Welcome to the Department of Pesticide Regulation
Back to 2005 Pesticide Use Reporting (PUR) Menu



Summary of
Pesticide Use Report Data
2005
Indexed by Chemical



CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PESTICIDE REGULATION
California Environmental Protection Agency
1001 I Street
Sacramento, California 95814-3510
Arnold Schwarzengger, Governor
Alan Lloyd, Secretary for Environmental Protection
Mary-Ann Warmerdam, Director
Department of Pesticide Regulation



January 2006

Any portion of this report may be reproduced for any but profit-making purposes.
For information on purchase of additional copies or of electronic data files, see order form.
This report is also available on DPR's Web site
If you have questions concerning this report, call (916) 324-4100.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

ORDER FORM

I.  INTRODUCTION

II.  COMMENTS AND CLARIFICATIONS OF DATA

III.  DATA SUMMARY

IV.  TRENDS IN USE IN CERTAIN PESTICIDE CATEGORIES

V.  TRENDS IN PESTICIDE USE IN CERTAIN COMMODITIES

VI.  SUMMARY OF PESTICIDE USE REPORT DATA 2005 INDEXED BY CHEMICAL (PDF, 1.4 mb)

Questions regarding the Summary of Pesticide Use Report Data or information regarding the availability and cost of the computerized database should be directed to: Department of Pesticide Regulation, Pest Management and Licensing Branch, P.O. Box 4015, Sacramento, California 95812-4015.Telephone (916) 324-4100 or email questions to Linda Lichtenberger

ORDER FORM

To continue to make the Summary of Pesticide Use Report Data available, it is necessary to charge for the costs of reproduction and mailing. The reports can also be downloaded free of charge from the Department’s web site.

The 1989 - 2005 Summary of Pesticide Use Report Data indexed by chemical or commodity reports can be found on DPR’s web at www.cdpr.ca.gov. The Annual Pesticide Use Report Data (the complete database of reported pesticide applications for 1990-2005) are available on CD ROM. The files are in text (comma delimited format).

The Summary of Pesticide Use Report Data is available in two formats. One report is indexed by chemical and lists the amount of each pesticide used, the commodity on which it was used, the number of agricultural applications, and the acres/units treated. The second report is indexed by commodity and lists the chemicals used, the number of agricultural applications, amount of pesticides used, and the acres/units treated.



I. INTRODUCTION

Development and Implementation of the Pesticide Use Reporting System

This 2005 Summary of Pesticide Use Report Data includes agricultural applications and other selected uses reported in California. The report represents a summary of the data gathered under full use reporting. The Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) uses the data to help estimate dietary risk and to ensure compliance with clean air laws as well as ground water protection regulations. Site-specific use report data, combined with geographic data on endangered species habitats, also helps county agricultural commissioners resolve potential pesticide use conflicts. Detailed, individual pesticide use report data may be obtained from DPR for in depth, analytical purposes.

Under full use reporting, which began in 1990, California became the first state to require reporting of all agricultural pesticide use, including amounts applied and types of crops or places (e.g., structures, roadsides) treated. Commercial applications-including structural fumigation, pest control, and turf applications-must also be reported. Pesticide use reporting is explained in more detail below.

Types of Pesticide Applications Reported

Partial reporting of agricultural pesticide use has been in place in California since at least the 1950s. Beginning in 1970, anyone who used restricted materials was required to file a pesticide use report with the county agricul­tural commissioner. The criteria established to designate a pesticide as a restricted material include:

Restricted materials, with certain exceptions, may be possessed or used only by, or under the supervision of, licensed or certified persons and only in accordance with an annual permit issued by a county agricultural commissioner.

In addition, the State required commercial pest control operators1 to report all pesticides used, whether restricted or nonrestricted. These reports included information about the pesticide applied, when and where the application was made, and the crop involved if the application was in agriculture. The reports were entered into a computerized database and summarized by chemical and crop in annual reports.

With implementation of full use reporting in 1990, the following pesticide uses are required to be reported to the commissioner, who, in turn, reports the data to DPR:

The primary exceptions to the use reporting requirements are home and garden use and most industrial and institutional uses.

1Pest control operators include those in the business of applying pesticides such as agricultural applicators, structural fumigators, and professional gardeners.

HOW PESTICIDE DATA ARE USED

DPR undertook the expansion of use reporting primarily in response to concerns of many individuals and groups, including government officials, scientists, farmers, legislators, and public interest groups. It was generally acknowledged that the system for estimating dietary exposure to pesticide residues did not provide sufficient data on which to make realistic assessments; this often resulted in overestimates of risk. Farm worker representatives were also asking for more information to determine exposure and potential risk to those who handle pesticides or who work in treated fields.

There are several key areas in which data generated by full use reporting are proving beneficial.

Risk Assessment

Without information on actual pesticide use, regulatory agencies conducting risk assessment assume all planted crop acreage is treated with many pesticides, even though most crops are treated with just a few chemicals. If the assumptions used by regulatory agencies are incorrect, regulators could make judgments on pesticide risks that are too cautious by several orders of magnitude, reducing the credibility of risk management decisions. The use report data, on the other hand, provides actual use data so DPR can better assess risk and make more realistic risk management decisions.

After the passage of the federal Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) in 1996, complete pesticide use data became even more important to commodity groups in California and to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). FQPA contains a new food safety standard against which all pesticide tolerances must be measured. The increased interest in the state’s pesticide use data, especially for calculating percent crop treated, came at a time when DPR was increasing the efficiency with which it produced its annual report. DPR was able to provide up-to-date use data and summaries to commodity groups, University of California specialists, U.S. EPA programs, and other interested parties as they developed the necessary information for the reassessment of existing tolerances.

