Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 374
CASE STUDY
9
Integrated Pest Management in
Processing Tomatoes in California:
The Kitamura Farm
-
THE KITAMURA FARM iS located in Colusa County, north of Sacramento,
California, on the border with Sutter County. The farm, a total of 305
acres, is on the west bank of the Sacramento River (Table 1~. The Kitamuras
own 40 of these acres, the site of their walnut orchard; they rent the balance
of the land from a large estate.
GENERAL DATA
The Kitamuras currently produce 160 acres of processing tomatoes, using
a modification of the integrated pest management (IPM) program devel-
oped by the University of California. The farm also includes about 70 acres
of vine seeds (including cucumbers, squash, and watermelons) and 30 acres
of beans. The Kitamura Farm is a family operation, run by David and Diann
Kitamura in partnership with David Kitamura's brother. Both David and
Diann Kitamura are trained in IPM pest scouting, and they have been
participating in the University of California IPM program for tomatoes since
1984.
Climate
The climate in the area surrounding the Kitamura Farm is hot and dry
during the summer with coo] nights, ideal for the production of tomatoes.
Normal daily temperatures reach a maximum in excess of 85 degrees from
June through September (Table 2~. Annual precipitation is approximately 17
inches, falling mostly between mid-October and April. Normally, less than
1 inch of precipitation occurs between May and October, during the bulk of
the tomato-growing season. Low precipitation and Tow humidity are impor-
374
OCR for page 375
THE KITAMURA FARM
TABLE 1 Summary of Enterprise Data for the Kitamura Farm
Category
375
Description
Farm size
Labor and
management
practices
Marketing strategies
305 acres, of which 160 are planted with processing tomatoes
All management is provided by the farm operators (David and
Diann Kitamura), including pest scouting. All labor is provided
by the operators, David Kitamura's brother (and partner), and
one hired worker; eight workers are hired for harvest.
Tomatoes are sold under contract with a major processor. An
increased market share is awarded because of the grower's very
low percentage of rot and insect damage.
Weed control Preemergence herbicides (napropamide and pebulate) are used. If
practices nightshade occurs postemergence, pebulate is applied;
otherwise, trifluralin is used.
Insect and nematode Crop rotations reduce insect pest problems. Sulfur dust controls
control practices russet mites. IPM scouting enables a minimal use of insecticides.
Disease control Tomatoes are grown in a rotation of no more than 1 year. Mold is
practices controlled by the early termination of irrigation.
Soil fertility Starter fertilizer (13 pounds N/acre) is used, plus 100-120 pounds
management N/acre side-dressed.
Irrigation practices Flood irrigation is interrupted 40 days prior to harvest to prevent
mildew (30 days is the usual practice). Configuration of furrows
is reshaped at the final or penultimate cultivation, from 30- to
60-inch centers.
Tomato yields The yield was 35.5 tons/acre in 1986, which was above the county
average (29.2 tons/acre).
Financial performance The farm had an estimated cost savings of $7,297 in 1986 through
reduced pesticide use from IPM pest scouting done by the
farmer. Innovative irrigation scheduling reduces crop loss as a
result of mold. The farm is solvent, with a debt-to-asset ratio of
less than 10 percent.
tent for disease control in tomatoes because moist atmospheric conditions
lead to the development of mold and other diseases.
PHYSICAL AND CAPITAL RESOURCES
Soils
The soil in this area is an alluvial sandy loam, which is typically deep,
well drained, and highly fertile.
Buildings and Facilities
The buildings and facilities on the Kitamura Farm are minimal. The farm
has a small machine shop in which the Kitamura brothers repair and over-
haul their machinery.
