,203,204 4 10,036,054 4
San Luis Obispo 2,032,697 23 1,712,208 25
San Mateo 273,273 40 223,683 42
Santa Barbara 3,331,881 15 4,109,252 12
Santa Clara 978,008 31 865,992 30
Santa Cruz 1,643,653 26 1,743,551 24
Shasta 293,445 39 294,416 40
Sierra 4,812 57 3,727 56
Siskiyou 750,180 33 837,675 31
Solano 1,089,607 29 1,025,269 29
Sonoma 2,892,958 18 3,058,405 17
Stanislaus 5,573,755 10 6,138,003 9
Sutter 3,305,776 16 3,624,764 14
Tehama 659,978 35 596,303 35
Trinity 6,917 56 10,223 55
Tulare 13,303,523 3 15,056,053 3
Tuolumne 72,189 46 69,071 48
Ventura 6,644,422 9 7,283,033 8
Yolo 2,644,303 19 2,665,655 19
Yuba 1,427,355 28 1,398,577 27
  175,127,171   180,272,161  

Table 2. Pounds of pesticide active ingredients, 1994 - 2004, by general use categories.

Year Production Agriculture Postharvest Fumigation Structural Pest Control Landscape Maintenance All Others* Total Pounds
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 7,607,752 197,828,481
1997 189,796,122 1,608,996 5,184,905 1,231,788 6,957,905 204,779,717
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 7,858,041 202,411,602
2000 172,730,676 2,143,396 5,165,189 1,395,598 6,728,174 188,163,033
2001 138,842,868 1,446,359 4,923,647 1,290,542 6,214,977 152,718,393
2002 152,506,562 1,847,353 5,467,116 1,439,532 6,679,534 167,940,097
2003 158,729,003 1,821,455 5,143,281 1,946,478 7,487,648 175,127,865
2004 164,704,049 1,901,289 5,129,817 1,565,103 6,971,903 180,272,161

* 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 2004 totaled 180 million pounds, an increase of 5.1 million pounds from 2003.  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 6.0 million pounds.

The active ingredients (AI) with the largest uses by pounds were sulfur, petroleum oils, metam-sodium, mineral oil, and 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D).  Sulfur use increased by 783,000 pounds (1.5 percent) and was the most highly used non-adjuvant pesticide in 2004, both in pounds applied and acres treated. By pounds, sulfur accounted for 30 percent of all reported pesticide use. Sulfur is a natural fungicide favored by both conventional and organic farmers.  Petroleum oil use decreased by 1.5 million pounds (-8.7 percent), metam sodium use decreased by 132,000 pounds (-0.9 percent), mineral oil use increased by 2.8 million pounds (44 percent), and 1,3-D use increased by 1.9 million pounds (28 percent).

Major crops or sites that showed an overall increase in pesticide pounds applied from 2003 to 2004 included almonds (2.8 million pounds increase), oranges (2.4 million pounds), processing tomatoes (0.6 million pounds), fresh tomatoes (0.5 million pounds), and outdoor nurseries in containers (0.4 million pounds).  Major crops or sites with decreased pounds applied included carrots (0.5 million pounds decrease), walnuts (0.3 million pounds), public health (0.3 million pounds), lemons (0.3 million pounds), and pears (0.3 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.  Spring of 2004 was warm and dry so diseases of many crops were low; therefore fungicide use was less in 2004 than in 2003.  Herbicide use increased partly because a wet winter promoted the growth of weeds.  The hot dry summer was conducive to mite buildups, so miticide use increased.   A dramatic increase occurred in the use of some newer, reduced-risk pesticides such as spinosad, acetamiprid, pyraclostrobin, methoxyfenozide, carfentrazone-ethyl, and boscalid.  Field prices improved in 2004 for most of the 12 crops discussed in Section V of this report, entitled "Trends in Pesticide Use in Certain Commodities".  This increase may have also been a contributor to use more pesticides to protect valuable crops.