Worker Health and Safety

Under the reporting regulations, pest control operators must give farmers a written notice after every pesticide application that includes the date and time the application was completed, and the reentry and preharvest intervals2. This notice gives the farmer accurate information to help keep workers from entering fields prematurely, and also lets the farmer know the earliest date a commodity can be harvested.

DPR’s Worker Health and Safety Branch also uses the data for worker exposure assessment as part of developing an overall risk characterization document. Use data helps scientists estimate typical applications and how often pesticides are used.

2A reentry interval is the time from which a pesticide application is made and when workers may enter a field. A preharvest interval is the time between an application and when a commodity can be harvested.

Public Health

The expanded reporting system provides DPR, the State Department of Health Services, and the Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment with complete pesticide use data for evaluating possible human illness clusters in epidemiological studies.

Endangered Species

DPR works with the county agricultural commissioners to combine site-specific use report data with geographic information system-based data on locations of endangered species. The resulting database helps commissioners resolve potential conflicts over pesticide use where endangered species may occur. DPR and the commissioners can also examine patterns of pesticide use near habitats to determine the potential impact of proposed use limitations. With location-specific data on pesticide use, restrictions on use can be better designed to protect endangered species while still allowing necessary pest control.

Water Quality

Since 1983, DPR has had a program to work with the rice industry and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board to reduce contamination of surface water by rice pesticides. Using PUR data to help in pinpointing specific agricultural practices, more precise alternative use recommendations can be made to assure protection of surface water.

The Pesticide Contamination Prevention Act requires site-specific records to help track pesticide use in areas known to be susceptible to ground water contamination. Determinations can also be made from the records on whether a contaminated well is physically associated with agricultural practices. These records also provide data to help researchers determine why certain soil types are more prone to ground water contamination.

Air Quality

Many pesticide products contain volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that contribute to the formation of smog. DPR worked with the state Air Resources Board to put together a State Implementation Plan under the federal Clean Air Act to reduce emissions of all sources of VOCs, including pesticides, in nonattainment areas of the state. DPR’s contribution to the plan included accurate data on the amount of VOCs contained in pesticides and the ability to inventory the use of those pesticides through pesticide use reporting.

Pest Management

The Department uses the PUR database to understand patterns and changes in pest management practices. This information can be used to determine possible alternatives to pesticides that are subject to regulatory actions and to help determine possible impacts of different regulatory actions on pest management.

The PUR is used to help meet the needs of FQPA, which requires pesticide use information for determining the appropriateness of pesticide residue tolerances. As part of this process many commodity groups have created crop profiles, which include information on the pest management practices and available options, both chemical and nonchemical. Pesticide use data is critical to developing these lists of practices and options.

The PUR data have been used to support and assess grant projects for a grant program conducted by DPR to develop, demonstrate and implement reduced-hazard pest management strategies from 1995 to 2003. Due to the statewide budget shortfall, funds are not currently available to offer grants. However, the PUR data have been used in several projects that build on work conducted in our grant program in the almond and stonefruit industries. In these and other projects, the PUR data are used to address regional pesticide use patterns and environmental problems such as water and air quality. The data are also used to better understand current changes in pesticide use.

DPR has published general analyses of statewide pesticide use patterns and trends. The first analysis covered the years 1991 to 1995, and the second more detailed analysis covered 1991 to 1996. These analyses identified high-use pesticides, the crops to which those pesticides were applied, trends in use, and the pesticides most responsible for changes in use. In addition, since 1997, the annual Summary of Pesticide Use Report Data reports include summary trends of pesticides in several different categories such as carcinogens, reproductive toxins, and ground water contaminants.

Processor and Retailer Requirements

Food processors, produce packers, and retailers often require farmers to submit a complete history of pesticide use on crops. DPR’s use report form often satisfies this requirement.


II. COMMENTS AND CLARIFICATIONS OF DATA

The following comments and points should be taken into consideration when analyzing data contained in this report:

TERMINOLOGY

The following terminology is used in this report:

Number of agricultural applications - Number of applications of pesticide products made to production agriculture.  More detailed information is given below under " Number of Applications."
Pounds applied - Number of pounds of an active ingredient.
Unit type - The amount listed in this column is one of the following:
A = Acreage
C = Cubic feet (of commodity treated)
K = Thousand cubic feet (of commodity treated)
P = Pounds (of commodity treated)
S = Square feet
T = Tons (of commodity treated)
U = Miscellaneous units (e.g., number of tractors, trees, bins, etc.)

COMMODITY CODES

The Department uses the PUR database to understand patterns and changes in pest management practices. This information can be used to determine possible alternatives to pesticides that are subject to regulatory actions and to help determine possible impacts of different regulatory actions on pest management.

The PUR is used to help meet the needs of FQPA, which requires pesticide use information for determining the appropriateness of pesticide residue tolerances. As part of this process many commodity groups have created crop profiles, which include information on the pest management practices and available options, both chemical and nonchemical. Pesticide use data is critical to developing these lists of practices and options.

The PUR data have been used to support and assess grant projects for a grant program conducted by DPR to develop, demonstrate and implement reduced-hazard pest management strategies from 1995 to 2003. Due to the statewide budget shortfall, funds are not currently available to offer grants. However, the PUR data have been used in several projects that build on work conducted in our grant program in the almond and stonefruit industries. In these and other projects, the PUR data are used to address regional pesticide use patterns and environmental problems such as water and air quality. The data are also used to better understand current changes in pesticide use.

DPR has published general analyses of statewide pesticide use patterns and trends. The first analysis covered the years 1991 to 1995, and the second more detailed analysis covered 1991 to 1996. These analyses identified high-use pesticides, the crops to which those pesticides were applied, trends in use, and the pesticides most responsible for changes in use. In addition, since 1997, the annual Summary of Pesticide Use Report Data reports include summary trends of pesticides in several different categories such as carcinogens, reproductive toxins, and ground water contaminants.

