Summary of Pesticide Use Report Data - 2015

Back to 2015 Pesticide Use Reporting (PUR) Menu


CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PESTICIDE REGULATION
California Environmental Protection Agency
1001 I Street
Sacramento, California 95814-3510
Edmund G. Brown Jr., Governor
Matt Rodriquez, Secretary for California Environmental Protection Agency
Brian R. Leahy, Director of Department of Pesticide Regulation
State Seal

April 2017

Any portion of this report may be reproduced for any but profit-making purposes.
If you have questions concerning this report, contact PUR.Inquiry@cdpr.ca.gov.

Contents

How To Access the Summary of Pesticide Use Report Data

I.  Introduction

II.  Comments and Clarifications of Data

III.  Data Summary

IV.  Trends in Pesticide Use in Certain Pesticide Categories

V.  Trends in Pesticide Use in Certain Commodities

VI.  Summary of Pesticide Use Report Data 2015 Indexed by Commodity, PDF (10 mb)

       Summary of Pesticide Use Report Data 2015 Indexed by Chemical, PDF (10 mb)

Appendix


How to Access the Summary of Pesticide Use Report Data

The Summary of Pesticide Use Report Data issued by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) for the years 1989-2015 can be found by selecting the year from the drop-down menu under the Pesticide Use Annual Summary Reports section at www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/purmain.htm. The tables in the Statewide Report and County Summary Reports list the pounds of active ingredient (AI) applied, the number of applications, and the number of acres or other unit treated. The data is available in two formats:

  • Indexed by chemical: The report indexed by chemical shows all the commodities and sites in which a particular AI was applied.
  • Indexed by commodity: The report indexed by commodity shows all the AIs that were applied to a particular commodity or site.

The data used in the Pesticide Use Annual Summary Reports for 1989 to 2015 are available on CD and on the Department’s File Transfer Protocol (FTP) site at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur_archives/. The FTP site also includes data for the years 1974 to 1989. The files are in text (comma-delimited) format. Data obtained from the FTP site does not include updates that occur after the Pesticide Use Annual Summary was released. For the most up-to-date data, use the online California Information Portal (CalPIP) at http://calpip.cdpr.ca.gov/main.cfm or contact DPR at PUR.Inquiry@cdpr.ca.gov

Please direct any questions regarding the Summary of Pesticide Use Report Data to the Department of Pesticide Regulation, Pest Management and Licensing Branch, P.O. Box 4015, Sacramento, California 95812-4015, or you may request copies of the data by contacting PUR.Inquiry@cdpr.ca.gov


I. Introduction

California’s pesticide use reporting program is the most comprehensive in the world. California has reported pesticide use in some form since 1934. However the detailed reporting that occurs today did not begin until the 1990s. Until 1954, only statistics on aerial pesticide applications were recorded. In 1954, state regulators asked for reports on ground application acreage, without any detailed information about the pesticides used or commodities treated. In 1970, farmers were required to report all applications of restricted materials and pest control operators were required to report all pesticides used. The Food Safety Act of 1989 (Chapter 1200, AB 2161) gave DPR statutory authority to require full reporting of agricultural pesticide use. In 1990, California became the first state requiring full reporting of agricultural pesticide use to better inform DPR’s pesticide regulatory programs. Prior to full reporting, the regulatory program’s estimates of pesticide use frequently relied on maximum rates and applications as listed on the label, overstating many risks. Over the years, these data have been used by a variety of individuals and groups, including government officials, scientists, growers, legislators, and public interest groups. Most pesticide use data required to be reported must be sent to the county agricultural commissioner (CAC), who then reports the data to DPR. In the last few years, DPR has annually collected and processed more than three million records of pesticide applications. (A pesticide application record represents an individual pesticide product, even if it was applied simultaneously with other products in the field or if it contained more than one AI).

California’s broad definition of “agricultural use” requires reporting pesticide applications in production agriculture, parks, golf courses, cemeteries, rangeland, pastures, and along roadside and railroad rights-of-way. Each application of pesticide on crops (production agriculture) must include the site name given to a location or field by the CAC as well as the section (square mile) in which the application occurred. Most other uses are aggregated and reported by month with only the county identified. These other uses include rights-of-way applications, all postharvest pesticide treatments of agricultural commodities, structural applications by licensed applicators, all pesticide treatments in poultry and fish production, and some livestock applications. In addition, all applications made by licensed applicators and outdoor applications of pesticides that have the potential to pollute ground water must be reported. The primary exceptions to the reporting requirements are home-and-garden use and most industrial and institutional uses.

In addition to requiring pesticide use reporting, California law (Food and Agricultural Code [FAC] section 12979) directs DPR to use the reports in setting priorities for monitoring food, enforcing pesticide laws, protecting the safety of farm workers, monitoring the environment for unanticipated residues, researching pest management practices, monitoring and researching public health issues, and similar activities. These activities help DPR continuously evaluate currently registered pesticides (FAC section 12824), another mandated activity. Information gathered during continuous evaluation is used to gauge the performance of DPR’s regulatory programs and justify additional measures, including development of new regulations or reevaluation or cancellation of pesticide registrations. California Code of Regulations Title 3, sections 6624 et seq. further describe pesticide use record keeping and reporting requirements.

Continuous Evaluation of Pesticides

The Pesticide Use Report (PUR) greatly increases the accuracy and efficiency of continuous evaluation of pesticides by providing details on each application, including date, location, site (e.g., crop), time, acres or units treated, and the identity and quantity of each pesticide product applied. These data allow scientists and others to identify trends in pesticide use, compare use locations with other geographical information and data, and perform quantitative assessments and evaluations of risks pesticides may pose to human health and the environment.

DPR uses the PUR throughout its pesticide regulatory programs in ways that can be broadly grouped as temporal (time), geospatial (place), and quantitative (amount), often combining elements of each.

Temporal analyses can pinpoint specific applications or span many years. Investigations into suspected worker illnesses, spray drift, fish or wildlife losses, or other enforcement inquiries frequently begin with a review of the PUR to see what applications were made in an area at a particular time. Protection of ground and surface waters, assessments of acute and chronic risks to human health, and allocation of monitoring and enforcement resources often begin with analyses of PUR data spanning many years to evaluate pesticide use trends.

Geospatial analyses may be local or expansive. Local analyses are used to help set priorities for surface and ground water monitoring programs by determining pesticide use and runoff potential in specific watersheds or other defined areas. DPR scientists calculate contributions of smog-forming volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the atmosphere using reliable pesticide use data and emissions data on products. DPR further refines the analyses to specific air basins that are particularly vulnerable to air pollution to determine whether pesticide-related VOC emissions are below required targets or whether additional restrictions on use may be warranted to protect air quality. More expansive analyses examine the proximity of pesticide use to endangered species habitat, resulting in the development of best use practices to protect these species. These analyses are invaluable when assessing regulatory responses or evaluating the performance of voluntary stewardship efforts.

Quantitative assessments are broadly used to model risks of pesticide use to humans and the environment. The quality and depth of the information provided in the PUR allow researchers to apply realistic assumptions when modeling pesticide exposure. PUR data have been used to model pesticide exposure of people who live near agricultural lands, workers in the field, handlers preparing and applying pesticides, and aquatic organisms inhabiting waterways that receive agricultural runoff. Analysis of the PUR enables well-informed and realistic assessments for risk management decisions.

The passage of the federal Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996 launched the PUR into a more integral role as a tool for monitoring and achieving compliance with updated food safety regulations. The FQPA contained a new food safety standard against which all pesticide tolerances–amounts of pesticide residue allowed by federal law to remain on a harvested crop–must be measured. PUR data became increasingly important to commodity groups, University of California (UC) specialists, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), and other interested parties as they reassessed tolerances and calculated dietary risks from pesticides based on actual reported uses.

PUR information such as pesticide type, use rates, geographical locations, crops, and timing of applications help researchers understand how various pest management options are implemented in the field. Analyses of these data are the basis for grant projects that DPR funds to promote the development and adoption of integrated pest management practices in both agricultural and urban settings

The PUR data are used by state, regional, and local agencies, scientists, and public interest groups. The data are an invaluable tool for understanding pesticide use in order to protect human health and the environment while balancing the population’s need for quality food, fiber, shelter, and surroundings.

Data Collection

Partial reporting of agricultural pesticide use has been in place in California since at least the 1950s. In the early years, CACs required agricultural pest control operators to submit monthly reports. County requirements varied, but many reports included a statement for each application that showed the grower’s name, the location and date of the application, the crop and the size of area treated, the target pest, and the type and amount of pesticide applied. Only statistics on aerial pesticide applications were forwarded to the state for tabulation. In 1955, state regulators asked for reports on ground application acreage but discontinued requirements for detailed reporting of pesticides used and commodities treated. In 1970, DPR required farmers to report all applications of restricted-use pesticides, and pest control operators to report all pesticides used, whether restricted or not. Both kinds of reports had to include the date, location, site (e.g., crop), acres or units treated, and the id entity and quantity of each pesticide applied. Production agricultural applications included records for each application and the location to within a square mile area (section, township, and range); all other applications were reported as a monthly summary by county. The reports were filed with the CAC, who forwarded the data to the state, where it was entered into a database and summarized in annual publications.

The Food Safety Act of 1989 (Chapter 12001, Assembly Bill 2161) gave DPR statutory authority to require full reporting of pesticide use. DPR adopted regulations the same year and full-use reporting began in 1990. The first years of full-use reporting nearly overwhelmed DPR’s capacity to process data. Use reports were on paper, and required staff to manually enter data from more than a million records each year. DPR began searching almost immediately for ways to automate reporting from pesticide users to the CAC, and, in turn, from the counties to DPR. However, it was difficult to find an approach that suited the diversity of use reporting and differing budget resources among the counties. Starting in 1991, various automated programs were developed and modified by DPR and CACs. Meanwhile, technological progress and increasing use of online resources by businesses fed expectations for more web-based functionality for pesticide use reporting.

CalAgPermits

In 2011, the counties implemented CalAgPermits, a standardized, web-based system that greatly enhanced the efficiency of data entry and transfer, and thus the accuracy and integrity of the PUR database. In addition to helping CACs issue restricted-materials permits, it allowed individuals and firms the option of reporting pesticide use electronically. CalAgPermits also greatly enhanced data quality assurance by automating data validation and error checking of submitted pesticide use reports before transmission to DPR. The many improvements in the ability to share data electronically between DPR and CACs have greatly improved the efficiency and effectiveness of quality control for the PUR.

Improving Accuracy

DPR checks the accuracy of PUR data many times between the initial data entry and before it is made available to the public. CalAgPermits checks for data entry errors, such as whether the pesticide applicator has the correct permits for any restricted materials reported or whether the pesticide product is allowed on the reported application site. Once the data have been received by DPR they undergo more than 50 different validity checks such as verifying product registration numbers and confirming that products are registered for use on the reported site of application. The PUR database may include products that do not have an active registration since end-users are allowed to continue using stocks purchased prior to a product’s registration becoming inactive. Records flagged for suspected errors are returned electronically to the county for resolution. Additional data checks are performed to identify errors and outliers in pesticide use amounts via an extensive statistical method developed by DPR in the late 1990s. If a reported use rate (amount of pesticide per area treated) greatly exceeds maximum label rates, it is flagged as an error and sent back to the CAC to confirm. If the county is unable to identify the correct rate, an estimated rate equal to the median rate of all other applications of the pesticide product on the same crop or site is used instead. Although less than one percent of the reports are flagged with this type of error, some errors are so large that if included, they would significantly affect the total cumulative amount of applied pesticide. For more information on errors and identifying outliers in the PUR, see www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/outlier.pdf and www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pestmgt/pubs/pm9801.pdf.

Improving Access to the Data

There are several ways to access the PUR data. Annual reports serve as an accessible snapshot summary of the much larger PUR database. Before the late 1990s, summaries were only available in hard copy and only by request, indexed by AI and commodity with summaries of pesticide use by county. As use of online resources increased, DPR improved public access to the data and presented it in a more meaningful context, posting the summary annually on its website. In addition, the PUR data used in each annual report from 1974 on can be downloaded from DPR’s FTP website ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur_archives. This data does not include any updates that may have occurred after the release of the annual report.

In 2003, DPR launched the web-based California Pesticide Information Portal (CalPIP) database to increase public access to the PUR. CalPIP provides pesticide use information including date, site or crop treated, pounds used, acres treated, pesticide product name, AI name, application pattern (ground, air, or other), county, ZIP code, and location where the application was made to within a one-square-mile area. CalPIP annually updates any changes due to errors identified after the annual report has been released, so it is the most up-to-date source of pesticide information available via the website.

