Estimated Annual Agricultural Pesticide Use For Counties Of The .
National Water-Quality Assessment ProgramEstimated Annual Agricultural Pesticide Use for Countiesof the Conterminous United States, 2008–12Estimated Agricultural Use for Clothianidin EPest-Low2008EXPLANATIONEstimated use on agricultural land,in pounds per square mile2012Data Series 907U.S. Department of the InteriorU.S. Geological Survey 0.020.35–1.050.02–0.09 1.060.10–0.34No estimated use
Cover: Maps showing Estimated Agricultural Use for Clothianidin EPest-Low in 2008 and 2012, as an example of data within report.
Estimated Annual Agricultural PesticideUse for Counties of the ConterminousUnited States, 2008–12By Nancy T. Baker and Wesley W. StoneNational Water-Quality Assessment ProgramData Series 907U.S. Department of the InteriorU.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the InteriorSALLY JEWELL, SecretaryU.S. Geological SurveySuzette M. Kimball, Acting DirectorU.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2015For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and livingresources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS.For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications,visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod.To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov.Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by theU.S. Government.Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materialsas noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner.Suggested citation:Baker, N.T., and Stone, W.W., 2015, Estimated annual agricultural pesticide use for counties of the conterminousUnited States, 2008–12: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 907, 9 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ds907.ISSN 2327-638X (online)
iiiContentsAbstract.1Introduction .1Purpose and Scope .1Methods for Estimating Pesticide Use.2Pesticide-Use Data from Surveys.3Harvested-Crop Acres.3EPest Extrapolated Rates.4EPest-Low and EPest-High.4Pesticide-Use Estimates for California.8Estimated Annual Pesticide Use .8References Cited.8Appendixes.9Figures1.Map showing county boundaries and U.S. Department of Agriculture CropReporting Districts and Farm Resources Regions of the conterminousUnited States.22. Graphs showing percentage of acres reported by the 2007 and 2012 AgriculturalCensuses, County Agricultural Production Survey (2008–11), and acres derivedfrom linear interpolation for each crop in the conterminous United States.53. Map showing an example decision process for calculating an estimated pesticideuse (EPest) rate when a Crop Reporting District (CRD) rate is not reported oris considered missing.7AppendixesAppendixes are available online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ds0907.1.List of Crops and Pesticides for which Estimates Were Made2.EPest-Low and EPest-High Use Estimates
ivConversion FactorsInch/pound to International System of UnitsMultiplyByTo obtainAreaacre4,047square meter (m2)acre0.4047hectare (ha)acre0.4047square hectometer (hm2)acre0.004047square kilometer (km2)International System of Units to Inch/poundMultiplyByTo obtainMasskilogram (kg)2.205pound avoirdupois (lb)AbbreviationsAg CensusCensus of AgricultureCAPSCounty Agricultural Production SurveyCRDCrop Reporting DistrictDPR-PURDepartment of Pesticide Regulation-Pesticide Use Reports (California)EPestestimated pesticide useFIPSFederal Information Processing StandardNAWQANational Water-Quality Assessment Program
Estimated Annual Agricultural Pesticide Use for Countiesof the Conterminous United States, 2008–12By Nancy T. Baker and Wesley W. StoneAbstractAnnual county-level pesticide use was estimated for 423herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides applied to agricultural crops grown in the conterminous United States during2008–12. For all States except California, pesticide-use datawere compiled from proprietary surveys of farm operationslocated within U.S. Department of Agriculture Crop ReportingDistricts (CRDs). Surveyed pesticide-use data were used inconjunction with county annual harvested-crop acres reportedby the U.S. Department of Agriculture 2007 and 2012 Censuses of Agriculture and the 2008–11 County Agricultural Production Survey to calculate use rates per harvested-crop acre,or an “estimated pesticide use” (EPest) rate, for each crop byyear. County-use estimates were then calculated by multiplying EPest rates by harvested-crop acres for each pesticide cropcombination. Use estimates for California were obtained fromannual Department of Pesticide Regulation-Pesticide UseReports.Proprietary surveyed pesticide-use data were not available for all CRDs and years. When pesticide-survey data wereunavailable for a CRD in a particular year, EPest extrapolated rates were calculated from adjoining or nearby CRDs toensure that pesticide use was estimated for all counties whereharvested-crop acres were reported. Two estimation methods were used—EPest-low and EPest-high—and differed inhow