“ q. 635' h‘_ ‘ c- 9.0. o‘}' 0‘ n~~o O --- »- } ..\c h' ‘ .- ... o- -- o - n. J - A o D O - fi_ ~ I - ' ‘9 f 0 . 1 ’l . . .- v . Y A o ' I'. O O o c I f. ‘ V . _ . .— . l a a )9 I O ' 5 a ’ - ..l. r. . u on 3 s ‘0 b. .‘Ll:*4 gt ~ wag.» D ..'( .11 . PI) I .«I. 1"... I'. v‘ '-‘-. c.,. to 2‘4‘ :5 '- . I .4. «u «‘4 . f“ O. o ' f ’ . . ¥ , - .D . .I.. 'r '. .- ‘I V. ‘. - L a . ,og" . "Y . 2 ~, {. V .H . ...! ~c u I' '3. , r ..- V . ‘1 o- . LI. . '8 ’ 9.. ‘1 .- . . I". -- - . - Y _-'- . - ...‘.‘l "—vL - a _. «0' . 0’ '~ .Q I. no L. -'_-P. -..! 1‘ v- - .\ ~~ 0 fl -' -I - Q, - o . 0' v Iv .— ..‘w -.m . ‘ .'.‘-.- v .- 3\‘h—0 w. r H" fi’ 0‘— c ' -n ‘ *7 ‘ _ a. M ' —— ~ I u- ' o- N' x o;- 9—.— '0 “5 a W v'M . w ‘ W01 - .- -.. o q‘~|” at?! . . ” ”... ”“0 wwv.‘ “O.” Mv“~m.‘~g” as. .‘f’- -7 4—4 A A; _‘ A ‘A A u ..' .'. .t ' -- ' -" °' ' . *"“‘ “ V ' ‘“"“‘-T V“ W"" 'YY‘.."" '1'."fi ' \V“ I.“"V'““\‘.v“~v-.~w w ~“ .vvl ' . O. O . ~ ~ 9 ~ ~- 0 ' ‘c ‘ . . . .o- s ‘t. . o. . ‘.' O -- .. .. . Cl . s '. O ‘ "I , .. . .. n_-.. . - n. o. o o ' ‘0 l~ .'-§_4 IO' . . .. , - ..... . . .x Q. O a. A. \IQ-fl . _ ... A t. ' ~ .. _ ' O ‘ > O . -. - .0 O' L . ~ .. 0‘» . 4 ‘ -. . 3 . a- Q . - . 7 .' - I . . Q . _ - . ‘ . ‘. . t. .- A ~ ..'\ t ' .- . g h \ . . . - . o 9 . . ... . ' o I - . ~ ' ‘ fl ‘ I . .~ . . - t '. _ . -- g. . - - It . ' - - . . - ‘ o 5.. 1" a . . . o . c a I . - -‘ s .. ' ‘ . ‘ -- . . Q — ‘. . . . . ‘ . .- c -. - . . .- - . O - ‘ . u ‘ ‘ s . . '. A ~ ._ .o o. _>. ‘ - - ..‘I -- ‘ . . - ' ~ ° .' -- .\3n.. . .. - —-. I I . ' . . - ...- - . . I. . - - I .< . ' .I - , . . - 5 0. ‘. .. . , . .‘ I . _ I ..- .- .- . ' . . . . . ‘ ~ . - ‘ - ‘- A A. - ' - o .‘._ ~ ‘ q- . . . . . ' c o . .- - ¢ .5 . “ - . a Q - -.- . o ‘ . . o . ’" -' h . O - ‘ ~ . . . ‘ ~ on . ~ . ~ .‘ o' - — Q I .5 o ‘ ‘ . ' l - u . ‘. .u . . ' ' . o I I D O o o _ O . — ‘ _ . , _ \ O - . - ‘ . . - - l - . . l _ \ . . I - o ,1 - q -.o . . n . . . u v ' \ ' 1 I . II a . L . . o n I , . fl . . . . A . . ... .. . -1 O“ ' . . A. _ . ... ' .' O . a U . v . 4 c . I -- u o _ . o ' . — ' . . o . .» . . _ _ ' _ _, v ‘ ‘ . . . 0. v - .. ‘ u . - . o. ’ . '.’ o - . . . . . ' . .‘ - a ' ‘ ' . n‘ ' , . I r ‘ 0 " ' ... _ v o. g I. ‘ - ‘ ..- o . . . . — ... -~ - . ‘ ' ' ' . Y - ‘ . . . 1 . . . ‘ -. (D ... - - .a , . ’ . n. ‘ ‘ - o <- . ' ' . . —- . cor ~ ' .,.. . .- v -- . - ' '. - . ‘ ' . . c - . . ... I’D -- ' " _ ., - ' ‘ I. ‘ | ‘ , a ' -. ..-.r .. - , .. _ _ ._ o -- . . . . - ’ 1 ‘ o a o a I -. . _. -.. — — ' r 5 . u - I I a ‘ ‘ , — 5 U . . ‘ ' ... ' _ - .. . -... v ‘ 0"‘ ..- .. .. °' . . I ' a ’ ‘ ‘ ‘ - ‘ . .'..'ll' ' . . - ...IO. ' .' - ‘ . ‘ -. 9- O I. - o . 4 ¢ ' ' r' ' . -o -- 00- ‘ ' .. --v-- . n I '. ‘ . A .-- ..(c. I v' I ' "' '. - , . . . l . , . a I f' ’ I . " , O “ ‘ , . . -9”9. 7 I 0. I . - . 0 ..,~ I ‘ " ' '- ...-.. '1 r" ~ ' ‘ I ‘ ‘ ' .. v _ '0 — . .. . .‘ ‘ .' ‘ ‘- ' ‘ I " ' ' ‘ ” ' .... . . . " . ‘ .-.- . . . .r. - --‘-. . . -- .. ‘ ... .. ..- ‘ ‘ .' ' .,-. - ' - ‘-‘ _ . . . ‘ r. I", ,. H. ' ' ‘ ' + o... . "’ ..— . . . v - ' . . ', o ., _- .. . o ‘0 ‘ ' ‘. - .. - . . .- .’ .-l.’. ' ' '.'_. _ ._. . . ' .- o . ~ - 01'07' “ . ' ' "' -coa 1 "’ . . . ' _ I 3 ,.,(“.u,'..lv. c - .IO'c. -, "I. . j .—.-l . ,, o. 4‘. _ ,_ _.- . ’ . o. u. 0 :51". ’ . ":',,, .- I"'-.:.".'-".‘.‘ ’ " ' _....‘.'O -o u’o ‘ ' r ° . .. .- . a . p - . .,,-..,’..o v ' -....." . .v o .. -‘,'.a‘. I — ‘ . " .. . _ ... ‘.':‘-.....:..' ‘fnl.... o rv V "' r ‘ I . . """(' -. '_"." _-...,’.' -r (vac-...-.. _ .- .. . .‘. . .4, -'-.oO—oo 0 ‘ , ,'- ..s . . no a I '..'.--.n' . ._.."" . ‘r4. ,w‘..‘ '—.;'r '0'. ,‘o.r Q ‘ v . O r . . 4 ..(P‘ " .-—." .- .p. (4‘ ' - .' ‘ O ‘..-’.'..’.:‘H"' fovav- .d‘t"- ’N?‘.'"m"" - — . u D -. ,. -.'-.,vr ... ‘. .. . - to .0. . 1' P p . a I . ' j,,'.'."-‘.'.‘..o..v - ’ v. I . ,. .9: II.0150;_OIN" ' ' . ..’ ‘-Ill - o—d . ‘ ' " ‘ ..., Oo’o.oor_l ‘ ‘fial ' "O -“' ' .- r . . ' v . . . a. r I'l.l"' ‘ a l - I . .o 0. o : ' ' I I. O .0 ' . ,t or v . . . . . - ' nu. . I ' o u . . . ' - ' .a . ". o. O u ' . g , . .:.. ' ‘ " ,ca.. y , .m.‘ o..nor-.--,.o. .... u . . , . 4 . ,—‘ ‘ v t o ,u- 0 I .f-oidooo— o; I... >H-lo.’at ~ 4 - ... .. o . I”fl’~o" I. oo-vl)" e- . on 'p .. .o .. I "'.‘Ollfllloc'( ‘ - I l I. t o. .. . ' a o . I . .. 5’ . n: . . . . ’0. f-- . - l o . 00' , 9—. . an o .. ' .... 0°. 0 o'.- o- 0- .. oo~or...'.. . . ... .. ' 0-. A-. .‘..v. ' . ta .0 .I'.;- O-‘o Q I o I °I ...¢---_,‘-...... AGRICULIURAL AND HOUSEHOLD PESTICIDE USE IN SOUTHWESTBRN MICHIGAN FROM 1965 THROUGH 1967 BY ‘ John Angackman ADTHISLS Submitted To Michigan State University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE DEPARIHBNT OF ENIOHDLOGY 1973 ”’7 , bk 4”“ La This was a contract project supported by the Division of Community ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Studies, Food and Drug Administration, Consumer Protection and Environmental Health Service, United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Atlanta, Georgia. The title of the study was Community Studies on Pesticides, Berrien County, Michigan and the contract number was PH 86-65-50. The primary contractor was Michigan Department of Public Health, Lansing, Michigan. The Department of Entomology, Michigan State University cooperated on this project. A major part of this project was conducted by Dr. Paul Wooley, Depart- ment of Entomology, Michigan State University. It was his efforts which initiated the project and carried it through the data collection phase. Without his efforts I would not have been able to work with such an excellent and copious data set. I thank Dr. Dean L. Haynes for his inspiration, encouragement and patience throughout the project. He has been a valuable source of ideas throughout. Arthur Bloomer was effective in introducing me to the project and in answering questions about how the project was carried out before I became involved. He also provided excellent suggestions in carrying out the analysis and in preparation of the manuscript. Dr. Richard Sauer provided an excellent review of the manuscript. Dr. Angus Howitt proved to be a valuable source of information about the practical aspects of orchard insect control. Rosalie Ripley was invaluable in the tedious job of typing this manuscript. There has been many other people who have aided this report such as the original planners, cooperating growers and fieldmen. I am grateful to all the people who have contributed to this project especially those mentioned above. With their aid and encouragement this project was possible. 11 Introduction Literature Review Materials and Methods Household Survey Agricultural Survey Results Discussion Literature Cited Appendix TABLE OF CONTENTS iii RACE 12 12 13 20 133 136 139 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. LIST OF TABLES Eerrien County Population Data Berrien County-Educational Experience for Persons 25 Years of Age and Older Berrien County-Farm Operators by Years of School Completed Berrien County-Farm Operators by Color and Age Berrien County-Population by Age Groups (1960) Make-up of Volunteer Study Subjects-Community Study on Pesticides Communicable Diseases, 1966 Michigan's Population by Race and Mortality Berrien County-Deaths by Ten Leading Causes, 1966 Farms by Type of Farming Enterprise Principle Agricultural Crops Grown in Berrien County (1964) Use of Agricultural Chemicals on Crops (1964) Sprays, Dusts, etc., Exclusive of Fertilizers Cereal Leaf Beetle Spray Program-Michigan, 1966 Weather Statistics (v.3. Weather Bureau) Hater Table Elevations and Other Water Data Pesticide Residues in Fish-Specimens of Perch Fillets Pesticide Residues in Fish-Specimens of Chub Fillets Raw‘Milk Produced in Derrien County-Pesticide Residues in Parts Per Million EquiValents in the Fat Environmental Monitoring-Public Water Supplies Environmental Monitoring-Composite Institutional Diets Pesticide Residues in Fruits and Vegetables iv RAGE 21 22 23 23 24 26 26 27 28 29 31 32 35 36 38 38 39 40 42 43 TABLE 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. LIST or TABLES (cont.) Summary of Crops, Acreages, and Numbers of Record Keeping Growers Summary of Acres Samples by Crop with Comparisons to Berrien County and Michigan Total Hours Exposure Per Grower (Grouped by Grower Type) Hours of Exposure Per Grower (Grouped by Grower Type & Pesticide Class) Hourly Exposure by Compound Hours of Exposure Per Grower and Hours of Exposure Per Acre- Summary by Crop and Pesticide Class .Amounts of Technical Pesticide Applied (Summary by Crop and Year) Pounds of Technical Pesticides Applied in Michigan to All Crops Monit ored Pounds of Technical Pesticides Applied to Major Fruit Crops in Michigan Probability of a Larger Value of F (Due to chance alone) - Regression of Pounds Per Acre Versus Size of Orchard Apple Grower Chemical Preference Based on Record Counts Observed Rates of Pesticides Applied to Apple Orchards Recommended Rates of Pesticides Applied to Apple Orchards Analysis of‘Variance-Test of Difference Between Year and Between Pesticide Class Paired-t Test Values-Test of Difference Between Years of Individual Grower Use Estimated Total Pounds of Technical Materials Used in Michigan- Comparison of Reported Use and Sales Records Mean Numbers of Spray Runs in Apple Orchards Mean Numbers of Treatment Runs in Apple Orchards 65 68 76 113 115 116 120 125 125 127 127 129 132 132 FIGURE 1. LIST OF FIGURES Map of Michigan-Showing Berrien County Map of Berrien, Van Buren, and Allegan Counties, with Grower Locations Designated for 1965 Map of Berrien County with Grower Locations Designated for 1966 and 1967 Graph of Monthly Exposure Daily Percentages of Apple Growers Using Pesticides vi RACE 16 17 18 63 118 Introduction Pesticides are one of the most significant advances in public health and agriculture. Pesticides have alleviated many of the world's disease problems. The success of DDT as a control agent against malaria vectors is a good example (Simmons, 1959). Agriculture, through the use of pesticides, has reduced competition from arthropods, weeds, and diseases. This reduction of competition has allowed major increases in food production throughout the world. Despite the benefits there are hazards associated with pesticide use. Initially the major problems seen in pesticide use were due to immediate poisoning potential. Now it is evident that problems arise from continual pesticide use. These problems include human poisoning of grower, processor and consumer and environmental contamination due to residue accumulation and biological magnification. The scientific community recognized that problems of this nature might occur shortly after the introduction of DDT. With the publication of "Silent Spring" (Carson, 1962), the potential hazards of pesticide use were brought to the public. The federal government responded to public concern by setting up a series of studies throughout the U.S. These studies were a direct result of the recommendations made in a report of the President's Science Advisory Committee (Anonymous, 1963). Administration of the studies was carried out by state government agencies. The studies were primarily in-depth studies of a smaller geographic region. Consequently the title "Community Studies on Pesticides" was used. To understand pesticide problems it is necessary to have some apprecia- tion of the manner in which pesticides are used in society. It is mandatory that knowledge of pesticide use be available to assess the damage and danger caused by these chemicals. Consequently there is a need for good information with regard to both the distribution of pesticides in the environment and the application methods. Two main techniques have been used in pesticide surveys: residue sampling and production recording. Pesticide monitoring systems have centered around residue samples, which are routine work for the toxicologist. There are good chemical techniques and literature readily available on all aspects of this approach. However, there are several drawbacks to residue analysis. By sampling residues one finds the end point in the pesticide picture. No information is included about the total pesticide picture from sales to appli- cations to intermediate degradation. Residue samples often do not account for chemicals which have rapid breakdown qualities. They are primarily effective for estimating the highly residual compounds as they break down. The second technique is designed to acquire an overview of the total pesticide picture. This approach is based on summarization of pesticide sales figures. Pesticide sales figures do not account for the distribution of pesticides on a local level. A coordination of the above two approaches still leaves a significant gap in the pesticide picture. This project was designed to fill that gap of knowledge. The Community Study on Pesticides in Michigan chose Berrien County as its study area. There were several phases of the project: environmental monitoring, epidemiological studies and a pesticide use survey. However, the emphasis of this paper is the pesticide use survey. The other phases are reported only where they overlap into the pesticide use survey. The pesticide use survey was designed to define where and how pesticides are applied in a typical community. Initially, the purpose was to identify all pesticide users in a selected community. The second major goal was to obtain a quantitative description of the types of pesticides and the purposes for which they were used. This necessitated a breakdown of pesticide use by crop. The pesticide survey was directed by the Michigan Department of Public Health and the Department of Entomology, Michigan State University. The principal coordinator was Dr. Paul Wooley (Department of Entomology, Michigan State University) who died in 1968. At that time the data had been collected and computerized. Partial analysis had been completed and quarterly reports of the Michigan Department of Public Health had reported these. In the spring of 1970, I became involved with the project through Dr. Dean L. Haynes (Depart- ment of Entomology, Michigan State University) and Arthur W. Bloomer (Michigan Department of Public Health). Because of the time lag portions of the project were not completed and some sections had been lost. The major portion of my work was to find out what had been done and complete the data analysis. LITERATURE REVIEW This literature review is not intended to be a comprehensive coverage of pesticide knowledge. It is designed to point out some of the most important pesticide work and include primarily review articles on different aspects of pesticides. This review could be amply supplemented or replaced by either a report of the President's Science Advisory Committee (1963) or a Report of the Secretary's Commission on Pesticides and Their Relation to Environmental Health (U.S. DHEW, 1969). I plan to reiterate some of the important aspects of pesti- cides and public health as well as pesticide usage surveys. Because of the scope of this project emphasis will be on agricultural uses and more specifically the use of pesticides on fruit crops. Pesticides and Human Health Probably the most important effect of pesticides on human welfare has been in the area of human disease prevention through reduction or elimination of arthropod disease vectors. Most of this progress has occurred by control of mosquitoes which carry such diseases as malaria, yellow fever and filariasis. These diseases and others have been reduced in large geographic areas primarily by the use of chemical control of the vectors. DDT has been by far the most important pesticide used for disease prevention. Simmons (1959) presents a thorough coverage of this pesticide and its application to human health. One of the important side effects of the increased health standard due to disease reduction is a general population increase. The recent emphasis on overpopulation would suggest that this is a potential problem. Besides the advantage of disease reduction pesticides are potential hazards to human health. Pesticides are poisons and consequently when humans are exposed to high dosages disease symptoms or death can occur (Davis, et a1. 1969). Hazardous exposure to pesticides can be of several types. The most dramatic is acute poisoning which is usually caused by oral or dermal contact with massive amounts of a pesticide. More subtle forms of poisoning can occur due to chronic exposure to smaller quantities. Chlorinated hydrocarbons are stored and accumulate readily in lipid tissues of humans. The organophosphates cause a lowering of the cholinesterase levels in the blood. This effect may result from a single dose of sufficient magnitude or may be cumulative due to repeated or prolonged exposure to small dosages of chemicals. Other possible effects of pesticides on humans are carcinogenesis, teratogenesis and mutagenesis. All of these effects are extremely subtle. It is difficult to test for these effects and tests thus far are rather inconclusive (Durham and Williams 1972). Because of the toxic potential of pesticides the Federal Government has placed stringent regulations on pesticides and their use. The legislation dealing with these compounds centers around the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, 1938, and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, 1947 (Gunther and Blinn, 1956). This legislation ensures that chemicals be registered for use. Registration procedures include the research necessary for establishing the toxicity of chemicals to mammals. These laws are largely responsible for the emphasis on tolerance levels, residues and chemical techniques to detect residues. Several amendments to these laws have been enacted. The most signifi- cant is the Pesticide Chemicals Amendment, 1954, also known as the Miller Pesticide Residue Amendment. This amendment changed procedures for obtaining tolerances for exemptions for pesticides. The most recent and inclusive legislation is the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act, 1972. With this law all uses of chemicals inconsistent with the label became illegal. Certain pesticides were placed on a restricted use list and only certified applicators may apply these compounds. Also the administration of this law was put under the Environmental Protection Agency. Pesticides and Environmental Health Besides the human health hazards there are other serious drawbacks to pesticide use. While some of the academic community had recognized these problems at the time DDT was popularized, it was not until the publication of Silent Spring (Carson, 1962) that these problems became of concern to the populace. These drawbacks center around the destruction of non-target organisms and problems of environmental contamination. In addition to the immediate lethal effects pesticides have on non- target organisms, residues may also cause long term problems. Pesticides can be accumulated in an organism through time. This is especially true of the chlorinated hydrocarbons which are stored readily in lipids and have slow breakdown rates. This accumulation occurs within an organism and then the concentrated residues can be passed on to the next trophic level causing an even greater concentration. This process has been referred to as "biological magnification" of pesticides. Biological magnification seems to be especially prevalent in fish and bird populations. Studies of Clear Lake, California (Hunt and Bischoff, 1960) show convinving evidence of biological magnification in fish populations. Similarly the coho salmon of Lake Michigan showed considerable concentrations of DDT and caused the eventual confiscation of some fish by F.D.A. (Anonymous, 1969). Many predatory birds have been found to contain significant levels of pesticides. Some of the species which seem to be effected are the Bermuda Petrel (Wurster and Wingate, 1968), the Peregrine Falcon (Hickey and Anderson, 1968) and the Western Grebe (Herman, et a1. 