Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2003-0237-0014
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2003-11-10T05:00Z

1
UNITED
STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
WASHINGTON,
D.
C.
20460
OFFICE
OF
PREVENTION,
PESTICIDES
AND
TOXIC
SUBSTANCES
Memorandum
DATE:
May
23,
2002
SUBJECT:
Benefits
Assessment
for
the
Use
of
Methyl
Parathion
on
Rice:
Impacts
of
Cancellation
FROM:
Colwell
Cook,
Entomologist
Herbicide
and
Insecticide
Branch
Tim
Kiely,
Economist
Economic
Analysis
Branch
Biological
and
Economic
Analysis
Division
(
7503C)

THROUGH:
David
Brassard,
Senior
Entomologist
Arnet
Jones,
Chief
Herbicide
and
Insecticide
Branch
David
Widawsky,
Chief
Economic
Analysis
Branch
Biological
and
Economic
Analysis
Division
(
7503C)

TO:
Laura
Parsons,
Chemical
Review
Manager
Special
Review
and
Reregistration
Division
CC:
Denise
Keehner,
Director
Biological
and
Economic
Analysis
Division
(
7503C)

Reviewed
by
BEAD
Peer
Review
Panel:
May
22,
2002
2
SUMMARY
The
following
analysis
estimates
the
impacts
to
rice
growers
of
no
longer
having
methyl
parathion
available
for
use
on
rice.
Because
nearly
all
of
the
methyl
parathion
use
on
rice
occurs
in
Arkansas,
Louisiana,
Mississippi
and
Texas,
the
analysis
focuses
on
the
Southern
U.
S.
rice
production
region
(
Southern
Region).
Per
acre
impacts
as
well
as
industry
wide
impacts
are
estimated
assuming
that
methyl
parathion
is
no
longer
available
for
use
on
rice.

Without
methyl
parathion
available
for
use
on
rice,
rice
growers
will
suffer
significant
impacts.
Methyl
parathion
is
used
to
control
a
number
of
insect
pests,
but
its
use
is
critical
for
the
late
season
control
of
rice
stink
bug.
It
is
estimated
that
without
methyl
parathion
available
for
this
use,
rice
growers
will
be
forced
to
use
more
expensive
and
potentially
less
effective
chemical
controls,
which
would
result
in
reductions
in
the
quality
of
the
rice
harvested,
as
well
as
increases
in
the
cost
of
rice
production.
Reductions
in
the
quality
of
the
rice
harvested
are
estimated
to
result
in
losses
in
gross
revenues
of
up
to
12%
per
acre,
while
the
costs
of
production
are
estimated
to
increase
1%
per
acre.
Net
returns
are
estimated
to
decline
from
$
54
per
acre
to
$
5­$
12
per
acre,
a
loss
of
78­
91%.
Estimated
state
level
losses
range
from
up
to
$
2.5
million
in
Louisiana
to
nearly
$
7
million
in
Texas.
In
total,
for
the
Southern
Region,
losses
could
be
as
high
as
$
15.2
million.
There
is
also
concern
over
the
potential
for
resistance
without
methyl
parathion
available
for
use
on
rice,
since
the
most
effective
alternatives
are
synthetic
pyrethroids.

LIMITATIONS
AND
SCOPE
OF
ANALYSIS
The
scope
of
this
analysis
includes
an
examination
of
potential
per­
acre
and
industry­
level
impacts
associated
with
no
longer
allowing
the
use
of
methyl
parathion
on
rice.
This
mitigation
scenario
reflects
the
health
risks
to
pesticide
mixers,
loaders,
and
applicators
as
identified
by
the
Health
Effects
Division
of
the
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs.
This
analysis
does
not
attempt
to
address
impacts
associated
with
mitigation
efforts
targeted
at
farm
workers
entering
fields
after
the
application
of
methyl
parathion,
nor
potential
mitigation
for
various
environmental
risks
(
i.
e.,
risk
mitigation
for
risks
to
terrestrial
plants
and
organisms
or
water
contamination).
Nor
does
it
address
the
impacts
of
a
reduction
in
the
allowable
application
rate.

