Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0163-0045
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2006-05-17T04:00Z

SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON D.C., 20460

March 31, 2006

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 OFFICE OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Preliminary Impact Analysis for Aldicarb on Potatoes (DP
299884)

FROM:	William Gross, Entomologist	

		Angel Chiri, Entomologist

Biological Analysis Branch

Derek Berwald, Economist	

Economic Analysis Branch

Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503C)

THRU:	Arnet Jones, Chief 	

Biological Analysis Branch

Kiely, Tim, Chief, Acting 	

Economic Analysis Branch

Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503C)

TO:		Sherrie Kinard, Chemical Review Manager

		Robert McNally, Chief

Special Review and Reregistration Division 

Peer Review Panel: 01/04/06 

Executive Summary

Aldicarb is a systemic carbamate pesticide used to manage nematodes and
insects on potatoes in several states.  As part of EPA’s
reregistration process, BEAD conducted an analysis of possible
alternatives to aldicarb.  Because of aldicarb’s ability to control
both nematodes and insect pests, alternatives to aldicarb will consist
of multiple chemicals used to target multiple pests.  The estimates of
costs for the alternatives to aldicarb range from $77 – 257 per acre
in the Pacific Northwest, and $77 – 218 in Florida.  There are
significant uncertainties in our analysis, the most important being the
degree to which aldicarb is currently being used in conjunction with a
fumigant.  These uncertainties are responsible for the large range in
the estimates reported above.  Despite the uncertainties, it is clear
that alternatives will involve significant costs to growers who are
currently using aldicarb.  

Background

Aldicarb (Temik®) is a carbamate pesticide primarily used to manage
nematodes, the Colorado potato beetle, and aphids on potatoes.  Aldicarb
poses dietary risks, as well as acute risks to birds, mammals, and
aquatic organisms.  Additionally, based on EPA’s ecological risk
assessment findings, there are chronic risks to invertebrates
(freshwater and estuarine/marine) and freshwater fish.  Aldicarb is also
a potential groundwater, and possibly surface water, contaminant.  BEAD
conducted an alternatives assessment and identified critical niche
markets as part of the risk management process.  This assessment was
based on published or internet-accessible literature on the use of
aldicarb and its alternatives on potatoes and crop production economics
currently available to BEAD.  

Crop Production

Approximately 1.2 million acres of potatoes are grown in the U.S.
(USDA).    Table 1 shows the potato acreage grown for states with a
significant aldicarb usage on this crop.

	Table 1.  Potato Acreage Harvested and Aldicarb Usage in Major
Producing States 2003

State	Acreage	Estimated Usage (Pounds ai Applied)	Percent Crop Treated
(%)

Idaho	358,000	62,000	7

Washington	162,000	116,000	25

Oregon	42,600	11,000	9

Florida	37,400	NA	85*

Source:  USDA/NASS data.  *The figure for percent crop treated in
Florida is from the Crop Profile for Potatoes in Florida, because
USDA/NASS does not report data on aldicarb use on potato in Florida. 

In Idaho, major production areas are adjacent to the Snake River Plain
in the southern portion of the state.  Planting begins April 1 in the
southwestern portion of the state and ends June 10 in the east.
Cultivation is used for weed control, aeration, and proper seed depth to
prevent greening of the tubers.  Sprinkler irrigation is used on 99% of
the acreage.  Harvest begins after tuber maturity, usually around July
15, and continues through November 15.  Before harvest, potato vines are
killed (usually chemically) to improve storage quality and prevent
disease problems.  Potatoes are mechanically harvested when tubers are
mature and the vines dead.  (Crop Profile for Potatoes in Idaho, 2000). 
In Washington, most potato production occurs in the eastern part of the
state, in the Columbia Basin and along the Snake River.    In Oregon,
the bulk of the potato crop is grown in the central and eastern part of
the state (Crop Profile for Potatoes in Oregon, 1999). 

In Florida, planting is from October through February.  Approximately
110 days elapse between planting and maturity.  Irrigation is generally
required during initial plant growth, as potato plant water requirements
rapidly increase during this time. Harvest occurs 14-21 days after the
vines are desiccated to allow time for the periderm to set on the tuber
and reduce tuber skinning and scuffing.  Vines are killed using
herbicides and, occasionally, by mowing.  Hilling soil around plants to
keep the tubers completely covered prevents sunburn and greening of the
tubers when the vines are killed (Crop Profile for Potatoes in Florida,
1999).  

