Journal of the NACAA
ISSN 2158-9429
Volume 3, Issue 1 - July, 2010

Reported Environmental Use Behaviors of Ohio Certified Private Pesticide Applicators

 

 

Pesticide drift has been identified by state departments of agriculture as a serious issue (Hall, 2005). It is a mandate for pesticide applicators to read and follow pesticide label directions and to implement appropriate pesticide spray drift management in order to minimize health and environmental risks associated with pesticide applications (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2009; Fishel & Andre, 2001;  Prochaska, 1998;  Prochaska, 2007).

 

The primary concerns of applicators in regard to pesticide use on the farm were economically focused with the predominate issues being farm profitability and the increasing cost of pesticides (Blaine, Hall, Downer & Ebert, 2009).

 

 

The purpose of this study was to describe and examine the relationships between the quality of Extension training sessions, wind velocity at which pesticide applications ceased and the rate of pesticide used for Ohio Certified Private Pesticide Applicators (OCPPA).  The target population of the study consisted of OCPPA eligible to be recertified in 2005 growing corn and soybeans. The results of this study may be useful to Extension educators and regulatory officials in the planning of future pesticide training events as well as in the evaluation of current pesticide laws and regulations governing pesticide use.

A descriptive study was conducted to obtain reliable and valid information on the quality of Extension pesticide training and the pesticide use behaviors of OCPPA.  A valid and reliable survey instrument had been developed for an earlier study of OCPPA and this instrument (with very slight modification) was used to obtain pesticide label use information herbicides used and safety equipment use of OCPPA (Prochaska, 1993). The instrument was administered by Extension agricultural educators at county level pesticide recertification sessions during the first three months of 2005 using a modified random cluster sampling approach.  With the total OCPPA population less than 20,000 (population frame maintained by Ohio Department of Agriculture), a sample of sufficient size (297) was used to provide a .95 confidence interval for the population parameter with a sampling error of plus or minus seven. 

 

To address non-response error, early responders were compared to late responders over herbicide usage and were found to be similar. Results of this study may be generalized to Ohio certified private applicators growing corn and soybeans. The sampling frame of OCPPA  is maintained by the Ohio Department of Agriculture. Completion of the survey instrument was completely voluntary and the study was approved by Ohio State University Human Subjects Research Review Board. 

 

To analyze applicator experiences with Extension recertification training sessions, participants were asked in the survey to rate the quality of the training session by choosing one of the following descriptors: 1) Poor;   2) Fair;  3) Average;  4) Good;  5) Excellent. A frequency distribution, mean and standard deviation was calculated for this measure of Extension training (Tables 1 & 2). A mean of 4.16 and standard deviation of .87 was calculated which would indicate OCPPA rate the quality of Extension training as “good”.  Pesticide drift has been identified as major regulatory issue by state departments of agriculture. As such OCPPA were asked to identify the wind velocity (choices were: 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30) when spraying ceased. The mean for wind velocity (miles per hour) at which OCPPA ceased spraying was 10.84 mile per hour and the standard deviation was 4 miles per hour. However, 31.7 % of OCPPA reported not ceasing pesticide applications until the wind was 15 miles per hour or greater (Table 3).

 

 Rate of application of pesticides by OCPPA was measured in reference to the “pesticide labeled rate” (always less than labeled rate, sometimes at less than labeled rate, at the labeled rate, sometimes more than labeled rate, and always at more than labeled rate).  The mean for OCPPA rate of pesticide application used was 1.3 and the standard deviation was 1.0 which would indicate OCPPA apply pesticides at or less than the labeled rate. A small percentage of OCPPA 7.3% indicated sometimes applying pesticides at more than the labeled rate (Table 4).  Pearson correlations were calculated to examine the relationships between wind velocity at which OCPPA ceased application by quality of Extension training and rate of pesticide used by OCCPA by quality of Extension training sessions. There were not any significant associations observed.