There
are
limitations
to
this
assessment.
The
impacts
estimated
by
this
analysis
only
represent
potential
short­
term
 
1
to
2
years
 
impacts
on
the
rice
production
system
and
grower
returns.
National
impacts
are
calculated
by
simply
scaling
up
the
estimated
per­
acre
impacts.
We
ignore
potential
changes
in
price
that
may
result
from
production
changes
and
we
assume
that
grower
impacts
will
not
result
in
a
shift
from
rice
to
other
crops.

Assumptions
about
yield
and
quality
losses
associated
with
the
various
scenarios
are
based
on
the
best
professional
judgement
of
BEAD
analysts
when
estimates
were
not
available
from
other
sources.
Assumptions
are
based
on
a
review
of
available
USDA
crop
profiles,
state
crop
production
guides,
discussions
with
university
extension
and
research
entomologists
knowledgeable
in
rice
production,
and
3
other
sources
listed.
Rice
production
is
a
very
complex
system
that
can
be
influenced
by
a
variety
of
parameters
(
e.
g.,
weather).
BEAD's
ability
to
quantitatively
capture
the
wide
array
of
events
that
could
unfold
given
each
hypothetical
scenario
listed
above
is
very
limited.

U.
S.
RICE
PRODUCTION
Total
U.
S.
rice
production
averaged
more
than
19
billion
pounds
on
an
average
of
3.3
million
acres
harvested
over
the
years
1998­
2000,
and
was
valued
at
$
1.3
billion.
The
Southern
Region,
which
is
comprised
of
Arkansas,
Louisiana,
Mississippi,
Missouri
and
Texas,
accounts
for
more
than
80%
of
U.
S.
rice
production.
The
other
production
region
(
State)
of
California
accounts
for
the
remaining
19%
of
U.
S.
rice
production.
The
major
rice
producing
states
are
Arkansas,
which
accounts
for
nearly
half
of
U.
S.
rice
production,
and
California
and
Mississippi,
which
account
for
19%
and
14%
of
U.
S.
production,
respectively
(
Table
1).

Table
1.
Rice
Production
Statistics
by
State,
Region
and
in
Total
for
the
U.
S.
1
State
Area
Harvested
(
1,000
Acres)
Yield
(
pounds
/
acre)
Production
(
1,000
pounds)
Percent
of
Total
U.
S.
Production
Price
($/
pound)
Value
of
Production
($
1,000)

U.
S.
3,271
5,936
19,386,700
­­
0.0686
1,319,068
CA
504
7,357
3,722,000
19%
0.0715
258,389
Southern
Region
2,764
5,667
15,664,400
81%
0.0677
1,060,679
AR
1,507
5,917
8,906,100
46%
0.0676
598,650
LA
572
4,870
2,777,800
14%
0.0689
191,828
MS
266
5,783
1,555,200
8%
0.0669
103,987
MO
167
5,433
909,700
5%
0.0665
58,749
TX
252
6,067
1,515,300
8%
0.0704
107,465
1.
Based
on
USDA/
NASS
Agricultural
Statistics,
1998­
2000.

U.
S.
rice
exports
in
2000
were
more
than
3
million
metric
tons
(
MT)
(
FATUS,
2001).
Mexico
was
the
largest
consumer
with
more
than
560,000
MT,
followed
by
Japan
at
310,000
MT.
Exports
of
rice
were
valued
at
over
$
834
million.
4
USAGE
OF
METHYL
PARATHION
ON
RICE
Over
the
years
1998­
2000,
methyl
parathion
usage
on
U.
S.
rice
averaged
360,000
pounds
applied.
An
average
of
10%
(
or
320,000
acres)
of
the
U.
S.
crop
was
treated
over
the
same
time
period.
Texas
received
the
majority
of
the
methyl
parathion
usage
on
rice,
with
more
than
200,000
pounds
applied
to
Texas
rice,
and
more
than
50%
of
the
Texas
acreage
treated.
Nearly
all
of
the
remaining
methyl
parathion
usage
occurs
in
Arkansas,
Louisiana
and
Mississippi
(
Table
2).

