Cotton Insect Losses -2006

Michael R. Williams

Entomology and Plant Pathology Department

Mississippi State University Extension Service

Mississippi State University, Mississippi

Abstract

Cotton losses to arthropod pests reduced overall yields by 2.96%. These losses reflect one of the lowest estimates reported since estimates began in 1979. The bollworm/budworm complex retained top ranking as the number one cotton pest by reducing yields by 0.876%. Lygus were number two at 0.667%; stink bugs were 3rd at 0.420%; Thrips were 4th at 0.382%., and spider mites were 5th at 0.198%. Total costs and loss for insects in 2006 were $1.021 billion. Direct management costs for arthropods were $48.08 per acre.

KEY TO TABLES

Table1 -- 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

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

Table 23 -- Texas Summary

Table 23a -- Texas, Gulf Coast & Winter Garden

Table 23b -- Texas, Panhandle

Table 23c -- Texas, North Rolling Plains

Table 23d -- Texas, High Plains

Table 23e -- Texas, Northern Blacklands

Table 23f -- Texas, Lower Rio Grande Valley

Table 23g -- Texas, Southern Rolling Plains

Table 23h -- Texas, Southern Backlands

Table 23i -- Texas, Far West

Table 24 --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 x 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.

State: Texas

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 Milam

New Mexico            ---            Dr. Jane Pierce

North Carolina        ---            Dr. Jack Bacheler

Oklahoma              ---            Dr. Jerry Goodson

South Carolina         ---            Dr. Jeremy Green

Tennessee             ---            Dr. Scott Stewart

Texas                 ---            Dr. Chris Sansone

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 Dr. Gus Lorenz