Welcome to the Department of Pesticide Regulation

Summary of Pesticide Use Report Data - 2006

Back to 2006 Pesticide Use Reporting (PUR) Menu

Indexed by Commodity

Department Address, Governor name, Secretary for Environmental Protection name, DPR Director name

  

California State Seal logo

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

   California State Seal logo

January 2007

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 2006 INDEXED BY COMMODITY (PDF, 3.5 mb)

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) 445-4038 or email questions to llichtenberger@cdpr.ca.gov.

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 - 2006 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 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.

The Annual Pesticide Use Report Data (the complete database of reported pesticide applications for 1990-2005) are available on CD ROM. The files are in text (comma delimited format).

Please use this form to order reports and enclose payment to the address below.

California Pesticide Use Report Order Form

 Item 

 Report

 Quantity 

 Amount 

 Total 

 603

 Summary Report by Commodity (year)_____ (printed)

 

$10.00

 

 604

 Summary Report by Chemical (year)_____ (printed)

 

$10.00

 

 605

 Summary Report by Commodity or Chemical (circle one) (year)_____ (disk) (discontinued in 2001)

 

 

N/A

 

 608

 Annual Pesticide Use Report Data (CD ROM) (year)_____ (available from 1990) (text format)

 

 

$12.00

 

 TOTAL 

 $ 

Enclose payment to:

Cashier, State of California
Department of Pesticide Regulation
P.O. Box 4015
Sacramento, CA 95812-4015

NAME  ___________________________________________________________________

ADDRESS ________________________________________________________________

CITY  _____________________________________   STATE  ________   ZIP__________

COMPANY  _____________________________________   PHONE (       )____________



I. INTRODUCTION

Development and Implementation of the Pesticide Use Reporting System

This 2006 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. 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 potential hazard to:

  • public health
  • farm workers
  • domestic animals
  • honeybees
  • the environment
  • wildlife
  • 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 a county agricultural commissioner.

In addition, the State required commercial pest control operators1 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.

1 Pest control operators include those in the business of applying pesticides such as agricultural applicators, structural fumigators, and professional gardeners.

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 intervals2. 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 more 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.

The Pesticide Contamination Prevention Act 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.

DPR placed certain pesticide products containing pyrethroids into reevaluation on August 31, 2006. The reevaluation is based on recent studies revealing the widespread presence of synthetic pyrethroid residues in the sediment of California waterways at levels toxic to an aquatic crustacean.

2 A reentry interval is the time from which a pesticide application is made and when workers may enter a field. A preharvest interval is the time between an application and when a commodity can be harvested.

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.

Beginning in January 2008, a new regulation will provide a more accurate estimate of VOC emissions as well as reductions of VOC emissions. A key element of the regulation pertains to field fumigation methods because different fumigation methods emit different amounts of VOCs. Within nonattainment areas, the regulation requires PURs to include the specific fumigation method to better estimate VOC emissions.

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. The grants were temporarily suspended due to the statewide budget shortfall, but funds are currently available to offer grants. The PUR data have been 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, tree holes, bins, etc.)

Commodity Codes

DPR's pesticide product label database is used to cross-check data entries to determine if the product reported is registered for use 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." DPR modified the database to eliminate records being rejected as "errors" because the specific commodity listed on the use report is not on the label. A qualifier code is appended to the commodity code in the label database to designate a commodity not specifically listed on the label as a correct use. 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-grown plants in 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 that 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. However, it can be used to determine the cumulative acres treated.  The problem is that the same field can be treated more than once in a year with the same active ingredient.  A similar problem occurs when the product used contains more than one active ingredient. (In any pesticide product, the active ingredient is the component that 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. 

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 is 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.

Outliers

In calculating the total pounds of pesticides used in these tables, DPR excluded values for rates of use that 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 uses); 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, when available, will more accurately reflect the total pounds applied.

Pesticide Use In California

In 2006, there were 189,576,938 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 195 million pounds in 2005, 180 million pounds in 2004, 176 million pounds in 2003, and 170 million pounds in 2002.

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.