they treated situations when a CRD was surveyed andpesticide use was not reported for a particular pesticide-bycrop combination. California pesticide-use estimates werenot extrapolated; therefore, EPest-low and EPest-high are thesame for counties in California.This data series is a continuation of the 1992–2009 pesticide-use estimates reported by Stone (2013). It is an update ofestimates for 2008–9 (Stone, 2013), as well as an update of the2010–11 preliminary estimates reported by Baker and Stone(2013). EPest values from these compilations (1992–2012) aresuitable for making national, regional, and watershed assessments of annual pesticide use. County-level estimates areprovided to make it easier to compile watershed assessments;however, users should be aware there is a greater degree ofuncertainty in individual county-level estimates when compared to CRD or State-level estimates. This report providesEPest-low and EPest-high annual agricultural pesticide use forcounties of the conterminous United States for 423 compoundsduring 2008–12 in tab-delimited files organized by compound,year, State Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS)code, county FIPS code, and amount in kilograms (kg).IntroductionThe U.S. Geological Survey National Water-QualityAssessment (NAWQA) Program, which began in 1991, conducts national-scale assessments of the occurrence and trendsof pesticides in streams and groundwater of the United States.Direct measurement of pesticide concentrations in all of theNation’s streams and aquifers would be ideal but the high costof monitoring and analysis makes this not possible. Therefore,statistical models and other types of models are developed andused for predicting water-quality conditions for streams andgroundwater that are not sufficiently monitored. Pesticide-useestimates are crucial predictive components of these models.In addition, understanding changes in stream and groundwater pesticide concentrations over time (trend analysis)requires annual pesticide-use estimates that are compiledand developed with consistent methods. Annual county-levelpesticide-use estimates have been used in conjunction withlong-term pesticide trend analysis in streams (Ryberg and others, 2014) and groundwater (Toccalino and others, 2014).Purpose and ScopeThe purpose of this report is to provide estimated annualpesticide use, referred to as EPest-low and EPest-high, for423 pesticides for each county in the conterminous UnitedStates. Methods used to compile EPest-low and EPest-highalso are provided. This data series is a continuation of the1992–2009 pesticide-use estimates reported by Stone (2013).It is an update of estimates for 2008–9 (Stone, 2013), as wellas an update of the 2010–11 preliminary estimates reportedby Baker and Stone (2013). Estimates of annual agriculturalpesticide use are provided via this report as downloadable,
2 Estimated Annual Agricultural Pesticide Use for Counties of the Conterminous United States, 2008–12tab-delimited files, which are organized by compound, year,State Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) code,county FIPS code, and amounts in kilograms (kg).Methods for Estimating Pesticide UseFor all States except California, pesticide-use data compiled by proprietary surveys of farm operations located withinU.S. Department of Agriculture Crop Reporting Districts(CRDs)—a collection of contiguous counties within eachState (fig. 1)—were used in conjunction with county annualharvested-crop acres reported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (2009, 2014), 2007 and 2012 Censuses of Agriculture(Ag Census); and 2008–11 County Agricultural ProductionSurvey (CAPS), (U.S. Department of Agriculture-NationalAgricultural Statistics Service, Various years) to calculate userates per harvested-crop acre, or an ‘estimated pesticide use’(EPest) rate, for each crop by year. County-use estimates werethen calculated by multiplying EPest rates by harvested-cropacres for each pesticide crop combination. The methods documented in this report follow methods developed by Thelin andStone (2013).120 110 70 100 90 445 12111080 40 18235 71331491530 002502505005006750 MILES5750 KILOMETERSBase from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 2005, 1:2,000,000Albers Equal-Area Conic projectionStandard parallels 29o30’N and 45o30’N, central meridian 96o00’WEXPLANATIONCrop Reporting DistrictCountyFarm Resources Region1Basin and Range6Fruitful Rim Texas11Northern Cresent West2Eastern Uplands East7Fruitful Rim West12Northern Great Plains3Eastern Uplands WestHeartlandFruitful Rim NorthwestMississippi Portal1314Prairie Gateway4895Fruitful Rim Southeast10Northern Crescent East15Southern Seaboard WestSouthern Seaboard EastFigure 1. County boundaries and U.S. Department of Agriculture Crop Reporting Districts and Farm Resources Regions of theconterminousStates.FigureUnited1. Countyboundaries and U.S. Department of Agriculture Crop Reporting Districts and Farm Resources Regionsof the conterminous United States.