OCR for page 376
376
·=
, ,o,
o
On
o
.~
.=
-
Ct
U)
a,
Ed
:^
Ct
a
z
rim
loll
m
to ~ Al
6.E ==
.=
o
_ a .=
O ~ ~
z ~ ~
Ct
O
·C
~ "5 ~
Z ~ ·X
o
O ON or ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Cal ~ C
E ~ E ° c,, v' a;
~ ~m ~= ~ ~
E cc; ~ ~ ~
- 0 - 0 0 0 ~ o =0 L~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C
E ~ ~ E
3 O-X G.J O ¢)
o =_~_
~cn ~ ,=
04 0 U) ~D
~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ o
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~c~
E E :^ E ,, E E
. E E
—~ v
o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C~ ~
L~ L~ ~ O O ~ ~ ~ ~ CN
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
C~ ~ ~ ~ o o o o o o ~ C~
O O O ~ 00 L~ ~ ~ O 00 0 0 ~
oo ~ oo o ~ Ln
Ct
· o
-
Ct
a~
oo o C~ C~ L~ ~ ~ ~ C~ o
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
oo ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U) o
U)
LO
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
O ~ LO C~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 00
d4 ~ d4 ~ ~ u~
O ~ ~ ~ oO ~D ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C~
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
00 ~D
U~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 00 ~ ~ 00 ~ ~ LO ~
,3
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o E a ~
rY
o
o
o
S~
cn
-
. .
· ~
o
U,
.~
UO
o
U'
.
o
~0
C~
o
.
U)
.
.e
.
a'
U)
o
.
o
-
o
.
. .
u
~:
o
OCR for page 377
THE KITAMURA FARM
377
Machinery
The Kitamura Farm machinery inventory includes one self-propelled to-
mato harvester (1976), two crawler tractors, two 115-horsepower wheel-type
tractors, three smaller wheel-type tractors, a vacuum planter, a power take-
off-driven sprayer, four pickup trucks, one flat-bed truck (1952), and miscel-
laneous other equipment.
The vacuum planter is used for seeding the tomatoes directly into the
soil; transplanting is no longer used in the production of processing toma-
toes in this area. The Kitamura Farm has a power takeoff-driven pump
sprayer for ground application of various sprays. When the stage of devel-
opment of the crop or the soil condition prevents the use of the ground
spray rig, however, the Kitamuras rely on aerial application at a cost of $4.50
to $5.00 per acre for each application. About 30 percent of the insecticides
used on the farm are applied aerially; virtually all herbicides and fungicides
are applied with ground sprayers.
The Kitamura brothers do all the tractor work on the farm. In addition to
repairing and overhauling their machinery, they replace worn bearings and
other expendable parts of the tomato harvester each year in preparation for
the coming season. They hire a service firm to replace all of the various
conveyor belts on the tomato harvester. The tomato harvester machine has
been modified by the Kitamuras to make it operate more efficiently. Ordi-
narily, they harvest all of their tomatoes with their own machine. During
one year when rain was forecast, however, they hired a custom operator to
assist with the harvest to prevent the loss of the crop.
MANAGEMENT FEATURES
Processing tomatoes are planted in stages, organized in cooperation with
the processor with whom the grower has a marketing contract. The first
planting (45 acres) was made on April 3-4, 1986; the second (55 acres) on
April 17-19; and the third (60 acres) on May 7-10. Planting is staggered to
achieve an orderly harvesting schedule with only a certain proportion of all
the tomatoes coming ripe at the same time. This is an advantage to both
the grower and the processing plant.
Soil Fertility
The Kitamuras apply about 20 gallons of starter fertilizer (~-24-0) per acre
and side-dress 32 percent nitrogen solution at about 120 pounds of nitrogen
per acre for the first of three plantings; they apply about 100 pounds of
nitrogen per acre for the second and third plantings. The Kitamuras avoid
the use of aqua ammonia because they say that it is reported to cause
softening of the fruit. No scientific documentation of this claim has been
located. The fertilizer they apply is ammonium nitrate (33.5-0-0) together
with a slower release source of nitrogen.
OCR for page 378
378
ALTERNATIVE AGRICULTURE
Tillage, Irrigation, and Crop Rotation
Tomato production requires a clean seedbed. Consequently, tillage is nec-
essary to dispose of the residue from the previous crop. The tomatoes are
seeded with a planter set for 30-inch single rows; the alternate rows are left
unseeded, thereby achieving 60-inch rows. The blank row is maintained to
channel the irrigation water closer to the tomato rows when the plants are
young. At the time of the last or next-to-last cultivation, the blank middle
row is split with a disk cultivator, and the soil is pushed toward the tomato
rows on either side, leaving a central furrow on 60-inch centers. Subsequent
irrigations occur down this furrow, located 30 inches from the tomato plants.