1969). Residues of DDT have been blamed as a contributing factor in population decline of these species. Pesticides apparently cause a reduction in reproductive ability. This has been correlated with egg shell thickness (Ratcliffe, 1967). Songbird populations can be severely reduced due to pesticides. DDT spraying for Dutch Elm disease has been especially hazardous to robin populations (Wallace, 1962, 1965; Hunt, 1960). Ripper (1956) has reviewed the effects of pesticides on arthropod popu- lations. The three major undesirable effects he lists are: 1) removal of natural enemies, 2) favorable influences of pesticides of phytophagus arthropods, and 3) removal of competitors. The first case is well documented in apple orchards of North America. Because of the selectivity of certain pesticides, natural enemies of a minor pest were eliminated which allowed the pest to multiply until it reached major pest status. One of the earliest examples is with the oystershell scale, Lepidosaphes 215; (L.) in Nova Scotia (Lord, 1947; Pickett, 1965). An examination of the problem showed that the principal natural enemies of oystershell scale are Aphelinus mytilaspidis LeC. and Hemisarcoptes 5512; (Shiner). It was observed that fungicide sprays of sulfur eliminated these enemies while having no effect on the scales. It was shown that a change in the spray program from sulfur to copper, ferbam or glyoxalidine sprays helped to increase natural enemies and to provide effective control. Sanford and Herbert (1966) state that DDT sprays directed at the winter moth, gggroghtera brumata (L.), cause outbreaks of phytophagous mites through elimination of predaceous mites. Azinphosmethyl controlled the winter moth and was less toxic to predaceous mites but was highly toxic to Bgyobia arborea M. &.A., an important alternate food for the mite predators. They suggest using lead arsenate sprays since this compound has low toxicity to phytophagous and predaceous mites and still controls winter moth. One problem with pesticidal control is that pests can develop resistance to chemicals. There are over 200 documented cases of arthropod resistance (0.8. DREW, 1969). This means that insecticides are not a permanent solution to control unless new pesticides are perpetually developed. This fact has caused entomologists to reexamine the alternatives to pesticides. This trend has initiated recent thinking in the areas of integrated control and pest management. Pesticide Use in Agriculture Pesticides have become an important and necessary tool in modern agri- culture. They have allowed farmers to move toward centralized and mechanized production. Great increases in quantity and quality of produce have been accomplished through chemical control of weeds and insects. In developed countries, particularly the U.S., the importance of pesticides is manifest by the abundance of surplus food. Because of the success of pesticides, a large industry has grown up around their production and sales. In 1959 the 0.8. production of pesticide chemicals and related materials was about one billion pounds or $239,390,000 (U.S.D.A., 1960). DDT alone accounted for 156,738,000 pounds in that year. Of this total production about half are exported annually. This amount is dependent on the individual chemical and varies considerable between chemicals. Much of the exported pesticides are used for mosquito control programs. Domestic use of pesticide in 1962 was 634 million pounds worth $346 million dollars. In 1963, comparable figures were 648 million pounds for $366 million (Anonymous, 1964). DDT production in 1963 was 179 million pounds. Major portions of the domestically used pesticides are taken up by non- agricultural uses. Industry uses pesticides for controlling weeds and insects. The United States Department of Agriculture uses pesticides for control and eradication programs such as those against gypsy moths and fire ants. Other government agencies like the Department of Defense use substantial quantities of pesticides. Hall (1962) has presented an overview of pesticide usage in the United States. His data indicate that 4.62% of the total U.S. acreage is treated ‘with some type of pesticide annually. However, some 801 of the acreage in fruits and nuts are sprayed, 501 of the vegetable acreage, and 151 of the grain. In total, the 0.8. applies some 225,000,000 pounds of technical pesticides annually. Based on a survey of 0.8. farmers, 350 million pounds of pesticides, exclusive of petroleum and sulfur, were used in 1966 (U.S.D.A., 1968). This figure is a 102 increase over 1964 usage figures (U.S.D.A., 1966a). In 1966, insecticides accounted for 149 million pounds with nearly 501 being applied to cotton. Herbicides amounted to 115 million pounds with about 401 used on corn. Fungicides and fumigants each were used at the rate of 30 million pounds in 1966. Apples had the heaviest use of fungicides. In 1966-67, 40 million pounds of DDT were used in the 0.8. (U.S.D.A., 1969). Farmers were the major users of this compound. Cotton farmers were important users since 751 of the cotton acreage was sprayed with DDT. Also, DDT was used extensively on fruit and vegetables. In 1964, 151 of the fruit was sprayed with DDT. This figure was somewhat less in 1966. In 1964, 1.9 ‘million pounds of DDT were applied to 0.7 million acres of fruit. In 1966, 1.5 million pounds was used on 0.5 million acres. Vegetables in 1964 received 1.7 million pounds of DDT on 0.7 million acres. In 1966, 0.8 million acres of vegetables received 1.4 million pounds. Facts show increasing production use and value of pesticides in general. DDT is a noticeable exception in that it has become less popular for use in the U.S. for several years. Detailed studies of local pesticide use patterns are not abundant. They are usually centered around a small region and/or a few crops. The California Department of Agriculture (Anonymous, 1970) published neports on pesticides sprayed in California. The reports include a complete list of all spraying done by government agencies and licensed pest control operators as well as pesticide applications which require permits. Important information about the commodity, area and volume of spraying is included. The report lacks all information on pesticide use by individual farmers except for the restricted chemicals. Information from the Arizona Community Study Pesticide Project (Anonymous, 1968) was reported for 1965-67 based on wholesale quantities. Nearly all of the pesticides used during that three year period increased in usage. About one third of the total consumption was applied to cotton, alfalfa, and lettuce. .August was the high pesticide usage month in Arizona. A few compounds like DDT and Toaaphene were over 1,000,000 pounds in 1966 and 1967. The majority of the compounds ranked between 10,000 and 100,000 pounds per year on a statewide basis. Wisconsin Statistical Reporting Service (1970) reports on the quantities of pesticides used on field crops in Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, and Minnesota. Emphasis in the report was on quantities and types of pesticides as well as acreage of crops. Also the Michigan Crop Reporting Service (1970, 1971) has similar figures for Michigan for 1969 and 1970 on field crops; both studies were done on a mailed survey basis. Forsythe (1970) has data on insecticides and acaricides in Ohio orchards. This survey was made primarily by personal interviews of orchardists from 1963 through 1968. The report includes data for both apple and peach orchards. One important point discussed in the report is the use of a multiplier to represent the number of 100 gallon units sprayed per acre. Forsythe used a system of varying this number based on knowledge of rates, types of equipment, stage of the orchard, and pest problems at a particular time period. Values for the multiplier that were used were the integers l, 2 and 3. Two was the most common value. 10 Concentrate spraying was summarized indicating a large amount of the sprays were more concentrated than the typical 1x sprays. A general trend of increasing 2! concentrate sprays is clear throughout the years of the survey. Higher concentrate sprays, e.g. 3x and 4x, showed a slight decrease over the same years. Because of the way the information was collected, detailed summaries are given for the number of sprays of individual compounds as well as number of sprays directed at individual insect pest problems. Also included is a discussion of the performance of individual acaricides and insecticides with probably reasons for failures. DDT showed a rapid decline in the 1963-65 seasons and a more gradual decline from 1966 to 1968. 11 W Household Survey To obtain pertinent information on pesticide usage by homeowners, a questionnaire was developed which would delineate the types of pesticides used, the amounts used, and the purpose for which they were used. Also included in the questionnaire were questions relating to safety practices followed when using pesticides which could be reflected in total exposure to pesticides. In 1965, 500 questionnaires were mailed to householders selected at random from the Benton Harbor-St. Joseph phone book and 17.21 of these were returned. In addition to the mailed questionnaire, 100 homeowners were interviewed in a house-to-house survey, using the same questionnaire as a basis for obtaining information. The majority of the interviews were obtained from better-than- average residential areas in the Benton Harbor-St. Joseph area, although some interviews were obtained from other segments of a typical community cross-section. The 1965 questionnaire was revised and used in 1966. Both questionnaires are included in Appendix I of this report, along with a summary of responses. On September 20-21, 1966, a house-to-house survey of the Benton Harbor- St. Joseph area was conducted to determine pesticide exposure in predominately urban situations. Seventy-five residences were canvassed using the revised pesticide questionnaire. During November, 44 additional questionnaires were sent to'volunteer study subjects in the medical portion of the program who were expected to be either low or moderate exposure groups, but for whom no record of pesticide exposure existed. The mailed questionnaires in 1966 represent a group of volunteers. These people were selected previously because of their willingness to cooperate in a study about pesticides. 12 These questionnaires were delivered by the public health nurse working on the project, with written instructions enclosed to return them to the Entomology Department, Michigan State University when completed. Approximately 25 individuals of this group are designated as "urban low exposure" and they complete the low exposure group of 100 originally designed to be surveyed. Pesticide information was obtained from 117 individuals; 43 of these were included in the epidemiology study and 74 were contacted in a house-to-house survey. The epidemiology study was done at the same time in Berrien County. It was another portion of the community profile study. This overlap is a result of cooperation between these two studies. Because of the way the questionnaires were answered, it was often unclear what a "no response" or blank meant. Therefore, all "no response" answers were included in the zero response group whenever it was reasonable to assume that they were equivalent. Aggicultural Survgy During 1965, 1966 and 1967 field evaluators contacted fruit, vegetable, and dairy farmers who agreed to keep complete pesticide records, including quantities of chemicals and hours of spraying throughout the growing season. Initially, questionnaires were filled out by interviewers about the individuals cooperating. Information about the crops, acreage, and safety practices was collected in this way. A summary of this questionnaire is made in Appendix II. Individuals who agreed to keep records were furnished with a booklet and forms to keep the records of spraying throughout the season. These individuals are hereafter referred to as growers in this report. A data form is included as Appendix III. Field men collected records approximately every three weeks from April through September. Records were returned to Michigan State University, and coded to allow computer analysis of the data. Numerical codes were set up for growers, crops, pesticides, etc. All data presented was summarized on the CDC 3600 computer 13 in the Michigan State Computer Laboratory on campus. Appendix IV illustrates the data coding form and a brief outline. This format allowed all possible uses of pesticides to be covered, although emphasis was on usage for strictly agricultural purposes. Detailed daily records of each grower's exposure were available through this coding. Appendix V is a detailed index of the code numbers used. When coding the data it was necessary to make a distinction between different types of exposure. It was clear that several successive exposures ‘were not identical to a single multiple exposure. For example, if a combination of Captan (fungicide), Malathion (phosphate), and Methoxychlor (chlorinated hydrocarbon), were mixed together and sprayed for a five hour period, each compound would be credited with five hours of exposure-but the "total" exposure ‘would still be five hours rather than fifteen. Consequently, the above situation 'would be coded as three records, one for each compound, with a "five" coded for the compound exposure in each record. However, the ”Total Exposure" portion of the three records would be coded as a zero, a zero, and a five. Therefore, the sum of the compound exposure columns are not equal to the sum of the "Total Exposure" column. "Total Exposure" represents the actual time spent spraying. This statistic has no realistic connection to the compound coded in the same record. Values coded for compound exposure represent true exposure per compound. The terms "Total Exposure" and "Compound Exposure" were used consistently throughout this report as explained above. It was originally intended to use the numerical system in the Pesticide Handbook-Entoma (Freer, 1965), as the code base for pesticide names. However, so much difficulty was involved that a new code was constructed to meet the needs of the project. Whenever possible, numbers from the Freer Handbook were used. Otherwise, the compounds were coded in alphabetical order, (0100, 0200, etc.). For future reference, numbers from the Freer Handbook were identified 14 by a zero coded in column 34. New code numbers were identified by a nine in the same column. This pesticide coding system was referred to throughout the project as the "Pesticide Index". Appendix VI is a listing of this index. The chemicals were classed into six categories as follows: (1) Fungicides (2) Herbicides (3) Phosphates (4) Chlorinated Hydrocarbons (5) Carbamates (6) Insecticides, others These pesticide classes were associated with each compound in the Pesticide Index by the above numbers. The Pesticide Index, (Appendix VI), includes a colusm for reference to these classes. These six pesticide classes were used as a convenient method of combining similar compounds. The summarization of the 1965 data includes the information from fifty growers who were initially contacted. The 1966 records include 156 growers osmt of 200. In 1967, 32 growers were contacted and records from 30 were coded. The difference in these numbers was caused by incomplete records which could not be coded. It should also be noted that the locations of individual growers varied considerably between years. In 1965, approximately half of the growers were nOt from Berrien County, but from surrounding areas. These growers were from A1 legan and Van Buren Counties, and since they are adjacent to Berrien County, (’18. 1), these growers should be comparable to those in Berrien County and we re treated as such. In 1966 and 1967, all growers were from Berrien County. Included here ‘r‘ snaps of the approximate locations of the growers sampled in all three years. SQQ figures 2 and 3. 15 ONTARIO I BERRIEN co. VAN BUREN co. ALLEGAN co. INDIANA II MP W MICHIGAN - SEWING BERRIEN COUNTY FIGURE 1. 16 ° l965 GROWER 0 I965 AND |966 GROWER X I965,l966,AND ISO? 0 GROWER ALLEGAN CO. ° , ' VAN suaeu co ° BERRIEN CO. FIGURE 2. MAP W BERRIBN, VAN BUREN, AND ALLEGAN COUNTIES, WITH GRWBR LOCATIONS DESIGNATED Fm 1965 17 16%.. 0% o $- - . ~ 65‘ . l966 snowen . . 0 ° 0 I966 ANDI967 GROWER ° 0'. '- o l967 snowen ', 9v} - . s ° ... . s 0- o . . O .0. . so . s ass 9 -- 6 ... (is . ’0 . 0. . z..0s.0. o . s .. s . ..8 . .s s O ' sh BERRIEN COUNTY MAP OF BERRIEN COUNTY WITH GRWER LWATIG‘JS DESIGNATED Fm 1966 AND 1967 FIGURE 3. 18 During the 1967 season, the record keeping portion of the study was limited to the growers who were cooperating in the epidemiology portion of the overall program. This was felt advisable for these reasons: 1. These people were an interested group, and were therefore expected to keep detailed records of the pesticide exposure needed in the program. 2. 1966 records for many in this group were on file and could be used for developing a long-term exposure history for participating members. 3. By using interested cooperators and at the same time reducing the record keeping group, data collection efforts were maximized. 19 RESULTS DeLographic Da ta Table 1 shows a breakdown of the population statistics for Berrien County with a comparison to the State of Michigan. In 1960, 50.47. of the residents in Berrien County were rural residents. Approximately 107. of the residents were farm residents. Between 1950 and 1960 the Berrien County population increased 29.57. compared with 22.97. for the State of Michigan. .Berrien County residents make up 1.91 of Michigan's population. The estimated number of households in Berrien County in 1966 is 47,700. Tables 2 and 3 show the level of education as reported in the 1960 0.8. Census for the general population of Berrien County and for farm operators or farm managers. Comparing farm operators with the general public shows few (1 1 fferences . Table 4 sumarises the number of farm operators by color, age, and the Since 1959 there has been a general decline in the degree of ownership . During the number of farm families and full-time farmers in Berrien County. same period individual farms have tended to become larger. This is principally due to the economic squeeze placed on the part-time farmer, the marginal farmer, An interesting statistic is the increase in the and the small acreage farmer. The increase in farm managers is a nus-bar of farm managers from 1959 to 1964. SOneral trend in specialized crop areas throughout Michigan, particularly with r..l:>.ct to fruit production. More growers are employing farm managers, spray consultants, and other specialized talent in the operation of the farm enterprise. Table 5 which shows the population by age groups is self-explanatory. As part of the epidemiological study on pesticide exposure, volunteer .tMy subjects were recruited from respondents in the record keeping portion of the Co-Iunity Profile Study. The makeup of the volunteer study subjects is PrQCOntgd in Table 6 according to degree of pesticide exposure. Pesticide “Pose“... data were recorded for each of the subjects in the study. 20 Table l Berrien County Population Data Total Population 1960 Total Population, 1966 Estimate 7L of Michigan Residents Living in Berrien County Total Urban Residents 1 of Total Total Rural Residents 1 of Total Number of Rural Residents in Places 1,000 to 2,500 I of Total Rural Population Number of Rural Residents in Places under 1,000 1 of Total Rural Population Rural Farm Population Rural Non-Farm Population 1 Population Increase Michigan 1950-1960 1 Population Increase Berrien County 1950-1960 Population Per Square Mile Berrien County Total Number of Households 1960 Number Per Household 1960 Total Number of Households 1966 (estimated) State of Michigan Population Data Total Population, 1960 Total Population, 1966 estimate References: l) U.S. Census 1960 149,865 161,070 1.9% 74,279 49.6% 75,586 50.47 15,354 10.21 60,232 40.21 14,622 60,964 22.8% 29.5% 258 44,412 3.37 47,700 7,823,194 8,314,070 2) Michigan Statistical Abstract: Bureau of Economic Rtsearch, Michigan State University, 1966 3) Center for Health Statistics, Michigan Department of Public Health 21 Table 2 Berrien County Educational Bxperience for Persons 25 Years of Age and Older Total Persons lumber School Years Completed Elementary 1 to 4 5 and 6 7 8 High School 1 to 3 (5 College 1 to 3 4 or more Median School Years Completed 81,154 1,321 4,242 5,349 5,399 17,484 15,497 20,359 6,263 5,240 (1960 Figures) 2,453 2,886 2,900 8,436 7,298 8,854 2,980 3,182 10.0 Females 41,444 600 1,789 2,463 2,499 9,048 8,199 11,505 3,283 2,058 10.6 Z of Total Males Females 48.93 51.07 1.82 1.45 6.18 4.32 7.27 5.94 7.30 6.03 21.24 21.83 18.38 19.78 22.30 27.76 7.50 7.92 8.01 4.97 Total Perms 0 to 4 years 5 to 7 years 8 years High School 1 to 3 years 4 years College 1 to 3 years 4 years or more Table 3 Berrien County Table 4 Farm Operators by Years of School Completed 3012 42> 272 314 998 124 Berrien County - Perm Operators by Color and Age Pull Owners white Non-white Part Owners white Non-white Managers Tenants White Non-white Average Age 65 Years Old and Older 23 1964 2252 2241 11 592 591 17 151 149 52.0 585 guns 0 U‘ 0 N m ‘0 U § 5 694 E 14 208 51.8 780 Table 5 Berrien County - Population by Age Groups (1960) 589. W Under 5 years 17,552 5-14 years 31,631 15-24 years 19,497 25-39 years 29,739 40-54 years 26,075 55-64 years 11,818 65-74 years 9,051 75 years and older 4,502 Total 149,865 Table 6 Makeup of Volunteer Study Subjects Community Pesticide Study Total number Males Females Total number in high exposure group Males Females Total number in moderately exposed group Males Females Total number in low or no exposure group Males Females 24 13.0 19.8 17.4 85 S4 31 35 35 2'9 23 21 13 Table 6 (continued) Median age in years 43.6 Males 45.4 Pemales 40.7 Age range 23-78 Males 26-78 Females 23-61 Mggbiditl and Mortality Data The only information available on morbidity is the reported cases of communicable diseases. The figures for 1966 are attached in Table 7. Table 8 shows Michigan and Berrien County population by race and mortality. Approximately 21 of the state's population lives in Berrien County and the 1966 mortality figures show that 21 of the state's deaths occur to residents of Berrien County. Table 9 shows the deaths in 1966 by the ten leading causes for Berrien County. A comparison of 1960 census information and mortality experiences indicates that there are no readily apparent differences between Berrien County and the other areas of the state when compared with each other for risks of death by the ten leading causes. 25 Table 7 Communicable Diseases 1966 a '3 3 ‘3 m '3 I13: '3 e «3 .3 fl . fl 1480 O F" H H '9 a 9 8" "6 3 '3 z 8 3" 3- 3 8% 8.. 8 9 .. 