Sales data for 2006 are in the process of being reviewed and will be released in January 2008, so are not yet available for this report. There were 611 million pounds sold in 2005, 667 million pounds 2004, 661 million pounds in 2003, and 598 million pounds in 2002. 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 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, respectively, without indicating an increased reliance on pesticides.

Table 1. Total pounds of pesticide active ingredients reported in each county and rank during 2005 and 2006.

  2005 Pesticide Use 2006 Pesticide Use
County Pounds Applied Rank Pounds Applied Rank
Alameda 358,443 39 259,013 41
Alpine 195 58 64 58
Amador 150,079 43 92,679 45
Butte 3,146,974 18 3,445,277 13
Calaveras 39,379 48 49,205 50
Colusa 1,908,716 23 2,100,392 22
Contra Costa 883,597 31 2,218,546 21
Del Norte 363,736 38 307,890 40
El Dorado 130,004 45 113,738 43
Fresno 32,104,029 1 31,839,898 1
Glenn 2,212,665 22 2,476,359 20
Humboldt 57,682 47 70,769 47
Imperial 6,063,076 10 4,820,543 11
Inyo 6,211 54 16,839 52
Kern 28,184,187 2 30,104,107 2
Kings 6,316,230 9 6,190,881 9
Lake 757,574 35 525,120 36
Lassen 143,329 44 96,273 44
Los Angeles 3,259,438 16 2,641,098 17
Madera 11,236,974 5 9,737,491 5
Marin 58,474 46 58,341 49
Mariposa 5,971 55 7,445 54
Mendocino 1,213,175 28 1,094,588 30
Merced 7,114,980 7 7,329,441 7
Modoc 440,263 37 199,366 42
Mono 2,414 56 4,354 57
Monterey 8,674,310 6 8,209,012 6
Napa 2,338,209 21 1,505,776 26
Nevada 35,843 49 59,993 48
Orange 1,499,748 26 1,264,641 29
Placer 318,173 40 327,779 39
Plumas 7,352 53 7,047 55
Riverside 3,202,340 17 2,602,434 18
Sacramento 3,948,361 13 3,294,073 14
San Benito 764,545 34 751,580 34
San Bernardino 520,552 36 576,005 35
San Diego 1,670,746 25 2,013,072 24
San Francisco 23,510 51 88,393 46
San Joaquin 11,913,039 4 11,295,680 4
San Luis Obispo 2,509,106 20 2,086,420 23
San Mateo 275,592 41 365,491 38
Santa Barbara 4,349,957 12 4,072,266 12
Santa Clara 951,455 30 1,388,327 28
Santa Cruz 1,684,259 24 1,722,369 25
Shasta 217,793 42 371,317 37
Sierra 2,360 57 6,661 56
Siskiyou 841,236 33 949,326 31
Solano 1,016,185 29 791,365 33
Sonoma 3,368,231 14 2,531,626 19
Stanislaus 6,020,445 11 5,590,622 10
Sutter 3,309,522 15 3,156,692 15
Tehama 865,830 32 823,095 32
Trinity 11,972 52 10,621 53
Tulare 17,535,850 3 16,985,444 3
Tuolumne 30,034 50 28,397 51
Ventura 6,869,950 8 6,862,378 8
Yolo 2,829,026 19 2,648,416 16
Yuba 1,499,734 27 1,390,902 27
Total 195,263,057   189,576,938  

 

Table 2. Pounds of pesticide active ingredients, 1996 – 2006, by general use categories.

Year Production
Agriculture 		Postharvest
Fumigation		 Structural
Pest Control 		Landscape
Maintenance		 All Others* Total Pounds
1996 183,222,942 2,358,093 4,672,859 1,251,975 7,608,989 199,114,858
1997 192,577,086 1,720,696 5,185,923 1,225,365 6,972,132 207,681,203
1998 200,917,991 1,707,519 5,930,239 1,396,233 6,831,459 216,783,441
1999 186,545,985 2,021,893 5,673,318 1,398,398 7,863,022 203,502,616
2000 173,139,552 2,117,018 5,184,686 1,402,827 6,783,178 188,627,261
2001 139,240,354 1,438,309 4,921,897 1,282,288 6,264,659 153,147,508
2002 154,653,274 1,841,493 5,469,435 1,440,557 6,693,912 170,098,670
2003 160,050,159 1,823,261 5,175,354 1,961,065 7,413,865 176,423,703
2004 164,847,199 1,901,504 5,129,734 1,600,583 6,982,124 180,461,145
2005 177,049,046 2,329,136 5,624,324 1,761,405 8,499,147 195,263,057
2006 167,004,409 2,176,666 5,318,467 2,258,530 12,818,866 189,576,938