Pesticide use is reported as the number of pounds of AI 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 AI, it is counted as three acres treated in the tables and graphs in Sections IV and V of this report.)

In the past several years, the PUR Annual Reports have included tables of pesticide use in various pesticide categories, including reproductive toxins, carcinogens, organophosphates and carbamates, ground water contaminants, toxic air contaminants, oils, reduced-risk pesticides, and biopesticides.  Use in about half of these pesticide categories increased and about half decreased from 2003 to 2004.  However, most of the increase in pounds applied was due to increases in the fumigant 1,3-D and the herbicides diuron and simazine. 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 though the number of applications or number of acres treated may be relatively small.  Herbicide use in general increased as mentioned above because of increased weed problems in 2004.  If these three AIs were not included, then use would have decreased in all of the categories, excluding the low risk oils and reduced-risk AIs.  Some of the major statistical changes from 2003 to 2004 include:

Since 1992, the reported pounds of pesticides applied have fluctuated from year to year. An increase or decrease in use from one year to the next or in the span of a few years does not necessarily indicate a general trend in use; it simply may reflect normal variations. Short periods of time (three to five years) may suggest trends, such as the increased pesticide use from 2001 to 2004 or the decreased use from 1998 to 2001. However, statistical analyses from 1992 to 2004 do not indicate a significant trend of either increase or decrease in pesticide use.

To improve data quality when calculating the total pounds of pesticides, DPR excluded values that were so large they were probably in error. The procedure to exclude probable errors involved the development of complex error-checking algorithms, a data improvement process that is ongoing.

Over-reporting errors have a much greater impact on the numerical accuracy of the database than under-reporting errors. For example, if a field is treated with 100 pounds of a pesticide AI and the application is erroneously recorded as 100,000 pounds (a decimal point shift of three places to the right), an error of 99,900 pounds is introduced into the database. If the same degree of error is made in shifting the decimal point to the left, the application is recorded as 0.1 pound, and an error of 99.9 pounds is entered into the database

To provide an overview, pesticide use is summarized for eight different categories from 1994 to 2004 (Tables 3-10 and Figures 1-8). These categories classify pesticides according to certain characteristics such as reproductive toxins, carcinogens, or reduced-risk characteristics.

The statistical summaries detailed in these categories are not intended to serve as indicators of pesticide risks to the public or the environment. Rather, the data supports DPR regulatory functions to enhance public safety and environmental protection. (See "How Pesticide Data are Used" on page 2.) The different pesticide categories, described more fully, are:

  1. Pesticides listed on the State's Proposition 65 list of chemicals " known to cause reproductive toxicity".
  2. Pesticides listed by U.S. EPA as B2 carcinogens or on the State's Proposition 65 list of chemicals " known to cause cancer".
  3. Pesticides that are cholinesterase inhibitors, that is, organophosphate and carbamate chemicals.
  4. Pesticides on the "a" part of DPR's groundwater protection list (section 6800 (a) of the California Code of Regulations, Title 3, Division 6, Chapter 4, Subchapter 1, Article 1).
  5. Pesticides from DPR's toxic air contaminants list (California Code of Regulations, Title 3, Division 6, Chapter 4, Subchapter 1, Article 1, section 6860).
  6. Oil pesticides, which may include some chemicals on the State's Proposition 65 list of chemicals "known to cause cancer" but which also serve as alternatives to high-toxicity pesticides.
  7. AIs contained in pesticide products that have been given reduced-risk status by U.S. EPA.
  8. Biopesticides, which 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). 

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

Table 3A. The reported pounds of pesticides used which are on the State's Proposition 65 list of chemicals that are "known to cause reproductive toxicity." Use includes both agricultural and reportable non-agricultural applications.  Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use Reports.

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 include both agricultural and non-agricultural applications. The reported cumulative acres treated include 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"

Table 4A. The reported pounds of pesticides used that are listed by U.S. EPA as B2 carcinogens or that are on the State's Proposition 65 list of chemicals "known to cause cancer." Use includes both agricultural and reportable non-agricultural applications. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use Reports.