2; 8 1:13 a: :2 use. 1:14 a. as 6a a: c: Total , State 8,314,070 15,251 1,036 2,589 653 3,040 3,236 5,871 15,499 Berrien County 161,070 19 17 53 1 --- 44 80 137 I of State's Totll 1.9+ 0.12 1.7 2.0 0.2 --- 1.3 1.3 0.9 *lased on estimates from Center for Health Statistics, DDPH, 5/23/67. Location Total State Males Females Berrien County Males Females Total State Berrien County *lased on estimates from Center for Health Statistics, MDPH 8,314,070 161,070 Deaths*** 74,596 1,560 **Iased on 1960 Census figures ***Iased on 1966 final vital statistics Table 8 Total Population* 26 Michigan's Population by Race and Mortality 1 White** 90.5 44.9 45.6 91.3 45.2 46.2 89.9 91.2 z,Non-white** 9.5 4.7 4.8 8.7 4.3 4.3 10.1 Table 9 Berrien County - Deaths by Ten Leading Causes 1966 Cause of Death 1‘32; £12 Females Non-white Heart 550 339 211 32 Cancer 236 137 99 23 Vascular Lesions C.N.S. 184 90 94 15 Accidents 110 65 45 10 Pneumonia-Influenza 44 24 20 12 Diabetes 40 18 22 3 General Arteriosclerosis 57 22 35 3 Congenital Malformations l7 8 9 l Cirrhosis of Liver 18 14 4 - Suicides 23 20 3 2 Total all causes 1560 910 650 138 Agricultural Practices and Crop Production Berrien County is the most agriculturally diversified county in Michigan. Principal types of farming operations include fruit and nut crops, vegetable crops, poultry, dairy, field crops and general farming. Approximately 641 of the 371,200 acres of land comprising Berrien County, or 237,962 acres are classed as farmland. Table 10 shows the breakdown of farms by type in Berrien County, as reported in the 1964 0.8. Agricultural Census. Table 11 shows the principal agricultural crops grown in Berrien County and the acreage of each crop grown. Deciduous fruits and vegetables account for the highest proportion of the agricultural income for Berrien County farmers. because of the multitude of insects, diseases, and weeds affecting production, these same crops also account for the greatest proportion of agricultural chemicals used in the area. Fruit crops in particular, which account for 41,716 acres, are sprayed 5 to 12 times during the season, depending on the particular crop. Corn 27 and grain crops, by contrast, may be sprayed or treated only once during the season. Pasture and forage crops may be treated depending on insect populations and outbreaks of specific insects. The number of farm and acres of these crops in Berrien County are in Table 12. The cereal leaf beetle, Oulema melangpus (L.), was first discovered in southwestern Berrien County in 1962. Eradicant and suppressant spray programs were conducted by the 0.8. Department of Agriculture and the Michigan State Department of Agriculture in 1965 and 1966. During 1965, 8,640 acres of grain were treated with aircraft using malathion ultra low volume sprays (Table 13). The federal and state programs were discontinued in 1966 and pesticide treatments for controlling this insect were left to the discretion of the individual farmers. However, several thousand acres will still have to be treated each year, resulting in additional pesticide input into the environment (over and above the amounts shown in Table 13). Table 10 Farms by Type of Farming Enterprise Type of Farm Nggber of Farms 1294 1.9.5. Cash-grain 195 176 Vegetable 66 70 Fruit and Nut 1141 1240 Poultry 28 40 Dairy 139 200 Other Livestock 107 161 General 140 215 Misc. 6 Unclassified 1196 1759 28 Table 11 Principal Agricultural Crops Grown in Berrien County (1964) 95223 Number Farms Reporting 5553; Tree Fruit Crops (total) 1,847 42,805 Apples 785 13,248 Peaches 841 7,666 Pears 816 4,291 Grapes 1,227 6,428 Plums and Prunes 661 1,540 Cherries, Tart 991 5,781 Cherries, Sweet 553 820 Misc. Tree Fruit Crops --- 3,031 Small Fruit Crops Strawberries 467 ‘ 2,006 Raspberries 849 3,486 Blueberries 138 520 Vegetables (total) 901 7,030 Tomatoes 487 2,993 Sweet Corn 111 315 Cucumbers & Pickles 99 202 Snap Deans 30 27 Cabbage 27 24 Cantaloupes 131 470 Sweet Peppers 62 77 Green Pass 8 2 Squash 72 106 Dry Onions 8 10 Asparagus 448 2,654 29 Table 11 (continued) Carrots 6 l Lettuce 6 Romaine 3 1 Cauliflower 2 1 Potatoes 120 114 Field Crops Corn 1,195 31,493 Soybeans 533 9,980 Wheat 947 15,571 Oats 368 4,984 Barley 90 863 Rye 113 830 Emmet and Spelt 34 306 Buckwheat 4 10 Hay Crops 493 ‘ 8,697 Clover 8: Timothy 281 3,526 Grass Silage 32 610 Nursery 6 Ornamentals 98 1,009 Cropland (not harvested 8 not pastured) 2,065 42,109 Soil Improvement (grasses & legumes) 954 20,083 Idle Cropland 1,478 20,758 Woodland (pastured) 228 3,777 woodland (not pastured) 1,051 18,599 Other Pasture 287 4,565 Livestock Chicken, 4 months 5 older 561 Laying hens a pullets 519 30 Table 11 (continued) Cattle & calves 711 Cows-heifers with calves 502 Milk cows 373 Heifers & heifer calves 490 Steers & bulls 506 Table 12 Use of Agricultural Chemicals on Crops In Berrien County (1964) Sprays, Duets, Etc., Exclusive of Fertilizers Number Farms Number Acres Insect and Disease Control Grain Crops 99 3,182 Alfalfa, clover, and hay crops 7 42 Vegetables 594 5,076 Fruits and nut crops 1,426 41,716 Seed crops 6 other crops 584 5,340 Heed, Grass, or Brush Control Corn 307 11,364 Small grains (wheat, oats, rye, etc.) 35 1,505 Other crops 440 9,300 Livestock for externally controlling insects Number Head Cattle and calves 130 1,483 Hogs, sheep, and goats 104 8,055 31 Table 13 Cereal Leaf Beetle Spray Program 1116111386 - 1966* Gallons Gallons Total Total Malathion Malathion Gallons Acres Acres Acres Used 1st Used Malathion Egggty__, Treated (,35treated Treated Treatgggt4__§gtreatment Used Allegan 127,520 25,984 153,504 3,962 812 4,774 Harry 123,080 16,000 139,080 3,846 500 4,346 Berrien 8,640 none 8,640 260 none 260 Case 132,320 28,863 161,183 4,135 902 5,037 Eaton 19,200 none 19,200 600 none 600 Ionia 36,320 none 36,320 1,135 none 1,135 Kent 48,000 none 48,000 1,500 none 1,500 Ottawa 119,520 3,840 123,360 3,705 120 3,825 St. Joseph 23,040 2,240 25,280 720 70 790 Van Buren 119,700 16,640 136,340 ‘_2,§23’ __222’ 4,213 Totals 757,340 93,567 850,907 23,556 2,924 26,480 *United States Department of Agriculture 32 Identification of Pesticide Industries Berrien County does not have a pesticide industry, per se, within the county limits. Many of the pesticide dealers in the area do have facilities for making dusts or granular pesticide mixtures. However, there are no basic manufacturers of pesticides within the study area. South Haven, located about 30 miles north of Berrien County, is the location of one small plant where liquid lime sulfur is manufactured. Niagara Chemical Company, also located in South Haven, is the largest formulator of pesticide dusts in Michigan. Chlorinated hydrocarbons, carbamates, and organo- phosphorus compounds are the major components of their formulated products. Egglggical Factors AffectingLPesticide Distribution Tables 14 and 15 summarise pertinent information with respect to ecological factors which could affect pesticide distribution within the study area. Table 14 presents data on weather factors for two locations in Berrien County. Benton Harbor is located on the extreme western side of Berrien County on Lake Michigan. Eau Claire is located approximately 20 miles southwest of Benton Harbor and is in the heart of the fruit belt, an area of high pesticide usage. The St. Joseph River runs in a general north-northwesterly direction through the country from Bertrand to Benton Harbor. From Berrien Springs through Sodus and to Benton Harbor, the St. Joseph River flows through concentrated fruit and vegetable areas. Pesticide runoff could be a major source of pesticide distribution within the drainage system of the St. Joseph River. However, the greatest precipitation occurs in the early spring months prior to the period of high pesticide usage. Only long residual pesticides would be affected by water dispersal. Wind is an important factor in distributing pesticides within the county. Wind velocities in the early spring and summer which average 12 miles per hour, with gusts up to 25 mph, coupled with orchard speed sprayers which discharge 33 spray particles (50 to 500 micron range) into the air, are probably accountable for the pesticide contamination of other crops found downwind from orchard operations. Prevailing south-southwesterly winds, however, keep possible pesticide contamination of populated areas to a minimum. water table levels vary in depth depending on soil type and location within the county. Some farms have a good water source from wells only 20 feet deep; others may extend 180 feet deep. Municipal wells (Table 15) range in depth from 41 to 185 feet deep. Possible contamination of water supplies is a matter of speculation and would be influenced by many factors. Basically, Berrien County is composed of 17 different soil types located on four physio- graphic land divisions; sand dunes; lakeshore plains, detached high plains, and highland plateaus. In the principal agricultural areas a 40 acre tract of land may contain 7 or 8 different soil types. Thus, leaching, runoff, or dispersion of pesticides through the soil could be influenced by soil type as well as depth of the water table for that particular location. 34 Table 14 Weather Statistics (U.S. Weather Bureau) Two reporting stations in Berrien County: Latitude Longitude Ground Elevation Average length of records Average monthly temperature: January February March April M8? June July August September October November December Average yearly temperature Record High Record Low Coldest month on record (mean temp) Warmest month on record (mean temp) Average date last freeze in spring Average date first freeze in fall Average precipitation Average precipitation snow & sleet Heaviest rainfall, average Largest monthly rainfall on record Smallest monthly rainfall on record Heaviest 24 hour rainfall Thunderstorms: frequency/year Snowfall total/year Highest snowfall on record/year Lowest snowfall on record/year Cloudiness: December July Prevailing Wind Greatest average hourly velocity Lowest average hourly velocity Highest wind ever recorded Length growing season 1965 Total precipitation 1965 Total snowfall 1965 Benton Harbor 48° 08' 86° 26' 649 feet 30 years 27.5 28.1 35.6 47.0 57.3 67.6 72.3 71.0 64.5 54.0 40.8 30.5 49.7 109.0 (6/37) -19 (ll/50) 13.6 (2/04) 78.9 (7/21) 5/7 10/3 35.15 inches 44.3 inches 3 . 94" (May) 13.66" (5/43) 0 (7/46) 6.60" (5/30/43) 43 44.3 107.5" (58-59) 9.5" (48-49) 21 9 SSW 12.8 (March) 8.4 (July-Aug.) 63 (Aug. 53) 159 days 48.36 inches 97.5 inches 35 Eau Claire 42° 01' 86° 15' 870 feet 30 years 26.4 27.3 35.5 48.3 59.1 69.5 74.2 72.8 65.2 54.3 39.9 29.3 50.1 107.0 (7/34) -20 (1/30) 15.6 (2/36) 80.5 (8/47) 5/4 10/22 35.44 inches 44.9 inches 4.18” (June) 12.38" (IO/41) trace (10/38) 5.07" (8/17/35) 43 44.9 75.1" (51-52) 10.5" (36-37) 21 9 SSW 12.8 (March) 8.4 (JulyeAug.) 63 (Aug. 53) 158 days 37.74 inches 60.5 inches Table 15 Water Table Elevations and Other Water Data Berrien County 36 Land area in acres 371,200 Water area in acres 2,560 *Stream runoff: St. Joseph River at Niles: Length of record in years 34 Milepoint location of gauge 44 Drainage area in square miles 3,666 Average discharge in cfs 3,038 Extremes: Maximum discharge in cfs (April 5, 1950) 20,200 Minimum discharge in cfs (Aug. 30, 1931) 420 Paw Paw River at Riverside: Length of record in years 13 Drainage area in square miles 390 Average discharge in cfs 372 Extremes: thimum discharge in cfs (Jan. 23, 1952) 1,650 Minimum discharge in cfs (July 5, 1964) 127 Water table elevations vary greatly throughout the county **Well depths (municipal) Number of wells in drift 50 Range in depth (feet) 41-184 Chemical Composition in PPM: Total solids - range 156-452 Silica 1.7-17 Iron 0-3.2 Calcium 30-88 Magnesium 9.7-54 Sodium and Potassium 2.65-54.9 Chloride 3-90 Sulphate 3-87 Bicarbonate 132-510 Total hardness 130-380 Fluoride 0-1 *Surface water records of Michigan, U.S. Dept. of Interior-Geological Survey, 1964. **Data on Public Water Supplies in Michigan, Engineering Bulletin #4, MDPH. Exposure of Domestic Animals and Wildlife to Pesticides Although Berrien County is one of the major users of pesticides within the state, very few studies have been conducted on the exposure of wildlife to agricultural chemicals. Pesticide monitoring of fish, game birds, and other forms of wildlife has only recently been initiated by state agencies and educa- tional institutions. Available data on pesticide exposure to fish and wildlife are presented in Tables 16 and 17 and are self-explanatory. The simple compari- son of amount of pesticide per percent of fat in the sample indicates a strong correlation between fat content and chlorinated pesticide storage. The Dairy Division of the Michigan Department of Agriculture conducts a monthly check of raw milk producers within the state for pesticide residues in the milk. Presented in Table 18 are the data for raw milk producers in Berrien County for 1966 and part of 1967. Other environmental monitoring studies conducted during 1966 are included in Tables 19, 20, and 21. Table 19 shows the detectable pesticide residues in public water supplies in the cities of Benton Harbor and St. Joseph. Table 20 shows residues of certain chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides in composite institutional diet samples. Fruit and vegetables were also analysed for pesticide residues (Table 21). 37 Crude fat Table 16 Pesticide Residues in Fish Specimens of Perch Fillets 1.01 Total chlorinated pesticides in ppm 0.40 Pesticide amount per 1 of fat 0.40 *From Lake Michigan **From Lake Huron 0.771** 0.363 0.691* 0.26 0.376 Perch samples received in Michigan Department of Agriculture Laboratory February 2, 1966 and March 2, 1966. Crude fat Total chlorinated pesticides in ppm Pesticide amount per 1 of fat Table 17 Pesticide Residues in Fish Specimens of Chub Fillets* 19.01 15.251 15.251 14.91 5.88 5.16 4.48 6.91 0.309 0.338 0.293 0.450 *All samples from Lake Michigan Chub samples received in Michigan Department of Agriculture Laboratory February 2, 1966, March 2, 1966 and August 26, 1966. 38 140% 5.29 0.355 13.41 4.72 0.352 Raw Milk Produced in Berrien County Table 18 Pesticide Residues in Parts Per Million Equivalent in the Fat 1966 DDE DDD DDT HEOD Ran e Ayers e Range Averaggj Range Average Range» Average January .044- .176 T- .056 .024- .070 .033- .101 22 .500 .140 .192 .222 Samplgg February .000- .131 .000- .050 .000- .053 T- .076 83 .784 .729 .220 .708 Samples April .045- .173 .020- .066 .023- .059 .045- .119 26 .812 .318 .182 .318 Samples May .000- .203 .000- .123 .000- .059 .047- .191 25 .737 .684 .140 1.290 Samples ,, June .028- .249 .000- .040 .000- .077 T- .107 27 1.093 .128 .316 .333 Samples ,_ July T* T .000 .000 .081 .081 .675 .675 l .82219 August .000- .199 .000- .058 .000- .070 .027- .107 45 1.000 .195 .195 .378 Samples September .078- .300 T- .051 .021- .050 .047- .120 20 1.880 .146 .121 .305 Samples 3 1967 March .069- .201 .000- .051 .000- .065 .023- .117 46 .550 .404 .297 .315 Samples May .105- .164 .000- .078 .000- .068 .028- .104 14 .250 .350 .166 .225 Samples 39 Namber Number Number Number Number 9 10 11 12 13 14 Table 19 Environmental Monitoring - Public Water Supplies City of St. Joseph Untreated. Obtained at plant. No detectable organic phosphates. 15 ppt p,p'DDT Trace DDE City of St. Joseph Finished. Obtained at plant. No detectable organic phosphates. 34 Pvt p.9'DDT 12 ppt DDE City of Benton Harbor Untreated. Obtained at plant. No detectable organic phosphates. 55 ppt p.P'DDT 12 ppt o,p'DDT 17 ppt DDE City of Benton Harbor Finished. Obtained at plant. No detectable organic phosphates. 27 ppt p,p'DDT Trace o,p'DDT City of Benton Harbor Untreated. Obtained at plant. No detectable organic phosphates. 25 ppt p,p'DDT 17 ppt DDE City of Benton Harbor Finished. Obtained at plant. No detectable organic phosphates. 21 ppt P.9'DDT 9 ppt DDE City of St. Joseph Untreated. Obtained at plant. No detectable organic phosphates. 24 ppt p.9'DDT 18 ppt o,p'DDT 21 ppt DDE 40 Source Lake Michigan Lake Michigan Lake Michigan Lake Michigan Lake Michigan Lake Michigan Lake Michigan Number Number Number Number Number Number Number Number Number 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 City of St. Joseph Finished. Obtained at plant. No detectable organic phOSphates. 16 ppt p,p'DDT 12 ppt DDE City of Benton Harbor Untreated. Obtained at plant. No detectable organic phosphates. 88 ppt p.p'DDT 40 ppt DDE City of Benton Harbor Finished. Obtained at plant. No detectable organic phOSphates. 46 ppt p.P'DDT 13 ppt DDE City of St. Joseph Untreated. Obtained at plant. No detectable organic phosphates. 50 ppt p,p'DDT 20 ppt DDE City of St. Joseph Finished. Obtained at plant. No detectable organic phosphates. 45 ppt p.P'DDT 13 ppt o,p'DDT 13 ppt DDE City of Benton Harbor Untreated. Obtained at plant. No detectable organic ph08phates. 24 ppt p.p'DDT 18 ppt DDE City of Benton Harbor Finished. Obtained at plant. No detectable organic phosphates. 27 ppt p.9'DDT 14 ppt o,p'DDT 17 ppt DDE City of St. Joseph Untreated. Obtained at plant. No detectable organic phosphates. 43 ppt p,p'DDT 24 ppt o,p'DDT 20 ppt DDE City of St. Joseph Finished. Obtained at plant. No detectable organic phosphates. 31 ppt p,p'DDT 14 ppt DDE 41 Lake Lake Lake Lake Lake Lake Lake Lake Lake Michigan Michigan Michigan Michigan Michigan Michigan Michigan Michigan Michigan Table 20 Environmental Monitoring - Composite Institutional Diets Sample Z Lipid Number Type-Source Content J,p'DDT p,p'DDE J,p'DDD F3 Breakfasts, 2/20 to 2/26 5.5 6 ppb 4 ppb trace Memorial Hospital St. Joseph, Michigan F4 Lunches, 2/20 to 2/26 6.8 8 ppb 9 ppb 10 ppb Memorial Hospital St. Joseph, Michigan F5 Dinners, 2/20 to 2/26 2.2 5 ppb 8 ppb 9 ppb Memorial Hospital St. Joseph, Michigan F6 All meals, 3/20 to 3/26 7.2 6 ppb 9 ppb 7 ppb Berrien General Hospital Berrien Center, Michigan F7 Breakfasts, 3/20 to 3/26 3.6 13 ppb 6 ppb 27 ppb Andrews University Berrien Springs, Michigan F8 Lunches, 3/20 to 3/26 4.0 9 ppb 4 ppb 2 ppb Andrews University Berrien Springs, Michigan F9 Dinners, 3/20 to 3/26 2.9 6 ppb 5 ppb 17 ppb Andrews University Berrien Springs, Michigan F10 All meals, 3/28 to 4/3 4.6 7 ppb 12 ppb 9 ppb Pawating Hospital Niles, Michigan F11 Breakfasts, 3/29 to 4/1 1.4 4 ppb 6 ppb 0 Memorial Hospital St. Joseph, Michigan F12 Lunches, 3/29 to 4/1 2.7 2 ppb 6 ppb 2 ppb Memorial Hospital St. Joseph, Michigan F13 Dinners, 3/29 to 4/1 3.3 4 ppb 12 ppb 15 ppb Memorial Hospital St. Joseph, Michigan 42 Dieldrin 3 ppb 10 ppb trace 3 ppb 3 ppb 2 ppb 2 ppb 2 ppb 13 ppb 3 ppb Table 21 Pesticide Residues in Fruits and Vegetables Produce Samples Growers Apples 5 4 Blueberries 2 2 Cherries, sour l l Cherries, sweet 1 1 Peaches 2 2 Pears 2 2 Plums l l Strawberries 4 4 Cabbage l 1 Peppers 1 l Squash - yellow 2* 2 Squash - zuchini _§_ _§_ 25 24 Dates submitted to Michigan Department of Agriculture Laboratory, 1/12/66, 7/1/66, 7/20/66, 9/13/66, 10/20/66, and 2/15/67. *One sample of yellow summer squash found positive by housefly bioassay screening. Residues determined by gas liquid chromatography in parts per million as follows: DDE - 0.15 DDT 0.014 Dieldrin 0.111 All other samples were found to have insignificant levels by housefly bioassay screening. 43 Household Survey The household questionnaires for 1965 and 1966 are summarized in Appendix I. Responses from the two techniques, i.e., mailings and interviews, are reported separately. This was advisable since the interviews represent a general cross section of people, while the mailed responses include a more select group. Nearly every questionnaire indicates some form of pesticide used in the home. Aerosol spray cans were by far the most popular method of home insecticide application. In fact, many of the questionnaires indicated that the person filling it out did not properly make the distinction between aerosol sprays and liquid formulations. This was evident by discrepancies in the responses about applicators, names of pesticides and formulations. A general lack of precautions and safety knowledge was clearly demonstrated by the respondents. At best, only 371 (1966 mailed questionnaires) of the respond- ents knew where the local poison center was located. Also, only 261 (1966 mailed questionnaires) kept their pesticides in an area that could be locked, and only a few of the responses indicated effective safety measures. Pesticides are used regularly by most homeowners to control pests attack- ing their flowers, shrubs, lawn, as well as household invaders. Grouping all questionnaire responses gave 691 who use pesticides to control insects, 421 for plant diseases and 401 for weed control. These percentages do not indicate :Ieparate people since the same people often responded positively to two or all three of the above categories. The average number of times sprays were used was 4,2; for all responses. The number ranged from 0 to 22 with some _5_4_'L_ spraying 3 times or less per year. A majority sprayed for 15 minutes or less when they did spray. An exact Dorcentage could not be calculated since there was multiple responses per individual in a few cases. The number of multiple responses was 21 for 1965, 131 for 1966 and 61 overall. 44 Because the error was so small it was felt justified to compute average I:ime spent spraying according to the formula K Average . I: a n1 Time Spraying j-2 No.fi:% Responses When aJ-number of minutes of time spraying in category j nJ-number of responses in category j K-number of time class categories. The computed averages were 28.33 min. for 1965, 23.34 min. for 1966 and 26.40 min. overall. The category less than 5 minutes in the 1965 questionnaire *was given a "a" value of 2.5 when using the above weighted mean formula. To compute an estimate of total exposure per household the following formula was used. Total exposure/yr.-No. of times spraying x No. of min./spray This gave an overall exposure of 114 minutes (Total exposure/yr.-4.32 x 26.40) or just under 2 hr./yr. of exposure due to household chemical use. From the areas treated it is clear that most of the pesticides are put on small local areas for a specific problem. There is also a smaller amount of apparent "broadcast" treatment which is probably weed control in lawns. Using the 1966 questionnaire the quantities of pesticides used by house- holders was calculated. lesults from both mailed questionnaires and interviews were lumped together. One pound was assumed to equal one pint. Aerosol cans were assumed to average 8 ounces and therefore 2 cans equal 1 pound. The rate of ueeage per household was calculated to be 4.56 lbs. However, this figure must be reduced to reflect pounds of technical material. Since this was a variety of compounds and formulations the percentage used for reduction of the rate are strictly hypothetical. Five percent is a probable figure for reduction correction. The extrapolations to Berrien County are based on 47,700 households in the county. ‘ 45 HOUSEHOLD CHEMICAL USAGE Hailed Questionnaires Interviews Total Pounds Total Pounds Lbs. Aerosol cans 25 27 Lbs. dusts ll3 282 Lbs. Hettable Powders 67 12 Lbs. of Liquid _§4| _22_ Total 159 376 Total Lba./Houaeholda - 535/117 . 4.56 gates of Technical:!g;eria1 Lbs.lggusehold Lbs./Berriggggo. 51 .23 10,97l 101. .46 21,942 251 1.14 54,378 501 2.28 108,756 The majority of homeowners' information about pesticides is from stores, magazines, newspapers and conversations with friends. Each of these categories makes up large percentages of the responses. It should be noted that these categories could not be pooled for analysis since the question allowed multiple responses. Pooling in this manner could yield response percentages in excess of 1001. Stores were important sources of information for 28 to 501 of the persons responding. Conversations with friends gave 18 to 491 information on pesticides. Newspapers gave 5 to 241 while magazines gave 14 to 221. These sources are not particularly authoritative in the area of pesticide use. The Cooperative Extension Service and Michigan State University were not rated 46 high by any group except by the 1966 mailed responses. The responses for that greear were biased since it was through the extension service and HSU that the aremdunteers were contacted. This group reported 371 and 471 positive for the two agencies. These figures do not compare with 0-97. and 4-61 for the other three groups responding. ' In general the respondents felt that the directions on pesticide labels were complete and easily understood. At least 677. indicated this by their responses. Only 5 to 77. indicated that the directions were of little value. Very few safety precautions were reported by respondents. By far the favorite storage spaces for pesticides were on shelves either in the garage or leasement. These areas in general are open and unlocked since only 22% indicated that the areas could be locked. Most respondents didn't know where the local Poison Control Center was located. Only 91 of the 1965 respondents knew. Some 371 of the 1966 mailed respondents knew. This is understandable since they were a concerned and informed group as previously pointed out. In the 1966 interviews this question was not asked. As shown in the 1966 questionnaire, the typical disposal method for pesticides was rubbish pickup. Agricultural Pesticide Use Important differences exist in the acreages, crops, and number of growers between survey years. The 1966 sample was by far the largest. In all years, sampling intensity was higher for fruit crops than for field or vegetable crops. Table 22 summarises the important statistics involved. In Table 22, the total number of growers is not a sum of the grower count column. This is explained by the fact that most growers had a variety of crops and are therefore included as growers of several crops. 47 Table 22 Summary of Crops, Acreages and Numbers of Record Keeping Growers liaaralc by 1965 1966 1967 Alc:xree Crop # Acres # Growers # Acres # Growers # Acres-—;_Crowers l. Apples 893 17 2869 104 582 23 1! Peaches 445 18 1699 97 328 17 35 Tart cherries 381 19 1329 97 248 21 4L Field corn 1389 15 419 5 S Grapes 142 15 1031 87 251 20 (5 Pears 305 19 700 75 200 19 7? Strawberries 320 14 531 43 87 10 £3 Asparagus 357 10 250 21 34 6 E) Plums & Prunes 134 12 344 65 62 14 10 Raspberries 71 6 279 33 85 7 1.]