<<

I

~ 12.8 ~11k§, 1.0 ~ Eli 1.0 IiiW .2 Ii.i a.:.: ~ w ~ &<.... "" ... ~ 1.1 ..... ~ 1.1 --- I .

III" 1.2~ 111/11.4 111111.6 111111.25 1/1/11.4 111111.6

• I

MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS-1963-A NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS-I%3-A

'. COOPERATIVE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT

THE BIOLOGIC AND ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT OF

~ c:r: 0::: co ::; ..,­ '-' CD ::; 0) co ::::; CL 0 f3 C\1 -J -l ~ ::::> z: -:; c:::c tr) 0 -J

UNITED STATES IN COOPERA T/ON WITH TECHNICAL DEPARTMENT OF BULLETIN STATE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS NUMBER 1652 AGRICULTURE COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE OTHER STATE AGENCIES U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY THE BIOLOGIC AND ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT OF TOXAPHENE

A report of the Toxaphene assessment team to the rebuttable presumption against registration of Toxaphene

Submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency on Seotember 12, 1977 and November 30, 1978

UNITED STATES IN COOPERA TlON WITH TECHNiCAL BUllETIN DEPARTMENT OF STATE ACRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS NUMBER 1652 AGRICULTURE COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE OTHER STATE AGENCIES U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PREFACE

This report is a joint project of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the State Land-Grant Universities, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and is the seventh in a series of reports recently prepared by a team of scientists from these m.'ganizations in order to provide sound, current scientific information on the benefits of, and exposure to, toxaphene.

The report is a scientific presentation to be used in connection with other data as a portion of the total body of knowledge in a final benefit/risk assessment under the Rebuttable Presumption Against Registration Process in connection with the Federal , Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.

This report is a slightly edited version of the two reports submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency on September 12, 1977 and November 30, 1978. The editing has been limited in order to maintain the accuracy of the information in the original reports. Sincere appreciation is extended to the Assessment Team Members and to all others who gave so generously of their time in the development of information and in the preparation of the report.

Toxaphene Assessment Team

Paul W. Bergman Entomologist USDA, SEA, ES Washington, D. C.

Alexander C. Davis Entomologist Cornell University Geneva, New York

Walter L. Ferguson Economist USDA, ESS Washington, D. C.

Stanford N. Fertig Chief, Impact USDA, SEA, AR Assessment Staff Beltsville, Maryland

Frederick W. Honing Entomologist USDA, FS Washington, D. C.

Richard L. Ridgway National Research USDA. SEA, AR Program Leader Beltsville. Maryland

Robert C. Riley Entomologist USDA. SEA. CR Washington, D. C.

Glen O. Schubert Veterinarian USDA, APHIS Hyattsville. Maryland

Paul H. Schwartz. Jr. Team Leader. USDA, SEA, AR National Research Beltsville. Maryland Program Leader Issued June 1981

ii Norman H. Starler Economist USDA, ES S (formerly) Washington, D. C.

Harrie .M. Taft, Jr. Entomologist USDA, SEA, AR (deceased) Florence, South Carolina

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Appreciation is expressed to the following for their assistance in providing information on the uses of toxaphene, acr.eage treated, production costs, comparative efficiency of toxaphene and available alternative , the losses associated with inadequate control of the various pests, and other related information.

U. S. Department of Agriculture

SEA, AR: B. A. Butt, F. P. Cuthbert, Jr. ESS: H. W. Delvo, W. A. Quinby C. R. Gentry, R. L. Harris J. C. Tinney P. C. Kearney, J. A. Onsager C. R. Parencia, A. W. Taylor FS: R. Stewart

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

OPP: M. Dow, G. O'Mal'a, J. Palmisano, M. McWhorter

State Coordinators

Alabama: F. Gilliland Montana: G. Jensen Arizona: L. Moore Nebraska: E. A. Dickason Arkansas: G. Barnes Nevada: H. G. Smith J. G. Burleigh New Hampshire: J. S. Bowman California: E. Swift' G. T. Fisher Connecticut: M. G. Savos New Mexico: E. Huddleston Delaware: W. E. McDaniel New York: A. A. Muka Georgia: W. R. Lambert III North Carolina: R. L. Robertson B. P. Singh North Dakota: J. T. Schulz Hawaii: J. Hylin Ohio: R. E. Treece Idaho: G. P. Carpenter Oklahoma: S. Coppock Illinois: S. Moore III K. We Hawxby Indiana: D. Matthew Oregon: J. Capizzi Iowa: H. J. Stockdale Pennsylvania: S. G. Gesell Kansas: L. Brooks Rhode Island: L. Pearson Louisiana: J. L. Bagent South Carolina: J. C. French J. S. Roussel South Dakota: B. H. Kantack Maine; J. B. Dimond Tennessee: C. J. Southards Maryland: W. C. Harding, Jr. Vermont: G. B. MacCollou Michigan: N. Fe Sloan Virginia: N. E. Lau Minnesota: L. K. Cutkomp Washington: R. Maxwell J. A. Lofgren West Virginia: J. F. Baniecki Mississippi: D. F. Young, Jr. D. O. Quinn Missouri: M. L. Fairchild Wisconsin: E. H. Fisher Wyoming: E. W. Spackman

iii SUMMARY

Toxaphene has been used as a pesticide since 1947, and has 277 commodity and other site registrations. About 33 million pounds are currently used on about 4.9 million acres of and about 17 million head of beef cattle. State and Federal agencies recommend or use toxaphene for control of 167 insect pests on 44 com­ modities, 40 of which have no equally effective and safe alternative in one or more States. The need for toxaphene on the remaining commodities is considered useful. Toxaphene + methyl used on increases the interval between applica­ tions by about 2 days. When methyl parathion is used alone, it must be applied every 3 to 5 days. Toxaphene is one of the least toxic of the insecticides to honeybees and other pollinating of crops.

Literature relating to the impact of toxaphene on the biological and physical environments was reviewed and interpreted. We attempted to determine the rates at which toxaphene is moving into the physical environment and disappearing from it. This information is critical for an assessment of biological effect. Volatilization represents a major pathway by which toxaphene moves into the air from and .

Toxaphene volatilizes from water rapidly. Our studies show that it probably has a half-life of less than 2 min in the surface layer of water. The rate at which it moves to the surface layer of water is controlled by several factors, including rate of diffusion and rate of desorption. Our studies showed that most of the toxaphene disappeared rapidly from ; however, a very small amount remained in the for a fairly long period of time.

Toxaphene enters water primarily through surface runoff. Sediment carries al­ most all of the toxaphene in the surface runoff. It is possible to measure toxaphene yields of runoff in sediment and to obtain rough estimates of the time that it takes for toxaphene concentrations to be reduced to biologically inactive levels once the sediment contaminated with toxaphene is introduced into the water. These time periods are usually relatively short, varying from a few days to a few months depending upon the size of the surface area of the body of water, the organic matter in the water, the sediment load, and the toxaphene conce!1tration in the sediment.

Toxaphene evaporates readily from the surface of soil providing the surface of the soil is not dry. The process of volatilization is almost stopped if the soil is cultivated or if the toxaphene is mixed with the soil. Toxaphene will undergo anaer­ obic degradation in the soil, however, which is extensive if the soil is high in humus or organic matter.

Toxaphene is probably present in the air for only a short period of time. The half-life of a compound like toxaphene is apt to be very short--probably less than a day--in the air. It is degraded by complex chemical reactions consisting primarily of photochemical oxidation. Toxaphene undergoes little bioaccumulation in the envi­ ronment. It does not bioaccumulate in birds that eat ; however, the greatest bioaccumulation occurs when fish are exposed to water containing toxaphene. Such bioaccumulation rates are generally less than 10,000.

The results of the National Pesticide Monitoring Program, initiated in June 1967, showed that toxaphene residues rarely occurred in the samples checked. It is found far less frequently than persistent chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides.

iv Toxaphene occurred about 9 times per 1,000 samples for the period 1966-74 in the total diet study, whereas was found with a frequency of 258 times per 1,000 samples and DDT 150 times per 1,000 samples. Toxaphene was used more heavily on agricultural lands than was dieldrin or DDT.

When toxaphene was fed to cattle and sheep at 100 p/m for 16 weeks, the con­ centrations in sheep remained at approximately the same level during each week through the 16th week. Concentrations increased blightly each week in the body fat of cattle. In both species, residue levels were dependent upon concentrations in the diet.

When toxaphene was eliminated from the diet, it was rapidly excreted from the body. Toxaphene residues in the fat declined rapidly at first and then slowly tapered off and returned to near zero levels within 8 weeks after toxaphene was discontinued in the feed. This indicated that toxaphene was readily metabolized in the body and excreted.

Toxaphene apparently undergoes extensive dechlorination. In the dechlorination of toxaphene in , the only identified metabolite was the chloride ion, which appears almost entirely in the urine and accounted for about half of the admin­ istered dose. About 50 percent of the chloride ion in both toxaphene and table salt was eliminated from the body in about 2 to 3 days. The extensive metabolic dechlorination of toxaphene in rats differs from that of many chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides and environmental pollutants.

A concept of relative maximum potential importance was developed to evaluate toxaphene in comparison with no in the production of crops. This con­ cept combines effects on target pests, yield, range of pest infestations, acres of crop in pest range, and treatment costs. Dollars were used in these calculations as an accounting mechanism and do not reflect economic benefits. These increased yields, translated to 1975 average prices, indicated the following maximum potential importance :

Cotton for control of Heliothis/boll weevil complex $591 million Wheat for control of army cutworms 333 million Beef cattle for control of lone star 50 million Alfalfa grown for seed for control of lygus bugs 8 million Peppers for control of pepper weevil 7 million Lima beans for control of lygus bugs and corn earworm 4 million.

These estimates are based on severa.l assumptions, including: (1) All of the acres of the commodity in the range of the pest were infested and treated with toxaphene under conditions similar to the research plot treatments; (2) differences in yield for treated vs. untreated research plots would be realized on all acres in the pest range; (3) prices received for the commodity would be the same as the average 1975 price without consideration of price flexibility; (4) no pest control alternatives other than toxaphene were considered and adequate supplies would be available at 1975 prices.

The Toxaphene Assessment Team has limited the scope of the economic study to high-volume uses (cotton, , sorghum, peanuts, beef cattle, and wheat) and to selected low-volume uses (vegetables, onion seed crops, Southern peas, alfalfa seed crops, sunflowers, corn, sheep and goats, swine, and beef cattle quarantine). The high-volume uses accounted for 98 percent of all toxaphene used in agriculture.

v Partial budgets of insect control costs and, where relevant or possible, changes in level of output were estimated for each of the high-volume uses comparing toxaphene use to the next best alternative control. The partial budgets were aggregated to provide a preliminary, short-run estimate of an immediate cancellation of toxaphene in terms of its economic impact in the next growing season. These results are used to characterize the scale of the economic benefits to growers, industry, and consumers. Care must be taken in interpreting the results, however, because there are many limiting assumptions inherent in a partial level budgeting analysis. Partial budgeting usually considers only a few alternative choices and generally does not include changes in cropping patterns or production activities. Partial budgeting is a useful technique for estimating short-run economic impacts.

The economic impact of the loss of toxaphene to U. S. farmers who are high-volume users could, in the short run, result in substantial negative impacts. Cotton producers would bear the major share of this impact. Of equal importance is the impact on low-volume users who could, in many specialized situations, lose effective control over a number of pests.

The economic impact on cotton producers using toxaphene was estimated at $115 million--$30 million from increased insect control costs and $85 million from reduced cotton production. Beef cattle producers would incur added insect control costs of $1. 5 million, and growers of soybeans, sorghum, and peanuts would incur cost increases of $534,000. Wheat producers using toxaphene to control grasshoppers and armyworms would, with the use of alternatives, have increased control costs of $4 million. On the other hand, producers who used toxaphene to control army cut­ worm in 1976 could have saved $419,000 in treatment costs and produced an additional $9.1 million worth of wheat if had been used in place of toxaphene.

Toxaphene-treated cotton acres account for about one-third of all cotton acres. The Delta and Southeast cotton-growing regions are particularly sensitive to a loss of toxaphene.

Toxaphene is considered the most economical means of controlling many pests that affect beef cattle. About 16 percent of the 107 million cattle inventory in 1976 is estimated to have been treated with toxaphene.

For the low-volume uses, apparently the use of toxaphene on onion seed crops, Southern peas (erratic control afforded by substitutes), and sunflowers (no registered alternative) is highly important. The significance of toxaphene use on sheep, goats, and swine hinges on the fate of in the RPAR process. Toxaphene is the insecticide of choice for beef cattle quarantine.

Keywords: Toxaphene, pesticide registration, RPAR, cotton insect control, Heliotbisl boll weevil complex, alternatives to toxaphene, cotton budworm, cotton bollworm, insect control, armyworms, sorghum, insect control, peanut insect con­ trol, lone star tick, wheat insect control, vegetables, onion seed crops, Southern peas, alfalfa seed crops, sunflowers, corn, sheep and goats, swine, beef cattle quarantine, horn , face fly, lice., , , cutworms, cowpea curculio, lygus bugs, pepper weevil, sunflower beetle, sheep ked, mites, fleece worms, scabies mites, corn earworm, insecticides, crop losses, economic jmpacts, environmental exposure, exposure.

vi CONTENTS

PART 1. BIOLOGIC ASSESSMENT

INTRODUCTION • • ••••• • 0 • • • • • 0 • • • • • D • • • 1 CHAPTER 1: ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH CONSIDERATIONS. 2 Generalized Use Pattern. • • • •• ...... 2 Rate of Disappearance From Water • 2 Rate of Introduction Into Water • ., . . . . . 6 Rate of Disappearance From Soil. • • · ...... 6 Fate in Air • • • • • • • • • • • 0 • 7 Exposure Levels in the Environment. • ...... 7 Biological Accumulation • • • • • • • 8 Metabolism and Fate in Biological Organisms • · ...... 11 Biological Effects From Exposure • • •• · ...... 11 Impact on Fish • • • • • • • • • • 13 Toxicity to Bees • • • • • • • • • • • • 14 CHAPTER 2: CRITICAL USES AND BENEFITS IN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION . . . . 15 Benefits of Pest Control ••••••• • • • • • 15 Benefits From Application to Crops and • • •• 0 • 17 Cotton ...... ~ ...... 18 Grain and Forage • • • • • 19 Livestock • • • • • • • • • • • . . . . 21 Vegetables • • • • • •••• 22 Other Crops ...... Q 23 Relative Maximum Potential Importance of Toxaphene. • • • • • • 23

PART 2. ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

INTRODUCTION • • • ...... 24 CHAPTER 3: EXTENT OF USE OF TOXAPHENE 25 CHAPTER 4: ANALYSES OF USES OF TOXAPHENE AND PRINCIPAL ALTERNATIVES ON SELECTED COMMODITIES . . . 27 High-Volume Uses •••••••••••• •••••• . . . 27 High-Volume Uses--Cotton. • • • • • • • • • • • • • 28 High-Volume Uses--Soybeans, Sorghum, and Peanuts • • •• 32 High-Volume Uses--Beef Cattle •••• 36 High-Volume Uses--Wheat • • • • .' •• 40 Expected Value Methodology. · . . . 52 Low-Volume Uses •••••• . . . . . 58 Low-Volume Uses--Vegetables ••••• ...... 58 Low-Volume Uses--Onions (Seed Crop). • •••••• 58 Low-Volume Uses--Southern Peas • • • · . . . 59 Low-Volume Uses--Alfalfa Seed Crops · ...... 59 Low-Volume Uses--Sunflowers •••• · . . . 59 Low-Volume Uses--Corn ••••••• . . • • • G • • ...... 60 Low-Volume Uses--Sheep and Goats . . . . . · . . . 60 Low-Volume Uses--Swine •••• · ...... 61 Low-Volume Uses--Beef Cattle Quarantine • 61 REFERENCES •••• ...... 61 vii PART 1. BIOLOGIC ASSESSMENT

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this report is to annually, it is the most heavily used develop biological, exposure, and insecticide in the United States (2, economic information related to the uses 123). 1../ In 1971, toxaphene accounted of toxaphene. for 24 percent of all insecticides used by farmers in the United States. It is This information was provided in registered for about 277 sites and is, two original benefit assessment reports therefore, available for a wide variety (September 12, 1977 and November 30, of uses (124). 1978) to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) following its issuance of This publication is divided into a rebuttable presumption against regis­ two parts: Biologic Assessment and tration (RPAR) against these registered Economic Assessment. uses of toxaphene. There have been a number of Title 40, 162.11, of the Code of reviews, both published and unpub­ Federal Regulations for the Federal lished, of the scientific literature Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide on toxaphene. These reviews primarily Act (FIFRA) as amended (86 Stat. 971, 89 have summarized the scientific data on Stat. 751, 7 U.S.C. 136 etseq.) provides toxaphene. In the biologic assessment that a rebuttable presumption against part of this publication we have registration (RPAR) or reregistration attempted to interpret the scientific shall arise if the Environmental data and present opinions in an assess­ Protection Agency (EPA) determines that ment of toxaphene. No attempt was made the pesticide meets or exceeds any of to summarize all of the literature on the risk criteria relating to acute or toxaphene. The specific objectives of chronic toxic effects set forth in the the assessment were as follows: Regulations (Section 162.11 (a)(3)). A notice of RPAR is issued when the evi­ 1) To identify registrations of dence related to risk meets the criteria toxaphene that are useful to American set forth. agriculture. 2) To determine the benefits of In the Federal Register of May 25, toxaphene as derived from these 1977, the Environmental Protection registered uses. Agency issued a notice of rebuttable 3) To determine the degree of presumption against registration and exposure of the environment and the continued registration of pesticide general population to toxaphene from products containing toxaphene. these use patterns. 4) To evaluate the benefit versus Toxaphene, a chlorinated hydro­ the exposure levels of these use carbon insecticide, is prepared from patterns for American agriculture. , which is of botanical origin (the Southern pine tree). In the The major emphasis in the environ­ synthesis of toxaphene, alpha-pinene mental area was to assess the exposure derived from the Southern pine tree is levels of toxaphene in the environment converted to camphene and chlorinated to and to the general public. These a level of 67 to 69 percent. Toxaphene studies involved the rate of introduc­ has been used as a pesticide since 1947. tion and the rate of disappearance It is an extremely important and useful insecticide to the production of food 1/ Figures in parentheses refer and feed crops of the United States and to the references at the end of this the world. In terms of pounds applied publication.

1 of toxaphene from the environment, 1) Persistence which was correlated with geographical 2) Tendency for distributions of use, methods of appli­ and bioaccumulation cation, and ultimate fate of toxaphene 3) Environmental mobility in the environment. An attemp.: was 4) Residue levels in biological made to determine the magnitude and organisms, such as fish, birds, and duration of exposure of nontarget organ­ mammals isms, with emphasis on the following 5) Residue levels in the physical factors: environment.