Aldicarb Use on Potatoes

Aldicarb is a systemic and contact carbamate insecticide and nematicide
that is available as a granular formulation labeled for soil application
only.  Aldicarb, a restricted use pesticide, is used in several
potato-producing states primarily to control several species of
nematodes, the green peach aphid (Myzus persicae), and the Colorado
potato beetle (Leptinotarsa decemlineata).  In 1990, the sale of
aldicarb was halted by the Agency after excessive residues were detected
in potatoes.  In 1995, the Agency re-approved this use on condition that
application be done using positive displacement equipment.  Positive
displacement applicators (PDA) use a rotor to regulate flow rate based
upon rotational speed and mass displaced per revolution.  PDA rotors
must be driven by a ground wheel or forward speed compensated motor
(Agrichemical and Environmental News, 1995).  This new technology is
designed to control application rates with greater precision than
previously, thus preventing spills and leaks.  Aldicarb is currently
registered for use on potatoes only in Oregon, Idaho, Washington,
Montana, northern Florida, and parts of Utah and Nevada, where risk of
groundwater contamination is believed to be low (U.S. EPA, 1995). 
Aldicarb use in potato production is significant in the states of
Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Florida (Table 1).  Other pests
controlled include leafhoppers and flea beetles.  Aldicarb granules are
either applied within the row furrow and buried along with the seed
potato at planting or are applied in a 6-inch band and worked into the
soil, or covered with soil, to a depth of four inches; potato seed
pieces are then planted into the treated zone.  The potato plant absorbs
aldicarb through its roots.  Once in the plant, the residual activity of
aldicarb protects the treated plant against pest nematodes and insects
for six to eight weeks (Pest Management Strategic Plan for Pacific
Northwest Potato Production, 2002).  Aldicarb may sometimes be used to
reduce root-knot nematode populations that remain high after soil
fumigation.         

Several nematodes, including the root-knot nematode (Meloidogyne spp.),
the root lesion nematode (Pratylenchus spp.), and the stubby root
nematodes (Trichodorus spp. and Paratrichodorus spp.) are major pests of
potatoes.  Female root-knot nematodes can live and feed inside the
tubers.  Symptoms include swellings ("galls") on the roots.  Galls may
contain one to several adult root-knot females.  Damaged roots are not
able to obtain soil nutrients and affected plants may wilt.  The root
lesion nematode, a migratory endoparasite on potatoes, may indirectly
reduce yield by increasing plant stress and increasing plant
susceptibility to fungal and bacterial diseases, including verticillium
wilt.  Stubby root nematodes may transmit tobacco rattle virus to
potatoes.  This virus causes corky ringspot disease, which is
characterized by the development of rusty brown, irregularly shaped
lesions in the tubers.  These nematodes have wide host ranges, making
management with crop rotation difficult and relatively ineffective (Crop
Profile for Potatoes in Idaho, 2000).  

In Florida, aldicarb is considered effective for managing the
Trichodorus spp. nematode, which vectors corky ringspot (Crop Profile
for Potatoes in Florida, 1999).  A permit must be obtained from the
State prior to each aldicarb application because of acute toxicity and
groundwater contamination concerns.   Application restrictions limit the
use of aldicarb in southern Florida (Fishel, 2005).  Root-knot nematode
infestation can render tubers unmarketable.  When tuber infestation
levels exceed 5%, processors and packers generally reject all potatoes
from the infested field (Pest Management Strategic Plan for Pacific
Northwest Potato Production, 2002).

The green peach aphid is a serious pest of potatoes, mainly because it
transmits potato leaf roll virus.  Damage from this disease involves
stunting of the plant and internal browning of the tubers, resulting in
a reduction of yield and quality.  Without control, estimated crop
losses in Idaho range from 40% to 70% (Crop Profile for Potatoes in
Idaho, 2000). 

The Colorado potato beetle invades potato fields as an adult and lays
300 to 500 eggs over a 4 week period on the undersides of leaves.  Eggs
hatch in 4 to 9 days, depending on temperature.  Both larvae and adults
feed on potato leaves and stems, but the larvae are more damaging and,
uncontrolled, may cause 70%-100% defoliation and the death of the plant.
 The adult beetles cause some damage but seldom require control.  There
are 1-2 generations per year.  The Colorado potato beetle is present in
most potato producing areas, including northern Florida, but not in the
southern part of this state (Crop Profile for Potatoes in Florida,
1999).       