. Tomatoes 93 7 242 23 62 9 71:! Beans 364 3 1 3 Undefined 148 13 170 15 5 1 11% Sweet cherries 56 9 238 26 24 6 15 Potatoes 194 3 10 4 2 l 16 Alfalfa 150 1 ‘17 Pickles 85 2 29 3 20 1 18 Currants 50 2 64 5 l8 1 l9 Blueberries 34 2 44 12 6 2 20 Soybeans 60 l 18 2 21 Sweet corn 29 3 23 4 21 2 22 Melons 41 7 20 6 8 2 23 Blackberries 56 9 9 2 24 Oats 43 2 16 l 25 Cauliflower 45 3 26 Cabbage 35 2 27 Cucumbers 22 2 5 l 6 2 28 Apricots 23 4 9 2 29 Dewberries 31 3 30 Sweet potatoes 20 l 31 Wheat 17 l 32 Nectarines l4 1 33 Peppers 4 l 34 Quinces 4 1 35 Eggplant 3 1 Totals 5947 49 10450 156 2058 29 48 Table 23 summarizes the crop acreages surveyed as well as estimates emf acreage in Berrien County and the State of Michigan. The percentage figures :lndicate the relative proportions of sample acreages. These figures, therefore, reflect the quality of the data in a crude manner. The acreage surveyed is quite representative of crops in Berrien County. lHowever, the survey was not designed to represent all of Michigan's agricultural enterprises effectively. Since the 1966 survey was much larger than 1965 or 1967, that year's results should be considered as a more adequate sample. This fact is reflected in the values in Table 23. For instance the sample of tree fruits in 1966 was nearly one quarter of the total acreage of these crops in Berrien County and over 51 of the acreage in the State. This fact in itself does not ensure that the sample was representative but it indicates a greater possibility of it. Many of the crops were not surveyed sufficiently to draw any reasonable conclusions. This is true of most of the field crops like corn, wheat, and oats. It is also true of several vegetables and minor fruit crops. These crops were not grown in abundance in Berrien County or simply not included sufficiently in the survey. A minimum of analysis was carried out for crops which were in- sufficiently surveyed. Acreage estimates for Berrien County were estimates for 1964 (wright, 1965). These figures were used for 1965, 1966 and 1967 without any corrections for changes between years. The 1964 figures were used since these figures were the best county acreage figures available. State acreage estimates were used for each year from Michigan Agricultural Statistics, (Michigan Crop Reporting Services, 1966, 1967, 1968). 49 Table 23 Summary of Acres Surveyed by Crop with Comparisons to Berrien County and Michigan Acres in 1 1 I Berrien Acres in Acres in of Michigan Acres County Acres in Berrien Michigan Acres in (Drop Year Surveyed 1964 Michigan Surveyed Surveyed Berrien County AApples 1965 893 13248 54500 6.74 1.64 24.31 1966 2869 13248 55100 21.66 5.21 24.04 1967 582 13248 56200 4.39 1.04 23.57 Peaches 1965 445 7666 13400 5.80 3.32 57.21 1966 1699 7666 12800 22.16 13.27 59.89 1967 328 7666 13100 4.28 2.50 58.52 Tart cherries 1965 381 5781 40100 6.59 0.95 14.42 1966 1329 5781 40100 22.99 3.31 14.42 1967 248 5781 40100 4.29 0.62 14.42 Grapes 1965 142 6428 16600 2.21 0.86 38.72 1966 1031 6428 16600 16.04 6.21 38.72 1967 251 6428 16600 3.90 1.51 38.72 Pears 1965 305 4291 8600 7.11 3.55 49.90 1966 700 4291 8900 28.10 7.87 48.21 1967 200 4291 8900 4.66 2.25 48.21 Strawberries 1965 320 2006 7400 15.95 4.32 27.11 1966 531 2006 7300 26.47 7.27 27.48 1967 87 2006 6800 4.34 1.28 29.50 Field Corn 1965 1389 31500 1481000 4.41 0.09 2.13 1966 419 31500 1407000 1.33 0.03 2.24 1967 -- -- -- -- -- -- Prunes and Plums 1965 134 1540 4300 8.70 3.11 35.81 1966 344 1540 4800 22.33 7.16 32.08 1967 62 1540 - 5300 4.02 1.16 29.05 Raspberries 1965 71 3486 -- 2.04 -- -- 1966 279 3486 -- 8.00 -- ~- 1967 85 3486 -- 2.44 -- -- 50 Acres in Berrien Acres County Crgp Year Surveygg_ 1964 Asparagus 1965 357 2654 1966 250 2654 1967 34 2654 Tomatoes 1965 93 2993 1966 242 2993 1967 62 2993 Sweet cherries 1965 56 820 1966 238 820 1967 24 820 Undefined 1965 148 -- 1966 170 -- 1967 5 -- Currants 1965 50 -- 1966 64 -- 1967 18 -- Blackberries 1965 -- -- 1966 56 -- 1967 9 -- Blueberries 1965 34 520 1966 44 520 1967 6 520 Dewberries 1965 -- -- 1966 31 ~- 1967 -- -- Cucumbers and Pickles 1965 107 202 1966 34 202 1967 26 202 Table 23 (cont.) 1 Acres in Acres in Berrien Michigan Surveyed 11200 13.45 11900 9.42 12700 1.28 10500 3.11 9500 8.09 12300 2.07 8800 6.83 9300 29.02 9900 2.93 -- 6.54 -- 8e46 "- 1.15 18100 52.97 21200 16.83 26900 12.87 51 1 Acres in Michigan Surveyed .19 .10 .27 ONW .89 55 .50 ONO .64 .56 .24 ONO 1 of Michigan Acres in Berrien County 23.70 22.30 20.90 28.50 31.51 24.33 9.32 8.82 8.28 1.11 0.95 0.75 Table 23 (cont.) Acres in 1 1 1 Berrien Acres in Acres in of Michigan Acres County Acres Berrien Michigan Acres in Crop, Year Surveyed 1964 Michigan Surveyed Surveyed Berrien County_ Sweet Corn 1965 29 315 11200 9.21 0.26 2.81 1966 23 315 10000 7.30 0.23 3.15 1967 21 315 9800 6.67 0.21 3.21 Melons 1965 41 470 2400 8.72 1.71 19.58 1966 20 470 2200 4.26 0.91 21.36 1967 8 470 2200 1.70 0.36 21.36 Sweet Potatoes 1965 -- -- -- -- -- -- 1966 20 -- -- -- -- -- 1967 -- -- -- -- -- -- Alfalfa 1965 150 8700 1376000 17.24 trace 0.63 1966 -- -- -- -- -- -- 1967 -- -- -- -- -- -- Soybeans 1965 60 9900 440000 0.60 0.01 2.25 1966 18 9900 480000 trace trace 2.06 1967 -- -- -- -- -- -- Oats 1965 43 5000 552000 0.86 trace 0 91 1966 16 5000 563000 0.32 trace 0.89 1967 -- -- -- -- -- -- Potatoes 1965 194 100 47500 * 0.41 0.21 1966 10 100 47800 10.00 0.02 0.02 1067 2 100 43900 2.00 trace 0.02 Apricots 1965 23 -- -- -- -- -- 1966 9 -- -- -- -- -- 1967 -- -- -- -- -- -- Wheat 1965 17 15600 802000 0.11 trace 1.95 1966 -- -- -- -- -- -- 1967 -- -- -- -~ -- -- 52 H ..F‘ 01.? — Quint Cabb Fit T: Table 23 (cont.) Acres in 1 1 1 Berrien Acres in Acres in of Michigan Acres County Acres Berrien Michigan Acres in Crop Year Surveyed 1964 Michigan Surveyed Surveyed Berrien County Quince 1965 -- -- -- -- -- -- 1966 4 -- -- -- -- -- 1967 -- -- -- -- -- -- Cauliflower 1965 45 1 1100 * 4.09 0.09 1966 -- -- -- -- -- -- 1967 -- -- -- -- -- -- Cabbage 1965 35 24 4300 * 0.81 0.56 1966 -- -- -- -- -- -- 1967 -- -- -- -- -- -- Nectarines 1965 14 -- -- -- -- -- 1966 -- -- -- -- -- -- 1967 -- -- -- -- -- -- Peppers 1965 4 77 1300 5.19 0.31 5.92 1966 -- -- -- -- -- -- 1967 -- -- -- -- -- -- Eggplant 1965 3 -- -- -- -- -- 1966 -- -- -- -- -- -- 1967 -- -- -- -- -- ~- Field Beans 1965 364 -- -- -- -- ~- 1966 -- -- -- -- -- -' 1967 -- -- -- -- -- -- TraceeLess than 0.011. *eAcres surveyed more than estimate of acres. 53 Grower Questionnaire Power sprayers were much preferred over power dusters. There were 231 sprayers reported compared to only 19 dusters over all groups surveyed. Pruit growers and vegetable growers had about equivalent numbers of sprayers while dairy growers had less application equipment. 1965 1966 1967 Fruit Veg. Daisy Fruit Veg. Daigy Fruit Average 11 of power sprayers 1.36 1.43 1.00 .94 .57 .72 1.28 Average # of power dusters .25 .00 .00 .06 .07 .00 .10 It is significant that the "average" grower had more than one sprayer in many of the categories. "Bean" brand sprayers were by far the most popular sprayers comprising 511 of the sprayers reported. "Hardy" was the next most popular brand with only 111. Dairy growers seemed to prefer other brands than "Bean". They accounted for 6 of 7 "Century" brand sprayers for instance which is extraordinarily high. Many of the safety precautions listed were of little value in protection from exposure. Many growers frankly admitted that they seldom or never use masks. Wilson masks were the preferred brand. Percent of Growers Using Safety Devices During Pesticide Applications 1965 1966 1967 Safety Device mi; 253; D_a_i_gy Pruit leg; D_ai£y LEE Mask 43 43 13 53 71 33 66 Overalls 29 14 0 50 43 ll 59 Raincoat 46 14 7 49 21 0 48 Gloves 93 29 33 66 50 22 55 Dairy growers showed considerably fewer precautions in pesticide applications. The 1967 fruit group was more cautious, and this is under- standable, because they were a select group as mentioned before. It should be realized that the data in the above chart are over- approximations of the actual percent of time the devices were used. This is because each grower who used a device was given full credit for using it when in fact he only claimed to have "used" it sometimes. Growers tended to be vague about when they changed filters or cartridges in their masks. There was quite a variety of responses to this question. Only 71 total responses were present and of these only 41 were clearly quantitative. Of these 41 responses 561 changed filters or cartridges only 1 or 2 times per year. Of all growers surveyed, 221 lost time or were sick due to pesticide exposure. Organic phosphates accounted for 761 of the chemicals blamed for the sickness. Parathion made up 481 and Guthion was the next most serious with 81. A general heading of organic phosphates accounted for an additional 141. Only two complaints were registered. One of these was about a neighbors sow which had died. Authorities determined that the grower was not at fault. The second complaint was registered by a grower who claimed that his stock was sprayed by an aerial applicator from a neighbor's land. The other responses to questions about blood tests are summarized below. 55 Percent of Growers Responding Positively to Questions 1965 1966 1967 Fruit Veg. Daisy Fruit Veg. Daisy Fruit Had a cholinesterase test 39 29 0 55 57 22 100 Bad routine cholinesterase tests 14 0 O 27 29 0 100 Bad atropine sulfate 14 o o ' 13 21 u 21 Local doctor had atropine Sulfate 79 l4 13 59 50 22 97 Didn't know if local doctor had atropine sulfate 19 86 87 36 29 44 3 Was willing to have blood tests 89 100 87 44 50 22 100 The data presented show a general increase in knowledge and emphasis on pesticide poisoning from 1965 to 1967. This is confounded by the effects of the project on the people in the county and by the choice of people sampled in the project. Individuals in the project in 1967 were chosen specifically because of their previous cooperation. 56 Grower Survgy Several methods were used to identify different exposure types. The growers were split into three obvious groups such as fruit, vegetable, and dairy. Individual growers were placed into the groups arbitrarily based on crop emphasis. These three groups were used for the 1965 growers. In 1966 none of the growers surveyed were strictly vegetable growers. Consequently, the vegetable category was changed to fruit and vegetable, since several growers that were surveyed had substantial acreage in both fruit and vegetables. The 1967 data was not split into groups since the survey included essentially all fruit growers. As shown in Table 24, fruit growers had the most exposure of any group. Vegetable growers were second, and dairy farmers had the least exposure of any group. threme deviations from the average were usually a result of either a mixture of crops or a multiplicity of farm enterprises. For example, a grower who was classified as a fruit grower might also have had vegetables. Bis exposure to pesticides would be lower than a person who had the same total acreage of fruit. Another source of variability was the relative acres involved. A vegetable grower with ten times the acreage of a fruit grower might be expected to have acre exposure to pesticides. Consequently, pesticides exposure per acre is given by pesticide class in Table 25. Fruit growers showed most exposure to fungicides, with substantial exposure to phosphates and chlorinated hydrocarbons. Vegetable growers were exposed to all pesticide classes with no distinct preference. Dairymen are exposed to herbicides more than any other compound class. 57 «N.m~ em.sc o o o o o o o o o o N N o a wood 35 mmee o o c o c o o o o o a n a 3 no: Case 3.3 Ni: o o o c o o o N a o N n a 3 we: «Sesame» a 33m om.NN co.ena o o A o o o a a o o o a n N mead edeeuemo> N~.~N ~m.~o~ o d o o o o N H n m m o e aN Noam NN.~# om.nn~ A N N N N n a N Na «A NN NN an mNN coed mm.oN Ne.~oN o o H N a o a N n N N n a 0N mead awash new: sumo: l I II I II II I l ..I II I ..I II eueapuu use» mmauo mo summon—um m m M W M U" M R m... n... m c. we uouum one: . . .... n. a. .u. .... 4. .... .u. ...; d. .0 use-52 vuevoeum m" M K S W «I W C R 2 fl 1 rotJ Neuou. o o m o m o m o m o m enseonxu no euro: eeeemuo ouseonxm a.“ eueeouo we ...—salsa Asa—Mu. assume 3 wen—3.5V hexane new unseen—Mu mo mason umuou. eN edema 58 O os9-109l O Q 009-ISSI OSS-IOSI l‘ oos-Isvl <2 osv-Iovl suseonxu mo mason 0 <1 pa OOV'ISCI osc-Iocl «a N‘l’ ooc-Iszl osz-Iozl NA Nd h ooz-191| NN Nd ON OSI-IOII Na nn HN «a NN NN 001-19 | be 5m me «a on os-o | Aeaza poncho he vensouov nesouo new enseoaxn uo memo: Nancy Aeoseaueouv «a sense eeeeeuo enseomxm an awesome no mmeouem mg «a oN GNN QN Fugue MO non-:2 meson sea” moan coma spawn «Sena»; a 33m ncau boas ooQN mood use» eaaeueme> adahh Iago 59 00.0 0N.o 00.0 0N.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 05.0 on.N 00.0 «N.0N £6. 05.0 on.N gm.m NQ.QN n~.n 00.0 05.0 00.0 ~¢.¢N m0.0¢ 00.N~ 0n.~ 00.0 nc.nn 0h.o 0N.Nn nu.m~ mN.e0 00.00 an.~0 «n.0n NN.00 N0.0N F'NMQM‘D Neuoa udawhuoo0a n~.0 0H.N 0N.0 mo.0 nm.0 no.0 0N.o 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 No.0 No.0 NNN n~.o oo.~ NN.0 0m.o no.0 00.0 00.0 No.0 00.0 no.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0N.o we no.0 00.0 NN.0 oo.~ 00.0 no.0 nN.o om.o mN.o o<.o 0m.o 0n.o «0.0 00.0 N nN.o nm.0 0~.o oo.~ 00.0 «0.0 n~.o No.0 00.0 NN.0 n~.o No.“ 00.0 o~.o 0N 0N.0 eo.~ M wan. mm Na: :3 ... mm ./ . m. 2.. m w ..2 s a. I.» . n m. 0 O 1. 0~10 eon-ado suseoaxu cu ewesouo mo meumuaeuuem nN edema euu< hem ouseonxu no ease: N10 010 sm.n nus 50.0 H R O H 00.0 0N.¢~ 0N.eu ne.~N 00.0 00.0 nn.n 50.0N No.0 00.N¢ Nn.oN 0N.¢N 0N.¢N 50.00 00.000 00.00u 00.00a 00.00u 00.00~ 00.00N 00.N¢ 00.00u ne.~h 00.00u nc.us 00.00u us.n0 dNMQmso Neuoa 813-32 neuoa 60 33382782 Nauoa eusmuo eeuelwnumo nonpumoouuhn oeuecuuoaco eeuenneozn eeewuuauem eeouuumcsm uqsuhumoou eeedo evuuuueem o~.c no.~ me.n oo.o me.n ms.n ea.e~ oe.en e~.e~ oa.o meson n~.o as.o we." oo.o me.n no.0n ac.~o o 00.0 a~.o oo.o ca.ns m Na.o ee.o ca.o ea.e~ Na.oe e oa.o w~.a me.n oo.c oo.o aa.na ue.en e~.ee n mo.o ma.c oo.ooa N aN e~.o om.” me.n oo.o 90.0 me.n e~.ka ea.e~ ee.sn e~.ka a some ea.o he.o No.03 nn.nm asses co.c mc.c oo.ooa e 1. oo.o oo.o oo.co~ n ,o wo.o oo.o oo.oea e so.o mc.c oo.°oa n o~.o m~.o oo.ooa N e so.o no.0 ao.oe~ a sun-n-00oa as.o oo.~ m~.e co.o oo.o oo.o oo.o om.~a on.~a oo.on nk.ma mason ao.o n~.o m~.e nk.na o so.o on.o co.oea m n~.o ~n.o n~.o ma.na e o~.o mm.o on.- mk.aa mh.eo n no.0 om.o m~.o ma.nm a on sn.o a~.a m~.e oo.o oo.o om.~a on.an nk.ne a soap-sono>.e ensue-ooom s w 3 mm 2.: 2-3 as mum alum MN muln NM .1 TN a; To .38 .m u a m canons-gm n. W m. .We. sued mom 93838 «c sumo: s m m n a I. a n a n. (n eeeeeau 0.5898 5.. eusaouo mo someoneouem m a Aeoaaauaooo mu oases Figure 4 is a graph of monthly exposure of each of the grower groups. The exposure is broken down by pesticide class and year. Fruit growers consistently show peak spray activity in the early part of the spray season, i.e., May, June, and July. Vegetable growers show a much more even spray distribution throughout the season. Dairymen had the lowest average exposure. The greatest exposure occurs in May and.June. Later in the season, short spray periods were present due to fly spraying on cattle and in barns. Application of these sprays resulted in variable exposure due to application methods. Foggers were widely used for short periods before milking each day during the fly season. Although there was little direct exposure to the mist, the amount which remains in the air or settles on objects around the barn could influence exposure. 62 TOTAL EXPOSURE/GROWER (HOURS) 50 25 5O 25 I FRUIT snowsas l966 VEGETABLE snowsas. 7% DAIRY GROWERS |967 MAR APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT 1 NOV FIGURE 4. GRAPH (I MMHLY EXPCBURE 63 Table 26 was prepared using exposure for all individuals in each year. Compounds were ranked based on the quantity of exposure to each compound. The exposures reflect the numbers of individuals as well as the type of growers that were surveyed each year. The larger list of chemicals included in 1965 reflects the emphasis on a broad spectrum of growers. The list is shortened in 1966 and 1967 since a more select group was chosen which emphasized fruit growers. Table 26 ranks the compounds on an hourly exposure basis. This ranking is based on compound exposure for all growers and crops sampled. The order of the compounds shifts from one year to the next. However, most of the compounds present in one year are also present in the other years. Table 27 is a breakdown of hourly exposure on a crop basis. In this table the dashes indicate that the compound class was not used at all while a 0.00 indicates a trace usage. For convenience the compounds were grouped into the six pesticide classes. Data was presented as hours per grower and hours per acre for all three years. When the figures are consistent from year to year it is probably a good indication of a rather accurate constant figure. The inconsistent figures may indicate actual trends in compound use from year to year. However, these figures may also be due to inadequate sampling or changes in the appropriateness of the surveyed growers. When viewing the table the sample size should be looked at to allow a rational explanation. Table 28 lists the quantities of individual compounds used as observed in the survey. Rates per acre are included as well as extrapolation to county and state wide usage. I It is clear that the survey was not initially designed to properly sample the crops throughout Michigan. It is felt that many of the statistics do represent the county estimates quite well. It was advisable to extrapolate the figures to total Michigan use anyway since these were the only figures available to date in this regard. 64 Table 26 Hourly Exposure by Compound 1965 1 of Comsound Hours Total Comgound Hours Guthion 1547.25 13.43 Simazine 55.00 Captan 1038.50 9.02 Amitrole 52.50 Parathion 853.25 7.40 Urea 52.00 Carbaryl 699.75 6.07 Plyac 46.00 Cyprex 617.00 5.36 Dibrom Dust 44.00 Lead Arsenate 510.25 4.43 Streptomycin 41.75 Dieldrin 492.25 4.27 TC-90 40.00 DDT 434.25 3.77 Thylate 38.00 Copper 401.50 3.48 Cragon 32.50 Kelthane 357.25 3.10 Sodium Arsenic 32.00 Oil 331.00 2.88 Genite 32.00 Tepp 316.50 2.75 Polyram 30.00 Tedion 258.00 2.24 Elgetol 29.50 Lime 236.75 2.06 Nutrilene 27.50 Zineb 218.00 1.89 Trithion 26.00 Sulfur 209.00 1.82 Clyodin 25.50 Ferbam 197.25 1.71 2,4,5-T 25.00 BBC 177.50 1.54 Phaltan 22.00 Phosphamidon 172.00 1.49 Amiben 21.00 Mercury 151.75 1.32 Esteron 20.00 TDB 149.50 1.30 Karathane 15.00 2,4-D 148.00 1.29 Diphenomid 15.00 Atrazine 143.00 1.24 Telvar 13.00 Niacide 123.00 1.07 Di-Syston 12.00 Phygon 101.75 0.88 Amidthin 11.00 Malathion 96.50 0.84 Isotox 10.00 Maneb 91.75 0.80 Methoxychlor 10.00 Dacthal 81.00 0.71 Karmex 8.50 Sinox 80.00 0.70 Fly Spray 7.50 Bthion 79.75 0.69 Enide 3.00 Bndosulfan 72.75 0.63 Aldrin 3.00 Copper Sulfate 71.75 0.62 Zinc Sulphate 2.50 Morestan 66.00 0.57 Cygon 2.00 Lime Sulfur 64.00 0.56 Mercuric Chloridel.00 Ovex 62.00 0.54 Dichlone 0.50 NAA 61.50 0.53 65 o" O r-n 1222.1. eee es HNNNNNNNNNUUUUkaW i-‘l-‘H wflmyoNNUI-‘GO‘QQODWMO‘CDCWQUJ OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O H w Table 26 (cont.) Hourly Exposure by Compound 1966 10f 10f Comgound Hours Total Comgound Hours Total Captan 3740.25 21.77 Systox 89.50 0.52 Cyprex 2681.00 15.61 Amitrole 81.50 0.47 Guthion 2120.00 12.34 BHC 76.50 0.45 Sulfur 918.50 5.35 Copper Sulfate 76.50 0.45 Mercury 835.00 4.86 Lime 74.00 0.43 Lead Arsenate 697.75 4.64 Simazine 63.50 0.37 011 565.00 3.29 Epsom Salts 62.00 0.36 Parathion 441.25 2.57 Cygon 61.25 0.36 Phosphamidon 435.50 2.54 Peters 21-7-7 60.00 0.35 Urea 328.75 1.91 NAA 0.30 Morestan 317.75 1.85 Genite 0.26 Carbaryl 315.50 1.84 Zineb 0.21 TDB 288.50 1.68 Purina Dairy DDT 265.25 1.54 Spray 0.16 Nutrilene 246.25 1.43 Malathion 0.15 Tepp 244.00 1.42 Trithion 0.15 Undefined 231.50 1.35 Niacide 0.15 Tedion 218.50 1.27 Endosulfan 0.13 Phygon 186.00 1.08 Lime Sulfur 0.12 Clyodin 178.50 1.04 GUIf Livestock Ferbam 152.25 0.89 Spray 0.07 Dieldrin 132.50 0.77 Phomium 0.07 Nugreen 128.50 0.75 2,4-D 0.05 Ethion 123.00 0.75 Diazinon 0.04 Karathane 106.00 0.62 Phosdrin 5.50 0.03 Copper 104.00 0.61 Mercuric Kelthane 98.25 0.57 Chloride 4.00 0.02 Cragon 3.50 0.02 Chlordane 1.00 0.01 PCNB 1.00 0.01 66 Compound Captan Guthion Cyprex Sulfur Parathion DDT Ferbam Copper Lead Arsenate Carbaryl Oil Phygon Lime Nutrilene Phosphamidon Urea Dieldrin Tepp TDE Mercury Maneb Phaltan Endosulfan Zineb Simazine Copper Sulfate Morestan Demeton Clyodin Lime Sulfur Niacide Nugreen Hours 1417.00 1236.00 1126.75 717.50 558.75 528.25 461.50 430.00 419.50 407.75 339.25 292.25 283.50 213.00 197.25 195.00 193.00 171.25 159.50 159.25 134.25 126.50 113.25 101.50 101.00 83.00 79.50 75.00 73.25 71.50 57.00 57.00 1 of Total 12.78 11.15 10.16 6.47 5.04 4.76 4.16 8 mmooauvooownbbmuuvom HHUIOKQNmrdNNbv-ouwka‘mNO‘ OOOOOOOOOHHHF‘HHHHHHNN Table 26 (cont.) Hourly Exposure by Compound 1967 67 M Amitrole Kelthane Malathion NAA Dichlone Streptomycin Genite BHC Karmex Atrazine Botran Plyac Trithion Kerathane Ethion Elgetol 2,4,5-T 2,4-D Amiben PCNB Tedion Telvar Dacthal Ziram Cygon Chlorobenzilate Dimethoate Epsom Salts Methoxychlor Enide Thiram Hours 54.00 47.75 35.00 35.00 33.50 31.75 31.00 30.25 23.50 20.00 18.50 18.00 18.00 17.50 15.50 14.00 11.00 10.00 888 OOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOO HHr—‘NNNWU Table 27 Hours Exposure Per Grower and Hours Exposure Per Acre Summarized by Crop and Pesticide Class Hours Per Grower Crag Class 1965 Apples 1. Fungicides 58.76 2. Herbicides 13.59 3. Phosphates 58.76 4. Chlorinated Hydrocarbons 58.76 5. Carbamates 13.47 6. Insecticides and others 41.00 Apri¢ots l. 17.13 2. 0.38 3. 7.69 4. 3.50 5. 2.63 6. 8.69 Asparagus 1. -- 2. 3.50 3. ~- 4. 4.75 5. 0.90 6. -- Beans 1. -- 2. 27.67 3. -- 4. -- 5. -- 6. -- Blueberries l. 1.50 2. -- 3. 8.00 4. -- 5. -- 6. -- Cabbage 1. -- 2. -- 3. 160.50 4. 4.50 5. -- 6. -- 68 126.9 70.59 1.50 47.65 12.88 7.80 31.08 1.00 1967 78.39 2.52 50.48 15.14 9.20 41.62 0.50 12.25 1.00 0.50 Hours Per Acre 1967 1965 1.12 0.26 1.12 1.12 0.26 0.78 2.98 0.07 1.34 0.61 0.46 1.51 1966 000000 r-‘OOI-‘ON HOG HOOD-‘0 Table 27 (cont.) Hours Exposure Per Grower and Hours Exposure Per Acre Summarized by Crop and Pesticide Class Hours Per Grower Hours Per Acre Orgy Class 1965 1966 1967 1965 1966 1967 Cauliflower 1. Fungicides -- -- -- -- -- -- 2. Herbicides -- -- -- -- -- -- 3. Phosphates 69.00 -- -- 4.60 -- -- 4. Chlorinated Hydrocarbons 17.67 -- -- 1.18 -- -- 5. Carbamates -— -- -- -- -- -- 6. Insecticides and others -- -- -- -- -- -- Sweet Cherries 1. 10.22 9.78 5.17 1.64 1.07 1.29 2. 0.17 0.15 -- 0.03 0.02 -- 3. 5.89 6.07 1.04 0.95 0.66 0.26 4. 2.22 0.77 0.67 0.36 0.08 0.17 5. 0.17 0.49 0.21 0.03 0.05 0.05 6. 2.00 1.52 -- 0.32 0.17 -- Tart Cherries l. 28.26 5.78 12 62 1.41 0.42 1.09 2. 2.89 0.18 0.29 0.14 0.01 0.02 3. 