UNREGISTERED USE

The report contains entries that reflect the use of a pesticide on a commodity for which the pesticide is not currently registered. This sometimes occurs because the original use report was in error, that is, either the pesticide or the commodity was inaccurately reported. DPR’s computer program checks that the commodity is listed on the label, but nonetheless such errors appear in the PUR, possibly because of errors in the label database. Also, the validation program does not check whether the pesticide product was registered at the time of application. For example, parathion (ethyl parathion) is shown reported on crops after most uses were suspended in 1992. (These records are researched and corrected as time and resources allow.) DPR continues to implement methods which identify and reduce these types of reporting errors in future reports. Other instances may occur because by law, growers are sometimes allowed to use stock they have on hand of a pesticide product that has been withdrawn from the market by the manufacturer or suspended or canceled by regulatory authorities.

Other reporting "errors" may occur when a pesticide is applied directly to a site to control a particular pest, but is not applied directly to the crop in the field. A grower may use an herbicide to treat weeds on the edge of a field, a fumigant on bare soil prior to planting, or a rodenticide to treat rodent burrows. For example, reporting the use of the herbicide glyphosate on tomatoes - when it was actually applied to bare soil prior to planting the tomatoes - could be perceived to be an error. Although technically incorrect, recording the data as if the application were made directly to the commodity provides valuable crop usage information for DPR’s regulatory program.

ADJUVANTS

Data on spray adjuvants (including emulsifiers, wetting agents, foam suppressants, and other efficacy enhancers), not reported prior to full use reporting, are now included. Examples of these types of chemicals include the "alkyls" and some petroleum distillates. (Adjuvants are exempt from federal registration requirements, but must be registered as pesticides in California.)

ZERO POUNDS APLLIED

There are a few entries in this report in which the total pounds applied for certain active ingredients are displayed as zero. This is because the chemical (active ingredient) made up a very small percentage of the formulated product that was used. When these products are applied in extremely low quantities, the resulting value of the active ingredient is too low to register an amount.

ACRES TREATED

The summary information in this annual report cannot be used to determine the total number of acres of a crop. However, it can be used to determine the cumulative acres treated. The problem is that the same field can be treated more than once in a year with the same active ingredient. A similar problem occurs when the product used contains more than one active ingredient. (In any pesticide product, the active ingredient is the component which kills, or otherwise controls, target pests. A pesticide product is made up of one or more active ingredients, as well as one or more inert ingredients.) For example, if a 20-acre field is treated with a product that contains three different pesticide active ingredients, a use report is filed by the farmer correctly recording the application of a single pesticide product to 20 acres. However, in the summary tables, the three different active ingredients will each have recorded 20 acres treated. Adding these values results in a total of 60 acres as being treated instead of the 20 acres actually treated.

NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS

The values for number of applications include only production agricultural applications. Applicators are required to submit one of two basic types of use reports, a production agricultural report or a monthly summary report. The production agricultural report must include information for each application. The monthly summary report, for all uses other than production agriculture, includes only monthly totals for all applications of pesticide product, site or commodity, and applicator. The total number of applications in the monthly summary reports are not consistently given so they are no longer included in the totals. In the annual PUR reports before 1997, each monthly summary record was counted as one application.

In the annual summary report by commodity, the total number of applications given for each commodity may not equal the sum of all applications of each active ingredient on that commodity. As explained above, some pesticide products contain more than one active ingredient. If the number of applications were summed for each active ingredient in such a product, the total number of applications would be more than one, even though only one application of the product was made.

OUTLIERS

In calculating the total pounds of pesticides used in these tables, DPR excluded values for rates of use which were so large they were probably in error. Errors occur, for example, when those reporting pesticide use shift decimal points during data entry. DPR specialists spent more than a year developing, testing, and implementing software to detect probable errors (outliers). Pesticide rates were considered outliers if (1) they were higher than 200 pounds of active ingredient per acre (or greater than 1,000 pounds per acre for fumigants); (2) they were 50 times larger than the median rate for all uses with the same pesticide product, crop treated, unit treated, and record type (that is, production agricultural or all other uses); or (3) they were higher than a value determined by a neural network procedure that approximates what a group of 12 scientists believed were obvious outliers. Although these criteria removed less than one percent of the rate values in the PUR, some rates were so large that if included in the sums, they would have significantly affected total pounds applied of some pesticides. (The outliers are excluded from the total pounds in the summary reports but remain in the database.)

For the years 1991 to 1998, we determined whether or not a use rate was an outlier based on the distribution of rates for all applications on each crop and pesticide during the year of its application. Beginning with the 1999 PUR, we determined outliers in two stages. In the first stage, outliers were identified as data that came to DPR from the counties during the year but based on the distribution of rates from the previous year. This procedure allowed us to include outliers in the error reports sent back to the counties. In the second stage, the outlier program was run after all the current year data were received using the distribution of rates for that year. This procedure found additional outliers for new products and new uses. We currently use the two-stage procedure.

Beginning with the 1999 PUR data, values have been substituted where outliers were identified in the first phase. Nulls were substituted in numeric fields identified as outliers, and "???" were substituted in character fields identified as outliers. A median rate value for use on a commodity/product combination was substituted where a high rate per acre was the error. In addition, "Unknown" was substituted where the reported site code was invalid.



III. DATA SUMMARY

This report is a summary of data submitted to DPR. Total pounds may change slightly due to ongoing error correction. The revised numbers will more accurately reflect the total pounds applied.

