IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/uerser/308062.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Economic Importance of Cotton Insects and Mites

Author

Listed:
  • Suguiyama, Luis
  • Osteen, Craig

Abstract

Insects and mites cost cotton producers $645 million a year in yield losses and control costs (direct damage) during 1981-84, over half of which went for chemical controls. Bollworms and tobacco budworms caused the most ($216 million) in direct damage. But the total economic cost of cotton insects and mites may approach $1.3 billion after considering changes in cotton production, prices, processing, and use of other commodities. Extensive chemical use to control insects and mites potentially adds to the cost because, if not properly applied, the treatments may harm farmworkers and the environment. This report uses expert opinions and a model that simulates the absence of direct damage to estimate cotton yield losses, control costs, and the potential hazards of chemically controlling these cotton pests.

Suggested Citation

  • Suguiyama, Luis & Osteen, Craig, 1988. "The Economic Importance of Cotton Insects and Mites," Agricultural Economic Reports 308062, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:uerser:308062
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.308062
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/308062/files/aer599.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.308062?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. McDowell, Robert & Marsh, Cleveland & Osteen, Craig, 1982. "Insecticide Use on Cotton in 1979," Staff Reports 333510, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    2. Suguiyama, Luis F. & Carlson, Gerald A., 1985. "Field Crop Pests: Farmers Report the Severity and Intensity," Agricultural Information Bulletins 309335, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    3. Webb, Shwu-Eng H. & Kuchler, Fred, 1984. "Models For Evaluating Economic Impacts Of Policy Changes: A Comparison," Staff Reports 276832, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    4. Collins, Glenn S. & Taylor, C. Robert, 1983. "TECHSIM: A Regional Field Crop and National Livestock Econometric Simulation Model," Journal of Agricultural Economics Research, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, vol. 35(2), pages 1-18, April.
    5. Natural Resource Economics Division, Economic Research Service, 1981. "Overall Evaluation of Beltwide Boll Weevil/Cotton Insect Management Programs: Final Report, May 15, 1981," Staff Reports 324705, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Crutchfield, Stephen R. & Ribaudo, Marc O. & Hansen, LeRoy T. & Quiroga, Ricardo, 1992. "Economic and Environmental Impacts of Water Quality Restrictions on Agriculture: An Application to Cotton Farming," 1992 Annual Meeting, August 9-12, Baltimore, Maryland 271386, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    2. Dumas, Christopher F. & Goodhue, Rachael E., 1999. "The Cotton Acreage Effects Of Boll Weevil Eradication: A County-Level Analysis," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 31(3), pages 1-23, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Luis F. Suguiyama & Katherine H. Reichelderfer, 1987. "Regional variation in farm input use: The case of pesticides," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 3(2), pages 221-234.
    2. Phillips, Mark & Hueth, Darrell L. & Just, Richard E., 1989. "Estimating Cost of Banning Agricultural Chemicals: The Case of Maneb and Maneb Alternatives," Working Papers 197631, University of Maryland, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    3. Bailey, DeeVon & Brorsen, B. Wade & Richardson, James W., 1984. "Dynamic Stochastic Simulation of Daily Cash and Futures Cotton Prices," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 16(2), pages 109-116, December.
    4. Osteen, Craig D. & Szmedra, Philip I., 1989. "Agricultural Pesticide Use Trends and Policy Issues," Agricultural Economic Reports 308081, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    5. Ferguson, Walter L., 1985. "Pesticide Use on Selected Crops: Aggregated Data, 1977-80," Agricultural Information Bulletins 309340, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    6. Webb, Shwu-Eng H. & Kuchler, Fred, 1984. "Models For Evaluating Economic Impacts Of Policy Changes: A Comparison," Staff Reports 276832, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    7. Ziemer, Rod F. & Collins, Glenn S., 1984. "Granger Causality And U.S. Crop And Livestock Prices," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 16(1), pages 1-6, July.
    8. Osteen, Craig & Kuchler, Fred, 1986. "Potential Bans of Corn and Soybean Pesticides: Economic Implications for Farmers and Consumers," Agricultural Economic Reports 308001, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    9. Ash, Mark S. & Lin, William, 1987. "Regional Crop Yield Response for U.S. Grains," Agricultural Economic Reports 308033, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    10. Kuchler, Fred & Duffy, Michael, 1984. "Control of Exotic Pests: Forecasting Economic Impacts," Agricultural Economic Reports 307964, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    11. Davison, Cecil W. & Crowder, Bradley M., 1991. "Northeast Soybean Acreage Response Using Expected Net Returns," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 20(1), pages 1-9, April.
    12. Griffin, Ronald C. & Lacewell, Ronald D. & Collins, Glenn S., 1985. "Impacts Of Substituting Plant Oils For Diesel Fuel," Western Journal of Agricultural Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 10(2), pages 1-12, December.
    13. Taylor, C. Robert, 1989. "Duality, Optimization, And Microeconomic Theory: Pitfalls For The Applied Researcher," Western Journal of Agricultural Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 14(2), pages 1-13, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:uerser:308062. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ersgvus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.