Methods for Estimating Pesticide Use 3Pesticide-survey data were not available for all CRDs andyears. When data were unavailable for a CRD in a particularyear, EPest extrapolated rates were calculated from adjoiningor nearby CRDs to ensure that pesticide use was estimatedfor all counties within CRDs where harvested-crop acreswere reported. Pesticide-survey data and EPest extrapolatedrates are based on harvested-crop acres within a CRD, butmany NAWQA modeling applications and analyses requirepesticide-use estimates at the county scale. Therefore, EPestwas disaggregated from CRDs to the individual counties andestimates were then calculated by multiplying EPest ratesby annual county harvested-crop acres for each pesticidecrop combination. EPest extrapolated rate determination andsubsequent application to county harvested-crop acres differsbetween EPest-low and EPest-high methods. Use estimates forCalifornia were obtained from annual Department of PesticideRegulation-Pesticide Use Reports (DPR-PUR) and used without extrapolation; therefore, EPest-low and EPest-high are thesame for counties in California.Pesticide-Use Data from SurveysMethods for obtaining surveyed pesticide-use data forthis compilation are the same as for the 1992–2009 compilation (Stone, 2013). Survey methods reported by Thelin andStone (2013) are reiterated here for context in this (2008–12)compilation-method description.Proprietary data from GfK Kynetec, Inc., on the amountsof pesticides applied to individual crops by CRDs are the primary source of information used in this study and are referredto as “pesticide-survey” data in the remainder of this report.The pesticide-survey data are based on agricultural pesticideuse surveys of more than 20,000 farm operations distributedthroughout the conterminous United States (GfK Kynetec,AgroTrak Quality Management Plan, written commun.,August 2011). Data from the Ag Census on the size (in acres)and number of farms that grow individual crops and representselected land uses, such as pasture, are used to stratify allfarms in the United States by size and to allocate the number of farms that will be surveyed in each strata. The surveydesign allocates a greater proportion of the sample to largerfarm operations so that a greater percentage of crop acres arerepresented, with the goal of more accurate characterizationof farm operations and pesticide-use patterns. Surveys of farmoperations within each CRD are extrapolated to represent totalpesticide use for that CRD. The likelihood of underestimatingor overestimating use for less widely used pesticides increasesbecause not all farms within a CRD are surveyed. Use estimates for 423 pesticides that are applied to a variety of row,specialty, fruit, and nut crops are reported by multi-countyareas, referred to as CRDs. The CRD to county geospatialrelation is shown in figure 1. All surveyed pesticides and cropsincluded in this compilation are listed in appendix 1, tables1–1 through 1–3.Harvested-Crop AcresCounty annual harvested-crop acres reported in the 2007and 2012 Ag Census (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2009,2014) and 2008–11 CAPS (U.S. Department of AgricultureNational Agricultural Statistics Service, Various years) wereused in this compilation. The Ag Census is the most uniformand complete source of crop-acre estimates for all counties inthe United States. The Ag Census is published every 5th yearwith CAPS reporting crop-acre estimates for selected cropsand counties for interim Ag Census years.Both Ag Census and CAPS report data for planted- andharvested-crop acres, but planted acres are only availablefor a limited number of crops and are not always availablefor all crops that are contained in the pesticide-survey data.Therefore, harvested acres, rather than planted acres, wereused to develop annual pesticide-by-crop use rates. In takingthis approach, it is recognized that use-rate estimates couldbe numerically greater than actual use rates on planted cropsbecause not all planted acres are harvested. Annual harvestedcrop acres by county data were used to calculate