PMEP Home Page Pesticide Use Information for New York State NAPIAP Survey - Dairy Cattle - 1997 Introduction

          The authors would like to extend their appreciation and thanks to the individuals who participated in this survey. This project could not have been completed without their help.

          We would like to gratefully acknowledge the help and support we received from Craig S. Trowbridge, Cornell Cooperative Extension of Jefferson County, Paul Cerosaletti, Cornell Cooperative Extension of Delaware County, David Weaver, Cornell Cooperative Extension of Erie County, and Karen Baase, Cornell Cooperative Extension of Madison County. Their dedicated help and support in setting up meetings, distributing surveys, and providing mailing labels was invaluable.

          We would like to extend our thanks to Drs. John F. Baniecki and Mark Culik, West Virginia University Extension Service, West Virginia University for their help in the development of the survey and interpretation of data.

          We would like to extend a special thank you to Mr. Richard Hager, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation for his help in obtaining and allowing for recertification credits to be offered for filling out this survey. Without this, our survey would have been extremely limited.

          Special thanks to Donna Kowalski, Research Aide, Pesticide Management Education Program, Cornell University and Bernice McCullough, Program Support for entering data, mailing out certificates, and helping put this report together. We are also grateful to Ronald D. Gardner, Senior Extension Associate, PMEP, and the basic manufacturers for their help in active ingredient data evaluation, and to Deborah Kalaf for developing certificates and mailing out participation letters to County Educators.

          Finally and most importantly, we would like to thank all of the dairy producers who took time out of their busy schedules to attend meetings and complete the survey.

          The need for integrated pest management (IPM) research has become critical over the last eight years due to FIFRA 88 and the new FQPA. In 1988 the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) was amended. A requirement of FIFRA 88 was that all pesticides registered by the EPA prior to 1984 had to go through the current, more rigorous reregistration process. Unfortunately, the agrochemical companies consider dairy cattle a minor crop. Therefore, many of these companies have made the economic decision not to pursue the reregistration of these pesticides due to the high costs of the additional testing requirements. Furthermore, we have not had new pesticide chemistry for dairy cattle arthropod pest management for almost 13 years. Also, the new Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996 establishes a strong health-based safety standard for pesticide residues in all foods including dairy products. It also requires EPA to consider non-occupational sources of exposure, including drinking water and exposure to other pesticides with a common mechanism of toxicity when establishing tolerances. As a result, it makes it extremely difficult for registrants to develop new chemistry for dairy cattle arthropod pest management.

          This has generated tremendous problems for dairy cattle pest management by requiring the use of only a few pesticide active ingredients, which has resulted in exceptionally high levels of pesticide resistance in our pest populations. In the absence of effective pesticides, the dairy industry is now desperate for new, cost-effective pest management options and is more willing to try pesticide alternatives such as biological control.

          Researchers and extension personnel should continue to work toward development of user-friendly recommendations and systems that enhance adoption of IPM practices. Integration of appropriate dairy cattle IPM information into animal health, management, and production programs, such as integrated herd health and integrated reproduction management will help enhance adoption of IPM practices by clientele.

          The overall assessment and evaluation of the effectiveness of pest control techniques for New York state dairy production systems are an ongoing process for scientists at Cornell's College of Agriculture and Life Science. Not only must the specifics of pest dynamics and pest-induced losses be assessed, but the more general challenge of designing and implementing appropriate pest management systems for producer acceptance must be addressed as well.

          Nationally, New York state ranks third among states in milk production. In 1987 there were 37,743 farms in New York State classified under the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC). Dairy is the most important group in terms of sales (61 percent market value of total sales) as well as numbers.