 

Table 1

Mean and standard deviation by attitude or behavior

	Mean	STD	N
Quality of Extension training	4.16	.87	224
Wind (MPH) at which application ceased	10.84	4.0	231
Rate of pesticide applied*	1.30	1.0	309

*scores were re-coded to calculate mean and standard deviation

 

 

Table 2

Respondents rating of quality of Extension training sessions

	Frequency	Percent
Poor	5	2.2
Fair	6	2.7
Average	21	9.4
Good	108	48.2
Excellent	84	37.5
Total	224	100%

 

 

Table 3

  Wind velocity at which OCPPA cease pesticide application

	Frequency	Percent
1 mph	0	0
5 mph	43	18.9
10 mph	112	49.3
15 mph	63	27.8
20 mph	8	3.5
25 mph	0	0
30 mph	1	.4
Total	227	100%

 

 

Table 4

 Rate of pesticide used by OCPPA

	Frequency	Percent
Always at less than labeled rate	8	2.9
Sometimes at less than labeled rate	74	27.1
At labeled rate	171	62.7
Sometimes at more than labeled rate	20	2.3
Always at more than labeled rate	0	7.3
Total	273	100%

 

Table 5

Correlations: Wind by Quality of Extension Training

 

		Extension	nwrte
Quality of Extension Training	Pearson Correlation	1	.056
	Sig. (2-tailed)		.407
	N	224	224
Rate of pesticide applied	Pearson Correlation	.056	1
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.407
	N	.224	309

 

 

With a mean of 4.16, the quality of Extension pesticide training sessions was rated by  OCPPA as “good”. In a previous study (Prochaska, 1993), OCPPA  rated Extension trainiing as fair to good; as such the two measures of the quality of Extension training  suggest improvements could be made to these meetings. Wind velocity at which OCPPA ceased spraying was 10.8 miles per hour and this number may or may not be acceptable depending upon location of the field in reference to sensitive areas, the product sprayed and label mandates.  The frequency distribution for this variable found 31.7%  of the applicators not ceasing pesticide applications until the wind velocity was 15 miles per hour or greater. This wind velocity may be too high and it is confounded by the fact that the necessity to apply pesticides in a timely manner to control crop pests may further influence when pesticide applications are completed. The mean for the application rate of pesticide used by OCPPA was 1.3 which would indicate pesticides applied at sometimes less than labeled rate. Reported behaviors of OCPPA for both pesticide rate and wind velocity at which pesticide applications cease in this study suggest that major concerns of producers were economic in nature (Blaine, Hall, Downer & Ebert, 2009).   

 

Suggestions for future Extension training sessions that follow from this study include the following:

1.      Teach applicable drift mitigation strategies. (For example: nozzle selection,  pressure, spray additives, buffer strips, etc)

2.      Teach alternative pest management strategies that offer a larger window for pesticide applications for post-emergence treatments and thus offer periods of time when wind velocities are less. These options may also reduce both economic and environmental risk. (For example: a pre-emergence herbicide program used in Roundup Ready soybean systems may increase profits while also widening the window for post applications of Roundup.)

3.      Reiterate the importance of utilizing pesticides at labeled rates. (For example, discuss the impact of rate on the development pest resistance to product.)

 

 

Blaine, T.W., Hall, F. R., Downer, R. A., & Ebert, T. E. (2008). An assessment of agricultural producers attitudes and practices concerning pesticide spray drift: implications for extension education. Journal of Extension [On-line]. 46(4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2008august/a8.php

 

Fishel, F. & Andre, P. (2001). Understanding the pesticide label. University of Missouri Extension. Available at: http://muextension.missouri.edu/explore/agguides/agengin/g01911.htm

 

Hall, F. (2005). The importance of spray drift management around the world.  In Ramsay, C. (ed) Proceedings of the International Conference on Pesticide Application for Drift Management. October, 2004. Waikoloa, Hawaii. Retrieved March 5, 2010 from: http://pep.wsu.edu/drift04/proceedings.html

 

 

Ozkan, E. (1992). A survey on attitudes of applicators toward pesticide waste reduction. Applied Engineering in Agriculture, 8 (6), 771-780

 

Pope, R., Brown, S., & Etterhoff, J. (1998). Why do farmers use pesticides? Iowa State University Extension. Available at: http://www.extension.iastate.edu/Publications/PAT54.pdf

 

Prochaska, (S.C. 2007). Reported pesticide label use behaviors of Ohio Certified Private Pesticide Applicators. Journal of Pesticide Safety Education. Retrieved March 8, 2010. Available at: http://maxpond.ext.vt.edu/ojs2/index.php/jpse/article/viewArticle/4

 

Prochaska, S.C. & Norland. E. (1998). Ohio farmer use of the pesticide label. Journal of Extension [on-line], 36(1). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1998february/rb2.html

 

Prochaska, (S.C. 1993). Relationships of selected variables to the reported behaviors of certified private pesticide applicators in Ohio. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

 

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2009). Pesticide spray and dust drift of pesticides. Retrieved March 5, 2010 from: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/spraydrift