the pesticideby-crop use rates for each crop and CRD surveyed, and toestimate pesticide use for all counties that report harvestedacres in the conterminous United States.A list of the 58 crops for which EPest use rates weredeveloped and the Ag Census and CAPS crop names for whichacres data were obtained is given in table 1–1. For some crops,it was necessary to combine subcategories of Ag Census andCAPS acres to match pesticide-survey data. For example, AgCensus reports harvested acres for “BLACKBERRIES ANDDEWBERRIES (INCLUDING MARIONBERRIES),” “BOYSENBERRIES,” “LOGANBERRIES,” and “RASPBERRIES, ALL,” while the pesticide-survey data contain the cropcategory “Caneberries.” In this instance, Ag Census harvestedcrop acres were summed to better match the pesticide-surveydata. Conversely, the pesticide-survey data contain the cropcategories “Grapes, Raisin,” “Grapes, Table,” and “Grapes,Wine,” while Ag Census reports only “GRAPES.” In this case,pesticide-survey data were summed to match the Ag Censusreport. Ag Census crop acres that were combined to matchpesticide-survey data are given in table 1–1.In some cases, when a small number of farms within acounty produce a crop, Ag Census and CAPS do not reportcounty acres for that particular crop because of census nondisclosure rules that protect the identity of individual farm operations. Both Ag Census and CAPS include the nondisclosedcounty crop acres in State total acres. To estimate county cropacres in these cases, total reported county crop acres for eachState were subtracted from total reported State crop acres todetermine the number of nondisclosed crop acres for eachState. To allocate those acres back to “nondisclosed” counties,crop acres were proportioned to individual counties based onthe proportion of total agricultural land within each county.The proportion of total agricultural land within each countywas determined from the 2011 National Land Cover Data (Jinand others, 2013).
4 Estimated Annual Agricultural Pesticide Use for Counties of the Conterminous United States, 2008–12CAPS data are used to supply crop-acre estimates fornon-census years because Ag Census data are available onlyevery 5th year. CAPS are conducted in 44 States for selectedcrops (http://www.nass.usda.gov/Surveys/Guide to NASSSurveys/County Agricultural Production). Crops selected forcounty surveys are specific to each State and may change fromyear to year. Crops included in CAPS are primarily field cropssuch as barley, corn, cotton, and rice. Only a few vegetablesand no fruit crops are included in CAPS (all CAPS crops arelisted in table 1–1).CAPS do not include acres for every crop/county/yearcombination used in this compilation; therefore, linear interpolation was used to fill gaps where county harvested crop acreswere missing. Interpolation was done for each individual cropprior to combining subcategories of crops for every county.For many crops, CAPS data were not available for any countyfor the inter-Ag Census period (2008–11), and crop acres wereinterpolated entirely from Ag Census data. For crops whereCAPS data were available, interpolation was done on thosecounties with missing data. The percentage of acres derivedfrom interpolation for each crop is shown in figure 2. Interpolation is done for each county and crop before crops arecombined into categories. For a small number of counties andcrops, harvested acres were missing (indicated with a blank—zero acres are indicated with a dash in Ag Census data) ineither the 2007 or 2012 Ag Census. When this was the case,Ag Census acres for the missing data were interpolated fromeither U.S. Department of Agriculture-National AgriculturalStatistics Service acres or the remaining available Ag Censusvalue resulting in a small percentage of interpolated acres forAg Census (see Caneberries graph in fig. 2). It is recognizedthat interpolation may overestimate or underestimate cropacres, especially in areas of the country where CAPS data arelimited.To ensure that pesticide-use estimates accounted for allacreage that could have been treated, extrapolated use rateswere