Table 4B. The reported cumulative acres treated with pesticides listed by U.S. EPA as B2 carcinogens or on the State's Proposition 65 list of chemicals "known to cause cancer." 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.

Figure 2. Use trends of pesticides that are listed by U.S. EPA as B2 carcinogens or that are on the State's Proposition 65 list of chemicals "known to cause cancer." Reported pounds of active ingredient (AI) applied include both agricultural and reportable non-agricultural applications. The reported cumulative acres treated include primarily agricultural applications. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use Reports.

USE TRENDS OF CHOLINESTERASE-INHIBITING PESTICIDES

Table 5A. The reported pounds of cholinesterase-inhibiting pesticides used. These pesticides are the currently registered organophosphate and carbamate active ingredients. Use includes both agricultural and reportable non-agricultural applications. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use Reports.

Table 5B. The reported cumulative acres treated with cholinesterase-inhibiting pesticides. These pesticides are the currently registered organophosphate and carbamate active ingredients. 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 3. Use trends of cholinesterase-inhibiting pesticides, which includes pesticides with organophosphate and carbamate active ingredients. Reported pounds of active ingredient (AI) applied include both agricultural and reportable non-agricultural applications. The reported cumulative acres treated include primarily agricultural applications. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use Reports.

USE TRENDS OF PESTICIDES ON DPR'S GROUND WATER PROTECTION LIST

Table 6A. The reported pounds of pesticides on the " a" part of 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 both agricultural and reportable non-agricultural applications. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use Reports.

Table 6B. The reported cumulative acres treated with pesticides on the " a" part of 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 both agricultural and reportable non-agricultural applications. 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 include both agricultural and reportable non-agricultural applications. The reported cumulative acres treated include primarily agricultural applications. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use Reports.

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

Table 7A. The reported pounds of pesticides on DPR's toxic air contaminants list applied in California. 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 6860. Use includes both agricultural and reportable non-agricultural applications. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use Reports.

Table 7B. The reported cumulative acres treated in California with pesticides on DPR's toxic air contaminants 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 6860. 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 5. Use trends of pesticides on DPR's toxic air contaminants 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 6860. Reported pounds of active ingredient (AI) applied include both agricultural and reportable non-agricultural applications. The reported cumulative acres treated include primarily agricultural applications. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use Reports.

USE TRENDS OF OIL PESTICIDES 

Table 8A. The reported pounds 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. Use includes both agricultural and reportable non-agricultural applications. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use Reports.

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 include both agricultural and reportable non-agricultural applications. The reported cumulative acres treated include 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 include both agricultural and reportable non-agricultural applications. The reported cumulative acres treated include primarily agricultural applications. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use Reports.

USE TRENDS OF BIOPESTICIDES

Table 10A. The reported pounds of biopesticides applied in California. 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). 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 10B. The reported cumulative acres treated of biopesticides applied in California . 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). 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 nonagricultural 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

This summary describes possible reasons for changes in pesticide use from 2003 to 2004 for the following commodities:  (1) cotton, (2) almonds, (3) wine grapes, (4)  table and raisin grapes,  (5) alfalfa, (6) rice, (7) processing tomatoes, (8) oranges, (9) head lettuce, (10) peaches and nectarines, (11) strawberries, and (12) carrots.  These 12 commodities were chosen because they were treated with more than 5 million pounds of active ingredients (AI) or cumulatively treated on more than 2 million acres, which represents about 70 percent of all reported pesticide use in 2004.  

Information used to develop this section was drawn from several publications and phone interviews with pest control advisors, growers, University of California Cooperative Extension farm advisors and specialists, researchers, and commodity association representatives.  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 for changes in pesticide use.  Thus these explanations are based on anecdotal information, not rigorous statistical analyses. 