          The most recent studies of dairy cattle pest and pesticide use in NYS were undertaken in 1986 (Specker et al., 1986) and 1991 (Partridge et al., 1992). However, since 1991, Vapona, Ciodrin, Bomyl, and Malathion, are no longer available for dairy cattle pest control. The Partridge report cited that in 1991 "flies in the pasture" was selected 27.2% of the time as causing economic loss in the milk production system in the Northeast. In New York, it was reported that animal sprays (Vapona and Ciodrin) accounted for 34.8% of all sprays used to control pasture flies; and backrubbers (Vapona, Malathion, and Ciodrin) 22.2%. In terms of "fly control in the barn", the space spray Vapona comprised 24.8% of the responses, while Malathion, and Bomyl baits totalled 17.1% of the responses. In the "milk room fly control" category, Vapona No-Pest Strips accounted for 29.3% of the responses.

          In the absence of the above mentioned products and techniques, it is essential to determine what control measures [chemical (least toxic), cultural, and biological] are being utilized to manage pests of livestock. In addition, it is important to determine the efficacy of today's pest control practices as well as the economic results due to the changes in pest control strategies.

          Regulators and programs attempting to address the issues surrounding pesticides have a critical need to obtain use information about those chemicals being applied in the production systems grown in New York state. Pesticide-use data are lacking for many commodities in most states (Gianessi, 1987). In today's setting, the absence of pesticide-use information has created numerous misunderstandings associated with consumer concerns over food safety and health effects of pesticides. In addition, public policy decisions, corporate manufacturing decisions and other decisions which impact on agricultural programs and productivity are often misguided due to a lack of this type of information.

          Regional programs such as IR-4 and IPM along with state regulatory agencies are generating significant amounts of data on various pesticide topics that can be computerized for faster retrieval and on-line updating. Long range tactical and strategic decisions will require more extensive information, especially in regard to pesticide recommendations, use, disposal, and storage. Also, recent developments regarding pesticides in groundwater and surface water, residues in food, endangered species, and the general acceleration of the EPA reregistration process, including FQPA and tolerance reviews, are placing increased pressures on agriculture to provide the needed reliable data.

          Pesticides will undoubtedly continue to play a major role in pest management programs in the future, but their true impact and significance must be broadly examined. Metcalf (1980) has reviewed the changing role of insecticides in agriculture. Croft and Brown (1975) examined the impact of insecticides on natural enemies of insects and mites. Turpin and Maxwell (1976) reported on pesticide use surveys conducted among Indiana growers. Pesticide use surveys are available for New York (Roberts, 1981, Partridge et al., 1992) and the Northeast (Specker et al., 1986, USDA, 1978), however, this project attempted to assess overall costs, economic benefits, and pesticide use impact, as well as production and amounts.

          Present pest management techniques rely heavily on chemicals. Over 7 million pounds of pesticides (herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides) are annually applied in New York agriculture production systems. This single method approach, although often effective, can have serious drawbacks including the development of pesticide resistance, and destruction of natural enemies of these pests. The data generated from this proposal will allow researchers and extension personnel to evaluate and assess the use/need of agricultural chemicals in dairy cattle production systems.

          A systems approach to pest management utilizing optimal integrated pest management practices [chemical (least toxic), cultural and biological] and best production/management practices would greatly benefit the dairy cattle production systems in New York state. Although such a system is under development at Cornell University through the IPM Program, additional information on the use and effectiveness of current control practices is necessary to aid in the assessment, evaluation and planning of this effort. The collection and evaluation of such data will also greatly aid other Northeastern states in similar program developments as well.

1. To obtain the following information for dairy cattle production systems within New York state:
   
   Animals housed (milking herd, dry cows, heifers, calves)
   Each pest affecting the animal
   Chemical used for control of each pest
   Formulation Animals Treated
   Number of Treatments and rates
   Cost per animal
   Method of Application
   Time of Application(s) Alternative control measures Biological
   Cultural
   Other chemical pesticides
   No treatment Potential yield/economic changes from alternatives
   
   
2. To develop informational programs for producers and expand the database of information currently accessible through Cornell's CENET system for access by university, USDA, regulatory personnel and others needing pesticide impact assessment information.

Procedures:

Next