Alternatives for Aldicarb Use on Potatoes  

In addition to aldicarb, several insecticides and nematicides are
registered for control of nematodes, green peach aphid, and the Colorado
potato beetle (see Table 2).  Pesticides rated as good or excellent for
nematode, aphid, or Colorado potato beetle control are listed in Table
3.  Of these, only aldicarb is effective against all three pest groups. 
Oxamyl, ethoprop, 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D or Telone II®), and metam
sodium (Vapam, Metam) are effective nematicides.  Soil fumigation with
metam sodium or 1,3-D is effective against the root-knot nematode. 
Irrigation is needed to bring soil moisture to 70% - 80% at least one
week before treating with metam sodium.  At the higher allowable rates,
1,3-D is effective on stubby-root nematodes.  Oxamyl, a non-fumigant
systemic nematicide, is effective for controlling all the nematodes that
are controlled by aldicarb.  However, oxamyl has a short residual life,
and several applications, at 6-7 day intervals, may be required during
the growing season.  Oxamyl is more effective when used in combination
with other nematicides, such as aldicarb or ethoprop.  Ethoprop, in
combination with other nematicides, is effective for managing root-knot
and root-lesion nematodes, but not on stubby-root nematodes (Pest
Management Strategic Plan for Pacific Northwest Potato Production,
2002).                  

Table 2.  Key Potato Pests Controlled by Aldicarb and Potential
Alternatives

Representative States	

Pest	

Potential Alternatives and their Relative Efficacy1	

Comments/Non-Chemical Practices

Idaho, Oregon, Washington	Green peach aphid (Myzus persicae)	Aldicarb
(G), disulfoton (G), endosulfan (F-G), imidacloprid (E), methamidophos
(E), methomyl (F), oxamyl (G), phorate (F-G), thiamethoxam (E),
pymetrozine (G-E)	

	Colorado potato beetle (Leptinotarsa decemlineata)	Aldicarb (G),
carbaryl (F), carbofuran (G), cyfluthrin (E), disulfoton (F), endosulfan
(G), esfenvalerate (E), imidacloprid (E), methamidophos (F), methyl
parathion (F-G), permethrin (G-E), phorate (G), phosmet (G), spinosad
(G-E), thiamethoxam (E), Bacillus thuringiensis tenebrionis (G),
Cryolite (G) 	Avoiding planting in fields planted with potatoes or other
solanaceous crops in the previous year  helps to reduce Colorado potato
beetle problems. 

	Nematodes (Meloidogyne spp., Trichodorus spp., Paratrichodorus spp.)
1,3-dichloropropene (Telone), metam sodium (Vapam), ethoprop (Mocap),
oxamyl (Vydate) 

	Non-chemical methods, such as weed control, crop rotation, clean
fallow, early harvest, application of organic manure and catch crops
(green manure) provide some control. 

Florida

	Aphids, Colorado potato beetle (only in north FL), flea beetles,
leafhoppers	Phorate, ethoprop (In north FL, phorate is applied to areas
where aldicarb cannot be used due to setback restrictions.)	Aldicarb not
used in south FL.  In north FL, aldicarb is applied to 85% of potato
acreage, even though it cannot be used in some areas due to setback
restrictions for proximity to wells, surface water, etc.  Where it can
be used, a single application of aldicarb =  3-4 applications of
alternatives (not cost -effective).  

	

Nematodes (Trichodorus spp.)	

1,3-dichloropropene, metam sodium, ethoprop, oxamyl	

1,3-D restricted in areas overlying karst geology (mainly south FL). 

1 Efficacy rating symbols: E=Excellent (90-100% control), G=Good (80-90%
control), F=Fair (70-80% control), based on Pest Management Strategic
Plan for Pacific Northwest Potato Production (2002). 

Imidacloprid and thiamethoxam (neonicotinoids) and methamidophos
(organophosphate) are effective on both aphids and the Colorado potato
beetle.  The remaining insecticides identified as potential aldicarb
alternatives (Table 3) are generally effective against either the green
peach aphid (disulfoton, methamidophos, oxamyl, pymetrozine) or the
Colorado potato beetle (Bacillus thuringiensis tenebrionis, carbofuran,
cyfluthrin, cryolite, endosulfan, esfenvalerate, permethrin, phorate,
phosmet, and spinosad), but not against both pests.                     
   