PESTICIDE USE IN CALIFORNIA

In 2005, there were 194,310,983 pounds of pesticide active ingredients reported used in California. (Not all of Ventura County 2005 PUR data was available at the time of publication.) Annual use has varied from year to year since full use reporting was implemented in 1990. For example, reported pesticide use was 180 million pounds in 2004, 176 million pounds in 2003, 172 million pounds in 2002, 151 million pounds in 2001 (when not all Kern County PUR data were available), and188 million pounds in 2000.

Such variances are, and will continue to be, a normal occurrence. These fluctuations can be attributed to a variety of factors, including changes in planted acreage, crop plantings, pest pressures, and weather conditions. For example, extremely heavy rains result in excessive weeds, thus more pesticides may be used; drought conditions may result in fewer planted acres, thus less pesticide may be used.

As in previous years, the greatest pesticide use occurred in California’s San Joaquin Valley (Table 1). Four counties in this region had the highest use: Fresno, Kern, Tulare, and San Joaquin.

Table 2 breaks down the pounds of pesticide use by general use categories: production agriculture, post-harvest commodity fumigation, structural pest control, landscape maintenance, and all others.

PESTICIDE SALES IN CALIFORNIA

Reported pesticide applications are only a portion of the pesticides sold each year. Typically, about two-thirds of the pesticide active ingredients sold in a given year are not subject to use reporting. Examples of non-reported active ingredients are chlorine (used primarily for municipal water treatment) and home-use pesticide products.

Based on preliminary reports, about 616 million pounds of active ingredients were sold in 2005. There were 705 million pounds sold in 2004, 645 million pounds in 2003, 598 million pounds in 2002, 563 million pounds in 2001, 601 million pounds in 2000, 707 million pounds in 1999, and 617 million pounds in 1998. Prior years data are posted on DPR’s web site at www.cdpr.ca.gov under programs & services/mill assessment/report of pesticides sold in California.

In addition, it should be noted that the pounds of pesticides used and the number of applications are not necessarily accurate indicators of the extent of pesticide use or, conversely, the extent of use of reduced-risk pest management methods. For example, farmers may make a number of small-scale "spot" applications targeted at problem areas rather than one treatment of a large area. They may replace a more toxic pesticide used at one pound per acre with a less hazardous compound that must be applied at several pounds per acre. Either of these scenarios could increase the number of applications or amount of pounds used, respectively, without indicating an increased reliance on pesticides.

Table 1. Total pounds of pesticide active ingredients reported in each county and rank during 2004 and 2005.

 

2004 Pesticide Use

2005 Pesticide Use

County

Pounds Applied

Rank

Pounds Applied

Rank

Alameda

269,261

41

358,426

39

Alpine

109

58

195

58

Amador

117,736

43

150,022

43

Butte

2,962,210

18

3,142,996

18

Calaveras

92,203

45

39,177

48

Colusa

1,809,678

23

1,908,137

23

Contra Costa

556,561

36

881,352

31

Del Norte

369,627

39

363,736

38

El Dorado

105,982

44

129,673

45

Fresno

29,434,260

1

32,085,832

1

Glenn

2,399,082

20

2,207,066

22

Humboldt

86,266

46

57,683

47

Imperial

6,072,783

10

6,061,083

10

Inyo

27,579

51

6,211

54

Kern

23,882,466

2

28,047,693

2

Kings

5,903,039

11

6,222,848

9

Lake

704,033

32

757,574

35

Lassen

70,447

47

143,326

44

Los Angeles

3,674,348

13

3,307,758

15

Madera

8,512,876

6

11,235,390

5

Marin

56,552

49

58,483

46

Mariposa

24,557

52

5,930

55

Mendocino

1,162,903

28

1,213,175

28

Merced

7,707,805

7

7,109,467

7

Modoc

385,516

37

440,263

37

Mono

1,119

57

2,414

56

Monterey

9,114,603

5

8,628,082

6

Napa

2,236,410

21

2,338,185

21

Nevada

34,792

50

35,840

49

Orange

1,469,915

26

1,500,049

26

Placer

374,618

38

318,128

40

Plumas

11,931

53

7,352

53

Riverside

3,242,339

16

3,200,448

17

Sacramento

3,283,459

15

3,887,613

13

San Benito

624,510

33

775,579

34

San Bernardino

619,459

34

520,690

36

San Diego

2,108,419

22

1,670,895

25

San Francisco

10,794

54

23,510

51

San Joaquin

10,036,054

4

11,902,163

4

San Luis Obispo

1,712,208

25

2,432,506

20

San Mateo

223,683

42

275,230

41

Santa Barbara

4,109,252

12

4,350,148

12

Santa Clara

865,992

30

951,531

30

Santa Cruz

1,743,551

24

1,681,344

24

Shasta

294,416

40

217,830

42

Sierra

3,727

56

2,360

57

Siskiyou

837,675

31

841,240

33

Solano

1,025,269

29

1,013,223

29

Sonoma

3,058,405

17

3,366,565

14

Stanislaus

6,138,003

9

6,016,392

11

Sutter

3,624,764

14

3,307,058

16

Tehama

596,303

35

858,989

32

Trinity

10,223

55

11,972

52

Tulare

15,056,053

3

17,534,471

3

Tuolumne

69,071

48

29,883

50

Ventura

7,283,033

8

6,352,462

8

Yolo

2,665,655

19

2,823,694

19

Yuba

1,398,577

27

1,499,642

27
 

180,272,161

  

194,310,983

  

Table 2. Total pounds of pesticide active ingredients reported in each county and rank during 2004 and 2005.

