Cotton Insect Losses – 2004

Michael R. Williams

Entomology and Plant Pathology Department

Mississippi State University Extension Service

Mississippi State University, Mississippi

 

Abstract

 

Arthropod pests reduced overall yield by 4.18% in 2004.    There were 13.5 million acres of cotton planted in 2004, but only 12.1 million acres harvested.  Oklahoma at 10.84% reported the greatest percentage loss to insects in 2004.  The bollworm/budworm complex was the top pest of 2004 taking 1.23% of the 2004 crop.  Almost 82% of the US crop was infested with the complex of which 94% were bollworms.  Lygus at 1.06% also exceeded 1% reduction.   Fifty-one percent (51%) of US cotton acres was infested by Lygus.  Stink bugs were third at 0.588% and Thrips were fourth at 0.559% reduction and infested 94% of US cotton acres.  Cotton fleahoppers reduced yields by 0.192%.   Two western species, pink bollworm at 0.170% and  silverleaf whitefly (Bemesia sp) at 0.115% were 6th and 7th respectively.  No other pest exceeded 0.1% reduction.  Spider mites at 0.080% were 8th infesting 3.1million acres.  Boll weevils at 0.071% were 9th infesting 1.6 million acres.  Aphids (0.056%) were 10th in the pest ranking.  Total cost of management and loss to insects to the 2004 crop was $1.118 billion or $81.58 per acre.  Of those costs approximately $54 are direct insect management costs.

 

KEY TO TABLES

Table      1                --  USDA /NASS yield estimates

Table   1a                --  USDA/NASS planted & harvested acres

Table      2                --  At planting insecticide applications

Table      3                --  Cotton insect eradication costs

Table      4                --  Bt cotton costs by state

Table      5                --  Application type and costs

Table      6                --  Cotton insect monitoring costs

Table      7                --  Summary of All States

Table      8                --  Alabama Summary

Table      8a                --  North Alabama

Table      8b                --  Central  Alabama

Table      8c                --  South Alabama

Table      9                --  Arizona Summary

Table      9a                --  Arizona Bt Varieties

Table      9b                --  Arizona nonBt Varieties

Table      10                 --  Arkansas Summary

Table      10a                --  Northeast Arkansas

Table      10b                --  Southeast Arkansas

Table      11                --  California

Table      12                --  Florida

Table      13                -- Georgia Summary

Table   13a                -- Georgia Bt Varieties

Table      13b                -- Georgia nonBt Varieties

Table      14                -- Kansas

Table      15                -- Louisiana Summary

Table      15a                --  Louisiana: Bt Varieties

Table      15b                --  Louisiana: nonBt Varieties


 

Table      16                -- Mississippi Summary

Table      16a                -- Mississippi Delta Bt Varieties

Table      16b                -- Mississippi Delta nonBt Varieties

Table      16c                -- Mississippi Hills Bt Varieties

Table      16d                -- Mississippi Hills nonBt Varieties

Table      17                -- Missouri

Table      18                -- New Mexico

Table      19                -- North Carolina Summary

Table      19a                -- North Carolina Bt Varieties

Table      19b                -- North Carolina nonBt Varieties

Table      20                -- Oklahoma

Table      21                -- South Carolina

Table      22                -- Tennessee Summary

Table      22a                -- Tennessee Bt Varieties

Table      22b                -- Tennessee nonBt Varieties

Table      23                -- Texas Summary

Table      23a                -- Texas, Upper Coastal Bend

Table      23b                -- Texas, Lower Coastal Bend

Table      23c                -- Texas, Northern Rolling Plains

Table      23d                -- Texas, High Plains

Table      23e                -- Texas, Far West

Table      23f                -- Texas, Lower Rio Grande Valley

Table      23g                -- Texas, Southern Rolling Plains

Table      23h                -- Texas, Northern Blacklands

Table      23i                -- Texas, Southern Blacklands

Table      24                --Virginia   Virginia


 

Background and explanation of tables 

This information was provided by state coordinators and was collected from surveys of county agents, extension specialists, private consultants and research entomologists.  All data are averaged over a total reporting unit.  For example, if a unit report represents 100 acres had an 8% loss on 25 of those acres, then in the table summary this shows up as a 2% loss. ((.08 ×25)/100).  This type of averaging is used for all data reported, including yields and costs of control.   Because of averaging and rounding some individual state summary numbers listed as `0' are slightly larger.  Costs are averaged to the nearest cent, bales and acres to the nearest whole number, other numbers are rounded to the nearest .001

 

The Cotton Insect Losses Estimates are a simple attempt to arrive at the average cost of control of cotton arthropod pests.  We attempt to arrive at the most accurate estimate possible for arthropod management activities, but have also added other costs which are incurred in cotton insect pest management.  These `additional’ costs increase the bottom line of expenditures for arthropod pest management - but also more accurately reflect true expenditures.  We include `at planting insecticide costs,’(an estimate of the cost of systemic insecticides applied at planting for control of Thrips and other pests of seedling cotton); `Bt cotton costs,’(an estimate of the technology fee); `eradication costs’(which include the maintenance fee in those states which have eradicated the weevil and other eradication projects); and `scouting costs;’ in addition to the traditional `foliar insecticide costs.’   Bales lost are also given a dollar value using 480 pound bales at $0.65 per pound.  Remember, these are estimates and may not totally reflect an individual farm or area, but they do reflect trends and serve as a general comparison.                                 

 

 

 

Acknowledgements

 

State Coordinators

Alabama                      ---            Dr. Ronald H. Smith

Arkansas                     ---            Dr. Gus Lorenz     

Arizona                      ---            Dr. Peter Ellsworth

California                    ---            Dr. Peter Goodell

                                Florida                       ---            Dr. R. K. Sprenkel

                                Georgia                      ---            Dr. Phillip Roberts

                                Kansas                       ---            Dr. Stuart Duncan

Louisiana                    ---            Dr. Ralph Bagwell

Mississippi                  ---            Dr. Angus Catchot

Missouri                    ---            Dr. Michael Boyd

New Mexico               ---            Dr. Jane Pierce

                                North Carolina            ---            Dr. Jack Bacheler

Oklahoma                  ---            Dr. Miles Karner

South Carolina            ---            Dr. Mitchell Roof

Tennessee                 ---            Dr. Scott Stewart

Texas                     ---            Dr. James Leser

Virginia                   ---            Dr. Ames Herbert

 

This work is sponsored by the Cotton Foundation and is accomplished only through the diligent effort of the aforementioned coordinators, Dr. Frank Carter, Dr. John Adamczyk and Mr. Gene Burris.