Economic Assessment Of IPM Economic Assessment Of IPM ProgramsPrograms

Deana SexsonUniversity of Wisconsin, NPM Program

Economics Assessment of IPM Economics Assessment of IPM ProgramsPrograms

What is economic viability to the What is economic viability to the farm?farm?– Cash flow?Cash flow?– Enterprise budget?Enterprise budget?– Fair grower returns?Fair grower returns?

What is economic viability to What is economic viability to the farm?the farm?

Potatoes, a high value/high input Potatoes, a high value/high input crop costs about $2200 per acre to crop costs about $2200 per acre to produce (includes fixed and variable produce (includes fixed and variable costs)costs)– Economic viability should be that growers Economic viability should be that growers

receive more for their cropreceive more for their crop– Assuming an average 360 cwt marketable Assuming an average 360 cwt marketable

yield per acre, growers need to return $6.10 yield per acre, growers need to return $6.10 on average to break evenon average to break even

ALL IPM Programs Need To Have An ALL IPM Programs Need To Have An Economic Component!!Economic Component!!

Economics of IPM Programs: Outline Economics of IPM Programs: Outline of Discussionof Discussion

Can IPM programs save growers money?Can IPM programs save growers money?– Yes – early IPM adoptionYes – early IPM adoption– No – increased cost of reduced risk No – increased cost of reduced risk

materialsmaterials Cost of environmental impacts, who Cost of environmental impacts, who

should pay?should pay?– WI value added exampleWI value added example

Can Economic Benefits Be Aggravated to Can Economic Benefits Be Aggravated to Reflect Economic Benefits on a National Reflect Economic Benefits on a National Scale?Scale?

Can IPM Programs Be Can IPM Programs Be Profitable to Growers?Profitable to Growers?

Yes!Yes!– Early adoption of IPM techniques, utilizing Early adoption of IPM techniques, utilizing

economic thresholds and reducing the economic thresholds and reducing the number of sprays pays the grower money. number of sprays pays the grower money.

» Scouting $15.00 per acre if equals 1-2 spray Scouting $15.00 per acre if equals 1-2 spray reduction you have made moneyreduction you have made money

Example of WI potatoes (Stevenson and Example of WI potatoes (Stevenson and Wyman, 1996)Wyman, 1996)

» By utilizing scouting, disease forecasting models, By utilizing scouting, disease forecasting models, reduced herbicide inputs, proper irrigations reduced herbicide inputs, proper irrigations scheduling and timely and efficient fertility inputs scheduling and timely and efficient fertility inputs growers saved about $170 per hectare (about $70 growers saved about $170 per hectare (about $70 per acre)per acre)

Can IPM Programs Be Can IPM Programs Be Profitable to Growers?Profitable to Growers?

No?No?– Advanced bioIPM adoption may cost more to growersAdvanced bioIPM adoption may cost more to growers

» Utilization of reduced risk (environmentally friendly) compounds Utilization of reduced risk (environmentally friendly) compounds cost more on averagecost more on average

» Utilizing other techniques to control can increase costsUtilizing other techniques to control can increase costs» Managerial time may be increased Managerial time may be increased

Example of fumigation alternativesExample of fumigation alternatives– WI growers are looking for cultural/chemical alternatives WI growers are looking for cultural/chemical alternatives

to fumigation (MacGuidwin, 2003)to fumigation (MacGuidwin, 2003)» Use of cover crops $15Use of cover crops $15» Tillage incorporation (increase soil biomass) - $14Tillage incorporation (increase soil biomass) - $14» Use of soil sterilization techniques - $20,000 for tarp, ?? For Use of soil sterilization techniques - $20,000 for tarp, ?? For

solarization technique equipmentsolarization technique equipment» Labor time, efficiency, soil samples, managerial time - ??Labor time, efficiency, soil samples, managerial time - ??

Increased ProductivityIncreased ProductivityHolds Production Costs DownHolds Production Costs Down

Cost cutting innovations started more than a hundred Cost cutting innovations started more than a hundred years agoyears ago

Equipment improvements reduce costsEquipment improvements reduce costs Improved varieties add to both yields and qualityImproved varieties add to both yields and quality Enhanced cultural practices boost yieldsEnhanced cultural practices boost yields

° Seed potato certificationSeed potato certification° Chemical pest and disease controlChemical pest and disease control° Irrigation water managementIrrigation water management° Rotation ManagementRotation Management° Plant spacing for optimum size and tuber setPlant spacing for optimum size and tuber set

New Technology Reduces Potato Production Costs

Production Methodology Has Improved Over Time

Lets Look At The Cost Of Lets Look At The Cost Of Actual “BioIPM Programs” Actual “BioIPM Programs”