* 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 2006 totaled 190 million pounds, a decrease of nearly 6 million pounds from 2005.  Production agriculture, the major category of use subject to reporting requirements, accounted for most of the overall decrease in use. Applications for production agriculture decreased by 10 million pounds.  However, there was an increase of 0.5 million pounds in landscape maintenance, 2.2 million pound increase in public health (mostly mosquito control), and 2.1 million pound increase in fumigation of nonfood and nonfeed materials such as lumber, furniture, etc.

The active ingredients (AI) with the largest uses by pounds in 2006 were sulfur, petroleum and mineral oils, metam-sodium, copper compounds, and 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D).  Most of the decline in pesticide use was from sulfur, which decreased by 15 million pounds (-25 percent).  However, sulfur was still the most highly used non-adjuvant pesticide in 2006, both in pounds applied and acres treated. By pounds, sulfur accounted for 24 percent of all reported pesticide use. Sulfur is a natural fungicide favored by both conventional and organic farmers.  Other pesticides that declined in use include metam-sodium (1.6 million pound decrease, -13 percent), copper (310,000 pound decrease, -3 percent), and 1,3-D (763,000 pound decrease, -8 percent). 

In contrast, some pesticide use increased.  Non-adjuvant pesticides with the greatest increase in pounds applied were oil (6.4 million pound increase, 22 percent) and metam-potassium (1.2 million pound increase, 61 percent).

Major crops or sites that showed an overall increase in pesticide pounds applied from 2005 to 2006 included almonds (4.1 million pounds increase), public health (2.2 million pounds), unspecified fumigations (2.1 million pounds), pistachio (1.8 million pounds), and processing tomatoes (960,000 pounds).  Major crops or sites with decreased pounds applied included wine grapes (8.5 million pounds decrease), raisin and table grapes (5.5 million pounds), cotton (1.5 million pounds), carrots (1.3 million pounds), and sugarbeets (630,000 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.  Of the different AI types, insecticides had the greatest increase by pounds.  But the vast majority of this increase was from use of oils.  By acres treated, insecticide use increased only slightly.  Herbicide use had the next largest increase by pounds and the largest increase by acres treated.  Fungicide use (other than sulfur) decreased slightly by pounds but increased by acres treated.  Similarly, pounds of fumigants decreased but acres treated with fumigants increased. 

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.)

To provide an overview, pesticide use is summarized for eight different pesticide categories from 1996 to 2006 (Tables 3–10) and from 1994 to 2006 (Figures 1–8). These categories classify pesticides according to certain characteristics such as reproductive toxins, carcinogens, or reduced-risk characteristics.  Use of most pesticide categories decreased from 2005 to 2006, except for increases in pounds of groundwater contaminants and acres treated with fumigants.  Some of the major changes from 2005 to 2006 include:

