1. Economic Assessment Of IPM Programs Deana Sexson University of Wisconsin, NPM Program

2. Economics Assessment of IPM Programs What is economic viability to the farm? What is economic viability to the farm? –Cash flow? –Enterprise budget? –Fair grower returns?

3. What is economic viability to the farm? Potatoes, a high value/high input crop costs about $2200 per acre to produce (includes fixed and variable costs) Potatoes, a high value/high input crop costs about $2200 per acre to produce (includes fixed and variable costs) –Economic viability should be that growers receive more for their crop –Assuming an average 360 cwt marketable yield per acre, growers need to return $6.10 on average to break even ALL IPM Programs Need To Have An Economic Component!!

4. Economics of IPM Programs: Outline of Discussion Can IPM programs save growers money? Can IPM programs save growers money? –Yes – early IPM adoption –No – increased cost of reduced risk materials Cost of environmental impacts, who should pay? Cost of environmental impacts, who should pay? –WI value added example Can Economic Benefits Be Aggravated to Reflect Economic Benefits on a National Scale? Can Economic Benefits Be Aggravated to Reflect Economic Benefits on a National Scale?

5. Can IPM Programs Be Profitable to Growers? Yes! Yes! –Early adoption of IPM techniques, utilizing economic thresholds and reducing the number of sprays pays the grower money. »Scouting $15.00 per acre if equals 1-2 spray reduction you have made money Example of WI potatoes (Stevenson and Wyman, 1996) Example of WI potatoes (Stevenson and Wyman, 1996) »By utilizing scouting, disease forecasting models, reduced herbicide inputs, proper irrigations scheduling and timely and efficient fertility inputs growers saved about $170 per hectare (about $70 per acre)

6. Can IPM Programs Be Profitable to Growers? No? No? –Advanced bioIPM adoption may cost more to growers »Utilization of reduced risk (environmentally friendly) compounds cost more on average »Utilizing other techniques to control can increase costs »Managerial time may be increased Example of fumigation alternatives Example of fumigation alternatives –WI growers are looking for cultural/chemical alternatives to fumigation (MacGuidwin, 2003) »Use of cover crops $15 »Tillage incorporation (increase soil biomass) - $14 »Use of soil sterilization techniques - $20,000 for tarp, ?? For solarization technique equipment »Labor time, efficiency, soil samples, managerial time - ??

7. Increased Productivity Holds Production Costs Down Cost cutting innovations started more than a hundred years ago Cost cutting innovations started more than a hundred years ago Equipment improvements reduce costs Equipment improvements reduce costs Improved varieties add to both yields and quality Improved varieties add to both yields and quality Enhanced cultural practices boost yields Enhanced cultural practices boost yields °Seed potato certification °Chemical pest and disease control °Irrigation water management °Rotation Management °Plant spacing for optimum size and tuber set

8. New Technology Reduces Potato Production Costs

9. Production Methodology Has Improved Over Time

10. Lets Look At The Cost Of Actual “BioIPM Programs” 1) On farm field trials (Wyman and Stevenson) 2) Individual grower tracking of IPM score, toxicity, and cost (Sexson and Day)

11.  Comparison of season-long, reduced-risk programs with conventional programs for insect and disease control  On commercial farms with growers  Large (3-5 A) replicated blocks  Weekly scouting for efficacy of insect/disease control  Impacts of programs on natural enemies  Yield and grade  Overall toxicity  Cost DEVELOPING REDUCED RISK ALTERNATIVES

12. Toxicity unit and cost per acre comparisons of insecticides on Russet Burbank potatoes, Coloma (Lyons) 2000. Management regime Insecticides applied Toxicityunits Cost per acre Conventional systemic Admire 16 oz./A 32$60.00 Low-risk systemic Admire 10 oz./A, SpinTor 4 oz./A, Pounce 4 oz./A Pounce 4 oz./A59$64.00 Conventionalfoliar Asana/PBO 4/4 oz./A, Baythroid/PBO 2.8/4.0 oz./A, Provado 3.75 oz./A, Dimethoate 1 pt./A, Monitor 1.5 pts./A 730$76.00 Low-riskfoliar Novodor 3 qts./A, SpinTor 4 oz./A, Pounce 4 oz./A, Fulfill 2.75 oz./A 10$56.00

13. Costs/Benefits of Reduced-Risk Foliar Insect Control. Coloma (Lyons), 2000. Costs/Benefits of Reduced-Risk Foliar Insect Control. Coloma (Lyons), 2000. Program Cost of Materials ($/A) Yield (Cwt.) Cost/Cwt. (cents) Toxicity Units Conventional$76 550 a 13.8730 Reduced-risk$56 529 a 10.510 Outcome of reduced risk -$20/A -21 Cwt/A -3.3/Cwt-720 Bottom Line  Reduced-risk cost 3.3 cents/100 lbs. less.  Net loss from reduced-risk(@$5.00/A)= $85/A.

