Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T08:10:22.577Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Azinphos-methyl (AZM) phase-out: Actions and attitudes of apple growers in Washington State

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 February 2011

Jessica R. Goldberger ,
Nadine Lehrer  and
Jay F. Brunner
Jessica R. Goldberger*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164, USA.
Nadine Lehrer
Affiliation:
Tree Fruit Research and Extension Center, Washington State University, Wenatchee, WA 98801, USA.
Jay F. Brunner
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, Tree Fruit Research and Extension Center, Washington State University, Wenatchee, WA 98801, USA.
*
*Corresponding author: jgoldberger@wsu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Environmental Protection Agency's phase-out of the pesticide azinphos-methyl (AZM) has encouraged the transition of apple pest management toward more environmentally and socially sustainable practices. This study reports on results of a 2009 survey of conventional apple growers in Washington State. Growers were asked about their approaches and attitudes toward the AZM phase-out and barriers to the adoption of reduced-risk insecticides (AZM-alternatives) as part of their integrated pest management (IPM) programs. Chi-square and analysis of variance (ANOVA) techniques were used to examine relationships between actions and attitudes toward the phase-out and grower characteristics. Results showed that Washington apple growers have begun eliminating AZM and adopting AZM-alternatives. However, larger growers (in terms of acreage and income) and growers more familiar with Washington State University's (WSU's) educational resources were more likely to have already reduced their AZM use. These results suggest that larger farms can play an important role in increasing the sustainability of conventional agriculture, despite a common association of sustainable agriculture with small farms. Results also suggest that agricultural extension services could be well served to extend their outreach to smaller growers and others lagging in the transition to more sustainable apple pest management.

Keywords

apple productionazinphos-methylintegrated pest managementpesticide usesustainable agricultureWashington State
Type
Research Papers
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 26 , Issue 4 , December 2011 , pp. 276 - 286
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Keifer, M. and Firestone, J. 2007. Neurotoxicity of pesticides. Journal of Agromedicine 12:17–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2Loewy, R.M., Carvajal, L.F., Novelli, M., and Pechen de D'Angelo, A.M. 2003. Effect of pesticide use in fruit production orchards on shallow ground water. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part B 38:317–325.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3Tsai, M., Elgethun, K., Ramaprasad, J., Yost, M.G., Felsot, A.S., Hebert, V.R., and Fenske, R.A. 2005. The Washington aerial spray drift study: Modeling pesticide spray drift deposition from an aerial application. Atmospheric Environment 39:6194–6203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4EPA. 2008. NRDC Consent Decree—1st Annual Report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Pesticide Reregistration. Available at Web site: http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/reregistration/nrdc-report1.htm (accessed April 16, 2010).Google Scholar
5Pulaski, A. 2006. EPA Plans to Ban Orchard Pesticide. The Oregonian. Available at Web site http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-146981251.html (accessed April 16, 2010).Google Scholar
6USDA-NASS. 2008. Agricultural Chemical Usage: 2007 Field Crops Summary. USDA-NASS, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
7California Environmental Protection Agency Department of Pesticide Regulation (CA EPA). 1998. Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) Risk Characterization Document. Available at Web site http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/risk/rcd/azmrcdre_98.pdf (accessed May 13, 2010).Google Scholar
8USDA-NASS. 2009. 2007 Census of Agriculture: United States Summary and State Data. USDA-NASS, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
9Washington State University Pest Management Transition Project (WSU-PMTP). 2010. Apple Pest Management Transition Project. WSU-PMTP, Wenatchee, WA. Available at Web site http://pmtp.wsu.edu/ (accessed April 22, 2010).Google Scholar
10D'Souza, G. and Ikerd, J. 1996. Small farms and sustainable development: Is small more sustainable? Journal of Agriculture and Applied Economics 28:73–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11Gliessman, S.R. 2000. Agroecology: Ecolocial Processes in Sustainable Agriculture. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
12Hamilton, H. 2003. Sustainable Agriculture for Midsized Farms. Sustainability Institute, Hartland, VT. Available at Web site http://www.sustainer.org/pubs/columns/08.00.03Hamilton.html (accessed April 16, 2010).Google Scholar
13Born, B. and Purcell, M. 2006. Avoiding the local trap: Scale and food systems in planning research. Journal of Planning Education and Research 26:295–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14Carolan, M.S. 2006. Social change and the adoption and adaptation of knowledge claims: Whose truth do you trust in regard to sustainable agriculture? Agriculture and Human Values 23:325–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15Warner, K.D. 2007. Agroecology in Action: Extending Alternative Agriculture through Social Networks. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
16Perez, A. and Pollack, S. 2009. Fruit and Tree Nuts Outlook. Economic Research Service Report FTS-339. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. Available at Web site http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/fts/2009/Sep/FTS339.pdf (accessed April 16, 2010).Google Scholar
17Dillman, D.A. 2007. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. 2nd ed. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.Google Scholar
18Florax, R.J.G.M., Travisi, C.M., and Nijkamp, P. 2005. A meta-analysis of the willingness to pay for reductions in pesticide risk exposure. European Review of Agricultural Economics 32:441–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19Lynch, B. 2010. Apples: Industry Trade and Summary. U.S. International Trade Commission report ITS-04, Washington, DC. Available at Web site http://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/ITS_4.pdf (accessed April 16, 2010).Google Scholar
20Walker, J. 2008. General Principles of Codling Moth Control. HortResearch, Auckland, NZ. Available at Web site http://www.hortplus2.com/mwol/model/pipfruit/codling_info.pdf (accessed April 22, 2010).Google Scholar
21Washington State University Tree Fruit Research and Extension Center (WSU-TFREC). 2010. Enhancing Biological Control in Western Orchard Systems. Wenatchee, WA. Available at Web site http://enhancedbc.tfrec.wsu.edu/ (accessed May 13, 2010).Google Scholar
22Gold, M.V. 2007. Sustainable Agriculture: Definitions and terms. USDA National Agricultural Library SRB 99-02, Beltsville, MD. Available at Web site http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/pubs/terms/srb9902.shtml (accessed April 22, 2010).Google Scholar
23Guthman, J. 2004. Agrarian Dreams: The Paradox of Organic Farming in California. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar