Impact Assessment of an IPM Research and Extension Program in Cotton

1. Malcolm Robertson Department of Agricultural & Applied Economics Clemson University Impact Assessment of an IPM Research and Extension Program in Cotton

2. Paper Objectives: Today State IPM Coordinators face a mounting demand for information on the payback stemming from the outlay of public monies to the IPM programs and as a result earlier methods of appraising the State IPM programs now have to be amended. Previously IPM programs have been critiqued through a number of key categories, such as; Field trials, Grower meetings, Extension publications Agent training. Therefore, this project focused on three questions; 1) What is the level of IPM practiced by growers? 2)What are the benefits to cotton producers whohave adopted IPM practices? 3)To what degree has the level of IPM adoption and associated benefits been influenced by the state land grant university research and extension programs?

3. A list of all the commercial cotton growers in South Carolina was compiled from the states mandated Boll Weevil eradication program. A standardized survey questionnaire and cover letter describing the purpose of the project and requesting the grower's assistance was compiled and distributed to each grower . Methods The survey questionnaire was initially tested in 2001 on 25 growers. Returned surveys were collected in a data base for analysis.

4. Demographics Cultural practices Survey Sections Chemical Usage Other questions about the farm and grower. determine practices that would reduce the reliance on inorganic compounds . Management Practices record keeping qualities along with pertinent scouting questions. pesticide applications and combining of cultural practices in the applications. Chemical Application practices in applying chemicals. determine any other relevant information that did not pertain to the other sections.

5. 0 1 3 IPM scoring/rating = 4 2 2 0 1 2 2 3

6. Questionnaire Section % Grower Low IPM Score % Grower Medium IPM Score % Grower High IPM Score Cultural Practice 6 0 - 30 87 31 - 60 7 61 - 90 Survey Results1) Levels of IPM adoption Growers Score Distribution For Cultural Practices Low IPM Medium IPM High IPM

7. Questionnaire Section % Grower Low IPM Score % Grower Medium IPM Score % Grower High IPM Score Management Practice 5 0 - 30 54 31 - 60 41 61 - 90 1) Levels of IPM adoption contin.. Growers Score Distribution For Management Practices Low IPM Medium IPM High IPM

8. Questionnaire Section % Grower Low IPM Score % Grower Medium IPM Score % Grower High IPM Score Chemical Usage 2.5 0 - 46 60.5 47 - 92 37 93 - 138 1) Levels of IPM adoption contin.. Growers Score Distribution For Chemical Usage Practices Low IPM Medium IPM High IPM

9. Questionnaire Section % Grower Low IPM Score % Grower Medium IPM Score % Grower High IPM Score Chemical Usage 1.5 0 - 46 46.5 47 - 92 52 93-138 1) Levels of IPM adoption contin.. Growers Score Distribution For Chemical Application Practices Low IPM Medium IPM High IPM

10. Overall % Grower Low IPM Score % Grower Medium IPM Score % Grower High IPM Score 0 0 – 165 80 166 – 330 20 331 – 495 1) Levels of IPM adoption contin.. Overall IPM Ranking Medium IPM High IPM

11. Survey Results2) Benefits of Adopting IPM Program Level of Grower Utilization Of Clemson Extension Recommendations and their Associated Average Yields.

12. Technology BREAK-EVEN YIELD Yield (lbs/acre) Revenue @ 0.65 $/lb ($/acre) Variable Costs ($/acre) Returns above VC ($/acre) Bt 535 839 545-35 411-50 133-85 BtRR 533 752 492-56 410-40 82-16 RR 534 715 468-33 411-04 57-29 Conv 526 778 509-59 413-35 96-24 2) Benefits of Adopting IPM Program Yield, revenue, variable costs, and returns above variable costs, per acre, by seed technology.

13. Recommendations Followed Never Seldom Often Always Chemical Programs 3.1 8.0 71.0 17.9 Insect Threshold Levels 2.5 4.3 66.7 26.5 Best management Practices 8.0 21.0 58.0 13.0 Survey Results3) Land Grant Universities Influence On Growers Adopting IPM Program

14. South Carolina are strongly influenced by the land grant university’s IPM research and extension programs. Conclusion Many of the growers’ decisions are seen to be based on data generated through the personnel involved with these programs. Payoffs in the form of enhanced yields have ensued from the outlay of public monies invested by the state in IPM research and extension programs. Future work can look at the philosophical attitudes of the growers towards IPM practices, and compare them to the actual practices carried out by the growers’.

15. References Bauske, M., Zehnder, G. M., Sikora, E. J., & Kemble, J. (1998). Southeastern tomato growers adopt integrated pest management. HortTechnology 8: 40-44. Culpepper, A.S. and York A.C. (1998). Weed management in glyphosate-tolerant cotton. The Journal of Cotton Science,4, 174-185. D. A. Dilman (1978), "Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method." Edge, J. M., Benedict, J. H., Carroll, J. P. Reding, H. K. 2001. Bollgard Cotton: An Assessment of Global Economic, Environmental and Social Benefits. Journal of Cotton Science. Layton, M.B., M.R. Williams, and S. Stewart, 1997, Bt-cotton in Mississippi: The first year. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf. Vol II. p. 861-863. Klotz-Ingram, C., Jans, S., Fernandez-Cornejo, J., & McBride, W. (1999). Farm-Level production effects related to the adoption of genetically modified cotton for pest management. AgBioForum, 2(2), 73-84. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.agbioforum.org. Marra, M., G. Carlson, and B. Hubbell. Economic Impacts of the First Crop Biotechnologies. 1998. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Economic Research Service (ERS) (1999). Genetically engineered crops for pest management.