  • Chemicals classified as reproductive toxins decreased in pounds applied from 2005 to 2006 (down 2.0 million pounds or -9.3 percent) and decreased in acres treated (down 350,000 acres or -17 percent).  The decrease in pounds was mostly from decreases in the fumigant metam-sodium and the decrease in acres was mostly from decreases in the miticide propargite.  By acres treated, use of metam-sodium actually increased.  The pesticides in this category are ones listed on the State's Proposition 65 list of chemicals "known to cause reproductive toxicity”.
  • Use of chemicals classified as carcinogens decreased from 2005 to 2006 (down 1.8 million pounds or -6.5 percent and down 288,000 acres or -7.2 percent).  The decrease in pounds was mainly due to a decrease in use of the fumigants metam-sodium and 1,3-dichloropropene and the miticide propargite. The decrease in acres treated was mostly from decrease in propargite.  The pesticides in this category are ones listed by U.S. EPA as B2 carcinogens or on the State’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals "known to cause cancer”.
  • Use of insecticide organophosphate and carbamate chemicals, which include compounds of high regulatory concern, continued to decline as they have for nearly every year since 1995.  Pounds decreased by 635,000 (-8.5 percent) and acres treated decreased by 668,000 (-10 percent).  The AIs with the greatest decreases in pounds were thiobencarb, chlorpyrifos, and EPTC; the AIs with the greatest decreases in acres treated were chlorpyrifos, methomyl, and dimethoate.  Use of most OPs and carbamates decreased; however, use of bensulide and phosmet increased.
  • Pounds of all chemicals categorized as ground water contaminants increased by 124,000 pounds (7.1 percent), but acres treated remained about the same. Pounds of each groundwater contaminant AI increased.  However, acres treated with atrazine, bentazon, bromacil, and diuron decreased while acres treated with simazine, norflurazon, and prometon increased. 
  • Chemicals categorized as toxic air contaminants, another group of pesticides of regulatory concern, decreased from 2005 to 2006. Use decreased by 1.0 million pounds (-2.5 percent) and by 106,000 acres treated (-2.8 percent). By pounds most toxic air contaminants are fumigants, which are used at high rates, and use of most fumigants, except potassium n-methyldithiocarbamate (metam potassium), decreased.  By acres treated, the main decreasing AIs were the fungicide maneb, the herbicide 2,4-D, and the defoliant S,S,S-tributyl phosphorotrithioate.
  • Fumigant chemicals decreased in pounds applied from 2005 to 2006 (down 1.7 million pounds or -4.3 percent) but increased in cumulative acres treated (up 28,000 acres or 8.4 percent). Pounds of 4 of the 8 major fumigants decreased (metam-sodium, 1,3-D, sulfuryl fluoride, and sodium tetrathiocarbonate) and pounds of 4 fumigants increased (methyl bromide, chloropicrin, metam-potassium, and aluminum phosphide).  By acres treated, use of all major fumigants increased except for 1,3-D and sodium tetrathiocarbonate.
  • Use of oil pesticides increased by 6.4 million pounds (22 percent) and 472,000 acres (17 percent).  Oils include many different chemicals, but the category used here includes only ones derived from petroleum distillation. Some of these oils may be on the State’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals “known to cause cancer” but most serve as alternatives to high-toxicity pesticides.  Oils are also used by organic growers.
  • Biopesticide use decreased by 178,000 pounds (-17 percent) and by 145,000 acres treated (-5.8 percent) from 2005 to 2006. The largest decrease, both in pounds and acres treated, was in use of potassium bicarbonate.   If that AI were excluded, pounds of biopesticides would have increased.  Other biopesticides with decreasing pounds were liquefied nitrogen and neem oil.  AIs with the greatest increase in pounds were soybean oil and Bacillus thuringiensis.  By acres treated, the AI with second greatest decrease was Bacillus thuringiensis then gamma aminobutyric acid/glutamic acid. 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).

Since 1993, 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 2005 or the decreased use from 1998 to 2001. However, regression analyses on use from 1993 to 2006 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

The summaries detailed in the following use 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.)

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 FUMIGANT PESTICIDES

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

Figure 6. Use trends of fumigant pesticides. 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 9A. 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 9B. 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 7. 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 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 in California with each biopesticide. Biopesticides includes microorganisms and naturally occurring compounds, or compounds essentially identical to naturally occurring compounds that are not toxic to the target pest (such as pheromones). Use includes primarily agricultural applications. The grand total for acres treated is less than the sum of acres for all active ingredients because some products contain more than one active ingredient. Zero values in early years likely indicate the pesticide was not yet registered for use. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use Reports.

Figure 8. Use trends of biopesticides. Biopesticides include microorganisms and naturally occurring compounds, or compounds essentially identical to naturally occurring compounds that are not toxic to the target pest (such as pheromones).  Reported pounds of active ingredient (AI) applied 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.