Year Production Agriculture Postharvest Fumigation Structural Pest Control Landscape Maintenance All Others* Total Pounds
1995 187,577,922 3,770,169 4,839,368 1,382,563 7,563,928 205,133,950
1996 182,375,369 1,847,859 4,738,168 1,259,332 7,607,752 197,828,481
1997 189,796,122 1,608,996 5,184,905 1,231,788 6,957,905 204,779,717
1998 198,568,999 1,655,875 5,930,988 1,405,312 6,783,731 214,344,905
1999 185,457,062 2,019,542 5,673,321 1,403,635 7,858,041 202,411,602
2000 172,730,676 2,143,396 5,165,189 1,395,598 6,728,174 188,163,033
2001 138,842,868 1,446,359 4,923,647 1,290,542 6,214,977 152,718,393
2002 152,506,562 1,847,353 5,467,116 1,439,532 6,679,534 167,940,097
2003 158,729,003 1,821,455 5,143,281 1,946,478 7,487,648 175,127,865
2004 164,704,049 1,901,289 5,129,817 1,565,103 6,971,902 180,272,161
2005 176,240,642 2,316,717 5,541,472 1,751,475 8,460,676 194,310,983**

* Not all of Ventura County 2005 PUR data was available at the time of publication. The statewide 2005 PUR database will be amended to include the data.

** This category includes pesticide applications reported in the following general categories: pest control on rights-of-way; public health which includes mosquito abatement work; vertebrate pest control; fumigation of nonfood and nonfeed materials such as lumber, furniture, etc.; pesticide used in research; and regulatory pest control used in ongoing control and/eradication of pest infestations.


IV. TRENDS IN USE IN CERTAIN PESTICIDE CATEGORIES

Reported pesticide use in California in 2005 totaled 194 million pounds, an increase of 14 million pounds from 2004. Production agriculture, the major category of use subject to reporting requirements, accounted for most of the overall increase in use. Applications for production agriculture increased by 12 million pounds. Not all of Ventura County 2005 PUR data was available at the time of publication, mostly applications made in November and December. Based on reported use in Ventura County during November and December from 2002 to 2004, the current total pounds is probably short by 0.5 million pounds. The AIs most affected are captan and petroleum oil.

The active ingredients (AI) with the largest uses by pounds were sulfur, petroleum oils, metam-sodium, 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D), and mineral oil. Sulfur use increased by 7.3 million pounds (13 percent) and was the most highly used pesticide in 2005, both in pounds applied and acres treated. By pounds, sulfur accounted for 32 percent of all reported pesticide use. Sulfur is a natural fungicide favored by both conventional and organic farmers. Petroleum oil use increased by 182,000 pounds (1.1 percent), metam-sodium use decreased by 1.6 million pounds (-11 percent), 1,3-D use increased by 375,000 pounds (4.2 percent), and mineral oil use increased by 51,000 pounds (0.6 percent).

Major crops or sites that showed an overall increase in pesticide pounds applied from 2004 to 2005 included wine grapes (6.0 million pounds increase), oranges (2.7 million pounds), raisin and table grapes (1.8 million pounds), walnuts (1.2 million pounds), and almonds (1.0 million pounds). Major crops or sites with decreased pounds applied included rice (1.5 million pounds decrease), fresh tomatoes (0.70 million pounds), rights of way (0.42 million pounds), strawberries (0.42 million pounds), and lemons (0.37 million pounds).

DPR data analyses have shown that pesticide use varies from year to year depending upon pest problems, weather, acreage and types of crops planted, economics, and other factors. In general, spring 2005 was cool and rainy so diseases of many crops were worse than the previous year and therefore fungicide use was greater and accounted for most of the increased pesticide use in 2005. Pounds applied and acres treated of most of the other major pesticide types increased as well, except for herbicides and fumigants. A dramatic increase occurred in the use of some newer, reduced-risk pesticides such as boscalid, pyraclostrobin, indoxacarb, and methoxyfenozide. Prices improved in 2005 for most of the 12 crops discussed in Section V of this report, entitled "Trends in Pesticide Use in Certain Commodities", which may have also been an incentive to use more pesticides to protect valuable crops.

Pesticide use is reported as the number of pounds of AI and the total number of acres treated. The data for pounds include both agricultural and nonagricultural applications; the data for acres treated are primarily agricultural applications. The number of acres treated means the cumulative number of acres treated; the acres treated in each application are summed even when the same field is sprayed more than once in a year. (For example, if one acre is treated three times in a season with an individual AI, it is counted as three acres treated in the tables and graphs in Sections IV and V of this report.)

In the past several years, the PUR Annual Reports have included tables of pesticide use in various pesticide categories, including reproductive toxins, carcinogens, organophosphates and carbamates, ground water contaminants, toxic air contaminants, oils, reduced-risk pesticides, and biopesticides. This year we have added tables for fumigants.

Pounds of all the higher risk pesticide categories, except for toxic air contaminants, decreased and use of all the lower risk pesticides increased from 2004 to 2005. However, acres treated with carcinogens and organophosphates increased, mostly because of increased use of the fungicides mancozeb and maneb and the insecticide chlorpyrifos. Fungicide use in general increased as mentioned above because of the cool, wet spring in 2005. Some of the major statistical changes from 2004 to 2005 include:

Since 1992, the reported pounds of pesticides applied have fluctuated from year to year. An increase or decrease in use from one year to the next or in the span of a few years does not necessarily indicate a general trend in use; it simply may reflect normal variations. Short periods of time (three to five years) may suggest trends, such as the increased pesticide use from 2001 to 2005 or the decreased use from 1998 to 2001. However, statistical analyses from 1992 to 2005 do not indicate a significant trend of either increase or decrease in pesticide use.

To improve data quality when calculating the total pounds of pesticides, DPR excluded values that were so large they were probably in error. The procedure to exclude probable errors involved the development of complex error-checking algorithms, a data improvement process that is ongoing.