Reported pesticide use in California in 2004 totaled 180 million pounds, an increase of 5.1 million pounds from 2003 (3 percent increase).  The AIs with the largest uses by pounds were sulfur, petroleum oils, metam-sodium, mineral oil, and 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D).  Sulfur use increased by 783,000 pounds (1.5 percent) and was the most highly used non-adjuvant pesticide in 2004, both in pounds applied and acres treated. By pounds, sulfur accounted for 30 percent of all reported pesticide use. Sulfur is a natural fungicide favored by both conventional and organic farmers.  Petroleum oil use decreased by 1.5 million pounds (-8.7 percent), metam sodium use decreased by 132,000 pounds (-0.9 percent), mineral oil use increased by 2.8 million pounds (44 percent), and 1,3-D use increased by 1.9 million pounds (28 percent).

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.  In general, weather in 2004 was good for crop production.  In particular spring was warm and dry so diseases of many crops were low and therefore fungicide use was less in 2004 than in 2003.  Pounds applied and acres treated of most of the other major pesticide types increased, except for a decrease in acres treated with insecticides.  Herbicide use increased partly because a wet winter promoted the growth of weeds.  The hot dry summer was conducive to mite buildups, so miticide use increased.

A dramatic increase occurred in the use of some newer, reduced-risk pesticides such as spinosad, acetamiprid, pyraclostrobin, methoxyfenozide, carfentrazone-ethyl, and boscalid.  Prices for most of the 12 crops improved in 2004, which may have also been an incentive to use more pesticides to protect valuable crops.

Sulfur was used mostly to control powdery mildew on grapes; use increased just slightly from 2003 to 2004.  Oils and the fumigant 1,3-D had the largest increase in pounds; both increased by 1.9 million pounds. Oils were used mostly on almonds and oranges and use of oils increased over 20 percent in both crops.  Oils are low risk pesticides used mostly to control insects and mites.  1,3-D was used mostly on strawberries, carrots, and almonds.

Different pesticides are used at different rates.  In California, most pesticides are applied at rates of around 1 to 2 pounds per acre. However, fumigants are usually applied at rates of hundreds of pounds per acre.  Thus, comparing use by pounds will emphasize fumigants.  Comparing use among different pesticides using acres treated gives a different picture.

By acres treated, the non-adjuvant pesticides with the greatest use in 2004 were sulfur, glyphosate, oxyfluorfen, paraquat dichloride, chlorpyrifos, and abamectin.  Use of all of these pesticides, except for chlorpyrifos, increased.  Most of the increase in total acres treated was from increased use of glyphosate, oxyfluorfen, and abamectin.  Glyphosate was used mostly on rights of way, almond, cotton, landscape maintenance, and wine grapes.  Glyphosate use on cotton and almonds increased from 2003 to 2004, because of a trend toward more use of postemergence herbicides and because it is less costly than other herbicides.  On cotton, glyphosate use also increased because of increased acreage of varieties genetically engineered to be tolerant to glyphosate.  Oxyfluorfen is often applied with glyphosate.  Use of abamectin, a miticide, increased because of greater problems with mites in 2004.

Use is given by pounds of AI 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 AI, it is counted as three acres treated).

Cotton

Cotton is grown for fiber, oil, and animal feed and is one of the most widely grown crops in California. Cotton acres planted increased by 11 percent from 2003 to 2004. Two main kinds of cotton are grown: upland and Pima. Most cotton acreage is in upland cotton, but a greater percentage of Pima cotton was planted in 2004 than in 2003. Most cotton is grown in the southern San Joaquin Valley, but a small percentage is grown in Imperial and Riverside counties and several counties in the Sacramento Valley.

Table 11A. Total reported pounds of all active ingredients (AIs), acres treated, acres planted, and prices for cotton each year from 2000 to 2004. Planted acres from 2000 to 2003 are from CASS, October 2004; planted acres in 2004 are from CASS, January 2005; marketing year average prices from 2000 to 2004 are from NASS, July 2001, July 2002, July 2003, July 2004, and July 2005.