Starting in 1996, DPR scientists began analyzing critical crops and their pest problems as well as trends in the pounds of pesticides used, and the number of applications and acres treated. Each year, the annual report charts pesticide use over several years in specific categories:

  • Reproductive toxins
  • Carcinogens
  • Insecticide organophosphate and carbamate chemicals
  • Chemicals classified by DPR as ground water contaminants
  • Chemicals listed by DPR as toxic air contaminants
  • Fumigants
  • Oil pesticides derived from petroleum distillation (some may be on the state’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals “known to cause cancer,” but most serve as alternatives to high-toxicity pesticides)
  • Biopesticides (including microorganisms, naturally occurring compounds, or compounds essentially identical to naturally occurring compounds that are not toxic to the target pest, such as pheromones)
  • Crops (DPR analyzes pesticide use trends for around a dozen crops with the highest amount of pesticide used or acreage treated)

Pesticide use trend analyses can help regulatory agencies understand where efforts to promote reduced-risk pest management strategies are succeeding or failing. Information on long-term trends also helps researchers better identify emerging challenges and direct research to finding solutions.

II. Comments and Clarifications of Data

The following comments and points should be taken into consideration when analyzing data contained in this report.

Terminology

  • Product versus active ingredient (AI): A pesticide product contains both active and inert ingredients. An AI is a component of a pesticide product that controls target pests. There can be more than one AI in a product. Inert ingredients are all the other ingredients of the product which do not target the pest but may enhance product performance and application. Pesticide use is reported to DPR at the product level, where the associated AIs are identified and their use trends are analyzed.
  • 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 AI.
  • Unit type: The type of area treated with the pesticide:
    • A = Acreage
    • C = Cubic feet (usually of post-harvest commodity treated)
    • K = Thousand cubic feet (usually of post-harvest commodity treated)
    • P = Pounds (usually of post-harvest commodity treated)
    • S = Square feet
    • T = Tons (usually of post-harvest commodity treated)
    • U = Miscellaneous units (e.g., number of tractors, trees, tree holes, bins)
  • Acres treated: Cumulative number of acres treated. More detailed information is given below under “Acres Treated.”

Agricultural and Non-Agricultural Pesticide Use

Many pesticide licensing, sales, and use requirements are tied to California’s definition of agricultural use. Pesticide labels differentiate between agricultural, industrial, or institutional uses. Some pesticide products are labeled for both agricultural and nonagricultural uses.

California law (FAC section 11408) identifies agricultural use as all use except the following categories specifically identified as nonagricultural use:

  • Home: Use in or around the immediate environment of a household
  • Industrial: Use in or on property necessary to operate factories, processing plants, packing houses, or similar buildings or use for a manufacturing, mining, or chemical process. In California, industrial use does not include use on rights-of-way. Postharvest commodity fumigations for buildings or on trucks, vans, or railcars are normally industrial use.
  • Institutional: Use in or on property necessary to operate buildings such as hospitals, office buildings, libraries, auditoriums, or schools. When a licensed structural pest control operator treats these buildings, it is structural use. Use on landscaping and around walkways, parking lots, and other areas bordering such buildings is institutional use, but use on landscaping not affiliated with such buildings is not.
  • Structural: Use by licensed structural pest control operators within the scope of their licenses
  • Vector control: Use by certain vector control (e.g., mosquito abatement) districts
  • Veterinarian: Use according to a written prescription of a licensed veterinarian

Agricultural use of pesticides includes:

  • Production agricultural use: Any pesticide used to produce a plant or animal agricultural product (food, feed, fiber, ornamental, or forest) that will be distributed in the channels of trade (Some requirements—most notably those that address worker safety and use reporting—apply only to plant product production.)
  • Nonproduction agricultural use: Any pesticide used on watersheds, rights-of-way, and landscaped areas (e.g., golf courses, parks, recreation areas, and cemeteries) not covered by the definitions of home and institutional uses

The following specific pesticide uses are required to be reported to the CAC who, in turn, reports the data to DPR:

  • Production of any agricultural commodity except livestock (where livestock is defined in FAC section 18663 as “any cattle, sheep, swine, goat, or any horse, mule or other equine, whether live or dead”)
  • Treatment of postharvest agricultural commodities
  • Landscape maintenance in parks, golf courses, cemeteries, and similar sites defined in the FAC as agricultural use
  • Roadside and railroad rights-of-way
  • Poultry and fish production
  • Application of a restricted material
  • Application of a pesticide listed in regulation as having the potential to pollute ground water when used outdoors in industrial and institutional settings
  • Application by licensed pest control operators, including agricultural and structural applicators and maintenance gardeners

What must be reported. Growers must submit their production agricultural pesticide use reports to the CAC by the tenth day of the month following the month in which the work was performed, and pest control businesses must submit seven days after the application. Not all information submitted to the counties is transferred to DPR.

Production agricultural pesticide use reports include the following:

  • Date and time of application
  • Geographic location including the county, section, township, range, base, and meridian.
  • Operator identification number (An operator identification number, sometimes called a “grower ID,” is issued by CAC to property operators. The number is needed to report pesticide use and to purchase restricted-use pesticides. Pest control professionals are not required to obtain an operator ID number.)
  • Operator name and address (although this information is not submitted to DPR)
  • Site identification number (A site identification code must be assigned to each location or field where pesticides will be used for production of an agricultural commodity. This alphanumeric code is also recorded on any restricted material permit the grower obtains for the location. CalAgPermits has a map server feature that tracks locations of sites for county use.)
  • Commodity, crop, or site treated
  • Acres or units planted and treated
  • Application method (e.g., by air, ground, or other means)
  • Fumigation methods. Since 2008, fumigation applications in nonattainment areas that do not meet federal air quality standards for pesticide VOC emissions must be identified along with details on fumigation methods (for example, shallow shank injection with a tarp). This information allows DPR to estimate pesticide VOC emissions, which contribute to the formation of atmospheric ozone, an important air pollutant.
  • Product name, U.S. EPA Registration Number (or the California Registration Number if the product is an adjuvant), and the amount of product applied

All other kinds of pesticide use (mostly nonagricultural) are reported by monthly summaries that include the following information:

  • Pesticide product name
  • Product registration number
  • Amount used
  • Number of applications
  • Application site (e.g., roadside, structure)
  • Month of application (rather than date and time)
  • County (rather than square mile location)

Commodity Codes

DPR uses its product label database at www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/label/labelque.htm to verify that products listed in pesticide use reports are registered for use on the reported commodity or site. The product label database uses a coding system consistent with U.S. EPA official label information. To minimize errors, a cross-reference table was developed to link different naming systems between the U.S. EPA, the product label database, and the PUR database.

Certain commodities or sites may have more than one site code associated with them if different production methods or uses of the commodity result in different pesticide use. For example, greenhouse and nursery operations are divided into six different site codes: 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 are also separated into further subcategories because of public and processor interest in differentiating pesticide use. Tomatoes are assigned codes to differentiate between fresh market and processing categories. Grapes are assigned separate codes to differentiate table grapes and raisins from wine grapes.

Unregistered Use

The PUR database may contain records of pesticide use on a commodity or site for which the pesticide is not currently registered. Unregistered uses that survive the error-checking process may be due to an error in the DPR product label database, where the product incorrectly lists a commodity or site as being registered. Other unregistered uses may be flagged as errors by the validation procedures, but left unchanged in the database. The error-checking process does not check whether the product was registered at the time of application. It is therefore possible that an application flagged as an error due to a recent change in registration may have been legally applied at the time of application. In addition, the law sometimes allows growers to use existing stocks of a pesticide product following its withdrawal from the market by the manufacturer, or suspension or cancelation by regulatory authorities since the safest way to dispose of small quantities of pesticides is to use them as they were int ended. Finally, some pesticide products do not list specific sites or commodities on their labels, as they are designed to target specific pests across all sites, such as some soil fumigants, certain pre-plant herbicides, and rodenticides. In these cases, reporting an application of one of these types of pesticides on a specific commodity or site can result in an error. In 2015, an option was added in CalAgPermits that allows the user to designate any application as “pre-plant” and enter the commodity or site without generating any error messages.

Adjuvants

Use data on spray adjuvants (e.g., emulsifiers, wetting agents, foam suppressants, and other efficacy enhancers) were not reported before full-use reporting was required. Adjuvants are exempt from federal registration requirements but must be registered as pesticides in California. Examples of adjuvants include many alkyl groups and some petroleum distillates.

CUMMULATIVE AREA TREATED

The cumulative area treated is the sum of the area treated with an AI and is expressed in acres (applications reported in square feet are converted to acres). The cumulative area treated for a crop may be greater than the planted area of the crop since this measure accounts for a field being treated with the same AI more than once in a year. For example, if a 20-acre field is treated three times in a calendar year with an AI, the cumulative area treated would be reported as 60 acres.

It is important, however, to be aware of the potential to over-count acreage when summing cumulative area for products that have more than one AI. If a 20-acre field is treated with a product that contains three different pesticide AIs, the PUR record will correctly show that the product was applied to 20 acres, but that 20 acre value will also be attributed to each of the three AIs in any chemical summary reports. Adding these values across the AIs results in a total of 60 acres treated instead of the 20 acres actually treated.

Number of Applications

The number of applications is only reported for 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, required 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 reported, so they are no longer included in the annual totals. (In the annual PUR reports before 1997, each monthly summary record was counted as one application) Note that in the annual summary report arranged by commodity, the total number of agricultural applications for the site or commodity may not equal the sum of all applications of the listed AIs. Since the summary report is at the AI level rather than the product level, a single application of a product comprised of two AIs will result in the summary report assigning the single application to both AIs listed under the commodity heading. Summing the agricultural applications for these two AIs would result in an incorrect total of two applications. The total applications value at the bottom of each commodity section removes the possibility of over-counting applications for products with more than one AI, and is therefore a more accurate value.

III. Data Summary

This report is a summary of 2015 data submitted to DPR as of September 27, 2016. PUR data are continually updated and therefore may not match later data from CalPIP or internal queries that contain corrected records identified after September 27, 2016.

Pesticide Use In California

In 2015, 213 million pounds of pesticide AIs were used in California. Since full use reporting was required in 1990, annual pesticide use has been observed to vary by less than 15 percent from the previous year. These fluctuations can be attributed to a variety of factors, including changes in planted acreage, crop plantings, pest pressures, and weather conditions.

The pounds of pesticides used and the number of applications are not necessarily accurate indicators of pesticide risk. There are reduced-risk pesticides that require higher use rates or more applications than many conventional pesticides but have little environmental or human health risk due to their mode of action, toxicity, and selectivity to the targeted pest.

In 2015, as in previous years, the region of greatest pesticide use was California’s San Joaquin Valley (Table 1). The four counties in this region with the highest use were Fresno, Kern, Tulare, and San Joaquin. These counties were also among the leading producers of agricultural commodities.

Table 1, PDF: Total pounds of pesticide active ingredients reported in each county and rank during 2014 and 2015

Reported pesticide use in California in 2015 totaled 213 million pounds, an increase of 23 million pounds (12 percent) from 2014. Production agriculture, the major category of use subject to reporting requirements, accounted for most of the increase. Applications increased by 22 million pounds for production agriculture and 511,000 pounds for post-harvest treatments. Use also increased for structural pest control, landscape maintenance, and other reported non-agricultural uses that includes rights-of-way, vector control, research, and fumigation of non-food and non-feed materials such as lumber and furniture. Table 2 breaks down the pounds of pesticide use by general use categories: production agriculture, post-harvest commodity treatment, structural pest control, landscape maintenance, and all others.

Table 2, PDF: Pounds of pesticide active ingredients, 1998 – 2015, by general use categories

Pesticide Sales In California

The amount of pesticides reported in the PUR database does not reflect the total amount of pesticides sold each year. Typically, only a third of the pesticide AIs sold in a given year are subject to use reporting. Examples of AIs that do not require reports of use are chlorine (used primarily for municipal water treatment) and home-use pesticide products.

There were 687 million pounds of pesticide AIs sold in 2014, an 8 percent increase from the year before. 2015 sales are currently estimated at around 981 million, although that figure may change. Sales data are continuously updated and corrected. Values from earlier years are posted on DPR’s website at www.cdpr.ca.gov, click “A - Z Index,” “Sales of pesticides.”

