Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T22:38:41.806Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Economic impacts of IPM sampling methods for collards

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2012

Myra Clarisse Ferrer  and
Michael Hammig
Myra Clarisse Ferrer*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA.
Michael Hammig
Affiliation:
Department of Applied Economics and Statistics, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, USA.
*
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Integrated pest management (IPM) has been very successful in directing farming to a more environment-friendly production. It is a great tool for producers in transition to organic farming. However, the extent of its economic impact is not well understood by farmers. This study looks at the amount of savings and potential market profitability of using IPM in South Carolina collard production considering alternative scouting methods. Scouting is an essential part of IPM that is usually ignored. This analysis presents a comparative assessment of the merits of conventional sampling (CS) and binomial sequential scouting method (SSM). SSM is a recently developed scouting system for traditionally operated collard farms that is geared toward a more economical execution of scouting without forfeiting the effectiveness of the process. Financial analytical tools, specifically costs and returns methods and sensitivity analysis on prices, were utilized to determine the economic advantages or disadvantages of the two methods. Outcomes indicate that both scouting methods would result in cost savings if used on traditionally operated farms. Particularly, the cost savings per hectare generated from IPM with SSM [3.62% of total cost (TC) and 3.91% of total variable cost (TVC)] is higher than the cost savings from IPM with CS (2.91% of TC and 3.15% of TVC). The difference in cost savings between IPM with CS and IPM with SSM basically came from the less scouting time of SSM that entailed lower labor cost for the farm. Therefore, to attain maximum profitability potential, using IPM with the SSM is a better option. Some may conjecture that the cost savings were insignificant due to the low percentages in cost savings. However, its importance is evident at the potential savings per farm and at the aggregate/state level.

Keywords

IPMscouting/samplingbinomial sequential samplingprofitabilitycost savingscollards
Type
Research Papers
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , March 2013 , pp. 43 - 49
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Francis, R.L., Smith, J.P., and Shepard, B.M. 2005. Integrated Pest Management for Cabbage and Collard: A Grower's Guide. Clemson Extension, Clemson University, Clemson, SC.Google Scholar
2United States Department of Agriculture—National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Pest Management. 2007. Available at Web site http://www.csrees.usda.gov/nea/pest/pest.cfm (accessed July 24, 2007).Google Scholar
3Gandhi, R. and Snedeker, S.M. 1999. Consumer Concerns about Pesticides in Food. Cornell University Program on Breast Cancer and Environmental Risk Factors in New York State. 1999 March. Fact Sheet No. 24. Available at Web site http://envirocancer.cornell.edu/factsheet/pesticide/fs24.consumer.cfm (accessed December 12, 2011).Google Scholar
4Zehnder, G., Hope, C., Hill, H., Hoyle, L., and Blake, J. 2003. An assessment of consumer preferences for IPM- and organically grown produce. Journal of Extension 41(2).Google Scholar
5Govindasamy, R., Italia, J., and Rabin, J. 1998. Consumer response and perceptions of integrated pest management produce. New Brunswick, Department of Agricultural Economics, The State University of New Jersey, Rutgers, NJ.Google Scholar
6Integrated Pest Management. Clemson University IPM Program. 2007. Available at Web site http://www.clemson.edu/scg/ipm/ (accessed July 24, 2007).Google Scholar
7Smith, J. and Shepard, B. 2004. A binomial sequential sampling plan using a composite threshold for caterpillar management in fresh market collard. Journal of Agricultural and Urban Entomology 21(3):171–184.Google Scholar
8Clemson University IPM Program. 2007. Available at Web site http://www.clemson.edu/scg/ipm (accessed July 24, 2007).Google Scholar
9Crop Profile for Leafy Greens and Collards (Fresh Market) in South Carolina. 2004. Clemson University June 2004. Available at Web site http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/scleafygreens.pdf (accessed December 12, 2011).Google Scholar
10Ferreira, W.N. 2006. Vegetable Enterprise Budgets for South Carolina – 2006/2007. Clemson University, Department of Applied Economics and Statistics, Clemson, SC.Google Scholar
11National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2002 Census of Agriculture County Profile. National Agricultural Statistics Service USDA, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
12The Pennsylvania Integrated Pest Management Program. 2005. Students get international experience in sustainable agriculture and IPM. Available at Web site http://paipm.cas.psu.edu/667.htm (updated February 17, 2005; accessed March 10, 2008).Google Scholar