MEASURING IMPACTS OF BIFS ON CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURE

BIFS project personnel conduct weekly visits to enrolled BIFS farms and annual interviews with each BIFS farmer, documenting the rate and type of chemicals applied and farming practices used. This data is used to track the reduced rates of targeted pesticides and fertilizer, the increased use of reduced risk pesticides, and the increased adoption of various practices that protect air and water quality. The Annual Report Excerpts Section of this document presents this data.

In addition to assisting individual BIFS growers to improve their farming system, the BIFS program is also aimed at increasing adoption of BIFS practices at an industrywide level. Each project has well-defined outreach activities to accomplish increased adoption industrywide; regular newsletters mailed to hundreds, even thousands of farmers (see Attachment 3), World Wide Web sites (see Attachment 4) well-advertised field days, interviews generating articles in the popular press (see Attachment 5), presentations at scientific and industry gatherings, and other measures. These activities increase awareness and understanding of new BIFS practices. However, measuring the impact of these activities on the farming community at large is a complex task.

Through funding available from the US-EPA, UC SAREP has hired a Research Associate/Ecologist to help measure the impact of BIFS on California agriculture. Mail and phone surveys, along with other sociological methods, will be conducted over the next two years, starting in February 2001. The Research Associate/Ecologist will also assist each BIFS project individually to maximize the impact of their outreach activities.

For this report, we have presented two types of baseline data: 1) acreage managed by BIFS farmers and 2) California statewide Pesticide Use Reporting (PUR) data. These data can then be compared to total crop acres throughout the state and pesticide use trends post-project to assess impact at the county and state level. Typically, rates of adoption of new agricultural technologies are measured in years or even decades. We would not expect dramatic statewide changes in pesticide use and adoption of BIFS practices in such a short time (since the beginning of BIFS in 1995). Effects of the BIFS projects will probably be most noticeable at a local county level. The newly hired Research Associate will assist in focusing the analyses on a local level.

The following statewide data on acreage and pesticide use are meant to be baseline data for future comparison purposes. These trends in acreage and pesticide use will also be used to guide and focus BIFS project efforts.

Acreage Under Management by BIFS Farmers

One indicator of the impact of the BIFS program is the number of acres managed by enrolled BIFS farmers (Table 5). Enrolled BIFS farmers demonstrate BIFS practices on their land and lead by example. Typically, enrolled BIFS farmers use BIFS practices on a portion of their acreage, fine-tuning BIFS practices before converting the entire farm. By talking with friends and neighbors, and sharing information, enrolled BIFS farmers are leading the way to economically sound reduced-chemical farming practices. Many other farmers attend field days and receive BIFS newsletters but are not enrolled in the BIFS projects. It is unknown how many acres they have or the adoption rate of BIFS practices on these farms. During 2001-2002, UC SAREP will conduct industrywide surveys in each BIFS crop, to try and measure adoption rates for non-enrolled farmers.

By 2025, we predict that at least 20 percent (and perhaps as much as 60 percent) of California cropland will be under alternative BIFS or organic production systems. For more details please see Attachment 6 (Swezey and Broome, 2000), also available for download at http://danr.ucop.edu/calag/JA00/toc.html.

Table 5. Total cumulative acreage served by the BIFS projects as of the beginning of 2000.
(A "*" indicates partial project funding from BIFS or other UC SAREP grants.) Data for California acreage are from the California Agricultural Statistics Service.

Pesticide Use in California Crops

In California, we have access to the most complete pesticide use information in the world, through the Pesticide Use Reporting (PUR) system (http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/purmain.htm). Farmers in California are required to report all pesticide applications. This data is compiled by the State and is made freely available for analysis.

Stage one is almost complete and results are presented in the following figures. For stage two, all seven projects have submitted lists of target pesticides, PUR Identification Numbers for enrolled farmers, and a list of all applicable crop codes. Statisticians will be contracted to analyze this data in 2001. A bid package is being prepared and will be released in February of 2001. US-EPA (Region IX) has provided funding for this analysis.

Stage 1: Baseline Pesticide Use Trends

Pesticide use can be measured in many ways. Typically reported are total pounds of pesticide used for the year on a particular crop (Figure 2). Evaluating the total pounds of certain pesticides used provides a good idea of the magnitude of pesticide use on a certain crop. However, confusion can arise when acreage is rapidly changing for a crop, such as grapes or cotton in Figure 1. For example, when planted acreage increases, it may appear that pesticide use is rising, when on a per acre basis (the rate of use), pesticide use may actually be falling. Also making analysis difficult is the use of large quantities of relatively less toxic chemicals, like sulfur use on grapes. Sulfur is used in large quantities, yet is only slightly toxic, and is allowed for use on organic farms.

These two issues, changes in crop acreage and the use of large amounts of relatively benign chemicals, can complicate analysis. Therefore, we have calculated pesticide use on a "pounds per acre" rate and have only included pesticides of "environmental concern" (Figure 3). "Pounds per acre" is calculated from the PUR database by summing the pounds of active ingredient applied, divided by the base acres planted.