IV. Trends in Pesticide Use in Certain Pesticide Categories

This report discusses two different measures of pesticide use: amount of AI applied in pounds and cumulative area treated in acres (for an explanation of cumulative area treated see page 10). Because different AIs are often used at different rates, the picture of pesticide use may vary between the two measures. Most pesticides are applied at rates of 1-2 pounds per acre, but others at a few ounces or hundreds of pounds per acre. The contrast between measures, pounds and acres, can be seen by looking at the use of different pesticide types (Figures 1 and 2). Figure 1, the amount applied by weight (pounds), shows that pesticides with both fungicide and insecticide properties (fungicide/insecticides) such as sulfur had the highest use, followed by insecticides and fumigants. By cumulative area (acres) treated in Figure 2, insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides were used the most.

When comparing use among different AIs, area treated is often the more useful measure. Pounds of use will emphasize pesticides used at high rates, such as sulfur, horticultural oils, and fumigants. However, the trends in use for any individual AI will be similar regardless of the measure of use.

Figure 1, JPG: Pounds of all AIs in the major types of pesticides from 1995 to 2015, where “Other” includes pesticides such as rodenticides, molluscicides, algaecides, repellents, anti-microbials, anti-foulants, disinfectants, and biocides.

The AIs with the highest total reported pounds were sulfur, petroleum and mineral oils, 1,3-dichloropropene, glyphosate, and metam-potassium (potassium N-methyldithiocarbamate). Sulfur accounted for 24 percent of all reported pesticide use in 2015.

Figure 2, JPG: Acres treated by all AIs in the major types of pesticides from 1995 to 2015, where “Other” includes pesticides such as rodenticides, molluscicides, algaecides, repellents, anti-microbials, anti-foulants, disinfectants, and biocides.

Reported pesticide use by cumulative area treated in 2015 was 96 million acres, an increase of 4.8 million acres (5.3 percent) from 2014. The non-adjuvant pesticides applied to the greatest area in 2015 were glyphosate, sulfur, petroleum and mineral oils, abamectin, and oxyfluorfen (Figures 3, 4, and A-1). The top AIs by use types were petroleum and mineral oils for insecticides, copper for fungicides, sulfur for fungicide/insecticides, glyphosate for herbicides, and aluminum phosphide for fumigants.

Pesticide use is summarized for eight different pesticide categories from 2007 to 2015 (Tables 3 – 18) and from 1995 to 2015 (Figures 5 – 12). These categories include reproductive toxicity, carcinogens, cholinesterase inhibitors, ground water contaminants, toxic air contaminants, fumigants, oils, and biopesticides. Changes from 2014 to 2015 are summarized as follows:

  • Reproductive toxins: Chemicals classified as reproductive toxins increased slightly in amount applied from 2014 to 2015 (31,000-pound increase, 0.4 percent) but decreased in the area treated (2,700-acres treated decrease, 0.1 percent). The increase in amount applied was mainly due to greater use of the fumigant metam-sodium. The decrease in area mostly resulted from less use of the fungicides myclobutanil and thiophanate-methyl and the miticide propargite. Pesticides in this category are listed on the State’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to cause reproductive toxicity.

    Figure 3, JPG: Acres treated by the top 5 AIs in each of the major types of pesticides from 2008 to 2015.
  • Carcinogens: The amount of pesticides classified as carcinogens increased by 5.1 million pounds from 2014 to 2015 (17 percent), but the area treated decreased by 111,000 acres (3.8 percent). The increase in amount applied was mainly due to the greater use of the fumigants metam-potassium and 1,3-dichloropropene. The decrease in area treated was mostly due to less use of the herbicides diuron and oryzalin and the fungicide iprodione. The pesticides in this category are listed by U.S. EPA as A or B carcinogens or on the State’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to cause cancer.
  • Cholinesterase inhibitors: Use of cholinesterase-inhibiting pesticides (organophosphate and some carbamate pesticides) decreased from the previous year (178,000-pound decrease, 3.8 percent; 416,000-acre decrease, 11 percent). Most of the decrease in amount applied and area treated resulted from a decrease in the use of the insecticide chlorpyrifos , which was designated as a restricted-use pesticide for agriculture in 2015. Other AIs with large decreases were the insecticides dimethoate, oxamyl, and malathion.

    Figure 4, JPG: Acres treated by the top 5 AIs in each of the major types of pesticides from 2008 to 2015.
  • Ground water contaminants: The use of AIs categorized as ground water contaminants decreased in both amount applied and area treated (107,000-pound decrease, 15 percent; 114,000-acre decrease, 20 percent). The decreases were mostly from less use of the herbicides diuron and simazine.
  • Toxic air contaminants: The use of AIs categorized as toxic air contaminants increased in both amount applied and area treated (4.5 million-pound increase, 10 percent; 37,000-acre increase, 1.5 percent). By pounds, most toxic air contaminants are fumigants such as metam-potassium and 1,3-dichloropropene that are used at high rates and whose overall use increased. The increase in area treated was mainly due to increased uses of the fungicide mancozeb and the insecticide carbaryl.
  • Fumigants: The use of fumigant AIs increased in both amount applied and area treated (4.7 million-pound increase, 11 percent; 41,000-acre increase, 11 percent). Most of the increase was from metam-potassium and 1,3-dichloropropene; however, use of methyl bromide and chloropicrin decreased.
  • Oils: Use of oil pesticides increased in both amount and area treated (11 million-pound increase, 37 percent; 303,000-acre increase, 6.9 percent). Oils comprise different AIs, but the category used here includes only those 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 highly toxic pesticides. Some highly refined petroleum-based oils are also used by organic growers.
  • Biopesticides: Use of biopesticides increased in both amount and area treated (770,000-pound increase, 13 percent; 573,000-acre increase, 8.4 percent). The biopesticide with the most use by amount was kaolin, which accounted for most of the increased use in this category. Citric acid, vegetable oil, and s-methoprene accounted for most of the increase by area treated. Kaolin is used both as a fungicide and insecticide, s-methoprene as an insect growth regulator, and citric acid and vegetable oil as adjuvants. In general, biopesticides are derived from or synthetically mimic natural materials such as animals, plants, bacteria, and minerals and fall into three major classes: microbial, plant-incorporated protectant, or naturally occurring substances.

Since 1990, 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, but rather variations related to changes in weather, pricing, supply of raw ingredients, or regulations. Use changes over short periods of time (three to five years) may suggest trends such as the increased pesticide use from 2001 to 2005 or decreased use from 2005 to 2009. However, regression analyses on use from 1996 to 2015 do not indicate a significant trend of either increase or decrease in total pesticide use.

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 “Continuous Evaluation of Pesticides” on page 2.)

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

Table 3, PDF: The reported pounds of pesticides used that 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 4, PDF: The reported cumulative acres treated with pesticides that are on the State’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals that are “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 5, JPG: 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 A OR B CARCINOGENS OR ON THE STATE’S PROPOSITION 65 LIST OF CHEMICALS THAT ARE “KNOWN TO CAUSE CANCER.”

Table 5, PDF: The reported pounds of pesticides used that are listed by U.S. EPA as A or B carcinogens or on the State’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals that are “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 6, PDF: The reported cumulative acres treated with pesticides that are listed by U.S. EPA as A or B carcinogens or on the State’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals that are “known to cause cancer.” 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 6, JPG: Use trends of pesticides that are listed by U.S. EPA as A or B carcinogens or on the State’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals that are “known to cause cancer.” 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 CHOLINESTERASE-INHIBITING PESTICIDES

Table 7, PDF: The reported pounds of pesticides used that are cholinesterase-inhibiting pesticides. These pesticides are 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 8, PDF: The reported cumulative acres treated with pesticides that are cholinesterase-inhibiting pesticides. These pesticides are organophosphate and carbamate active ingredients. 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 7, JPG: Use trends of pesticides that are cholinesterase-inhibiting pesticides. These pesticides are organophosphate and carbamate active ingredients. 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 ON THE “A” PART OF DPR’S GROUNDWATER PROTECTION LIST.

Table 9, PDF: The reported pounds of pesticides used that are on the “a” part of DPR’s groundwater protection list. These pesticides are the 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 10, PDF: The reported cumulative acres treated with pesticides that are on the “a” part of DPR’s groundwater protection list. These pesticides are the active ingredients listed in the California Code of Regulations, Title 3, Division 6, Chapter 4, Subchapter 1, Article 1, Section 6800(a). Use includes primarily agricultural applications. The grand total for acres treated 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 8, JPG: Use trends of pesticides that are on the “a” part of DPR’s groundwater protection list. These pesticides are the 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 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 CONTAMINANTS LIST

Table 11, PDF: The reported pounds of pesticides used that are on DPR’s toxic air contaminants list applied in California. These pesticides are the 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 12, PDF: The reported cumulative acres treated with pesticides that are on DPR’s toxic air contaminants list applied in California. These pesticides are the 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 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 9, JPG: Use trends of pesticides that are on DPR’s toxic air contaminants list applied in California. These pesticides are the 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 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 THAT ARE FUMIGANTS

Table 13, PDF: The reported pounds of pesticides used that are fumigants. Use includes both agricultural and reportable non-agricultural applications. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation’s Pesticide Use Reports.

Table 14, PDF: The reported cumulative acres treated with pesticides that are fumigants. 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 10, JPG: Use trends of pesticides that are fumigants. 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 OIL PESTICIDES.

Table 15, PDF: The reported pounds of pesticides used that are oils. As a broad group, oil pesticides and other petroleum distillates are on U.S. EPA’s list of A or B 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 16, PDF: The reported cumulative acres treated with pesticides that are oils. As a broad group, oil pesticides and other petroleum distillates are on U.S. EPA’s list of A or B 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 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 11, JPG: Use trends of pesticides that are oils. Although oils are on U.S. EPA’s list of A or B carcinogens or the State’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals “known to cause cancer”,these classifications do not distinguish among oil pesticides that may not be carcinogenic due to their degree of refinement. Many such oil pesticides serve as alternatives to high-toxicity chemicals. 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 BIOPESTICIDE

Table 17, PDF: The reported pounds of pesticides used that are 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). Use includes both agricultural and reportable non-agricultural applications. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation’s Pesticide Use Reports.

Table 18, PDF: The reported cumulative acres treated with pesticides that are 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). 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 12, JPG: Use trends of pesticides that are 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 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

A grower’s or applicator’s decision to spray depends on many factors, such as the presence of biological control agents (e.g., predatory insects and other natural enemies), current pest levels, cost of pesticides and labor, value of the crop, pesticide resistance and effectiveness, other available management practices, and potential pesticide risk to the environment or farm workers. Pest populations are determined by complex ecological interactions. Sometimes the causes of pest outbreaks are unknown. Weather is a critically important factor and affects different pest species in different ways.

Crops treated with the greatest amounts of pesticides in 2015 were almond, wine grape, processing tomato, table and raisin grape, and strawberry. Crops or sites with the greatest increase in the amount applied from 2014 to 2015 include almond, pistachio, wine grape, orange, walnut, and carrot. Crops or sites with the greatest decrease in the amount applied include water (industrial), rice, strawberry, table and raisin grape, and raspberry (Table 19).

Table 19, PDF: The change in pounds of AI applied and acres planted or harvested and the percent change from 2014 to 2015 for the crops or sites with the greatest increase and decrease in pounds applied. Acre values sourced from CDFA(a, b), USDA(a,b,d)

Thirteen commodities were chosen for in-depth analysis of the possible reasons for changes in pesticide use from 2014 to 2015: alfalfa, almond, carrot, cotton, orange, peach and nectarine, pistachio, processing tomato, rice, strawberry, table and raisin grape, walnut, and wine grape. These 13 commodities were chosen because each was treated with more than 4 million pounds of AIs or treated on more than 3 million acres, cumulatively. Collectively, these commodities represent 72 percent of the amount reported in the PUR (78 percent of total used on agricultural fields) and 74 percent of the area treated in 2015.

For these 13 commodities, the non-adjuvant AIs applied to the most area were sulfur and glyphosate. Sulfur, used on all 13 commodities except rice, was applied mostly on table and raisin grape, wine grape and processing tomato. Sulfur is a natural fungicide favored by both conventional and organic farmers and is used mostly to manage powdery mildew on grape and processing tomato. However, it is used in some crops to suppress mites. Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum herbicide and crop desiccant. Almond acres received nearly 40 percent of the glyphosate use of all 13 commodities, although all 13 commodities reported some use. In addition, the following AIs were used on over one million cumulative acres (although not all of the AIs were used on every one of the 13 commodities): the insecticides (and miticides) abamectin, lambda-cyhalothrin, bifenthrin, methoxyfenozide, and petroleum and mineral oils; the herbicides oxyfluorfen and paraquat dichloride; and the fungicide copper.