 

 

V. TRENDS IN PESTICIDE USE IN CERTAIN COMMODITIES

This summary describes possible reasons for changes in pesticide use from 2005 to 2006 for the following commodities:  (1) almonds, (2) cotton, (3) wine grapes, (4) table and raisin grapes,  (5) alfalfa, (6) processing tomatoes, (7) oranges, (8) head lettuce, (9) rice, (10) peaches and nectarines, (11) strawberries, and (12) carrots.  These 12 commodities were chosen because each were treated with more than 5 million pounds of active ingredients (AI) or cumulatively treated on more than 2 million acres.  Collectively, this represents 66 percent of all reported pesticide pounds used (74 percent of all pounds used on agricultural fields) and 71 percent of the acres treated in 2006.  

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.  DPR staff analyzed the information, using their extensive knowledge of pesticides, California agriculture, pests, and pest management practices to draw conclusions about possible explanations for changes in pesticide use.  However, it is important to note these explanations are based on anecdotal information, not rigorous statistical analyses. 

Reported pesticide use in California in 2006 totaled 190 million pounds, a decrease of 6 million pounds from 2005 (-2.9 percent).  The AIs with the largest uses by pounds were sulfur, petroleum and mineral oils, metam-sodium, copper compounds, and 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D).  By pounds, sulfur accounted for 24 percent of all reported pesticide use in 2006 and accounted for most of the decrease in pesticide use from 2005 to 2006.  Sulfur use decreased by 15 million pounds (-25 percent) but was still the most highly used pesticide in 2006 by pounds applied.  Sulfur is a natural fungicide favored by both conventional and organic farmers and is used mostly to control powdery mildew on grapes.  Other pesticides that declined in use include the fumigant metam-sodium (1.6 million pound decrease, -13 percent), the fungicide copper (310,000 pound decrease, -3 percent), and the fumigant 1,3-D (763,000 pound decrease, -8 percent). 

In contrast, some pesticide use increased.  Non-adjuvant pesticides with the greatest increase in pounds applied were oil (6.4 million pound increase, 22 percent), the fumigant potassium n-methyldithiocarbamate (also called metam-potassium) (1.2 million pound increase, 61 percent), and the herbicide glyphosate (733,000 pound increase, 11 percent).  Most oils are low risk pesticides frequently used to control insects and mites.  In 2006 oils were used mostly on almonds and oranges.  About 40 percent of the total pounds of metam-sodium were on carrots, with processing tomatoes and potato accounting for another 30 percent.  Metam-potassium was used mostly on carrots and processing tomatoes and glyphosate on rights of way 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.

Although pounds of pesticides decreased, acres treated increased by 4 million (3.7 percent).  By acres treated, the non-adjuvant pesticides with the greatest use in 2006 were sulfur, glyphosate, oils, copper compounds, and oxyfluorfen.  Most of the increase in total acres treated was from increased use of oil, pyraclostrobin, and carfentrazone-ethyl, which are usually considered low

risk.  Pyraclostrobin is a fungicide used mostly on almonds and grapes.  The herbicide carfentrazone-ethyl was used mostly on almonds and small grains by acres treated.  Most of the acres treated with copper are on grapes to control downy mildew and summer bunch rot.  The herbicide oxyfluorfen is often applied with glyphosate in almonds.

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.  From the end of February through most of April 2006 the weather was cool and rainy so diseases of many crops were worse than in most recent years, except for 2005, when the weather was similar.  Use of herbicides and insecticides were generally higher in 2006 than 2005, but pounds of fumigants were less.  Prices for most of the 12 crops improved in 2006 and acres planted or harvested for a little over half decreased.

In the following tables, 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 the same acre is treated three times in a calendar year with an individual AI, it is counted as three acres treated).

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 and Spain remain the two top markets followed by India, Japan and China, representing 50 percent of all California almond exports.  There are three distinct almond growing regions in California, the Sacramento Valley, Central San Joaquin Valley and Southern San Joaquin Valley. Weather conditions and pest pressure can vary greatly from the northern region to the south.

Table 11A. Total reported pounds of all active ingredients (AIs), acres treated, acres planted, and prices for almonds each year from 2002 to 2006. Planted acres from 2001 to 2005 are from CDFA 2006; planted acres in 2006 are from NASS, May 2007a; marketing year average prices from 2001 to 2006 from NASS, July 2007b.