On
average,
less
than
1
pound
of
methyl
parathion
is
applied
per
acre
per
application
in
the
U.
S.,
and
only
Texas
receives
more
than
2
application
per
acre
per
year
on
average.

Table
2.
Major
States
of
Methyl
Parathion
Usage
on
Rice.

State
Acres
Grown
(
1000
acres)
Acres
Treated
(
1000
acres)
Percent
Crop
Treated
Pounds
Active
Ingredient
Applied
(
1000
pounds)
Average
Number
of
Applications
Average
Application
Rate
(
pounds
ai/
acre)

U.
S.
3,300
320
10%
360
1.6
0.7
Southern
Region
1
2,656
311
12%
353
­­
­­

Arkansas
1,547
56
4%
48
1.1
0.7
Louisiana
580
51
9%
53
1.5
0.7
Mississippi
267
64
24%
49
1.3
0.6
Texas
262
140
53%
203
2.2
0.7
1.
Usage
for
Missouri
not
included.
Missouri
usage
of
methyl
parathion
is
relatively
small.
Source:
USDA/
NASS
Agricultural
Chemical
Usage:
Field
Crops
(
2000)
and
EPA
proprietary
data
(
1998­
2000).

USE
OF
METHYL
PARATHION
ON
RICE
The
major
insect
pest
of
rice
for
which
methyl
parathion
is
used
is
the
rice
stink
bug
(
RSB).
Secondary
insect
pests
for
which
methyl
parathion
is
used
are
true
armyworms,
fall
armyworms,
and
chinch
bugs
(
Appendix
A).
The
secondary
pests
are
sporadic
and
early
in
the
season.

Stink
bugs
feed
on
grasses
near
rice
fields
and
invade
rice
fields
soon
after
rice
begins
to
head.
There
the
stink
bug
feeds
on
developing
rice
grains
and
deposits
eggs.
Both
the
adults
and
the
developing
5
nymphs
feed
by
sucking
juice
from
the
developing
kernels.
Feeding
on
the
flowering
and
milk
stage
of
rice
produces
blank,
empty
grains
and
reduced
yields.
Feeding
on
the
soft
dough
stage
causes
a
discoloration
of
the
rice,
known
as
pecky
rice.
Pecky
rice
from
RSB
has
been
known
to
reduce
the
quality
of
the
rice
harvested
and
lower
revenues
10­
12%
(
Smith
and
Anisco,
2000).

Methyl
parathion
is
critical
to
rice
growers
for
late
season
RSB
control.
It
is
preferred
because
it
is
still
very
effective,
has
short
residual
with
a
relatively
short
PHI
(
15
days),
and
is
inexpensive.
Rice
growers
are
operating
on
a
thin
margin,
and
any
reduction
in
control
or
increase
in
control
costs
can
result
in
significant
economic
losses.
Rice
growers
are
trying
to
be
more
economical
by
scouting
more
and
applying
insecticides
only
when
they
have
an
insect
problem,
consequently
rice
growers
often
have
to
make
a
late
season
application
of
methyl
parathion
for
control
of
the
RSB.
Lambda­
cyhalothrin
is
also
available
for
use
against
RSB,
and
is
widely
used
by
rice
growers.
However,
it
is
more
likely
to
be
used
earlier
in
the
season
due
to
its
long
PHI
(
21
days).
Growers
find
that
in
some
circumstances,
lambda­
cyhalothrin
does
not
have
enough
residual
to
protect
the
rice
from
RSB
through
harvest.
As
a
result,
an
application
of
methyl
parathion
is
often
necessary
to
protect
the
grain
until
harvest.

Without
methyl
parathion
available
for
use,
rice
growers
would
likely
use
lambda­
cyhalothrin
or
zeta­
cypermethrin
for
late
season
stink
bug
control.
Zeta­
cypermethrin
has
a
recent
registration
for
use
on
rice,
but
it
has
not
been
available
long
enough
for
evaluation
in
commercial
applications.
Carbaryl
is
also
used
to
some
extent
for
rice
stink
bug
control,
primarily
in
Texas,
but
is
less
effective
than
methyl
parathion
and
may
reduce
fertilization
if
used
during
pollination.
The
typical
practice
in
Texas
is
to
apply
carbaryl
at
heading
and
then
follow
with
an
application
of
methyl
parathion
if
RSB
appear.
Rice
hulls
open
in
the
morning
for
fertilization,
so
some
areas
have
recommended
an
evening
application
of
carbaryl
to
reduce
the
chance
of
interfering
with
fertilization.
However,
morning
is
the
optimal
time
that
the
RSB
feeds
on
the
developing
grains,
so
evening
applications
of
carbaryl
may
result
in
less
adequate
control.