Petroleum and mineral oils were second to sulfur in amount of pounds of non-adjuvant pesticides used on all 13 commodities. All 13 crops reported use of oils, but the highest use was on almond, wine grape, orange, and pistachio. Oils are mostly used as insecticides, but can also be used as fungicides and adjuvants. The fumigants 1,3-dichloropropene, chloropicrin, metam-potassium, and metam-sodium also ranked high in pounds of pesticide used on the 13 commodities, with the exception of rice. In production agriculture, these fumigants are usually applied to the soil before planting a crop to control various soil-borne diseases, nematodes, and other problematic pests. In orchards, fumigation may be used to spot-treat a small area following tree removal before a replacement tree is planted.

Information used to develop the trend analyses for each of the thirteen crops in this chapter 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 knowledge of pesticides, California agriculture, pests, and pest management practices. As a result, the explanations for changes in pesticide use are largely based on the subjective opinions of experts as opposed to rigorous statistical analyses. Additional figures of pesticide distribution maps and graphs associated with each crop can be found in the Appendix of this document (Appendix figures are referenced by an “A” preceding the figure number).

Alfalfa

Alfalfa is grown primarily as a forage crop, providing protein and high energy for dairy cows and other livestock. California is the leading alfalfa hay-producing state in the United States. There are six alfalfa growing regions in California, encompassing a range of climatic conditions: Intermountain, Sacramento Valley, San Joaquin Valley, Coastal, High Desert, and Low Desert (Figure A-3). The price received per ton of hay decreased in 2015 after having reached one of its highest values in 2014 (Table 20). In addition, the number of acres harvested was at its lowest since the 1940s. These two factors account for some of the observed trends in pesticide use in alfalfa in 2015 (Figures 14, A-4, and A-5).

Table 20, PDF: Total reported pounds of all active ingredients (AI), acres treated, acres harvested, and prices for alfalfa each year from 2011 to 2015. Harvested acres from 2011 to 2015 are from USDA(a), 2012-2016; marketing year average prices from 2011 to 2015 are from USDA(c), 2014-2016. Acres treated means cumulative acres treated (see explanation p. 10).

Use of all the major insecticides decreased in 2015 (Figure 13). This decrease can be tied to lower prices received for hay as well as reduced number of acres planted. Alternative practices, such as early cutting, may be cheaper than spraying for some pests under these conditions. Less pressure from blue alfalfa aphid–the lowest in two years–likely led to decreased use of insecticides. In addition to the organophosphates chlorpyrifos and dimethoate (Figure 14), malathion, another organophosphate, and methomyl, a carbamate, were used less.

Figure 13, JPG: Acres of alfalfa treated by all AIs in the major types of pesticides from 1995 to 2015.

There were decreases in the acres treated with all commonly used pyrethroids except cypermethrin. These decreases reverse a trend that had been happening since 2009. Besides cypermethrin, the only other AI to have been applied to a substantially greater number of acres in 2015 was the miticide hexythiazox. Nearly all applications of hexythiazox took place in Imperial County. Increased use of this miticide may have resulted from secondary outbreaks of mites due to pyrethroid applications for blue alfalfa aphid. Flupyradifurone, newly registered in April 2015, was used widely as growers tried this new product to manage the blue alfalfa aphid.

Herbicide use increased (Figure 13). The largest increases were found in paraquat dichloride, glyphosate, hexazinone, flumioxazin, diuron, and carfentrazone-ethyl (Figure 14). Although drought conditions may have inhibited weed growth to some extent, substantial penalties ($100 per ton) levied for reduced quality likely made weed management more important. Weed growth exerts a large effect on the quality of hay.

Use of fungicides in alfalfa is minimal compared to the use of insecticides and herbicides.

Figure 14, JPG: Acres of alfalfa treated by the top 5 AIs of each AI type from 2011 to 2015.

Almond

California produces 82 percent of the world’s supply of almonds. There are approximately 1.1 million acres of almond, located over a 400-mile stretch from northern Tehama County to southern Kern County in the Central Valley (Figure A-6). Despite a decreasing price trend, the relatively high prices and low labor requirements of almond production are reflected in a continued annual increase in total acreage (Table 21). Pesticide use increased as well, with a 14 percent increase in treated area and 25 percent increase in the total pounds per acre planted (Table 21).

Table 21, PDF: Total reported pounds of all active ingredients (AI), acres treated, acres planted, and prices for almond each year from 2011 to 2015. Planted acres from 2011 to 2015 are from CDFA(a), 2011-2015; marketing year average prices from 2011 to 2015 are from USDA(d), 2014-2016. Acres treated means cumulative acres treated (see explanation p. 10).

The major almond pests include mites, San Jose scale, peach twig borer, navel orangeworm, ants, Alternaria leaf spot, brown rot, band canker, scab, powdery mildew, and many weed species. The use of insecticides increased, as well as herbicides and fungicides. Total pounds of fumigants used increased, although the treated area decreased (Figures 15, 16, A-7, and A-8).

The winter of 2015 had average temperatures but below-average rainfall, resulting in a large overwintering population of navel orangeworm, a major pest of almond. Navel orangeworm feeds directly on the nutmeat. As the larvae feed, they leave behind frass (or excrement), a substrate for the fungi Aspergillus flavus and A. parasiticus, which contaminate the nut with aflatoxins and impacts food safety. The increasing trend in area treated with insecticides since 2013 likely reflects increasing navel orangeworm pest pressure.

Increased use of methoxyfenozide and chlorantraniliprole and decreased use of pyrethroids show that a variety of chemical modes of action were needed to prevent pest resistance to pyrethroids. However, despite some reports of resistance to bifenthrin, a pyrethroid, its use continued to increase, possibly in an effort to manage leaffooted bugs, which have recently become an important almond pest (Figure 16). Abamectin continued to be widely used, although use leveled off in 2015 (Figure 16). The long-term, widespread use of abamectin resulted in reports of mite resistance. The use of oil in spring and summer increased in 2015, possibly to boost the effectiveness of abamectin, used to manage resistant spider mites. Use of other miticides such as etoxazole and clofentezine also increased.

Herbicides used from 1995 to 2015 steadily increased, reflecting a 36 percent increase in almond acreage, increasing herbicide resistance, and, recently, the drought. Weeds can increase water use by 10 to 30 percent. Thus, during a drought, it can be important to manage weeds to save water, resulting in increased use of herbicides. In addition, resistance to glyphosate, the most commonly used herbicide, has worsened and growers have turned to other herbicides to manage resistant weeds such as rigid ryegrass.

Figure 15, JPG: Acres of almond treated by all AIs in the major types of pesticides from 1995 to 2015.

Use of fungicides increased in 2015, likely a reflection of the increased acreage as well as rain during and after bloom. Rainfall is the key predictor of diseases such brown rot, blossom blight, and Alternaria leaf spot.

There were some notable shifts among the top five fungicides used on almond in 2015: fluopyram, metconazole, and copper all increased, while propiconazole and iprodone decreased (Figure 16). Notably, none of the strobilurin fungicides were included among the top five AIs used. The increase in fluopyram and metconazole use was probably due to resistance developing to strobilurin fungicides, as well as their effectiveness against numerous diseases such as brown rot blossom blight, shot hole, scab, anthracnose, Alternaria leaf spot, and other important diseases in almonds. The use of copper increased to combat scab.

Fumigants have multiple functions in almond production: post-harvest insect management during storage, pest management to meet phytosanitary and food safety standards, pre-plant soil fumigation to manage soil-borne diseases and nematodes, and finally, to some extent, rodent management. Use of pre-plant soil fumigants remained relatively low from 2011-2015, with little fluctuation. The use of post-harvest fumigants is dependent on the size of the crop.

Figure 16, JPG: Acres of almond treated by the top 5 AIs of each AI type from 2011 to 2015.

Carrot

California is the largest producer of fresh market carrots in the United States, accounting for 81 percent of the U.S. production of 2.4 billion pounds in 2015. California has four main production regions for carrots: the San Joaquin Valley (Kern County), the Central Coast in San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara counties (Cuyama Valley) and Monterey County, the low desert (Imperial and Riverside counties), and the high desert (Los Angeles County) (Figure A-9). The San Joaquin Valley accounts for more than half the state’s acreage.

In 2015, 67,000 acres of carrots were planted in California, an increase of about 1.5 percent from 2014 (Table 22). Despite this increase in acreage, the area treated with fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides decreased. Fumigants were the only pesticide type used on more acres than in 2014 (Figures 17, 18, A-10, and A-11). Nematodes, weeds, cavity spot, and leaf blights remain the major pest concerns.

Table 22, PDF: Total reported pounds of all active ingredients (AI), acres treated, acres planted, and prices for carrot each year from 2011 to 2015. Planted acres and marketing year average prices from 2011 to 2015 are from USDA(e), 2014-2016. Acres treated means cumulative acres treated (see explanation p. 10).

Fungicides were applied to more acres of carrot production in 2015 than any other pesticide type (Figure 17). The most-applied fungicides by area treated were sulfur, mefenoxam, and copper, followed by pyraclostrobin and azoxystrobin. Both the treated acreage and the applied pounds of sulfur declined, while the use of copper increased. The use of the other three fungicides declined slightly.

Herbicides followed fungicides as the pesticide type with the second largest treated acreage (Figure 17). As was the case in 2014, the most-applied herbicides in carrot production by area were linuron, pendimethalin, fluazifop-p-butyl, and trifluralin (Figure 18). Clethodim replaced EPTC as the fifth most-used herbicide by area. Linuron, which was applied to the largest number of acres, is a postemergence herbicide that manages broadleaf weeds and small grasses.

The most-used insecticides by area remain the same as last year. Use of Paecilomyces lilacinus Strain 251, a naturally occurring fungus with nematicidal properties, and imidacloprid, methoxyfenozide, and (S)-cypermethrin remained practically unchanged from 2014. Use of esfenvalerate, which is applied to kill insect pests such as whiteflies, leafhoppers, and cutworms, decreased for both area treated and total pounds applied (Figure 18).

Figure 17, JPG: Acres of carrot treated by all AIs in the major types of pesticides from 1995 to 2015.

Fumigants in carrot production are primarily used to manage nematodes, weeds, and soil-borne diseases. Metam-potassium, metam-sodium, and 1,3-dichloropropene were the three most-used fumigants for carrots in 2015 (Figure 18). Fumigant use increased both for the area treated and for the total pounds applied. The increase in use of fumigants took place primarily in Kern, Los Angeles, and Imperial counties. The increased use of fumigants was the primary factor that led to the 18 percent increase in total pounds of AIs used in carrot production from 2014 to 2015.

Figure 18, JPG: Acres of carrot treated by the top 5 AIs of each AI type from 2011 to 2015.

Cotton

Cotton is grown for its fiber, but cottonseed can be used to produce cottonseed oil and cottonseed meal for dairy feed. Total planted cotton acreage decreased in 2015 (Table 23), largely due to competition from China, which drove growers to switch to production of crops that have shown recent increases in profitability, such as almond, tomato, and grape. Most cotton is grown in the southern San Joaquin Valley, with smaller acreages grown in Imperial and Riverside counties and a few counties in the Sacramento Valley (Figure A-12). Nearly all pesticide use decreased from 2014 to 2015 except for insecticides, which increased (Figure 19).

Table 23, PDF: Total reported pounds of all active ingredients (AI), acres treated, acres planted, and prices for cotton each year from 2011 to 2015. Planted acres from 2011 to 2015 are from USDA(a), 2012-2016; marketing year average prices from 2011 to 2015 are from USDA(c), 2014-2016. Acres treated means cumulative acres treated (see explanation p. 10).

The price per pound in Table 23 is an average of the prices of upland and pima cotton, weighted by their respective acreages. Due to the wide variation in individual prices, it is best to consult USDA and CDFA for specific prices.

Use of most major insecticides increased in 2015 (Figure 19). The use of reduced-risk, selective insecticides increased, which can require more applications to treat a wide variety of pests compared to conventional, broad-spectrum insecticides. The major arthropod pests in cotton in 2015 were lygus bugs, spider mites, cotton aphids, whiteflies, and thrips. However, some locations experienced pest pressure from brown stink bug and grasshoppers as well. Thrips were problematic in areas experiencing cool temperatures and slow cotton development, while lygus bugs were more of a problem mid-season due to large areas of weeds emerging from early rainfall. Lygus bugs, thrips, spider mites, and cotton aphids all required late season management (Figure A-14). Sweet potato whitefly (strain B) developed into a major pest in 2013 and still remains an issue. Late season aphids and whiteflies are a serious concern because they produce sugary excretions, which drop onto the cotton lint creating a condition called sticky cotton. This condition causes problems when the cotton is ginned, lowering the quality of the cotton lint and thus the price growers receive. One factor contributing to larger whitefly populations in recent years is the California drought.