Gravity furrow irrigation is used throughout. Irrigation water is provided
as part of the land rental agreement. The water is pumped from the Sacra-
mento River, which is adjacent to the farm.
The Kitamuras rent their tomato land from a large estate. Each year a
certain area of the estate is set aside for tomatoes. Typically, a field that will
be used for tomatoes has been out of tomato production for at least 6 or 7
years, producing crops such as dry beans, safflower, wheat, or other field
crops. The common practice in the area is a 2- or 3-year planting of other
crops before planting tomatoes in a field (W. L. Sims, correspondence,
1987~. The Kitamuras do not practice any deliberate crop rotation other than
this extended wait between tomato plantings on a certain field, a conse-
quence of their renting and not owning the land they farm. Decisions as to
which specific fields will be in tomatoes in the next year are out of the
control of the growers.
The University of California
IPM Program for Tomatoes
In 1984 the University of California introduced an IPM program to reduce
damage to processing tomatoes by two prominent pests: the fru*worm and
the beet army worm. The University of California (1985) {PM manual for
tomatoes contains color illustrations of all the prominent insect pests and
the various tomato diseases. It also discusses management guidelines, pre-
ferred pesticides, natural parasites and predators, analysis of their life cy-
cles, biological controls monitoring procedures, and other essential infor-
mation.
In its initial stage this IPM program was tested on about 2,000 acres of
processing tomatoes in the Sacramento Valley in northern California
(L. T. Wilson, interview, 1986; F. G. Zalom, interview, 1986~. Participating
growers received special training in IPM from University of California exten-
sion specialists. Data were collected from 82 farms producing processing
tomatos, 22 of which were in the University of California IPM program
(Antle and Park, 1986; Grieshop et al., 1986~. Of those farmers who initially
participated in the IPM program, 71 percent said that they planned to
continue in the program. The possibility of financial gain was cited as the
primary motivating factor in joining the program.
a 1
OCR for page 379
THE KITAMURA FARM
379
Processing tomatoes are harvested mechanically. The ripe fruit is con-
veyed into 12.5-ton gondola tanks that are carried by trucks. Two of these
gondola tanks (a total of 25 tons) are carried by each truck from the field to
an inspection station and then to the processing plant. At the inspection
station, sample tomatoes are taken from each gondola tank. There is a
strong monetary incentive for growers to minimize worm damage in the
tomatoes. At inspection stations tomatoes are examined for mold, green
fruit, worms, and materials other than tomatoes in the loact. If more than 2
percent worm damage is found in the load, it must either be resorted by
the grower at considerable expense or discarded. The percentage of defec-
tive fruit is subtracted from the gross weight of the load of tomatoes in
determining payment for the grower. Insect damage can also cause the fruit
to drop off the plant before it is harvested, thereby potentially reducing
yields and income. The amount of yield reduction depends on when the
fruit is dropped; the more mature the dropped fruit, the greater the loss of
yield (Zalom et al., 1983~.
{PM for processing tomatoes involves three interrelated components: cul-
tural practices, monitoring, and treatment. IPM emphasizes preventive
methods that produce economical, long-term solutions to pest problems
while minimizing hazards to human health and the environment (Univer-
sity of California, 1985~. The prominent insect pests in tomatoes in CaTifor-
nia include cutworms, flea beetles, green peach aphids, potato aphids,
tomato russet mites, cabbage loopers, vegetable leafminers, tomato fruit-
worms, beet army worms, tomato pinworms, and stink bugs. The most
frequent diseases encountered in processing tomatoes in this area are
damping-off, phytophthora root rot, fusarium wilt, verticillium wilt, buck-
eye rot, pythium ripe fruit, bacterial speck, black mold, grey mold, tobacco
mosaic, and curly top.