List of Pesticides of Environmental Concern

Our list of pesticides of "environmental concern" includes Proposition 65 chemicals (know to the State of California to cause cancer or are reproductive toxins), known groundwater contaminants (from a list supplied by the Department of Pesticide Regulation), and acetylcholine esterase inhibitors (organophosphates and carbamates, which are the more toxic pesticides being reviewed under the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act of 1996). This list was compiled from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation's Web site http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur98rep/98com.htm#trends. Relatively less toxic chemicals used in large quantities, such as sulfur, are not included in this list of pesticides of environmental concern.

Baseline State Level Pesticide Use (in Crops with BIFS Projects)

Figure 3 shows no major increases or decreases in statewide usage of selected pesticides of environmental concern. It does appear, that in walnuts and strawberries, their use is slowly increasing. Also, note that strawberry pesticide use is ten times higher than in other BIFS crops. This is because the pounds per acre rates used of methyl bromide far exceed other chemicals. The BIFS crop with the second highest pesticide use is apples. In general, lower value crops, like rice and corn, have much lower pesticide use rates than higher value crops, like almonds and oranges. Effective BIFS projects are needed if growers of these crops are to reduce their use of these chemicals.

Figure 1. Acres planted in California for various crops. Crops included have had BIFS projects. PUR data supplied by Minghua Zhang and Romeo Favreau, UC Davis.

Figure 2. Pounds active ingredient of pesticides applied per year to various crops. Crops included have had BIFS projects. Data supplied by Minghua Zhang and Romeo Favreau, UC Davis.

Figure 3. Use rate of selected pesticides of environmental concern. Shown is the average use rate in the State of California, for crops that have had BIFS projects. *Selected pesticides include the Proposition 65 list, organophosphates, and known groundwater contaminates. Missing data indicate errors with the Pesticide Use Reporting (PUR) database. PUR data supplied by Minghua Zhang and Romeo Favreau, UC Davis.

Baseline County Level Pesticide Use

For each BIFS project, a list has been made of the pesticides targeted for risk reduction, the counties in which the project operates, and the crop codes used in the State PUR database. With this information, graphs of pesticide use over time can be made for each project's crop, county, and pesticide of interest. An example of these graphs is shown in Figure 4. The raw data used for this graph is taken from http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/purmain.htm (version March 28, 2000) and http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PUSE/prepared.html (version January 19, 2000).
Approximately 600 graphs will be generated during this process. This is the number of county/pesticide combinations for all seven projects. Each project will receive its own set of graphs to be used in targeting project efforts. In Stage 2 PUR analysis, baseline data like that presented in Figure 4 will be compared to BIFS farms' pesticide use.

Figure 4. An example of county-based baseline trend of pesticide use, in this case diazinon, on walnuts in San Joaquin County. This type of graph is used by projects to target project efforts. In Stage 2 PUR analysis, part of this data will be used as a baseline, to which BIFS farm pesticide use will be compared.

Stage 2: BIFS Farms versus County Average Pesticide Use

On the county or regional level BIFS projects have started to have an effect. A recent report by the California Institue of Rural Studies found that, "…uniformly, BIOS Orchards report a significantly lower proportion of fields treated with registered pesticides as compared with a matched group of Cohort [conventional] Orchard fields. The share of all BIOS Orchard fields treated with any registered material has significantly declined throughout the period in which the BIOS programs have been implemented. In the case of almonds, this share is now less than one-half; in walnuts about one-fourth" (Villerejo and Moore, 1998). This report is available for order at http://www.cirsinc.org/pub/pubcat.htm.

Epstein, et al. (2000) published a study showing dramatic reductions in dormant season organophosphate use by almond and stone fruit growers on a county-by-county basis, from 1992 to 1998. This is the type of analysis we will pursue in evaluating BIFS projects. A comparison will be made between pre- and post-project analysis of pesticide use in counties with BIFS projects and counties without BIFS projects. We expect to see greater reductions in targeted pesticide use in counties with BIFS projects.

Simazine use on vineyards in San Joaquin County, on BIFS and non-BIFS acreage, is another example of a Stage 2 PUR analysis (Figure 5.) Simazine is a known groundwater contaminant in many parts of the Central Valley. The Lodi-Woodbridge Winegrape Commission's (LWWC)Winegrape BIFS project targeted this herbicide for use/risk reduction. Since the beginning of the project in 1996, BIFS farmers have used less simazine on their vineyards than the county average (Figure 5). In the coming years, if the LWWC's continuing outreach program is succcessful, we would expect to see further reduction in both BIFS farms and the county at large.

Figure 5. Simazine use in winegrapes in San Joaquin County for BIFS and non-BIFS vineyards.
Note: all data is from the State PUR except BIFS data from 1996-1998, which is from in-person interviews (figure adapted from Broome, et al. 2000).

Plans for Continued PUR Analysis

Further PUR analysis is necessary for the BIFS projects. With funds provided by US-EPA Region IX, a statistician will be contracted to perform Stage 1 PUR analysis for all seven currently funded BIFS projects. This will be completed before June 2001. Stage 2 PUR analysis will also be performed by contract with a statistician in the second half of 2001 and in 2002.