CHAPTER 1

ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH CONSIDERATIONS

The impact of toxaphene on the bio­ Rate of Disappearance From Water logical environment can be assessed by determining the rate at which toxaphene Volatilization represents a major is moving into the physical environment pathway by which toxaphene moves into and the rate at which it is disappearing. the air from water and soil. The rate This information indica.tes levels of at which toxaphene evaporates from water exposure over a period of time that is rapid. The half-life was calculated biological organisms would encounter; by equation 10 from Mackay and Wolkoff the probable impact on the biological (83) as follows: environment can then be determined. (1) I' Generalized Use Pattern where: The relationship of a uSe pattern I' = 1/2 life in days of toxaphene to the environment is L = water depth in meters =1 shown in figure L The use pattern P vapor pressure of water for Heliothis control on cotton was w = at 25°C 23.756 chosen for figure 1 because it is repre­ = sentative of a foliar application of Cis = concentration of toxaphene under good agricultural prac­ toxaphene at saturation tice. This use pattern accounted for = 0.1 and 1.00 mg/L about 86 percent of the total toxaphene (Goltfelty and Caro (59» used in the United States in 1974. E = 2740 g/m2 (Mackay and Wolkoff (83» Data by Nash and others (94) vapor pressure for provide some indication of the fate of Pis = 0.3 toxaphene when it is applied to the toxaphene at 25°C = cotton plant. These data show that (Goltfelty and Caro (59» when 12 lb lacre of toxaphene are applied ~ = molecular weight of annually to cotton, 6.6 lb are account­ toxaphene = 413.634. able from application directly to the cotton plant, 2.9 lb move into the air, When I' is calculated for concentrations 2.4 lb are found in the soil, and 0.02 of 0.1 and L 00 mg 1L of toxaphene, lb is found in the water. This accounts the corresponding values are 7.50 sec­ for over 99 percent of the toxaphene in onds (s) an~ 75.00 s. These values the study. Based on these data, about indicate that toxaphene is volatilized 45 percent of the toxaphene originally from the surface of water very rapidly, applied to the cotton plant moves into as compared with DDT (3.7 days) and the physical environment. dieldrin (723 days).

2 Foliage '" 715 p/ ~ CDtrtonseed Fiber

ant "':~inei'>Cl.~up~al, ~../"14Cotton Pl/ arm D,spo ~ ,400 pi .~ Storage: \ )Spray T 6 / ~life l:.~n!tialresidue & 'ac auk .641 lb ( ays (94) , /' Nonfood Food & Feed F I /._s_~ 9~ ~ ~ 0-0.38 p/m (table 1) S 12 lb/ A/yr (94) Plants ExposUI'e \5.26 lb (94) Appl. to ~cator \ t / "_us -l~YSica,EnVir>onm\nt ) Biological Environment / 0 p/m (table 1)

2.38 0.02 2.86 \ lb (94) lb (94) lb (94) Animals~Domestic

Soil" Water J 1Air "".~

0.1-11. 72 p/m 0 p/m .04-2250 ngm-3 (28) .. 'Wild -----'> Mammals (tabl.1) (tabl. 1) / /; 7 \

Fish Amphibians Birds 0.01-1.25 p/m & Reptiles (table 1) Star>lings o p/m (table 1) J, Eagles Fish-eating birds o p/m (table 1) 2.3 p/m (table 2) Ducks o p/m (table 1)

Figure 1. Model of environmental exposure from toxaphene application to cotton foliage and fruit by gl'ound equipment. Numbers in parentheses refer to references at the end of this publication. Numbers on lines refer to the rate of introduction of toxaphene from one source to another.

~ For comparison, we calculated thE: evaporation rate of toxaphene from water in a leaf surface by the use of dieldrin as a model pesticide as follows (60):

Dr 2.7 (2) Tr - = ~------~~------= 1.98 seconds 5 (::) (s~) (1.65 x 10 ) (100/140)

where: Ft = (~)(~)1/2 = (3.16 x ~0-3\(413\1/2 F d Kh d Md 2 x 10 8 ) 380 J where: F = vapor flux for toxaphene (t) and dieldrin (d) K ::; log apparent Henry's constant (Goltfelty and Caro (59)) h t = -2.5 d = -7.7 M = molecular weight, d = 380, t = 413 S = (p/b) 2.7 (Taylor and others (118)) Dr = 1/2 life dieldrin = in days. T r = 1/2 life toxaphene

Although these calculated figures are This follows second-order kinetics, only approximate, they indicate that indicating that more than one factor is toxaphene is volatilized from the top 1 involved in the disappearance of toxa­ to 3 mm surface of water very rapidly, phene from the lakes. The regression whether it is in a standing body of lines in figure 2 are parallel, indi­ water (less than 2 min) or on a leaf cating the same D value for the rate of surface (less than 2 s). disappearance. These data indicate that toxaphene does not have a true half-life The study by Terriere and others in water. The time to reduce the (119) contained enough data to study the concentration by one-half is doubled rate of disappearance of toxaphene from (that is, it takes twice as long to go water under field conditions. The data from 40 p/b to 20 p/b as it does to go indicated that most of the toxaphene from 80 p/b to 40 p/b). disappeared rapidly from these lakes and then remained at a very low level. Vaporization alone would not account for this behavior, but it is Our calculations show that the rate the main process by which most of the of disappearance of toxaphene from the toxaphene disappears from the aquatic lakes followed the equation: system (109). The rate of evaporation would be controlled by lake surface (3) D = InC-Inl areas, as well as by diffusion and InT desorption, which would depend upon where: the amount of sediment in the lake and C = concentration of toxa­ the turbulence of the lake. Toxaphene phene at time (T) is comprised of a complex mixture of In = natural log 175 polychlorinated, 10-carbon com­ I = initial amount of toxa­ pounds. The lighter, more volatile phene components of toxaphene may have D = disappearance rate left the lake, leaving behind the (a dimensionless number). heavier, less volatile components.

4 Log· of residues in water (p/b)

(148) 5

(55) 4 = 0.99

(20) ~ 3 ~avis r2 = 1.00 (7.4) 2

max. stream (2.7) 1 _ a11o~e~.5 p/b)~

(1) 0

(0.37)-1

(0.14)-2 « , -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 4 5 6 (0.37) (1) (2.7) (55) Log of Years after Treatment (years)

Figure 2. Degradation of toxaphene from lakes treated for fish control (119).

Anaerobic decomposition of toxa­ solution concentration at equilibrium phene may have played a role in the (Spencer and Cliath (111). In this subsequent reduction of toxaphene to equation, concentrations can also be nontoxic levels in water; however. the replaced with vapor density. The a.naerobic decomposition of toxaphene may desorption of from also not decompose all of the components of follows the Freundlich equation: toxaphene. Some of the heavier, less volatile components of toxaphene are the (5) xlm = k' (d/d )l/n same ones that do not readily succumb o to decomposition by microbial organisms where d is the observed vapor (117). density and d is the saturation vapor density withou~ soil; k' and n are con­ Some workers have found that ad­ stants; and x is the weight of absorbate sorption of pesticides by lake sediments taken up by a weight m of (Cliath and soil materials fits the Freundlich and Spencer (41». equation: 11n These studies indicate that if the (4) xlm = kc vapor density over the soil is saturated with respect to the pure compound when where k and n are constants, all the adsorption sites are filled, x is the weight of adsorbate taken up the adsorption in isotherms may be by a weight m of solid, and c is the approximated by assuming a linear

5 relationship between soil concentration grams per hectare can be calculated by and relative vapor density. Thus, rate using the following equation: of disappearance as described by equa­ tion 3 provides estimates of rate of adsorption, desorption, and volatility, inasmuch as they are all interrelated. where: It is doubtful whether anyone factor Ty= toxaphene yield (g/ha) can be separated because they are S = sediment yield dependent. y (metric tons/ha) Sc = concentration of toxa­ The data in the literature indicate phene in sediment (p/m). that most of the toxaphene applied to water disappears rapidly. For instance, Therefore, the amount of toxaphene the stuG..; by Kallman and others (76) moving into a body of water from runoff indicated that when toxaphene was added can be predicted if the amount of sedi­ to Clayton Lake, the initial concentra­ ment moving into the water is known and tion of 50 p/b dropped within 31 days to the concentration of the toxaphene in less than 1 p/b. The D value (equation the sediment is known. 3) was -0.44, indicating that the disap­ pearance was four times faster from Rate of Disappearance From Soil Clayton Lake than from Davis Lake and Miller Lake. Data from Bradley and The data of Guenzi and Beard (64) others (31) show that runoff from showed that pesticide volatilization from toxaphene-treated areas into a farm pond soil is dependent upon the surface area had residue levels up to 65 p/b during of the soil (the smaller the surface the time the pond was sampled, but 6 area the greater the loss) and tempera­ days later residues had dropped to 8.4 ture (the higher the temperature the p/b, with the possibility that more greater the loss). Soil moisture has toxaphene was introduced into the pond no effect on the rate of volatilization on the day of sampling because of rain. of the pesticide from the soil until a monolayer of water or less is present, Rate of Introduction Into Water whereby the volatilization stops. In many agricultural areas, soil surfaces The amount of toxaphene that would dry out during hot, dry periods in the get into a standing body of water or summer; thus, toxaphene volatilization stream is related to runoff. A model would not occur during these periods. for runoff of pesticides has been devel­ oped by Bruce and others (32). Their Willis (146) conducted a study with data indicate that the sediment contri­ toxaphene on a 60-acre cottonfield to bution from interrill erosion is a determine rate of loss from the field function of rainfall intensity and soil due to vaporization. The data indicated susceptibility to erosion. The rill that toxaphene losses were greater erosion is a function of water runoff during midday than in mornings or late and the rate of change of water runoff. afternoons when cooler temperatures They concluded that adequate simulation prevailed. High flux rates may occur of pesticide runoff can be achieved­ in early morning while leaf surfaces by using a simple relationship between are wet with dew. The total flux ranged soil pesticide concentration and quan­ from 18.20 to 70.92 g/ha, with an aver­ tity of sediment eroded from the water­ age of 41.08 g/ha for the seven sampling shed. dates. A total of 6720 g/ha were applied, and about 1148 g (17 pct) were This relationship was demonstrated lost during the 28-day study period. when Willis and others (147) measured When toxaphene was incorporated in the toxaphene yields in runoff and sediment soil at rates of 100 and 200 lb/acre in a Mississippi Delta watershed. Their in small-plot studies, it took about 11 data indicate that toxaphene yield in years for one-half of the residues of

6 toxaphene to disappear from soil (95). oxidation (58). The major pathway of In a field study on three watersheds the introduction of toxaphene into the where toxaphene was used to control atmosphere is by volatilization from pests of agricultural crops (114), plant, soil, and water surfaces. however, toxaphene residues were much less persistent than shown by Nash and Although toxaphene has been used in Woolson (95) as follows: large amounts each year, it has not been identified in U. S • air samples in other Years Total Percent than three locations--all in southern after 18.st applied recovered agricultura\. areas at levels of 16 to toxaphene (pounds in 0 to 60 2250 ng m-.!f Bidleman and Olney (28) application per acre) inches also report concentrations of toxaphene in the air over the Western North 3 10 21 Atlantic near Bermuda at levels ranging 2 18 15 from 0.02 to 5.2 ng m-3. They de­ 1 22 12 tected very low levels that were at or near the detectable limit. This agrees Toxaphene undergoes anaerobic with our estimate that toxaphene would degradation in soil. The degradation is not persist at detectable levels in the extensive if the soil is high in humus atmosphere for long periods of time. or organic matter (102). Exposure Levels in the Environment Fate in Air The National Pesticide Monitoring Recent discussions of the chemistry Program initiat~d in June 1967 provides of organic compounds in the atmosphere information concerning the residues of suggested that toxaphene survives in the pesticides in the environment. We air only for a short period of time. reviewed the results from this program The half-life of a compound such as and found that toxaphene residues toxaphene is likely to be very short, rarely occurred (table 1) • From 1966 probably less than a day in air. Such to 1974, the frequency of occurrence of chemical compounds are apt to be rapidly toxaphene in total diet studies was 9 degraded by a complex chemical reaction out of 1,000, with a range of residue that consists primarily of photochemical levels from a trace to 0.38 p/m.

Table 1. --Occurrence of toxaphene in samples in the National Pesticide Monitoring Program

Total Frequency Range of Subject Time samples of toxic resi­ monitored period checked occurrence l) dues (p/m) References Food and Feed 1966-74 3,192 9 0.001-0.38 (42,43,44,50,75, 85,86,87,88) 1967-72 3,319 0 o (33,62,140,141) Fish 1967-69 737 16 0.01-1.25 (70,71) Ducks 1965-70 1,208 0 o (67,68) Starlings 1967-74 754 (; o (89,90,96,142) Eagles 1964-72 290 0 o (26,46,103,104) Estuaries (mollusks) 1965-72 8,095 16 11-54 (34) Water 1964-68 529 0 o (82) Soil (cropland) 1967-70 3,477 32 0.1-11.72 (45,143,145) Soil (noncropland) 1967-70 1,072 8 0.01-52.73 (36,143,144,145)

11 Number of times a positive sample occurs per 1,000 samples.

7 Pet of Samples Upper Limit of The probability of exposure to toxaphene With Toxaphene Kange of Residue Cp/m) from food is very small for the general public. lOr-______1 . O No residues were found in water or 9 pet samples with toxaphene .9 in tissue samples from humans, ducks, starlings, or eagles; however, the fre­ 8 ,,- - upper limit of residue range .8 quency of finding toxaphene in fish and mollusks was about 16 out of 1,000, and 7 .7 residue levels ranged from 0.01 to 1.25 for fish and 11 to 54 p/m for mollusks. 6 .6 Toxaphene was found in soils from crop­ land about 32 times out of 1,000, with 5 residues ranging from 0.1 to 1.;..7 plm .5 and soils from noncropland about 8 times out of 1,000, with residues ranging from 4 , .4 0.01 to 52.7 plm (table 1). .. 3 .3 These data indicate that toxaphene ---- is not found frequently in samples 2 ------.2 in the National Pesticide Monitoring ---, -- Program. It is found far less fre­ If------~.------~-- ~-~-~:-:-~~- .1 quently than certain chlorinated hydro­ __ .. --..:::..:::..... carbon insecticides. such as dieldrin, , and DDT. For comparison, °6~6---:47--~6~8----L69--~7-0--~7Ll---J72--~7~3--~74 toxaphene was found in the 1973-74 total diet study 8 times in 1,000 samples, whereas dieldrin was found with a: fre­ Year quency of 258 and DDT with a frequency Figure 3. Frequency of occurrence of 150 per 1,000 samples. For the peri­ of toxaphene and residues in total od represented in table 1, p,p'DDE (the market basket studies by FDA. most persistent DDT metabolite), was found 230 times per 1,000 samples, diel­ Published market basket studies drin 290 times per 1,000 samples, and sampled from 1966 to 1974 by the FDA chlordane 95 times per 1,000 samples, show that the percentage of samples with compared with toxaphene's 32 times per toxaphene in food seems to be decreasing 1,000 samples in cropland. Toxaphene was (fig. 3). There is a general trend for more heavily used on agricultural crop­ the toxaphene samples to have decreased lands than any of these insecticides. from about 1 percent in 1966 to 0.3 percent in 1974. The upper limits of Biological Accumulation the range of the residues during that same period also appear to be decreasing Toxaphene undergoes little bioac­ (fig. 3). The following results of cumulation in the environment (table 2). No bioaccumulation occurred when diets APHIS's meat and I:.~ultry inspection program for toxaphene residues indicate containing toxaphene up to 100 plm that the frequency of occurrence of were fed to livestock. Toxaphene toxaphene residues is decreasing: does not bioaccumulate in birds that eat fish. The greatest bioaccumulation Frequency of ratio (br) occurs in fish exposed to Year occurrence11,000 samples water containing toxaphene (br = 7,287). This minimal bioaccumulation probably 1973 9 explains why there are very few reports 1974 2 regarding problems with toxaphene in 1975 1 the biological environment and. minimal 1976 1 frequency of occurrence of toxaphene as

8 Table 2. --Biological magnification of toxaphene wit~ emphasis on the aquatic environment

Component Average with Transfer residue Bioaccumulation residues mechanism levels (p/b) ratios

Livestock Diet "Y18,074.0 0.33 Water Direct ~J 0.9 0 Lake sediment Water !I648.0 720.0 Lake vegetation Water !/2 , 748.0 3,053.0 Fish-eating birds Fish !/2 ,770.0 0.42 Fish Water !/6 , 558.0 7,287.0

11 Hercules (73), table 1, for sheep, cattle, and calves. 21 Terriere and others (119). 31 Keith and Hunt (77), table 9, for fish-eating birds (whole body residues) . reported in the National Pesticide These data indicate that the rela­ Monitoring Program. tionship between duration of continuing exposure and concentration of exposure The Mrak report (93) indicated that in the tissue can be described as there was no evidence that toxaphene follows: undergoes biological magnification; they did not recommend that its uses be (7) C = a + rt restricted in the United States, "as they had recommended for , dieldrin, where: C is the concentration and other chlorinated hydrocarbon pesti­ of toxaphene in the tissue cides. The Mrak report also did not rec­ at time t, and a and rare ommend that human exposure to toxaphene constants. be minimized, as was recommended for aldrin, dieldrin, , and other The rate of storage is expressed by the chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides. constant r. This is a linear reaction that shows that storage of toxaphene Toxaphene was fed to cattle and after reaching equilibrium is dosage­ sheep at 100 plm for 16 weeks (40). dependent. Apparently the rate for Concentrations in sheep remained at toxaphene storage when equilibrium is approximately the same level during reached is nearly 0 for sheep and milk each week through the 16th week of dairy cattle (r = -0.05 to 0.02) and (fig. 4). Cattle fed the same dosage about 0.9 for cattle. A plateau is had concentrations in the body fat reached in the fat, which is dosage­ that increased slightly each week. This dependent (fig. 5). In fat, the relationship also holds true for" the residue levels are about fivefold less concentration of toxaphene in the milk than they are in the feed of sheep and of cattle exposed to toxaphene in their about threefold to fourfold less than diets from 1 to 8 weeks (fig. 5). There they are in the feed of cattle. is very little gain or loss in the residues in the milk when the toxa­ There is a definite relationship phene concentrations in the diet are between the dose fed dairy cattle and held constant (39). the amount of residue found in the milk.

