Click for next page ( 375


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



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 374
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 374
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 374
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 374
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 374
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 374
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 374
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 374
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 374
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 374
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 374
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 374
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 374
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 CountyDescriptive 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.