1 / 40

IPM Measurement Putting an Environmental Price To Pesticide Use

This article discusses a method to evaluate the environmental price of pesticide use through Integrated Pest Management (IPM) success indicators and the Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ) tool. It explores the components needed for assessing pesticide prices and incorporates fair environmental costs based on different impact categories. Estimated costs and impacts of pesticides in the USA are presented, emphasizing the importance of considering environmental and social aspects in pesticide pricing. By developing a common currency for assessing IPM programs, the goal is to promote environmentally friendly practices and reduce pesticide reliance.

bethann
Download Presentation

IPM Measurement Putting an Environmental Price To Pesticide Use

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. IPM Measurement Putting an Environmental Price To Pesticide Use Joe Kovach IPM Program Ohio State University

  2. Method to Put Environmental Price of Pesticides • Background • Method • Application

  3. Indicators of IPM Success We Have Used • 1) New Jobs • 2) New Businesses • 3) Reduced Agricultural Production Costs • 4) Development of New Products • 5) Decrease in Pounds of Pesticide Use • 6) Decrease Numbers of Pesticide Apps • 7) Lower Environ. Impacts of Pesticide Use • 8) Development of New and/or Improved • Pesticide Application Technology

  4. Indicators of IPM Success We Have Used 9) Increased Communication/Partnership (Processors, Producers, and Retailers) 10) Increases in Federal or State Funding 11) Reduced no. of pesticide treated acres 12) Shift in reliance to less-toxic pesticides 13) Creation of more IPM Options 14) Biocontrol projects funded then and now 15) Changes in Producer IPM Knowledge, Opinions, Skills, and Aspirations

  5. US General Accounting Office - 2001 Management Improvements Needed to Further Promote IPM One recommendation: "a related management shortcoming of the federal IPM initiative is that USDA has not devised a method for measuring the environmental or economic results of IPM implementation."

  6. IPM Environ. Measurement Tool Over 25 different groups used tool Growers, Processors, Golf course supers Scientists Cornell Univ. - many crops Province of Ontario - many crops Univ. Guelph- many crops Texas A&M - vegetables Washington State - apples University of Minnesota - fruit

  7. A Method to Measure theEnvironmental Impact of Pesticides (EIQ)1992J. Kovach, C. Petzoldt and J. TetteIPM ProgramCornell UniversityNYS Ag. Exp. Sta.Geneva, NY http://www.nysipm.cornell.edu/publications/EIQ.html

  8. Over 200 pesticides evaluated (insecticides, fungicides, herbicide) 13 Criteria Used • Dermal Toxicity • Chronic Toxicity - Reproductive - Teratogenic - Mutagenic - Oncogenic • Fish Toxicity • Bird Toxicity • Bee Toxicity • Beneficial Arthro. • Soil Persistence • Leaf Persistence • Runoff Potential • Leaching Potential http://www.nysipm.cornell.edu/publications/EIQ.html

  9. CHRONIC POTENTIAL(Reproductive, Teratogenic,Mutagenic, Oncogenic) Little or none = 1 Potential = 3 Definite = 5 http://www.nysipm.cornell.edu/publications/EIQ.html

  10. EIQ Equation EIQ = {[C(DT*5)+(DT*P)]+ [(C*(S+P)/2*SY)+(L)]+ [(F*R)+(D*((S+P)/2)*3)+ (Z*P*3)+(B*P*5)]}/3 Farmworker Consumer Ecological http://www.nysipm.cornell.edu/publications/EIQ.html

  11. FARMWORKER COMPONENT Applicator + Picker (CP * DT * 5) + (CP * DT * PSR) Acute toxicity LD50 rabbits Average of Reproductive Teratogenic Mutagenic Oncogenic Plant surface residue

  12. EIQ VALUES EIQ 13.5 17.7 23.9 28.6 32.4 41.2 43.1 51.5 69.5 104.4 Pesticide Bt orzalin phosmet captan glyphosate myclobutanil azinphos-m thiophanate-m benlate parathion

  13. Field Use EIQ • Inherent toxicity (EIQ value) • % active ingredient in formulation • rate (pints or pounds/acre) • number of applications

  14. EIQ Field Use Rating ai .50 .50 .35 Rate 6.0 3.0 2.2 Frating 67.8 60.8 33.2 EIQ 22.6 40.5 43.1 Material Sevin Thiodan Guthion

  15. NY Apple IPM Comparisons

  16. NASS Data - APPLE

  17. National Crop EIQ

  18. Methods of Measuring IPM Adoption If more biological/cultural control practices are used than less pesticides will be used If better scouting or forecasting methods are implemented than less pesticides used Ultimately, changes in IPM adoption behavior leads directly to changes in pesticide use patterns

  19. Pesticide Price Model Goal: To develop a “common currency” to assess the environmental and economic impact of IPM programs that can be easily communicated.

  20. Price = Raw materials • + Capital • + Production • + Transportation • + Profit • (+ Environmental Cost)

  21. Greeneris Cheaper

  22. Pesticide Price Method 3 Components needed 1) Total environmental cost of pesticides used 2) Environmental risk rating for each pesticide 3) Total amount of pesticide used

  23. Pesticide Price Method Pimentel et al. (1992) estimated the social and environmental cost of pesticide use in the US to be $ 8.1 billion dollars. Gianessi and Anderson (1995) estimated that 732 million pounds of ai of pesticides were used in the US in 1992. Environmental cost = $ 8.1 billion / 732 mil lbs. $11.06 per pound of active ingredient of pesticide

  24. How do you incorporate a fair environmental cost per pesticide? If a pesticide is aleacherit should a have higher groundwater costs If a pesticide kills bees it should have higher bee costs Each pesticide should have a different cost for each environmental impact category