 

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Lbs AI

9,359,879

8,127,020

7,157,764

7,141,281

7,150,897

Acres Treated

11,685,798

9,632,312

8,298,784

10,467,430

10,422,661

Acres Planted Upland Cotton

775,000

630,000

480,000

550,000

560,000

Acres Planted Pima Cotton

145,000

240,000

210,000

150,000

215,000

Acres Planted Total

920,000

870,000

690,000

700,000

775,000

Price Upland $/lbs

$0.520

$0.416

$0.573

$0.745

$0.555

Price Pima $/lbs

$1.010

$0.856

$0.860

$1.230

$1.010

Acres Roundup-Ready

175,000

220,000

330,400

% Roundup-Ready

25

31

43


Table 11B. Percent difference from previous year for reported pounds of all AIs, acres treated, acres planted, and prices for cotton from 2000 to 2004.

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Lbs AI

10

-13

-12

0

0

Acres Treated

15

-18

-14

26

0

Acres Planted Upland Cotton

27

-19

-24

15

2

Acres Planted Pima Cotton

-40

66

-13

-29

43

Acres Planted Total

8

-5

-21

1

11

Price Upland $/lbs

-7

-20

38

30

-26

Price Pima $/lbs

19

-15

0

43

-18

Acres Roundup-Ready

26

50

Figure 9. Acres of cotton treated by all AIs in the major types of pesticides from 1993 to 2004.

Although cotton acreage increased by 11 percent from 2003 to 2004, total pesticide use in pounds of AI and acres treated remained nearly the same; thus pesticide use per acre planted decreased. The decrease in pesticide use was mostly from insecticides, which decreased by 16 percent in acres treated; use of both harvest aids and herbicides increased by 6 percent and 21 percent respectively.  The decrease in insecticides was due mostly to decreases in indoxacarb, tebufenozide, and chlorpyrifos.  This decrease occurred in Fresno and Merced counties; in all other counties use increased.

The decrease in pounds in pesticide use statewide in cotton was mostly from decreases in sodium chlorate, which is a harvest aid used at a high rate. Other pesticides with large decreases in pounds were chlorpyrifos, sulfur, S,S,S-tributyl phosphorotrithioate, and naled.

In 2004, weather conditions for cotton production were generally good to excellent. Cotton harvest started earlier than normal and yields in most areas were good, but October rain caused some reduction in yields and cotton lint quality in fields not yet harvested.  Arthropod pressure was generally low in most areas in 2004. However, spider mites caused some damage mid and late season in some areas.  Lygus populations were low compared to most years; however, some problems occurred in a few areas in July and August. Although aphid populations were widespread, populations were not large enough to cause problems except in a few areas.  After some early damage from beet armyworms and other lepidopteran pests, very little additional damage occurred.  The primary pest problems from July to September were silverleaf whiteflies, which have continued to expand their distribution from previous years.  According to the Beltwide Cotton Crop Loss Data, the main arthropod pest treated was mites, followed by silverleaf whitefly, aphids, lygus, and beet armyworm.  Growers treated more for mites in 2004 than 2003 and slightly more for whiteflies in 2004, but they treated less for the other pests.

Total insecticide use by acres treated has been decreasing in 1990s: from 2003 to 2004 acres treated with insecticides decreased by 16 percent and pounds insecticide decreased by 7 percent.  By acres treated, the major insecticides in cotton in 2004 were acetamiprid, abamectin, chlorpyrifos, aldicarb, and thiamethoxam.  A little over one half of the major insecticides decreased in use from 2003 to 2004.  By pounds the insecticide with the largest decrease was chlorpyrifos, used mostly for aphids and whiteflies.  By acres treated, most of the decreases in insecticides were from indoxacarb and tebufenozide, used mostly for beet armyworm and other lepidopteran pests.  Other insecticides with large decreases in pounds or acres treated were thiamethoxam, imidacloprid, naled, and aldicarb.  The insecticides with the largest increases in use by pounds were dicofol and propargite, used for mites; by acres treated the largest increase was acetamiprid, used mostly for aphids and whiteflies.  Other major insecticides that increased in pounds or acres treated were buprofezin, pyriproxyfen, oxamyl, endosulfan, methoxyfenozide, and abamectin.

