IPM Measurement
Putting an Environmental Price
To Pesticide Use
Joe Kovach
IPM Program
Ohio State University
Method to Put Environmental
Price of Pesticides
• Background
• Method
• Application
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
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
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."
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
A Method to Measure the
Environmental Impact
of Pesticides (EIQ)
1992
J. Kovach, C. Petzoldt and J. Tette
IPM Program
Cornell University
NYS Ag. Exp. Sta.
Geneva, NY
http://www.nysipm.cornell.edu/publications/EIQ.html
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
CHRONIC POTENTIAL
(Reproductive, Teratogenic,
Mutagenic, Oncogenic)
Little or none = 1
Potential
= 3
Definite
= 5
http://www.nysipm.cornell.edu/publications/EIQ.html
EIQ Equation
EIQ =
{[C(DT*5)+(DT*P)]+
Farmworker
[(C*(S+P)/2*SY)+(L)]+
Consumer
[(F*R)+(D*((S+P)/2)*3)+
(Z*P*3)+(B*P*5)]}/3
Ecological
http://www.nysipm.cornell.edu/publications/EIQ.html
FARMWORKER COMPONENT
Applicator + Picker
(CP * DT * 5) + (CP * DT * PSR)
Average of
Reproductive
Teratogenic
Mutagenic
Oncogenic
Acute toxicity
LD50 rabbits
Plant surface residue
EIQ VALUES
Pesticide
Bt
orzalin
phosmet
captan
glyphosate
myclobutanil
azinphos-m
thiophanate-m
benlate
parathion
EIQ
13.5
17.7
23.9
28.6
32.4
41.2
43.1
51.5
69.5
104.4
Field Use EIQ
• Inherent toxicity (EIQ value)
• % active ingredient in formulation
• rate (pints or pounds/acre)
• number of applications
EIQ Field Use Rating
Material
EIQ
ai
Rate
F
Sevin
22.6
.50
6.0
67.8
Thiodan
40.5
.50
3.0
60.8
Guthion
43.1
.35
2.2
33.2
rating
NY Apple IPM Comparisons
Material
Rubigan EC
Captan 50WP
Lorsban 50WP
Thiodan 50WP
Guthion 35WP
Cygon 4E
Omite 6EC
Kelthane 35WP
Sevin 50WP
Total env impact
EIQ
27.3
28.6
52.8
40.5
43.1
74.0
42.7
29.9
22.6
Material
EIQ
Nova 40WP
41.2
Captan 50WP
28.6
Dipel 2X
13.5
Sevin 50WP
22.6
Guthion 35WP
43.1
Total environmental impact
ai
0.12
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.35
0.43
0.68
0.35
0.50
ai
0.40
0.50
0.06
0.50
0.35
Dose
0.6
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.2
2.0
2.0
4.5
1.0
Applic
4
6
2
1
2
3
2
1
3
Tot
8
257
158
61
66
191
116
47
34
938
Dose Applications Total
0.3
4
20
3.0
1
43
1.5
3
4
3.0
1
34
2.2
2
66
167
NASS Data - APPLE
3000
EIQ
2000
1000
0
AZ
OR
WA
PA
NY
VA
STATE
GA
MI
SC
NC
National Crop EIQ
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
Pesticide Price Model
Goal:
To develop a “common currency”
to assess the environmental and
economic impact of IPM programs
that can be easily communicated.
Price = Raw materials
+ Capital
+ Production
+ Transportation
+ Profit
(+ Environmental Cost)
Greener is Cheaper
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
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
How do you incorporate a fair
environmental cost per pesticide?
If a pesticide is a leacher it 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
Estimated Environmental and
Social Cost of Pesticides
Costs
Public Health
Loss of Natural
Enemies
Honeybee &
Poll. Losses
Fishery losses
Bird losses
Groundwater Cont.
From Pimentel et al. 1992
Millions $/year
787
520
320
24
2,100
1,800
Pesticide Use in the USA
in 1992
Class
Mil. ai lbs
Insecticides 149
Fungicides 129
Herbicides 454
Total
732
EIQ’s
98%
98%
89%
94%
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
Environmental Price of a
Pound of ai of Atrazine
Category
Ground H20
Aquatic
Bird
Bee
Beneficials
Applicator
Consumer
Total
Price
$10.02
0.01
0.14
0.10
0.38
0.00
0.07
$10.72
National Soybean Pesticide Use
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
lbs. Ai
2,802,000 2.73
24,000
1,346,000 2.50
5,036,000 1.31
4,562,000 10.82
143,000 10.18
928,000 1.01
320,000 1.41
215,000 1.72
246,000 139.38
342,000 0.23
54,000 1.72
716,000 3.06
8,687,000 0.63
688,000 18.19
1,229,000 10.04
335,000 1.35
225,000 2.86
4,221,000 1.14
1,460,000 11.32
340,000 12.54
13,810,000 1.84
190,000 9.10
1,158,000 1.42
10,008,000 1.98
Total
56,122,000
$ ENV/lb
7649460
0.83
3365000
6597160
49360840
1455740
937280
451200
369800
34287480
78660
92880
2190960
5472810
12514720
12339160
452250
643500
4811940
16527200
4263600
25410400
1729000
1644360
19815840
Total $
19920
$4.40 $228,100,000
Environmental Costs of
Ohio Commodities
Commodity Acres (x103) Tot. E.$ (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
Behavior Changes &
IPM Implementation
• Negative Incentives
Pesticide taxes
• Positive Incentives
IPM Marketing
Trading Pesticide Credits
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
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
IPM Adoption &
Positive Incentives
IPM Marketing
Trading Pesticide Credits
OH Apple grower #1
Material aps ai
Polyram 5 0.8
Rubigan 1 0.18
Guthion 2 0.5
Imidan
3 0.7
Nova
2 0.4
Captan
4 0.5
Ziram
3 0.7
Total
rate env $/lb
3.0
20.82
0.5
17.33
2.0
9.15
2.0
1.36
0.4
1.27
3.0
0.78
6.0
10.49
Total env.$
$249.84
1.56
18.30
5.71
0.41
6.78
132.17
$414.76 / A
OH Apple grower #2
Material aps ai
Polyram 3 0.8
Rubigan 2 0.18
Guthion 2 0.5
Imidan
2 0.7
Total
rate
3.0
0.5
2.0
2.0
env $/lb Total env.$
20.82
$149.90
17.33
3.12
9.15
18.30
1.36
3.80
$171.6 / Acre
Can grower #2 trade $50/A in pesticide credits with grower #1
OH Apple grower #3
Material aps ai rate
Imidan
2 0.7 2.0
Captan
2 0.5 4.0
Topsin
2 0.7 1.01
Total
env $/lb Total env.$
1.36
3.80
1.29
5.16
4.91
20.87
$29.83 / A
Can grower #3 trade $50/A in
pesticide credits with grower #1 or #2
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 =$44.38
Exchanging Tree Credits for Pesticides
Commodity
Soybean
Corn
Pumpkins
Sw. Corn
Strawberries
Apples
Env.$/A
4
19
23
31
174
265
#trees/A/yr
0.1
0.4
0.5
0.7
3.9
6.0
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