1)1) On farm field trials (Wyman and On farm field trials (Wyman and

Stevenson)Stevenson)

2)2) Individual grower tracking of IPM Individual grower tracking of IPM

score, toxicity, and cost (Sexson score, toxicity, and cost (Sexson

and Day)and Day)

Comparison of season-long, reduced-risk Comparison of season-long, reduced-risk programs with conventional programs for programs with conventional programs for insect and disease controlinsect and disease control

On commercial farms with growersOn commercial farms with growers

Large (3-5 A) replicated blocksLarge (3-5 A) replicated blocks

Weekly scouting for efficacy of insect/disease Weekly scouting for efficacy of insect/disease

controlcontrol

Impacts of programs on natural enemiesImpacts of programs on natural enemies

Yield and gradeYield and grade

Overall toxicityOverall toxicity

CostCost

DEVELOPING REDUCED RISK ALTERNATIVESDEVELOPING REDUCED RISK ALTERNATIVES

Toxicity unit and cost per acre comparisons of insecticides on Toxicity unit and cost per acre comparisons of insecticides on Russet Burbank potatoes, Coloma (Lyons) 2000.Russet Burbank potatoes, Coloma (Lyons) 2000.

Management Management regimeregime Insecticides appliedInsecticides applied

ToxicityToxicity

unitsunits

Cost perCost per

acreacre

Conventional Conventional systemicsystemic Admire 16 oz./AAdmire 16 oz./A 3232 $60.00$60.00

Low-risk Low-risk systemicsystemic

Admire 10 oz./A, SpinTor 4 oz./A,Admire 10 oz./A, SpinTor 4 oz./A,

Pounce 4 oz./APounce 4 oz./A5959 $64.00$64.00

ConventionalConventional

foliarfoliar

Asana/PBO 4/4 oz./A, Baythroid/PBO 2.8/4.0 Asana/PBO 4/4 oz./A, Baythroid/PBO 2.8/4.0 oz./A, Provado 3.75 oz./A, Dimethoate 1 pt./A,oz./A, Provado 3.75 oz./A, Dimethoate 1 pt./A,

Monitor 1.5 pts./AMonitor 1.5 pts./A730730 $76.00$76.00

Low-riskLow-risk

foliarfoliarNovodor 3 qts./A, SpinTor 4 oz./A, Pounce 4 Novodor 3 qts./A, SpinTor 4 oz./A, Pounce 4

oz./A, Fulfill 2.75 oz./Aoz./A, Fulfill 2.75 oz./A 1010 $56.00$56.00

Costs/Benefits of Reduced-Risk Foliar Insect Control.Costs/Benefits of Reduced-Risk Foliar Insect Control.Coloma (Lyons), 2000.Coloma (Lyons), 2000.

Costs/Benefits of Reduced-Risk Foliar Insect Control.Costs/Benefits of Reduced-Risk Foliar Insect Control.Coloma (Lyons), 2000.Coloma (Lyons), 2000.

ProgramProgramCost of Cost of

Materials Materials ($/A)($/A)

Yield (Cwt.)Yield (Cwt.) Cost/Cwt. Cost/Cwt. (cents)(cents)

Toxicity Toxicity UnitsUnits

ConventionalConventional $76$76 550 a550 a 13.813.8 730730

Reduced-riskReduced-risk $56$56 529 a529 a 10.510.5 1010

Outcome of Outcome of reduced riskreduced risk -$20/A-$20/A -21 Cwt/A-21 Cwt/A -3.3/Cwt-3.3/Cwt -720-720

Bottom LineBottom Line Reduced-risk cost 3.3 cents/100 lbs. less.Reduced-risk cost 3.3 cents/100 lbs. less. Net loss from reduced-risk(@$5.00/A)= $85/A.Net loss from reduced-risk(@$5.00/A)= $85/A.

Toxicity and Cost/A Comparisons of Fungicide Toxicity and Cost/A Comparisons of Fungicide Programs on Snowden Potatoes. Coloma 2000.Programs on Snowden Potatoes. Coloma 2000.Toxicity and Cost/A Comparisons of Fungicide Toxicity and Cost/A Comparisons of Fungicide Programs on Snowden Potatoes. Coloma 2000.Programs on Snowden Potatoes. Coloma 2000.