9 Residue Residue (p/m) (p/m)

50.~______~ 2.0

Sheep A 45 .-- 1. 8:.. 4 r2 = 0.14 ~ .A- --- Cattle .4 .4 1.6 .4 40 r2 = 0.82 • 140 p/m .­ •• .4 ./ 1. 4 ... 35 .. '" ./ ./ "" .. ./ 30 ./ , 1. 2 ./ '" r2 0.06 co , ~ r2 = 0.99 = 1. 0 25 co r2 = 0.01­ , 2 , 6 0 0 • o. 8 100 p/m 0 20 • • • I­ r2 = 0.15'" 0.6 - ... A 15 A • r2 = 0.85 '" 60 p/m ­ 10 0.4 • r2 = 0.07 . . . • . . 5 0.2 . 20 p/m o o 4 8 12 16 o 4 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

(with toxaphene) (no toxaphene) Weeks of Toxaphene Weeks in Diet

Figure 4. Residues of toxaphene in Figure 5. Residues of toxaphene in cattle and sheep fed 100 p/m milk when fed in diet of cows for 8 toxaphene in diet (fed toxaphene­ weeks (39). contaminated feed for 16 weeks, then fed regular diet for 8 weeks (40)). rt (8) C = ae

For each level that was fed to the cows, where: C is the concentration there was a corresponding residue level of toxaphene in the fat tissue :i.n the milk (fig. 5). These residue after time t, levels were approximately 100-fold to a and r are constants, 150-fold less than the amount found in and e = 2.718. the feed (20 p/m in feed vs. 0.28 p/m in the milk, 60 VB. 0.61, 100 vs. 0.97, Toxaphene is initially rapidly excreted and 140 vs. 1.68). If the toxaphene is from fat tissue and declines rapidly, eliminated from the diet, it is rapidly returning to near 0 levels within 8 excreted from the body and residues in weeks, when it is discontinued in the the fat decline (figs. 4 and 6). feed (fig. 4). This indicates that tox­ aphene is readily metabolized in the These changes in the concentrations body. of toxaphene in the fat after exposure has ended follow a second-order reaction The elimination of toxaphene in with the exponential relationship: milk is also described by equation 8

10 Residue These studies show that toxaphene (p/m) rapidly reaches a plateau in body fat 2.0 and milk if i.ntake of toxaphene is held constant. When the toxaphene is r2 0.75 0--­ 140 p/m = eliminated from the food, however, the 1.8j~ toxaphene is rapidly metabolized and c:-,--- 100 p/m r2 = 0.69 excreted from the body. 1. 6 '" Metabolism and Fate &---- 60 p/m r2 = 0.86 in Biological Organisms 20 p/m r2 = 1.0 1.4 '" Toxaphene undergoes extensive • dechlorination in the presence of even small amounts of reduced hematin. The components of toxaphene contain many 1.2 i\. possible sites for initial attack and further degradation. Extensive dechlor­ 1.0 I- \. ination of the polychlorobornane compo­ nents of toxaphene might be expected to ~ \ occur in microbial systems under anaero­ 0.8 ~. \ bic conditions (79). . In a study of the dechlorination of toxaphene in rats by Oshawa and others

(97) J the only identified metabolite of toxaphene was the chloride ion, which " appears almost entirely in urine and accounts for about half of the adminis­ tered dose. This chloride ion, result­ ing from the metabolism of toxaphene, is excreted at almost the same rate as that resulting from the direct administration of common table salt. About 50 percent 1 2 3 of the chloride ion is eliminated from the body in about 2 to 3 days for toxa­ Weeks phene or table salt. Toxaphene under­ goes extensive metabolic dechlorination Figure 6. Residues of toxaphene in in -rats and differs in this respect from milk after toxaphene has been chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides and eliminated from the diet (39). environmental pollutants (97).

Considerable toxaphene metabolism (fig. 6). When the toxaphene was elimi­ resulted after toxaphene was orally ad­ nated from the feed of dairy cattle, ministered to albino rats via a stomach the rates of disappearance of toxaphene tube. Even though a total concentration from the milk were nearly equal for all of 90 percent of the administered dose the doses except the 20 plm dose as occurred, less than 10 percent remained follows: after the first day. This is in con­ trast to about 34 percent of a dose of Concentration r that was retained in the tissues in feed (p/m) Value and organs of rats after 7 days (47).

20 -1.2218 Biological Effects From Exposure 60 -0.6039 100 -0.6222 Inasmuch as toxaphene occurs at low 140 -0.6403 to near zero levels in the environment

11 and is rapidly metabolized and excreted administered at doses sufficient to from the body, it is very unlikely that cause a high degree of maternal toxicity toxaphene would have an adverse biologi­ in the , there were also a reduction cal effect. This has been indicated by in fetal weight and a decrease in the studies with rats, guinea. pigs, dogs, degree of skeletonal ossification. In cattle, sheep, rabbits, and humans. the mouse, the only significant fetal Toxaphene has been administered by oral, effect was an incidence of encephalo­ dermal, respiratory, and intubated celes found in mice receiving the routes. No outward signs of toxicity highest dose level, which also resulted were observed in rats fed dietary in overt maternal toxicity. Administra­ levels of toxaphene as high as 1,200 p/m tion of toxaphene to rats and mice dur­ for 60 days (72). Rats and guinea pigs ing a period of embryonic organogenesis intubated with kerosene solution con­ results in some fetal toxic effects at taining 5 percent toxaphene, 5 days per levels that cause maternal toxicity week for 6 months, at approximately 100 (38). This is to be expected when one and 800 p/m showed no gross effects. administers a chemical at a dosage level Toxaphene fed at 50 and 200 p/m to rats that is at or near the level that causes for 9 months showed no clinical signs of death. Toxic symptoms can be expected. toxicity; food consumption and growth of A hypotonic condition with water causes rats were not inhibited (98). Applica­ stomach cramps and other symptoms. If tion of a dust preparation containing 40 this condition is allowed to persist, and 50 percent toxaphene to the skin of death from water could result (25). dogs at 200 and 500 mg / kg per day for 32 days did not cause toxic effects. A three-generation reproductive study conducted according to currently Toxaphene applied in mineral oil or accepted protocols on rats fed 25 and dimethyl phthalate at 600 mg/kg per day 100 p/m toxaphene showed no differences for 10 to 22 days to the skin of dogs between control~ and treated an lals did not cause toxic effects (80). The for reproductive performance, fertility, application of cotton patches treated lactation, viability, size, or anatomic with toxaphene to the skin of 200 human structure of the progeny (78). Toxa­ subjects caused no primary irritation or phene showed no mutagenic effects in sensitization. Application of an aero­ dominant lethal assays using Swiss mice sol spray containing toxaphene to the at dosages ranging from 36 to 180 mg/kg skin of 50 human subjects daily for 30 administered orally or intraperitoneally days at a dose of 300 mg/day produced no (54). There has been no evidence of toxic manifestations (72). Fifty human carcinogenic action reported in any of volunteers who inhaled 0.0004 mg / L of the chronic studies published thus far. toxaphene aerosol for 10 min a day for Unpublished data from a study sponsored 15 days had no subjective or objective by NCI, however, showed an increase effects. A mist containing 0.25 mg in tumors in mice and female rats. toxaphene per liter of air was inhaled by 25 humans for 30 min each day for Epidemiological data do not indi­ 13 days, and they showed no evidence cate that toxaphene is a . of local or systemic toxic manifestation Hercules Inc. sponsored a human health (l08) • survey of their employees who work or have worked with toxaphene from 1949 to Monkeys were administered toxa­ February 1977. The 199 employees had phene in food at concentrations of 10 exposure ranges to toxaphene extending to 15 p/m for 2 years, and there were from 6 h.onths to 26 years, with an no signs of intoxication and no evidence average of 5.23 years. During this of damage to the tissues as determined period, 20 of the employees or former by histological examination (120). employees died. One of the employees died of cancer. None of the deaths Chronic studies in small animals appeared to be related to toxaphene have shown that when toxaphene was exposure (69).

12 In the NCI study, toxaphene caused 5 episodes resulted from exposure an increase in tumors in mice. involved in spraying cattle for For the period 1930 to 1972, the total ectoparasite control; number of liver and biliary cancer death 3 episodes were involved in im­ rate per 100,000 of the U. S. population proper disposal; decreased from 8.8 in 1930 to 5.6 in 3 episodes were involved with 1972. This almost steady decline in overflight of an aquatic site total liver cancer death rates for 42 by an aerial applicator; years fails to support evidence of any 1 episode was from exposure from increase in liver cancer deaths. The industrial runoff; decrease in liver cancer deaths is even 1 episode was from application more significant with the increasing of the wrong pesticide to an lifespan of the people in the U nited aquatic site; and States (49). On the other hand, the 17 episodes were not specified. annual rate of death from all types of cancers rose from 64 per 100,000 in 1900 Approximately 25 percent of the to 162.8 in 1970. fishkills involving toxaphene alone or less than 1 episode per year was from Impact on Fish applications to croplands resulting in drift or runoff for the ll-yr period. EPA indicated that their data from Of the 10 episodes involving agricul­ pesticide episode reports show that tural crops from drift or runoff, only 2 toxaphene has been the known causa­ were verified for toxaphene as being the tive agent in 94 fishkills since 1966 causative agent; the other 8 were listed (42 F.R. 26861) • We examined these as either undetermined or probable. The data entitled "Episode Summary for total number of fish involved was 19,140 Reports Involving Toxaphene," Pesti­ for 9 episodes, and 1 episode did not cide Episode Review System, Report report the number killed. This averages Number 81, Pesticide Episode Response about 1,700 fish killed per year by Branch (April 30, 1976). The data toxaphene alone, which resulted from covered a period from May 19, 1966 to application to cropland from either March 1, 1976. drift or runoff into aquatic areas.

Our examination of these data for The Environmental Protection Agency fish indicated that toxaphene alone was indicates that these fish episodes may listed as the only active ingredient for severely reduce fish populations where 40 episodes involving fish. Toxaphene survivability of the animal species may plus other active ingredients was listed be affected. It is unlikely that the in 40 episodes with fish for a total loss of 1,700 fish per year is enough of 80 episodes, as opposed to the 94 to result in a severe reduction in a reported by EPA. Therefore, toxaphene natural population. The average number was listed as the only chemica:! in the of fishkills for all pollution-related report in 40 episodes involving fish­ causes during the 9-yr period, 1965-73, kills since 1966, rather than the 94 as was 29.1 million fish per year; thus, reported by EPA. The other active toxaphene represents a very small frac­ ingredients that were involved in fish­ tion of the average annual fishkill from kills included lindane, DDT, methyl pollution-caused sources. parathion, and. endrin. EPA reports that toxaphene caused Our ~na:!ysis of these data involv­ serious changes in collagen and ing toxaphene alone indicated that: levels in the bone structure of fat-head minnows (Mehrle and Mayer (91), brook 4 episodes were involved from ex­ trout (Mehrle and Mayer (92», and posure to cropland runoff; channcl catfish, and these changes 6 episodes were involved from drift were serious enough to cause backbones from croplands to water; to fracture with slight electrical

13 stimulation (42 F • R. 26861) • In the Biologists in charge of the program pro­ studies by Mehrle and Mayer, they used nounced the growth of the fish unusually the LSD (least significant difference) good. Many of the trout brought in for to determine significant differences analysis within a year of restocking among means. They stated "A multiple were over 2 lb in weight, and during the means comparison test (least significant second year after planting one sample difference) was used to compare dif­ fish weighed 6 lb. Trout up to 8 lb ferences among means (Snedecor 1965 have been reported by those who fish. (sic) ) • " The reference to Snedecor is In 1962, when Davis Lake was restocked more likely 1956 (110) rather than 1965 with fish, the water contained an aver­ because the sixth edition of his book age of 0.63 ptb toxaphene. did not appear until 1967. The au­ thors apparently did not consider what There is evidence from published Snedecor had to say about the least reports in the literature that there significant difference. According to are relatively few and infrequent oc­ Snedecor (110. p. 251), "This is the currences where toxaphene has caused widely used Least Significant Differ­ the death of fish, birds, and other ence or LSD. It is often incorrectly organisms. There is no evidence to in­ applied to all differences among 3 or dicate that toxaphene has caused severe more means, the result being that too population reductions or affected the many of the differences are adjudged survivability of animal species. significant. The LSD gives correct tests only if a = 2." Toxicity to Bees

Mehrle and Mayer used a randomized Many studies have been done to block design for their experiment with determine the relative toxicity of the five to six treatments; thus, their a = commonly used insecticides to honey­ 5 or 6 depending on the study. Because bees. Anderson and Atkins (1) list the statistical test they used to deter­ relative toxicities of many of the pres­ mine mean differences was incorrect and ently used pesticides in three toxicity would judge too many of the differences groups: to be significant when they actually were not, it is diffieult, if not impos­ Highly toxic -- LD50 of 0.001-1.99 sible, to evaluate the data presented by J,Jg tbee; such materials as azinphos­ Mehrle a.nd Mayer (91,92). Furthermore, methyl, , EPN, and methyl it appears that only two replications parathion. were used in the experiment, which would provide very little measurement of the Moderately toxic -- L~O of 2.0-10.99 variation. J,Jg tbee; such materials as carbo­ phenothion, , and endrin. These laboratory observations do not support data that have been obtained Relatively nontoxic LD50 11.00 in the field. Toxaphene was used to J,Jg/bee; allethrin, Bacillus thurin­ eradicate fish from Davis Lake in Oregon giensis, Heliothis virus, and toxa­ in 1961. The lake was treated at an phene. estimated rate of 88 ptb. Within a year of being treated with toxaphene, Davis Although there are some differences Lake was restocked with rainbow trout, among these findings, it has been shown Atlantic salmon, and kokanee salmon. that toxaphene is one of the least toxic There was no visible mortality of any to bees of the extensively used insecti­ of the planted fish in Davis Lake. cides.

14 CHAPTER 2

CRITICAL USES AND BENEFITS IN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION

Benefits of Pest Control The economic assessment of the impact of possible suspension or cancel­ According to Carlson and Castle lation of toxaphene will be provided in (36), evidence of the benefits of pest a separate section of the overall report. control comes from 1) people's willing­ ness to pay for the controls and control The entomological literature was research, 2) increased crop yields (EPA sea.rched for references in which indicates that increased crop yields are research field plots provided data a measure of usefulness (40 CFR 163.8)), expressed as changes of yield for the or 3) value of resources released for crop/pest complex on which toxaphene was use elsewhere in the economy. Toxaphene being tested (table 3). Unfortunately, accounted for 24 percent (the leading very little information exists that insecticide) of all insecticides used by shows measured yield or quality changes. farmers in 1971 (2). Thus, there is Most of the information provided in evidence of people's willingness to pur­ the literature indicates the capability chase toxaphene. of toxaphene to reduce pest densities drastically, as compared with pest In Headley's (66, pp. 279-280) dis­ densities of untreated plots. Most cussion of the economics of pest control economic entomologists conduct research he states: "That is, given a set of based on the premise that the extent of farm production resources allocated to a economic damage is dependent upon the commodity and a pest infestation, the density of the pest population. difference in output with and without control measures is the benefit of con­ The evaluation of toxaphene con­ trol. 11 Headley (66) further indicates ducted by researchers in table 3 was, that benefits received by consumers or in part, to establish effective dosage individual producers of agricultural levels for toxaphene. For instance, for products, when the "with" and "with­ wheat/army cutworm at a dosage rate of out" approach is used, are examples of 0.75 Ib a.i./acre, the average yield private benefits as opposed to social difference per acre was -60 lb; however, benefits. at the two higher dosage levels, yield differences were +396 and +552 lb. The Prior economic assessments of in­ average yield differences per acre secticides, including aldrin, chlordane, resulting from treatment with toxaphene dieldrin, and heptachlor, were based varied from a -460 when toxaphene was on a socioeconomic evaluation of the used against corn earworm on lima loss of the insecticide by comparing beans, to +1,480 when it was used to it against all available alternatives. control pepper weevil on peppers in Data from this type of analysis provide these studies (table 3). information concerning the impact of the loss of the insecticide on the consumer The change measured in yield or and society. quality from the use of toxaphene ver­ sus an untreated commodity is partially Benefits can be measured in many dependent on the density of the damaging ways. such as changes in yield quality stage of the pest. The greater the or cost of production. These changes density of the infestation, the more the can then be expressed in terms of dol­ damage that is inflicted on the crop and lars. To be of economic benefit to the the greater the loss of yield or quality producer, there must be monetary gain (fig. 7). At high pest densities where beyond the cost of toxaphene plus its a substantial portion of the crop is application. lost, there is a point of no return and

15 ..... 0') Table 3. --Summary of yield benefits derived from the use of toxaphene

Rate of Average Average Crop/pest Number toxaphene number Yield Untreated Pest Untreated yield complex of a.i. /acre/ of index 1...1 yield index 1...1 infes­ change References tests application applica­ Ob/acre) tations per (lb) tions acre

Cotton/Heliothis + boll weevil. 8 2.0+0.75* 8.5 246 438 53.1 .!b.8 240 (8,99,100) 6 2.0+1.0* 10.2 234 384 52.5 .!/7 • 7 !/272 (16,99,101) Cotton/Heliothis 16 2.0+1. 0* 9.5 264 226 30.4 .!/ 26.9 !/193 (8,10,15,18, 19.21,30) • 1 2.0+1. 5* 5.0 218 137 67.0 .!l54.3 161 (14) . (3) Wheat/ army cutworm 1 0.75 1.0 77 258 48.0 ~-'16.8 -60 2 1.63 1.0 206 342 28.5 ~-'13.1396 (3) 1 2.02 1.0 314 258 35.0 i/16.8 !/552 (3)

Alfalfa/lygus (seed) 2 1.0 1.0 156 180 14.4 .~-'346.0 101 (105) 2 1.5 1.0 180 212 11.4 ~/629.0!/171 (48,105)

1 2.0 3.0 109 716 10.0 .~-'24.8 !/64 (105) Peppers/pepper weevil 1 2.5 6.0 122 6,725 37.4 '!J 11. 7 !/1,480 (53) Lima beans/lygus 4 3.0 1.5 80 1,432 37.1 'i/0.8 -211 (113) 3 4.0 1.3 106 1,350 37.8 ~/6.7 !/80 (113)

Lima beans / corn earworm 2 3.0 1.5 59 1,125 151.4 ~/0.71 -460 (113) 1 4.0 1.0 127 1,290 275.0 .!UO.81 !/348 (113) Beef cattle/lone star tick 1 1.0 114 62 !/8.7 (81)

* Methyl parathion; yields are expressed in pounds of lint cotton/acre. 1../ I = 100 t/ u where: I = Index for yield or pest; t = toxaphene plot; u = untreated plot. 2/ Percent damaged bolls. 3/ Data used in table 4. 4/ Worms/ft2. 5/ Insects/100 strokes. 6/ Insects/36 blooms. 7/ Number of infested pods/plant. ~/ Insects/sweep. 9/ Percent damaged beans. 100 R = 0.B94 responsible for either conducting pest Y = 100 - 112.4 (e-0.0546X) control programs or preparing informa­ 80 tion and assisting others in carrying out pest control practices. III III oS 60 There are about 277 commodities and ....~ ...:I other sites for which toxaphene is reg­ ~ 40 istered. A survey of the States and CJ H Federal agencies showed that they rec­ P"! ommended or used toxaphene for control 20 of 167 insect pests on 44 commodities, 40 of which had no equally effective or safe alternative in one or more 0 States. The need for toxaphene on the 0 , 10 15 20 25 30 remaining commodities was critical but Average Percent Damaged Squares 100 not essential. R = 0.91B Y = 100 - 10B.1 (e-0.0435X) Certain States differ with others 80 1B plots as to acceptability of other registered insecticides for a particular use; there­ III III fore, broad generalizations in canceling 0 60 ...:I... uses of pesticides based on availability ....<= of other registered compounds cannot be ...:I ... made. Certain factors affect insecti­ <= 40 C1> CJ cide performance, such as: 1) Tempera­ H C1> Po< ture; 2) soil conditions, including 20 moisture, type, pH, fertility; 3) safety to nontarget species, including preda­ tors. parasites, and pollinators; and a 4) method of application and toxicity to a 5 lO 15 20 25 30 the target organism. Some insecticides perform better than others under various Average Percent Damaged Bolls conditions. Thus, what works in one State may not work in another. Figure 7. Percentage of lint loss as a result of different levels of bollworm Based on years of experience, it and tobacco budworm infestations has been demonstrated that many crops (65). require treatment when the first signs of an insect infestation appear to prevent quality and production losses. the entire crop may be lost. When toxa­ Integrated pest management programs phene is applied, it is effective over a (IPM) utilize insecticides when an wide range of pest population densities economic threshold density level of in­ because the action of toxaphene is not festation is approached by the pest dependent on number of pests present. in question. Very few accurate economic This is. in contrast to such pest control threshold density levels for pests have strategies as the use of parasites, been determined; therefore, effective predators, attractants, and genetic man­ protection must be maintained to assure ipulation, which are density-dependent. high-quality fruits, vegetables. nuts, and ornamentals at reasonable production Benefits From Application and marketing costs. Although toxaphene to Crops and Livestock may not always be needed on the entire crop in the range of the pest. the The cooperative extension, regula­ potential foJ[' the pest to cause damage tory, and research agencies contributing above economic thresholds is a con­ to the information presented here are stant threat to production of the crop.