7.26 6.23 5.40 0.36 0.46 0.47 4. 1.74 1.59 0.81 0.09 0.12 0.07 5. 1.11 1.12 1.27 0.06 0.08 0.11 6. 6.58 3.48 6.36 0.33 0.25 0.55 Field Corn 1. 0.13 8.00 -- 0.00 0.10 -- 2. 20.13 26.70 -- 0.22 0.32 -- 3. 0.40 -- -- 0.00 -- -- 4. -- 8.00 -- -- 0.10 -- 5. 0.10 -- -- 0.00 -- -- 6. -- -- -- -- -- -- Sweet Corn 1. -- -- -- -- -- -- 2. ' -- -- 10.00 -- -- 0.95 3. -- -- 1.00 -- -- 0.10 4. 18.33 0.38 1.00 1.90 0.06 0.10 5. 8.33 7.88 -- 0.86 1.21 -- 6. 18.33 -- -- 1.90 -- ~- Cucumbers l. 6.50 13.00 3.00 0.59 2.60 1.00 2. -- -- -- -- -- -- 3. 40.50 -- 0.50 3.68 -- 0.17 4. -- 9.00 -- -- 1.80 -- 5. -- -- 0.50 -- -- 0.17 6. -- -- 1.00 -- -- 0.33 69 Table 27 (cont.) Hours Exposure Per Grower and Hours EXposure Per Acre Summarized by Crop and Pesticide Class Hours Per Grower Hours Per Acre Crog Class 1965 1966 1967 1965 1966 1967 Currants l. Fungicides 27.00 4.30 5.00 1.08 0.34 0.28 2. Herbicides 9.50 5.20 5.00 0.38 0.41 0.28 3. Phosphates 11.00 9.90 10.00 0.44 0.77 0.56 4. Chlorinated Hydrocarbons -- 0.20 -- -- 0.02 -- 5. Carbamates -- -- -- -- -- ~- 6. Insecticides and others 8.00 -- 5.00 0.32 -- 0.28 Eggplant l. -- -- -- -- -- -- 2. -- -- -- -- -- -- 3. 3 00 -- -- 1.00 -- -- 4. -- -- -- -- -- -- 5. -- -- -- -- -- -- 6. -- -- -- -- -- -- Grapes 1. 21.00 18.83 20.21 2.21 1.59 1.61 2. 2.93 1.43 2.98 0.31 0.12 0.24 3. 15.20 10.53 12.70 1.61 0.89 1.01 4. 7.67 9.27 10.20 0.81 0.78 0.81 5. 6.33 3.22 2.75 0.67 0.27 0.22 6. 1.00 2.60 3.84 0.11 0.22 0.31 Melons l. 2.86 4.63 2.00 0.49 1.39 0.50 2. -- -- -- -- -- -- 3. 0.29 1.38 -- 0.05 0.41 -- 4. 5.00 1.25 0.50 0.85 0.38 0.13 5. -- 2.04 -- -- 0.61 -- 6. -- 3.33 0.50 -- 1.00 0.13 Nectarines 1. 22.00 -- -- 1.57 -- -- 2. -- -- -- -- -- -- 3. 1.00 -- -- 0.07 -- ~- 4. -- -- -- -- -- -- 5. 3.00 -- -- 0.21 -- -- 6. -- -- -- -- -- -- Cats 1. -- -- -- -- -- -- 2. 2.00 10.00 -- 0.09 0.63 ~- 3. -- 3.00 -- -- 0.19 -- 70 Table 27 (cont.) Hours Exposure Per Grower and Hours Exposure Per Acre Summarized by Crop and Pesticide Class Crop Class Peaches 1. Fungicides 2. Herbicides 3. Phosphates 4. Chlorinated Hydrocarbons 5. Carbamates 6. Insecticides and others Pickles l. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Potatoes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Hours Per Grower 1965 50.39 3.17 28.06 17.83 8.72 3.39 23.79 2.11 21.84 6.53 2.53 16.58 4.00 14.18 0.73 14.45 4.91 0.55 2.09 15.00 4.00 56.33 73.67 10.67 71 1966 21.65 0.20 12.62 6.41 2.02 2.92 17.22 1.79 10.39 1.03 2.84 8.33 10.07 4.80 2.29 0.76 1.93 4.50 0.75 0.25 0.56 1.38 1967 40.75 17.00 11.21 4.62 9.60 18.38 11.26 13.24 14.98 0.29 6.68 2.57 0.29 3.34 Hours Per Acre 1965 2.04 0.13 1.13 0.72 0.35 0.14 1.48 0.13 1.36 0.41 0.16 1.03 1.00 1.27 0.07 1.29 0.44 0.05 0.19 0.23 0.06 0.87 1.14 0.16 1966 .24 .01 .72 .37 .12 .17 OOOOOH .84 .19 .11 .11 .30 .89 OOOHOH 1.83 0.87 0.42 0.14 0.35 1.80 0.30 0.10 0.23 0.55 1967 N .11 .88 .58 .24 .50 COCO .65 .52 .07 .15 .06 .26 HOOo—OH 5. 6. Table 27 (cont.) Hours Exposure Per Grower and Hours Exposure Per Acre Summarized by Crop and Pesticide Class Class Fungicides Herbicides Phosphates Chlorinated Hydrocarbons Carbamates Insecticides and others Raspberries 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Soybeans 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Strawberries 1. 2. 3. 5. Blackberries 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Hours Per Grower 1965 10.00 25.36 10.21 18.14 8.79 0.14 62.00 1.57 72 1966 10.42 5.17 1.83 0.42 2.08 9.86 1.53 3.44 1.18 0.15 2.88 23.66 3.19 6.53 5.22 1.02 9.02 15.79 0.74 3.66 4.29 0.04 3.85 6.03 0.89 4.28 0.08 1.00 1967 10. Hours Per Acre 1965 0.91 0.45 0.27 1966 3.29 1.63 0.58 0.13 0.66 1.17 0.18 0.41 0.14 0.02 0.34 1.50 0.07 0.35 0.41 0.00 0.37 0.97 0.14 0.69 0.01 0.16 1967 Table 27 (cont.) Hours Exposure Per Grower and Hours Exposure Per Acre Summarized by Crop and Pesticide Class Crop Class Dewberries l. Fungicides 2. Herbicides 3. Phosphates 4. Chlorinated Hydrocarbons S. Carbamates 6. Insecticides and others Sweet Potatoes 1. O‘U’IbWN Quince Om&‘ri—- Hours Per Grower 1965 73 1966 10. 1967 Hours Per Acre 1965 1966 1967 Percentage of technical material was used directly from the Pesticide Index whenever a compound was coded as a particular percent formulation. Estimates were used whenever percentages were not coded with the compound. Some of the estimates are averages of known percent formulations that were available. Other estimates were made based on the known percentages available in different formulation types, i.e., dust, wettable powder and emulsifiable concentrate. In a small number of cases the percentage was unknown and several possibilities of known percentages were common formulations. Therefore it was necessary to chose a percentage by some best-fit criteria. The percentages chosen were therefore based on recommended quantities of technical materials per acre. It was necessary to assume that growers did not use more than twice the recommended quantities. It should be noted that this technique was used on only a few of the minor chemicals and therefore should have little effect on any analysis. A few low usage compounds had no percentage available and therefore no conversion was made to technical material. Included is a list of the percentages used in Appendix VI.. For ease in comparing different formulations, especially emulsifiable concentrates and wettable powders, the assumption was made that one pound equalled one pint. It is believed that this assumption is very close to reality. The figures for pounds of technical material applied were obtained by multiplying the percent formulation by the pounds applied. This calculation was done for each spray record and added to the existing data on a computer tape. Summations of the pounds of technical material were then reported on a crop basis. Along with the summations, accumulations of individual pesticide categories were made. This allowed for removal of much of the synonomy that was present in the Pesticide Index caused by different formulations and tradenames. 74 Pounds per acre was calculated simply by dividing pounds of technical material by total acreages sampled for individual crops. The figures given are rounded to the nearest hundreth of a pound except for very small quantities which were given as smaller fractions of a pound. Extrapolations to Berrien County and Michigan were calculated by multiplying pounds per acre by acreage estimates in the county and state respectively. Estimates of acreage were from Agricultural Statistics and Cooperative Extension Report. Estimates of Pesticides Applied in Michigan A summary of extrapolation to Michigan of total pounds of technical material was made on all crops sampled (Table 29). While it is clear that the total state is not well represented in the sample it seems that the fruit information is quite complete and appropriate. Therefore a summary of pesticides applied to fruit was included. This portion of the data is considerably more accurate than that of the total crops sampled. Table 30 includes only eight major fruit crops: they are apples, pears, plums and prunes, peaches, tart cherries, sweet cherries, grapes, and strawberries. Also each pesticide in the chart had a minimum of 30 records for the three year period. All compounds with less than thirty records were dropped. 75 TABLE 28 AMOUNTS 0? TECHNICAL PESTICIDES APPLIED To Apples in 1965 omuomwar-I ”g LBS. LBS./ LBS./ LBS./ NAMEF SAME ACRL BERRIEN C0. MICHIGAN Oil 17644.00 19.76 261755 1076816 Lead Arsenate 8025.60 8.99 119061 489802 Captan 7388.00 8.27 109603 450889 DDT 2996.50 3.35 44453 182874 Amitrole 2961.00 3.32 43850 180706 Sulfur 2811.39 3.15 41707 171577 Carbaryl 2299.25 2.57 34109 140321 Guthion 1738.88 1.95 25796 106122 BHC 1458.00 1.63 21628 88977 Niacide 1359.00 1.52 20160 82938 Cyprex 1173.90 1.31 17414 71640 Lime Sulfur 1155.00 1.29 17133 70485 Kelthane 1132.08 1.27 16794 69089 NAA 1128.00 1.26 16733 68839 Simazine 1120.00 1.25 16614 68348 Lime 997.00 1.12 15012 60844 Tedion 977.28 1.09 14497 59639 Urea 901.00 1.00 13365 54985 Dieldrin 753.00 0.84 11170 45954 Nutrilene 675.00 0.76 10012 41191 TDE 660.50 0.74 9798 40308 Parathion 486.45 0.54 7216 29686 Malathion 415.00 0.46 6156 25326 Ovex 413.00 0.46 6125 25201 Tepp 405.60 0.45 6015 24748 Eerbam 228.00 0.25 3382 13914 Copper 217.50 0.24 3225 13271 Ethion 209.00 0.23 3100 12753 Phosphamidon 195.00 0.22 2890 11897 Cragon 195.00 0.22 2890 11897 Zineb 135.20 0.15 2004 8246 Genite 125.25 0.14 1853 7625 Trithion 125.00 0.14 1853 7625 Undefined 90.00 0.10 1334 5488 Glyodin 88.40 0.10 1310 5390 Endosulfan 86.50 0.10 1282 5276 Mercury 53.68 0.06 796 3275 Phygon 50.00 0.06 740 3047 Plyac 50.00 0.06 740 3047 Amidthin 48.00 0.05 711 2927 Morestan 35.75 0.04 529 2180 Mercuric Chloride 24.75 0.03 366 1510 Solubar 21.00 0.02 311 1281 Karathane 19.25 0.02 284 1172 Elgetol 16.50 0.02 243 1003 2,4,5-T 16.50 0.02 243 1003 76 Table 28 (continued) AMOUNTS OF TECHNICAL PESTICIDES APPLIED LBS. LBS./ LBS./ LBS./ RANK NAME m8); ACRE BERRIEN CQ, MICHIGAN 1 Oil 47750.00 16.64 220491 917051 2 Captan 18442.50 6.43 85159 354188 3 Sulfur 11883.54 4.14 54873 228224 4 Urea 10091.00 3.52 46595 193797 5 Lead Arsenate 9514.56 3.32 43932 182721 6 Nutrilene 7938.00 2.76 36654 152450 7 Cyprex 4862.00 1.69 22450 93372 8 Guthion 3477.12 1.21 16055 66775 9 Epsom Salts 2829.00 0.98 13062 54328 10 Carbaryl 2623.60 0.91 12113 50383 11 Phygon 2222.50 0.77 10261 42680 12 TDE 1834.00 0.64 8468 35219 13 DDT 1277.50 0.45 5898 24530 14 Mercury 1262.48 0.44 5829 24244 15 Lime Sulfur 958.00 0.33 4423 18397 16 Lime 928.00 0.32 4284 17819 17 BHC 734.00 0.26 3388 14094 18 Niacide 627.00 0.22 2894 12039 19 Perbam 586.72 0.20 2709 11267 20 Kelthane 581.20 0.20 2682 11157 21 Morestan 503.00 0.18 2322 9659 22 Parathion 412.20 0.14 1902 7912 23 Undefined 411.00 0.14 1897 7890 24 Ethion 407.50 0.14 1881 7824 25 Trithion 401.00 0.14 1850 7697 26 Amitrole 375.30 0.13 1732 7207 27 Tedion 359.45 0.13 1661 6909 28 Phosphamidon 357.50 0.13 1642 6832 29 Copper 345.83 0.12 1596 6639 30 Glyodin 345.10 0.12 1592 6623 31 um Apple Spray 311.00 0.11 1436 5972 32 Zineb 297.70 0.10 1373 5713 33 Tepp 248.70 0.09 1147 4771 34 Dieldrin 214.63 0.07 990 4121 35 Simazine 211.20 0.07 975 4055 36 NAA 157.00 0.05 724 3013 37 Solubar 141.00 0.05 650 2705 38 Genite 115.50 0.04 532 2215 39 Cygon 112.13 0.04 516 2148 40 Karathane 98.00 0.03 451 1878 41 Endo Sulfan 80.00 0.03 368 1531 42 Demeton 64.71 0.02 298 1239 43 Malathion 46.50 0.02 214 892 44 Kolofog 42.22 0.01 194 809 45 Diasinon 32.38 0.01 148 617 46 Ziram 30.40 0.01 139 578 47 Phosdrin 26.00 0.009 119 495 48 Phomium 20.00 0.007 91 380 To Apples in 1966 77 Table 28 (continued) 1966 Apples continued LBS LBSJ LES./ LBS./ M NAME SAMPLED ACRE BERRIEN CQa MICHIGAN 49 Copper Sulfate 17.40 0.006 79 330 50 Plyac 1 5 . 00 0 . 005 68 286 51 2,4,5-T 8.40 0.003 38 159 52 Dacthal 8.00 0.003 ° 35 148 53 Mercuric Chloride 5.94 0.002 26 110 54 PCNB 2.25 0.0007 9 38 55 Coromerc 0.77 0.0002 2 11 56 Streptomycin 0.75 0.0002 2 11 78 Table 28 (continued) AMOUNTS OF TECHNICAL PESTICIDES APPLIED To Apples in 1967 . LBS. LBS./ 1.35./ LBS./ RANK NAME SAMPLED ACRE BERRIEN CO. MICHIGAN 1 Oil 20332.00 34.94 462814 1963330 2 Sulfur 4331.01 7.44 98584 418212 3 Captan 3207.00 5.51 73000 309678 4 Lime Sulfur 3168.00 5.44 72111 305908 5 Lead Arsenate 2996.16 5.15 68198 289312 6 Nutrilene 1956.00 3.36 44523 188877 7 Urea 1932.00 3.32 43976 186556 8 Cyprex 1027.65 1.77 23391 99232 9 Carbaryl 842.00 1.45 19165 81305 10 Niacide 775.00 1.33 17641 74836 11 Lime 632.00 1.09 14386 61028 12 DDT 605.50 1.04 13781 58465 13 Guthion 598.18 1.03 13616 57762 14 Phosphamidon 574.50 0.99 13077 55475 15 Phygon 550.00 0.95 12519 53109 16 Copper 340.17 0.58 7742 32843 17 TDE 315.00 0.54 7169 30415 18 BHC 263.00 0.45 5985 25391 19 Zineb 243.75 0.42 5548 23537 20 Solubar 124.00 0.21 2821 11971 21 Glyodin 117.64 0.20 2677 . 11358 22 Parathion 62.40 0.11 1420 6025 23 Amitrole 54.90 0.09 1249 5300 24 Kelthane 54.06 0.09 1229 5215 25 Tepp 52.80 0.09 1201 5097 26 Dieldrin 52.40 0.09 1192 5058 27 Genite 46.00 0.08 1046 4440 28 Perbam 42.56 0.07 968 4108 29 Copper Sulfate 39.15 0.07 872 3860 30 Morestan 33.00 0.06 751 3187 31 Mercury 33.00 0.06 751 3187 32 Simazine 30.40 0.05 691 2934 33 Demeton 29.87 0.05 679 2883 34 Trithion 28.00 0.05 637 2703 35 NAA 27.00 0.05 613 2602 36 Epsom Salts 25.00 0.04 568 2411 37 Ethion 23.00 0.04 523 2220 38 LGM Apple Spray 23.00 0.04 523 2220 39 Maneb 22.40 0.04 510 2158 40 Amiben 21.25 0.04 483 2051 41 Plyac 12.00 0.02 272 1158 42 ' Karathane 11.50 0.02 260 1107 43 Phaltan 10.00 0.02 226 961 44 Tedion 8.00 0.01 181 770 45 Chlorobensilate 7.50 0.01 169 719 46 Malathion 4.25 0.007 96 410 47 2,4,5-T 1.80 0.003 39 169 48 Cygon 1.66 0.003 37 157 49 Coromerc 0.44 0.0007 9 39 50 Streptomycin 0.30 0.0005 6 28 79 Table 28 (continued) AMOUNTS OF TECHNICAL PESTICIDES APPLIED To Pears in 1965 LBS. RAN! NAME SAMPLED 1 Oil 4148.00 2 Lime 3397.00 3 Lead Arsenate 823.68 4 Copper 666.19 5 Cragon 476.00 6 Perbam 427.88 7 BHC 413.00 8 Guthion 377.52 9 Copper Sulfate 311.60 10 Carbaryl 272.50 11 DDT 271.50 12 Parathion 126.60 13 Nutrilene 120.00 14 Zineb 99.45 15 TDE 77.50 16 Lime Sulfur 70.00 17 Captan 68.50 18 Epsom Salts 35.00 19 Simazine 32.00 20 .Amitrole 30.60 21 Ethion 19.75 22 Ovex 16.00 23 Zinc Sulfate 14.75 24 Streptomycin 14.10 25 Plyac 12.00 26 Dieldrin 10.00 27 Chlorobenzilate 6.25 28 Kelthane 6.12 29 Tepp 5.70 30 Endosulfan 3.00 31 Vaptone XX 3.00 32 Phygon 2.00 33 Tedion 1.95 34 Morestan 1.50 35 Amidthin 1.00 LBS./ mu 13.60 11.14 2.70 2.18 1.56 1.40 1.35 1.24 1.02 0.89 0.89 0.42 0.39 0.33 0.25 0.23 0.22 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.06 0.05 0.05 c»c>c>c>c>c>c:c>c>c>c>c> 888828888888 80 LBS./ LBS./ BERRIEN C0. MICHIGAN 58357 116960 47791 95784 11586 23223 9372 18784 6696 13421 6019 12064 5810 11644 5310 10644 4383 8786 3833 7683 3819 7655 1780 3569 1688 3383 1398 2804 1089 2184 984 1974 963 1931 492 986 450 902 430 863 277 556 224 451 207 415 198 397 168 338 137 281 87 175 85 172 79 160 42 84 42 84 27 56 27 54 21 42 13 28 Table 28 (cont inued) AHGJNTS (F TECHNICAL PESTICIDES APPLIED To Pears in 1966 L83. L88./ LBSJ LBS./ RANK NAME SAMPL_E;D “jg; BERRIEN CO. MICHIGAN 1 Oil 6742.00 9.63 41328 85719 2 Lime 6052.00 8.64 37098 76946 3 Copper 1668.35 2.38 10226 21211 4 Perbam 831.44 1.19 5096 10570 5 Nutrilene 746.00 1.06 4572 9484 6 Urea 606.00 0.87 3714 7704 7 Carbaryl 600.50 0.86 3680 7634 8 Zineb 573.95 0.82 3518 7297 9 Guthion 520.30 0.74 3189 6614 10 Amitrole 354.60 0.51 , 2173 4507 11 Epsom Salts 350.00 0.50 2145 4450 12 Sulfur 293.88 0.42 1801 3736 13 Captan 259.50 0.37 1590 3299 14 Lead Arsenate 239.04 0.34 1464 3037 15 Copper Sulfate 191.70 0.27 1174 2436 16 Simazine 174.40 0.25 1068 2216 17 Parathion 145.60 0.21 892 1851 18 ENC 96.00 0.14 588 1220 19 DDT 80.00 0.11 490 1016 20 Genite 34.75 0.05 212 441 21 Lime Sulfur 32.00 0.05 196 406 22 Malathion 29.50 0.04 180 374 23 Solubar 25.00 0.04 153 317 24 Glyodin 15.30 0.02 93 194 25 Ethion 14.50 0.02 88 184 26 Cyprex 14.30 0.02 87 181 27 Streptomycin 11.55 0.02 70 146 28 Tedion 11.55 0.02 70 146 29 Tepp 10.20 0.01 62 129 30 Morestan 8.75 0.01 53 111 31 Trithion 8.00 0.01 48 101 32 Kelthane 6.63 0.01 40 83 33 Phosphamidon 6.00 0.01 36 75 34 Dieldrin 5.00 0.01 30 63 35 Elgetol 3.30 0.005 20 41 36 Endosulfan 1.50 0.002 9 18 37 Karathane 0.25 0.0003 1 2 81 Table 23 (continued) AMOUNTS OF TECHNICAL PESTICIDES APPLIED To Pears in 1967 82 LBS. LBS./ LBS./ LBS./ RANK NAME SAMPLED ACRE, BERRIEN CQL MICHIGAN 1 Oil 4678.00 23.39 100366 208171 2 Lime 2192.00 10.96 47029 97544 3 Copper 531.70 2.66 11407 23661 4 Lead Arsenate 301.44 1.51 6466 14014 5 Perbam 243.96 1.22 5234 10856 6 Urea 221.00 1.10 4741 9835 7 Copper Sulfate 209.23 1.05 4488 9310 8 Guthion 134.86 0.67 2893 6001 9 Amitrole 108.00 0.54 2317 4806 10 Simazine 93.60 0.47 2008 4165 11 Zineb 91.00 0.46 1952 4050 12 Sulfur 59.52 0.30 1277 2649 13 DDT 50.50 0.25 1083 2247 14 TDE 46.50 0.23 997 2069 15 Captan 44.00 0.22 944 1958 16 Carbaryl 42.50 0.21 911 1891 17 Parathion 40.50 0.20 868 1802 18 BHC 22.00 0.11 472 979 19 Solubar 20.00 0.10 429 890 20 Streptomycin 6.15 ' 0.03 131 273 21 Endosulfan 3.50 0.02 75 156 22 Glyodin 3.40 0.02 72 151 23 Elgetol 3.30 0.02 70 147 24 Ethion 3.00 0.02 64 134 25 Phosphamidon 3.00 0.02 64 134 26 Dieldrin 1.00 0.005 21 45 27 Plyac 1.00 0.005 21 45 28 Demeton 0.79 0.004 16 35 Table 28 (continued) AMOUNTS OF TECHNICAL PESTICIDES APPLIED To Peaches in 1965 LBS. LBS./ LBSJ LBS./ RANK NAME SAMPLED ACRE BERRIEN CO. MICHIGAN 1 Sulfur 25663.35 57.67 442101 772783 2 Lime Sulfur 2738.00 6.15 47167 82448 3 DDT 1897 .00 4 . 26 32687 57123 4 Carbaryl 1588.25 3.57 27360 47826 5 Captan ' 1134.00 2.55 19535 34147 6 Endosulfan 942.00 2.12 16227 28365 7 Lime 720.00 1.62 12402 21680 8 Guthion 689.92 1.55 11884 20774 9 Nutrilene 525.00 1.18 9043 15808 10 Phygon 419.50 0.94 7225 12631 11 Simazine 393.60 0.88 6779 11851 12 Oil 364.00 0.79 6079 10628 13 Perbam 340.48 0.77 5865 10252 14 Parathion 197.25 0.44 3397 5939 15 Malathion 175 00 0.39 3014 5269 16 Dieldrin 142 00 0.32 2446 4276 17 Digetol 141.63 0.32 2439 4264 18 Plyac 88.00 0.20 1515 2649 19 Tedion 85.00 0.19 1464 2559 20 Cragon 36.00 0.08 619 1083 21 Zinc Sulfate 23.60 0.05 406 710 22 Copper Sulfate 22.50 0.05 387 677 23 Tepp 20.70 0.05 356 623 24 2,4,5-T 8.40 0.02 ‘144 252 25 Ethion 6.25 0.01 107 188 83 Table 28 (continued) AMOUNTS OF TECHNICAL PESTICIDES APPLIED To Peaches in 1966 84 LBS. 1.38.] 1.33.! LBS./ RANK NAME SAMRED ACRE BERRIEN CO. MICHIGAN 1 Sulfur 16474.95 9.70 74335 124119 2 Lime Sulfur 3228.00 1.90 14564 24318 3 DDT 1685.50 0.99 7604 12697 4 Captan 1421.00 0.84 6411 10704 5 Urea 1295.00 0.76 5843 9756 6 Guthion 742.72 0.44 3350 5594 7 Carbaryl 706.50 0.42 3187 5322 8 Phygon 614.50 0.36 2772 4628 9 Endosulfan 531.50 0.31 2397 4003 10 Oil 425.00 0.25 1917 3201 11 Nutrilene 381.00 0.22 1718 2869 12 Parathion 329.20 0.19 1484 2479 13 Zineb 227.50 0.13 1026 1713 14 Dieldrin 218.00 0.13 983 1642 15 Ammonia 200.00 0.12 902 1506 16 Perbam 160.36 0.09 722 1207 17 Lime 136.00 0.08 612 1024 18 Kola-100 116.11 0.07 523 874 19 Simazine 81.60 0.05 367 614 20 Kolofog 76.91 0.05 346 578 21 Cyprex 62.40 0.04 281 469 22 Malathion 62.25 0.04 280 468 23 TDE 48.00 0.03 216 360 24 Copper 26.97 0.02 121 202 25 Tedion 23.85 0.01 107 179 26 Glyodin 15.64 0.01 70 117 27 Tepp 12.30 0.007 55 92 28 Phaltan 12.00 0.007 53 89 29 Genite 9.00 0.005 39 66 30 Amitrole 7.20 0.004 32 53 31 Trithion 6.00 0.004 26 44 32 Elgetol 4.40 0.003 19 32 33 Thiram 3.90 0.002 16 28 34 Kelthane 3.06 0.002 13 23 35 Ethion 1.00 0.0005 3 6 Table 28 (continued) AMGJNTS (F TECHNICAL PESTICIDES APPLIED To Peaches in 1967 LBS. LBS./ LBS./ LBS./ RANK NAM SAMRED ACRE BERRIEN CO. MICHIGAN l Sulfur 3976.68 12.12 92942 158824 2 Lime Sulfur 2601.60 7.93 60804 103905 3 Nutrilene 760.00 2.32 17762 30353 4 Captan 670.50 2.04 15670 26779 5 Urea 624.00 1.90 14583 24921 6 DDT 570.50 1.74 13333 22785 7 Oil 480.00 1.46 11218 19171 8 Phygon 373.00 1.13 8717 14896 9 Carbaryl 350.00 1.07 8179 13978 10 Guthion 153.34 0.47 3583 6124 11 Lime 120.00 0.37 2804 4792 12 Endosulfan 92.50 0.28 2161 3694 13 Parathion 79.65 0.24 1861 3181 14 Dieldrin 45.00 0.14 1051 1796 15 Botran 34.50 0.10 805 1377 16 Kola-100 30.16 0.09 704 1204 17 Copper 26.10 0.08 609 1041 18 Perbam 25.84 0.08 603 1031 19 Lead Arsenate 19.20 0.06 448 766 20 Plyac 9.00 0.03 210 359 21 Cyprex 3.90 0.01 90 155 22 Elgetol 1.65 0.005 38 65 23 Tepp 0.60 0.002 13 24 85 Table 28 (continued) AMOUNTS OF TECHNICAL PESTICIDES APPLIED To Tart Cherries in 1965 LBS. Lss./ RANK NAME SAMPLED ACRE 1 Sulfur 2674.68 7.02 2 Lead Arsenate 1925.76 5.05 3 Cyprex 638.95 1.67 4 Simazine 555.20 1.46 5 Amitrole 306.00 0.80 6 Perbam 304.76 0.80 7 Oil 280.00 0.73 8 Ethion 225.00 0.59 9 Glyodin 214.88 0.56 10 Carbaryl 142.50 0.37 11 Guthion 130.02 0.34 12 Dieldrin 116.50 0.31 13 Lime Sulfur 100.00 0.26 14 Nutrilene 75.00 0.20 15 Parathion 69.75 0.18 16 Lime 63.00 0.16 17 Copper Sulfate 60.00 0.15 18 Phygon 53.00 0.14 19 Captan 47.50 0.12 20 Kola-100 28.65 0.07 21 Ply Spray 0.50 0.001 86 LBS./ BERRIEN CO. 40583 29219 9694 8424 4642 4623 4248 3413 3259 2162 1972 1767 1516 1137 1057 955 910 804 720 434 7 L33./ MICHIGAN 281506 202683 67248 58434 32204 32072 29469 23679 22612 14997 13682 12259 10522 7892 7338 6629 6316 5578 4996 3016 52 Table 28 (continued) AMOUNTS 0? TECHNICAL PESTICIDES APPLIED To Tart Cherries in 1966 LBS. LES./ LBS./ LBS./ RANK NAME SAMPLED ACRE EERRIEN COL MICHIGAN 1 Sulfur 3310.80 2.49 14401 99893 2 Nutrilene 2674.00 2.01 11631 80681 3 Lead Arsenate 2539.20 1.91 11044 76614 4 Cyprex 1457.95 1.10 6341 43989 5 Perbam 475.00 0.36 2066 14331 6 Carbaryl 471.00 0.35 2048 14211 7 Guthion 374.22 0.28 1627 11288 8 Parathion 275.40 0.21 1197 8308 9 Captan 207.00 0.16 900 6243 10 Oil 160.00 0.12 695 4824 11 Phaltan 156.50 0.12 680 4719 12 Dieldrin 133.50 0.10 580 4026 13 TDE 119.00 0.09 517 3588 14 Endosulfan 84.00 0.06 365 2534 15 Lime 60.00 0.05 260 1808 16 Simazine 32.00 0.02 138 962 17 Phygon 30.50 0.02 132 918 18 Lime Sulfur 24.00 0.02 104 721 19 Copper 17.40 0.01 75 521 20 Urea 15.00 0.01 64 449 21 Zineb 11.70 0.01 50 352 22 Diazinon 4.50 0.003 19 132 23 Phosdrin 4.00 0.003 17 120 24 Glyodin 1.02 0.0007 4 28 25 DDT 0.50 0.0003 1 12 87 Table 28 (continued) AMWNTS (1‘ TECHNICAL RSTICIDES APPLIED To Tart Cherries in 1967 LBS. Lss./ LBS./ LBS./ RANK NAME, SAMPLED ACRE BERRIEN CO. MICHIGAN 1 Nutrilene 1601.00 6.46 37319 258,870 2 Sulfur 1129.95 4.56 26339 182,704 3 Lead Arsenate 875.52 3.53 20407 141,561 4 Phygon 399.50 1.61 9312 64,593 5 Cyprex 305.50 1.23 7121 49,395 6 Perbam 224.96 0.91 5243 36,371 7 Carbaryl 125.00 0.50 2913 20,210 8 Urea 123.00 0.50 2866 19,885 9 Guthion 83.16 0.34 1938 13,446 10 Captan 42.50 0.17 990 6,869 11 Parathion 34.90 0.14 813 5,642 12 Dieldrin 11.50 0.05 267 1,856 13 Endosulfan 9.50 0.04 221 1,536 14 TDE 8.00 0.03 186 1,291 15 Karmex 4.32 0.02 100 698 16 DDT 4.00 . 0.02 93 646 17 Plyac 2.00 0.008 46 321 88 Table 28 (cont inued) AMOUNTS 0? TECHNICAL PESTICIDES APPLIED To Sweet Cherries in 1965 L85. L35./ 1.35.! LBS./ RAM NAM SAMPLED ACREL BERRIEN CO. MICHIGAN 1 Captan 513.00 9.16 7511 80614 2 Lime 284.00 5.07 4158 44628 3 Lead Arsenate 155.52 2.78 2276 24441 4 Sulfur 127.41 2.28 1865 20021 5 Guthion 117.48 2.10 1720 18461 6 Simazine 80.00 1.43 1171 12571 7 DDT 75.00 1.34 1098 11785 8 Phygon 60.00 1.07 878 9428 9 Cyprex 54.60 0.98 799 8580 10 Dieldrin 36.50 0.65 534 5735 11 Zinc Sulfate 35.40 0.63 518 5562 12 TDE 32.00 0.57 468 5028 13 Copper 31.32 0.56 458 4921 14 Perbam 24.32 0.43 356 3821 15 Parathion 21.00 0.38 307 3300 16 Carbaryl 14.50 0.26 212 2278 17 Endosulfan 9.00 0.16 131 1414 18 Kola-100 6.03 0.11 88 948 19 Diazinon 2.00 0.04 29 314 89 Table 28 (continued) AMOUNTS OF TECHNICAL PESTICIDES APPLIED To Sweet Cherries in 1966 LBs./ LBS. LBS./ LBS./ RANK NAME SAMPLED ACRi DERRIEN CO. MICHIGAN l Sulfur 940.23 3.95 3239 36739 2 Lead Arsenate 444.48 1.86 1531 17367 3 Phygon 316.00 1.33 1088 12347 4 Cyprex 232.05 0.98 799 9067 5 Captan 180.00 0.76 620 7033 6 Perbam 118.56 0.50 408 4632 7 Parathion 95.90 0.40 330 3746 8 Carbaryl 34.00 0.14 117 1328 9 Guthion 32.78 0.14 112 1280 10 Dieldrin 25.75 0.11 88 1005 11 TDE 24.00 0.10 82 937 12 Nutrilene 24.00 0.10 82 937 13 Amitrole 2.70 0.01 9 105 14. Phosphamidon 1.00 0.004 3 39 15 Simazine 0.80 0.003 2 30 90 Table 28 (continued) AMOUNTS OF TECHNICAL PESTICIDES APPLIED To Sweet Cherries in 1967 LBS ./ 32mm co. LBS. Lss./ RANK NAME SAMPLEQ, ACRE 1 Phygon 267.50 11.15 2 Sulfur 37.20 1.55 3 Captan 12.00 0.50 4 Carbaryl 12.00 0.50 5 TDE 8.00 0.33 6 Perbam 6.84 0.29 7 Cyprex 5.20 0.22 8 Guthion 3.52 0.15 9 Dieldrin 2.00 0.08 10 Parathion 1.90 0.08 11 Demeton 0.52 0.02 91 9139 1271 410 410 273 233 177 120 68 64 178 LBS ./ MICHIGAN 110343 15345 4950 4950 3300 2821 2144 1451 822 783 216 Table 28 (continued) 1.11s. LBSJ Lss./ LBS./ m m SAMPLED 1cm: BERRIEN co. MICHIGAN 1 Perbam 788.88 5.55 35710 92220 2 Lime 643.00 4.53 29106 75166 3 Phaltan 515.50 3.63 23334 60261 4 Carbaryl 475.00 3.34 21501 55527 5 001' 454.00 3.20 20574 53132 6 Copper 163.99 1 . 