ProgramProgram Fungicide AppliedFungicide AppliedMaterials Materials Cost per Cost per

AA

Toxicity Toxicity UnitsUnits

ConventionalConventional Manzate 7, Bravo 6, Tin 3, Manzate 7, Bravo 6, Tin 3, Curzate 1Curzate 1 $120$120 27322732

Reduced-Risk-Reduced-Risk-Q/BQ/B

Quadris 3, Bravo 11, Quadris 3, Bravo 11, Curzate 2Curzate 2 $158$158 11441144

Reduced-Risk -Reduced-Risk -Q/B/BQ/B/B

Quadris 3, Bravo 11, Quadris 3, Bravo 11, Curzate 2Curzate 2 $157$157 11291129

Reduced-Risk -Reduced-Risk -Q/MQ/M

Quadris 3, Manzate 11, Quadris 3, Manzate 11, Curzate 2Curzate 2 $88$88 28842884

Costs/Benefits of Reduced-Risk Fungicide Programs Costs/Benefits of Reduced-Risk Fungicide Programs on Snowden Potatoes. Coloma 2000.on Snowden Potatoes. Coloma 2000.

Costs/Benefits of Reduced-Risk Fungicide Programs Costs/Benefits of Reduced-Risk Fungicide Programs on Snowden Potatoes. Coloma 2000.on Snowden Potatoes. Coloma 2000.

ProgramProgram Cost of Cost of Materials ($/A)Materials ($/A)

Yield Yield (Cwt.)(Cwt.)

Cost/Cwt. Cost/Cwt. (cents)(cents)

Toxicity Toxicity UnitsUnits

ConventionalConventional $120$120 432432 27.827.8 27322732

Reduced-risk Reduced-risk (QBB)(QBB) $157$157 433433 36.336.3 11291129

Outcome of Outcome of reduced riskreduced risk +$37/A+$37/A +1/Cwt.+1/Cwt. +8.5/Cwt+8.5/Cwt -1603-1603

Bottom LineBottom Line Reduced-risk costs 8.5 cents/100 lbs. more.Reduced-risk costs 8.5 cents/100 lbs. more.

Net loss from reduced-risk(@$5.00/A)= $32/A.Net loss from reduced-risk(@$5.00/A)= $32/A.

Conclusions Conclusions

Reduced-Risk insecticide programs provided equivalent Reduced-Risk insecticide programs provided equivalent

efficacy and yield to conventional programs.efficacy and yield to conventional programs.

Beneficial insect populations were significantly higher Beneficial insect populations were significantly higher

in Reduced-Risk insecticide programs and may provide in Reduced-Risk insecticide programs and may provide

aphid control.aphid control.

Reduced-Risk fungicide programs improved efficacy Reduced-Risk fungicide programs improved efficacy

and and may increase yieldmay increase yield..

Costs of Reduced-Risk programs were generally higher Costs of Reduced-Risk programs were generally higher

but but may be offset by increased yieldmay be offset by increased yield (fungicides). (fungicides).

Total toxicity units from Reduced-Risk programs were Total toxicity units from Reduced-Risk programs were

reduced by over 50%.reduced by over 50%.

AFT/EPA Funded effort to determine AFT/EPA Funded effort to determine economics of bioIPM pesticide programs*economics of bioIPM pesticide programs*

We collected pesticide application data We collected pesticide application data for the years 2000-2003 from 15 for the years 2000-2003 from 15 growers. growers.

We then compared pesticide cost with We then compared pesticide cost with toxicity units for the 15 growers.toxicity units for the 15 growers.

We collected average prices for all WI We collected average prices for all WI potato chemicals.potato chemicals.

We designed a tool for farmers to track We designed a tool for farmers to track their own cost and toxicity units.their own cost and toxicity units.

*with Esther Day

Toxicity/Cost Analysis CalculatorToxicity/Cost Analysis Calculator

We developed an Excel spreadsheet to track We developed an Excel spreadsheet to track the performance of the growers in terms low the performance of the growers in terms low vs. high toxicity chemical programs, using:vs. high toxicity chemical programs, using:– Toxicity Units (Multiattribute Toxicity Units (Multiattribute Toxicity Factor Toxicity Factor

ModelModel: calculates human and environmental : calculates human and environmental effect in WI potato system, Benbrook)effect in WI potato system, Benbrook)

– Pesticide application dataPesticide application data

– Average prices of chemicals used by WI potato Average prices of chemicals used by WI potato growersgrowers

Average Total Pesticide CostAverage Total Pesticide Cost

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2000

2001

2002

Insecticide Fungicide Herbicides

$

Average Total Tox UnitsAverage Total Tox Units

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

2000

2001

2002

Insecticide Fungicide Herbicides

TU

Total Pesticide Tox Units for Short vs. Total Pesticide Tox Units for Short vs. Long Season FieldsLong Season Fields (2002)(2002)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Far

m 4

Far

m 5

Far

m 1

4F

arm

2F

arm

11

Far

m 8

Far

m 3

Far

m 1

3F

arm

1F

arm

15

Far

m 1

0F

arm

9F

arm

7F

arm

12

Far

m 6

1,445

1020

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

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

$

Far

m 1

1F

arm

2F

arm

5F

arm

14

Far

m 4

Far

m 1

5F

arm

12

Far

m 1

Far

m 3

Far

m 1

0F

arm

13

Far

m 9

Far

m 7

Far

m 8

Far

m 6

174

215

Comparison of average toxicity units for Comparison of average toxicity units for Long Season FieldsLong Season Fields