17 We depend almost entirely on insecti­ parasites and predators. This is cides to protect livestock and humans important in managing pest populations from insects. By 1985, the situation of the Heliothis complex, thrips, and will have changed little (20,21). cotton fleahoppers.

Toxaphene has been an extremely The toxaphene/methyl parathion valuable insecticide for control of a mixture will usually allow a 5- to 7­ wide variety of insect pests for almost day application schedule, whereas a 30 years. For example, an estimate of 3- to 5-day schedule must be maintained the importance of toxaphene for actual when methyl parathion is used alone. acres of cotton treated in 1971 is $220 Toxaphene appears to increase the million. This estimate is based on the persistence and effectiveness of methyl assumptions that this increase in yield, parathion, as opposed to the use of cost of treatment, and price received methyl parathion alone (figs. 8 and 9). (19.75 basis) are equal to that reported When toxaphene is combined with methyl in the literature. parathion, the methyl parathion resi­ dues are higher for the first and second Cotton days than when methyl parathion is used alone (30). These decay curves The great majority of data avail­ appear to follow second-order kinetics able on yield differences per acre is as follows: for cotton for Heliothis spp. and Helio­ (9) C = Cotk this spp. plus boll weevil control. t These studies have all shown a high where: average yield difference between the Ct = the concentration at time t untreated infestation and the toxaphene­ Co = initial concentration treated plots. This difference varied from 161 to 272 lb of lint cotton per k = the reaction rate constant. acre. The relative maximum potential importance of toxaphene on cotton was The disappearance of the residues estimated to be $591 million (table 4). of an insecticide applied to foliage or On cotton, the mixture of toxaphene fruit generally occurs by two distinct plus methyl parathion was used in the processes. The first is a rapid physi­ evaluation because toxaphene by itself cal process involving volatilization, has not been used to any extent for ultraviolet light, degradation, and ac­ cotton insect control for more than 20 tual removal by rain. The second is a years. Heliothis spp. were of primary chemical process, which includes hydrol­ importance as pests in reducing yield ysis, metabolism, and oxidation. The although boll weevils were important in chemical process is less rapid than some of the experiments. the physical process, and it becomes the predominant process in the latter The residual characteristics of part of the disappearance period (lower toxaphene and its effectiveness against half of curve in fig. 8) • The curves all cutworm species make it unique in converge at 8 days after application in cutworm control on cotton in Arkansas. figure 8. Alternative insecticides do not fill all the needs for each cutworm problem. In a typical experiment, - the Toxaphene is the only insecticide listed toxaphene/methyl parathion residues in the 1976 Mississippi control guide initially killed 11 percent more Helio­ for control of cutworms in cotton. If this spp. than did parathion alone, and toxaphene is canceled. 5 to 8; percent this relationship lasted until termina­ of the total planted acres would be tion of the experiment after 72 hours of infested in Mississippi. exposure (fig. 9). These data SUbstan­ tiate the increased effectiveness of the Several States indicated that mixture when toxaphene is combined with toxaphene was relatively nontoxic to methyl parathion, as compared with the

18 Pct MP Accumulated Residues Pct on Leaves Mortality

100 r·------~ • MP + toxaphene - 0.75 + 3 lb a.i.fA 90 90 r2 = 0.98 k = 1.1lt A MP alone - 0.75 lb a.i.fA 80 80 r2 = 0.83 k = -0.lt3 .

70 70

60 60

50 50

40 40

30 30 • MP + toxaphene 1 + 2 lb a.i.fA 20 20 r2 = 0.95 k = O.ltl

10 .. 4 MP alone 1 lb a. i. fA ~., 10 r2 = 0.96 k = 0.65 ~-----~ o L..-__...L-__-'-__--L__---:'--__..L-__-'-__---1._----I. 1 248 24 48 72

Days After Application Hours of Exposure

Figure 8. Effect of toxaphene on Figure 9. Effect of toxaphene and longevity of methyl parathion resi­ methyl parathion on Heliothis sur­ dues (30). vival (116).

effectiveness when methyl parathion is Lygus bugs can be extremely diffi­ used alone. This increase in residual cult to control. Toxaphene is effective activity is more evident in tests that for control of lygus bugs. Yields are are subjected to rainfall during the nearly doubled when toxaphene is used first 24 hours. This effect is also where heavy infestations can occur often seen in season-long field tests. (table 3). Corn Grain and Forage Of the 22 States reporting uses Alfalfa of toxaphene for armyworm control in corn, 11 (Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Toxaphene is less toxic than most Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, other insecticides to honeybees and Minnesota, Mississippi, South Carolina, other pollinators of alfalfa, particu­ and South Dakota) reported using one larly alfalfa grown for seed. Alterna­ application in 1976 to treat 1,085,000 tive insecticides, such as carbaryl. acres. Armyworm control ranged from are too toxic to honeybees to be used 70 percent in high infestations to 100 near time of bloom. Toxaphene also is percent in low iniestations. more dependable than other insecticides for control of pests of alfalfa when Most States with chinch bug prob­ weather conditions are adverse. lems on corn and sorghum indicate that

19 ~ "Table 4. --Summary of the relative maximum potential importance of toxaphene or mixtures containing toxaphene 0 for recommended rate of application based on costs and prices in 1975 Percent Average Seasonal Relative Relative Crop/pest Crops acres yield treat- 1975 maximum Number probable complex har- in change ment Average potential acres importance vested J) pest per costs/ price impor- treated (acres treated range acre~Jacre tance~-'in 197L!I in 1971)J!./

bOOO acres Pounds 1,000 acres Cotton / Heliothis + boll weevil. 8,796 100 232.5 $49.25 $0.501 $591,377 3,275,000 $220,186,438

Wheat/army cutworm 69,656 18 552.0 5.00 .0587 333,266 25,000 120,000 Beef cattle/lone star

tick. _~-'54,141 40 8.7 .40 .313 50,310

Alfalfa/lygus (seed) 344 33 117.5 10.00 .687 8,000 16,000 373,000

Peppers/pepper weevil 50 64 1,480.0 30.00 .165 6,854

Lima beans/ corn earworm 77 100 348.0 5.00 0158 3,844

Lima beans/lygus 77 100 80.0 6.50 .158 472

1/ Agricultural Statistics (19'76) for 1975 data. 2/ Data from table 3. 3/ These relative estimates were developed assuming that: a. All acres of the commodity were infested at the density observed in research plots. b. No pest control alternatives other than toxaphene were considered. c. The differences in yield observed in research plots that compared the use of toxaphene to the use of no insecticides would be realized on all acres in the pest range. d. All acres in the pest range were treated with toxaphene, and these treatments would be equal in rate and number to treatmen ts in research plots. e. Adequate supplies of material and equIpment would be available at 1975 prices. f. The average prices received would be those realized by producers in 1975. No consideration was given to price flexibility that would result with varying production levels. 4/ Source: (2). 5/ Based on costs and prices in 1971 and proportion of crop in range of pest. 6/ x 1,000 head. no other registered compounds are avail­ treatment that remains effective for 2 able. Mississippi does not recommend to 3 weeks is believed to be much less im alternate material, and estimates destructive to nontarget organisms than that ·85 percent of the total acres successive applications of nonpersistent would be infested without the use of insecticides. toxaphene. Livestock Small Grains Toxaphene was the most frequently Toxaphene is highly effective used insecticide in 1971 for the control against the army cutworm on wheat. of arthropods affecting beef cattle and Owing to the feeding habits of the swine (2). It accounts for about three­ insect, exposure to applied control fourths of the insecticides used in the measures is intermittent. Efficacy of production of beef and pork. Toxa­ an insecticide against this pest is phene has also been used as a standard believed to be directly related to per­ of comparison for tick. hornfly, and sistence. In any event, an effective mange control in many insecticide nonpersistent alternative has not been evaluation tests; however, there are discovered• Available data indicate very few studies that provide infor­ that the use of toxaphene for control mation concerning the effects of the of army cutworm on wheat increased use of toxaphene on weight gain or yields twofold to threefold at pest quality. infestatiors ranging from 13.1 to 16.8 worms/ft (table 3). The primary reasons for the use of toxaphene on beef cattle and swine Michigan has a special use for tox­ are its 1) broad spectrum of activity, aphene in the control of large armyworms 2) long residual activity, and 3) rela­ on headed Wheat. The other insecticides tively low cost. Livestock production do not kill the large worms quickly or costs would increase if toxaphene were completely; as a result, the large lar­ not available. The benefits from the vae clip off the heads of the wheat. Of use of toxaphene on livestock are diffi­ the annual 900,000 acres of wheat grown cult to calculate, however. Steelman in Michigan, 10,000 acres are infested and Schilling (112) provide some infor­ with armyworm, and 2,000 acres need motion on the economics of protecting toxaphene treatment. Twelve bushels cattle from mosquito attack. Their per acre are saved in Michigan by the research shows a definite correlation use of toxaphene, at a savings of between mo~quito population density and $28.92 per acre. or total State savings mosquito-caused reduction in the average of $57,840.00 per year. daily gain of Hereford, Brahman, and Hereford x Brahman crossbred steers. It is necessary to have a per­ The average net increase of economic sistent treatment availahle for use in value over a 6-yr period for Hereford such areas as roadsides, fencelines, steers protected from mosquito attack and other noncrop areas, and as border was $6.11 per head annually. The 2-yr treatments for protection of winter average annual increase and economic wheat from grasshoppers. The strategy value was $1. 31 per head for crossbred is to kill grasshoppers in the areas steers and $5.86 per head for Brahman where they reproduce and to prevent steers. their movement to adjacent crops. Proper treatment of limited acreage The residual activity of toxaphene along field perimeters can alleviate a is unique among the chemicals remaining later need for treating larger acreages available for livestock pest control. or entire fields of Wheat. The treated This is of particular importance in margins act as a barrier to grasshopper management of pest control problems in movement, and efficacy appears to be Oregon range cattle, where access to proportional to persistence. A single the animals is limited to turnout time, 21 and perhaps once or twice during the treatment is effective for animals season on open range. Under these exposed to scabies, as compared with circumstances, toxaphene is by far the other pesticides that require that most useful material for housefly con­ animals exposed to scabies be treated trol, where uncontrolled populations can twice, with an interval of 10 to 14 build up to more than 500 per days between treatments. The number of animal. Self-treatment devices, such as scabies-exposed animals is generally back rubbers that utilize less persist­ twice that of infected. The number of ent material, are seldom successful. treatments using toxaphene is, there­ fore, reduced. This, in turn, reduces In regulatory and quarantine pro­ the amount of used and dirty dip that grams, toxaphene is effective against must be disposed of. several ectoparasites of livestock--lice, mites, flies, and ticks. It is the Vegetables pesticide of choice for eliminating populations•. Toxaphene use on leafy vegetables began about 1950, and it has been used The treatment of animals to prevent widely to control cutworms and lepi­ the entry of ticks into the United dopterous insects, such as armyworms, States is based on the premise that earworms, loopers, and others. There ticks as a group are the most common are no effective alternative insecti:­ arthropod vector of diseases. Ticks cides for protection against cutworm are 'vectors of viruses, bacteria, rick­ attack on many vegetables. In spite of ettsia, and protozoa. Cattle fever the proved effectiveness of toxaphene ticks, Boophilus spp., are vectors for in actual usage, no published data were the protozoa Babesia spp., which cause found to indicate yield or quality bovine spiroplasmosis, also known as changes derived from cutworm control. Texas fever, splenetic fever, and tick Much of the original efficacy data that fever. They may infest cattle and would now support its use as an effec­ horses. These ticks are endemic in Mex­ tive cutworm insecticide were never ico. It required a 37-yr campaign to published, and apparently there has been eliminate them from the United States, no recent research. The fact that where they infested 985 counties in 15 toxaphene has provided safe, effective States yearround and were a danger to control for over 20 years is the primary the rest of the country in warm months. reason why there are now no recent effi­ cacy research data comparing toxaphene Psoroptes, sarcoptes, and choriop­ with untreated controls. tes mites cause a condition or disease in cattle, sheep, swine, horses, and Toxaphene is presently used for goats known as scabies or mange. The control of pepper weevil on peppers. mites pierce the skin or burrow within Mississippi notes that there is no the upper layers, and feed on the escap­ registered alternative insecticide to ing serum and skin debris. The mites control pepper weevil on peppers. The cause intense pruritus (itching), and total 788 acres of peppers required the animals may damage themselves by three applications of toxaphene in 1976 rubbing against objects in their attempt to control pepper weevil. If toxaphene to relieve the itching. is canceled, 100 percent of the 'total pepper acreage in Mississippi would be Livestock presented for entry into infested with pepper weevil. the United States from Mexico are given an examination and a precaution­ There is a 1.2-fold increase in ary treatment with toxaphene to prevent yield for control of pepper weevils on the introduction of ticks and mites. peppers at a pest infestation of 11.7 Toxaphene is effective against ticks infested pods per plant (table 3). infesting livestock and against mites Although this is not a very large causing scabies or mange. A single percentage increase beyond the check,

22 the average difference of 1,480 lb an sunflowers in South Dakota, 50 percent acre results in a net return of $214.00 of the total acreage would be infested per acre (table 4). with cutworms.

Toxaphene provides effective con­ Relative Maximum Potential trol of cowpea curculio on cow-peas. Importance of Toxaphene SUbstitute insecticides are less effec­ tive for cowpea curculio on beans in Yield changes and the value of Alabama. yield changes per acre provide a meas­ ure of the usefulness of toxaphene; how­ Five of the seven States reported ever, these figures can be misleading if having to apply three or f0'lr toxaphene boked at alone. For instance, the applications per acre in 1976, to con­ average yield change per acre in table 3 trol cowpea curculio on cowpeas and would suggest that the most impOl"tant blackeyed peas. Of the total 61,000 use of toxaphene is for growers of pep­ acres in these five States, 54,900 acres pers that have a pepper weevil problem. needed treatment in 1976. Alternative If the net value of the yield change is insecticides gave erratic control; some calculated, peppers would rank number were only 20 percent as effective as one in importance. The yield index data toxaphene in either low, medium, or high from table 3 indicate that the increase infestations of cowpea curculio. is 22 percent greater in the treated plots than in the untreated plots. Toxaphene is essential' to the cowpea industry in Alabama and Georgia. We developed the concept of rela­ Commercially, cowpeas are grown for tive maximum potential importance to processing as shelled peas. Several evaluate toxaphene as compared with no processors are reluctant to accept the pest control in production of crops. produce unless the crop was protected This concept combines effects on target with toxaphene. Even a low insect pests, yield, range of pest infesta­ infestation level results in the loss tions. acres of crop in pest range, and of the crop, and a preventive program treatment costs. Dollars were used in must be followed. Apparently, there is these calculations as an accounting no alternative insecticide that is as mechanism and do not reflect economic effective as toxaphene. If toxaphene benefits. Certain assumptions were made is canceled, the cowpea industry will in these calculations, as indicated in be endangered. table 4, footnote 3.

Other Crops These estimates provide a basis for comparison of the usefulness of toxa­ Toxaphene is used in many pecan­ phene on commodities for various pest growing areas for control of pecan species where scientific studies have weevil and chestnut weevil. There were been conducted (table 4). For instance, no studies in the literature that pro­ it is readily apparent that the greatest vided quantitative information either relative maximum potential importance on yield or quality benefits derived for toxaphene is on cotton, wheat, and from the use of toxaphene for control beef cattle. There were many other of these pests on pecan. Also, no use patterns for toxaphene for which we stUdies were available that quantitated were unable to find scientific studies the benefits derived from the use of comparing toxaphene to untreated crops toxaphene for 'control of bagworms on where the yield or quality was measured ornamentals. in the experiment.

In 1976. 30,000 to 50,000 acres With the quantification of the risk of sunflowers were replanted in North associated with toxaphene, it will be Dakota as a result of cutworm infesta­ possible to compare the risk with the tions. If toxaphene were canceled on relative maximum potential importance

23 for various use patterns. This compari­ C = acres of crop harvested son would provide administrators with I = proportion of crop (C) in another means of making judgments on the range of the pest fate of a pesticide in the regulatory Y = yield change for treated process. vs. untreated plot for crop pest/complex The relative maximum potential V = unit value of yield importance for a use pattern is calcu­ change/acre for crop (C) lated as follows: A = seasonal application costs/acre for crop (C). (10) R = CIYV-ACI For example, the calculation of the where: maximum potential importance of cotton/ R = relative maximum potential Heliothis + boll weevil is: importance of a crop (C) and pest (I) complex for a (8,796,000)(1)(232.5)(0.501) minus given year (49.25)(8,796,000)(1) = 591,377,070.

PART 2. ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

INTRODUCTION

In part 2, Economic Assessment, grasshoppers); onions and onion seed we have provided biological estimates crops (cutworms and thrips); alfalfa related to the use of alternatives to seed crops (cutworms, grasshoppers, and toxaphene, and we have developed partial lygus bugs); sunflowers (army cutworm budgets needed to estimate economic and sunflower beetle); sheep and goats impacts. The biological estimates and (fleece worms, lice, mites, and sheep economic analysis are used to evaluate ked); and swine (lice and mites). the contribution of toxaphene to the production process for high-volume and For high-volume uses, partial budg­ for selected low-volume use patterns. ets of insect control costs and, where relevant or possible, or both, the level High-volume uses included are cot­ of production with and without alterna­ ton (budworm-bollworm. Heliothis spp.); tives (if any) are provided and are used soybeans, sorghum, and peanuts (army­ to develop a preliminary analysis of worm. green cloverworm, corn earworm , the short-run (next producing season) and velvetbean caterpillar); wheat (cut­ economic impact of withdrawing toxa­ worm, grasshopper, and armyworm); and phene. The short-run economic impact is beef cattle (mites, ticks, and flies) • a measure of the value of toxaphene to Low-volume uses for which toxaphene can users. For low-volume uses, partial be a significant factor in the economics budgets are not presented, but an of production are: Selected vegetables attempt is made to focus on specialized (cutworm), Southern peas (cowpea cur­ problems that could arise should toxa­ culio); corn (armyworm, cutworm, and phene not be available.