IMPACTS
OF
CANCELLATION
OF
METHYL
PARATHION
Biological
Assessment
It
is
assumed
that
due
to
the
limitations
of
the
available
alternatives
to
methyl
parathion
on
rice
for
late
season
RSB
control
(
i.
e.,
lambda­
cyhalothrin
has
a
long
PHI,
performance
of
zeta­
cypermethrin
in
commercial
fields
is
unknown,
and
carbaryl
is
less
effective),
rice
growers
could
suffer
losses
in
rice
quality
(
pecky
rice)
as
a
result
of
damage
due
to
inadequate
control
of
the
pest
if
methyl­
parathion
is
not
available
for
use
on
rice.
Pecky
rice
from
RSB
has
been
known
to
reduce
quality
and
lower
revenues
10­
12%
(
Smith
and
Anisco,
2000).

Economic
Assessment
6
Grower
Level
Per
Acre
Impacts
A
crop
budget
approach
was
used
to
determine
the
per
acre
economic
impact
of
no
longer
having
methyl
parathion
available
for
use
on
rice.
The
impacts
are
estimated
only
for
those
states
in
the
Southern
Region
which
have
significant
use
of
methyl
parathion
(
Arkansas,
Louisiana,
Mississippi,
and
Texas)
(
Table
2).
Due
to
similar
regional
production
characteristics
and
methyl
parathion
use
patterns,
per
acre
impacts
are
assumed
to
be
the
same
for
all
4
states.
Statistics
on
production
and
revenue
were
obtained
from
USDA/
NASS
(
Table
1),
while
representative
sample
costs
of
production
were
obtained
from
production
budgets
published
by
the
University
of
Arkansas,
Louisiana
State
University,
Mississippi
State
University,
and
Texas
A&
M
University.
These
budgets
are
reflective
of
the
likely
incurred
costs,
but
are
not
based
on
cost
of
production
surveys.
This
analysis
assumes
that
farm
gate
prices
are
not
affected
by
any
changes
at
the
grower
level
and
that
growers
do
not
drastically
alter
their
production
practices.
The
analysis
focuses
solely
on
operating
costs,
ignoring
overhead
and
other
opportunity
costs,
as
these
are
difficult
to
measure.
Thus
the
net
cash
returns
listed
overstate
actual
per
acre
profits
to
the
grower.

As
previously
mentioned,
the
critical
use
of
methyl
parathion
on
rice
is
for
late
season
rice
stink
bug
control
in
the
Southern
Region
of
the
U.
S.
Without
methyl
parathion
available
for
use
on
rice,
it
is
assumed
that
growers
would
switch
to
a
less
effective
and
more
costly
chemical
control,
which
would
result
in
a
reduction
in
the
quality
of
the
rice
harvested,
and
an
increase
in
chemical
control
costs.

It
is
assumed
that
although
the
alternatives
to
methyl
parathion
available
for
late
season
control
of
RSB
(
lambda­
cyhalothrin
and
zeta­
cypermethrin)
will
likely
result
in
less
control
and
losses
in
rice
quality,
growers
will
still
choose
to
apply
them
to
avoid
potentially
higher
quality
and
yield
losses.
It
is
assumed
that
the
alternatives
to
methyl
parathion
will
not
provide
adequate
late
season
control
of
the
RSB,
and
growers
will
face
gross
revenue
losses
of
10­
12%
per
acre
from
reductions
in
the
quality
of
the
harvested
rice.
In
the
analysis,
the
losses
in
gross
revenue
are
attributed
to
a
reduction
in
the
price
received
(
Table
3).
Because
the
actual
reduction
in
price
received
and
the
amount
of
production
that
will
suffer
losses
in
quality
is
not
known,
it
is
assumed
that
all
production
will
suffer
the
same
loss
in
quality
and
receive
the
reduced
price.
Per
acre
gross
revenues
would
decline
from
$
384
per
acre
(
base
scenario)
to
$
338­$
345
per
acre
without
methyl
parathion
available
for
use
(
alternative
scenario).