developed for individual pesticides and crops in unsurveyed CRDs through a set of decision rules that depend onthe availability of rates from surrounding CRDs (Thelin andStone, 2013). The decision process included developing threetypes of extrapolated pesticide-by-crop use rates, referredto as tier 1, tier 2, and regional rates. Tier 1 CRDs are anycontiguous CRD surrounding the unsurveyed CRD regardlessof whether the tier 1 CRD is within the same Farm ResourcRegions(fig. 3). Tier 1 CRDs surrounding the unsurveyedCRD were searched, and if one or more surveyed pesticideby-crop use rate existed, the median rate was used fromthese surveyed rates to estimate pesticide-by-crop use for thecounties in the unsurveyed CRD. If a tier 1 rate could not beestablished because there were no surveyed rates available,then tier 2 CRDs were searched to determine if three or moreof the tier 2 CRDs had surveyed rates (fig. 3). If so, then themedian value of these rates was applied to the unsurveyedCRD. Finally, if a tier 1 or tier 2 EPest rate could not bedetermined, then a regional rate was calculated for the FarmResources Region and applied to county crop acres withinthe CRD. Regional rates were the median of all non-zeroEPest rates, including surveyed, tier 1, and tier 2 EPest fromthe same Farm Resources Region. It is important to understand that the process is iterative, so that for each unsurveyedCRD within a region, tier 1 rates are calculated first, then tier2 rates, regardless of whether the CRD is within the FarmResources Region. After the tier 1 and tier 2 rates have beenestablished, a regional rate is calculated. Duplicate extrapolated rates were removed prior to the calculation to reduce theinfluence of duplicate extrapolated EPest rates on the calculation of regional rates because the same CRD may be used tocalculate tier 2 rates within a region.EPest Extrapolated RatesEPest-Low and EPest-HighThe following section describes methods developed byThelin and Stone (2013) to estimate agricultural pesticide usefor counties in the conterminous United States—except thosein California—that were in unsurveyed CRDs but where cropswere grown and pesticide use was likely. For all surveyedCRDs, pesticide-by-crop use rates were calculated from eithersurveyed pesticide use divided by surveyed crop acres, orsurveyed pesticide use divided by Ag Census or CAPS cropacres. When a CRD was surveyed but harvested-crop acresfrom Ag Census and CAPS were greater than the surveyedcrop acres, rates were calculated from the surveyed pesticideuse and the total Ag Census and CAPS harvested acres for theCRD. For unsurveyed CRDs, EPest extrapolated rates weredeveloped by using surveyed rates from nearby CRDs or fromsurveyed and extrapolated rates from CRDs in the same U.S.Department of Agriculture Farm Resources Region (fig. 1). Asurveyed rate or an extrapolated rate, depending on the CRD,was then applied to county harvested acres to estimate pesticide use on individual crops grown in each county.Two variations on the previously described method weredeveloped to yield EPest-low and EPest-high for counties inthe conterminous United States other than California (Thelinand Stone, 2013) because uncertainties are inherent in theEPest extrapolation. Calculating two values allows the userto select the method that best suits the application for whichthese estimates are used. Both methods incorporated surveyedand extrapolated rates to estimate pesticide use for counties,but EPest-low and EPest-high estimations differed in how theytreated situations when a CRD was surveyed and pesticide usewas not reported for a particular pesticide-by-crop combination. If use of a pesticide on a crop was not reported in asurveyed CRD, EPest-low reports zero use in the CRD for thatpesticide-by-crop combination. EPest-high, however, treatsthe unreported use for that pesticide-by-crop combination inthe CRD as unsurveyed, and pesticide-by-crop use rates fromneighboring CRDs and, in some cases, CRDs within the sameFarm Resources Region are used to calculate the pesticide-bycrop EPest-high rate for the CRD.