24 CHAPTER 3

EXTENT OF USE OF TOXAPHENE

In terms of total pounds applied, There are a number of estimates toxaphene is the most heavily used of the amount of toxaphene used in agri­ insecticide in the United States (106, culture. In 1976, the USDA estimated 123). There are about 277 commodityI that 30.7 million Ib of toxaphene were pest combinations for which toxaphene used on crops, and 2.4 million Ib were is registered with EPA. In a survey, used on livestock (table 5). For the States and Federal agencies indicated same year, USDA estimated that 4.9 mil­ that they recommended or used toxaphene lion acres of cropland and pasture were for control of 167 insect pests on 44 treated with toxaphene (table 6). The commodities (124). EPA estimated that agricultural usage

Table 5.--Quantity of toxaphene used by commodity, United States, 1964, 1966, 1971, and 1976

Commodity 1964 JJ 1966 ~./ 1971 ~J 1976 iJ

Crops ------1,000 pounds------­ Cotton 26,915 27,345 28,112 26,289 Soybeans 1,319 976 1,524 2,207 Peanuts 5/-- 985 1,356 352 Irish potatoes 125 142 Other vegetables 1,223 684 628 Corn 132 4 182 94 Wheat 270 26 555 Sorghum 5/-- 5/-­ 5/-- 1,001 Other grains 152 -462 202 Tobacco 292 150 206 14 Other field crops 4,305 107 85 Alfalfa 101 18 6 Other hay and pasture 9 32 Citrus 9 Other fruits and nuts 15 58 Nursery 2 27 Total 34,186 30,925 32,867 6730,720 Livestock Beef cattle 4,137 3,180 3,483 1,986 Hogs 307 266 843 275 Dairy cattle 153 138 200 83 Sheep 104 51 39 8 Poultry 2 22 4 8 Other 13 6 16 Total 4,703 3,670 4,575 2,376 Total crops and livestock 38,889 34,595 37,442 33,096

1./ Source: Eichers and others 1968 (51). 1 23 1 Source: Eichers and others 1970 (52). Source: Andrilenas 1974 (2). 41 Source: 1976 Pesticide usage and grain marketing survey, Crop Reporting Board. USDA. SRS. preliminary, Nov. 14, 1977. ~I Included in oth.er field crops. 61 Total does not include an estimated L 0 million Ib used on fruits and vegetables in-1976.

25 Table 6.--Acres treated with toxaphene by commodity, United States, 1964, 1966, 1971, and 1976

Commodity 1964.!/ 196~.1 1971~J 1976~/

------~I~,O_O_O~a~c_r~e~s------Cotton 5,016 3,881 3,275 3,112 Soybeans 714 543 951 488 Peanuts 5/-­ 237 472 94 Irish potatoes 77 47 -­ Other vegetables 305 205 175 Corn 101 20 140 220 Wheat 5/-­ 155 25 437 Sorghum ril-­ 5/-­ 5/-­ 304 Other grains ril-­ 92 -387 181 Tobacco 98 61 20 4 Other field crops 56 61 Alfalfa 15J:~ 44 16 11 Other hay and pasture 5/-­ 8 23 Citrus 6/ __ 2 Other fruits and nuts 4 7 Total 8,024 5,383 5,601 4,851

2111 Source: Eichers and others 1968 (51). - Source: Eichers and others 1970 (52). !I Source: Andrilenas 1974 (2). 1.1 Source: 1976 Pesticide usage and grain marketing survey, Crop Reporting Board, USDA, SRS, preliminary, Nov. 14, 1977. §...I Included in other field crops. 61 Less than 1,000 acres treated. of toxaphene was 74.5 million lb in 1974 with toxaphene have decreased, how­ (139), which would be about twice the ever, from about 8 million in 1964 to 5 USDA estimate for 1976. Data submitted million in 1976 (table 6). This could to the USDA (56) indicated that U.S. mean that toxaphene is now being ap­ toxaphene production was 59 million lb plied more intensively. For example, in 1975. Based on the data, a maximum the quantity (per treated acre per year) of 16 million lb was exported (56). applied to cotton increased from 5.4 Ib Assuming that there are no imports of in 1964 to 8.5 lb in 1976 (calculated toxaphene, this would leave about 43 from tables 5 and 6). million lb available for domestic con­ sumption and storage. This estimate is The EPA estimate of the total somewhat closer to the 33.1 million lb toxaphene quantity (139) differs from estimated by USDP_ than it is to the 74.5 the USDA estimate, but both are con­ million lb estimated by EPA (table 5 and sistent in the relative values assigned (139)). to the commodities. Estimates from both agencies indicate that cotton is' the Between 1964 and 1976, the total dominant user. There is a slight quantity of toxaphene used in agricul­ difference in that cotton accounts for ture has averaged about 36 million lb 79 percent of the pounds used in the per year (table 5). An analysis of the USDA survey and 86 percent in the EPA available data on individual commodities report (table 5 and (139)). The USDA reveals that the trend of quantity use data on pounds applied by commodity is steady for cotton, increasing for were used to determine the relative soybeans, fluctuating for wheat and importance of these uses. The relative peanuts, and slightly decreasing for importance was used to define the scope beef cattle. The total acres treated of the study (table 5).

26 CHAPTER 4

ANALYSES OF USES OF TOXAPHENE AND PRINCIPAL ALTERNATIVES ON SELECTED COMMODITIES

In the first part of this chapter Toxaphene Assessment (128) (hereafter the partial budgets for cotton, the referred to as "biological survey") and other high-volume-use field crops (soy­ preliminary results from the 1976 beans, sorghum, and peanuts), beef National Pesticide Usage Survey (123) cattle. and wheat are presented. These (hereafter referred to as "usage commodities represent 79 percent for survey") . For cotton and wheat, the cotton, 11 percent for field crops, 6 assessment team used the data on acres percent for beef cattle, and 2 percent treated by pest and by region from the for wheat, or 98 percent of the total biological survey because data from the quantity of toxaphene used. Because usage survey were not available when the less intensive uses are problem-specific partial budget analysis was conducted. and little data are available for budg­ Thus, for cotton, a total of 3.7 million eting purposes, the low-volume uses are acres were treated for budworm-bollworm presented separately. (table 7) rather than 3.1 million acres reported in the usage survey (table 6). High-Volume Uses For wheat, the acres treated for each pest were summed, resulting in 1.2 The partial budgeting method used million treatment-acres (table 21), in in this chapter allows for a comparison contrast to the 437,000 acres estimated of toxaphene to its alternatives. The in the usage survey (table 6). objective is to measure the change in the cost of pest control and the effect Alternatives to be sucstituted for on gross returns associated with substi­ toxaphene were chosen on the basis of tuting alternative pesticides into the cost, efficacy, and availability. Esti­ budget, with all other inputs held con­ mates of application cost are based on stant. When this technique is employed, informal discussions by the assessment it is assumed that the changes in crop team personnel with custom applicators yields, or the cost of pest control, or in June 1977. Prices were obtained from both, do not affect the farmer's short­ published sources and from discussions run cropping decisions. This means with manufacturers' representatives and that crops grown, acres planted, and distributors 025,126,127). other inputs applied to these acres do not t.~hange. Changes in pest control The assumptions and procedures practices, however, can have a signifi­ involved in the analysis of each commod­ cant impact on the farmer's production ity are listed separately because there costs, which may cause him or her to are departures from the general approach shift to other crops. discussed here. Tables presented in each analysis show: 1) Acres harvested For cotton and wheat, adequate data by major producing State (for a frame of were availabj.e to estimate impacts on reference for the size of the industry production yields and revenue. Analyses and major production regions), 2) acres of the other field crops (soybeans, sor­ treated with toxaphene (the States or ghum, and peanuts) and of beef cattle regions of major use), 3) identification are based on the assumption of equal ef­ of alternative insecticides (acres where ficacy of the alternatives to toxaphene, they would be applied, rates of appli­ and hence there is no yield effect. cation, and insecticide prices), 4) a summary of treatment costs for toxaphene The estimates of acres treated, the and its alternatives, and 5) differences identification of alternatives, and the in production costs (all commodities) major regional use data were based pri­ and yield changes (cotton and wheat marily on the 1976 Biological Survey for only).

27 Table 7. --Base acreage of cotton treated with toxaphene plus methyl parathion for control of budworm-bollworm infestations, by State, 1976

Region Acres Acres Proportion and StateY planted..~-' treated!! treated

------1,000------Percent Southeast Alabama 480 90 19 Georgia 250 213 85 North Carolina 75 68 91 South Carolina 175 150 86 Tennessee 420 40 10 Total 1,400 561 40 Delta Arkansas 1,125 350 31 Louisiana 570 75 13 Mississippi 1,560 975 62 Total 3,255 1,400 43 Southern Plains Texas 4,809 1,593 33 Southwest Arizona 350 100 29 Total 10 States 9,814 3,654 37

U. S. total 11,656 !!3,654 31

1./ Includes only those States that responded to the 1976 Biological Survey for Toxaphene Assessment (128). '1:.! Source: USDA, SRS, 1977 (130). !! Data obtained from the 1976 Biological Survey for Toxaphene Assessment (128) and the 1976 National Pesticide Usage Survey (123). !! No estimate of toxaphene use was made for the States not included in the study, but the use is believed to be small.

High-Volume Uses--Cotton toxaphene (table 7). These toxaphene­ treated acres represent about 31 percent The partial budgeting analysis con­ of the total 1976 U.S. planted cotton ducted for cotton represents a typical acreage. The methodology used to to above-average year for budworm­ derive insect control costs and lint bollworm damage and control costs. The cotton yields associated with the aver­ typical year was deri.ved from question­ age year is explained in the section naire data on variability of insect titled "Expected Value Methodology." population levels and acreage infested. These data on toxaphene use were Assumptions and Procedures obtained from the crop questionnaires used in the biological survey (128). 1) The number of acres treated The 10 cotton-producing States that with toxaphene + methyl parathion in reported toxaphene use accounted for 72 1976 was used as a base acreage. The percent of the total U. S. cotton pro­ base acreage was estimated by the duction in 1976 (table 8). In the 10 assessment team using data from the States, 37 percent (3.7 million) of the biological survey (128) and the usage planted cotton acres were treated with survey (123).

28 Table 8.--Acres harvested and yield per acre for upland cotton for the budworm-bollworm study area, by State and region, 1976 1)

Share of Region Acres Total total U. S. and State:l:..l harvested production production

J.,OOO 1,000 bales Percent Southeast Alabama 440 350 3.3 Georgia 234 200 1.9 North Carolina 69 70 .7 South Carolina 162 145 1.4 Tennessee 370 225 2.1 Total 1,275 990 9.4 Delta Arkansas 950 780 7.4 Louisiana 560 555 5.3 Mississippi 1,470 1,145 10.9 Total 2,980 2,480 23.6 Southern Plains Texas 4,500 3,250 31.0 Southwest Arizona 318 810 7.7 Total 10 States 9,073 7,530 71.1

U.S. total 10,854 10,494 100.0

1-' Source: USDA, SRS, 1977 (130). :1:..1 Includes only those States that responded to the 1976 Biological Survey for Toxaphene Assessment (128).

2) It was assumed that the prices 3) The application rate per acre of the alternative insecticides would (table 9) and the number of appli­ not change and they would be avail­ cations per year (table 10) associated able in sufficient quantities throughout with each insecticide were based on the cotton belt to replace toxaphene. the biological survey and the usage Azodrin®, EPN + methyl parathion, and survey. methyl parathion alone were specified as 4) The distribution of toxaphene­ alternatives to toxaphene + methyl para­ treated acres among alternative insecti­ thion by the assessment team (table 9). cides was based on the biological survey Information from the biological survey, (table 11). product labels, State recommendations, 5) Annual treatment costs per acre efficacy (based on experimental and for toxaphene + methyl parathion and field data) , and treatment costs per alternatives were developed for each acre were used in specifying these region, taking into account the number alternatives • Other registered insecti­ of applications. insecticide material cides, such as Lannate® and Orthene®, costs, and application costs (table 11). are available, as are other materials, 6) Yield per acre for toxaphene + such as Elcar® and Dipel®. Significant methyl parathion and the alternatives use of these materials to replace toxa­ was based on the biological survey phene is not expected. (table 11).

29 Table 9.--Application rate and material cost per acre for toxaphene and alternative insecticides for budworm-bollworm control on cotton

Application Material cost Insecticides rate per per acre ]J application ~-'

Pounds a.i. Dollars Present insecticides Toxaphene + methyl parathion 2.0 + 1.0 ~-'2.75 EPN + methyl parathion i l .5 + .5 ~.I 2.80 Azodrin~ il 1.0 §.../4.60 Lannate~ .45 ~.I 4.00 Orthene~ .75 ~-'5.95 Methyl parathion il 1.0 §.../2.06 New insecticides.II Ambush® .1 .§.I 6.40 Pydrin® .1 .§./6.00 Pounce® .• 1 .§./ 6•40 Bolstar® 1.0 .§./6.00 Other materials!!.! Elcar® (virus) .§./3.20 - 6.40 Dipel® (bacteria) .§./ 3.50 - 9.00

11 Source: 1976 Biological Survey for Toxaphene Assessment (128). 21 Application cost per acre is not included: Southeast - $1. 25; Delta­ $1-:-60; Southern Plains - $2.50; and Southwest - $1.75. 31 Based on data provided by Hercules, Inc., Delaware; Fred Cooke, Mississippi; Art Grube, North Carolina,; and Gold Kist Corporation, Georgia. 41 Specified as alternatives to toxaphene by assessment team. 51 Southern States Cooperative. 61 Based on discussions with pesticide manufacturers, October 1977. 71 All except Bolstar® are synthetic . 81 Biological agents - not directly comparable to chemical pesticides.

Table 10.--Number of applications per season for toxaphene and alternatives on cotton by region 1./

Toxaphene + EPN + Region methyl Methyl methyl Azodrin® parathion parathion parathion

------Number------~--- Southeast 10.7 14.4 8.0 10.8 Delta 5.3 8.4 5.8 5.6 Southern Plains 3.1 6.4 4.4 4.4 Southwest 3.3 3.4 2.3 2.3

1/ Developed from data obtained from the 1976 Biological Survey for Toxaphene Assessment (128). The number of applications are weighted averages from States within each region.

30 Table l1.--Estimated acres treated, annual treatment costs, lint cotton production for toxaphene, and alternative insecticides for budworm-bollworm control, by region, 1976.!J

Annual treatment cost Item Acres Yield Production treated Per acre Total per acre

Million Million 1,000 Dollars dollars Pounds pounds Southeast Toxaphene + methyl parathion 561 42.80 24.0 417 234 Alternatives : Methyl parathion 363 47.66 17.3 386 140 EPN + methyl parathion 97 24.80 2.4 356 35 Azodrin~ 101 • 63.18 6.4 373 38 All alternatives 561 47.82 26.8 379 213 Delta Toxaphene + methyl parathion 1,400 23.05 32.3 467 654 Alternatives: Methyl parathion 397 30.74 12.2 352 140 EPN + methyl parathion 738 20.01 14.8 425 314 Azodrin® 265 34.72 9.2 414 110 All alternatives 1,400 28.74 40.2 403 564 Southern Plains Toxaphene + methyl parathion 1,593 13.95 22.2 341 543 Alternatives: Methyl parathion 478 24.38 11.7 316 151 EPN + methyl parathion 159 15.84 2.5 299 48 Azodrin~ 956 27.94 26.7 334 319 All alternatives 1,593 26.08 41.6 325 518 Southwest Toxaphene + methyl parathion 100 17.32 1.7 1,197 120 Alternatives: Methyl parathion 60 15.50 .9 1,197 72 EPN + methyl parathion 30 10.01 .3 1,187 36 Azodrin~ 10 16.34 .2 1,197 12 All alternatives 100 14.59 1.5 1,195 120 Total 10 States Toxaphene + methyl parathion 3,654 21.95 80.2 424 1,551 Alternatives: Methyl parathion 1,298 32.43 42.1 388 503 EPN + methyf parathion 1,024 19.52 20.0 423 433 Azodrin® 1,332 31.91 42.5 360 479 All alternatives 3,654 30.12 110.1 387 1,415

1...1 Estimated from data obtained in the 1976 Biological Survey for Toxaphene Assessment (128). Annual treatment costs per acre and yield per acre are expected values based on levels of infestation. For a discussion on how these estimates were developed, see the section titled "Expected Value Methodology."

31 7) Cotton prices used in the anal­ impacted the greatest; it accounts for ysis are $0.54 per pound for lint cotton $64 million of the net revenue reduc­ and $0.05 per pound for cottonseed. tion. The impact in the Southern Plains Cottonseed production is 1.67 times lint is estimated at $35 million, followed by cotton production. It was assumed that the Southeast at $16 million. The the production change without toxaphene impact of a toxaphene cancellation on would not affect cotton prices. cotton producers in the Southwest is negligible because budworm-bollworm is Results not a problem.

It was estimated that about 1. 6 Based on data from the biological billion lb of lint cotton were produced survey, the following distribution of on the 3.7 million acres treated with budworm-bollworm occurrences was de­ toxaphene + methyl parathion in 1976 in veloped: Best year--40 percent; typi­ the 10 States included in the analysis cal year--35 percent; worst year--25 (table 11). Use of alternative insecti­ percent. Therefore, the yield impact cides to replace toxaphene would have presented in this publication tends resulted in the production of about 1.4 toward the maximum that might be ex­ billion lb of lint cotton. This 200 pected to occur in a given year. In million lb reduction with toxaphene a year of low budworm-bollworm popula­ unavailable represents a 9-percent tion pressure, the economic impact of a reduction in output for the 3.7 million toxaphene cancellation on growers would acres, but only a 3-percent loss in 1976 be less. Thus, the economic impact of a national cotton production. About 66 toxaphene cancellation could range from percent of the production loss would a low of $30 million (change in produc­ occur in the Delta, where yields on tion costs) to a high of $115 million toxaphene-treated land were estimated to (changes in production costs and yields) decrease from 467 lb of lint cotton per in any given year". acre with toxaphene + methyl parathion to 403 lb with the alternative insecti­ High-Volume Uses--Soybeans, cides, a change of 64 lb. Expected Sorghum, and Peanuts declines in per-acre lint-cotton yields for the other regions are Southeast--38 After cotton, the next largest crop lb; Southern Plains--16 lb; and South­ uses of toxaphene, based on total pounds west--2 lb. applied, are soybeans (7 pct), sorghum (3 pct), and peanuts (1 pct) (table 5). Insecticide treatment costs for the Soybeans, sorghum, and peanuts are 10 States increase by $29.9 million evaluated on a national basis because from $80.2 million using toxaphene + reliable data are not available on a methyl parathion to $110.1 million using regional basis. the alternatives (table 11). This is equivalent to a $8.17 per-acre change. Toxaphene is applied to soybeans Regionally, the average cost differ­ for control of armyworms, bean leaf ences range from a reduction of $2.73 beetles, green clover'tlorms, and grass­ per acre in the Southwest to an increase hoppers. It is applied to sorghum for of about $12.13 per acre in the Southern armyworms, grasshoppers, and green Plains. cloverworms, and to peanuts for armyworms, leafhoppers, thrips, and The national impact of a toxaphene velvetbean caterpillars (table 13). cancellation on users in a typical to above-average budworm-bollworm year Assumptions and Procedures was estimated at $115 million--$30 million in added budworm-bollworm 1) For each crop, the area control costs and $85 million from treated with toxaphene is based on the reduced lint and cottonseed production 1976 National Pesticide Usage Survey (table 12). Regionally, the Delta is (123).