The
alternatives
to
methyl
parathion
for
late
season
stink
bug
control
are
also
more
expensive
than
methyl
parathion,
and
their
use
will
result
in
increased
costs
of
production
for
rice
growers.
It
is
assumed
that
methyl
parathion
is
applied
once
for
late
season
rice
stink
bug
control,
and
that
one
application
of
an
alternative
to
methyl
parathion
would
be
made
in
the
absence
of
methyl
parathion.
Costs
of
control
are
only
estimated
to
increase
$
3
per
acre,
but
that
is
a
100%
increase
over
the
cost
of
methyl
parathion.
The
increase
in
chemical
control
costs
without
methyl
parathion
(
alternative
scenario)
results
in
a
1%
increase
in
production
costs
(
Table
3).

As
a
result
of
the
decline
in
gross
revenues
of
10­
12%
and
the
increase
in
production
costs
of
1%
without
methyl
parathion
available
for
use
on
rice,
net
returns
are
estimated
to
decline
from
$
54
per
acre
7
in
the
base
scenario
to
between
$
5­$
12
per
acre
in
the
alternative
scenario,
a
loss
of
78­
91%
per
acre.
(
See
Table
3.)

Table
3.
Gross
Returns,
Production
Costs
and
Net
Returns
to
Rice
Production
in
Southern
U.
S.
Rice.

Base
Scenario:
methyl
parathion
Alternative
Scenario:
lambda­
cyhalothrin
zeta­
cypermethrin
%
Change
Per
Acre
Gross
Revenues
rice
production
(
pounds/
acre)
5,667
5,667
0%

price
received
for
rice
($/
pound)
0.0677
0.0609
0.0596
10%
12%

gross
revenues
($/
acre)
384
345
338
10%
12%

Per
Acre
Operating
Costs
insecticide
costs
($/
acre)

methyl
parathion
lambda­
cyhalothrin/
zeta­
cypermethrin
3
6
100%

other
insecticides
17
17
other
operating
costs
($/
acre)
310
310
total
operating
costs
($/
acre)
330
333
1%

Per
Acre
Net
Cash
Returns1
net
cash
returns
($/
acre)
54
12
5
­
78%
­
91%
1.
Per
acre
net
cash
returns
equal
per
acre
gross
revenues
minus
total
per
acre
operating
costs.
Source:
University
of
Arkansas,
Louisiana
State
University,
Mississippi
State
University,
Texas
A
&
M
University.

State
and
Regional
Impacts
Table
4
lists
the
state
and
regional
impacts
of
no
longer
having
methyl­
parathion
available
for
use
on
rice.
Impacts
are
estimated
only
in
those
states
currently
using
methyl
parathion
to
control
rice
stink
bug
on
rice
(
Arkansas,
Louisiana,
Mississippi,
and
Texas)
(
Table
2).
The
estimated
impacts
are
based
on
the
8
assumption
that
net
returns
are
the
same
for
every
acre
of
rice
harvested
in
each
state
in
the
Southern
Region
in
the
base
scenario
(
methyl
parathion
available
for
use),
and
that
only
those
rice
acres
treated
with
methyl
parathion
in
the
Southern
Region
will
face
a
decline
in
net
returns
if
methyl
parathion
is
no
longer
available
for
use
(
alternative
scenario).
The
acres
impacted
(
or
treated
with
methyl
parathion)
are
listed
in
column
2
of
Table
4.