 
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Lbs AI
11,943,154
13,351,612
16,200,416
17,172,983
21,257,929
Acres Treated
5,522,331
6,353,573
7,316,371
8,898,987
11,215,120
Acres Planted
605,000
610,000
640,000
680,000
730,000
Price $/lb
$1.11
$1.57
$2.21
$2.81
$1.87

Table 11B. Percent difference from previous year for reported pounds of all AIs, acres treated, acres planted, and prices for almonds from 2002 to 2006.

 
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Lbs AI
17
12
21
6
24
Acres Treated
8
15
15
22
26
Acres Planted
1
1
5
6
7
Price $/lb
22
41
41
27
-33

Figure 9. Acres of almonds treated by all AIs in the major types of pesticides from 1994 to 2006.

Figure 9

Table 11C. The non-adjuvant pesticides with the largest change in acres treated of almonds from 2005 to 2006.  This table shows acres treated with AI each year from 2002 to 2006, the change in acres treated and percent change from 2005 to 2006.

AI
AI TYPE
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Change
Pct Change
PYRACLOSTROBIN
FUNGICIDE
0
0
74,064
266,613
473,210
206,597
77
BOSCALID
FUNGICIDE
0
0
74,064
266,613
473,210
206,597
77
CHLORPYRIFOS
INSECTICIDE
92,361
120,255
153,321
155,355
293,471
138,115
89
OIL
INSECTICIDE
380,687
381,802
483,367
544,607
679,011
134,404
25
GLYPHOSATE
HERBICIDE
931,671
947,935
1,034,569
1,223,314
1,342,067
118,753
10
CARFENTRAZONE-ETHYL
HERBICIDE
0
0
0
6,178
118,188
112,010
1,813
ABAMECTIN
INSECTICIDE
263,215
261,299
342,920
426,347
514,391
88,044
21
ESFENVALERATE
INSECTICIDE
113,672
138,497
144,053
146,702
210,652
63,950
44
OXYFLUORFEN
HERBICIDE
497,148
498,675
585,731
631,310
695,139
63,829
10
PARAQUAT DICHLORIDE
HERBICIDE
197,330
176,178
242,179
286,201
349,159
62,958
22
PYRIMETHANIL
FUNGICIDE
0
0
0
0
57,070
57,070
 
MANEB
FUNGICIDE
38,207
47,617
37,858
18,257
73,091
54,834
300
ZIRAM
FUNGICIDE
81,964
101,140
61,926
104,207
155,830
51,623
50
COPPER
FUNGICIDE
124,113
150,598
180,138
171,807
221,200
49,392
29
PROPARGITE
INSECTICIDE
128,836
137,299
116,550
111,887
64,687
-47,200
-42

Pounds of pesticide active ingredients in almonds increased by 24 percent from 2005 to 2006 and acres treated increased by 26 percent.  Use of insecticides, fungicides, and herbicides all increased, though fungicide use increased by the greatest percent.   Part of the increase in pesticide use can be explained by 7 percent increase in planted acres.  In addition, even though almond prices decreased in 2006, the average price returns to growers remains strong, and growers in 2006 anticipated a price increase. Historically, when growers anticipate higher prices they are more inclined to apply pesticides to protect the crop.

Fungicide use increased primarily because wet and cool conditions prevailed in March and April in all growing regions.  These conditions resulted in problems with rust, scab, and anthracnose.  Some growers reported as many as five applications of fungicide, which is a bit unusual. The most commonly used fungicides and the fungicides with the largest increase in use, were pyraclostrobin and boscalid, which are both present in the same pesticide product.  These were used to manage scab and anthracnose. Maneb and captan were used primarily for rust.