Over-reporting errors have a much greater impact on the numerical accuracy of the database than under-reporting errors. For example, if a field is treated with 100 pounds of a pesticide AI and the application is erroneously recorded as 100,000 pounds (a decimal point shift of three places to the right), an error of 99,900 pounds is introduced into the database. If the same degree of error is made in shifting the decimal point to the left, the application is recorded as 0.1 pound, and an error of 99.9 pounds is entered into the database

To provide an overview, pesticide use is summarized for nine different categories from 1995 to 2005 (Tables 3-11 and Figures 1-9). These categories classify pesticides according to certain characteristics such as reproductive toxins, carcinogens, or reduced-risk characteristics.

The statistical summaries detailed in these categories are not intended to serve as indicators of pesticide risks to the public or the environment. Rather, the data supports DPR regulatory functions to enhance public safety and environmental protection. (See "How Pesticide Data are Used" on page 2.) The different pesticide categories, described more fully, are:

  1. Pesticides listed on the State's Proposition 65 list of chemicals "known to cause reproductive toxicity".
  2. Pesticides listed by U.S. EPA as B2 carcinogens or on the State's Proposition 65 list of chemicals "known to cause cancer".
  3. Pesticides that are cholinesterase inhibitors, that is, organophosphate and carbamate chemicals.
  4. Pesticides on the "a" part of DPR's groundwater protection list (section 6800 (a) of the California Code of Regulations, Title 3, Division 6, Chapter 4, Subchapter 1, Article 1).
  5. Pesticides from DPR's toxic air contaminants list (California Code of Regulations, Title 3, Division 6, Chapter 4, Subchapter 1, Article 1, section 6860).
  6. Fumigant pesticides are defined by the American Association of Pesticide Control Officials as substances which produce gas, vapor, fume or smoke intended to destroy insects, bacteria or rodents.
  7. Oil pesticides, which may include some chemicals on the State’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals "known to cause cancer" but which also serve as alternatives to high-toxicity pesticides.
  8. AIs contained in pesticide products that have been given reduced-risk status by U.S. EPA.
  9. Biopesticides, which include microorganisms and naturally occurring compounds, or compounds essentially identical to naturally occurring compounds that are not toxic to the target pest (such as pheromones).

USE TRENDS OF PESTICIDES ON THE STATE’S PROPOSITION 65 LIST OF CHEMICALS THAT ARE "KNOWN TO CAUSE REPRODUCTIVE TOXICITY"

Table 3A. The reported pounds of pesticides used which are on the State’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals that are "known to cause reproductive toxicity." Use includes both agricultural and reportable non-agricultural applications. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use Reports

Table 3B. The reported cumulative acres treated with pesticides that are on the State’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals "known to cause reproductive toxicity." Use includes primarily agricultural applications. The grand total for acres treated may be less than the sum of acres treated for all active ingredients because some products contain more than one active ingredient. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use Reports.

Figure 1. Use trends of pesticides that are on the State’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals that are "known to cause reproductive toxicity." Reported pounds of active ingredient (AI) applied include both agricultural and non-agricultural applications. The reported cumulative acres treated include primarily agricultural applications. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use Reports.

USE TRENDS OF PESTICIDES LISTED BY U.S. EPA AS CARCINOGENS OR BY THE STATE AS "KNOWN TO CAUSE CANCER"

Table 4A.The reported pounds of pesticides used that are listed by U.S. EPA as B2 carcinogens or that are on the State’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals "known to cause cancer." Use includes both agricultural and reportable non-agricultural applications. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use Reports.

Table 4B. The reported cumulative acres treated with pesticides listed by U.S. EPA as B2 carcinogens or on the State’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals "known to cause cancer." Use includes primarily agricultural applications. The grand total for acres treated is less than the sum of acres treated for all active ingredients because some products contain more than one active ingredient. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use.

Figure 2. Use trends of pesticides that are listed by U.S. EPA as B2 carcinogens or that are on the State’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals "known to cause cancer." Reported pounds of active ingredient (AI) applied include both agricultural and reportable non-agricultural applications. The reported cumulative acres treated include primarily agricultural applications. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use Reports.

USE TRENDS OF CHOLINESTERASE-INHIBITING PESTICIDES

Table 5A. The reported pounds of cholinesterase-inhibiting pesticides used. These pesticides are the currently registered organophosphate and carbamate active ingredients. Use includes both agricultural and reportable non-agricultural applications. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use Reports.

Table 5B. The reported cumulative acres treated with cholinesterase-inhibiting pesticides. These pesticides are the currently registered organophosphate and carbamate active ingredients. Use includes primarily agricultural applications. The grand total for acres treated is less than the sum of acres treated for all active ingredients because some products contain more than one active ingredient. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use Reports.

Figure 3. Use trends of cholinesterase-inhibiting pesticides, which includes pesticides with organophosphate and carbamate active ingredients. Reported pounds of active ingredient (AI) applied include both agricultural and reportable non-agricultural applications. The reported cumulative acres treated include primarily agricultural applications. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use Reports.

USE TRENDS OF PESTICIDES ON DPR’S GROUND WATER PROTECTION LIST

Table 6A. The reported pounds of pesticides on the "a" part of DPR's groundwater protection list. These pesticides are the currently registered active ingredients listed in the California Code of Regulations, Title 3, Division 6, Chapter 4, Subchapter 1, Article 1, Section 6800(a). Use includes both agricultural and reportable non-agricultural applications. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use Reports.

Table 6B.The reported cumulative acres treated with pesticides on the "a" part of DPR's groundwater protection list. These pesticides are the currently registered active ingredients listed in the California Code of Regulations, Title 3, Division 6, Chapter 4, Subchapter 1, Article 1, Section 6800(a). Use includes both agricultural and reportable non-agricultural applications. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use Reports.