32 Table 12. --Income loss to users the first year after toxaphene is unavailable for cotton, 1976

South- Southern South- Item Unit east Delta plains west Total

Acres treated with toxaphene.1../ 1,000 561 1,400 1,593 100 3,654

Lint cotton production:1,,/ With toxaphene million lb 234 654 543 120 1,551 Without toxaphene do. 213 564 518 120 1,415 Change in lint production. do. 21 90 25 0 136

Change in cottonseed production without toxaphene. !I do. 35 150 42 0 227

Reduction in income: Added cost of insect million control.1J dollars 2.8 7.9 19.4 -0.2 29.9 Value of lost lint production. !I do. 11.3 48.6 13.5 0 73.4 Value of lost cotton­ seed. !I do. 1.8 7.5 2.1 0 11.4 Net reduction in income. do. 15.9 64.0 35.0 -0.2 114.7

11 Taken from table 11. 21 Change in lint production times 1.67. 31 The price for lint cotton was assumed to be $0.54 per pound. This baseline price was provided by the Commodity Economics Division, ERS, USDA. 41 The base price for cottonseed was assumed to be $0.05 per pound.

2) The principal alternative in­ on one-half of the toxaphene-treated secticides used in the analysis are acreage. methyl parathion and carbaryl. They 5) The prices for toxaphene and were specified by the assessment team the alternative insecticides were ob­ and based on information from the 1976 tained from Agricultural Prices Annual Biological Survey for Toxaphene Assess­ Summary 1976 (133). It was assumed ment (128). The alternative insecti­ that the alternative materials would cides are assumed to be as efficacious be available in sufficient quantities as toxaphene. Therefore, no change in to replace toxaphene at the prevailing quantity or quality of yield is included market prices. in the analysis (table 14). 6) All insecticide materials are 3) The number of applications is assumed to be aerially applied. Per­ based on the 1976 Biological Survey for acre costs for aerial application were Toxaphene Assessment (128). Toxaphene based on discussions with custom appli­ is applied once per season, as are the cators and 1971 average expenditures alternative insecticides. published by Ferguson (55). These 4) It was assumed that each alter­ expenditures were adjusted to reflect native insecticide would be substituted 1976 dollars.

33 Table 13.--Toxaphene and alternative insecticides, by crop and insect pest 1...1

Application rate Crop and insect Insecticide pest per acre Pounds a.i. Soybeans Armyworm Toxaphene 2.0 Alternatives: 1.0-1.5 1.0 Methyl parathion 1.0 Carbaryl 1.0-1.5 Bean leaf beetle Toxaphene 2.0 Alternatives: Methyl parathion 1.0 Carbaryl 1.0 Azinphosmethyl 0.38 Grasshopper Toxaphene 2.0 Alternatives: Naled 0.5-0.75 Methyl parathion 1.0 Carbaryl 0.5-1.5 0.61 (ULV) (seed crop only) 0.25 Green cloverworm Toxaphene 2.0 Alternatives: Methyl parathion 0.5-LO Carbaryl 0.5 Malathion 2.25 Azinphosmethyl 0.38-0.5 0.22-0.45 Sorghum Armyworm Toxaphene 1.5 Alternatives: Methyl parathion 0.5-1.0 Parathion 0.25-1.0 Malathion 1.5 Trichlorfon 0.5-1.0 Grasshopper Toxaphene 1.5 Alternatives: Malathion 1.0 Methyl parathion 0.5-1.0 Parathion 0.5-1.0 1.0 Green cloverworm Toxaphene 1.5 Alternatives: Methyl parathion 0.5-1.0 Carbaryl 1.0-1.5 Parathion 0.5 Peanuts Armyworm Toxaphene 2.0 Alternatives: Methoxychlor 1.0-1.5 Carbaryl 1.0-1.5

34 Table 13. --Toxaphene and alternative insecticides, by crop and insect pest 1,/ (continued)

Crop and insect Application rate Insecticide pest per acre

Pounds a.i. Peanuts (continued) Leafhopper Toxaphene 2.0 Alternatives: Methoxychlor 1.0-1.5 Carbaryl 1.0 Malathion 1.0 1.0 Phorate 1.0 Thrips Toxaphene 2.0 Alternatives: Carbaryl 1.0 Parathion 2.0-3.0 Malathion 1.13 Disulfoton 1.0 Phorate 1.0 1.0-2.0 Velvetbean caterpillar Toxaphene 2.0 Alternatives: Methoxychlor 1.0-1.5 Carbaryl 1.0 Parathion 2.0-3.0 Methyl parathion 1.0

1/ Alternative insecticides and rates of application were compiled from the 1976 Biological Survey for Toxaphene Assessment (128), State recommendations, and USDA, ARS, and Forest Service Guidelines for the Use of Insecticides, Agriculture Handbook No. 452.

Results farmers reported treating 1 percent of the soybean acreage (488,000 acres), 2 Because the analysis of soy­ percent of the sorghum acreage (304,000 beans, sorghum, and peanuts assumes no acres) , and 6 percent of the peanut change in yields or application costs, acreage (94,000 acres) with toxaphene the impact of a toxaphene cancellation (table 15). For all these crops, total on total costs is the change in materi­ annual insecticide treatment costs are al costs for alternative insecticides estimated to increase by $534,000. By (table 14). For soybeans and peanuts, crop, the increase in annual treatment per-acre treatment costs would rise costs are: Soybeans-$142, 000, sorghum­ from $3.71 with toxaphene, to $3.91 $365,000, and peanuts-$27,000. with carbaryl and $4.09 with methyl parathion. For sorghum, toxaphene treat­ On a per-acre basis, the increase ment costs are estimated at $3.22 per in annual insecticide treatment costs is acre compared with $4.77 with carbaryl rather small. Treatment costs for soy­ and $4.09 with methyl parathion. beans and peanuts would increase 29 cents per acre. For sorghum, costs Toxaphene is used to a limited would increase $1.22 per acre. Because extent on the three crops. In 1976, acreage treated and the changes in

35 Table 14. --Application rate and control costs per acre for toxaphene and alternative insecticides, by crop, 1976

Application Control costs per acre Crop and rate per insecticide 1..1 acre !I Material ~) AEElicationil Total ------Dollars--·------­ Soybeans Pounds a.i. Toxaphene 2.0 1.96 1.75 3.71 Carbaryl 1.0 2.16 1.75 3.91 Methyl parathion 1.0 2.34 1.75 4.09 Sorghum Toxaphene 1.5 1.47 1.75 3.22 Carbaryl 1.4 3.02 1.75 4.77 Methyl parathion 1.0 2.34 1.75 4'.09 Peanuts Toxaphene 2.0 1.96 1.75 3.71 Carbaryl 1.0 2.16 1.75 3.91 Methyl parathion 1.0 2.34 1.75 4.09

J) The alternative insecticides for toxaphene were specified by the toxaphene assessment team. 21 Taken from the 1976 Biological Survey for Toxaphene Assessment (128). 31 Prices per pound of acti'lre ingredient are: Toxaphene - $0.98; carbaryl - $2.16; and methyl parathion - $2.34. (USDA, SRS, 1977 (133». 41 Based on information from (55). The costs are for aerial application and are averaged for the 3 crops considered. The 1971 application costs were adjusted to 1976 dollars using the GNP price deflator. treatment cost are small, the costs 3) The number of animals treated of a toxaphene cancellation would be with toxaphene for each pest, except absorbed by the affected growers and mites, was obtained from the 1976 Na­ would not be passed on to consumers of tional Pesticide Usage Survey (123). In these commodities. reporting the number of animals treated, the farmer or rancher indicated the pri­ High-Volume Uses--Beef Cattle mary pest being controlled, even though more than one pest may have been present The partial budgeting analysis of at the time of treatment. The number of the impact of restricting toxaphene use animals treated for mites is based on on beef cattle used national cost coef­ 1976 information from the Cattle Scabies ficients. Some of the beef cattle pest Eradication Program (107). control problems are known to be region­ 4) Economic impacts are estimated specific, but analytical data for such at the State level for the 10 States analyses were unavailable. that are major users of toxaphene on beef cattle. Estimates for all other Assumptions and Procedures States are handled in aggregate and are included in estimated U. S. totals. This 1) "Beef cattle," as defined for does not imply that toxaphene is of neg­ this publication, does not include milk ligible benefit in the unnamed States. cows that have calved and heifers over The 10 major States had approximately 500 lb held for milk cow replacement. 54 percent of the U. S. beef cattle on 2) The major beef cattle pests January 1, 1977, and accounted for 74 considered here are horn flies. face percent of all beef cattle treated with flies, lice, ticks, and mites. toxaphene during 1976 (table 16).

36 5) Annual treatment costs per animal were developed by the assessment team,. taking into accQunt pesticide ~ rn material costs, labor costs per applica­ Q) tion, and average number of applications ....."Cj per year (127). Costs involved in the ...... \:) \:) gathering of animals for treatment. Q) rn which include labor and equipment, c:: accidental lnJury, weight loss, and ...... 0 C'I "<:I' c:;l occasional death of animals, were not c.\S 0 ~ "<:I' t­ Q) '0 c:: a: eo: M E-t ..-I ..-I ..-I included in the analysis. Although ...... > these are important factors, budget data c.\S * were unavailable. c:: ~ .... 6) The alternative pesticides used Q) rn ...... o to repla.ce toxaphene were specified by c.s \:) Q) the assessment team based on information .c: in the 1976 Biological Survey for Toxa­ .... phene Assessment (table 17). It was as­ sumed that toxaphene and the identified alternatives are equally efficacious in

the initial control of the incUcated ...... 0 0 C) C) pest. No consistent data were available c.\SO..-lt-"<:I' comparing toxaphene and alternatives '0 c:: 00 C) M E-t ..-I ..-I with respect to beef cattle weight loss * or quality loss, or both, associated with pest infestations. 7) The pounds of active ingredient applied per animal for each application .... rn ~ were determined by the assessmen t team o 0.. \:) 0 from information on product labels and ~ from State recommendations (table 17). .... \:) c:: It was assumed that 0.5 gal of pesticide Q) solution is required to wet an animal ....E c.\S in a spraying operation and 1.0 gal per Q) animal is required in a dip operation; ....~ however, animal size and length of hair coat will affect the actual amount of pesticide required on a per-animal basis. 8) Pesticide prices per pound of active ingredient were determined based on discussions with pesticide manufac­ turers and dealers in selected regions. 9) Labor costs per application per "Cj ....Q) animal were based on discussions with c.\S Q) livestock entomologists and agricultural ~I economists (27). For spray operations, .... it was assumed that one laborer ($4.50 rn Q) per hour) would be capable of treating ~ 60 animals per hour. For dip opera­ \:) tions, two laborers are necessary' ($4.50

37 Table 16.--Total beef cattle and number treated with toxaphene, by pest and major usage States, 1976

Animals treated at least once for each pest Total beef Horn Face Treated State cattle };.I fly.!1 fly.!1 Lice.!1 Ticks!.! Mites.!.! beef cattle

------_l~,_O_O~O_h__e_ad~------~------Texas 15,392 417 299 813 602 128 2,259 Missouri 5,988 766 971 143 27 50 1,957 Kansas 6,221 134 805 696 52 1,687 South Dakota 3,448 142 1,081 29 1,252 California 3,626 47 727 438 30 1,242 Iowa 7,121 19 400 761 59 1,239 Oklahoma 5,500 184 365 190 80 46 865 Nebraska 6,280 182 149 324 52 707 Kentucky 2,921 144 508 5 24 681 Louisiana 1,534 313 11 308 13 645 Total 58,031 2,206 4,377 4,759 709 483 12,534 10 StEttes U.S. Total 107,959 3,471 5,836 5,932 755 899 16,893

11 All beef cattle and calves on hand January 1, 1977. Does not include milk cows that have calved and heifers over 500 lb held for milk cow replacement (132). 21 Source: 1976 National Pesticide Usage Survey (123). 31 Survey figures were augmented by data on Tick Eradication Program in Texas obtained from Glen O. Schubert, chief staff veterinarian, USDA, APHIS, October 1977. 41 Data on the total number of animals treated in the Cattle Scabies Eradication programs were obtained from Glen O. Schubert, chief staff veterinarian, USDA, APHIS, October 1977. Although scabies outbreaks are more common in the southwestern and central States, the total number of animals treated was distributed in proportion to the State beef cattle population (col. 1). information in the 1976 Biological Sur­ treated with toxaphene in 1976, 74 per­ vey for Toxaphene Assessment (128). cent, or 12.5 million animals, were in The alternatives frequently require more 10 States. Texas had the largest number applications per year because their of beef cattle treated with toxaphene residual activity against the pests is (2.3 million animals), followed by Mis­ not as great as for toxaphene. souri (2.0 million animals), and Kansas 11) An average cost per treatment (1 .7 million animals). for the alternatives was developed assuming that each alternative listed Of the major livestock pests, lice (table 17) would be used in equal pro­ accounted for about 5.9 million animals portions in replacing toxaphene (table treated with toxaphene in 1976. ,Face 18). fly and horn fly cont.rol were next in importance, followed by mites and Results ticks.

It was esimated that about 16 per­ Toxaphene is generally cheaper than cent of the beef cattle on hand January alternative insecticides on a per­ 1, 1977 were treated with toxaphene at application per-animal basis (table 17). least once during 1976 (table 16). Of In addition, the annual number of appli­ the estimated 16.9 million beef cattle cations with alternative insecticides

38 Table 17 .--Costs per animal for toxaphene and principal alternative pesticides in controlling pests on beef cattle

Pest and Application Pesticide Cost Eer aEElication Eer animal Annual treatment rate per price per Applications cost per pesticide Material Labor~1 Total animal!1 Eound a.i. ~J Eer ~eari/ animal~/ Pounds a.i. Dollars ------Dollars------Number Dollars Horn fly 2..1 Toxaphene 0.0200 2.31 0.046 0.075 0.121 3 0.364 .0025 16.24 .041 .075 .1l6 4 .462 Methox;Jchlor .0200 3.75 .075 .075 .150 3 .450 Face fly_I Toxaphene .0200 2.31 .046 .075 .121 5 .606 Methoxychlor .0200 3.75 .075 .075 .150 5 .750 Ciodrin e + DDVP .0020 18.50 .037 .075 .1l2 5 .560 Lice2..1 -oroxaphene .0200 2.31 .046 .075 .121 2 .242 Methoxychlor .0200 3.75 .075 .075 .150 3 .450 Coumaphos .0025 16.24 .041 .075 .1l6 2 .231 .0064 10.04 .064 .075 .139 2 .279 Ronnel .0050 6.70 .034 .075 .109 2 .217 Ticks 2! Toxaphene .0200 2.31 .046 .075 .121 2 .242 Coumaphos .0050 16.24 .081 .075 .156 3 .469 Dioxathion .0064 10.04 .064 .075 .139 3 .418 Mites!1 Toxaphene .040 1.75 .070 .033 .103 ~/1-2 .103-.206 Coumaphos .025 13.00 .325 .033 .358 2 .716 Prolate l1D (Gx-1l8)~1 .02 gal 12.401 gal .248 .033 .281 2 .562

II Developed by the assessment team from information on manufacturer's labels and State recommendations. 21 Based on discussions with pesticide manufacturers, October 1977. For the Scabies Eradication Program, prices were used because materials are purchased in large lots. 31 Developed by the assessment team. For spray applications, a labor cost of $4.50 per hour (l worker) was assumed with 60-animals treated per hour. For dip applications, a labor cost of $8.00 per hour (2 workers) was assumed with 240 animals treated per hour. 41 Based on information from the 1976 Biological Survey for Toxaphene Assessment (128). 51 Total may differ from detail because of rounding. 61 Assumes 0.5 gal of finished spray solution per animal. 71 Assumes 1.0 gal of finished solution is used per animal dipped. 81 For the Scabies Eradication Program, animals are designated "infested" or "exposed." For "infested" animals, 2 applications of toxaphene are needed; for "exposed" animals, 1 application is sufficient. For the alternatives, 2 applications are required for either "infested" or "exposed" animals. ~ ~I Triple-super-phosphate (l00 lbl 1,000 gal solution) may be needed if the dip water is alkaline. Table 18.--Number of beef cattle treated, treatment costs, and change in treatment costs for toxaphene and alternatives, by pest, 1976

Number of Treatment cost Increase in treatment cost Pest and animals pesticide Per animal Total Per animal Total treated.!'! :1:./

1,000 Dollars $1,000 Dollars $1,000 Horn fl.l Toxaphene 3,471 0.364 1,263 Alternatives 3,471 .456 1,583 0.092 320 Fac~ Toxaphene 5,836 .606 3,537 Alternatives 5,836 .655 3,823 .049 286 Lice Toxaphene 5,932 .242 1,436 Alternatives 5,932 .294 1,745 .052 309 Ticks Toxaphene 755 .242 183 Alternatives 755 .444 335 .202 152 Mites Toxaphene 899 ~J .167 150 Alternatives 899 .639 574 .472 424 All Eests Toxaphene 16,893 .389 6,569 Alternatives 16,893 .477 8,060 .088 1,491

1/ Taken from table 16. 2/ The cost for alternatives is an average of those listed in table 17. 3/ Weighted average based en 343,000 "exposed" cattle (1 application) and 556,000 "infested" cattle (2 applications) (table 17). Obtained from Glen O. Schubert, chief staff veterinarian, USDA, APHIS, October 1977. is, for effective pest control, either cents per head (table 18). Horn fly the same as or greater than with toxa­ control would increase about 9 cents per phene. Thus, annual treatment cost per animal, and face fly and lice control animal is generally greater with the would increase about 5 cents. alternatives. For the total United States, the The impact of restricting the use additional cost of a toxaphene can­ of toxaphene for the control of ma~Jr cellation would be about 9 cents per pests on livestock would result in added treated animal, per year, for the major control costs of $1.5 million (table livestock pests (table 19). Estimated 18). The total dollar impact is fairly changes in' treatment costs would, in uniformly spread across the livestock the 10 major States, range from a high pests, with mite control accounting for of 13 cents per animal in Texas to a $424,000 and horn fly control accounting low of 7 cents per animal in Missouri, for $320,000. The smallest amount would California, and Iowa. be for tick control, with added costs estimated at $15.2,000. High-Volume Uses--Wheat