Figure 19, JPG: Acres of cotton treated by all AIs in the major types of pesticides from 1995 to 2015.

Use of nearly all major herbicides decreased, including glyphosate (Figure 19). As has been the case for the last several years, glyphosate was used much more than any other herbicide due to the large acreage of Roundup-Ready cotton, a genetically engineered crop designed to be resistant to glyphosate. Some AIs, such as paraquat dichloride, are used both as herbicides and harvest aids, chemicals used to defoliate or desiccate cotton plants before harvest. It is assumed that if an herbicide was applied in August through November, it was used as a harvest aid, not as an herbicide (Figures 20, A-13, and A-14).

Use of nearly all major fungicides decreased in 2015, continuing a decreasing trend from a small fungicide increase in earlier years that was caused by higher-than-normal pest pressure from seedling diseases (e.g. Rhizoctonia solani).

Fumigants are also rarely used in cotton fields and their use decreased from 2014 to 2015. Fumigants are used to treat the soil before planting for a range of soil pathogens, nematodes, and weeds, in addition to treating stored products. The higher use in previous years may be due to concern over the soil-inhabiting fungus Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. vasinfectum race 4, more commonly known as FOV race 4, which is spreading throughout the San Joaquin Valley. Some experts consider this pathogen to be one of the biggest challenges California cotton growers have faced in many years. Once a field is infected, it is impossible to achieve profitable yields of many cotton varieties. Although the pathogen cannot be completely eradicated by pesticides, some research has shown that metam-sodium treatments can knock down inoculum populations.

Figure 20, JPG: Acres of cotton treated by the top 5 AIs of each AI type from 2011 to 2015.

Orange

California has the highest valued citrus industry in the United States. Citrus is grown in four major areas in California. The San Joaquin Valley Region comprises nearly 65 percent of the state’s acreage and is characterized by hot, dry summers and cold, wet winters. The Interior Region includes Riverside and San Bernardino counties and inland portions of San Diego, Orange, and Los Angeles counties and is marginally affected by the coastal climate. The Coastal-Intermediate Region extends from Santa Barbara County south to the San Diego County-Mexican border and has a mild climate influenced by marine air. The Desert Region includes the Coachella and Imperial valleys where temperatures fluctuate wildly (Figure A-15).

Table 24, PDF: Total reported pounds of all active ingredients (AI), acres treated, acres bearing, and prices for orange each year from 2011 to 2015. Bearing acres and marketing year average prices from 2011 to 2015 are from USDA(b), 2013-2016. Acres treated means cumulative acres treated (see explanation p. 10).

Total bearing acres decreased in 2015 by 1.8 percent (Table 24), continuing a four-year decline due in part to a reduction in available irrigation water. The price per box decreased 30 percent in 2015, and was similar to prices from 2012 and 2013.

Insecticide use increased in 2015 (Figure 21). Oils are the most widely used insecticide on oranges (Figure 22). They kill soft-bodied pests such as aphids, immature whiteflies, immature scales, psyllids, immature true bugs, thrips, mites, and some insect eggs. Oils also manage powdery mildew and other fungi.

The Asian citrus psyllid (ACP), which vectors huanglongbing (citrus greening disease), was first detected in Los Angeles in 2008. Since that time, ACP has spread throughout Southern California, up the Central Coast, and into the San Joaquin Valley. Despite eradication efforts, treatments have not prevented the spread of ACP and it remains a major concern.

Aside from its use for the ACP eradication program, chlorpyrifos is a broad-spectrum insecticide used primarily for citricola scale management. However, chlorpyrifos resistance in citricola scale has been documented and imidacloprid is increasingly being used to suppress these resistant populations. Imidacloprid use increased in 2015, continuing a trend since 2005 (Figures A-16 and A-17). Imidacloprid is also used in the required treatment of glassy-winged sharpshooter.

Figure 21, JPG: Acres of orange treated by all AIs in the major types of pesticides from 1995 to 2015.

Spinosad and spinetoram are relatively new insecticides and are primarily used in citrus to manage citrus thrips (Figure 22). Both are very selective, allowing natural enemies to survive and may eventually take over the market share of older insecticides. Of the two, spinetoram is more effective against citrus thrips populations that have developed resistance to carbamate insecticides, and its persistence and effectiveness has resulted in the reduced use of spinosad.

Fenpropathrin is used to manage red mites, citrus thrips, Asian citrus psyllid, katydids, and other miscellaneous pests. The insecticidal activity of fenpropathrin is largely interchangeable with that of beta-cyfluthrin. Abamectin is used for thrips, mites, and citrus leafminer, and is preferred because it is inexpensive and has broad-spectrum and long residual activity, low worker risk, and a short pre-harvest interval. Dimethoate is used for a variety of pests such as scales and thrips. Its declining use is likely due to the growing popularity of replacement insecticides such as spinetoram and the neonicotinoids imidacloprid and acetamiprid. Pyriproxyfen is used almost exclusively for California red scale. In the San Joaquin Valley, populations of armored scale show resistance to chlorpyrifos, methidathion, and carbaryl, and growers are encouraged to release parasitic wasps and use buprofezin, oil, pyriproxyfen, and spirotetramat.

Fungicides are used to prevent Phytophthora gummosis, Phytophthora root rot, and fruit diseases such as brown rot and Septoria spot. These diseases are exacerbated by wet, cool weather during harvest. There was an increase in fungicide use in 2015, largely due to a substantial increase in the use of copper-based fungicides, the most widely used fungicides in oranges (Figures 21, 22, and A-16).

Figure 22, JPG: Acres of orange treated by the top 5 AIs of each AI type from 2011 to 2015.

Weed management is important in citrus groves to prevent competition for nutrients and water, which affects tree growth and reduces yield. Excessive weed growth also impedes production and harvesting operations. Both preemergence and postemergence herbicides are used, as well as mechanical removal. Herbicide use decreased in 2015. Glyphosate, a postemergence herbicide, was the most-used herbicide. Simazine is widely used for pre- and post- emergence weed management. Saflufenacil is a postemergence, burn-down herbicide that was first used in 2010 and now replaces glyphosate for use on horseweed and fleabane due to resistance. Indaziflam is a preemergence herbicide, and its use has increased every year since it was first registered in California in 2011 (Figures 21, 22, and A-16).

Peach and nectarine

California grew 73 percent of all U.S. peaches (including 42 percent of fresh market peaches and 97 percent of processed peaches) and 94 percent of nectarines in 2015. Most freestone peaches and nectarines are grown in Fresno, Tulare, and Kings counties in the central San Joaquin Valley and sold on the fresh market. Clingstone peach, largely grown in the Sacramento Valley, is exclusively canned and processed into products such as baby food, fruit salad, and juice (Figure A-18). Peach and nectarine are discussed together because pest management issues for the two crops are similar.

Table 25, PDF: Total reported pounds of all active ingredients (AI), acres treated, acres bearing, and prices for peach and nectarine each year from 2011 to 2015. Bearing acres and marketing year average prices from 2011 to 2015 are from USDA(d), 2014-2016. Acres treated means cumulative acres treated (see explanation p. 10).

The price per pound in Table 25 is an average of the prices of peach and nectarine, weighted by their respective acreages. Due to the wide variation in individual prices, it is best to consult USDA and CDFA for specific prices.

Cumulative peach and nectarine acreage treated with insecticides and miticides increased 7 percent in 2015 despite the decrease in bearing acreage (Figure 23). Mites, peach twig borer, leafrollers, and ants were all major pests in 2015. Katydids were sporadic pests. Oil was the most-used insecticide in 2015 and its use increased 20 percent. Oils are applied during the dormant and the growing seasons to prevent outbreaks of scales, mites, and moth larvae (Figure A-20). Spinetoram and indoxacarb use increased 28 and 46 percent, respectively. Spinetoram and indoxacarb are applied to manage moths and katydids; spinetoram is also used for thrips.

Figure 23, JPG: Acres of peach and nectarine treated by all AIs in the major types of pesticides from 1995 to 2015.

Figure 24, JPG: Acres of peach and nectarine treated by the top 5 AIs of each AI type from 2011 to 2015.

Although herbicides were applied to 6 percent more cumulative area in peach and nectarine orchards, the planted acreage declined 4 percent (Figure 23). The area treated with glyphosate declined 7 percent. In contrast, pendimethalin was applied to 41 percent more area (Figures 24 and A-19). Preemergence herbicides such as oxyfluorfen, pendimethalin, rimsulfuron, and indaziflam are applied to soil before the growing season to prevent weed sprouting. Postemergence herbicides such as glyphosate, 2,4-D, pyraflufen-ethyl, and paraquat kill existing weeds on contact. Glufosinate-ammonium was not used much in past years, but its use increased dramatically in 2015. The use of glufosinate-ammonium, a broad-spectrum herbicide, may have increased in 2015 due to more west-coast availability of the AI in recent years and its ability to manage glyphosate-resistant weed species.

Cumulative acres of peach and nectarine orchards treated with fungicides and sulfur during 2015 increased 4 and 14 percent, respectively (Figure 23). Fungicide use increased while bearing acres decreased, suggesting that disease pressure from brown rot, powdery mildew, scab, and rust may have increased. Sulfur is the standard treatment for preventing powdery mildew infection, but it has no curative effect. Metconazole, a fungicide used to manage powdery mildew and brown rot, was used on a much larger scale than it has been in past years, possibly due to resistance of other demethylation inhibitor fungicides. Brown rot is the chief cause of postharvest fruit decay, but gray mold (known as Botrytis bunch rot when it infects grapes), Rhizopus rot (black bread mold), and sour rot can also pose significant problems.

Fumigant use increased 83 percent in 2015 (Figure 23). Fumigants are used in peach and nectarine orchards for rodent management and preplant soil treatments against arthropod pests, nematodes, pathogens, and weeds. Aluminum phosphide use decreased by 40 percent. Aluminum phosphide is used to manage rodents and works best in moist soils. Area treated with 1,3-D, the most widely used preplant soil fumigant, increased 79 percent and chloropicrin application increased as well, indicating an uptick in orchard replanting. Field agricultural use of methyl bromide is being phased out and has not been used since 2013. Changing relationships between nematode infestations, pathogen infections, rootstock choices, and application patterns also affect fumigant selection and use from year to year.

A cumulative total of 1,338 acres of peaches and nectarines were treated with plant growth regulators in 2015. Gibberellins, plant hormones that regulate growth and development, were applied to 3 percent fewer acres. Amino ethoxy vinyl glycine hydrochloride, an ethylene synthesis inhibitor, was applied to 219 acres. Both chemicals can enhance the firmness, size, and storability of fruit. In many cultivars, gibberellins applied from May through July can reduce the percentage of buds that produce flowers the following year. As a result, fruit numbers are reduced, resulting in less or no need for hand thinning and improved fruit quality. Increasing scarcity of field labor may have motivated some growers to experiment with plant growth regulators.

Pistachio

In 2015, California accounted for 233,000 bearing acres of pistachio, or about 98 percent of the U.S. crop (Table 26). The continuing drought, insufficient winter chilling hours, and warm weather during the bloom period combined to reduce the crop in California more than 47 percent–from nearly 513 million pounds in 2014 to 271 million pounds in 2015. Because California produces the majority of pistachios nationally, the U.S. slipped as top producer in 2015 to third place (24 percent) behind Iran (40 percent) and Turkey (28 percent).

Table 26, PDF: Total reported pounds of all active ingredients (AI), acres treated, acres bearing, and prices for pistachio each year from 2011 to 2015. Bearing acres and marketing year average prices from 2011 to 2015 are from USDA(d), 2014-2016. Acres treated means cumulative acres treated (see explanation p. 10).

Despite the bad year, pistachio acreage will continue to increase during the next few years due to a surge in planting around 2005. (Pistachio trees take 5 to 7 years to begin producing nuts and produce optimally 15 years after planting.) Pistachio is grown in 22 counties, from San Bernardino County in the south to Tehama County in the north, with most grown in the San Joaquin Valley counties of Kern, Madera, Fresno, and Tulare (Figure A-21). Pistachio trees usually alternate between high and low production each year and 2015 was projected to be a lighter harvest.

In 2015, important arthropod pests of pistachio included mites, leaffooted plant bug, false chinch bug, stink bugs, and navel orangeworm, although pest populations were low in many areas.