While synthetic insecticides remain the most effective means for its
control, resistance by the Colorado potato beetle to all classes of
insecticides has been documented in many U.S. potato-producing regions. 
 Resistance in the Colorado potato beetle was first discovered in Idaho
in the mid-1980’s.  Widespread and locally diverse esfenvalerate and
phosmet resistance was detected in all counties in southern and eastern
Idaho in 1992.  No resistance was detected to carbofuran or endosulfan
(Bessin, 2004).  

Cultural practices that are known to reduce nematode population
densities include crop rotation with non-solanaceous crops, weed
control, destruction of crop residue through tillage, and the use of
green manure or “catch” crops (crops, such as oil radish or
rapeseed, that are planted and incorporated into the soil while still
green) (Crop Profile for Idaho, 2000; McGuire, 2004).     

Economic Analysis

Table 3 lists several alternatives for the use of aldicarb on potatoes,
but none of these will be an adequate direct substitute.  Aldicarb, a
systemic pesticide, works both against nematodes in the soil, but it
also is effective against insects later in the season.  Even if aldicarb
is applied specifically to target nematodes, it is inappropriate to
ignore the beneficial effect of controlling insect pests, as well.  For
this reason, an analysis of alternatives to aldicarb will have to
consider multiple chemicals so that both nematodes and insects can be
targeted.  

For nematode control, EPA believes that the mostly likely alternative to
aldicarb is a combination of ethoprop and oxamyl, in addition to the use
of a fumigant such as metam sodium.   In the Pacific Northwest, metam
sodium is more widely used, and we will consider it in this analysis. 
One difficulty is that some acreage is already treated with one or more
of these chemicals in addition to aldicarb currently, but we are unable
to identify the degree of overlap at this time.  

Table 3.  Insecticides Registered for Control of Key Pests on Potatoes
Rated as Good or Excellent

Chemical	Nematodes	Green Peach Aphid	Colorado Potato Beetle	Cost per
Treatment ($/Acre)*

Aldicarb	x	x	x	51

Bt tenebrionis

	x	4

Carbofuran

	x	13

Cyfluthrin

	x	10

Cryolite

	x	n/a

Disulfoton

x

51

Endosulfan

	x	4

Esfenvalerate

	x	13

Ethoprop	x

	33

Imidacloprid

x	x	47

Methamidophos

x

13

Permethrin

	x	6

Oxamyl	x	x

23

Phorate

	x	29

Phosmet

	x	7

Pymetrozine

x

12

Spinosad

	x	6

Thiamethoxam

x	x	30

1,3-D (Telone)	x

	167

Metam sodium	x

	112

Source: Pest Management Strategic Plan for Pacific Northwest Potato
Production. 2002, and EPA Proprietary Data.

*Estimated chemical cost per acre for one treatment, based on data for
Idaho from 2000 – 2004.  Many of these chemicals would require
multiple treatments in a year, and application costs are not included.  

Although a combination of ethoprop, oxamyl, and metam sodium may be an
adequate replacement for aldicarb for nematode control, they will not be
effective against insect pests.  The primary pests we consider here are
the green peach aphid and the Colorado potato beetle.  There are many
pesticides that can be used against these pests (see Table 3), and they
can be used in various combinations to match the individual needs of
growers.  Most of the insecticides listed in the table control only one
of the two primary pests, and so treatments with multiple chemicals may
be required, according to infestation patterns in individual fields. 
For the purposes of this analysis, we focus on insecticides that will be
effective against both pests, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam.  These
chemicals should also be effective against insects other than the
primary pests we consider in this analysis.   Although these chemicals
are effective against both primary insect pests, more than one treatment
per year may be required, as the conditions warrant.  For our analysis,
we assume that two foliar treatments of these chemicals are needed to
replace one aldicarb treatment for equivalent control, but in many cases
one or three treatments may be necessary.  This is a hypothetical
scenario, and it is plausible that individual growers would have
additional chemical needs in the absence of aldicarb, such as additional
treatments for mites with, for example, a treatment of abamectin, or an
additional treatment of permethrin for control of other insect pests. 
However, we believe that our primary scenario is appropriate for this
analysis.  

The estimated treatment costs of aldicarb alternatives are given in
table 3.  These are costs for a single treatment, and many of these
chemicals would require multiple treatments.  For the scenarios we
consider here, the insecticides (imidacloprid and thiamethoxam) and
oxamyl would all require multiple treatments.  For oxamyl, we assume
three treatments per year, and for the insecticides two treatments, but
individual conditions may differ and require more or fewer treatments.  