Figure 4. Use trends of pesticides on DPR's groundwater protection list. These pesticides are the currently registered active ingredients listed in the California Code of Regulations, Title 3, Division 6, Chapter 4, Subchapter 1, Article 1, Section 6800(a). Reported pounds of active ingredient (AI) applied include both agricultural and reportable non-agricultural applications. The reported cumulative acres treated include primarily agricultural applications. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use Reports.

USE TRENDS OF PESTICIDES ON DPR’S TOXIC AIR CONTAMINATS LIST

Table 7A.The reported pounds of pesticides on DPR's toxic air contaminants list applied in California. These pesticides are the currently registered active ingredients listed in the California Code of Regulations, Title 3, Division 6, Chapter 4, Subchapter 1, Article 1, Section 6860. Use includes both agricultural and reportable non-agricultural applications. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use Reports.

Table 7B. The reported cumulative acres treated in California with pesticides on DPR's toxic air contaminants list. These pesticides are the currently registered active ingredients listed in the California Code of Regulations, Title 3, Division 6, Chapter 4, Subchapter 1, Article 1, Section 6860. Use includes primarily agricultural applications. The grand total for acres treated is less than the sum of acres treated for all active ingredients because some products contain more than one active ingredient. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use Reports.

Figure 5. Use trends of pesticides on DPR's toxic air contaminants list. These pesticides are the currently registered active ingredients listed in the California Code of Regulations, Title 3, Division 6, Chapter 4, Subchapter 1, Article 1, Section 6860. Reported pounds of active ingredient (AI) applied include both agricultural and reportable non-agricultural applications. The reported cumulative acres treated include primarily agricultural applications. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use Reports.

USE TRENDS OF FUMIGANT PESTICIDES 

Table 8A. The reported pounds of fumigant pesticides used. Use includes both agricultural and reportable non-agricultural applications. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use Reports.

Table 8B.The reported cumulative acres treated with fumigant pesticides. Use includes both agricultural and reportable non-agricultural applications. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use Reports.

Figure 6.Use trends of fumigant pesticides. Reported pounds of active ingredient (AI) applied include both agricultural and reportable non-agricultural applications. The reported cumulative acres treated include primarily agricultural applications. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use Reports.

USE TRENDS OF OIL PESTICIDES 

Table 9A. The reported pounds of oil pesticides. As a broad group, oil pesticides and other petroleum distillates are on U.S. EPA’s list of B2 carcinogens or the State’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals "known to cause cancer." However, these classifications do not distinguish among oil pesticides that may not qualify as carcinogenic due to their degree of refinement. Many such oil pesticides also serve as alternatives to high-toxicity chemicals. For this reason, oil pesticide data was classified separately in this report. Use includes both agricultural and reportable non-agricultural applications. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use Reports

Table 9B.The reported cumulative acres treated in California with oil pesticides. (See qualifying comments on U.S. EPA B2 carcinogen and Proposition 65 listing with Table 8A.) Uses include primarily agricultural applications. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation’s Pesticide Use Reports.

Figure 7.Use trends of oil pesticides. As a broad group, oil pesticides and other petroleum distillates are on U.S. EPA’s list of B2 carcinogens or the State’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals "known to cause cancer." However, these classifications do not distinguish among oil pesticides that may not qualify as carcinogenic due to their degree of refinement. Many such oil pesticides also serve as alternatives to high-toxicity chemicals. For this reason, oil pesticide data was classified separately in this report. Reported pounds of active ingredient (AI) applied include both agricultural and reportable non-agricultural applications. The reported cumulative acres treated include primarily agricultural applications. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use Reports.

USE TRENDS OF REDUCED-RISK PESTICIDES

Table 10A.The reported pounds of reduced-risk pesticides applied in California. These active ingredients are contained in pesticide products that have been given reduced-risk status by U.S. EPA. Use includes both agricultural and non-agricultural applications. Zero values in early years likely indicate the pesticide was not yet registered for use. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use Reports.

Table 10B.The reported cumulative acres treated in California with each reduced-risk pesticide. These active ingredients are contained in pesticide products that have been given reduced-risk status by U.S. EPA. Use includes primarily agricultural applications. Zero values in early years likely indicate the pesticide was not yet registered for use. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use Reports.

Figure 8. Use trends of reduced-risk pesticides. These active ingredients are contained in pesticide products that have been given reduced-risk status by U.S. EPA. Reported pounds of active ingredient (AI) applied include both agricultural and reportable non-agricultural applications. The reported cumulative acres treated include primarily agricultural applications. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use Reports.

USE TRENDS OF BIOPESTICIDES

Table 11A. The reported pounds of biopesticides applied in California. Biopesticides include microorganisms and naturally occurring compounds, or compounds essentially identical to naturally occurring compounds that are not toxic to the target pest (such as pheromones). Use includes both agricultural and non-agricultural applications. Zero values in early years likely indicate the pesticide was not yet registered for use. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use Reports.

Table 11B. The reported cumulative acres treated in California with each biopesticide. Biopesticides includes microorganisms and naturally occurring compounds, or compounds essentially identical to naturally occurring compounds that are not toxic to the target pest (such as pheromones). Use includes primarily agricultural applications. The grand total for acres treated is less than the sum of acres for all active ingredients because some products contain more than one active ingredient. Zero values in early years likely indicate the pesticide was not yet registered for use. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use Reports.

Figure 9.Use trends of biopesticides. Biopesticides include microorganisms and naturally occurring compounds, or compounds essentially identical to naturally occurring compounds that are not toxic to the target pest (such as pheromones). Reported pounds of active ingredient (AI) applied include both agricultural and reportable non-agricultural applications. The reported cumulative acres treated include primarily agricultural applications. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use Reports.