The
state
level
impacts
as
listed
in
columns
3
and
4
of
Table
4,
which
are
based
on
the
estimated
$
42­$
49
per
acre
losses
without
methyl
parathion
available
for
use
(
Table
3),
range
from
a
loss
of
up
to
$
2.5
million
in
Louisiana
to
a
loss
of
nearly
$
7
million
in
Texas.
For
the
Southern
Region,
losses
could
be
as
high
as
$
15.2
million.
The
losses
are
further
characterized
in
columns
5
and
6
of
Table
4,
as
a
proportion
of
total
gross
revenues
and
net
cash
returns
in
the
base
scenario,
respectively.
As
a
percent
of
gross
revenues,
which
do
not
account
for
operating
expenses,
losses
range
from
<
1%
in
Arkansas
to
more
than
6%
in
Texas.
As
a
percent
of
net
cash
returns,
which
do
account
for
operating
expenses,
the
range
of
losses
jump
to
more
than
3%
in
Arkansas
to
more
than
50%
in
Louisiana.
9
Table
4.
State
and
Regional
Impacts
of
No
Longer
Having
Methyl­
parathion
Available
for
Use
on
Rice
in
the
Southern
Region
of
the
U.
S.

State
Acres
Impacted
(%
of
crop
treated
in
State)
1
Impact
($)
of
10%
Quality
Loss
($
42/
treated
acre
Loss)
2
Impact
($)
of
12%
Quality
Loss
($
49/
treated
acre
Loss)
3
%
of
Base
Scenario
Gross
Revenues4
%
of
Base
Scenario
Net
Cash
Returns5
Arkansas
56,000
(
4%)
$
2,352,000
$
2,744,000
0.4%
2.9
­
3.4%

Louisiana
51,000
(
9%)
$
2,142,000
$
2,499,000
1.1
­
1.3%
6.9
­
8.1%

Mississippi
64,000
(
24%)
$
2,688,000
$
3,136,000
2.6
­
3.0%
18.7
­
21.8%

Texas
140,000
(
53%)
$
5,880,000
$
6,860,000
5.5
­
6.4%
43.2
­
50.4%

Southern6
Region
311,000
(
12%)
$
13,062,000
$
15,239,000
1.0
­
1.2%
8.8­
10.2%

1.
Acres
impacted
is
the
number
of
acres
treated
with
methyl
parathion
in
the
state/
region
(
see
Table
2).
2.
The
impact
of
10%
quality
loss
is
equal
to
the
acres
impacted
multiplied
by
the
per
acre
loss
of
$
42
($
39/
acre
quality
loss
plus
$
3/
acre
cost
increase)
(
see
Table
3).
3.
The
impact
of
12%
quality
loss
is
equal
to
the
acres
impacted
multiplied
by
the
per
acre
loss
of
$
49
($
46/
acre
quality
loss
plus
$
3/
acre
cost
increase)
(
see
Table
3).
4.
The
%
of
base
scenario
gross
revenues
is
equal
to
the
impact
at
10%
and
12%
divided
by
the
gross
revenues
with
methyl
parathion
available.
See
Table
1
for
current
gross
revenues.
5.
The
%
of
base
scenario
net
cash
returns
is
equal
to
the
impact
at
10%
and
12%
divided
by
the
net
returns
with
methyl
parathion
available
(
acres
harvested
x
$
54/
acre).
See
Appendix
B
for
current
(
base
Scenario)
net
cash
returns.
6.
Southern
Region
impacts
are
based
on
the
total
impacts
of
the
4
states
listed.

CONCLUSION
Without
methyl
parathion
available
for
use
on
rice,
rice
growers
in
the
Southern
Region
(
specifically
Arkansas,
Louisiana,
Mississippi,
and
Texas)
would
use
the
more
costly
and
potentially
less
effective
lambda­
cyhalothrin
or
zeta­
cypermethrin
for
the
late
season
control
of
rice
stink
bug.
As
a
result,
growers
would
suffer
a
loss
in
gross
revenues
of
an
estimated
10­
12%
due
to
loss
of
quality
in
the
rice
harvested,
and
an
increase
in
operating
costs
of
1%
due
to
increased
chemical
control
costs.
Under
this
scenario,
cash
returns
could
decline
significantly
from
$
54
per
acre
to
between
$
5­$
12
per
acre,
a
loss
of
78­
91%
per
acre.
State
level
impacts
would
be
significant
as
well,
ranging
from
a
loss
of
up
to
$
2.5
million
in
Louisiana
to
a
loss
of
nearly
$
7
million
in
Texas.
In
total
for
the
Southern
Region,
losses
could
be
as
high
as
$
15.2
million,
which
is
more
than
10%
of
current
regional
net
cash
returns.
10
REFERENCES
Bernhardt,
John.
University
of
Arkansas
Extension.
Personal
Communication,
May
13,
2002.