We will consider two scenarios in this analysis, due to some uncertainty
in the actual use patterns of aldicarb.  For both scenarios, additional
insecticides are necessary, and we assume two foliar treatments of
either imidacloprid or thiamethoxam.  In the first scenario, we will
consider fields where aldicarb is currently applied, but no fumigant is
used.  In this case, the replacement for aldicarb is three treatments of
oxamyl, one treatment of ethoprop, and one treatment of a fumigant
(metam sodium for Idaho, and 1,3-D for Florida).   For the other
scenario, we assume that a fumigant is already applied in addition to
aldicarb, and the fumigant use does not change, but aldicarb is replaced
by three treatments of oxamyl, and one treatment of ethoprop.  

For the first scenario, where a fumigant is not currently used, we
estimate the additional costs of replacing aldicarb in the Pacific
Northwest to be about $222 – 257 per acre, depending on which
insecticides are used (see Table 4), and about $184 – 257 per acre for
Florida.  For the second scenario, where a fumigant is  currently used
(and so no additional treatment with a fumigant is needed), we estimate
the additional costs of replacing aldicarb to be about $110 – 145 per
acre.  The estimated costs in Table 4 include the costs of the
additional chemicals, and also savings on aldicarb, which will no longer
be used, but not additional application costs.  The estimated costs are
considerable for potato growers.  Based on crop budgets for potato
production in Idaho, net operating revenue for potato production is in
the range of $500 - $850 (University of Idaho).  Fixed costs are
excluded from that estimate, but potato production has high fixed costs.
 

Different choices or combinations of insecticides will result in
different costs, and these can be estimated from the cost information in
Table 3.  The estimates above are based on use patterns in Idaho, where
the metam sodium is the primary fumigant used, as in the other states in
the Pacific Northwest.  In Florida however, 1,3-D is more commonly used
on potatoes, and fumigation costs are somewhat lower for the use of
1,3-D in Florida than in Idaho.  Specifically, costs of 1,3-D in Florida
are about $73 per acre, over $90 lower than the $167 per acre that we
estimate for 1,3-D in Idaho, and about $39 less than the cost of metam
sodium in Idaho.  This is an important difference, because 1,3-D is the
primary fumigant in Florida.  In table 4, therefore, we assume that
growers in Florida use 1,3-D, and growers in the Pacific Northwest use
metam sodium. 

Table 4.  Estimated Additional Costs of Aldicarb Alternatives ($/Acre) 

Additional Fumigant Needed

Insecticide Used	Imidacloprid	Thiamethoxam

Idaho	257	222

Florida	218	184

No Additional Fumigant Needed

Insecticide Used	Imidacloprid	Thiamethoxam

Idaho	145	110

Florida	145	110

Source:  BEAD Calculations based on EPA Proprietary Data.

Note:  The figures in the table assume that the replacement for aldicarb
is two treatments of the listed chemicals, along with three treatments
of oxamyl and one treatment of ethoprop.  If an additional fumigant is
used, we assume that metam sodium is used in Idaho, and 1,3-D is used in
Florida.  

The estimates in Table 4 are “per acre” estimates, based on a
biological assessment of reasonable alternatives to aldicarb.  Based on
the acreage and percent crop treated data in Table 1, we can estimate
state level costs for replacing aldicarb.  Note that these are rough
estimates, primarily based on cost data from Idaho, except for the case
of Florida where fumigant costs and use patterns are different.  

Table 5.  State Level Increase in Costs From Aldicarb Alternatives

State	Estimated Treated Acreage	With  Additional Fumigation      
(Million $ per year)	With  No Additional Fumigation       (Million $ per
year)

Idaho 	41,500	7.8 - 10.7	4.6 - 6.0

Washington 	62,699	11.8 - 16.1	6.9 - 9.1

Oregon 	33,615	6.4 - 8.6	3.7 - 4.9

Florida 	20,797	3.1 - 4.5	2.3 - 3.0

Source:  BEAD Calculations based on EPA Proprietary Data.  The
calculations are based on the per acre cost estimates in table 4. The
Washington and Oregon cost estimates are based on estimates for Idaho.