Without toxaphene, annual control In 1976, approximately 80 million costs for mites would increase about 47 acres of wheat were planted in the cents per head, followed by ticks at 20 United States; 71 million acres were

40 Table 19. --Additional cost of treating beef cattle with alternatives to toxaphene, by State and pest, 1976

Additional treatment cost 1/ Additional State cost per Horn fly Face fly Lice Ticks Mites Total animaLY ------1,000 dollars------··------Texas 38.4 14.7 42.3 121.6 60.4 227.4 $0.13 Missouri 70.5 47.6 7.4 5.5 23.6 154.6 .07 Kansas 12.3 39.4 36.2 24.5 112.4 .08 South Dalwta 7.0 56.2 13.7 76.9 .08 California 4.3 35.6 22.8 14.2 76.9 .07 Iowa 1.7 19.6 39.;0 27.8 88.7 .07 Oklahoma 16.9 17.9 9.9 16.2 21.7 82.6 .10 Nebraska 16.7 7.3 16.8 24.5 65.3 .08 Kentucky 13.2 24.9 0.3 11.3 49.7 .11 28.8 0.5 16.0 6.1 51.4 .08 Louisiana --- Total 10 States 202.8 214.5 247.5 143.3 227.8 1,035.9 .09 U.S. total 319.3 286.0 308.5 152.5 424.3 1,490.6 .09

11 Number of animals treated (table 16) times the change in cost per animai (table 18:- col. 4). 21 Total treatment cost (col. 6) divided by number of beef cattle treated for all pests (table 16, col. 7). harvested (table 20). Wheat is produced importance of each State to wheat pro­ in almost every State. In response to duction in the United States. Together, a national survey initiated by USDA the 12 States accounted for 44 percent (biological survey (128», 12 States of U. S. wheat production in 1976. Ap­ indicated that economic infestations of proximately 94 percent of the 35 million either grasshoppers, armyworms, or army acres harvested in the 12 impacted cutworms were treated with toxaphene States was winter wheat acreage. in 1976. In 1976, approximately 1.2 million This should not be interpreted to acres of wheat would have been directly mean that toxaphene use on wheat is of impacted by a toxaphene cancellation no benefit in the States not responding (table 21). This represented 1. 5 per­ to the survey. Individual growers or cent of the U.S. wheat acreage planted local areas may have insect problems on in 1976. wheat that need to be controlled with toxaphene. Toxaphene is registered for The economic impact of a toxaphene use on other small grains, such as cancellation on wheat was estimated by barley, oats, and rye. Data are not partial budgeting. The analysis iden­ available to estimate the economic im­ tified the average or expected pest pact of a toxaphene cancellation on population pressures on the wheat other small grains at the national or acreage identified as toxaphene-treated State levels, but changes in per-acre in 1976. The exte.nt of use, the insect control costs would be similar effectiveness, and the expected pest to estimates for wheat. population pressures of toxaphene and its major alternatives were ob­ These States are grouped by region tained from the biological survey in table 20. The table shows the (128) .

41 Table 20. --Acres harvested and yield per acre for wheat insect study area, by State and region, 19761./

Region and Acres Total Share of total State.~./ harvested production U. S. production

1,000 acres Million bushels Percent Northern Plains Kansas 11,300 339.0 15.8 Nebraska 2,950 94.4 4.4 South Dakota 2.990 39,.5 1.8 Total 17,240 472.9 22.0 Southern Plains Oklahoma 6,300 151.2 7.0 Te-xas 4,700 103.4 4.8 Total 11,000 254.6 11.9 Southeast Georgia 115 3.6 .2 Maryland 138 5.2 .2 Total 253 8.8 .4 Lake States Illinois 1,850 72.2 3.4 Indiana 1,600 57.6 2.7 Total 3,450 129.8 6.1 Delta Arkansas 710 27e7 1.3 Mississippi 180 5.2 .2 Total 890 32.9 1.5 West ---COlorado 2,223 48.0 2.2 Total 12 States 35,056 947.0 44.1 U. S. total 70,824 2,147.4 100.0

1/ Source: USDA, SRS, 1977 (130). 2/ Includes only those States that responded to the 1976 Biological Survey-for Toxaphene Assessment (128).

Table 21.--Wheat acres treated with toxaphene, by insect pest, by region, 1976

Acres Acres treated 2/ Region harvested }:./ Armyworm Army cutworm Grasshopper Total

------1,000------Northern Plains 17,240 78.8 328.7 63.5 471.0 Southern Plains 11,000 73.4 436.7 21.8 531.9 Southeast 253 17.0 17.0 La.ke S tates 3,450 106.4 1.5 107.9 Delta 890 60.0 60.0 West 2,223 6.0 6.0 Total 35,056 335.6 765.4 92.8 1,193.8

1/ Taken from table 20. 2/ Sources: 1976 Biological Survey for Toxaphene Assessment (128) and the 1976 National Pesticide Usage Survey (123).

42 Procedures exceeding economic thresholds and treated with toxaphene in 1976 as 1) The 1976 Biological Survey for identified in the biological survey Toxaphene Assessment (128) is the source represents a "normal" acreage infested. of the biological data that were used There was a severe army cutworm infes­ to develop the economic impact of a tox­ tation in 1976, however, and therefore aphene cancellation for use on wheat. the economic impact estimated in this Only the 12 States that responded to report is greater than would be expected the survey are included in the economic in a "normal" year. analysis of the cancellation of toxa­ 2) It was assumed that the prices phene for use on wheat. of the alternative insecticides would 2) The geographic extent of pest not change and that they would be avail­ infestations exceeding economic thresh­ able in sufficient quantities throughout olds and treated with toxaphene in 1976 the study area. was identified in the biological survey. 3) Economic impacts were calcu­ This acreage was used as the base for lated independently for the three target estimates of economic benefits. The pests and are assumed to be additive due toxaphene-treated acreage was distrib­ to the low probabilities of coincidental uted among alternative insecticides infestation by two, or all three, of the based on data obtained from the bio­ target pests on a given acre. logical survey. 4) The price used to evaluate 3) From the biological survey, production losses with toxaphene com­ expected pest population pressures pared with its alternatives is the were identified by pest and by region. 1975-77 weighted average price of winter The application rate and number of wheat for each region and was assumed applications necessary for toxaphene to be unchanged by the cancellation of and alternative insecticides were iden­ toxaphene. tified. The methodology used to derive expected values of pest popu­ Grasshoppers lation pressures, application rates, number of applications, and yields is In 1976 toxaphene was applied to presented in the section titled "Ex­ 93,000 acres of wheat in Colorado, pected Value Methodology." Nebraska, South Dakota, Oklahoma, 4) Based on data from the bio­ Texas, and Indiana for control of grass­ logical survey (128), the USDA/SRS hoppers (table 21). With the use of Agricultural Prices Annual Summary toxaphene, annual grasshopper control 1976 (133), and discussions with pes­ costs ranged from $3.06 in the Northern ticide manufacturers (October 1977), Plains to $4.96 in the Lake States; control cost by pest and region was these control costs include the cost of developed for toxaphene and alternative toxaphene and aerial application (table insecticides. 22). Of the alternative grasshopper 5) From the biological survey, controls available for use, malathion expected yields for toxaphene and is the most expensive; it costs as much alternative insecticides were estimated as $9.18 per acre in the Lake States. by pest and by region. Malathion, parathion, and phorate may 6) The estimated economic impact be used to replace toxaphene. is a combination of production losses and increased insect control costs on If toxaphene is canceled, increased the acreage treated with toxaphene in grasshopper control costs with alterna­ 1976, assuming the cancellation of tive insecticides (weighted average of toxaphene. alternatives by region) will range from no significant change in the West, to Assumptions a high of $1.71 per acre in the Lake States. The average increase in control 1) The analysis assumes that the costs over the 93,000 acres would be geographic extent of pest infestations $0.64 per acre (table 24).

43 ~ Table 22. --Acres treated, application rate, insecticide prices, and number of applications, for grasshopper ~ control on wheat

Application Price per Region rate per acre pound of Application Number of Acres (active active cost applications Annual cost and treated 11 insecticide ingredient).~1ingredient 31 per acre ~-'per year 21 per acre

1,000 Pounds ------Dollars------Dollars Lake States Toxaphene 1.5 2.00 0.98 3.00 1.00 4.96 Alternatives: Malathion .9 1.25 3.00 3.00 1.36 9.18 Parathion .6 .25 2.65 3.00 1.00 3.66 Total 1.5 6.67 Change +1.71 Northern Plains Toxaphene 63.5 1.84 .98 1.25 1.00 3.06 Alterna tives : Malathion 3.5 .60 3.00 1.25 1.83 5.58 Parathion 57.0 .50 2.65 1.25 1.38 3.55 Phorate 3.0 1.00 3.50 1.25 1.00 4.75 Total 63.5 3.73 Change +.67 Southern Plains 4.47 Toxaphene 21.8 1.76 .98 ~.75 1.00 Alternatives: Malathion 6.8 1.25 3.00 2.75 1.13 7.67 Parathion 15.0 .50 2.65 2.75 1.00 4.07 Total 21.8 5.18 Change +.68 West -roxaphene 6.0 2.00 .98 2.75 1.00 4.71 Alternatives: Parathion 6.0 1.50 2.65 2.75 1.14 4.70 Change -.01

11 Taken from table 21. Distribution among alternative insecticides was based on the biological survey (128). 2/ Expected values of data reported in the biological survey (128). 31 Based on data from USDA, SRS, 1977 (133) and discussions with pesticide manufacturers, October 1977. 4/ Based on discussions with commercial applicators, June 1977. Table 23. --Acres treated, yields, and value of production for toxaphene and alternative insecticide control of grasshoppers on wheat

Region and Acres Yield ~er Price per Value of Total Value of insecticide treated..!.! acre _I bushel !I yield prO(~uction production 1,000 Bushels ------Dollars------to 000 bushels 1,000 dollars Lake States Toxaphene 1.5 37.3 2.76 102.95 56 155 Alternatives: Malathion .9 35.0 2.76 96.60 32 86 Parathion .6 36.0 2.76 99.36 22 61 Total 1.5 35.4 2.76 97.70 53 146 Change -1.9 -5.25 -3 -9 Northern Plains Toxaphene 63.5 27.1 2.72 73.71 1,720 4,678 Alternatt~es: Malathion 3.5 12.3 2.72 33.46 43 117 Parathion 57.0 22.4 2.72 60.93 1,274 3,465 Phorate 3.0 31.7 2.72 86.22 95 258 Total 63.5 22.2 2.72 60.38 1,412 3,841 Change -4.9 -13.33 -308 -837 Southern Plains Toxaphene 21.8 24.6 2.86 70.36 537 1,536 Alternatives: Malathion 6.8 21.8 2.86 62.35 148 423 Parathion 15.0 23.1 2.86 66.07 346 990 Total 21.8 22.7 2.86 64.92 494 1,413 Change -1.9 -5.44 -43 -123 West Toxaphene 6.0 24.8 2.57 63.74 149 383 Al terna tives : Parathion 6.0 20.5 2.57 52.69 123 316 Change -4.3 -11. 06 -26 -67

11 Taken from table 21. Distribution among alternative insecticides was based on the biological survey (128).

,j::I. 11 Expected values of data reported in the biological survey (128). c:J1 31 1975-77 weighted average price of winter wheat. Table 24.--Net revenue reductions associated with the cancellation of toxaphene for grasshopper control on wheat

Region and Acres Grasshopper Value of Net revenue change insecticide treated.!.! control cost !I yield!1 Per acre Total

1,000 ------Dollars pel' acre------1,000 dollars Lake States Toxaphene 1.5 4.96 102.95 Alternatives 1.5 6.67 97.70 Change +1.71 -5.25 -6.96 -10 Northern Plains Toxaphene 63.5 3.06 73.71 Alternatives 63.5 3.73 60.38 Change +.67 -13.33 -14.00 -889 Southern Plains Toxaphene 21.8 4.50 70.36 Alternatives 21.8 5.18 64.92 Change +.68 -5.44 -6.12 -133 West ~xaphene 6.0 4.71 63.74 Alternatives 6.0 4.70 52.69 Change -.01 -11.06 -11.07 -66 --Total Toxaphene 92.8 3.54 72.75 Alternatives 92.8 4.18 61.55 Change +.64 -11.20 -11.84 -1,099

.11 Taken from table 21. 21 Taken from table 22. 31 Taken from table 23.

Based on data from the biological with the cancellation of toxaphene over survey, the use of alternative insecti­ the 93,000 acres is $11.84 per acre, or cides to replace toxaphene for grass­ an aggregate net revenue reduction of hopper control will also result in $1.1 million for toxaphene users. reduced yields. Average per-acre reductions were estimated. at: Lake The cancellation of toxaphene for States, 1.9 bushels; Northern Plains, grasshopper control on wheat will reduce 4.9 bushels; Southern Plains, 1.9 bush­ total winter wheat production approxi­ els; and West, 4.3 bushels (table 23). mately 380,000 bushels annually (table These yield losses would result in gross 23). Since U.S. winter wheat produc­ revenue losses ranging from $5.25 per tion averages approximately 1.6 billion acre in the Lake States to $13.33 bushels per year, the production loss per acre in the Northern Plains. resulting from the cancellation of tox­ aphene for grasshopper control will The combination of increased grass­ result in no measurable price change hopper control costs and reduced yields in the marketplace and, therefore, no accounts for an average net revenue economic impact at the consumer level. reduction per acre of $6.96 in the Lake States, $14.00 in the Northern Armyworms Plains, $6.12 in the Southern Plains. and $11.07 in the West (table 24). The In 1976 toxaphene was applied to average net revenue reduction associated 336,000 acres of wheat for control of

46 armyworms in Nebraska, South Dakota, The cancellation of toxaphene for Texas, Illinois, Indiana, Arkansas, armyworm control on wheat may generate a Mississippi, Georgia, and Maryland reduction in total winteI' wheat produc­ (table 21). With the use of toxaphene, tion of approximately 1 million bushels annual armyworm control costs range annually (table 26). Inasmuch as the from $3.07 in the Northern Plains to U • S. winter wheat production averages $5.08 in the Southern Plains; these approximately 1.6 billion bushels per control costs include the cost of year, the production loss resulting from toxaphene and aerial application (table the cancellation of toxaphene for army­ 25). Of the alternative armyworm worm control on wheat will result in no controls available for use, malathion is measurable price changes in the market­ the most expensive at $7.73 per acre in place and, therefore, no economic impact the Lake States. Methyl parathion, at the consumer level. trichlorfon, malathion, and parathion may be used as replacements for army­ Army Cutworms worm control. In 1976 toxaphene was applied to It toxaphene is canceled, changes 765,000 acres of wheat to control army in armyworm control costs with alterna­ cutworms in Kansas, Nebraska, South tive insecticides (weighted average of Dakota, Oklahoma, and Texas (table 21). alternatives by region) will range from a decrease of $0.57 per acre in the With the use of toxaphene, annual Southern Plains to an increase of $1. 24 army cutworm control costs of $3.19 per per acre in the Lake States. The acre are expected in the Northern Plains average change in control costs over the and $4.61 per acre in the Southern 336,000 acres would be an increase of Plains (table 28). These control costs $0.32 per acre (table 27). include both chemical and aerial appli­ cation charges. If alternative insecti­ The use of alternative insecti­ cides (prinCipally endrin) are used to cides in place of toxaphene to control replace toxaphene treatments, army armyworms will also result in reduced (;utworm control costs will decrease yields. The following average yield $0.75 per acre in the Northern Plains reductions per acre are anticipated: and $0.35 per acre in the Southern Delta, 0.2 bushel; Lake States, 6.8 Plains. The average decrease in control bushels; Northern Plains, 2.4 bushels; costs over the 765,000 acres treated Southeast, 3.3 bushels; and Southern with toxaphene in 1976 would be approx­ Plains, 0 • 7 bushel (table 26). These imately $0.52 per acre (table 30). yield losses result in gross revenue losses to toxaphene users ranging from Endrin, parathion, and trichlorfon $0.52 per acre in the Delta to $18.77 may be SUbstituted for toxaphene. En­ per acre in the Lake States. drin is the preferred insecticide for . control of army cutworms in the midwest­ The combination of increased army­ ern wheat States...Y It is the least ex­ worm control costs and reduced yields pensive and most efficacious insecticide will result in average net revenue per­ available for army cutworm control. The acre reductions of $0.66 in the Delta, use of toxaphene in 1976 may have $20.01 in the Lake States, $6.38 in been higher than normal because of the the Northern Plains, $10.25 in the Southeast, and $1.43 in the Southern 21 Endrin is considered as an Plains (table 27). The average net alternative to toxaphene for use on army revenue reduction associated with the cutworms. Although endrin is currently cancellation of toxaphene over the under RPAR review, Endrin: Position 336,000 acres is $8.75 per acre. The Document 2-3 signed by EPA October 20, aggregate net revenue reduction is 1978 recommends that endrin be reregis­ estimated at $3 million for toxaphene tered for use on wheat to control army users. cutworm.