  25. Estimated Environmental and Social Cost of Pesticides Costs Millions $/year Public Health 787 Loss of Natural Enemies 520 Honeybee & Poll. Losses 320 Fishery losses 24 Bird losses 2,100 Groundwater Cont. 1,800 From Pimentel et al. 1992

  26. Pesticide Use in the USAin 1992 ClassMil. ai lbsEIQ’s Insecticides 149 98% Fungicides 129 98% Herbicides45489% Total 732 94%

  27. Pesticide Price Method • • Used (94%) of Pimentel cost calculation (GW = $1.8M) • • Determined relative environmental • impacts of each chemical for each category (modified EIQ’s - 1,10,100 - used Field Use EIQ) • Calculated average cost/FUEIQ • • Determine $/lb ai

  28. Environmental Price of a Pound of ai of Atrazine CategoryPrice Ground H20 $10.02 Aquatic 0.01 Bird 0.14 Bee 0.10 Beneficials 0.38 Applicator 0.00 Consumer0.07 Total $10.72

  29. National Soybean Pesticide Use lbs. Ai $ ENV/lbTotal $ 2,802,000 2.73 7649460 24,000 0.83 19920 1,346,000 2.50 3365000 5,036,000 1.31 6597160 4,562,000 10.82 49360840 143,000 10.18 1455740 928,000 1.01 937280 320,000 1.41 451200 215,000 1.72 369800 246,000 139.38 34287480 342,000 0.23 78660 54,000 1.72 92880 716,000 3.06 2190960 8,687,000 0.63 5472810 688,000 18.19 12514720 1,229,000 10.04 12339160 335,000 1.35 452250 225,000 2.86 643500 4,221,000 1.14 4811940 1,460,000 11.32 16527200 340,000 12.54 4263600 13,810,000 1.84 25410400 190,000 9.10 1729000 1,158,000 1.42 1644360 10,008,000 1.98 19815840 56,122,000$4.40 $228,100,000 Herbicides 2,4-D 2,4-DB Acifluorfen Alachlor Bentazon Chlorimuron-ethyl Clomazone Dimethenamid Ethalfluralin Fenoxaprop Fluazifop-P-butyl Flumetsulam Fomesafen Glyphosate Imazaquin Imazethapyr Lactofen Linuron Metolachlor Metribuzin Paraquat Pendimethalin Quizalofop-ethyl Sethoxydim Trifluralin Total

  30. Environmental Costs of Ohio Commodities Commodity Acres (x103)Tot. E.$ (mil)Env.$/A Soybean 4,100 15.9 4 Corn 3,600 70.1 19 Pumpkins 4 0.1 23 Sw. Corn 12 0.4 31 Strawberries 1 0.2 174 Apples 9 2.4 265

  31. Behavior Changes & IPM Implementation • • Negative Incentives • Pesticide taxes • •Positive Incentives • IPM Marketing • Trading Pesticide Credits

  32. Study on Pesticide Reduction Incentives in Denmark • • subsidies of environmentally favorable practices are inefficient • • “polluter pays” taxes are best • - for a 40-45% reduction in pesticide • use, cost should increase by 120% Dubgaard 1991

  33. Atrazine Environmental Price Price of Atrazine 4L = $1.81/ lb Environmental Price = $10.72/ lb ai 43% ai = $ 4.61 Atrazine 4L = $ 1.81 Environ. = 4.61 Total Cost = $6.42(357%) Gallon of atrazine 4L was $14.48 now $51.36

  34. IPM Adoption &Positive Incentives IPM Marketing Trading Pesticide Credits

  35. OH Apple grower #1 Material aps ai rate env $/lb Total env.$ Polyram 5 0.8 3.0 20.82 $249.84 Rubigan 1 0.18 0.5 17.33 1.56 Guthion 2 0.5 2.0 9.15 18.30 Imidan 3 0.7 2.0 1.36 5.71 Nova 2 0.4 0.4 1.27 0.41 Captan 4 0.5 3.0 0.78 6.78 Ziram 3 0.7 6.0 10.49 132.17 Total $414.76 / A

  36. OH Apple grower #2 Material aps ai rate env $/lb Total env.$ Polyram 3 0.8 3.0 20.82 $149.90 Rubigan 2 0.18 0.5 17.33 3.12 Guthion 2 0.5 2.0 9.15 18.30 Imidan 2 0.7 2.0 1.36 3.80 Total $171.6 / Acre Can grower #2 trade $50/A in pesticide credits with grower #1

  37. OH Apple grower #3 Materialapsai rate env $/lb Total env.$ Imidan 2 0.7 2.0 1.36 3.80 Captan 2 0.5 4.0 1.29 5.16 Topsin 2 0.7 1.0 1 4.91 20.87 Total $29.83 / A Can grower #3 trade $50/A in pesticide credits with grower #1 or #2

  38. Other Options • Can we develop a program of planting trees to defer environmental costs? • Using American Forest Climate Change Calculator Web Site www.americanforest.org • 1,000 gal of diesel = 22,579 lbs of CO2 emissions = 33.8 trees needed • At $1.50/gal of diesel • Each tree =$44.38

  39. Exchanging Tree Credits for Pesticides Commodity Env.$/A #trees/A/yr Soybean 4 0.1 Corn 19 0.4 Pumpkins 23 0.5 Sw. Corn 31 0.7 Strawberries 174 3.9 Apples 265 6.0

  40. Summary • The Pesticide Price Method • • can be used to discuss stewardship issues with growers, policy makers, and the general public • • is one method to make comparison between commodities and growing practices • can be used to measure IPM adoption rates using either positive or negative incentives http://ipm.osu.edu

More Related