Insecticide use, as measured by acres, increased 18 percent from 2014 to 2015, primarily due to additional bearing acres, a later harvest, concern about early-season damage from Gill’s mealybug, and possible late-season threats by leaffooted plant bug, stink bugs, and navel orangeworm (Figures 25, A-22, and A-23). Feeding by Gill’s mealybugs reduces carbohydrates available to pistachio trees, which results in poor development of the kernel. Growers apply buprofezin and imidacloprid early in the season to target immature crawlers moving to the clusters. In 2015, use of imidacloprid rose more than two-fold from April through July in response to Gill’s mealybug increasing in area and severity.

Feeding by leaffooted plant bugs can cause epicarp lesion to the nuts shortly after bloom and lead to kernel necrosis after shell hardening in June, darkening and ruining the flavor of the nutmeat. These bugs usually appear just before harvest in August and September. Stink bugs can also be late-season pests, causing kernel necrosis during July and August. Often growers preemptively apply insecticides, primarily lambda-cyhalothrin and permethrin, before any of the bugs can do much damage.

Figure 25, JPG: Acres of pistachio treated by all AIs in the major types of pesticides from 1995 to 2015.

The navel orangeworm feeds directly on the nutmeat. As the larvae feed, they leave behind frass (or excrement), a substrate for the fungi Aspergillus flavus and A. parasiticus. Navel orangeworm attacks nuts beginning in July, but insecticide sprays target the third generation that coincides with the beginning of the nut harvest.

Navel orangeworm larvae overwinter in mummy nuts on the ground. During dry winters, they avoid the fungal diseases that would normally kill them under wet conditions. The use of mating-disruption pheromone puffers have increased steadily since 2011. Puffers contain the AI (Z,Z)-11, 13-hexadecadienal and in April 2014 were used in a voluntary area-wide program targeting Kern County’s West Side, where the risk of navel orangeworm damage is unusually high. Use of the puffers increased 58 percent in 2015.

Use of fungicides increased (Figure 26). Aspergillus flavus strain AF36 is lumped with the fungicides, but is actually an organically acceptable fungal inoculant that acts as a biological control agent and prevents contamination of nuts by aflatoxins. The aflatoxin-producing fungi, a complex of Aspergillus flavus and A. parasiticus, grow on pest-damaged nuts. Aflatoxins are both toxic and carcinogenic. About half of the strains of A. flavus found in the orchard are atoxigenic–that is, they do not produce aflatoxin. However, almost all A. parasiticus strains produce aflatoxins. When applied to orchards, the harmless, atoxigenic strain of Aspergillus flavus, AF36, crowds out aflatoxin-producing strains and drastically reduces aflatoxin levels in the nuts. In 2015, AF36 was used on more than 66 percent of all bearing trees. In 2014, A. flavus supplies were limited and the material was applied at a lower rate. The supply was restored in 2015 and growers again applied it at the higher labeled rate.

Figure 26, JPG: Acres of pistachio treated by the top 5 AIs of each AI type from 2011 to 2015.

Sulfur, used as a low-risk miticide, is applied at several pounds per acre, and is used to manage citrus flat mite. The mites feed on the stems of nut clusters as well as the nut hulls and nuts themselves, which can lead to shell stain. As the weather warms up in June, mite populations thrive and peak in late July and August. In 2015, growers began applying sulfur for mites in April, followed by lower-than-average amounts during June and July, and higher-than-average amounts during September. Overall there was an average reduction from 2014 of 14 percent (Figure A-23).

Despite drought conditions during the growing season, use of all major herbicides increased, most likely in response to increased acreage (Figure 26). Often nonbearing trees, which lack shade to deter weed growth, require more herbicide than bearing trees. The postemergence herbicide glyphosate is applied year-round, but mostly during the summer months to manage weeds such as field bindweed and cheeseweed. Under drought conditions both preemergence and postemergence herbicides are needed to limit weed growth. Reducing competition from weeds extends limited supplies of irrigation water and protects young trees from the false chinch bug, which thrive on weeds next to the orchards.

Processing tomato

In 2015, processing tomato growers planted 299,000 acres, yielding 14.36 million tons, a 3 percent yield increase from 2014. About 95 percent of U.S. processing tomatoes are grown in California. At 34 percent, the U.S. is the world’s top producer of processing tomatoes followed by the European Union and China. California processing tomatoes, valued at $1.38 billion in 2015, are primarily grown in the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys (Figure A-24). Fresno County leads the state in acreage with 31 percent (90,000 acres) of the statewide total, followed by Yolo County (38,000 acres), Kings County (26,000 acres), and San Joaquin County (34,000 acres). Significant production also occurs in Merced, Colusa, Kern, Stanislaus, and Solano counties.

Table 27, PDF: Total reported pounds of all active ingredients (AI), acres treated, acres planted, and prices for processing tomato each year from 2011 to 2015. Planted acres and marketing year average prices from 2011 to 2015 are from USDA(e), 2014-2016. Acres treated means cumulative acres treated (see explanation p. 10).

Overall, use of all pesticide AIs changed less than 1 percent in 2015 (Table 27). Total cumulative treated acres of processing tomatoes increased 9 percent. Sulfur, metam-sodium, 1,3-dichloropropene, and potassium N-methyldithiocarbamate (metam-potassium) accounted for 87 percent of the total pounds of pesticide AIs applied, while sulfur, chlorothalonil, trifluralin, azoxystrobin, glyphosate, s-metolachlor, and imidacloprid were applied to the most acreage. The most-used type as measured by area treated was insecticides, which increased 13 percent (Figure 27). The most-used type as measured by amount AI applied was fungicide/insecticide (mostly sulfur and kaolin); use in this category decreased 3 percent.

Overall fungicide use, expressed as cumulative area treated, increased 18 percent and pounds of AI increased 24 percent. Since 2009, use of difenoconazole and azoxystrobin has continuously increased, likely because of increasingly severe powdery mildew outbreaks in the last few years. As a result of these outbreaks, growers must now apply preventive treatments instead of treating powdery mildew as it appears. Pyraclostrobin and fluxapyroxad use in 2015 increased by 4 percent and 36 percent, respectively.

The acreage treated with herbicides increased 1 percent while the amount used was unchanged (Figure 27). Primary weeds of concern for processing tomatoes are nightshades and bindweed. Trifluralin and pendimethalin are used to manage bindweed and are often used in combination with metolachlor. The use of pendimethalin increased 9 percent, while trifluralin use decreased 4 percent (Figures 28 and A-25). Glyphosate is commonly used for preplant treatments in late winter and early spring; its use was unchanged (Figure A-26).

Figure 27, JPG: Acres of processing tomato treated by all AIs in the major types of pesticides from 1995 to 2015.

Figure 28, JPG: Acres of processing tomato treated by the top 5 AIs of each AI type from 2011 to 2015.

Processing tomato growers primarily use three fumigants–metam-potassium, metam-sodium, and 1,3-D–to manage root-knot nematodes and weeds, particularly those of the nightshade family. In 2015, fumigant use increased 16 percent and accounted for about 19 percent of the total amount of pesticides applied. In terms of area treated, fumigant use increased 14 percent. The increase in fumigated acres is mostly due to a 50 percent increase in acres treated with metam-potassium.

In 2015, 1,423,350 acres were treated with insecticides, a 13 percent increase from 2014 (Figure 27). This overall increase was likely to manage whiteflies, which vectors tomato yellow leaf curl virus. Imidacloprid, the most-used insecticide, is used to manage whiteflies; its use increased 40 percent from the previous year. Dimethoate, which decreased 11 percent, is a broad-spectrum insecticide used for thrips management. However, its use early in the season can disrupt natural predation and cause population explosions of other insect pests, such as leafminers, later in the season (Figure A-26). Methomyl use decreased 25 percent, as growers have begun switching to pyrethroids such as bifenthrin because of worker safety. Bifenthrin use, which increased 2 percent, is a broad-spectrum pyrethroid often used in rotation with spinosad for thrips management. Bifenthrin is also used to manage mites and stink bugs.

Rice

California is the largest producer of short and medium grain (‘Calrose’) Japonica rice in the United States and the second largest rice-growing state in the nation. Ninety-five percent of the rice in California is grown in six counties in the Sacramento Valley (Colusa, Sutter, Glenn, Butte, Yuba, and Yolo, Figure A-27). The drought has had marked effects on rice growers, and water cutbacks have caused reduction in rice plantings. In 2015 the acres planted with rice decreased 2.5 percent (Table 28).

Table 28, PDF: Total reported pounds of all active ingredients (AI), acres treated, acres planted, and prices for rice each year from 2011 to 2015. Planted acres from 2011 to 2015 are from USDA(a), 2012-2016; marketing year average prices from 2011 to 2015 are from USDA(c), 2014-2016. Acres treated means cumulative acres treated (see explanation p. 10).

Herbicides were the most-used class of pesticides on rice in 2015 (Figure 29). Much of California’s rice is grown repeatedly in the same fields and growers are heavily dependent on herbicides for effective weed management. Many of the weed species are difficult to manage and severely compete with the rice crop for resources if allowed to grow unimpeded.

Several species of broadleaf, grass, and sedge weeds that grow along with rice have developed resistance to herbicides. In addition to the well-established resistance to acetolactate synthase (ALS)-inhibiting herbicides, such as bensulfuron methyl, and resistance of certain watergrass types to propanil, new modes of resistance has been observed in bearded sprangletop to clomazone and cyhalofop-butyl, and sedge to propanil. The 40 percent increase in pounds of thiobencarb used in 2015 was probably due to the progressive resistance of sprangletop to clomazone and cyhalofop-butyl. The continuing decrease of bensulfuron methyl may result from 2013 introduction of a product that combines thiobencarb and imazosulfuron for bensulfuron methyl-resistant sedges (Figures 30 and A-28).

Figure 29, JPG: Acres of rice treated by all AIs in the major types of pesticides from 1995 to 2015..

The area treated with fungicides decreased 6 percent (Figure 29) and the pounds applied decreased 40 percent in 2015. The decrease in pounds was primarily due to decreased use of sodium carbonate peroxyhydrate, an organic fungicide. Azoxystrobin was the most-used fungicide for rice, accounting for 87 percent of all the cumulative area treated with fungicides. Azoxystrobin, propiconazole, and trifloxystrobin are reduced-risk fungicides often used as preventive treatments.

Copper sulfate is the key algaecide registered for rice in California. Used primarily for algal management in rice fields and also to manage tadpole shrimp in both conventional and organic production. Copper sulfate can bind to organic matter such as straw residue and potentially reduce the algaecide’s efficacy. Its decreasing use in the past few years is probably due to increases in price, inconsistency of supply, and variability in efficacy. Sodium carbonate peroxyhydrate was registered as an alternative to copper sulfate to manage algae. However, it has never displaced the use of copper sulfate (Figure A-28).

Figure 30, JPG: Acres of rice treated by the top 5 AIs of each AI type from 2011 to 2015.

Usually there is little insect pressure on California rice and insecticides are used on relatively few acres (Figure 29). However, insect problems were high in 2015 and use of insecticides increased in area and pounds applied. Armyworms have a naturally occurring level of tolerance to insecticides. In 2015, no registered insecticide was effective in managing the significant outbreak. Multiple applications of different pesticides, predominantly pyrethroids and carbaryl, had little effect on the pest. An emergency exemption was issued for a methoxyfenozide-containing product. Rice water weevil is the major insect pest on California rice, but tadpole shrimp are becoming more problematic, and in some areas they are the main pest of rice during the seedling stage. Growers often rely on lambda-cyhalothrin, copper sulfate pentahydrate, and carbaryl, applied soon after flooding, to manage tadpole shrimp. Pyrethroids have been used intensively over the last 15 years for rice water weevil and manage this pest less effectively now (Figures 30 and A-29).

Strawberry

In 2015 California produced 2.9 billion pounds of strawberries valued at more than $2.6 billion. Market prices determine how much of the crop goes to fresh market and how much is processed, and in 2015, about 78 percent of the crop went to fresh market. About 40,500 acres of strawberry were planted and harvested in 2015, primarily along the Central and Southern Coast, with smaller but significant production in the Central Valley (Table 29).

Table 29, PDF: Total reported pounds of all active ingredients (AI), acres treated, acres planted, and prices for strawberry each year from 2011 to 2015. Planted acres and marketing year average prices from 2011 to 2015 are from USDA(d), 2014-2016. Acres treated means cumulative acres treated (see explanation p. 10).