 V. TRENDS IN PESTICIDE USE IN CERTAIN COMMODITIES

This summary describes possible reasons for changes in pesticide use from 2004 to 2005 for the following commodities: (1) cotton, (2) almonds, (3) wine grapes, (4) table and raisin grapes, (5) alfalfa, (6) processing tomatoes, (7) oranges, (8) head lettuce, (9) rice, (10) peaches and nectarines, (11) strawberries, and (12) carrots. These 12 commodities were chosen because each were treated with more than 5 million pounds of active ingredients (AI) or cumulatively treated on more than 2 million acres. Collectively, this represents 70 percent of all reported pesticide pounds used and 79 percent of the acres treated in 2005.

Information used to develop this section was drawn from several publications and phone interviews with pest control advisors, growers, University of California Cooperative Extension farm advisors and specialists, researchers, and commodity association representatives. The information collected was analyzed by DPR staff using their extensive knowledge of pesticides, California agriculture, pests, and pest management practices to draw conclusions about possible explanations for changes in pesticide use. However, it is important to note these explanations are based on anecdotal information, not rigorous statistical analyses.

Reported pesticide use in California in 2005 totaled 194 million pounds, an increase of 14 million pounds from 2004 (8 percent increase). The AIs with the largest uses by pounds were sulfur, petroleum oils, metam-sodium, 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D), and mineral oil. Sulfur use increased by 7.3 million pounds (13 percent) and was the most highly used pesticide in 2005, both in pounds applied and acres treated. By pounds, sulfur accounted for 32 percent of all reported pesticide use in 2005 and accounted for much of the increase in pesticide use from 2004 to 2005. Sulfur is a natural fungicide favored by both conventional and organic farmers. Petroleum oil use increased by 182,000 pounds (1.1 percent), metam sodium use decreased by 1.6 million pounds (-11 percent), 1,3-D use increased by 375,000 pounds (4.2 percent), and mineral oil use remained nearly the same.

Sulfur was used mostly to control powdery mildew on grapes and had the largest increase in use by both pounds and acres treated from 2004 to 2005. Oils and the fumigant metam sodium had the next highest use by pounds, but the biggest increase in pounds applied after sulfur were the fumigant potassium n-methyldithiocarbamate and the fungicide copper hydroxide. In 2005 oils were used mostly on almonds and oranges. Oils are low risk pesticides used mostly to control insects and mites. Nearly half of the total pounds of metam sodium were on carrots, with processing tomatoes and potato accounting for another 26 percent. Potassium n-methyldithiocarbamate was used mostly on broccoli and peppers and copper hydroxide on walnuts.

Different pesticides are used at different rates. In California, most pesticides are applied at rates of around 1 to 2 pounds per acre. However, fumigants are usually applied at rates of hundreds of pounds per acre. Thus, comparing use by pounds will emphasize fumigants. Comparing use among different pesticides using acres treated gives a different picture.

By acres treated, the non-adjuvant pesticides with the greatest use in 2005 were sulfur, glyphosate, oils, oxyfluorfen, and chlorpyrifos. Use of all of these pesticides increased. Most of the increase in total acres treated was from increased use of sulfur, boscalid, pyraclostrobin, and indoxacarb. Boscalid and pyraclostrobin are two recently registered, reduced-risk fungicides used mostly on almonds and grapes. Indoxacarb is a recently registered insecticide; 75 percent of the total pounds were applied to cotton and alfalfa. The herbicide glyphosate was used mostly on rights of way, almonds, and cotton. Oxyfluorfen is often applied with glyphosate in cotton and almonds. Chlorpyrifos was used mostly on cotton.

DPR data analyses have shown that pesticide use varies from year to year depending upon pest problems, weather, acreage and types of crops planted, economics, and other factors. In general, spring 2005 was cool and rainy so diseases of many crops were worse than the previous year and therefore fungicide use was greater and accounted for most of the increased pesticide use in 2005. Pounds applied and acres treated of most of the other major pesticide types increased as well, except for herbicides and fumigants. Prices for most of the 12 crops improved in 2005, which may have also been an incentive to use more pesticides to protect valuable crops.

In the following tables, use is given by pounds of AI applied and by acres treated. Acres treated means the cumulative number of acres treated; the acres treated in each application are summed even when the same field is sprayed more than once in a year. (For example, if the same acre is treated three times in a calendar year with an individual AI, it is counted as three acres treated).

Cotton

Cotton is grown for fiber, oil, and animal feed and is one of the most widely grown crops in California. Cotton acres planted decreased by 15 percent from 2004 to 2005. Two main kinds of cotton are grown: upland and Pima. Most cotton acreage is in upland cotton, but a greater percentage of Pima cotton was planted in 2005 than in 2004. Some cotton has also been genetically modified to be tolerant to the herbicide glyphosate (Roundup); acres planted with Roundup Ready cotton decreased by 21 percent from 2004 to 2005. Most cotton is grown in the southern San Joaquin Valley, but a small percentage is grown in Imperial and Riverside counties and several counties in the Sacramento Valley.

Table 12A. Total reported pounds of all active ingredients (AIs), acres treated, acres planted, and prices for cotton each year from 2001 to 2005. Planted acres from 2001 to 2004 are from CDFA 2006; planted acres in 2005 are from NASS, July 2006a; Roundup Ready acres from NASS, June 2006; marketing year average prices from 2001 to 2003 are from NASS, July 2002, July 2003, and July 2004; from 2004 and 2005 from NASS, July 2006c.

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Lbs AI

8,127,020

7,157,764

7,141,281

7,150,897

6,946,000

Acres Treated

9,632,312

8,298,884

10,467,671

10,422,661

11,374,132

Acres Planted Upland Cotton

630,000

480,000

550,000

560,000

430,000

Acres Planted Pima Cotton

240,000

210,000

150,000

215,000

230,000