Subject: Re: IPM impacts (fwd)

From: Victor Guest <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 09:38:55 WST

From: Dan Cooley <[email-masked]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[email-masked]>

>At Environmental Damage Valuation & Cost Benefit News we placed the
>following summary in our November, 1996 issue.
>
>
>INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT PROFITABLE
>
>
>U.S. farmers spent $7.2 billion on pesticides in 1994.
>Integrated Pest Management (IPM) was developed to address some of
>the health and environmental concerns posed by pesticides as well
>as the problem of pest resistance.  IPM attempts to optimize pest
>control economically and ecologically.
>
>Through a two-staged model Fernandez-Cornejo accounts for self
>selectivity and simultaneity, and derives pesticide demand and
>yield equations which are consistent with a profit function.
>Estimation errors produced by self selectivity arise from the
>fact that there may be systematic differences between adopters
>and nonadopters.  Simultaneity arises from unmeasured variables
>correlated with both IPM adoption and pesticide demand, such as
>the size of the pest population, pest resistance, farm location,
>and grower perceptions.
>
>IPM techniques for insects and for diseases are evaluated
>separately.  The results indicate that fresh market tomato
>growers who adopt IPM for insects apply 24% fewer insecticides
>than non-adopters.  The annual yield at 28,900 pounds per acre
>for adopters is 1.2% higher than for non adopters.  Profits are
>15.9% lower.  Growers who adopt IPM for diseases apply 18% fewer
>insecticides.  The annual yield is 0.4% higher, and profits 9%
>lower.
>
>The Fernandez-Cornjos model indicates that the impact of IPM for
>insects on yields is positive but insignificant, and of IPM for
>diseases on yields is negative, and also not significant.  The
>effect of IPM adoption on profits is positive but small: the
>elasticities of variable farm profits with respect to the
>probability of adoption of IPM is 0.01 for insects and 0.27 for
>diseases.  An increase in the probability of insect IPM increases
>variable farm profits by 0.1% while a 10% increase in the
>probability of disease IPM adoption raises variable profits by
>2.7%.
>
>
>Jorge Fernandez-Cornejo "The Microeconomic Impact of IPM
>Adoption: Theory and Application" Agricultural and Resource
>Economics Review Volume 25 Number 2  October 1996  pages 149-160
>
>
>
>For those wishing additional samples send Name, Organization, Address,
>E-Mail to [email-masked].  This is an autoresponder and your will
>receive the April, 1997 issue automatically.  You will get at least one more
>sample in the future.
>
>
>
>>>I would like to get some ideas on a methodology for measuring Economic,
>>>Environmental, and Social impact of Integrated Pest Management (IPM).
>>>Contribution of ideas in that area will be greately appreciated.
>>
>>
>Kenneth Acks, Editor and Publisher
>
>ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE VALUATION & COST BENEFIT NEWS (EDV&CBN)
>
>22 East Olive Street             250 West 57th Street
>Second Floor                               Suite 1527
>Long Beach, New York  11561  New York, New York 10107
>voice: (516) 897-9728            voice (212) 969-0797
>fax:   (516) 897-9185             fax: (212) 582-0593
>
>    [email-masked] or [email-masked]
>           http://people.delphi.com/kenacks

Mr. Acks,

I was a bit confused by the summary of the Fernandez-Cornjos model.  Since
I consider myself an IPM specialist, it is always encouraging to hear that
IPM  is profitable, and to get that word around.  However, the third
paragraph of the summary belies the headline:  for the insecticide
analysis, "Profits are 15.9% lower"  and for the fungicide analysis (the
statement says insecticides but I assume that fungicides were analysed as
they are the primary disease controlling chemical used in tomatoes)
"profits are 9% lower".  Then in the final paragraph, the suggestion is
that increased adoption of IPM will raise profits.  Am I missing something?
As I'm not an economist, that is probably the case.

I was also under the impression that IPM started largely as a means of
dealing with pesticide resistance issues, as you stated, and was initially
promoted to farmers as a way of improving profits (Rajotte, Plant Disease
77: 294).  This doesn't always pan out, particularly when scouting and/or
consultant costs are high, or the crop has a high value.  Sprays are
relatively cheap and skilled labor and more intensive management are
expensive.  However, no one has done a good job of accounting for  external
costs (largely environmental) which might or might not be saved. And on the
other hand, if there is increased risk associated with IPM as opposed to
conventional pest management, that is not always taken into account.

I pointed out that in the absence of government subsidies, including
University support, IPM  for strawberries in the Northeast is prohibitively
expensive (Cooley et al., Plant Disease 80: 228).  I think that may be the
case for many crops.

Ultimately the argument boils down to whether it is worth it from an
environmental and food safety perspective to reduce chemical use in
agriculture.  Unfortunately, this is where we have little good information.
It is largely a political question.

_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/
Daniel Cooley                                           _/ _/ _/ _/
Dept. of Microbiology                       _/ _/ _/ _/
203 Morrill North IV                        _/ _/ _/ _/
University of Mass                         _/ _/ _/ _/
Amhest, MA  01003                          _/ _/ _/ _/
413-545-0179                                       _/ _/ _/ _/
FAX 413-545-1578                                _/ _/ _/ _/
[email-masked]           _/ _/ _/ _/
 www.bio.umass.edu/micr                        _/ _/ _/ _/
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/