Methods for Estimating Pesticide Use AsparagusBarleyBeans (Snap, Bush,Pole, String)BroccoliCabbageCaneberriesCanola (oilseed rnCottonCucumbersDry Beans/PeasFallowGarlicGrapefruitGrapes07 08 09 10 11 1207 08 09 10 11 1207 08 09 10 11 1207 08 09 10 11 1207 08 09 10 11 121008060402010080Estimated crop area, in zelnutsLemonsLettuceLima BeansOnionsEXPLANATIONReported acresInterpolated acresFigure2.2. ),FigureCounty AgriculturalProductionSurveyand(2008-11),and acresfrom linear interpolationforineachcrop in theCounty AgriculturalProduction Survey(2008–11),acres derivedfromderivedlinear interpolationfor each cropthe conterminousconterminous United States.United States.
6 Estimated Annual Agricultural Pesticide Use for Counties of the Conterminous United States, 2008–12100806040200OrangesPasturelandPeas um (Milo)SoybeansSpinachSquashStrawberriesSugar BeetsSugarcaneSunflowersSweet CornTobacco07 08 09 10 11 1207 08 09 10 11 iosPlums/PrunesEstimated crop area, in sWalnuts8060EXPLANATION40Reported acres20007 08 09 10 11 12Watermelons07 08 09 10 11 12Wheat, SpringInterpolated acres07 08 09 10 11 12Wheat, WinterFigure 2. Percentage of acres reported by the 2007 and 2012 Agricultural Censuses (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2009, 2014),County Agricultural Production Survey (2008–11), and acres derived from linear interpolation for each crop in the conterminousUnitedFigureStates.—Continued2 cont.--Percentage of acres reported by the 2007 and 2012 Agricultural Censuses (U.S. Department of Agriculture,2009, 2014), County Agricultural Production Survey (2008-11), and acres derived from linear interpolation for eachcrop in the conterminous United States.
Methods for Estimating Pesticide Use 7100 90 Nebraska 70Nebraska 50Nebraska 60Iowa 70Illinois 50Iowa 90Iowa 80Illinois 30Nebraska 80Missouri 2040 Missouri 10Kansas 40Kansas 10Kansas 20Illinois 40Nebraska 90Kansas 50Illinois 60Missouri 30Kansas 70Kansas 80Missouri 40Illinois 70Missouri 60Missouri 50Illinois 90Illinois 80Kansas 40Kansas 60Kansas 90ky10Missouri 80Missouri 70KentucMissouri 90Oklahoma 10Oklahoma 40Arkansas 20esseArkansas 10e 10Oklahoma 70Oklahoma 80Mississippi 20i 10Arkansas 60Arkansas 80Arkansas90Mississippi 50Texas 22Texas 40Mississippi 40Texas 51025025 5050Louisiana10100 MILESLouisiana 20Louisiana 30100 KILOMETERSMississippi 70Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 2005, 1:2,000,000Albers Equal-Area Conic projectionStandard parallels 29 30’N and 45 30’N, central meridian 96 00’WMississippi80Mississippi 90Texas 30Mississippi 60Arkansas 70MiTexas 21ssissippOklahoma 90Mississippi 30Arkansas 50Oklahoma 30Oklahoma 60Tennessee 20Arkansas 4035 Oklahoma 50TennArkansas 30Oklahoma 20Locator map withexample extentEXPLANATIONCrop Reporting District (CRD)Farm Resources RegionExample unsurveyed CRDEastern Uplands WestPrairie GatewayTier 1 CRD extentHeartlandSouthern Seaboard EastTier 2 CRD extentMississippi PortalSouthern Seaboard WestFigure 3. An example decision process for calculating an estimated pesticide use (EPest) rate when a Crop Reporting District (CRD)rate is not reported or is considered missing. In this example, a surveyed rate for Missouri 70 was not reported; therefore, surveyedFiguredecisionprocesscalculatingan estimateduse etier 1 CRDs(median)wereforusedto calculatea rate for pesticidethe unsurveyedCRD. rateIf thereareanosurveyedtierDistrict1 rates ted;therefore,surveyedratesMissouri 70, then available surveyed rates for all tier 2 CRDs (median) are evaluated. When neither tier 1 nor tier 2 rates are available,for all tier1 CRDs(median)fromwereallusedto calculaterate1 forIf thereare nosurveyedtier 1 ratesavailable forregionalratesa calculateduniquesurveyedatierandthetierunsurveyed2 CRD ratesCRD.(median)withina FarmResourcesRegion.Missouri 70, then available surveyed rates for all tier 2 CRDs (median) are evaluated. When neither tier 1 nor 2 rates are available,regional rates are calculated from all unique surveyed, tier 1 and tier 2 CRD rates (median) within a Farm Resources Region.