In the Sacramento Valley insect pressure was light in 2006 and insecticide use per acre planted remained nearly constant.  Most of the increased insecticide use occurred in the San Joaquin Valley region where San Jose Scale (SJS) and peach twig borer (PTB) got lots of attention with the use of oils, methidathion, and diflubenzuron in the dormant season. Buprofezin also showed an increase. PCAs are realizing that this buprofezin does well in the dormant season for SJS and will use it to a greater extent as a replacement for OPs and carbamates.  Diflubenzuron and buprofezin are insect growth regulators and have low toxicity to mammals. 
A significant infestation of the leaffooted plant bug, particularly in the central and southern region resulted in the increased use of chlorpyrifos. In addition, chlorpyrifos, phosmet and methoxyfenozide are replacing the use of azinphos-methyl.  The 89 percent increase in chlorpyrifos is likely due to its use to control SJS, ants and navel orangeworm (NOW), as well as the leaffooted bug.  Some growers reported two applications to control NOW at hull split which is a bit unusual. Again, this is likely due in part to the perceived value of almonds in 2006 and growers wanting to protect their investment.  However, growers in all regions reported use of winter sanitation to reduce over-wintering populations of NOW.   Abamectin showed an increase, however, this could be explained at least partially by the corresponding reduction in use of propargite, both of which are used to control mites.  

Due to the long wet spring weeds were a problem resulting in increased use of paraquat dichloride and glyphosate. The use of carfentrazone-ethyl and glufosinate-ammonium showed big increases due to some weed species becoming resistant to glyphosate. The use of pendimethalin continues to increase on non-bearing acreage due to the big increase in almond acreage planted. Tank mixes with glyphosate and oxyfluorfen, or glyphosate and oryzalin have been a standard herbicide mix for years. Growers sometimes will use oxyfluorfen at a low rate to take advantage of its contact action as a boost for glyphosate Also, oryzalin was in short supply for several years. It is now available again and use is increasing.

The use of the fumigant 1,3–D decreased in 2006, and methyl bromide use stayed about the same as 2005. This could be attributed to fewer newly planted orchards in 2006 than in 2005. Newly planted acreage normally requires a one-time preplant fumigation.

Cotton

Cotton is grown for fiber, oil, and animal feed and is one of the five most widely grown crops in California. Two main kinds of cotton are grown: upland and Pima. Pima cotton acreage has been increasing and upland cotton decreasing.  In 2006 the acres of these two kinds of cotton were nearly the same.  However, total cotton acres planted decreased by 15 percent from 2005 to 2006. Some upland cotton has also been genetically modified to be tolerant to the herbicide glyphosate (Roundup); acres planted with Roundup Ready cotton decreased by 34 percent from 2005 to 2006. 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 12A. Total reported pounds of all active ingredients (AIs), acres treated, acres planted, and prices for cotton each year from 2002 to 2006. Planted acres from 2001 to 2005 are from CDFA 2006; planted acres in 2006 are from NASS, June 2007; marketing year average prices from 2001 to 2004 are from NASS, July 2003, July 2004, and July 2006; 2005 and 2006 prices are from NASS, July 2007b.

 
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Lbs AI
7,257,808
7,278,615
7,171,060
7,005,542
5,469,481
Acres Treated
8,661,444
10,529,041
10,422,661
11,416,289
9,655,117
Acres Planted Upland Cotton
480,000
550,000
560,000
430,000
285,000
Acres Planted Pima Cotton
210,000
150,000
215,000
230,000
275,000
Acres Planted Roundup-Ready
124,800
148,500
218,400
172,000
114,000
Acres Planted Total
690,000
700,000
775,000
660,000
560,000
Price Upland $/lbs
$0.573
$0.745
$0.516
$0.604
$0.572
Price Pima $/lbs
$0.860
$1.230
$0.882
$1.260
$1.040
Price All
$0.660
$0.849
$0.618
$0.833
$0.802

Table 12B. Percent difference from previous year for reported pounds of all AIs, acres treated, acres planted, and prices for cotton from 2002 to 2006.

 
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Lbs AI
-11
0
-1
-2
-22
Acres Treated
-14
22
-1
10
-15
Acres Planted Upland Cotton
-24
15
2
-23
-34
Acres Planted Pima Cotton
-13
-29
43
7
20
Acres Planted Roundup-Ready
-27
19
47
-21
-34
Acres Planted Total
-21
1
11
-15
-15
Price Upland $/lbs
38
30
-31
17
-5