The increased pressure from spider mites would explain the increase in use of miticides such as dicofol, propargite, and abamectin. The increased whitefly numbers could partly explain increased use of acetamiprid, buprofezin, and pyriproxyfen. Also, all three of these AIs are fairly new, low risk AIs and are probably replacing use of chlorpyrifos.  Use of the low risk pesticides indoxacarb and tebufenozide declined probably because of fewer problems with beet armyworms and lygus.

Throughout the 1990s, herbicide use by acres treated fluctuated from year to year between -22 percent to +30 percent; it increased by 22 percent from 2003 to 2004. By acres treated the major herbicides were glyphosate, trifluralin, oxyfluorfen, pendimethalin, and pyrithiobac-sodium.  Use of all of these herbicides increased from 2003 to 2004; only a few other herbicides had decreased use and then only by small amounts.  Another herbicide, carfentrazone-ethyl, had twice the use in 2004 as 2003, when it was first used.  Glyphosate had the largest increase in use, increasing by 22 percent from 2003 to 2004. It has become the most widely used herbicide in cotton production in recent years, used on more than twice as many acres from 2001 to 2004 as trifluralin, the next most widely-used herbicide.

Glyphosate is effective against many annual and perennial weeds that occur in California cotton fields. It can be used as an early over-the-top herbicide with Roundup-Ready cotton varieties (which are genetically engineered to be resistant to the herbicide glyphosate), or with hooded sprayers for a longer application window. Although it does not offer complete control, it can be an effective material for use in managing annual morningglory, nutsedge, and field bindweed, which continue to be problem weeds affecting an expanding acreage. It can be used as a harvest aid, particularly when late season weeds are also a problem; however, this use has been quite limited to date. It has replaced some other herbicides because of increased acreage of Roundup-Ready cotton.

The increased use of herbicides from 2003 to 2004 may have been due to the increased weed pressure, the result of a wetter than normal winter. Glyphosate use has increased because 59 percent of our Upland cotton is Roundup-Ready. The increased use of carfentrazone-ethyl is most likely because it was first registered late in 2003-growers had little chance to use it then-and they did not know much about the product. In 2004 they became aware of its use as a post directed herbicide, as well as a defoliant, so use increased.

Use of defoliants as harvest aids decreased nearly every year from 1995 to 2002. Although use by pounds also decreased from 2002 to 2004, use by acres treated increased from 2002 to 2004. Use by pounds decreased primarily from decreased use of sodium chlorate, which is used at a high rate.  However, the increase in acres treated by harvest aids was slightly less than the increase in cotton acres planted. By acres treated, the major plant growth regulator was mepiquat dichloride; and the major harvest aids used were ethephon, thidiazuron, diuron (diuron and thidiazuron are mostly applied together), paraquat dichloride, and sodium chlorate.

Of the top 10 harvest aids and plant growth regulators, five increased and five decreased in use.  Most of the decrease in pounds was due to decrease of sodium chlorate.  The largest increase in acres treated was pyraflufen-ethyl, which was first used in 2004.  Use of the plant growth regulator (also a harvest aid) mepiquat chloride, which is used mid-season for vegetative growth management, had a large decrease from 2003 to 2004. The use of and perceived need for plant growth regulators such as mepiquat chloride is strongly influenced by both weather conditions and early insect problems that cause fruit loss, both of which can affect relative levels of vegetative growth versus fruit retention and growth. Environmental and plant conditions in 2004 were generally good especially compared to last year when conditions favored late vegetative growth which required more use of mepiquat chloride.