Good crop management practices, including weed and other pest control,
irrigation, and fertilization are essential to a successful IPM program. All
cultural practices are interrelated within the growing system. Important
factors include the selection of the appropriate field, preferably one with
deep, uniform soil (with 4 or more feet of root zone) to avoid various disease
problems. The land must be properly prepared to minimize weed problems
and to provide the appropriately shaped seedbed. Other essential cultural
practices include the placement of the seeds at the appropriate depth,
spacing, and correct timing with regard to soil temperature, the stage of
the season, and the intencled date of harvest. The selection of a cultivar is
important for avoiding various diseases.
Proper irrigation practices are critical for IPM and for the successful pro-
auction of processing tomatoes. Either too much or too little water can be
disastrous. Normally, tomatoes require 3 to 4 acre-feet of water per growing
season. Ideally, the soil should be essentially depleted of water by harvest
time. In this way, mold damage caused by dew formed from water evapo-
rated from moist soil will be minimized.
Another essential aspect of IPM is the maintenance of healthy tomato
~ .
~ . ~ . . ~ ~ . ~ . ~
OCR for page 380
380
ALTERNATIVE AGRICULTURE
plants through proper fertilization, cultivation, and irrigation practices.
Sanitation is also important in obtaining a clean source of tomato seed (free
of various disease pathogens and weeds), using soil that has either been
fumigated (at a very high cost per acre) or in a rotation to reduce the
populations of various pests. Weed control is an essential part of general
pest control. Keeping weed populations low along field borders helps pre-
vent infestations of pests including weeds, insects, and vertebrates (Univer-
sity of California, 1985~.
The second essential component of the IPM program is monitoring for
pest populations. The University of California has developed a systematic
method of scouting tomato fields (Wilson et al., 1983; Zalom et al., 1983),
which is presented to growers in 2-day training sessions. The instruction
has been summarized on a videotape by the agricultural extension service
and experiment station personnel. The person scouting the field must be-
come proficient at both collecting samples of tomato fruit and leaves, usu-
ally 100 of each, and counting the incidence of insect eggs or other pest
problems. Scouting may be done by professional pest control advisers, by
the farmer, or by hired workers.
The third component of an IPM program is treatment. When it is deter-
mined through monitoring that pest populations have reached the level at
which they will cause economic damage, the grower is advised to use an
appropriate control measure (Zalom et al., 1983~. An economic level of
damage is estimated on the basis of the value of the predicted fruit damage
versus the cost of treatment. Presumably, when crop values are extremely
high and treatment cost is inexpensive, the threshold of economic damage
is at a rather low level of pest population. Conversely, if the price of the
crop is relatively low and the cost of treatment high, it is appropriate to
permit a higher level of pest damage before initiating treatment. This is one
of the fundamental concepts of IPM.
The appropriate treatment, once a pest has reached a damaging level,
usually includes the application of an insecticide. In some instances, pred-
ators such as parasitic wasps may be released by the grower or by the pest
control adviser, but often these biocontroT practices are not effective quickly
enough to bring a rapidly growing population of pests under control.
Growers are advised to contact their local extension farm adviser to deter-
mine the appropriate pesticide and level of application.
The effects of IPM on processing tomatoes fall into four categories:
(1) changes in the cash cost of production' particularly for pesticides;
(2) changes in crop yields and revenue; (3) risks associated with growing
tomatoes, such as public health hazards or the development of resistance to
pesticides by pests; and (4) environmental impacts associated with the use
of pesticides. When an IPM system is used, the number of pesticide appli-
cations tends to decline, and different kinds of spray material are used. In
some cases a much smaller amount of a more selective pesticide (causing
less damage to natural predators and parasites) is used. This is generally
not the case with processing tomatoes, however (L. T. Wilson, telephone
interview and correspondence, 1987~.
OCR for page 381
THE KITAMURA FARM
381
The monetary impacts associated with IPM include the cost of IPM pest
scouting and possible changes in yields or in the price received for the
product as a function of quality. Yields can be altered when the incidence
of cull fruit or the tonnage of harvested fruit per acre changes. Revenue can
also be influenced by changes in prices received by the grower as a result
of differences in fruit quality (percentage of insect damage, mold, and other
quality factors).