8 Estimated Annual Agricultural Pesticide Use for Counties of the Conterminous United States, 2008–12Pesticide-Use Estimates for CaliforniaEPest-low and EPest-high estimates for California werenot calculated using the method described in the previoussection; instead, county totals were obtained from the onlineDPR-PUR database (California Department of Pesticide Regulation, 2014). Since 1990, California has required reporting ofall agricultural pesticide use. DPR-PUR includes informationon the pesticide applied, location and time of application, andthe agricultural crop treated. Annual pesticide-use estimatesby crop were retrieved from the online DPR-PUR databaseand merged with the EPest-low and EPest-high county dataafter the estimation process was completed for the rest of thecountry. A list of the 117 crops for which agricultural pesticide-use data were available is given in table 1–2. EPest-lowand EPest-high estimates for counties in California are thesame because California data were not extrapolated. Estimatesare included in both EPest-low and EPest-high data tables tofacilitate ease of use.Estimated Annu
Proprietary surveyed pesticide-use data were not avail-able for all CRDs and years. When pesticide-survey data were unavailable for a CRD in a particular year, EPest extrapo-lated rates were calculated from adjoining or nearby CRDs to ensure that pesticide use was estimated for all counties where
Plant Health Engineering Division, NIPHM Page 1 INTRODUCTION PESTICIDE APPLICATION TECHNIQUES Pesticide application plays an important role in pest management. Proper technique of application of pesticide and the equipment used for applying pesticide are vital to the success of pest control operations.
The following At-A-Glance charts present comparative admission, cost, curricula and other relevant information about the state universities. . Agricultural Communications Agricultural Economics Agricultural Industries Agricultural Mechanization Agricultural Occupational Education Agricultural Production Agricultural Science Agronomy, Field Crops
achieved by using controlled release systems for the pesticide delivery to the environment. Through the sustained release of the pesticide from these devices, the amount of pesticide used, as well as, the number of times it needs to be applied on the crop, is reduced. As the pesticide is usually encapsulated within a polymer membrane,
PPP-136 Filling, Maintenance, Containment Pesticide Minibulks. Fred Whitford Director, Purdue Pesticide Programs Joe Becovitz Pesticide Program Specialist, O ice of Indiana State Chemist John Obermeyer Integrated
Jun 03, 2014 · U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Office of Pesticide Programs Registration Division (7505P) 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 NOTICE OF PESTICIDE: X Registration Reregistration (Under FIFRA as amended) EPA Reg. Number: 2517-166 Date of Issuance: JUN -3 20M-Term of Issuance: Conditional - Name of Pesticide Product: SPCP4
Jun 13, 1983 · U.S. EPA, Pesticide Product Label, STERILIZING GAS MIXTURE (12%), 06/13/1983 Pesticide Product Label, STERILIZING GAS MIXTURE (12%) pesticide product label,sterilizing gas mixture (12%),matheson gas products,00725600005 6/13/1983 12:00:00 AM
1. Pesticide Law and Regulations – Chapters 2 and 13 of the Core Manual or Module 1 of the DVD a. Federal pesticide laws (FIFRA) b. Maryland Laws and Regulations c. Certification requirements d. Enforcement of pesticide laws and regulations 2. Label Comprehension – Chapter 3 and Chapter 10 page 150 of the Core Manual or Module 2 of the DVD a.
Request: to those who have found this material useful, please make an effort to let at least two people know about my web site, so that we can start a chain reaction of ever more people that will be informed of this site. I am looking for volunteers to translate this book into any language. See "Notes for