The major insect pests of strawberry are lygus bugs and larvae of moths and beetles, especially in the Central and South Coast growing areas. Until recently, lygus bugs were not considered a problem in the South Coast, but have become a serious threat probably due to warmer, drier winters and increased diversity in the regional crop complex that supports this pest. Flonicamid and acetamiprid, insecticides used to manage lygus bugs, ware applied to 36 and 27 percent more acres in 2015, respectively (Figures 32, A-31, and A-32).

Figure 31, JPG: Acres of strawberry treated by all AIs in the major types of pesticides from 1995 to 2015.

Herbicide use in 2015 decreased 14 percent. The biggest contributor to this decrease was a 29 percent decrease in oxyfluorfen use.

Fungicides continue to be the most-used pesticides in 2015, as measured by area treated. Overall, fungicide use was relatively unchanged in 2015, with many AIs showing a slight decrease in use (Figure 31).

Strawberry production relies on several fumigants. Fumigants accounted for about 80 percent (as measured by pounds applied) of all pesticide AIs applied to strawberry in 2015, but less than two percent of the planted total cumulative acreage was treated. However, most strawberry fields are fumigated. The area treated with fumigants in 2015 decreased 1 percent (Figures 32 and A-31). Methyl bromide use increased 18 percent; metam-sodium, 149 percent; and 1,3-dichloropropene, 8 percent. Chloropicrin use decreased 5 percent. Methyl bromide is used primarily to manage pathogens and nutsedge. Metam-sodium more effectively manages weeds, but is less effective than 1,3-dichloropropene or 1,3-dichloropropene plus chloropicrin against soil-borne diseases and nematodes. Fumigants are applied at higher rates than other pesticide types, such as fungicides and insecticides, in part because they treat a volume of space rather than a surface, such as leaves and stems of plants. Thus, the amounts applied are large relative to other pesticide types even though the number of applications or number of acres treated may be relatively small.

Figure 32, JPG: Acres of strawberry treated by the top 5 AIs of each AI type from 2011 to 2015.

Table and raisin grape

The southern San Joaquin Valley region accounts for more than 90 percent of California’s raisin and table grape production (Figure A-33). Total acreage planted to table and raisin grape decreased by an estimated 3,000 acres in 2015, while average prices increased (Table 30). ‘Thompson Seedless’ was again the leading raisin grape cultivar, while ‘Flame Seedless’ was again the leading table grape cultivar.

Table 30, PDF: Total reported pounds of all active ingredients (AI), acres treated, acres planted, and prices for table and raisin grape each year from 2011 to 2015. Planted acres from 2011 to 2015 are from CDFA(b), 2014-2016; marketing year average prices from 2011 to 2015 are from USDA(d), 2014-2016. Acres treated means cumulative acres treated (see explanation p. 10).

The price per ton in Table 30 is an average of the prices of table and raisin grapes, weighted by their respective acreages. Due to the wide variation in individual prices depending on type and use of the grape, it is best to consult USDA and CDFA for specific prices.

Changes in pesticide use on table and raisin grape, like those on wine grape, are influenced by a number of factors, including weather, topography, pest pressure, evolution of resistance, competition from newer pesticide products, commodity prices, application restrictions, and efforts by growers to reduce costs.

Area treated with sulfur, fungicides, insecticides, or herbicides decreased in 2015 (Figure 33).

The area treated with the top five insecticides decreased in 2015, though not by large margins (Figure 34). This reduction in use may be attributed to declining grape acreage as vineyards are replaced by almond and pistachio orchards, though reduced pest pressure may have played a role as well. The only insecticides applied to more area in 2015 were chlorpyrifos (used as a delayed-dormant application in response to expected large populations of vine mealybug in spring), beta-cyfluthrin, flubendiamide, and acetamiprid. Indoxacarb use also increased substantially but was applied to a relatively small number of acres. Flubendiamide and indoxacarb are used to manage moth larvae, particularly the western grapeleaf skeletonizer and cutworms. Two of these insecticides, chlorpyrifos and flubendiamide, have been under reevaluation by the U.S. EPA, which has proposed to revoke all tolerances for chlorpyrifos, and in 2016 canceled registration of all flubendiamide products.

Figure 33, JPG: Acres of table and raisin grape treated by all AIs in the major types of pesticides from 1995 to 2015.

The areas treated with sulfur and other fungicides decreased marginally (Figure 33). Fungicides with the greatest area treated were the same as in 2014 (Figure 34 and A-34). Notable increases in use were observed for fenhexamid and tetraconazole. Most applications were made in spring to early summer, likely for powdery mildew, which posed a moderate problem early in the season in 2015 (Figure A-35). Much of the pattern of fungicide use across years can be explained by rotation of fungicides as part of a resistance management program.

With drought continuing into the fourth year, weed growth may have been inhibited to some extent. The area treated with herbicides decreased again, a trend that has continued since the drought began in 2012 (Figure 33). Glyphosate use decreased again while use of glufosinate-ammonium increased substantially. Glufosinate-ammonium is an attractive alternative to glyphosate, and after a period of unavailability, growers are likely shifting to this AI to reduce selection for glyphosate-resistant weeds. There were reductions in the area treated with all other herbicides, except flazasulfuron, which was applied to a relatively small number of acres (less than 6,000). Flazasulfuron was registered in 2012 so its use might be expected to increase for a period. The area treated with fumigants in 2015 decreased by nearly half. Most of the decrease was accounted for by reduced application of aluminum phosphide, an AI for rodent control. The area treated with 1,3-D increased by 30 percent.

The area treated with plant growth regulators (PGRs) decreased modestly in 2015. Gibberellins were again used far more than other PGRs, followed by ethephon and hydrogen cyanamide, which has been increasingly used since 2009. Hydrogen cyanamide is applied after pruning to promote bud break.

Figure 34, JPG: Acres of table and raisin grape treated by the top 5 AIs of each AI type from 2011 to 2015.

Walnut

California produces 99 percent of the walnuts grown in the United States. The California walnut industry has more than 4,000 growers who farmed approximately 300,000 bearing acres in 2015 (Table 31 and Figure A-36). Mild temperatures led to faster crop development and an earlier harvest despite a lack of chilling hours and the ongoing drought crisis. Walnut production was estimated at 603,000 tons in 2015, an increase of about 6 percent from the previous year. The price per ton decreased almost 50 percent while bearing acreage increased 3 percent. The dramatic price drop has been attributed to a combination of decreased demand due to stabilizing consumption rates and an increase in foreign walnut supplies. The amount of applied pesticides increased 21 percent and area treated increased 20 percent. In general, pesticide use followed similar patterns seen in 2014, with increases in fungicides, insecticides, and herbicides, though overall fumigant use was nearly unchanged. (Figure 35).

Table 31, PDF: Total reported pounds of all active ingredients (AI), acres treated, acres bearing, and prices for walnut each year from 2011 to 2015. Bearing acres and marketing year average prices from 2011 to 2015 are from USDA(d), 2014-2016. Acres treated means cumulative acres treated (see explanation p. 10).

The area treated with insecticides, which includes miticides, increased 14 percent (Figure 35). Reasons include increased acreage and relatively warm temperatures throughout the growing season, especially in the spring, which allowed insects to mature faster and shorten the time between generations. Pressure from walnut husk fly and navel orangeworm continued to increase. Abamectin, a miticide, remained the most-used insecticide/miticide because of its low cost and continued efficacy, while another miticide, hexythiazox, saw a large increase in area treated. Drought and hot weather conditions may have contributed to increased mite pressure. Additionally, bifenthrin, acetamiprid, chlorantraniliprole, and imidacloprid use increased (Figures 36 and A-37).

The 22 percent increase in area treated with herbicides reflects the increase in walnut acreage, especially in younger plantings, where weeds thrive until tree canopies are capable of shading orchard floors (Figure 35). In addition, a dry winter adversely impacted or even prevented the use of preemergence herbicide programs and may have contributed to increased postemergence herbicide use. A combination of price and good management of most broadleaf weeds, including glyphosate-resistant hairy fleabane in the San Joaquin Valley, are likely contributors to the increase in saflufenacil. Use of the relatively new herbicide indaziflam continues to increase because of its long-lasting broad-spectrum management of weeds (Figures 36, A-37 and A-38).

Figure 35, JPG: Acres of walnut treated by all AIs in the major types of pesticides from 1995 to 2015.

The area treated with fungicides increased 25 percent (Figure 35). Copper and mancozeb, used to manage blight, had the highest use and use was higher than in 2014. Use of other fungicides, such as pyraclostrobin, boscalid (pyraclostrobin and boscalid are used as a mixture), propiconazole, and azoxystrobin, saw large increases (Figures A-37, and A-38). These increases were likely due to the increased occurrence of Botryosphaeria canker (Bot), a fungus that that kills wood within infested walnut orchards and causes severe crop loss.

The area treated with fumigants was mostly unchanged: methyl bromide use continued to decline while chloropicrin and 1,3-dichloropropene increased. Most fumigants are applied to the soil before planting while aluminum phosphide is used to manage vertebrates. Given the cost and tighter regulations, some growers are using alternatives such as fallowing or cover-cropping for a year before replanting orchards.

Figure 36, JPG: Acres of walnut treated by the top 5 AIs of each AI type from 2011 to 2015.

Wine grape

There are four major wine grape production regions: North Coast (Lake, Mendocino, Napa, Sonoma, and Solano counties); Central Coast (Alameda, Monterey, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, San Benito, Santa Cruz, and Santa Clara counties); northern San Joaquin Valley (San Joaquin, Calaveras, Amador, Sacramento, Merced, Stanislaus, and Yolo counties); and southern San Joaquin Valley (Fresno, Kings, Tulare, Kern, and Madera counties). (Figure A-39). Pest and disease pressure may differ among these regions. The pooled figures in this report may not reflect differences in pesticide use patterns between production regions.

Changes in pesticide use on wine grape are influenced by a number of factors, including weather, topography, pest pressure, evolution of resistance, competition from newer pesticide products, commodity prices, application restrictions, efforts by growers to reduce costs, and increased emphasis on sustainable farming.

Table 32, PDF: Total reported pounds of all active ingredients (AI), acres treated, acres planted, and prices for wine grape each year from 2011 to 2015. Planted acres from 2011 to 2015 are from CDFA(b), 2014-2016; marketing year average prices from 2011 to 2015 are from USDA(d), 2014-2016. Acres treated means cumulative acres treated (see explanation p. 10).

The total amount of pesticides applied in 2015 and the cumulative area treated increased from 2014 values (Table 32).All the major types of pesticides–sulfur, fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides–increased in 2015, a recurring trend for all pesticide types except herbicides, which tend to fluctuate more annually (Figure 37).

Vine mealybug continued to be a concern for growers. It has now been found throughout most of the grape-growing regions of California. The warm winters since 2012 have allowed vine mealybug populations to build up early in the season. In the North Coast region, a new pest, the Virginia creeper leafhopper, continued to cause substantial damage in some locations, as did the western grape leafhopper. While there is effective biological control for western grape leafhopper, Virginia creeper leafhopper infestations require insecticide applications. On the positive side, the European grapevine moth was nearing eradication, which was officially declared in August 2016.

Oil, chlorpyrifos, thiamethoxam, clothianidin, chlorantraniliprole, fenpyroximate, and to a lesser extent imidacloprid were applied to more area than in 2014. Three of these insecticides (thiamethoxam, clothianidin, imidacloprid) are neonicotinoids used to manage mealybugs, leafhoppers, and sharpshooters, and one is a miticide (fenproximate). Chlorantraniliprole is used to manage moth larvae. The number of acres treated with spirotetramat, used on similar pests to those treated with the neonicotinoids, differed little from 2014 but the number of pounds applied increased greatly, suggesting that it was being applied at the higher rates (Figures 38,A-40, and A-41).

Figure 37, JPG: Acres of wine grape treated by all AIs in the major types of pesticides from 1995 to 2015.

Large vine mealybug populations in the southern San Joaquin Valley in 2015 sparked an appreciable increase in chlorpyrifos use. Chlorpyrifos is used as postharvest or delayed dormant treatments to prevent spring buildup of vine mealybug populations. This increase comes at a time when the U.S. EPA has proposed a revocation of all tolerances for this insecticide.

Fungicide use increased slightly in 2015 (Figure 37), despite the dry conditions of the drought that generally do not favor fungal reproduction. Difenoconazole, cyflufenamid, potassium bicarbonate, fenhexamid, and fluopyram had the largest increases in area treated. The top five fungicides applied to the largest cumulative treated area changed little from 2014 (Figure 38). It is likely that growers were rotating AIs to slow the evolution of resistance.