A comprehensive study of the results of adopting the University of Cali-
fornia tomato IPM program was undertaken by Antle and Park (1986~. Their
results show that, on average, the use of IPM in processing tomatoes will
both increase income and reduce the risk of crop damage and loss. Fields
in the IPM program had 39.5 percent lower average worm damage (signifi-
cant at the 1 percent level) resulting in a higher net value of about $7.70 per
acre. More importantly, a field of tomatoes using IPM has a 25 percent
chance of having more than 1 percent insect damage, compared with an 80
percent chance for fields not in the IPM program. Tomatoes grown under
the IPM program have an almost zero likelihood of being rejected for dam-
age, whereas non-IPM fields have a 5.6 percent risk of rejection (University
of California, 1985~.
The Kitamura Farm Insect Control Program
The Kitamuras have modified the University of California IPM program
to meet their own preferences and needs. The university recommends an
economic threshold of five to seven eggs in a sample of 100 leaves. The
Kitamuras followed this guideline during 1984 and 1985. During 1985 none
of their loads of tomatoes was rejected for excessive worm damage (none of
the loads exceeded 2 percent worm damage, the state inspection limit).
Some of the loads were found to have almost 1 percent worm damage,
however, and although this level of damage was not sufficient to reject the
load, it was high enough to be unacceptable to the Kitamuras. They clecided
to apply a more stringent threshold of three to four eggs in a sample of 100
leaves, rather than the five to seven eggs recommended by the University
of California. Even with this threshold, they have needed fewer insecticide
applications than most growers who follow conventional spraying recom-
mendations.
In addition to being concerned about the risk of having tomatoes rejected
at the inspection station, the Kitamuras also indicated that it was in their
financial interest to keep worm damage very Tow, well below the legal limit,
in the hope that the packer might grant a larger contract in future years.
In 1986 the Kitamuras' entire 160 acres of tomatoes were treated with
sulfur dust to control tomato russet mite (AcuZops ZycopersiciJ. No other
insecticide was applied on the first or second plantings, a total of 100 acres
of tomatoes. In the third planting of 60 acres, however, the Kitamuras
discovered that the number of eggs of the tomato fruitworm (Heliothis zeal
had exceeded the critical level, indicating the need for treatment. Conse-
quently, a single aerial application of methomyl was made on the 60 acres.
OCR for page 382
382
ALTERNATIVE AGRICULTURE
Early in the season the Kitamuras scout their fields once each week. They
place pheromone traps in the fields to detect moths, and once moths are
detected, the frequency of scouting is increased to every 3 days. The acreage
is rectangular, and the scouting takes less than an hour per visit to cover
the 160 acres. Typically, the scouting is done for about 1 month, with
intensive (a 3-day scheduler scouting for about 2 to 3 weeks during the
growing season.
Weed Control
The Kitamuras use a preemergence herbicide, a combination of napro-
pamide and pebulate, on all their tomato fields. A postemergence herbicide
is applied to control nightshade if this weed becomes a problem.
Disease Control
The Kitamura approach to disease control includes three major compo-
nents: (1) the selection of disease-resistant tomatoes; (2) growing tomatoes
in soil in which crops other than tomatoes have been grown for several
years, thereby reducing the populations of nematodes and other pests spe-
cific to tomatoes; and (3) their innovative irrigation program.
The standard irrigation recommendation for tomatoes is to terminate
irrigation 30 days prior to harvest. In this way the ground surface dries,
and very little dew, if any, forms on the tomato plants, thus keeping the
incidence of mold quite low. The Kitamuras decided to extend this dry
period to 40 days in the hope of further reducing mold damage while
maintaining high yields. Their plan was successful: even though the tomato
plants appeared to be stressed by lack of moisture during a field visit at
harvest time, the yield was the highest the Kitamuras have had since they
began producing tomatoes in 1970. The effect of moisture stress depends
on a number of factors such as soil type, season length, cultivar of the crop
grown, and ambient temperatures.
In 1986 the Kitamuras' yield was so high that they were able to meet their
contract obligation with only 120 acres out of their 160. No mold damage
was found during inspection of their tomatoes until after a late-season,
1-inch rainfall (an amount of rain that normally results in major losses due
to mold). Diann Kitamura reported that their percentage of mold damage
was 2.5 percent. Rain at harvest time often causes total loss of the crop
(L. T. Wilson, interview, 1987), and even in normal years, with no rain at
harvest time, an average of 1.1 percent of the tomatoes have mold damage
(W. L. Sims, correspondence, 19871.