Johnson,
D.
R.,
J.
Bernhardt,
G.
Lorenz,
G.
Studebaker,
and
J.
Greene.
1999.
Management
of
the
Insect
Pests
of
Rice.
University
of
Arkansas
Cooperative
Extension.
Can
be
found
at:
hpp://
www.
uaex.
edu/
Other_
Areas/
publcations/
HTML/
FSA­
2068.
asp.

Louisiana
State
University.
Crop
budget
for
rice
production
in
Louisiana,
2002.

Mississippi
State
University.
Crop
budget
for
rice
production
in
Mississippi,
2002.

Saichuck,
John.
Louisiana
State
University
Extension.
Personal
Communication,
April
15
and
May
2,
2002.

Smith,
Dudley
and
Juan
Anisco,
2000.
Rice
in
Texas,
Crop
Brief
on
Production,
Pests,
and
Pesticides.
The
Agriculture
Program
of
the
Texas
A
&
M
University
System.
Can
be
found
at:
http://
aggiehorticulture
tamu.
edu/
extension/
cropbriefs/
rice.
html.

Texas
A&
M
University.
Crop
budget
for
rice
production
in
Texas,
2000.

University
of
Arkansas.
Crop
budget
for
rice
production
in
Arkansas,
2002.

USDA
Crop
Profile
for
Rice
in
Louisiana.
2000.
Found
at:
http://
pestdata.
ncsu.
edu/
cropprofiles/
docs/
LArice.
html.

Way,
M.
O.
Texas
A&
M
Extension.
Personal
Communication,
May
7,
2002.

USDA,
Economic
Research
Service,
Foreign
Agricultural
Trade
of
the
United
States
(
FATUS),
www.
ers.
usda.
gov/
db/
fatus,
1999/
2000
calendar
years.

USDA,
National
Agricultural
Statistic
Service,
Agricultural
Chemical
Usage,
Field
Crop
Summary,
various
years.

USDA,
National
Agricultural
Statistic
Service,
Agricultural
Statistics,
2001.
11
Appendix
A.
Target
Insects
and
Control
Rice
Stink
Bug,
Oebalus
pugnax
(
Fabricius)

Stink
bugs
feed
on
grasses
near
rice
fields
and
invades
rice
fields
soon
after
rice
begins
to
head.
There
it
feeds
on
developing
rice
grains
and
deposits
eggs.
Both
the
adults
and
the
developing
young
nymphs
feed
by
sucking
juice
from
the
developing
kernels.
Feeding
on
the
flowering
and
milk
stage
of
rice
produces
blank,
empty
grains
and
reduced
yields.
Feeding
on
the
soft
dough
stage
can
cause
peckiness
of
the
grains,
but
peckiness
can
be
caused
by
factors
other
than
stink
bug
feeding.

Controls
Biological
control:
Several
natural
enemies
are
important
in
reducing
the
density
of
RSB
populations
in
rice.
Adults
and
nymphs
are
parasitized
by
Beskia
aelops
(
Walker),
and
Euthera
tentatrix
Lav.
(
both
Diptera:
Tachinidae).
Eggs
of
RSB
are
parasitized
by
Oencyrtus
anasae
(
Ashm.)
(
Hymenoptera:
Encyrtidae),
and
Telonomus
podisi
(
Ashm.)
(
Hymenoptera:
Scelionidae).
Management
of
RSB
relies
significantly
on
the
activity
of
these
naturally
occurring
biological
control
agents.
Intervention
using
chemical
control
based
on
established
monitoring
procedures
and
thresholds
is
recommended
when
RSB
escapes
from
the
control
provided
by
natural
enemies
.