15 7423 19170 7 Guthion 107.36 0.75 4859 12550 8 pal-6:61.56 80.10 0 . 56 3625 9362 9 Karmex 55 .08 0.39 2492 6437 10 Zineb 45.00 0.32 2037 5261 1 1 Polyram 30.00 0 .21 1357 3506 12 Plyac 16.00 0.11 723 1869 1 3 Diuron 7.56 0.05 347 880 AMOUNTS OF TECHNICAL PESTICIDES APPLIED To Grapes in 1965 92 Table 28 (continued) AMOUNTS OF TECHNICAL PESTICIDES APPLIED To Grapes in 1966 BERRIEN C0. us. LDS./ LasJ IMAM! NAME SAMPLED ACRE; 1 Lime 2680.00 2.60 16708 2 Perbam 2452.52 2.38 15290 3 Phaltan 1884.50 1.83 11749 4 DDT 1793.50 1.74 11181 5 Copper 857.81 0.83 5348 6 Ammonia 800.00 0.78 4987 7 Carbaryl 787.00 0.76 4906 8 Guthion 346.94 0.34 2163 9 Parathion 191.90 0.19 1196 10 Captan 185.50 0.18 1156 11 Karmex 88.02 0.09 548 12 Simazine 72.80 0.07 453 13 Copper Sulfate 57.66 0.06 359 14 Endosulfan 50.00 0.05 311 15 Nutrilene 32.00 0.03 199 16 TD! 30.00 0.03 186 17 Zineb 29.25 0.03 181 18 Dieldrin 23.00 0.02 143 19 Urea 20.00 0.02 124 20 Sulfur 14.88 0.01 92 21 Malathion 14.50 0.01 89 22 Diuron 11.20 0.01 69 23 Glyodin 5.44 0.005 33 93 LES./ MICHIGAN 43150 39486 30341 28875 13811 12879 12670 5585 3089 2986 1415 1171 927 803 514 481 469 370 320 239 232 179 86 Table 28 (c ont inued) AMOUNTS OF TECHNICAL PESTICIDES APPLIED To Grapes in 1967 LBS. LBS./ LBS./ 'LBS./ RANK NAME SAMPLED ACRE, BERRIEN co. MICHIGAN 1 Ferbam 452.96 1.80 11599 29956 2 Lime 446.00 1.78 11421 29495 3 001 344.50 1.37 8822 22784 4 Phaltan 312.50 1.25 8002 20667 5 Copper 186.18 0.74 4767 12312 6 Captan 160 00 0.64 4097 10581 7 Carbaryl 123.80 0.49 3170 8187 8 Guthion 111.32 0.44 2850 7362 9 Parathion 38.60 0.15 987 2551 10 Lead Arsenate 34.56 0.14 884 2284 11 Dieldrin 30.00 0.12 768 1984 12 Simazine 29.60 0.12 757 1957 13 Karmex 15.12 0.06 386 999 14 Amitrole 14.40 0.06 368 951 15 Malathion 7.00 0.03 178 461 16 21666 5.85 0.02 149 387 17 Plyac 1.00 0.004 25 65 94 Table 28 (continued) AMOUNTS OF TECHNICAL PESTICIDES APPLIED To Strawberries in 1965 LBS. LBS./ 1.88./ LBS./ RANK NAME SAMELED ACRE BERRIEN’CO. MICHIGAN 1 Captan 4499.50 14.06 28206 104050 2 Dacthal 2386.00 7.46 14957 55175 3 Thiram 1547.00 4.83 9697 35773 4 Diphenomid 840.00 2.62 5265 19425 5 Nutrilene 712.00 2.22 4463 16465 6 TDE 398.00 1.24 2494 9203 7 Kelthane 328.95 1.03 2061 7606 8 2,4-0 306.00 0.96 1918 7076 9 Urea 300.00 0.94 1880 6937 10 Undefined 300.00 0.94 1880 6937 11 Guthion 295.46 0.92 1852 6832 12 Cyprex 186.55 0.58 1169 4313 13 Dieldrin 144.00 0.45 902 3330 14 Maneb 120.00 0.38 752 2775 15 DDT 100.00 0.31 626 2312 16 Parathion 76.20 0.24 477 1761 17 Phygon 50.00 0.16 313 1155 18 Enide 46.00 0.14 288 1063 19 Solubar 20.00 0.06 125 462 20 Mercury 6.27 0.02 39 144 21 Carbaryl 1.50 0.0046 9 34 22 Tepp 0.30 0.0009 1 7 95 Table 28 (continued) AMWNTS (I TECHNICAL PESTICIDES APPLIED To Strawberries in 1966 96 1.118. LBSJ LBSJ LES./ m NAME SAMPLED ACRE BERRIEN CO. MICHIGAN 1 Nutrilene 7154.00 13 .47 27026 98349 2 Captan 5086 . 00 9 . 58 19213 69920 3 Urea 908 . 00 1 . 71 3430 12482 4 Thiram 583 .05 1 . 10 2202 8015 5 Dacthal 526 .00 0 . 99 1986 7230 6 TDE 384 . 00 0 . 72 1450 5278 7 Lime 342 .00 0 . 64 1291 4701 8 Guthion 216.26 0.41 816 2972 9 Endosul fan 202 . 50 0 .38 764 2783 10 Sul fur 166.47 0 .31 628 2288 1 1 Sesone 134.00 0.25 506 1841 1 2 Carbaryl 133. 50 0 .25 504 1835 1 3 Cyprex 105 .00 0 .20 400 1456 14 DDT 101 .00 0 . 19 381 1388 1 S Lindane 96 .00 0 . 18 362 1319 1 6 Botran 79 .00 0 . 15 298 1086 1 7 Copper 64 . 38 0 . 12 243 885 1 8 Die 1drin 60 .00 0 . 11 226 824 19 Copper Sulfate 38.16 0.07 144 524 20 Parathion 32 . 85 0 .06 124 451 2 1 Phygon 29.50 0.06 111 405 22 Karathane 29. 50 0 .06 111 405 23 Mercury 25 .85 0 .05 97 355 24 2,4-D 20.00 0.04 75 274 25 Amitrole 14 .40 0 .03 54 198 26 Solubar 12.00 0.02 45 164 27 Lead Arsenate 11 .52 0 .02 43 157 28 Kelthane 5 . 10 0 .01 19 70 29 Tepp 5 . 10 0.01 19 70 3O Phosdrin 4.00 0.01 15 55 31 Plyac 4.00 0.01 15 55 32 Malathion l . 50 0 .003 5 20 Table 28 (continued) AMGJNTS OF TECHNICAL PESTICIDES APPLIED To Strawberries in 1967 LBS. 1.88.! LBS./ Lss./ RANK NAME SAMPLED ACRE BERRIEN CO. MICHIGAN 1 Nutrilene 2224 .00 25 .56 51279 173829 2 Captan 1116.50 12.83 25743 87266 3 Lime 144.00 1 .66 3320 11254 4 TDE 88 .00 1 .01 2028 6877 5 Cyprex 66 . 95 0. 77 1543 5232 6 Endosulfan 60 . 50 0 . 70 1394 4728 7 Guthion 52 . 58 0 . 60 12 12 4109 8 DDT 44 . 50 0.51 1025 3477 9 Thiram 39.00 0.45 899 3048 10 Copper 31 .32 0.36 722 2448 1 1 Carbaryl 30 .00 0.34 691 2344 12 Sulfur 29. 76 0 .34 686 2325 1 3 2 ,4-D 24.00 0.28 553 1875 14 Dieldrin 19. 50 0.22 449 1523 15 Phygon 19. 50 0.22 449 1523 16 Dacthal 16.00 0. 18 368 1250 17 Lead Arsenate 15 .36 0 . 18 354 1200 18 Mercury 3. 96 0 .05 91 309 19 Parathion 3 . 60 0 .04 82 280 20 Kelthane 2.55 0.03 58 199 21 Enide 2.00 0 .02 45 155 97 Table 23 (continued) AMOUNTS OF TECHNICAL PESTICIDES APPLIED To Plums and Prunes in 1965 1.88. LESJ Lss./ 1.83.! NAPS SAMEED ACRE BERRIEN CO. MICHIGAN 1 Oil 1289.00 9.62 14814 41363 2 Sulfur 733.77 5.48 8433 23546 3 Lead Arsenate 421.44 3.15 4843 13524 4 Perbam 250.80 1.87 2882 8048 5 Guthion 158.18 1.18 1818 5076 6 Lime Sulfur 150.00 1.12 1724 4813 7 Parathion 126.30 0.94 1452 4053 8 DDT 119.00 0.89 1368 3819 9 Captan 117.50 0.88 1350 3771 10 Zineb 115.05 0.86 1322 3692 11 Phaltan 85.50 0.64 983 2744 12 TDE 80.50 0.60 925 2583 13 Lime 70.00 0.52 804 2246 14 Endosulfan 56.00 0.42 644 1797 15 Dieldrin 48.50 0.36 557 1556 16 Phygon 45.00 0.34 517 1444 17 Carbaryl 30.00 0.22 345 963 18 Tepp 28.50 0.21 328 915 19 Copper 23.05 0.17 265 740 20 Kelthane 16.39 0.12 188 526 21 Tedion 16.05 0.12 184 515 22 Plyac 15.00 0.11 172 481 23 Kola-100 13.57 0.10 156 435 24 Ethion 8.75 0.07 101 281 25 Glyodin 2.04 0.02 23 65 98 Table 28 (continued) AMOUNTS OF TECHNICAL PESTICIDES APPLIED To Plums and Prunes in 1966 1.88. 1.88./ 1.88./ 1.88.! RANK NAME SAMPLED ACRE DERRIEN CO. MICHIGAN 1 Oil 3224.00 9.37 14433 64612 2 Sulfur 1579.14 4.59 7069 31646 3 Perbam 780.52 2.27 3496 15651 4 Zineb 584.35 1.70 2618 11720 5 Captan 506.50 1.47 2264 10135 6 Nutrilene 258.00 0.75 1155 5171 7 Lime Sulfur 240.00 0.70 1078 4826 8 Urea 192.00 0.56 862 3859 9 Guthion 188.32 0.55 847 3792 10 TDE 158.00 0.46 708 3170 11 Lead Arsenate 151.68 0.44 678 3035 12 Lime 141.00 0.41 631 2825 13 Carbaryl 134.00 0.39 601 2690 14 Parathion 85.80 0.25 385 1724 15 Dieldrin 75.88 0.22 339 1518 16 Phygon 75.00 0.22 339 1518 17 DDT 71.00 0.21 323 1446 18 Copper 39.15 0.11 169 757 19 Tedion 20.80 0.06 92 412 20 Epsom Salts 20.00 0.06 92 412 21 Genite 19.50 0.06 92 412 22 Eelthane 19.46 0.06 92 412 23 Endosulfan 15.00 0.04 62 278 24 Tepp 10.20 0.03 46 206 25 Malathion 10.00 0.03 46 206 26 Cyprex 8.45 0.02 31 139 27 Trithion 4.00 0.01 15 68 28 Morestan 3.00 0.01 15 68 29 Glyodin 1.36 0.004 6 27 30 Diazinon 1.13 0.003 5 22 31 Botran 1.00 0.003 5 22 32 Cygon 0.50 0.001 2 9 99 Table 28 (continued) AMOUNTS OF TECHNICAL PESTICIDES APPLIED 1.88. 1.88.] 1.88./ 1.88./ RANK NAME SAMPLED AQRE BERRIEN 9g, QCHIM 1 Oil 1540.00 24.84 38251 131645 2 Sulfur 569.16 9.18 14137 48654 3 Perbam 205.96 3.32 5115 17606 4 Zineb 159.90 2.58 3971 13669 5 Captan 119.00 1.92 2995 10172 6 Lead Arsenate 117.12 1.89 2908 10011 7 Urea 66.00 1.06 1639 5642 8 Guthion 60.28 0.97 1497 5153 9 Lime Sulfur 48.00 0.77 1192 4103 10 TDE 33.00 0.53 819 2821 11 Parathion 30.45 0.49 756 2603 12 Phygon 30.00 0.48 745 2564 13 DDT 27.00 0.44 670 2308 14 Dieldrin 17.50 0.28 434 1496 15 Cyprex 9.75 0.16 242 833 16 Carbaryl 9.00 0.15 223 769 17 Genite 8.00 0.13 198 684 18 Phaltan 7.50 0.12 186 641 19 Amitrole 7.20 0.12 178 615 20 Plyac 6.00 0.10 148 513 21 Simazine 4.00 0.06 99 342 22 Kola-100 3.77 0.06 93 322 23 Tepp 2.40 0.04 59 205 24 Tedion 1.80 0.03 44 154 25 Dimethoate 1.56 0.03 38 133 26 Kelthane 1.02 0.02 25 87 27 Morestan 1.00 0.02 24 85 28 Glyodin 0.68 0.01 16 57 To Plums and Prunes in 1967 100 Table 28 (continued) AMUJNTS (1? TECHNICAL PESTICIDES APPLIED To Tomatoes in 1965 LBS. LBS./ LESJ LESJ RANK NAME SAMPLED ACRE BERRIEN CO. QCHIGAN 1 Maneb 925 . 60 9 . 95 29780 104502 2 Urea 250 .00 2 . 69 8051 28225 3 TDE 80.00 0.86 2574 9032 4 Carbaryl 50.00 0.54 p 1616 5644 5 Copper Sulfate 43.50 0.47 1406 4910 6 Endosulfan 35 .00 0 .38 1137 3951 7 Parathion 18 .90 0 .20 598 2133 8 Die 1drin 15 .00 0 . 16 478 1692 9 Guthion 13.86 0 . 15 448 1564 10 Copper 6 . 52 0 .07 209 736 101 Table 28 (continued) AMOUNTS OF TECHNICAL PESTICIDES APPLIED To Tomatoes in 1966 L88. L88./ LBS./ LBS./ m NAPS SAMPLED ACRE BERRIEN CO. MICHIGAN 1 Maneb 951.68 3.93 11770 37359 2 Lime 768.00 3.17 9498 30148 3 Copper 609.30 2.52 7535 23918 4 Urea 328.00 1.36 4056 12875 5 TDE 206.00 0.85 2548 8086 6 21m ‘ 165.68 0.68 2049 6503 7 Endosulfan 103.00 0.43 1274 4043 8 Perbam 83.60 0.35 1034 3281 9 Copper Sulfate 57.24 0.24 708 2247 10 Malathion 31.50 0.13 389 1236 11 Diazinon 24.00 0.10 297 941 12 Solubar 22.00 0.09 272 864 13 Epsom Salts 15.00 0.07 185 588 14 Dieldrin 12.63 0.05 156 495 15 Parathion 11.85 0.05 146 465 16 Zineb 10.40 0.04 128 408 17 Undefined 10.00 0.04 124 392 18 Phosphamidon 9.50 0.04 117 372 19 Guthion 8.14 0.03 101 319 20 Diphenomid 8.00 0.03 99 314 21 DDT 6.00 0.02 74 235 22 Enide 3.50 0.01 43 137 23 Carbaryl 2.00 0.01 25 78 24 Demeton 1.31 0.01 16 51 25 Streptomycin 0.15 0.0006 2 6 102 Table 28 (continued) AMOUNTS OF TECHNICAL PESTICIDES APPLIED To Tomatoes in 1967 LBS. 1.88./ 1.88./ 1.88.] RANK M W ACRE BERRIEN CO. MICHIGAN 1 Nutrilene 680.00 10.97 32833 134902 2 Maneb 488.80 7.88 23584 96970 3 Copper 137.46 2.22 6644 27269 4 TDE 118.50 1.91 5716 23507 5 Urea 88.00 1.42 4250 17457 6 Endosulfan 56.00 0.90 2693 11109 7 Carbaryl 30.00 0.48 1436 5950 8 Dieldrin 23.00 0.37 1107 4562 9 Zineb 13.00 0.21 628 2578 10 Ziram 12.92 0.21 628 2562 ll DDT 12.00 0.19 568 2380 12 Parathion 5.70 0.09 269 1130 13 Copper Sulfate 3.91 0.06 179 776 14 Guthion 1.54 0.02 59 305 15 Plyac 1.00 0.02 59 198 103 Table 28 (continued) AMOUNTS OF TECHNICAL PESTICIDES APPLIED To Asparagus in 1965 1.88. 1.88./ 1.88./ 1.88./ RANK NAME SAMPLED ACRE BERRIEN CO. QCHIQN 1 Amitrole 675.00 1.89 5016 21175 2 Dieldrin 252.00 0.71 1884 7904 3 Carbaryl 127.50 0.36 955 4000 4 Simazine 104.00 0.29 769 3262 S Telvar 38.88 0.11 291 1219 6 Karmex 16.20 0.05 132 507 7 Methoxychlor 12.50 0.04 106 392 To Asparagus in 1966 1.88. 1.88./ 1.88./ 1.88./ RANK NAME SAMPLED ACRE DERRIEN CO. MICHIGAN 1 Captan 85.00 0.34 902 4046 2 Simazine 84.80 0.34 900 4036 3 Telvar 78.84 0.32 836 3752 4 Rotenone 72.00 0.29 764 3427 5 Carbaryl 50.00 0.20 531 2380 6 Urea 50.00 0.20 531 2380 7 Dieldrin 17.50 0.07 186 833 8 Methoxychlor 15.00 0.06 159 . 714 9 Guthion 14.08 0.06 149 670 10 Malathion 1.00 0.004 11 48 11 Undefined 1.00 0.004 11 48 12 Tepp 0.90 0.004 9 43 To Asparagus in 1967 1.88. 1.88./ 1.88./ 1.88./ RANK NAME SAMPLED ACRE BERRIEN g9, MICHIGAN 1 Simazine 29.60 1.48 3927 18796 2 Telvar 18.36 0.92 2441 11658 3 Carbaryl 12.50 0.63 1672 7937 4 Tepp 2.70 0.14 371 1714 104 Table 28 (continued) AMOUNTS OF TECHNICAL PESTICIDES APPLIED To Cucumbers and Pickles in 1965 LBS. LDS./ LBS./ LBS./ RANK NAME SAMPLED ACE BERRIEN CO. MICHIGAN 1 Maneb 36.00 0.34 68 6089 2 Dieldrin 6.50 0.07 12 1099 3 Endosulfan 5.00 0.05 9 842 To Cucumbers and Pickles in 1966 LES. LES./ LES./ . LBS./ RANK NAME SAMPLED ACRE EERRIEN CO. MICHIGAN 1 Undefined 120.00 3.53 713 74836 2 Alanap 48.00 1.41 285 29892 3 Captan 10.00 0.29 59 6148 4 Maneb 9.60 0.28 57 5936 5 Endosulfan 9.00 0.26 53 5512 6 Dieldrin 6.00 0.17 35 3604 To Cucumbers and Pickles in 1967 1.88. 1.88./ 1.88./ 1.88./ RAIK NAME SAMPLED ACRE DERRIEN CO. MICHIfl 1 Alanap 19.05 0.73 148 19707 2 Maneb 16.80 0.65 131 17380 3 Sinom 13.72 0.53 107 14192 4 Copper 11.31 0.44 88 11702 5 Methoxychlor 7.00 0.27 54 7241 6 Endosulfan 6.50 0.25 51 6725 7 Carbaryl 2.00 0.08 16 2069 8 Guthion 0.44 0.02 3 455 105 Table 28 (continued) AMCNJNTS (I TECHNICAL PESTICIDES APPLIED To Potatoes in 1965 LES. LDS./ LBS./ LDS./ RANK NAME SAMPLED ACRE DERRIEN C9, MICHIGAN 1 Carbaryl 2387.80 12.30 1230 5842500 2 Endosulfan 680.00 3.50 350 1662500 3 Sodium Arsenate 458.24 2.36 236 1121000 4 Dieldrin 340.00 1.75 175 831250 5 Di-Syston 270.00 1.39 139 660250 6 Polyram 140.00 0.72 72 342000 7 DDT 97.50 0.50 50 237500 8 Maneb 96.00 0.49 49 232750 9 Copper 13.05 0.07 7 33250 To Potatoes in 1966 LES. LBS./ LBS./ LES./ NAME SAMPLED ACRE DERRIEN CO. MIGIIGAN 1 Copper 38.15 3.82 382 182357 2 Urea 34.00 3.40 340 162520 3 Zineb 18.85 1.89 189 90103 4 Carbaryl 6.50 0.65 65 31070 5 Endosulfan 6.50 0.65 65 31070 6 Guthion 2.86 0.29 29 13862 7 Dieldrin 1.00 0.10 10 4780 8 Tedion 0.15 0.02 2 717 To Potatoes in 1967 1.88. 1.88./ LES./ 1.88./ RANK NAME SAMPLED ACRE BERRIEN CO. MICHIGAN 1 Maneb 3.20 1.60 160 70240 2 Guthion 0.88 0.44 44 19316 106 Table 28 (continued) AMOUNTS OF TECHNICAL PESTICIDES APPLIED To Melons in 1965 To Melons in 1967 LBS. RANK NAME? SAMPLED 1 Undefined 80.00 2 BHC 63.00 3 Endosulfan 42.00 4 Maneb 40.80 5 Dieldrin 14.00 6 Phaltan 10.00 7 Copper Sulfate 9.57 8 Copper 4.79 9 Parathion 3.45 10 Guthion 0.22 To Melons LBS. RANK. NAME SAMPLED l Epsom Salts 100.00 2 Carbaryl 47.50 3 Phaltan 40.00 4 Copper 33.93 5 Ziram 30.40 6 Maneb 28.00 7 Endosulfan 21.00 8 Guthion 6.60 9 Dieldrin 6.00 10 Phosphamidon 2.50 11 Parathion 0.75 LBS. RANK NAME SAMPLED 1 Maneb 38.40 2 Endosulfan 8.50 3 Dieldrin 1.50 .5: obi—1516825250116 omnwbI-‘owbu OOOOOOHHHH LBS./ ACRE 4.80 1.06 0.19 107 1.88./ BERRIEN CO. 917 724 479 470 160 113 108 56 38 2 LBS./ BERRIEN CO. 2350 1118 940 799 714 658 494 155 141 61 19 LBS./ umnsc. 2256 498 89 LBS./ MICHIGAN 4682 3687 2458 2388 819 585 560 280 201 12 1.88./ 11000 5225 4400 3732 3344 3080 2310 726 660 275 82 1.88 . / 1110111 10560 2337 412 MICHIGAN Table 28 (continued) AMOUNTS OF TECHNICAL PESTICIDES APPLIED To Sweet Corn in 1966 1.88. 1.88./ 1.88./ L8s./ RANK NAM SAMMD ACRE BERRIEN co, MICHIGAN 1 Carbaryl 58.00 2.52 794 24696 2 DDT 4.00 0.17 55 1666 To Sweet Corn in 1967 LES. LES./ LES./ LBS./ RANK NAME SAMPLED ACRE BERRIEN CO. MICHIGAN l DDT 3.00 0.14 44 1399 2 Atrizine 1.84 0.09 28 858 3 Parathion 0.90 0.04 12 419 To Pield Corn in 1965 LBS. LBS./ LBS./ LBS./ RANK NAM; SAMPLED ACRE BERRIEN CO. MICHIGAN 1 2,4-D 3045.00 2.20 69300 3258200 2 Atrazine 415.20 0.30 9450 444300 3 Amitrole 216.00 0.15 4725 222150 4 Esteron 40.11 0.03 945 44430 5 Ply Spray 24.00 0.02 630 29620 6 Dibrom Dust 16.00 0.01 315 14810 7 Zinc Sulphate 2.65 0.002 63 2962 8 Carbaryl 2.00 0.001 44 1481 9 Cygon 0.66 0.0004 12 592 To Field Corn in 1966 1.88. 1.88./ 1.88./ 1.88./ RANK NAME SAMPLED ACRE BERRIEN 99, EQIGAN 1 Atrazine 74.16 0.18 5572 248898 2 Aldrin 60.00 0.14 4508 201342 3 Captan 30.00 0.07 2252 100601 4 2,4-D 30.00 0.07 2252 100601 108 Table 28 (continued) AMOUNTS OF TECHNICAL PESTICIDES APPLIED To Oats in 1965 1.88. 1.88./ 1.88./ 1.88./ RANK NAM SAMPLED ACRE DERRIEN CO. QCHIQQ 1 2,4-D 9.00 0.21 1050 115920 To Oats in 1966 1.88. 1.88./ 1.88./ 1.88./ RANK NAM SAMPLED ACRE EERRIEN CgII MICHIGAN 1 2,4-D 24.00 1.50 7500 844500 2 Amitrole 0.90 0.06 281 33780 3 Malathion 0 . 25 0 .02 78 14075 To Soybeans in 1965 LES. LES./ LBSJ LES./ RANK NAME SAMPLED ACRE BERRIEN CO. MICHIGAN 1 Amiben 45 .00 0 . 75 7425 330000 To Soybeans in 1966 LES. LDS./ LBSJ LBS./ E'NK NAM SAMPLED ACRE BERRIEN C9. MICHIfl 1 Alanap 3 . 60 0 . 20 1980 96000 To Cabbage in 1965 LES. LBSJ LDS./ LBS./ RANK NAM SAMPLED ACRE BERRIEN CO. MICHIGAN 1 Parathion 69. 75 1 . 99 8569 2 DDT 52.2 1.5 6450 To Cauliflower in 1965 L380 L380, L380, L389] R_Afl MM SAMPLED ACRE DERRIEN CO. MICHIGAN 1 Parathion 1 16 . 20 2 . 58 2840 2 DDT 87 . 50 1 . 94 2 138 3 Endosul fan 33 .00 0 . 73 805 4 Dieldrin 15.00 0.33 366 109 Table 28 (continued) AMCNJNI'S (8' TECHNICAL PESTICIDES APPLIED To Peppers in 1965 LBS. LBS./ LBS./ LBS./ NAM SAMHED ACRE DERRIEN gg, MICHIGAN 1 Copper 26 1 6.52 8482 2 Zineb 13.0 3.25 4225 3 Ziram 7.6 1.90 2470 4 Dieldrin 5 0 1.25 1625 5 Endosulfan 5 0 1.25 1625 To Apricots in 1966 LBS. ' LBS./ 1.88./ LBS./ RANK NAM SAMPLED ACRE BERRIEN CO. MICHIGAN 1 Cyprex 1.30 0.14 2 Captan 1.00 0.11 3 Phygon 1.00 0.11 4 Guthion 0.88 0.10 To Blueberries in 1966 1.88. LBS./ LBS./ LBS./ RANK NAME SAMPLED ACRE BERRIEN'CKh MICHIGAN 1 Sulfur 585.90 13.32 2 Malathion 80.72 1.83 3 Karmex 36.18 0.82 4 Simazine 8.80 0.20 5 Carbaryl 6.50 0.L5 6 Parathion 5.85 0.13 7 Guthion 3.74 0.09 To Currents in 1966 LBS. 1.88./ 1.88./ 1.8s./ RANK NAME SAMPLED ACRE BERRIEN 004 MICHIGAN 1 Simazine 208.00 3.25 2 Perbam 53.20 0.83 3 Zineb 52.00 0.81 4 Guthion 34.32 0.54 5 Cyprex 26.00 0.41 6 Malathion 18.00 0.28 7 TDE 3.00 0.05 8 Parathion 0.90 0.01 110 Table 28 (continued) AMOUNTS OF TECHNICAL PESTICIDES APPLIED To Dewberries in 1966 LBS. LBS./ LBS./ LBS./ RANK NAME SAMPLED ACRE BERRIEN’lco. MICHIGAN 1 Lime Sulfur 56.00 1.81 2 Captan 37.00 1.19 3 Guthion 9.24 0.30 4 Phaltan 3.00 0.10 To Respberries in 1966 LBS. LBS./ LBS./ LBS./ RANK my; SAMPLED ACRE BERRIEN 3Q. MICHIGAN 1 Lime Sulfur 10095.60 36.18 126249 2 Urea 608.00 2.18 7603 3 Sulfur 520.80 1.87 6513 4 Captan 514.50 1.84 6434 5 Nutrilene 472.00 1.69 5902 6 Simazine 296.00 1.06 3701 7 TDE 119.00 0.43 1488 8 Lead 115.20 0.41 1440 9 Guthion 74.58 0.27 933 10 Elgetol 39.60 0.14 495 11 Malathion 22.75 0.08 284 12 Phaltan 22.00 0.08 275 13 Glyodin 18.36 0.07 230 14 Carbaryl 18.00 0.06 225 15 Dieldrin 16.00 0.06 200 16 Solubar 16.00 0.06 200 17 Copper 13.92 0.05 174 18 Perbam 12.92 0.05 162 19 Karathane 9.75 0.03 122 20 Parathion 2.85 0.01 36 21 Kelthane 2.04 0.01 25 22 Karmex 1.08 0.004 13 111 Table 28 (continued) AMOUNTS OF TECHNICAL PESTICIDES APPLIED To Blackberries in 1966 LBS. LBS./ LBS./ 1.88./ RANK NAM SAMPLED ACRE BERRIEN CO. MICHIGAN 1 Lime Sulfur 2440.00 43.57 2 Simazine 32.80 0.59 3 Captan 32.00 0.57 4 Carbaryl 24.50 0.44 5 Malathion 20.50 0.37 6 Guthion 14.30 0.26 7 Karathane 6.00 0.11 8 Perbam 2.28 0.04 9 DDT 2.00 0.04 10 Parathion 1.20 0.02 11 Copper 0.51 0.01 To Quince in 1966 LBS. 1.88./ LBS./ LBS./ RAM RAM SAMPLED ACRJE BERRIEN CQ. MICHIGAN 1 Cyprex 3.25 0.81 2 Guthion 2.64 0.66 To Sweet Potatoes in 1966 LES. LBS./ LBS./ LBS./ RANK NAM SAMPLED ACRE BERRIEN g9, MICHIGAN 1 Enide 32.50 1.63 112 Table 29 Pounds of Technical Pesticides Applied in Michigan to All Crops Monitored Compound Oil Captan Lead Arsenate DDT Amitrole Sulfur Carbaryl Guthion BHC Niacide Cyprex Lime Sulfur Kelthane NAA Simazine Lime Tedion Urea Dieldrin Nutrilene TDE Parathion Malathion Ovex TEPP Perbam Copper Ethion Phosphamidon Cragon Zineb Genite Trithion Undefined Glyodin Endosulfan Marcury Phygon Plyac Amidthin Morestan Mercuric Chloride Solubar Karathane Elgetol 2,4,5-T Copper Sulfate Epsom Salts Zinc Sulfate Streptomycin 1965 11471097 680398 753673 1202028 457098 1269433 6181629 195717 104308 82938 151781 170242 77393 68839 155368 306977 62767 90147 918146 84739 68338 76618 30595 25652 26453 172391 99634 37457 11897 26401 24228 7625 7625 17107 28067 1709117 3419 33339 8384 2955 2222 1510 1743 1172 1003 1255 18549 986 9649 397 113 1966 1075407 575303 282931 70477 45850 526884 159522 119477 15314 12039 148673 48668 11333 3013 13084 178421 8363 406142 23941 350455 57119 30107 144226 5311 100425 254033 8014 7593 117865 3134 7910 83166 7075 54885 24599 62496 341 9838 110 4050 2285 73 159 6464 70778 163 1967 2322317 458253 459148 116491 11672 828713 149590 121484 26370 74836 156991 413916 5501 2602 28194 204113 924 264296 19554 786831 70280 24416 871 7040 102749 111276 2354 55609 44221 5124 2703 11566 30285 3496 247028 2659 3272 12861 1107 212 169 13170 2411 301 Table 29 (cont.) Pounds of Technical Pesticides Applied in Michigan to All Crops Monitored Compound 1965 Chlorobenzilate 175 Vapotonexx 84 Kolo-IOO 4399 Fly Spray 29672 Phaltan 63590 Kamex 6944 Polyram 345506 Diuron 880 Diazinon 314 Sodium Arsenate 1121000 Disyston 660250 Maneb 348504 Dacthal 55175 Thiram 35773 Diphenomid ' 19425 2,4-D 3381196 Enide 1063 Elgetol 4264 Telvar 1212 Methoxychlor 392 Ziram 2470 Amiben 330000 Atrazine 444300 Esteron 44430 Dibrom Dust 14810 Cygon 592 L 6 M Apple Spray Demeton Kolofog Phosdrin Phomium PCNB Coromerc Ammonia Sesone Lindane Botran Rotenone Alanap Aldrin Diemthoate Sinox 114 1966 874 39549 1415 179 1712 46375 7378 8043 314 945375 137 3752 714 10425 248898 2157 5972 1290 1387 670 1967 719 1526 22269 1697 197308 1250 3048 1875 155 11658 7241 2562 2051 858 157 2220 3134 39 1377 19707 133 14192 Table 30 Pounds of Technical Pesticides Applied to Major Fruit Crops in Michigan Com ound Amitrole BHC Captan Carbaryl Copper Copper Sulfate Cyprex DDT Dieldrin Endosulfan Ethion Perbam Glyodin Guthion Karathane Kelthane Lead Arsenate Lime Lime Sulfur LGM Apple Spray Malathion Mercury Morestan NAA Nutrilene Oil Parathion Phaltan Phosphamidon Phygon Plyac Simazine Streptomycin Sulfur TDE Tedion TEPP Urea Zineb 1965 213773 100621 680398 269629 57622 15779 151781 318700 73391 40887 37457 172391 28067 194141 1172 77393 753673 306977 170242 30595 3419 2222 68839 84739 1275236 65008 63005 11897 33339 8384 152106 397 1269433 59306 62767 26453 61922 20003 115 1966 120270 15314 464508 96073 44026 4217 148673 69944 13569 11950 8014 97144 7075 103900 2285 11333 282931 148273 48668 5972 2192 24599 9838 3013 350455 1075407 29560 35149 6946 62496 341 9048 157 526884 49033 7646 5268 228367 27264 1967 11672 26370 458253 133634 72305 13170 156991 112712 14580 10114 2354 102749 11566 101408 1107 5501 459148 204113 413916 2220 871 3496 3272 2602 651929 2322317 22867 22269 55609 247028 2461 9398 301 828713 46773 924 5326 246839 41643 Apple Orchard Sise Versus Pounds Per Acre Data from each apple grower was accumulated as pounds of technical material applied of each of the six pesticide classes. Pounds per acre was then calculated for each grower for each pesticide class. This included seventeen growers in 1965, 103 in 1966 (one grower has no acre estimate), and twenty-three in 1967. For each of the six pesticide classes, a regression analysis of pounds of technical material on acreage was computed. None of the relationships were significant, (Table 31). However, one class approached significance (.07), i.e. 1965, fungicides. These results indicate that larger orchards are not more efficiently (nor less efficiently) sprayed within any of the pesticide classes. Table 31 Probability of a Larger Value of P (due to chance alone) Regression of Pounds Per Acre Versus Size of Orchard Pesticide Class ‘1222 1226 1261 1. Fungicides 0.072 0.836 0.936 2. Herbicides .996 .218 .525 3. Organic Phosphates .856 .889 .572 4. Chlorinated Hydrocarbons .688 .591 .832 5. Carbamates .313 .912 .717 6. Others .300 .715 .671 116 Apple Growers Sprangetterns Figure 5 is a graph of percent of apple growers spraying on individual dates for all three years. These graphs show that all years do not start at the same date e.g. 1966. The peaks are caused by a variety of reasons. Growers try to spray routinely on a fixed schedule. However, a particular decision to spray is dictated very often by weather. Weather affects the stage of the trees which therefore affects spraying. Also, inclement weather could easily deter an orchardist from spraying, since it would not be optimal for effects of the spray nor comfortable to the orchardists. At first glance it might be thought that the spray peaks correspond to recommended sprays from a fruit spray calendar. This is not true since individual growers do not follow spray calendars exactly. Individuals also alter their spray programs to suit their own orchards, weather conditions or convenience. The spray patterns point out that on nearly every day of the year some apple grower will spray, even in the relatively small geographic area that was surveyed. Also, the relative amounts of spraying done is easily compared between times of the year. In all three cases the first flurry of sprays was by far the most concentrated effort. The sprays continually decrease through- out the rest of the growing season. 