Labor
The farm is operated with a labor force of five family workers, one full-
time hired worker, and eight seasonal hired workers. The individuals inter-
OCR for page 383
THE KITAMURA FARM
TABLE 3 Acres and Yields of Processing Tomatoes on Kitamura Farm
Compared With Colusa County, 1970-1986
383
Kitamura Farm
Colusa County
Average Yields Average Yields
Year Acres (tons/acre) Acres (tons/acre)
1970 140 21.4 3,300 24.3
1971 140 20.0 4,530 25.2
1972 140 27.8 4,720 25.6
1973 150 27.2 6,060 22.0
1974 202 19.8 9,220 21.6
1975 220 31.1 9,530 22.4
1976 226 22.3 8,000 21.0
1977 210 22.6 10,100 24.3
1978 150 26.9 8,300 22.2
1979 206 23.3 8,440 24.9
1980 175 32.0 6,060 26.7
1981 156 19.1 8,190 22.1
1982 160 28.0 10,650 28.1
1983 135 23.0 11,900 25.0
1984 - 18.5 13,400 24.0
1985 - 25.0 12,100 28.5
1986 160 35.5 11,300 29.2
NOTE: From 1970 to 1983, the Kitamura Farm was not under integrated pest management (IPM);
from 1984 to 1986, the farm was under IPM.
SOURCE: Colusa County data from Colusa County Cooperative Extension Service. 1970-1986.
Agricultural Crop Report, County of Colusa, California.
viewed for this case study were two of the principal operators, David and
Diann Kitamura. David Kitamura has been farming with his father since he
was a child. His wife, Diann, is a licensed pest control adviser. David
Kitamura and his brother do most of their own mechanical work on the
farm equipment, usually during stack time in the winter.
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Tomato Yields
Table 3 presents the Kitamura Farm average yields compared with the
Colusa County averages. The farm's 1986 average yield 35.5 tons per acre
versus the county average of 29.2 tons per acre- was characterized as out-
standing. In the previous 2 years, the farm's yield was less than the county
average. It is not possible to draw valid conclusions about the yield effects
of IPM on the basis of these very limited data, however. A far larger sample
with controls for soil quality and other factors would be required to draw
such inferences.
OCR for page 384
384
ALTERNATIVE AGRICULTURE
Finanical Performance
The Kitamuras reported that their accountant describes their business as
"quite solvent." The land they own, the 40-acre walnut orchard, is not
mortgaged. They owe some money on their newer equipment, particularly
the tractors, and on the operating capital required for producing the crop
of tomatoes. Yet they report having a debt-to-asset ratio of substantially less
than 40 percent, the level frequently used as a critical point indicating a
possible risk of financial vulnerability.
Diann Kitamura has estimated that without {PM, the farm would have
spent approximately $S, 800 on various insecticides for the tomatoes during
the 1986 season. This estimate is comparable to the county average per acre
cost of pest control and is based on following a conventional pesticide-
based control program using manufacturers' recommended application
rates. The Kitamuras reported spending a total of $1,482 on pest control,
with a savings of $7,318 an average of $45.73 per acre. It has not been
possible, however, to document this result. Diann and David Kitamura do
their own scouting, so there is no direct cost to them in running their IPM
program. The savings of $45.73 per acre reported by the Kitamuras is sub-
stantially above the $7.70 average savings estimated by Antle and Park
(1986~. The difference no doubt reflects the success of the Kitamuras in
eliminating virtually all insecticide applications through scouting.
Environmental Impacts
The reduction of insecticide use associated with the IPM program in
tomatoes varied according to the stage of the season when the tomatoes
were planted. Fields that were planted at midseason had a 12 percent
reduction in the amount of insecticide applied compared with a 40 percent
reduction on late-season fields. One of the major changes effected by the
{PM program, however, was a change in the type of pesticide material
applied (Antle and Park, 1986).