Despite the drought’s potential inhibitory effect on weed growth, herbicide use increased in 2015 (Figure 37). There was a decrease in use of herbicides in 2014, attributed in part to drought conditions. The largest increases in 2015 were in the use of glufosinate-ammonium and flumioxazin (Figure 38), but notable increases occurred in 2,4-D and indaziflam as well. Indaziflam was registered in 2012. Glufosinate-ammonium, an herbicide that was difficult to acquire in the West a few years ago, is an attractive alternative to glyphosate. The large increase in its use did not come with a corresponding decrease in glyphosate use, however (Figure 38).

Fumigant use continued a decreasing trend that has been observed over the past four years, with the exception of an increase in area treated with 1,3-D and to a lesser extent sodium tetrathiocarbonate, the latter of which had been used on only 4 acres over the past two years. The overall decrease in fumigant use was due to fewer applications of aluminum phosphide for rodent management.

Use of gibberelins decreased in 2015, though they were by far the most commonly applied plant growth regulator (PGR). Use of other PGRs was negligible in 2015.

Figure 38, JPG: Acres of wine grape treated by the top 5 AIs of each AI type from 2011 to 2015.


Sources of Information

Adaskaveg, J., D. Gubler and T. Michailides. 2013. Fungicides, bactericides, and biologicals for deciduous tree fruit, nut, strawberry, and vine crops. UC Davis Dept. of Plant Pathology, UC Kearney Agricultural Center, UC Statewide IPM Program. 53 pp. http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PDF/PMG/fungicideefficacytiming.pdf

Adaskaveg, J. E., H. Forster, D. Thompson, D. Felts and K. Day. 2012. Epidemiology and Management of Pre- and Post-Harvest Diseases of Fresh Market Stone Fruits. Annual research report submitted to the California Tree Fruit Agreement for 2010. 22 pp. http://ucanr.edu/sites/ctfa/year/2010/?repository=46437&a=92530

CDFA(a). 2016. California Department of Food and Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2015 California Almond Acreage Report. April 27, 2016. 8 pp.https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/California/Publications/Specialty_and_Other_Releases/Almond/index.php

CDFA(a). 2015. California Department of Food and Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2014 California Almond Acreage Report. May 4, 2015. 8 pp.https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/California/Publications/Specialty_and_Other_Releases/Almond/index.php

CDFA(a). 2014. California Department of Food and Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2013 California Almond Acreage Report. April 24, 2014. 8 pp.https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/California/Publications/Specialty_and_Other_Releases/Almond/index.php

CDFA(a). 2013. California Department of Food and Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2012 California Almond Acreage Report. April 25, 2013. 8 pp.https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/California/Publications/Specialty_and_Other_Releases/Almond/index.php

CDFA(b). 2016. California Department of Food and Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics Service. California Grape Acreage Report 2015 Crop. April 14, 2016. 74 pp. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/California/Publications/Specialty_and_Other_Releases/Grapes/Acreage/Reports/index.php

CDFA(b). 2015. California Department of Food and Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics Service. California Grape Acreage Report 2014 Crop. April 16, 2015. 65 pp. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/California/Publications/Specialty_and_Other_Releases/Grapes/Acreage/Reports/index.php

CDFA(b). 2014. California Department of Food and Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics Service. California Grape Acreage Report 2013 Crop. April 15, 2014. 59 pp. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/California/Publications/Specialty_and_Other_Releases/Grapes/Acreage/Reports/index.php

California Farm Bureau. Ag Alert. Various issues. http://www.agalert.com/

Ogawa, J.M. and H. English. 1991. Diseases of Temperate Zone Tree Fruit and Nut Crops. UC ANR, Oakland, Calif. Pub. 3345. 461 pp.

University of California Agricultural and Natural Resources Field Notes.

University of California Integrated Pest Management (UC IPM). Pest Management Guidelines. http://ipm.ucanr.edu/.

USDA. United States Department of Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics Service. Crop Progress and Condition Reports. California Crop Weather. (weekly bulletins) www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/California/Publications/Crop_Progress_&_Condition/.

USDA. United States Department of Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA). Quick Stats. http://quickstats.nass.usda.gov.

USDA(a). 2016. United States Department of Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics Service. Acreage. June 30, 2016. 47 pp. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/Acre/2010s/2016/Acre-06-30-2016.pdf

USDA(a). 2015. United States Department of Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics Service. Acreage. June 30, 2015. 42 pp. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/Acre/2010s/2015/Acre-06-30-2015.pdf

USDA(a). 2014. United States Department of Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics Service. Acreage. June 30, 2014. 42 pp. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/Acre/2010s/2014/Acre-06-30-2014.pdf

USDA(a). 2013. United States Department of Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics Service. Acreage. June 28, 2013. 42 pp. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/Acre/2010s/2013/Acre-06-28-2013.pdf

USDA(a). 2012. United States Department of Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics Service. Acreage. June 29, 2012. 42 pp. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/Acre/2010s/2012/Acre-06-29-2012.pdf

USDA(b). 2016. United States Department of Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics Service. Citrus Fruits 2016 Summary. September 12, 2016. 36 pp. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/CitrFrui/2010s/2016/CitrFrui-09-12-2016.pdf

USDA(b). 2015. United States Department of Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics Service. Citrus Fruits 2015 Summary. September 17, 2015. 34 pp. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/CitrFrui/2010s/2015/CitrFrui-09-17-2015.pdf

USDA(b). 2014. United States Department of Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics Service. Citrus Fruits 2014 Summary. September 18, 2014. 36 pp. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/CitrFrui/2010s/2014/CitrFrui-09-18-2014.pdf

USDA(b). 2013. United States Department of Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics Service. Citrus Fruits 2013 Summary. September 19, 2013. 36 pp. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/CitrFrui/2010s/2013/CitrFrui-09-19-2013.pdf

USDA(c). 2016. United States Department of Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics Service. Crop Values 2015 Summary. February 24, 2016. 49 pp. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/CropValuSu/2010s/2016/CropValuSu-02-24-2016.pdf

USDA(c). 2015. United States Department of Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics Service. Crop Values 2014 Summary. February 24, 2015. 49 pp. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/CropValuSu/2010s/2015/CropValuSu-02-24-2015_correction.pdf

USDA(c). 2014. United States Department of Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics Service. Crop Values 2013 Summary. February 14, 2014. 49 pp. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/CropValuSu/2010s/2014/CropValuSu-02-14-2014.pdf

USDA(d). 2016. United States Department of Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics Service. Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts 2015 Summary. July 6, 2016. 107 pp. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/NoncFruiNu/2010s/2016/NoncFruiNu-07-06-2016.pdf

USDA(d). 2015. United States Department of Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics Service. Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts 2014 Summary. July 17, 2015. 98 pp. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/NoncFruiNu/2010s/2015/NoncFruiNu-07-17-2015.pdf

USDA(d). 2014.United States Department of Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics Service. Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts 2013 Summary. July 17, 2014. 79 pp. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/NoncFruiNu/2010s/2014/NoncFruiNu-07-17-2014_revision.pdf

USDA(e). 2016. United States Department of Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics Service. Vegetables 2015 Summary. February 4, 2016. 75 pp. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/VegeSumm/2010s/2016/VegeSumm-02-04-2016.pdf

USDA(e). 2015. United States Department of Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics Service. Vegetables 2014 Summary. January 29, 2015. 83 pp. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/VegeSumm/2010s/2015/VegeSumm-01-29-2015.pdf

USDA(e). 2014. United States Department of Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics Service. Vegetables 2013 Summary. March 27, 2014. 83 pp. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/VegeSumm/2010s/2014/VegeSumm-03-27-2014.pdf

Varela, Lucia G.; Rhonda J. Smith; and Glenn T. McGourty. 2013. Sonoma County Farm News, July.

Weksler, A., A. Dagar, H. Friedman and S. Lurie. 2009. The effect of gibberellin on firmness and storage potential of peaches and nectarines. Proceedings of the VII International Peach Symposium. International Society for Horticultural Science Acta Horticulturae 962. http://www.actahort.org/books/962/962_80.htm

Western Farm Press. Various issues. http://www.westernfarmpress.com/

And many thanks to all the contributions and expertise from County Agricultural Commissioners, growers, University of California Cooperative Extension Area Integrated Pest Management Advisors and Farm Advisors, pest control advisors, commodity marketing boards, and University of California researchers.

VI. Pesticide Use Report Data 2015

The following PDF tables contain information of statewide pesticide use for 2015. Two version are available:

  1. Pesticide Use Report Data 2015, Indexed by Commodity, PDF (10 mb). For each commodity the chemical that was used, total pounds applied, the number of agricultural applications made, and the area treated are summarized.
  2. Pesticide Use Report Data 2015, Indexed by Chemical, PDF (10 mb). For each chemical, the commodity on which it was used, the toatl pounds applied, the number of agricultural application made and the area treated are summarzied.

Appendix

Figure A-1, PDF: Acres treated by the major AIs from 1994 to 2015.

Figure A-2, PDF: Acres treated by the major AIs and crops in 2015.

Figure A-3,PDF: Number of pesticide applications in alfalfa by township in 2015.

Figure A-4, PDF: Acres of alfalfa treated by the major AIs from 1994 to 2015.

Figure A-5, PDF: Acres of alfalfa treated by the major AIs by month and AI type from 2011 to 2015.

Figure A-6, PDF: Number of pesticide applications in almond by township in 2015.

Figure A-7, PDF: Acres of almond treated by the major AIs from 1994 to 2015.

Figure A-8, PDF: Acres of almond treated by the major AIs by month and AI type from 2011 to 2015.

Figure A-9, PDF: Number of pesticide applications in carrot by township in 2015.

Figure A-10, PDF: Acres of carrot treated by the major AIs from 1994 to 2015.

Figure A-11, PDF: Acres of carrot treated by the major AIs by month and AI type from 2011 to 2015.

Figure A-12, PDF: Number of pesticide applications in cotton by township in 2015.

Figure A-13, PDF: Acres of cotton treated by the major AIs from 1994 to 2015.

Figure A-14, PDF: Acres of cotton treated by the major AIs by month and AI type from 2011 to 2015.

Figure A-15, PDF: Number of pesticide applications in orange by township in 2015.

Figure A-16, PDF: Acres of orange treated by the major AIs from 1994 to 2015.

Figure A-17, PDF: Acres of orange treated by the major AIs by month and AI type from 2011 to 2015.

Figure A-18, PDF: Number of pesticide applications in peach and nectarine by township in 2015.

Figure A-19, PDF: Acres of peach and nectarine treated by the major AIs from 1994 to 2015.

Figure A-20, PDF: Acres of peach and nectarine treated by the major AIs by month and AI type from 2011 to 2015.

Figure A-21, PDF: Number of pesticide applications in pistachio by township in 2015.

Figure A-22, PDF: Acres of pistachio treated by the major AIs from 1994 to 2015.

Figure A-23, PDF: Acres of pistachio treated by the major AIs by month and AI type from 2011 to 2015.

Figure A-24, PDF: Number of pesticide applications in processing tomato by township in 2015.

Figure A-25, PDF: Acres of processing tomato treated by the major AIs from 1994 to 2015.

Figure A-26, PDF: Acres of processing tomato treated by the major AIs by month and AI type from 2011 to 2015.

Figure A-27, PDF: Number of pesticide applications in rice by township in 2015.

Figure A-28, PDF: Acres of rice treated by the major AIs from 1994 to 2015.

Figure A-29, PDF: Acres of rice treated by the major AIs by month and AI type from 2011 to 2015.

Figure A-30, PDF: Number of pesticide applications in strawberry by township in 2015.

Figure A-31, PDF: Acres of strawberry treated by the major AIs from 1994 to 2015.

Figure A-32, PDF: Acres of strawberry treated by the major AIs by month and AI type from 2011 to 2015.

Figure A-33, PDF: Number of pesticide applications in table and raisin grape by township in 2015.

Figure A-34, PDF: Acres of table and raisin grape treated by the major AIs from 1994 to 2015.

Figure A-35, PDF: Acres of table and raisin grape treated by the major AIs by month and AI type from 2011 to 2015.

Figure A-36, PDF: Number of pesticide applications in walnut by township in 2015.

Figure A-37, PDF: Acres of walnut treated by the major AIs from 1994 to 2015.

Figure A-38, PDF: Acres of walnut treated by the major AIs by month and AI type from 2011 to 2015.

Figure A-39, PDF: Number of pesticide applications in wine grape by township in 2015.

Figure A-40, PDF: Acres of wine grape treated by the major AIs from 1994 to 2015.

Figure A-41, PDF: Acres of wine grape treated by the major AIs by month and AI type from 2011 to 2015.