117 munHUHHmuh 93m: Page 3&4 3 w842. wzqz. >42 2 _ :_:_ 425m" 1111111111 111111111l- 11111LL1117 on on on Go on Co ONIAVHdS 883741089 :10 .1N3083d 118 Apple Grower Chemical Preference Apple growers show preferences for compounds when selecting one for use in their orchard. A preference rating for each compound was tallied by counting each time that a compound was chosen by a grower. This tallying was facilitated by the fact that each use (or reuse) of a compound was coded on an individual computer card and was handled as a record (in computer terminology). Each record is equivalent to a single use of a certain compound by a grower. In this respect, record counts (Table 32) indicate a preference for a certain compound by orchard owners. The actual choice of a compound is dictated by many factors. Some of these include price, availability or past experiences. The fact that an orchardist had a compound already would certainly induce him to use it rather than buy another "preferred" compound. The record counts for apples were used in the calculations for recommended mprays. The sum of the record counts gives an indication of the total data Telements summarized in this report. It also gives some measure of sample size. Rankings in the table are based on average percent of total usage for the three years. 119 Apple Grower Chemical Preference Based on Record Counts Rank 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. Captan Cyprex Guthion Lead Arsenate Carbaryl TEPP Sulfur Parathion Oil DDT Mercury Phosphamidon Kelthane Tedion TDE Glyodin Dieldrin Copper Urea Morestan Nutrilene NAA (# Records/1 of Total Records) Table 32 1965 I of 3299-2 of $221.1 of Average # of Total # of Total # of Total 1 of all Records Records Records Records Records Records 3 Years 103 10.46 727 20.46 158 17.27 16.06 58 5.89 525 14.78 131 14.32 11.66 105 10.66 474 13.34 94 10.27 11.42 88 8.93 168 4.73 55 6.01 6.56 70 7.11 137 3.86 39 4.26 5.08 94 9.54 109 3.07 24 2.62 5.08 32 3.25 154 4.33 49 5.36 4.31 52 5.28 102 2.87 23 2.51 3.55 25 2.54 85 2.39 45 4.92 3.28 40 4.06 66 1.86 18 1.97 2.63 17 1.73 109 3.07 25 2.73 2.51 26 2.64 72 2.03 26 2.84 2.50 49 4.97 51 1.44 7 0.77 2.38 30 3.05 56 1.58 2 0.22 1.62 11 1.12 64 1.80 12 1.31 1.41 4 0.41 46 1.29 22 2.40 1.37 17 1.73 30 0.84 12 1.31 1.29 12 1.22 19 0.53 16 1.75 1.17 2 0.20 47 1.32 18 1.97 1.16 3 0.30 77 2.17 7 0.77 1.08 1 0.10 57 1.60 14 1.53 1.08 5 0.51 32 0.90 14 1.53 0.98 120 R_ar_1_15 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. Apple Grower Chemical Preference Based on Record Counts Perbam Phygon Niacide Ovex BHC Lime Ethion Karathane L&M Apple Spray Malathion Trithion Zineb Demeton Plyac Lime Sulfur Simazine Genite Cragon Amitrole Solubar Cygon 2,4,5-T (# Records/Z of Total Records) Table 32 (continued) 1265 I of S of Total Records Records 12 1.22 10 1.02 14 1.42 22 2.23 10 1.02 9 0.91 10 1.02 3 0.30 9 0.91 1 0.10 5 0.51 5 0.51 4 0.41 3 0.30 3 0.30 8 0.81 3 0.30 2 0.20 2 0.20 Q61; 19.61 1 of I of Average P of Total P of Total I of all Records Records Rpcords Records 3 Years 40 1.13 5 0.55 0.97 55 1.55 2 0.22 0.93 6 0.17 8 0.87 0.82 0.74 12 0.34 7 0.77 0.71 8 0.23 8 0.87 0.67 25 0.70 2 0.22 0.65 32 0.90 4 0.44 0.55 24 0.68 7 0.77 0.48 7 0.20 3 0.33 0.48 15 0.42 6 0.66 0.39 8 0.23 4 0.44 0.39 16 0.45 6 0.66 0.37 1 0.03 5 0.55 0.36 6 0.17 4 0.44 0.34 7 0.20 4 0.44 0.31 10 0.28 3 0.33 0.30 0.27 7 0.20 2 0.22 0.24 8 0.23 2 0.22 0.22 17 0.48 1 0.11 0.20 2 0.06 3 0.33 0.20 121 Table 32 (continued) Apple Grower Chemical Preference Based on Record Counts (# Records/1 of Total Records) 1222 1222 1.92.7. L of I of Z of Average 4 of Total P of Total # of Total 2 of all 3325 Records Records Records Records Records Records 3 Years 45. Maneb , 4 0.44 0.15 46. Nugreen 4 0.44 0.15 47. Epsom Salts 9 0.25 1 0.11 0.12 48. Phaltan 3 0.33 0.11 49. Undefined 1 0.10 7 0.20 0.10 50. Coromerc 2 0.06 2 0.22 0.09 51. Aquaphos 2 0.20 0.07 52. Endosulfan l 0.10 4 0.11 0.07 53. Diazinon 6 0.17 0.06 54. Streptomycin 2 0.06 l 0.11 0.06 55. Copper Sulfate 1 0.03 l 0.11 0.05 56. Amiben 1 0.11 0.04 57. Chlorobenzilate 1 0.11 0.04 58. Mercuric chloride 1 0.10 l 0.03 0.04 59. Amidthin l 0.10 0.03 60. Dacthal 2 0.06 0.02 61. Kolofog 2 0.06 0.02 62. PCNB 1 0.03 0.01 63. Phomium 1 0.03 0.01 64. Phosdrin 1 0.03 0.01 65. Ziram 1 0.03 0.01 Total 985 3553 915 122 Testgp§:§gcommended Rates of Pesticide Use A test was designed to determine if apple growers spray according to Cooperative Extension Service recommendations. The observed pounds per acre of chemicals was taken directly from Table 28. The compounds used were combined into similar groupings and are reported in Table 33. It was not possible to reliably determine what insect or disease pest was the target organism for a particular spray. Also it was not possible to determine phenological condition of the orchard. With this information it could have been possible to show what stages or insect pests were treated different from recommendations. Without this information only a total yearly comparison was possible. To calculate pounds per acre that were recommended the fruit spraying calendars (Cooperative Extension Service 1965, 1966, 1967) for appropriate years were used. The term cover spray used in this discussion includes each time an orchard was to be treated as recommended. Therefore, cover sprays include the treatments recommended based on orchard phenology, e.g., pre-pink, silver tip, or petal fall. For each recommended cover spray several alternative compounds were recommended at different rates. Therefore to appropriately estimate the recommended rate per 100 gallons it was necessary to remove the effect of grower preference for compounds. To do this, the contribution to total use by each cover spray was computed separated by weighing each compound by a measure of grower preference. The grower preference rating system used was the record counts (Table 32). An assumption also had to be made about appropriate number of 100 gallon increments per acre. The fruit spray calendars recomendations are based on 400 gallons per acre. This number was used to compute the maximums reported in Table 34. 123 Reduced rates were also computed based on 300 gallons per acre and are included as minimums (Table 34). An effort was made to select out minor orchard pests which might not be treated for every year. There was only a small amount of chemical use associated with these insects. It was necessary to isolate mite spray programs and treat these in the calculations as a separate cover spray. This was done since two types of mite sprays are traditionally used at different phenological periods. When one mite spray is used the other is normally not used. A comparison of observed (Table 33) and expected (Table 34) indicates that the range of recommendations-is well above any of the observed quantities in all three years. There are several reasons that could contribute to this fact. Recommenda- tions are based on production of high quality apples. No information is available pertaining to the quality of fruit produced. Some fruit quality may have been sacrificed to save spray cost. Also, the recommended rates of 300 to 400 gallons per acre may be an over-estimate of the true figure. It is generally believed that many sprayers are using closer to 250 gallons per acre. This rate seems to agree with the figures used by Porsythe (1970). This would in effect lower the pounds per acre total usage. .Another reason may be that some of the acres included in the sample were non-bearing trees. Information in this area is not available. All data on acreages was compiled as simply acres in apples irrespective of the age of the orchard. 124 Table 33 Observed Rates of Pesticides Applied to Apple Orchards Pound Usage/Acre 1965 1966 1967 Fungicides 16.47 14.73 23.97 Insecticides-includes: 25.29 7.93 11.21 Organophosphates Chlorinated Hydrocarbons Carbamates Lead Arsenate Others-includes: 22.65 18.30 36.49 011 Lime Misc. Sub-total 64.41 40.96 71.67 Herbicides 4.81 0.22 0.19 Fertilizers 1.76 6.28 6.68 Total 70.98 47.46 78.54 Table 34 Recommended Rates of Pesticides Applied to Apple Orchards Maximum-400 ga1./acre Minimum-300 ga1./acre 1965 1966 1967 Fungicides max. 45.12 38.88 38.08 min. 33.84 29.16 28.56 Miticides max. 31.04 25.61 51.79 min. 23.31 19.21 38.87 Major Insects max. 22.16 16.20 19.12 min. 16.62 12.15 14.34 Minor Insects max. 1.96 1.96 1.96 “in. 10‘7 1.47 1.47 Total without max. 98.32 80.69 108.99 Total with max. 100.28 82.65 110.95 Minor Insects min. 75.24 61.99 83.24 125 Chapggs in Pesticide Ugggg;Between Years on Apples Analysis of variance was used to find out if differences exist in the quantities of pesticides applied between years and between pesticide classes. The data used was the estimates of pounds per acre for the six pesticide classes for each apple grower. This included seventeen growers for 1965, 103 for 1966, and twenty-three for 1967. The significance levels (Table 35) indicate a high probability that changes did occur between years in use of pesticides. Also, pesticide classes were used significantly differently in the way they changed between years. A further test was completed to define which pesticide classes had altered use patterns from one year to the next. The records from growers who were sampled in consecutive years were selected for comparison. This included four growers in 1965 and 1966, and sixteen in 1966 and 1967. By comparing a grower's records in one year with the same grower the next year a paired comparison was accomplished. The statistics used were pounds per acre of pesticide in each of the six pesticide classes. Results of the paired t tests are in Table 36. A one-tailed t was used since it was already known that 1966 was a low usage year. The results indicate differences in the mean usage between years for some pesticide classes. More differences occur between 1966 and 1967 than between 1965 and 1966. 126 Table 35 Results of Analysis of Variance Test of Pesticide Use by Apple Growers 127 Degrees of Freedom P Value Significance Level Between years 2 12.98 0.0005 Between Pesticide Classes 5 81.92 0.0005 Interaction Between Pesticide Class and Years 10 4.12 0.0005 Table 36 Paired t Values Test of Difference Between Years of Individual Grower Use of Pesticides 1965-66 1966-67 df-3, n-4 df-15, n-16 c d a t Value Significance t Value Siggificance Fungicides -1.1685 ns -1.3129 .1 Herbicides 0.6656 ns 0.8438 ns Organophoephates 0.8434 ns -0.3352 ns Chlorinated 3.5233 .025 -0.7592 ns Hydrocarbons Carbamates 2.3169 .05 -2.5048 .01 Others 0.4234 ns -3.4113 .005 Total 0.4841 ns -3.0539 .005 Comparison of geported Usegggg Sales Records An effort was made to compare the projected use of certain chemicals to the sales records reported by manufacturers. The comparison of these figures gives a measure of the accuracy of the projections. Initial and final inventories at the wholesale and retail distributor levels are not accounted for and may affect the comparisons. If one assumes that these inventories are equal between years the comparisons are valid. The results of those chemicals for which sales records were obtained are in Table 37. Malathion is a commonly used insecticide, but due to expense is often replaced by other compounds in commercial fruit and vegetable production. During 1966 the records covered more situations and the projections are more accurate for that year than they are for 1965 and 1967. An accurate figure on sales in Michigan was not obtainable due to complex marketing of this material. Again for Morestan, which is used primarily as an acaracide, the 1966 figures are probably more representative. Total industry figures for dieldrin sales in Michigan were unobtainable due to complex marketing. In 1965 our use recoras included an unusual use of this compound on vegetable crops. Projecting this to state use gives a total that cannot be accepted as reasonable, but is included to illustrate the need for awareness of this type of pitfall. The figures in Table 37 for Captan, Cyprex and Guthion are ones which industry records for Michigan sales were more complete and which our records covered crops upon which these compounds are more commonly used. 128 0422922 Malathion Cyprex Guthion Morestan Captan Dieldrin Use 30595 151781 195717 2222 680398 918146 Table 37 Estimated Total Pounds of Technical Materials Used in Michigan Sales 93497 143829 497838 18982 129 Use 144226 148673 119477 9838 575303 23941 Comparison of Reported Use and Sales Records 79007 158987 111969 8952 452269 9692 Use 871 156991 121484 3272 458253 19554 1967 £222. 62315 161357 97169 7232 480884 13770 The Number of Applicationsgin Apple Orchards It was of interest to calculate the average number of times per year individual apple trees or orchards were sprayed. Since growers did not report the number of times they sprayed it was not possible to calculate the average directly. It is possible to approximate the number of sprays per season by examining the dates that each grower sprayed. To further this discussion the term "spray run" was used to represent a complete application throughout the entire orchard. (The word "run" was borrowed from the statistical discussions of probabilities of events.) Spray runs were used since it was assumed that growers might not finish a complete application in a single day. In the simplest case each spray run was a group of consecutive days on which spraying occurred. In more complex cases each spray run allowed a grower to skip days within a spray run, since growers did not always finish a complete application on consecutive days. By increasing the number of consecutive "non-spray days" within the spray runs more reasonable estimates of spray runs were computed. As an example, suppose a grower had a spray pattern of +0++00+0+0+0000+, where "+" represents a day of spraying and "0" represents a day of non-spraying. Then in the simple case that grower would be credited with six spray runs i.e. one spray run for each "+" run. Now if non-spray periods of one day length were allowed, the same spray pattern would become +O++00+O+O+0000+, where O are the day(s) allowed for the non-spray periods. The grower would then be credited with three spray runs. If non-spray periods of two consecutive days were allowed the spray pattern becomes f0++00+0+0+0000+ and the grower is credited with only two spray runs. With this same pattern the grower would be credited with two spray runs for the three day non-spray criteria, one spray run for the four and five day criteria. 130 The statistics were calculated for up to five consecutive non-spray days (Table 38). Longer spray runs would be too likely to overlap distinct spray runs, since cover sprays are recommended seven to ten days apart. The early season sprays were sometimes sprayed closer together than seven days and consequently the five consecutive non-spray days criteria should be considered an under estimate of average spray-runs. The most appropriate criteria lie somewhere between the 0 and five day criteria probably about the one and two day criteria. Since the statistics calculated for spray runs represent the number of applications on single trees they do not account for the number of compounds being applied at one time. Consequently a related set of statistics was calculated to account for this. In this discussion a treatment run is a period of days of spraying with an individual compound. Each treatment run represents a single compound sprayed throughout the orchard. In computing the statistics a series of +'s and 0's were set up for each compound and every grower. In computing, the treatment runs were analogous to spray runs in the last discussion. Similarly non-treatment days are analogous to non-spray days. Results are in Table 39. At first glance it may appear that dividing average spray runs into average treatment runs would give the average number of compounds per spray, i.e., the average number of compounds in a sprayer throughout the season. This would be true if no grower changed compounds within a spray run and sprayed with the same number of compounds throughout a spray run. This condition exists most of the time and consequently carrying out the above division yields numbers close to three which is a likely estimate of the average number of compounds being sprayed at one time. 131 Table 38 Mean Numbers of Spray Runs in Apple Orchards # of Consecutive Non- _‘ 1965 ‘_ 1966 ‘_ 1967 Spray Days Allowed x 8.3. 5, 8.3. x 5.3. 0 days 13.47 1.09 11.54 0.49 14.00 0.98 1 day 11.76 0.72 10.70 0.43 13.09 0.84 2 days 10.52 0.55 9.81 0.39 12.39 0.73 3 days 9.70 0.61 8.97 0.34 11.48 0.67 4 days 8.88 0.64 8.15 0.31 10.61 0.63 5 days 7.94 0.69 7.28 0.29 9.61 0.62 Table 39 Mean Numbers of Treatment Runs in Apple Orchards # of Consecutive Non- ‘_ 1965 ._ 1966 ‘_ 1967 Treatment Days Allowed x 8.3. x 8.3. x 5.3. 0 days 39.53 4.59 29.86 1.75 36.22 3.83 1 day 36.41 3.71 28.37 1.60 34.65 3.49 2 days 34.82 3.01 26.76 1.41 33.43 3.10 3 days 33.18 2.55 25.53 1.31 32.30 2.89 4 days 31.65 2.26 24.43 1.25 30.91 2.74 5 days 30.47 2.33 23.33 1.18 29.65 2.58 132 Discussion Many of the problems associated with this project were the result of the time delay in data collection and analysis. I became involved with the project long after project planning and data collection. It was difficult to incorporate the philosophies of those persons who initiated the project. The objectives and methods have been largely gleaned from quarterly reports of the Michigan Department of Public Health. Some of my own objectives and ideas have been incorporated in this report especially in the data sumary and analysis portions. The household questionnaires were designed to estimate the exposure of individuals. However, the major emphasis of the rest of this study has been on quantities of pesticides used. Consequently, the quantitative values for household usage could have been improved. Some questions in the questionnaire were misinterpreted. For example, a lack of understanding about aerosol cans was observed. A number of respondents claimed that they had used liquid formulations when it was clear from the other responses in the questionnaire that they had in fact used an aerosol. The list of chemicals used in the home was a long and confusing array. No attempt was made to correct or condense the list since it was impractical to try to distinguish between pesticide classes and accumulate the data in any meaningful fashion. This problem aroae due to incomplete data. For instance, a brand name, e.g. Ortho, would be given with no reference to the type of compound or use. These cases also indicated a lack of knowledge of pesticides by the homeowners or interviewers. The agricultural survey was designed to represent a small portion of the state. when extrapolating to the other portions of the state and to the state as a whole it would be more appropriate to survey a wider geographic area with less intensity within a region. may crop- vere not represented by thie survey or were poorly surveyed. Since Berrien County is a major fruit producing 133 area these crops are well represented in this survey. Berrien County is a southern county and therefore the survey accents that portion of the fruit growing portion of Michigan. The changes in the group surveyed was considerable between years. The 1966 growers emphasized fruit crops compared to 1965. The 1967 growers were all fruit growers with about half picked from the 1966 growers who cooperated well. Data handling and collection of the agricultural survey could have been more effective. A little more effort by growers and fieldmen could have eliminated some estimation and vagueness in calculations. The conversion from pounds of pesticide to pounds of technical material was not collected regularly. This factor should have been coded directly with the spray record as percentage of technical material. Because this data was not incorporated routinely, estimates were used for the missing values. Another weak point in the agricultural survey was the lack of estimates for number of acres sprayed. The data was collected as pounds per 100 gallons of water. There is no strict conversion for the number of 100 gallon units applied per acre. All calculations that indicate a rate per acre had to assume even distribution of chemicals for all acres assigned to a crop by each grower. This assumption is not true since orchardists treat non-bearing trees differently than producing acreage. letter statewide projections of pesticide use could be obtained with this survey technique. Surveying across the state with fieldmen making frequent contacts would be a successful approach as demonstrated by this study. A survey of this scope could include all crops. Contacts could be made through county extension agents. With judicious choice of growers the work could be minimised. An alternative to using fieldmen would be to mail questionnaires directly to growers. This approach would be more accurate for crops with few applications of pesticides. 