Almonds

Almonds are California's largest tree nut crop in total dollar value and acreage. They are the largest horticultural export from the United States. Approximately 6,000 almond growers produce nearly 100 percent of the commercial domestic supply and more than 75 percent of worldwide production. Nearly 80 countries import California almonds. The United States is by far the largest market for almonds; overseas, Germany is the largest market for almonds, consuming about 16 percent of the export crop, followed by Spain at about 15 percent. Other major importers include the Netherlands, Japan, France, the United Kingdom, Canada, India, and China. The Pacific Rim nations are a rapidly growing market for California almonds.

Table 12A. Total reported pounds of all AIs, acres treated, bearing acres, and prices for almonds each year from 2000 to 2004. Bearing acres from 2000 to 2003 are from CASS, October 2004; bearing acres in 2004 are from NASS, July 2005; all marketing year average prices are from NASS, July 2005.

 

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Lbs AI

11,637,568

10,161,186

11,935,261

13,374,188

16,197,969

Acres Treated

7,213,842

5,049,101

5,441,005

6,367,669

7,363,704

Acres Bearing

510,000

530,000

545,000

550,000

550,000

Price $/lb

$0.97

$0.91

$1.11

$1.57

$2.21


Table 12B. Percent difference from previous year for reported pounds of all AIs, acres treated, bearing acres, and prices for almonds from 2000 to 2004.

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Lbs AI

-22

-13

17

12

21

Acres Treated

-3

-30

8

17

16

Acres Bearing

5

4

3

1

0

Price $/lb

13

-6

22

41

41

Figure 10. Acres of almonds treated by all AIs in the major types of pesticides from 1993 to 2004.

 

After a decline in almond pesticide use (pounds AI and acres treated) from 1998 to 2001, use increased from 2001 to 2004. From 2003 to 2004 use increased-by 21 percent as pounds AI and by 16 percent as acres treated. The rate of insecticide use (i.e., pounds AI per acre) increased by 27 percent, of herbicide use by 22 percent, and of fumigant use by 13 percent. Use in pounds of fungicides showed a slight decrease of 7 percent. Lambda-cyhalothrin, fosetyl-aluminum, bifenazate, carbaryl and hexythiazox showed the largest percent increases in acres treated between 2003 and 2004. The largest percent decreases in use in poundswere for azinphos-methyl, copper ammonium complex, tebufenozide, thiophanate, and chlorophacinone.

In 2004, the major insecticides used (by acres treated)  were abamectin, petroleum oil (unclassified), mineral oil, chlorpyrifos and esfenvalerate; the major fungicides were cyprodinil, iprodione, copper hydroxide, and azoxystrobin; the major herbicides used were glyphosate, oxyfluorfen, paraquat dichloride, simazine, and 2,4-D, and the major fumigants used were aluminum phosphide, methyl bromide, and 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D).

Different factors play a role in understanding pesticide use trends. The most significant current almond industry trend is the increase in planted acreage.  Almond growers report thousands of new acres being planted.  Yet, until more technologically sophisticated methods of surveying acreage are employed, available objective data may lag behind actual new acreage. New acreage makes increased treated acresmore likely, particularly in the case of a one-time application of a preplant fumigant. Another significant change within the almond industry is a shift from older, more broad spectrum pesticides to newer, reduced-risk compounds. 

The 2004 crop was a little larger than 2003 and the price for almonds remains good. The fact that many growers had reduced pesticide applications for several years and were anticipating a more valuable crop may explain, in part, why some growers chose to put on applications to be sure to protect the more valuable 2004 crop. Generally, in a good year growers are more inclined to treat with pesticides to protect the crop, thereby increasing the number of applications.

Growers in the northern growing region used winter sanitation to reduce over-wintering populations of navel orangeworm. Generally, growers in the central and southern region checked for mummies and, if numbers were high, they used a winter sanitation program to help reduce the over-wintering population. In some regions, the combination of just enough mummy nuts missed and the mild winter significantly increased the reject potential. Wet weather was not particularly a problem affecting production. Bloom was a little late, which could explain the increased use of chlorothalonil to control anthracnose. A record-breaking heat wave in the spring set up optimum conditions for mite problems later in the season.

A hot, dry sum