14. Toxicity and Cost/A Comparisons of Fungicide Programs on Snowden Potatoes. Coloma 2000. Program Fungicide Applied Materials Cost per A Toxicity Units Conventional Manzate 7, Bravo 6, Tin 3, Curzate 1 $1202732 Reduced-Risk- Q/B Quadris 3, Bravo 11, Curzate 2 $1581144 Reduced-Risk - Q/B/B Quadris 3, Bravo 11, Curzate 2 $1571129 Reduced-Risk - Q/M Quadris 3, Manzate 11, Curzate 2 $882884

15. Costs/Benefits of Reduced-Risk Fungicide Programs on Snowden Potatoes. Coloma 2000. Program Cost of Materials ($/A) Yield (Cwt.) Cost/Cwt. (cents) Toxicity Units Conventional$12043227.82732 Reduced-risk (QBB) $15743336.31129 Outcome of reduced risk +$37/A+1/Cwt.+8.5/Cwt-1603 Bottom Line  Reduced-risk costs 8.5 cents/100 lbs. more.  Net loss from reduced-risk(@$5.00/A)= $32/A.

16. Conclusions  Reduced-Risk insecticide programs provided equivalent efficacy and yield to conventional programs.  Beneficial insect populations were significantly higher in Reduced-Risk insecticide programs and may provide aphid control.  Reduced-Risk fungicide programs improved efficacy and may increase yield.  Costs of Reduced-Risk programs were generally higher but may be offset by increased yield (fungicides).  Total toxicity units from Reduced-Risk programs were reduced by over 50%.

17. AFT/EPA Funded effort to determine economics of bioIPM pesticide programs* We collected pesticide application data for the years 2000-2003 from 15 growers. We collected pesticide application data for the years 2000-2003 from 15 growers. We then compared pesticide cost with toxicity units for the 15 growers. We then compared pesticide cost with toxicity units for the 15 growers. We collected average prices for all WI potato chemicals. We collected average prices for all WI potato chemicals. We designed a tool for farmers to track their own cost and toxicity units. We designed a tool for farmers to track their own cost and toxicity units. *with Esther Day

18. Toxicity/Cost Analysis Calculator We developed an Excel spreadsheet to track the performance of the growers in terms low vs. high toxicity chemical programs, using: We developed an Excel spreadsheet to track the performance of the growers in terms low vs. high toxicity chemical programs, using: –Toxicity Units (Multiattribute Toxicity Factor Model: calculates human and environmental effect in WI potato system, Benbrook) –Pesticide application data –Average prices of chemicals used by WI potato growers

19. Average Total Pesticide Cost $

20. Average Total Tox Units TU

21. Total Pesticide Tox Units for Short vs. Long Season Fields (2002) 1,445 1020

22. Total Pesticide Cost for Short vs. Long Season Fields (2002) 174 215

23. Comparison of average toxicity units for Long Season Fields

24. Cost Comparison of costs of pesticides for Long Season Fields

25. Comparisons of Short vs. Long Season Fields - Discussion As expected, the average cost and toxicity units among all fields are higher in long season fields than short season fields. As expected, the average cost and toxicity units among all fields are higher in long season fields than short season fields. However, the trend is not necessarily seen on a field by field basis as many other factors contribute to pesticide applications (such as soil type, weather conditions, pest pressures, etc.) which are not accounted for in this comparison. However, the trend is not necessarily seen on a field by field basis as many other factors contribute to pesticide applications (such as soil type, weather conditions, pest pressures, etc.) which are not accounted for in this comparison. Therefore, once again, we need to look at the situations on a field by field basis. Therefore, once again, we need to look at the situations on a field by field basis.

26. Comparisons of Pesticide Toxicity, Cost, and IPM Adoption The BioIPM Score (from eco-potato standards) number which signifies IPM adoption for each field was further compared to the pesticide toxicity and cost analysis. The BioIPM Score (from eco-potato standards) number which signifies IPM adoption for each field was further compared to the pesticide toxicity and cost analysis.

27. Long Season: BioIPM, TU and Costs Per Field (2002) Sorted by increasing cost 232 200 230 235 268 232 235 240 238

28. Comparisons of Pesticide Toxicity, Cost, and IPM Adoption - Discussion No clear trends were seen in the 15 fields surveyed between IPM adoption, toxicity and costs. No clear trends were seen in the 15 fields surveyed between IPM adoption, toxicity and costs. More analysis needs to be done to look at other factors (such as pest pressures) which may have a greater influence on pesticide. applications than IPM adoption among growers: More analysis needs to be done to look at other factors (such as pest pressures) which may have a greater influence on pesticide. applications than IPM adoption among growers: –For example, even if many IPM practices are implemented and pest populations reach threshold levels, a pesticide application is necessary.

29. Cost Of Environmental Impacts: Who Should Pay? WI value added example WI value added example Difference in Cost: -Approx $0.50 per cwt -Would like to return $1.00 per cwt

30. SIGNAGE

32. Can Economic Benefits Be Aggravated to Reflect Economic Benefits on a National Scale? Good Question? WI Farm Management Information System: Industry Database Program –Implemented initially in 2002 –Will be used to track pesticide use, toxicity programs, costs, etc. for WI potato and vegetable systems –Data maintained in a confidential manner at the grower association level

33. For more information Visit http://ipcm.wisc.edu/bioIPMhttp://ipcm.wisc.edu/bioIPM Or contact: Deana Sexson, BioIPM Field Coordinator for the WWF/WPVGA/UW Collaboration, University of Wisconsin, NPM Program (608) 265-9798 dlsexson@wisc.edu