In general, in the results reported by Antle and Park (1986), pesticide
sprays were applied slightly less frequently on IPM farms (1.5 times versus
1.7 times), and the number of pounds of insecticide applied to the tomato
fields was reduced. Yet because a more expensive material was used on
average, the {PM and non-IPM fields in the study had virtually identical
pesticide costs. Whether the reduced quantity of insecticide (a 22 percent
average decrease in pounds applied through the season) and the different
toxicological and ecological properties of the pesticide material applied on
the IPM farms constitute a benefit to the environment could be determined
only through further analysis. The relative effects of the various kinds of
materials used and their possible additive effects would need to be carefully
examined before a determination of ecological impact could be made (Antle
and Park, 1986~.
The material most frequently applied to tomatoes in California was the
OCR for page 385
THE KITAMURA FARM
TABLE 4 Pesticide Application Reported on Tomatoes in California, 1984
385
Number of Pounds Acres or Units
Chemical Applicationts) Applied Treated Type
Number of Pounds Acres or Units
Chemical Applicationts) Applied Treated Type
Anilazine 105 3,502.00 3,274.50 A
Azinphos-methyl 169 6,263.70 8,150.45 A
Bacillus thunngiensis 82 603.84 4,591.84 A
Benomyl 39 531.50 1,924.96 A
Benzoic acid 1 1.29 35.00 A
Capsicum oleoresin 3 450.00 245.00 A
Captafol 171 23,203.56 12,551.50 A
Captan 6 320.56 102.40 A
Carbaryl 770 69,118.91 39,681.19 A
Carbolic acid 2 2.77 102.00 A
Chloramben, ammonium salt 1 3.88 3.00 A
Chlorine 6 1,795.00 1,809.00 T
Chloropicrin 31 13,488.44 815.81 A
Chloropicrin 1 0.08 0.28 T
Chlorothalonil 1,057 126,160.23 69,908.76 A
Chlorpropham 1 201.85 140.00 A
Chlorthal-dimethyl 7 2,091.75 302.00 A
Copper 14 276.55 520.00 A
Copper hydroxide 87 7,715.55 3,828.10 A
Copper-zinc sulfate complex 3 45.00 9.50 A
Demeton 20 392.46 1,442.30 A
Diazinon 130 2,832.50 6,726.49 A
Di-capryl sodium sulfosuccinate 1 8.48 26.00 A
DichlorobenzaLkonium chloride 3 328.50 2,758.00 T
Dichlorophen 3 23,206.08 476.00 A
1, 2-Dichloropropane, 1, 3-
Dichloropropene, and related
C-3 compounds 321 1,565,872.87 25,875.66 A
1, 3-Dichloropropene 9 33,610.53 589.80 A
Dicofol 69 4,706.05 4,191.50 A
Dimethoate 156 3,221.23 7,846.30 A
Dinoseb 23 3,252.77 1,904.00 A
Diphenamid 102 10,605.20 4,212.50 A
Disulfoton 71 6,031.38 4,087.40 A
Endosulfan 802 64,667.66 59,925.50 A
Ethephon 590 16,570.87 28,914.30 A
Ethion 13 2,967.05 1,360.00 A
Ethylene dibromide 4 5,288.42 178.00 A
Fenbutatin-oxide 5 0.69 1.03 A
Fensulfothion 30 10,350.74 1,590.00 A
Fenvalerate 1,804 24,864.80 125,008.40 A
Fonofos 142 11,286.11 7,304.40 A
Garlic 3 180.00 245.00 A
Glypho sate , is opropylamine
salt 13 594.63 1,085.00 A
Lindane 20 335.25 796.50 A
Malathion 15 828.52 496.67 A
Mancozeb 887 46,214.30 35,588.86 A
Maneb 113 17,516.93 9,611.45 A
Metalaxyl 764 4,368.42 25,387.91 A
(Continued on page 386)
OCR for page 386
386
TABLE 4 (Continued)
ALTERNATIVE AGRICULTURE
Number of Pounds Acres or Units
Chemical Applications Applied Treated Type
Metaldehyde 4 7.20 15.00 A
Methamidophos 677 32,398.13 37,020.80 A
Methiocarb 2 0.76 94.30 A
Methomyl 2,236 83,589.99 136,767.02 A
Methoxychlor 17 486.70 768.00 A
Methyl bromide 40 44,901.33 629.18 A
Methyl bromide 1 3.92 0.28 T
Methyl isothiocyanate 1 1,386.39 24.00 A