134 In addition to chemical information valuable information about target pests could be collected. Information of this type could be used to predict or describe population fluctuations of pests. More accurate data would allow recommendations to be made which could reduce pesticide applications. Incorpora- tion of weather information and orchard or crop phenology would be valuable in recommendations. Also historical information of pests and pesticide use in an area is worthwhile. By using the above information a much better understanding of the orchard picture would occur. Recommended rates could be tested directly. This could be used to correct recommendations or detect misuse of chemicals. Also the spray run technique could be eliminated. Direct information about number of chemical treatments is important to financial and environmental considerations. A survey of this type is valuable for predicting pesticide residues and movements in the environment. With preliminary information on pesticide degradation and movement rates, pesticide residues or build-ups could be predicted long in advance. 135 LITERAIUR! CITED Anonymous, 1963. Use of Pesticides, a Report of the President's Science Advisory Committee. U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 25 p. Anonymous, 1964. Pesticide Production in the U.S. Croplife, p. 74. Anonymous, 1968. Pesticide Use in Arizona. Progressive Agriculture in Arizona. Vol. 20, No. 5, p. 16-17. Anonymous, 1969. DDT: U.S. Legislators Propose Nationwide Ban. Environmental Science and Technology. May, 1969. Vol. 3 No. 5 p. 419. .Anonymous, 1970. California Department of Agriculture, 1970 Pesticide Use Report. Carson, R. 1962. Silent Spring. Houghton, Mifflin 00., Boston, Mass. 368 p. Cooperative thension Service, 1965, 1966 and 1967. Pruit Spraying Calendars. Extension Bulletin 154. Parm Science Series. Michigan State University. Davis, J.H., J.3. Davies and A.J. risk, 1969. Occurrence, Diagnosis and Treatment of Organophosphate Pesticide Poisoning in Man. Annals of N.Y. Acad. of Sci. Vol. 160, Art.1, p. 383-392. Durham, W.P. and C.h. Williams. 1972. Mutagenic, Teratogenic and Carcino- genic Properties of Pesticides. Ann. Rev. of 3nt., 17: 123-148. Forsythe, B.Y., Jr., Aug. 1970, Use of Insecticides and Acaricides in Ohio Orchards, Ohio Agr. Res. Develop. Center, Research Summary 46: 19-34. Prear, D.3.H. 1965a. Pesticide Handbook-Entoma. State College Pennsylvania College Science Publishers. 322 p. Prear, D.3.N. 1965b. Pesticide Index, 3rd 3d. College Science Publishers. Gunther, P.A. and R.C. Blinn. 1956. Persisting Insecticide Residues in Plant Materials. Ann. Rev. of 3nt., 1:167-180. Hall, David G. 1962. Use of Pesticides in the United States, Bulletin of the Bnt. Soc. of Amer., Vol. 8, No. 2, p 90-92. Rickey, J. and D.W. Anderson. 1968. Chlorinated Hydrocarbons and Eggshell Changes in Raptorial and Pish-Batins Birds. Science Vol 162: 271-273. Herman, S.D., R.L. Garrett and R.L. Rudd. Pesticides and the western Grebe, A Study of Pesticide Survival and Trophic Concentration at Clear Lake, lake County, California. In M.W. Miller and 8.6. Berg (3d) Chemical Fallout - Current Research on Persistent Pesticides. Springfield, 111., Chas. c. Thomas, Publisher, 1969. pp 24-53. Hunt, 3.G. and A.I. Bischoff. Inimical 3ffects on Wildlife of Periodic DDT Application to Clear Lake. Calif. Pish and Game 46(1): 91-105. 1960. 136 Hunt, L.B. Songbird Breeding Populations in DDT-sprayed Dutch 31m Disease Communities. J. of Wildl. Mgmt. 24(2):140-146. 1960. Lord, P.T. The Influence of Spray Programs on the Fauna of Apple Orchards in Nova Scotia. II. Oystershell scale, Lepidosaphes ulmi (L.). Can. Int. Vol. LEXIX. Nov-Dec. 1947. Michigan Crop Reporting Service, Michigan‘Agricultural Statistics, 1966, 1967, 1968. Michigan Department of.Agriculture. Mich. Crop. Rep. Service. Agricultural Pesticide Report, Pive Lake States, March 1970, April, 1971. Michigan Dept. of Agriculture. Pickett, A.D. 1965. The Influence of Spray Programs on the Pauna of Apple Orchards in Nova Scotia. XIV. Supplement to II. Oystershell Scale, Legidosaphes ulni (1.) Can. Ent. Vol. 97, No. 8. Ratcliffe, D.A. Decrease in egg shell weight in certain birds of prey. Nature 215(5097):1-6, 1967. Ripper, W.3. 1956. Effect of Pesticides on Balance of Arthropod Populations. Ann. Rev. of Ent. Vol. 1, P. 403-438. Sanford, RJH. and Herbert, H.J. 1966. The Influence of Spray Programs on the Fauna of Apple Orchards in Nova Scotia. XV Chemical Control for Winter Moth, gperophtera brumata (L.), and‘Their Effects on Phytophagous Mite and Predator Populations. Can. Int. Vol. 98, No. 9. Simmons, S.W. 1959 DDT, the Insecticide Dich1orodiphenyltri-chlorethane and Its Significance. Vol. II. Human and Veterinary Medicine. Birkhauser Verlag, Basel Switzerland, 570 pages. USDA. 1960. The Yearbook of Agricultural Statistics. USDA. April 1960. The Pesticide Situation for 1959-1960. USDA. April 1969. Econ. Res. Service, Ag. Econ. Rep. No. 158. USDA, Econ Res. Ser. 1966a, Parmers Pesticide Expenditures for Crops, Livestock and Other Selected Uses in 1964. Agr. Econ. Report No. 145. USDA, Econ. Res. Ser. 1966b, Parmers Expenditures for Custom Pesticide Service in 1964. Agricultural Economic Report No. 146. USDA, 1968. Extent of Perm Pesticide Use on Crops in 1966. Agr. Econ. Rep. 147. Econ. Res. Ser., 23p. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Dec. 1969. Report of the Secretary's Commission on Pesticides and Their Relationship to Environ- mental Health, Parts I and II. Wallace, G. The Seventh Spring Die-eff of Robins at East Lansing, Michigan. The Jack-Pine Warbler 40(1):26-32, 1962. Wallace, G.J. and E.A. Boykins. The Continued Die-off of Robins on a DDT- methorychlor area. The Jack-Pine Warbler 43(1):13-l9, 1965. 137 Wisconsin Statistical Reporting Service. 1970. General Perm Use of Pesticides 1969 - Wisconsin Department of Agriculture and USDA, March 1970. Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan and Minnesota. Wurster, C.P., Jr. and D.B. Wingate. 1968. DDT Residues and Declining Reproductions in the Bermuda Petrel, Science 159 (3818) 979-981. Wright, RJT. and D.A. Caul. 1967. Michigan's Agriculture, Its Income, Major Products, Locations and Changes County and State Data. Coop. Ext. Serv., MBU. August 1967. Ext. Bull. 582 Parm Science Series. 138 APPENDIX LISTING 1. House Questionnaire and Response Summary 1965 & 1966 II. Grower Questionnaire and Response Sumary 1965, 1966 & 1967 III. Field Data Form Used by Growers IV. Coding Form and Outlined Format V. Detailed Format with Numerical Value Assignments VI. Pesticide Index 139 1. APPENDIX I Housman QUESTIWAIRB All) RESP”! SM? - 1965 (# Mailed Responses/I Interview Responses) Do you regularly use pesticides for controlling: Insects 56/69 Yes 30/31 No Plant Diseases 40/39 Yes 46/61 No Weeds 33/58 Tea 53I42 No How many sprays, dusts, etc. do you apply each year? No Res ones or 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 16 20 25 41 13 4 14 4 16 9 7 7 3 7 7 1 0 3 2 0 l 7 1/0 1 13 1/0 (Please estimate the number of aerosol cans used. Do not include Off, 6-12, or other insect repellents.) No Response or 0 I l or les 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 15 32/17 1 20 44 12 16 7 4 8 0 0 0 3/0 0 l l 0 0/1 0/1 What areas around the home do you spray most frequently? 9/9 Home Vegetable Garden 26/57 Lawn 4/6 Home Fruit Plantings 39/20 Mosquitoes a other biting insects 42/59 Flowers 28/16 Plies 27/25 Shrubs 29/44 Household Pests Approximate square footage sprayed: In the Home No Res ae or 0 1-500 501-1000 1001-1500 1501-2000 2001-2500 6 rooms 7 18 1 29 7 6 9 5 3/9 1 7 1 0 Grounds Around the Home No Res ones or 0 1-500 501- 1001- 1501- 2001- 5001- 10,900- k I 3 1000 15 10,000 30,000 acre lacre W [16114 Is I SIT | 3m war—W 170 [011 How long does it take you to apply each spray? 7/21 Less than 5 minutes Longer 29/15 5 minutes 0/4 1! hours 23/20 15 minutes 0/8 2 hours 14/18 30 minutes 0/3 3 hours 8/16 1 hour 0/1 b hour 140 Appendix I (continued) 5. What materials do you use most frequently? List brand or trade names of pesticides used. 1.4/47 Raid 9/0 Chlordane 8/11 Black Flag 8/6 Rose Dust (brand?) 7/21 Ortho Rose Dust 7/0 Ortho 2-4D 6/10 Isotox 5/4 Malathion 4/11 Fatsco 3/5 Phaltan 3/2 Black Leaf 40 3/0 Ant Syrup 2/3 GUIf 2/3 Weed & Feed 2/1 Halt (crsbgress) 2/1 Dieldrin 2/1 Ortho Weed Killer 2/0 Fuller Brush Mothspray 2/0 Scope Systemic 2/0 Ortho Six 2/0 Greenfield Crabgrass Killer 1/9 Ortho Weed Be Gon 1/8 Scott's Weed and Feed 1/5 Clout 1/4 Crabgrass Killer 1/2 Sulphur 1/2 Fuller Brush Pest Spray 1/2 Antrol 1/2 Rotenone 1/2 Greenfield Broadleaf Spray 1/2 Weed Killer (brand?) 1/2 Weedone 1/1 Guthion l/l Greenfield Systemic 1/1 Ortho Garden Fungicide 1/1 Ortho Pest 3 Con l/l Ortho Rose and Flower Bomb 1/1 Greenfield Disease Control for ornamentals l/l Cross Country Grass S‘Weed Killer lll Ortho Chickweed S Clover Killer 1/0 Savin 1/0 Wattable Sulphur 1/0 Scott's 2+4 1/0 Scott's l/O Bordeaux 1/0 D.D. 50 1/0 Ferbam 76 Fungicide 1/0 Ortho Custom Blend #21 1/0 Ortho 1/0 Real K111 1/0 Crown l/O Triot 1/0 COP. 141 1/0 1/0 0/3 0/2 0/2 0/2 0/2 0/2 0/2 0/2 0/2 0/2 0/2 0/2 0/2 0/2 0/2 0/2 0/2 0/2 0/1 0/1 0/1 0/1 0/1 0/1 0/1 Volck U.S. Professional-Fast Bug Kill Ortho Fly 8 Mosquito Spray U.S. Professional House 6 Garden Spray Shell Spray Pants (Bloarot) Bonemeal Rndo Sear's Rose Dust Acme Rose Dust Haughinus Rose Dust Sulfur Dust Greenfield Bug Control for Ornamentals Ortho Pruning Paint Garden Dust-Standard Ortho-Dust Sear's Weed Killer Raid Weed Killer Dandelion Killer Ortho Weed B Goa Ortho Weed Killer 6 Clover Killer Greenfield Weed & Clover Killer Weed-No-More Lawn Spray Ortho Chlordane Endo Pest Watkins Insect Dust Ortho Orchard Spray Ortho-Crab Grass Killer 2-4D Niagara Curcurbit Dust Vertagreen Vaughn's Rose Dust Ortho Rose Food Killer Cane Nicotine Kwik Kill Black Fly Ortho Volck Oil Scott's Lawn Weed Killer Acti-Dione Fungicide Weed 6 Feed Niles Chemical Captan Raid-Roach & Ant Spray Cancel Scott's 4 x D Indo Weed Ward's Weed a Feed Standard Insect Spray with DDT Greenfield Triple Action Orthorix Spray Scott's Boon Mosquito Ortho Trior Rid for Lawns Appendix I (continued) 5. (continued) 0/1 0/1 0/1 0/1 0/1 What 28/29 9/10 8/7 0/3 5/5 2/2 Weequll Nutro Azalea-Camelia Evergreen Food Ortho for Ants Greenfield Fertilizer 6 Weed Killer Daethol Ortho Borer Spray Cross Country Spray for Evergreens Cross Country Weed Killer Tandotrine Ortho Oil Spray 0/1 0/1 0/1 0/1 0/1 Fuller Garbage Can Spray Pepron r-z Flo Rose Dust E-Z Flo Dust #5 Ortho Garden Dust Orthocide Turf Builder D-Con Ant/Prufe Bicarbonate of Soda Fuller Brush-Roach & Ant Killer Bonus Destroy-Sherwin-Williams type of pesticide applicator do you use? Sprayers 26/24 Duster 1 gallon 13/22 2 gallon 12/35 3 gallon 46l63 Aerosol cans 5 gallon 1/0 Fogger larger Hose-on attachment or water proportioner Granular applicator (fertilizer spreader) Where do you obtain information on insect, disease, or weed control? 21/17 43/44 19l15 2/9 5/5 31/18 2/1 1/5 1/0 1/0 1/0 Garden section of newspaper Garden or hardware store Gardening or Women's magazine County Extension Agent Michigan State University publications Conversations with friends OTHERS Garden Club T.V. U.S.D.A. Filling station Nursery Others (cont'd) 1/0 Co-on knowledge 0/5 Chemical Co. Publications 0/3 Trial A error 0/3 Shopping 0/2 Radio 0/1 Consultant 0/1 Organic Gardening Publication 0/1 Purdue Univ. Biochemistry 0/1 Nursery man 0/1 Fruit Exchange Do you find the directions on a pesticide label 58/67 9/6 4/2 4/7 complete and easily understood? adequate but difficult to understand? generally confusing? of little value? 142 Appendix I (continued) 9. 10. 11. 12. Where do you store pesticides? 3/4 special shed 13/9 cabinet under sink 39/60 shelf in garage 1/0 box in concealed area 15/8 shelf in basement 3/1 altogether in one location 9/5 shelf in utility room 2/2 in several places not mentioned 6/4 closet 0/3 shelf in kitchen Regardless of where you store pesticides, can the storage area be locked? 13/13 Yes 62/73 No Do you wear any special clothes when spraying large areas around the home? 10/28 Yes 65/48 No 5/21 gloves 1/1 coveralls 2/3 mask 1/0 straw hat 1/3 rubbers 1/0 long-sleeved shirt 1/2 wash after spraying 0/2 covering mouth with cloth Do you know the location of the Poison Control Center in your area where information on accidental poisoning can be obtained? 10/6 Yes 40/31 No 53/48 Did not know any such service was available. 143 Appendix I (continued) 1. 2. HOUSEHOLD QUISIIOINAIRE AID RESPONSE SUMMARY - 1966 (O Mailed Responses/I Interview Responses) Do you regularly use pesticides for controlling: Insects 27/58 Yes 16/16 No Plant Diseases 21/28 Yes 22/46 No Weeds 13/18 Yes 30/56 No What areas around the home do you spray most frequently? 14/4 Home vegetable garden 8/1 Home fruit plantings 27/31 Flowers 18/18 Shrubs 11/15 Lawn 23/30 Mosquitoes and other biting insects 21/22 Flies 19/35 Household pests 4/7 None (or no response) What materials do you use most frequently? List brand or trade names of pesticides used 12/40 12/8 9/0 9/0 5/1 5/0 5/0 4/7 4/2 4/0 3/0 3/0 2/3 2/2 2/2 2/1 2/0 2/0 2/0 2/0 2/0 2/0 1/3 1/2 Raid Malathion Dieldrin DDT Isotox Ortho Rose Dust Rotenone Black Flag 2,4-D Captan Sevin Scope Fatsco (bait) Ortho End-O-Psst (Swift) Ortho Tomato 8 Vegetable Dust Methoxychlor Guthion Parathion Fly-Tex Ortho Liquid Rose Food Scotts Plus 4 Ortho Rose 6 Flower Others 144 1/2 1/1 1/1 1/0, 1/0 1/0 1/0 1/0 1/0 1/0 1/0 1/0 1/0 1/0 1/0 1/0 1/0 1/0 1/0 1/0 1/0 1/0 1/0 Ortho Klor l4 Chlordane Ferbsm Wettable Sulfur Fly-Dad Real Rill Atrazine Fuller Moth Spray Unknown Aerosol Ortho Vegetable Dust D-D Bomb Niagara Ro-Kil Spray Ortho Vegetable Dust for Tomatoes HEPbSK combination - DDT, methoxychlor, thanite Scotts Turf Builder Lindane TEPP Karathane Pyrethin Thimet 2,4,5-T California Spray for Roses D-Con Fast-Go Appendix I (continued) (continued) 1/0 Curcurbit Dust-Niagara 0/1 ChlordaneaAcme Paint Co. 1/0 Greenfield Rose 8 Flower Spray 0/1 Watkins-Ant & Roach Spray l/O Voyhn's K.D. (2,4-D) 0/1 Scott's for Roses 1/0 Maneb 0/1 Fuller Brush Ant 5 Roach 1/0 Bridgeport Ant S Roach Spray 0/1 Cross Country-Ant Killer (Sears) 1/0 DuPont Garden Spray 0/1 Full Scat 1/0 Ortho Weed B Gone 0/1 Sears Weed a Feed 1/0 Remarco Linoil 0/1 Chlordane 1/0 Lime Sulphur 0/1 Scott's 1/0 Lineb 0/1 Glade Home Bomb 0/4 Scott's Turf Builder Plus 2 0/1 Systox 0/3 Scott's Crabgrass Killer 0/1 Oil 0/3 Sargeant's Flea 6 Tick 0/1 Phaltan 0/3 Weed Killer 0/1 Vapona 0/2 Ant Poison 0/1 Garden Spray 0/2 Greenleaf Broadleaf Weed Killer 0/1 Comer-Multi Purpose Pest Spray 0/2 Ortho Crabgrass 0/1 Scott's Weed 6 Feed 0/2 Ortho Chickweed a Clover 0/1 s-z Flo Captan 0/2 Ortho-Home Orchard Spray 0/1 Scott's Haze 0/2 Gulf Aerosol 0/1 Pestroy 251 DDT 0/1 Sears Thermelised Insecticide 0/1 Cross Country Evergreen 0/1 Scott's Cancel 0/1 Ortho Volck Oil Oil Scott's Clout 0/1 Sears Lawn 6 Weed How many sprays, dusts, etc. do you apply each year? lSprazs to Response 1|: 3 4'5 6 7139 I10 I11 12116 20 ‘25 I30 Mailed or 0 Responses? 16 l 1 2 2 1_Lr_fJ0l2l710 3T1 OLOI—Z Interview Responses 12 6I1079477IOIOI6Il 3Io 1E“ (Please estimate the number of aerosol cans used. Do not include Off, 6-12 or other insect repellents.) # Cans o R s onse 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Mailed 23 9 5 l 2 0 l 2 Interview 42 20 5 2 3 0 l 0 Number of pounds of dust- Lbs. No Res onse or 0 1 2 4 10 ll 20 50 100 Mailed 31 5 1 l 1 2 l 1 0 Interview 56 9 3 0 0 0 l 3 1 Number of pounds of wettable powders - 1.3:: '“°“'%:°4'°'°1;J§J:i: Lil HA ‘3 Intervi 61 I8 I 2 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 145 Appendix I (continued) be (continued) Pints No Res ones or OI l I 2 I 3 I_4 S 9 30 Mailed 26 7 1 5 l l 2 0 Interview 51 19 3 0 0 0 0 1 How long does it take you to apply each spray? 6/8 0 or No Response 4/3 Longer 9/22 1 minute or less 7/29 5 minutes How Long? 14/8 15 minutes 0/2 1 k hours 7/6 30 minutes 1/1 3 hours 2/7 1 hour 2/1 4 hours What type of pesticide applicator do you use? 10/14 duster 29/52 aerosol cans 15/15 sprayers 4/5 baits 1/4 1 gallon 1/0 shovel 10l5 2 gallon 0/1 fogger 0/2 3 gallon 0/1 flit gun 2/4 5 gallon 0/1 fingers 3/0 larger 4/8 none 10/2 hose-on attachment or water proportioner 6/11 granular applicator (fertilizer spreader) Do you use any moth proofing on clothes and bedding? 30/35 Yes 13/40 Nb Explain: 9/23 moth balls, crystals or blocks 3/4 Fuller Brush spray 110 Stanley moth crystals 1/6 spray l/l dry cleaner 2/0 Larvex 1/0 PD! Number of pints - Have you had any pest control operators in the last year? 1/0 2/2 3/3 1/1 mosquitoes Others ants, roaches termites 011 trees A shrubs rodents 0/1 weeds 0/1 sand fleas 38/65 no response 146 Appendix I (continued) 10. 11. 12. 13. Where do you obtain information on insect, disease or weed control? 2/4 garden section of newspaper 12/23 garden or hardware store 6/14 gardening or women's magazines 16/0 county extension agent Others 5/1 relatives l/O farm magazines 20/3 Michigan State university publications 3/13 139. 12/36 conversations with friends Do you find the directions on the label 33/59 complete and easily understood? 2/1 chemical company publications l/2 technical journals 1/0 member of pest control group 1/0 rose club 0/9 advertisements 0/1 conservation department 3/4 none 1/5 adequate but difficult to understand? 2/2 generally confusing? 2/4 of little value? 5/5 no response Where do you store pesticides? 2/4 special shed 1/1 15/39 shelf in garage 13/15 shelf in basement 7/8 shelf in utility room 4/5 closet 1/1 7/5 cabinet under sink 1/0 0/1 box in concealed area 1/0 10/1 altogether in one location 0/1 0/1 0/3 3/8 in several places not mentioned Describe: kitchen shelf barn attic in garage patio back porch cabinet none Regardless of where you store pesticides, can the storage area be locked? 11/19 Yes 33/54 No (or no response) Do you wear any special clothes when spraying large areas around the home? 8/6 Yes 36/67 No Please specify 3/0 coveralls 1/0 2/0 mask 1/0 1/1 long sleeves 0/3 3/2 gloves 147 coat boots old clothes Appendix I (continued) 14. 15. 16. Explain any special precautions taken while applying pesticides. 25/66 none ( or no response) 2/0 7/5 wash 2/0 3/0 avoid eye or skin contact 2/0 10/0 careful of wind 1/1 1/1 airing rooms 1/0 7/2 avoid breathing 0/1 1/0 remove food Container disposal methods: 20/64 rubbish pickup 8/0 13/7 burning 5/6 clothing keep people away follow directions gloves proper mixing boots dump no response Do you know the location of the Poison Control Center in your area where information on accidental poisoning can be obtained? 16/0 Yes 7/0 No 16/0 Did not know any such service was available. 4/74 no response 148 APPENDIX II GROWER QUESTIONNAIRE AND RESPONSE SUMMARY (Number of Growers) Pesticide Application EqLipJnent Power Sprayer Selfpropelled Power take-off Auxilary motor Manufacturer's Name 6 Model Number (if evailablg) Bean Bean Bean Bean Bean Bean Bean Bean Bean Bean Bean Bean Bean Bean Bean Bean Bean Bean Bean Bean Bean Bean Bean Bean Bean Bean Bean Bean Bean Air Blast Boom Sprayer High Pressure Lowboy Pressure Pump Speed Sprayer Speed Sprayer Speed Sprayer Speedet Need Sprayer 26 F 28 3 29 31 31 E 31 G 32 3 400 gal. 36 36 D 36 3 36 W 40 L 51 3 R 10 175 200 275 275 B F-Fruit V-Vegetable D-Dairy I of machines war-ewNv-en—e 500 gal. 502 F ,—s p—s HONJ-‘OHNN p—s hirehar-h-N: 1965 V OOOHHHJ-‘O 149 D P p—s OOOv-‘ONOO b U1 OOwamuv-I H rap-trek purer-twp- .... HS‘HH OOONOOO‘O OOOI—‘OOHO H N 000900090 Appendix II (continued) Manufacturer's Name & Model Number (if available) Bean 300 gal. Bean 400 gal. Bean 400 Speed Sprayer Bean 435 Bean 453 Bean 454 Bean 475 LP Bean 495 Bean 500 Besler Cardox Cardox 400 Century Century Boom Type Century Weed Sprayer Economist 334 Friend Haerlie Hardy Hardy Hand Gun Hardy High Pressure Hardy High Pressure 300 gal. Hardy Hydraulic Boom Hardy Speed Sprayer Hardy 200 gal. Hardy 300 gal. Hardy 400 gal. Hardy 500 gal. Hardy 520 Homebuilt Hydro-Pump Iron Age Low Pressure Low Pressure Weed Meyer Meyer Speed Sprayer Meyers 2A36 Meyers 3 Meyers 300 gal. Meyers 400 gal. Myers 36-A Myers 150 gal. Myers 200 gal. Myers 500 gal. Oliver Pressure Sprayer 150 gal. R & H Boom Type Speed 335 Skibbe Skibbe Weed Sprayer Weed Sprayer Wind Blast 4X Concentrate Sprayer 28 L I—INN '—l HI-IP-‘N 150 he p—s ...: HHWHNU HUIUHI-e r-IH pa so am |Uo u p—s Append ix II (continued) Manufacturer's Name & Model Number 1965 1966 1967 (if available) P v D r v _p_ F 200 gal. 5 300 gal. 4 2 1 400 gal. 1 500 gal. _ _ _ 1 Other Sprayers # of Machines Knapsack 1 4 3 6 2 1 Hand 1 1 6 9 6 4 2 1 Manufacturer's Name & Model Number (if available), Burgess l Fogger l 3 Garden Sprayer l Hardy 1 Hudson 1 Meyers Hand Sprayer 1 1 Scott 1 Skibbe Weed Sprayer l Thred Lock #30 1 Weed ll 1 i of Machines Power Dusters: Self Propelled l l 2 Power Take-off 1 6 6 1 3 Auxilary Motor 1 Manufacturer's Name gLModel Number Bean 2 1 Iron Age 1 Myers Weed Sprayer 1 Niagara Duster l 3 l Niagara Orchard Buster 2 Niagara Trailer Type 1 - _ Other Dusters: # of Machines Hand 1 2 l 2 3 l 151 Appendix 11 (continued) Pesticide Attachment Machines Manufacturer's Name & Model Number Bean Century Weed 1965 1966 1967 Dipping Vat Livestock Rub Granular Applicators Manufacturer's Name & Model Number E-Z Plow Skibbe Weed Airplane Spray Dust Protective Devices Used During Applications Mask Overalls Raincoat Gloves Others Care in filling tank Clean clothes Cloth over face Connon sense Drinks a lot of milk Drinks a lot of water Goggles Hat Jacket Mix outside Rain Pants Rubber Suit Showers Soap Tractor cab Wash Hatch wind l2 8 13 26 ......u NI-‘l-‘w 2 2 -152- 17 UIv-‘ON 3 vibe-IN H pa ”GHQ 19 14 16 Appendix 11 (continued) 1965 1966 1967 Mask-Type & Model # Agrico 2 Agritox C 1 1 Argus 7549 l Dustfoe 66 1 MSA 1 1 Nelson 1 Wilson 16 3 l 25 How often do you change filters or cartridges? Daily 1 l 30 hrs. 1 1-2 days 1 l/week 2 l/month 6 weeks 1/yr 2/yr 3/yr 4/yr 1 Several/yr 1 Every spray 1 Every 3 sprays 1 Often 16 When needed 2 4 1 1 When smells odor 2 Depends on wind 1 N p—s NO‘I-‘r-II-‘H r-‘N br- now Have you ever become ill when spraying with pesticides or lost time due to over- exposure to pesticides? Yes 3 2 1 28 A 2 11 No 24 5 14 98 9 7 17 What pesticides seem to affect you most? Parathion 10 l 13 2 1 7 Organic Phosphates l Guthion 3 DDT 2 1 l H M H pa pd Dieldrin Phygon TEPP l l Thiodan 1 1 BHC l DDD l Dibrom l Dusts 1 Korlan 1 153 Appendix II (continued) 1965 1966 1967 F V D F V D F Malathion 1 Mercury 1 Nicotine l Sevin 1 2X 1 Have there ever been any complaints from neighbors because of pesticide applications on your farm? If yes, explain briefly. Yes 1 0 O 0 1 O 0 No 27 7 15 126 12 8 34 Explanations: 1. Accused of killing sow with drift. 2. Would like to complain about plane spraying his stock. Have you ever had a test to determine the cholinesterase level in the blood? Yes 11 2 O 71 8 2 29 No 17 5 15 S6 5 7 0 Yes 4 O 0 3S 4 0 29 No 24 7 15 94 9 9 0 Do you have a supply of atropine sulphate on hand in case of accidental phosphate poisoning? Yes 4 O O 17 3 1 6 No 24 7 15 114 10 8 23 Does your local doctor or hospital have a supply of atropine sulfate? Yes 22 1 2 76 7 2 28 No 1 0 0 4 2 3 0 Don't know 5 6 13 47 4 4 1 Would you or your spray operator be willing to have periodic blood samples taken during the course of this study to determine fluctuations in cholinesterase levels? Yes 25 7 13 57 7 2 29 No 3 0 2 69 6 7 O 154 ..33 2.. .33... ream East... .5 :38ng wh