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

TU

Insecticides Fungicides Herbicides All Pesticides

long 00 long 01 long 02

Cost Comparison of costs of pesticides Cost Comparison of costs of pesticides for Long Season Fieldsfor Long Season Fields

0

50

100

150

200

250

$

Insecticides Fungicides Herbicides All Pesticides

long 00 long 01 long 02

Comparisons of Short vs. Long Comparisons of Short vs. Long Season Fields - DiscussionSeason Fields - Discussion

As expected, the average cost and toxicity units As expected, the average cost and toxicity units among all fields are higher in long season fields among all fields are higher in long season fields than short season fields.than short season fields.

However, the trend is not necessarily seen on a However, the trend is not necessarily seen on a field by field basis as many other factors field by field basis as many other factors contribute to pesticide applications (such as soil contribute to pesticide applications (such as soil type, weather conditions, pest pressures, etc.) type, weather conditions, pest pressures, etc.) which are not accounted for in this comparison.which are not accounted for in this comparison.

Therefore, once again, we need to look at the Therefore, once again, we need to look at the situations on a field by field basis.situations on a field by field basis.

Comparisons of Pesticide Toxicity, Comparisons of Pesticide Toxicity,

Cost, and IPM AdoptionCost, and IPM Adoption

The BioIPM Score (from eco-potato The BioIPM Score (from eco-potato standards) number which signifies IPM standards) number which signifies IPM adoption for each field was further adoption for each field was further compared to the pesticide toxicity and compared to the pesticide toxicity and cost analysis.cost analysis.

Long Season: BioIPM, TU and Costs Long Season: BioIPM, TU and Costs Per Field (2002)Per Field (2002)

Sorted by increasing cost

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Fa

rm 1

5

Fa

rm 1

2

Fa

rm 1

Fa

rm 3

Fa

rm 1

0

Fa

rm 1

3

Fa

rm 9

Fa

rm 7

Fa

rm 8

Fa

rm 6

0.00

500.00

1,000.00

1,500.00

2,000.00

2,500.00

Cost TU

232 200

230230 235

268 232

235

240238

Comparisons of Pesticide Toxicity, Cost, Comparisons of Pesticide Toxicity, Cost, and IPM Adoption - Discussionand IPM Adoption - Discussion

No clear trends were seen in the 15 fields No clear trends were seen in the 15 fields surveyed between IPM adoption, toxicity and surveyed between IPM adoption, toxicity and costs.costs.

More analysis needs to be done to look at other More analysis needs to be done to look at other factors (such as pest pressures) which may factors (such as pest pressures) which may have a greater influence on pesticide. have a greater influence on pesticide. applications than IPM adoption among growers:applications than IPM adoption among growers:– For example, even if many IPM practices are For example, even if many IPM practices are

implemented and pest populations reach threshold implemented and pest populations reach threshold levels, a pesticide application is necessary.levels, a pesticide application is necessary.

Cost Of Environmental Impacts: Cost Of Environmental Impacts: Who Should Pay?Who Should Pay?

WI value added WI value added exampleexample

WWF/WPVGA/UW Collaboration - Ecological Potato Standards (Draft 12/15/00)

Farm:Variety:Acres:

Please answer the following for the field which you are certifying.

Scouting Section

1A Whose scouting data did you use to make management decisions on this field?(check only one)

Farm Dealer/Co-op = 1 pointIndependent Crop Consultant = 5 points point total for question 1A

IPM Trained Farm Employee = 4 points possible range 1-5

Farm Owner/Manager = 4 pointsFarm Employee = 2 points

1B Bonus: If additional scouting data was taken, who provided this data?(check only one)

Farm Dealer/Co-op = 1 pointIndependent Crop Consultant = 5 pointsIPM Trained Farm Employee = 4 pointsFarm Owner/Manager = 4 pointsFarm Employee = 2 pointsNo One = 0 points

point total for bonus question IB possible range 0 - 5

Variety Designation:Short season (SS) = less than 90 days

from emergence to final vinekillLong season (LS) = more than 90 days

from emergence to final vinekill

Difference in Cost:-Approx $0.50 per cwt-Would like to return $1.00 per cwt

SIGNAGE

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

For more information

Visit http://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