Chemical
control:
Carbaryl
is
generally
slower
acting
than
methyl
parathion
and
is
therefore
not
used
often;
additionally
it
is
more
costly.
Malathion
is
not
very
efficacious
against
the
RSB.
Methyl
Parathion
has
a
PHI
of
15
days,
is
efficacious,
and
is
usually
selected
for
use
against
this
late
season
pest.
Lambda­
cyhalothrin
is
efficacious
but
has
a
PHI
of
21
days,
and
therefore
is
not
always
useful
to
control
RSB.
Zeta­
cypermethrin
is
newly
registered
for
use
in
rice
for
the
RSB.
However,
little
information
on
field
performance
is
available.

Fall
Armyworm,
Spodoptera
frugiperda
(
J.
E.
Smith);
True
Armyworm,
Pseudaletia
unipuncta
(
Haworth)

Armyworm
larvae
feed
on
the
leaves
of
young
rice
plants,
destroying
large
amount
of
leaf
tissue.
Seedlings
are
eventually
pruned
to
the
ground
as
the
larvae
feed.
Armyworm
infestations
generally
occur
along
field
borders,
levees
and
in
high
areas
of
fields,
where
larvae
escape
drowning.
The
most
severe
damage
occurs
in
fields
of
seedling
rice
that
is
too
young
to
flood.
The
preferred
treatment
option
is
to
flood
infested
fields.
Fields
must
remain
flooded
for
several
hours
in
order
to
drown
armyworm
larvae.
If
plants
are
too
young
to
flood,
fields
can
be
treated
with
methyl
parathion
(
0.5
lb.
ai/
A),
malathion
(
1.5
lb.
ai/
A),
or
a
Bacillus
thuringiensis
formulation
(
0.5
lb.
ai/
A).
Malathion
and
B.
thuringiensis
are
the
only
chemical
control
options
available
for
rice
grown
in
rotation
with
crawfish.
Problems.
Flooding
rice
fields
to
control
armyworm
may
be
more
expensive
than
chemical
control,
and
12
may
not
be
possible
in
drill­
seeded
rice
fields
where
levee
construction
has
been
delayed.
Chemical
control
using
methyl
parathion
may
interact
with
weed
management
practices.
Applying
methyl
parathion
within
14
days
of
the
herbicide
propanil
may
cause
severe
damage
to
rice.
Formulations
of
B.
thuringiensis
are
slow
acting
and
may
not
provide
adequate
control
of
large
larvae.
Controls
Chemical
control:
Control
when
finding
1
worm
per
2
plants.
Carbaryl,
malathion,
methyl
parathion,
and
lambdacyhalothrin
are
registered.

Chinch
Bug,
Blissus
leucopterus
leucopterus
(
Say)

Adult
and
nymph
chinch
bugs
feed
by
piercing
the
leaves
and
stems
of
rice
plants
and
sucking
plant
juices.
Chinch
bug
feeding
on
young
seedlings
causes
leaves
and
stems
to
turn
light
brown.
Heavy
infestations
can
kill
young
plants
resulting
in
severe
stand
reductions.
Both
adult
and
immature
chinch
bugs
contribute
to
damage
in
rice.
The
chinch
bug
is
generally
only
a
problem
in
dry
planted
fields
in
heavy
clay
soils.
Controls
Chemical
control:
There
is
no
threshold
for
chinch
bug
in
rice.
Products
available
for
control
are
carbaryl,
malathion,
and
methyl
parathion.
Additionally,
if
seed
is
treated
with
fipronil
for
rice
water
weevil
control,
it
will
control
chinch
bugs
as
well.
However,
fipronil
has
been
implicated
as
a
cause
of
crawfish
demise
in
areas
near
rice
fields.

Apendix
B.
Current
(
Base
Scenario)
Net
Cash
Return
By
State
and
for
the
Southern
Region
State
Current
(
Base
Scenario)
Net
Cash
Returns
1
Arkansas
81,378,000
Louisiana
30,888,000
Mississippi
14,364,000
Texas
13,608,000
Southern
Region
149,256,000
1.
The
current
(
base
scenario)
assumes
methyl
parathion
is
available
for
use
on
rice.