Methyl parathion 320 18,698.83 24,832.00 A
Metribuzin 78 2,750.12 6,390.50 A
Mevinphos 98 1,776.91 5,940.50 A
Naled 24 742.58 946.00 A
Napropamide 345 24,466.79 17,752.40 A
Oxamyl 124 4,179.77 7,062.50 A
Paraquat dichloride 243 8,647.30 15,373.19 A
Parathion 308 14,825.11 21,771.50 A
Pebulate 165 21,523.59 6,378.50 A
Permethr~n 4 43.75 276.38 A
Phosphamidon 100 2,579.54 4,977.00 A
Piperonyl butoxide 6 16.69 412.00 A
Pyrethrins 6 1.80 412.00 A
Sodium fluoalum~nate 9 715.10 332.00 A
Strychnine 15 91.84 22,728.00 A
Sulfur 1,543 3,451,374.20 133,187.55 A
Toxaphene 6 276.37 186.00 A
Triadimefon 617 5,996.68 52,910.15 A
Trichlorfon 10 393.60 421.00 A
Triflural~n 114 8,822.36 10,466.90 A
Xylene 518 33,175.17 36,595.99 A
Xylene range aromatic solvent 613 89,424.53 48,072.88 A
Zinc 2 6.28 185.00 A
Zinc phosphide 3 67.72 135.00 A
Zinc sulfate 24 209.34 1,108.00 A
Compound 1080 1 2.20 275.00 A
Commodity total 16,943 5,969,461.06
NOTE- In the Acres or Units column The A means acres treated; Type T means tons of tomatoes
postharvest.
SOURCE: State of California, Department of Food and Agriculture. 1985. U.S. Annual Pesticide Use
Report by Commodity, January Through December, 1984. Sacramento, Calif.
insecticide methomyl; 2,236 applications of this substance were made in
1984 to 136.767 acres of tomatoes. A total of 83,590 pounds of methomyl
,
~ · ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ _ _ ~ _ _ e ·_ ~ ~ · _ L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ I
were appllecl, or anout 1.o pounds or active 1ngreu1~n~ par ALLA. 111~ Ill
most prevalent pesticide was fenvalerate; 1,804 applications were made, for
a total of 24,865 pounds on 125,000 acres (Table 4~.
The success of the Kitamuras' IPM practices in avoiding crop losses,
OCR for page 387
THE KITAMURA FARM
387
cutting costs, and maintaining high-quality harvests and top prices are
significantly influenced by two factors: the predictability of weather pat-
terns In the central valley of California and the Kitamuras' management
skins. When summer or fad rains are unexpectedly late, the incidence of
plant disease, need for fungicide treatment, and risk of crop losses rise
greatly. In most years, however, the combination of soils, climate, rotational
patterns, and IPM on this farm are successful In sustaining high levels of
production with minimal adverse environmental effects.
REFERENCES
Antle, J. M., and S. K. Park. 1986. The economics of IPM in processing tomatoes. California
Agriculture 40~3&4~:31-32.
Grieshop, I. I., F. Zalom, and G. Miyao. 1986. Exploratory Study on the Adoption of the IPM
Tomato Worm Monitoring Program by Tomato Growers in Yolo County—Descriptive
Statistics. IPM Implementation Group, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources,
University of California, Davis. September.
University of California. 1985. IPM for Tomatoes. Publication No. 3274. Davis, Calif.
Wilson, L. T., F. G. Zalom, R. Smith, and M. P. Hoffmann. 1983. Monitoring for fruit damage
in processing tomatoes: Use of a dynamic sequential sampling plan. Environmental En-
tomology 12~3~: 835-839.
Zalom, F. G., L. T. Wilson, and R. Smith. 1983. Oviposition patterns by several lepidopterous
pests on processing tomatoes in California. Environmental Entomology 12~4~:1133-1137.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
processing tomatoes