Uncertainties in the analysis

The most important uncertainty in this analysis is the degree to which
aldicarb is currently used in conjunction with other chemicals, such as
fumigants.  Our analysis leads us to believe that the aldicarb
alternatives need to be used in conjunction with a fumigant, and where
that fumigant is currently used it should not be considered an
additional cost.  We are unable to identify the acreage where aldicarb
is used alone and where it is used in conjunction with a fumigant.  This
difference is important to our cost estimates, because the two fumigants
we consider both have costs well over $100 per acre.  In addition, there
are many options for insect controls, and individual growers will make
different choices, based on their experience and field conditions.  We
used cost estimates based on chemical use in Idaho in developing our
estimates of alternative costs.  These costs estimates are based on
current use, with aldicarb available as a pest control option, and use
patterns or costs may change if aldicarb is not available.  We also
assume that our alternative chemicals will be available to growers,
however metam sodium is currently undergoing re-registration.  Finally,
we do not include any changes in yield or quality from using
alternatives to aldicarb, but if alternatives are not as effective, then
yield losses or quality discounts to growers could increase the costs
significantly.    

Conclusions

Because of aldicarb’s ability to control both nematodes and insect
pests, alternatives to aldicarb will consist of multiple chemicals used
to target multiple pests.  The estimates of additional costs for using
alternatives to aldicarb range from $77 – 257 per acre in the Pacific
Northwest, and $77 – 218 in Florida.  There are significant
uncertainties in our analysis, the most important being the degree to
which aldicarb is currently being used in conjunction with a fumigant,
which is responsible for the large range in the estimates reported
above.  Despite the uncertainties, it is clear that alternatives will
involve significant costs to growers who are currently using aldicarb. 
Because aldicarb is a pesticide with high value and high risks,
additional  work may be necessary to refine the estimates of this
preliminary analysis, after specific risk mitigation measures have been
established.  

References

Agrichemical and Environmental News.  1995.  Issue No. 118, December. 
Web

	address:   HYPERLINK "http://aenews.wsu.edu/1995/dec95.htm" 
http://aenews.wsu.edu/1995/dec95.htm 

 

Bessin, R.  2004.  Colorado Potato Beetle Management.  University of
Kentucky 	College of Agriculture.  Web address: 	  HYPERLINK
"http://www.uky.edu/Ag/Entomology/entfacts/veg/ef312.htm" 
http://www.uky.edu/Ag/Entomology/entfacts/veg/ef312.htm 

Crop Profile for Potatoes in Florida.  1999.  Web address:  

	  HYPERLINK
"http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/FLpotatoes.html" 
http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/FLpotatoes.html 

Crop Profile for Potatoes in Idaho.  2000.  Web address:

	  HYPERLINK
"http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/IDpotatoes.html" 
http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/IDpotatoes.html 

Crop Profile for Potatoes in Oregon.  1999.  Web address: 

	  HYPERLINK
"http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/orpotatoes.html" 
http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/orpotatoes.html 

Fishel, F.M.  2005.  Specifically Regulated Pesticides in Florida –
Aldicarb.  	University of Florida, ISFAS Extension.  Web address: 	 
HYPERLINK "http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/PI111" 
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/PI111 

McGuire, A.  2004.  Green Manuring with Mustard, Improving an Old
Technology.  	Washington State University, Center for Sustaining
Agriculture & Natural 	Resources.  Web Address: 	  HYPERLINK
"http://csanr.wsu.edu/FeaturedPrograms/MustardGreenManure.htm" 
http://csanr.wsu.edu/FeaturedPrograms/MustardGreenManure.htm 

Pest Management Strategic Plan for Pacific Northwest Potato Production. 
2002.  	Web address:

	  HYPERLINK
"http://www.ipmcenters.org/pmsp/pmsp_form.cfm?usdaregion=National%20
Site" 
http://www.ipmcenters.org/pmsp/pmsp_form.cfm?usdaregion=National%20	Site

University of Idaho, Crop Enterprise Budgets.  Web Address:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.ag.uidaho.edu/aers/crop_EB_03.htm" 
http://www.ag.uidaho.edu/aers/crop_EB_03.htm 

USDA, United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural
Statistics Service Agricultural Statistics 2005, Web Address:  
HYPERLINK "http://www.usda.gov/nass/pubs/agr05/acro05.htm" 
http://www.usda.gov/nass/pubs/agr05/acro05.htm 

U.S. EPA.  Office of Pesticide Programs Annual Report for 1995, p. 25. 
Web 	Address:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/annual/1995/95a_text.htm" 
http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/annual/1995/95a_text.htm    

 For example, the Pest Management Strategic Plan for Pacifica Northwest
Potato Production identifies good management practices that include all
three of these chemicals for nematode control.  

 Net operating revenue is gross revenue minus cash costs, excluding any
fixed or overhead costs.

 PAGE   

 PAGE   11