Cotton Insect Losses - 2007

Michael R. Williams

Entomology and Plant Pathology Department

Mississippi State University Extension Service

Mississippi State University, Mississippi

 

Abstract

 

Cotton losses to arthropod pests reduced yields by 3.62% in 2007.  Pest losses were higher in the southeast states where drought also caused heavy losses.  The bollworm/budworm complex remained the top ranked pest, reducing yields by 0.913%, a slight increase over 2006.  Lygus were number two at 0.683%, thrips were third at 0.578%, cotton fleahoppers were fourth at 0.477% and aphids were fifth at 0.320%.  Total cost and loss for arthropods in 2007 was $877 million.  Direct management costs for arthropods were $57.23 per acre.

 

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 nonBt Varieties

Table     9b           -- Arizona Bt Varieties

Table     10           -- Arkansas Summary

Table     10a         -- Southeast Arkansas

Table     10b         -- Northeast 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. Clyde Smith

Georgia               ---            Dr. Phillip Roberts

Kansas                ---            Dr. Stuart Duncan

Louisiana               ---           Dr. Ralph Bagwell

Mississippi              ---            Dr. Angus Catchot

Missouri              ---            Dr. Kelly Tindall

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. Don Parker, Dr. John Adamczyk and Dr. Gus Lorenz