47 ~ Table 25.--Acres treated, application rate, insecticide prices, and number of applications for armyworm controi on wheat 00 Application Price per Region Application Number of Acres rate per acre pound of Annual cost and treated.!'! (active cost applications insecticide active per acre ingredient) 2/ ingredient 3/ per acre jJ per year ~J

1,000 Pounds ------Dollars------Dollars Delta -;y;Qxaphene 60.0 2.00 0.98 1.50 0.96 3.33 Alternatives: Methyl parathion 45.1 .99 2.34 1. 50 .99 3.84 Trichlorfon 14.9 .50 3.01 1.50 .98 2.35 Total 60.0 3.47 Change +.14 Lake States Toxaphene 106.·1 1.85 .98 3.00 1.00 4.81 Alternatives: Methyl parathion 37.2 .50 2.34 3.00 1.00 4.17 Trichlorfon 25.5 .97 3.01 3.00 1.00 5.92 Malathion 43.7 1.40 3.00 3.00 1.08 7.73 Total 106.4 6.05 Change +1.24 Northern Plains Toxaphene 78.8 1.86 .98 1.25 1.00 3.07 Alternatives: Trichlorfon 3.9 .62 3.01 1.25 1.00 3.12 Parathion 74.9 .51 2.65 1.25 1.12 2.92 Total 78.8 2.93 Change -.14 Southeast Toxaphene 17.0 1. 50 .98 3.00 1.00 4.47 Alternatives: Trichlorfon 9.6 1.00 3.01 3.00 1.00 6.01 Malathion 2.4 1.25 3.00 3.00 1.00 6.75 Parathion 5.0 .50 2.65 3.00 1.00 4.32 Total 17.0 5.65 Change +1.18 Southern Plains Toxaphene 73.4 2.38 .98 2.75 1.00 5.08 Alternatives: Methyl parathion 36.4 .50 2.34 2.75 1.08 4.23 Trichlorfon 18.4 .80 3.01 2.75 1.00 5.16 Parathion 18.3 .50 2.65 2.75 1.08 4.40 Total 73.4 4.51 Change -.57

1/ Taken from table 21. Distribution among alternative insecticides was based on the biological survey (128). 'il Expected values of data reported in the biological survey (128). JJ Based on data from USDA, SRS, 1977 (133) and discussions with pesticide manufacturers, October 1977. 4/ Based on discussions with commercial applicators, JUI.le 1977. Table 26.--Acres treated, yields, and value of production for toxaphene and alternative insecticide control of armyworm on wheat

Region and Acres Yield ~er Price per Value of Total Value of insecticide treated.!/ acre _, bushel 3/ lield Eroduction Eroduction 1,000 Bushels ------Dollars------­ 1,000 bushels 1,000 dollars Delta Toxaphene 60.0 31.1 2.64 82.10 1,867 4,929 Alternatives: Methyl parathion 45.1 31. 5 2.64 83.16 1,422 3,754 Trichlorfon 14.9 29.1 2.64 76.82 433 1,143 Total 60.0 30.9 2.64 81. 58 1,855 4,897 Change -.2 -.52 -12 -32 Lake States Toxaphene 106.4 39.5 2.76 109.02 4,204 11,603 Alternatives: Methyl parathion 37.2 36.3 2.76 100.19 1,350 3,726 Trichlorfon 25.5 35.5 2.76 97.98 904 2,495 Malathion 43.7 27.9 2.76 77.00 1,220 3,367 Total 106.4 32.7 2.76 90.25 3,474 9,588 Change -6.8 -18.77 -730 -2,015 Northern Plains Toxaphene 78.8 30.7 2.72 83.50 2,417 6,574 Alternatives: Trichlorfon 3.9 26.7 2.72 72.62 104 283 Parathion 74.9 28.3 2.72 76.98 2,123 5,775 Total 78.8 28.3 2.72 76.98 2,227 6,058 Change -2.4 -6.52 -190 -516 Southeast Toxaphene 17.0 32.4 2.75 89.10 551 1,515 Alternatives: Trichlorfon 9.6 32.4 2.75 89.10 311 855 Malathion 2.4 25.0 2.75 68.75 60 165 Parathion 5.0 27.0 2.75 74.25 135 371 Total 17.0 29.1 2.75 80.03 506 1,392 Change -3.3 -9.07 -45 -123 Southern Plains Toxaphene 73.4 24.3 2.86 69.50 1,784 5,102 Alternatives: Methyl parathion 36.7 23.4 2.86 66.92 860 2,460 Trichlorfon 18.4 24.2 2.86 69.21 444 1,270 Parathion 18.3 23.4 2.86 66.92 430 1,230 Total 73.4 23.6 2.86 67.50 1.734 4,959 Change -.7 -2.00 -50 -143

11 Taken from table 21. Distribution among alternative insecticides was based on the biological survey (128). ~ !/ Expected values of data reported in the biological survey (128). ~ II 1975~-77weighted average price of winter wheat for the relevant regions. Table 27.--Net revenue reductions associated with the cancellation of toxaphene for armyworm control on wheat

Region and Acres Armyworm Value of Net revenue change insecticide treated.!.! control cost!/ yield!/ Per acre Total

1,000 ------Dollars Eer acre------1,000 dollars Delta -- Toxaphene 60.0 3.33 82.10 Alternatives 60.0 3.47 81.58 Change +.14 -.52 -0.66 -40 Lake States Toxaphene 106.4 4.81 109.02 Alternatives 106.4 6.05 90.25 Change +1.24 -18.77 -20.01 -2,129 Northern Plains Toxaphene 78.t3 3.07 83.50 Alternatives 78.8 2.93 76.98 Change -.14 -6.52 -6.38 -503 Southeast Toxaphene 17.0 4.47 89.10 Alternatives 17.0 5.65 80.03 Change +1.18 -9.07 -10.25 -174 Southern Plains Toxaphene 73.4 5.08 69.50 Alternatives 73.4 4.51 67.50 Change -.57 -2.00 -1.43 -105 Total ----rrDxaphene 335.6 4.18 88.56 Alternatives 335.6 4.50 80.09 Change +.32 -8.47 -8.75 -2,950

11 Taken from table 21. 2/ Taken from table 25. 3/ Taken from table 26.

unavailability of endrin in a year of The use of alternative insecti­ extensive army cutworm infestations. In cides, principally endrin, in place of Oklahoma, alone, 2. 5 million acres of toxaphene to control army cutworms will wheat were treated with insecticides for also result in increased yields. An control of army cutworm in 1976.!/ average yield increase of 7.3 bushels of The biological survey indicated that if wheat per acre is anticipated in the toxaphene has been canceled, endrin Northern Plains and 2.1 bushels in if available will be substituted for the Southern Plains (table 29). These toxaphene on approximately 94 percent yield increases result in gross revenue of the 1976 toxaphene-treated acre­ increases of $19.85 per acre in the age. This analysis assumes that endrin Northern Plains and $6.01 per acre in will be available in adequate supply for the Southern Plains. years of extensive infestations. The combination of reduced army cutworm control costs and increased 3/ U.S. Department of Agriculture. yields will result in a net revenue The biologic and economic assessment of increase of $20.60 per acre in the endrin. Tech. Bull. No. 162:L Northern Plains and $6.36 per acre in

50 Table 28.--Acres treated, application rate, insecticide prices, and number of applications for army cutworm control on wheat

Application Price per Annual Region rate per pound of Application Number of cost and Acres acre (active active cost applications per insecticide treated!/ ingredient)1/ ingredient~/ eer acre ~J eer ;year 1/ acre

1,000 Pounds ------Dollars------Dollars Northern Plains Toxaphene 328.7 1.98 0.98 1.25 1. 00 3.19 Alternatives: Parathion 8.7 1.41 2.65 1. 25 .50 5.15 Endrin 320.0 .20 5.50 1. 25 1.00 2.37 Total 328.7 2.44 Change -.75 Southern Plains Toxaphene 436.7 1.80 .98 2.75 1. 02 4.61 Alternatives: Trichlorfon 36.7 .80 3.01 2.75 1. 00 5.16 Endrin 400.0 .26 5.50 2.75 1. 00 4.18 Total 436.7 4.26 Change -.35

1/ Taken from table 21. Distribution among alternative insecticides was based on the biOlogical survey (128). 2/ Expected values of data reported in the biological survey (128). 3/ Based on data from USDA, SRS, 1977 (133) and discussions with pesticide manufacturers, October 1977. if Based on discussions with commercial applicators, June 1977.

Table 29.--Acres treated, yields, and value of production for toxaphene and alternative insecticide control of army cutworm on wheat

Region and Acres Yield per Price per Value of Total Value of insecticide treated!/ acre 1/ bushel ~/ yield eroduction eroduction

1,000 1,000 1,000 Bushels ------Dollars------bushels dollars Northern Plains Toxaphene 328.7 30.8 2.72 83.78 10,129 27,551 Alternatives: Parathion 8.7 9.7 2.72 26.38 84 228 Endrin 320.0 38.9 2.72 105.81 12,442 33,842 Total 328.7 38.1 2.72 103.63 12,526 34,070 Change +7.3 +19.85 +2,397 +6,519 Southern Plains Toxaphene 436.7 24.4 2.86 69.78 10,&50 30,459 Alternatives: Trichlorfon 36.7 22.8 2.86 65.21 836 2,391 Endrin 400.0 26.8 2.86 76.65 10,728 30,682 Total 436.7 26.5 2.86 75.79 11,564 33,073 Change +2.1 +6.01 +914 +2,614

1/ Taken from table 21. Distribution among alternative insecticides was based on the biological survey (128). 2/ Expected values of data reported in the biological survey (128). JJ 1975-77 weighted average price of winter wheat.

51 Table 30. --Net revenue reductions associated with the cancellation of toxaphene for army cutworm control on wheat

Region and Acres Army cutworm Value of Net revenue change insecticide treated.Y control cost !! yield!! Per acre Total

1,000 ------Dollars 12 er acre------­ 1,000 dollars Northern Plains Toxaphene 328.7 3.19 83.78 Alternatives 328.7 2.44 103.63 Change -.75 +19.85 +20.60 +6,771 Southern Plains Toxaphene 436.7 4.61 69.78 Alternatives 436.7 4.26 75.79 Change -.35 +6.01 +6.36 +2,771 Total Toxaphene 765.4 4.00 75.79 Alternatives 765.4 3.48 87.75 Change -.52 +11.96 +12.48 +9,552

1! Taken from table 21. 2! Taken from table 28. 3! Taken from table 29. the Southern Plains (table 30). The application and yield (129,130). The average net revenue increase associated expected values of cost and yield are with the sUbstitution of endrin, para­ derived from estimates of the effec­ thion, and trichlorfon for toxaphene tiveness of the insecticides at varying over 765, 000 acres is $12.48 per acre, levels of infestation intensity. These or an aggregatp net revenue increase of estimates and probabilities of occur­ $9.6 million for toxaphene users (if rence for these two variables are endrin supplies are adequate when infes­ estimated from data provided by State tations are extensive). entomologists responding to the 1976 Biological Survey for Toxaphene Assess­ The use of alternative army cut­ ment (128). worm control measures on wheat will increase the total winter wheat produc­ The survey asked for acreage tion approximately 3.3 million bushels treated, potential yield, application annually (table 29). Inasmuch as winter rates, and number of applications per wheat production averages approximately year in response to three infestation 1.6 billion bushels per year, this levels. The pest infestation or popula­ production increase would result in no tion levels are low, medium, and high. measurable price changes in the market­ The probability distribution of infesta­ place and, therefore, no economic impact tion intensity is estimated by the at the consumer level. entomologists for a range of annual situations. They were categorized best EX12ected Value Methodology year (insects not too much of a prob­ lem), typical year (normal insect Analysis of the value of toxaphene problem), and worst year (insects are as compared with that of sUbstitutes a serious problem). for the control of the budworm-bollworm complex on cotton and wheat is based Finally, the probabilities for oc­ on estimates of treated acreage in 1976 currence of each annual situation with and on expected values for the cost of and without toxaphene were asked for,

52 allowing for the calculation of an ex­ yield on noninfested acres was asked pected distribution of treated acreage for. Relative to this figure, yields according to intensity of infesta.tion. with toxaphene for the three categories Since' yields and treatment costs per of acreage by infestation intensity were acre were estimated as a function of provided by the respondent. The poten­ infestation intensity (low, medium, or tial yield was adjusted so tha.t it high) , their expected values were equaled the 1972-76 average yield per obtainable. harvested acre divided by the percent effectiveness of toxaphene in a moderate The joint probabilities of infesta­ infestation (129,130). Yields for each tion severity levels by category of acre likely sUbstitute were estimated by the and category of year can be represented respondent relative to the toxaphene as a 3 x 3 matrix. There are two such yields. matrices, one representing the expected yield and application cost with toxa­ At this point, and for each of phene available, and the other matrix the pesticide alternatives, three 1 x 3 without toxaphene. The case without vectors have been calculated: Costs, toxaphene is a case with alternatives. yields, and probability of occurrence-­ Thus, the survey form allows for sepa­ each as a function of acreage categori­ rate estimates of probability distribu­ zation by infestation intensity. This tion by category of year--one estimate compatibility allows the probabilities for the case with toxaphene and another (Ii" occurrence (proportionate distribu­ estimate for the case with alternative tion factors) to be used as weighting pesticides. factors in calculating estimates of "expected" yield and "expected" cost for Summation of joint probabilities each pesticide. for each category of infestation inten­ sity (by acre) condenses each 3 x 3 For comparison between the situa­ matrix into a 1 x 3 vector, which repre­ tions with toxaphene available and with­ sents the probability distribution of out toxaphene, alternatives to toxaphene treated acreage by infestation intensity are aggregated. Survey respondents in the "expected" year. This can be estimated the proportionate allocation interpreted as the expected distribution of toxaphene-treated acreage among the of acreage among low, medium, and high likely sUbstitutes. infestation levels. The distribution factors are used as "weightings" to Example--The benefit of toxaphene aggregate estimates of yield and cost in controlling budworm-bollworm per acre into "expected" values. For infestations on cotton acreage toxaphene and each alternative pesticide in one State the rate of application (lb a.i./acre) and number of applications are estimated Probability vectors are based sole­ by the survey respondent as a function lyon data provided by the respondent, of acreage infestation level. The three but the answers must be logically estimates for each, augmented by assess­ consistent. Table 31 shows the process ment team estimates of material price by which probability distributions for and labor costs, provide the necessary low, medium, and high levels of infesta­ data for calculating treatment costs for tion are derived from data on a State each pesticide and for each acreage survey response (table 32). In "best" category. For cotton, the application years, the respondent estimated that 70 rate was assumed to be constant, whereas percent of the acreage treated with it wes allowed to vary for wheat. toxaphene would fall into the "low" category of infestation intensity. The A comparis,on of yields when using medium category would claim 20 percent toxaphene or alternatives is likewise of the acreage, and the high category derived from the survey data. A poten­ would claim 10 percent of the ,acreage. tial yield representing the. expected In other words, the probabilities of

53 Table 31. --Probabilities used to derive expected cotton yields for low, medium, and high levels of budworm-bollworm infestation in 1 State 1../

Probability Probability of treated acre­ Joint probability for Type of age with infestation level: il infestation level :~-' of year ~-' occurrence ~J L,ow Medium High Low Medium High

With toxaEhene Best 0.60 0.70 0.20 0.10 0.42 0.12 0.06 Typical .20 .25 .50 .25 .05 .10 .05 Worst .20 .20 .30 .50 .04 .06 .10 Total 1.00 .51 .28 .21 Without toxaEhene Best 0.20 0.70 0.20 0.10 0.14 0.04 0.02 Typical .30 .25 .50 .25 .08 .15 .08 Worst .50 .20 .30 .50 .10 .15 .25 Total 1.00 ~ --:34 ---:34

11 Low, medium, and high refer to the impact of infestation on quality or quantity of-crop production. 21 Best, typical, or worst define the proportion of acreage infested with different levels of infestation (low, medium, high). 31 Estimates of number of best, typical, or worst years that will occur in a 10­ yr- period. These estimates obtained from 1976 Biological Survey for Toxaphene Assessment (128). 41 Estimates obtained from 1976 Biological Survey for Toxaphene Assessment (128). 51 Totals of low, medium, and high indicate values for an average year taking into account the rates of occurrence of best, typical, and worst year.

Table 32. --Survey questions concerning infestation levels (low, medium, high) by type of year (best, typical, and worst)

Percent of acres infested with r:.ift.erent Type of year insect population densities ]/

Low Medium High Total Best (insects not much of a problem) 70 20 10 ----roo Typical (normal insect problem) 25 50 25 100 Worst (insects are serious problem) 20 30 50 100

Number of times each type of year would Type of year be eXEected in a 10-yr period ~I

With toxaEhene Without toxaphene Best 6 2 Typical 2 3 Worst 2 5 Sum 10 10

11 To be interpreted as the probability of Ii given level of infestation occurring in a particular year. 21 Each entry when divided by 10 is to be interpreted as the probability of each type of year occurring.

54 acreage being infested, given a "best" year, are: Low, o. 7; medium, 0.2; and high, 0.1. Similar estimates are made for years labeled "typical" and "worst." This 3 x 3 matrix is multiplied by sca­ lars representing the probabilites of occurrence for each of the three types of years. With toxpahene available, 60 percent of the years will have a dis­ tribution of acreage similar to that which defines a "best" year. Typical and worst years each occur in lout of 5 years. Without toxaphene available. best years are estimated to occur in 1 I out of 5, and worst years are estimated I I to increase in frequency to lout of 2 100 It") I 000') years. I ....-l ....-l I I The scalar multiplications yield 3 I .....I x 3 matrices of joint probabilities. I:: Q) The probability of a toxaphene-treated C) 0 It") 0 ~ 0 00 00 acre being highly infested and in a Q) ....-l ~ worst year of infestation is 0.""20 x 0.50 I I = 0.10, whereas the same probability I with alternative pesticides is 0.5 x I ,I 0.5 = 0.25 (table 31). Summing over I 0 It") It") 100') 00 the type of year results in an expected I M distribution of acreage by infestation level. The probability that acreage will be infested at the low level is 0.51 or, in other words, 51 percent of the treated acreage is expected to be infested at a low level. Joint prob­ abilities under high infestation levels sum to 0.21, the probability of a ran­ domly chosen acre being highly infested or, in an average year, 21 percent of the treated acreage is expected to be infested at the high level. In compari­ son, substituting alternatives to toxa­ phene results in a substantial decrease (0.51 to 0.31) in the probability of acreage at low infestation levels and a substantial increase (0.21 to 0.34) in the probability of a highly infested ...... acreage. ·~....-ll­ +-''lj 1:: ...... Yields are calculated in table 33...... Q) .....Q) o » Potential yield is estimated at 343 lb ~ per acre. With toxaphene available, yields for low, medium, and high cate­ gories of acreage infestation levels are s 100 percent, 99 percent, and 98 percent .....;:j ..c:: of the potential yield. Yields with s: 'lj b.O o Q) ..... sUbstitution by methyl parathion are ~ ~ !I1 estimated at 100 percent, 95 percent,

55 Table 34. --Expected cotton yields derived for Texas using toxaphene (tox) plus methyl parathion (MP) and alternative insecticides to control- different levels of budworm-bollworm infestations

Yield for Probability for Expected Insecticide infestation level: infestation level: yield Low Medium High Low Medium High

------Pounds------Pounds Tox + MP 343 340 336 0.51 0.28 0.21 341 Alternatives : MP 343 323 286 .31 .34 .34 317 EPN + MP 343 289 269 .31 .34 .34 299 Azodrin® 343 340 319 .31 .34 .34 334

Table 35. --Number of applications derived for toxaphene (tox) plus methyl parathion (MP) and alternative insecticides for controlling budworm-bollworm on cotton

Number of applications Probability for Insecticide with infestation level: J:j infestation level: ~J Expected number Low Medium High Low Medium High of applications lJ

Tox + MP 1 4 7 0.51 0.28 0.21 3.1 Alternatives: MP 3 6 10 .32 .34 .34 6.4 EPN + MP 2 4 7 .32 .34 .34 4.4 Azodrin® 2 4 7 .32 .34 .34 4.4

1/ Estimates obtained from 1976 Biological Survey for Toxaphene Assessment (128). 2/ Taken from table 31. Totals of joint probabilities for each infestation level. 3/ Expected number of applications derived as follows: E(A) = L(AL PL + AM PM + AH PH) A = number of applications P = probability L = low, M = medium, and H = high. and 85 percent of yields with toxaphene from 299 to 334 lb/acre for alter­ available. On highly infested acreage, natives. use of toxaphene is estimated to result in a yield of 336 lb per acre, whereas Costs are estimated on the basis methyl parathion results in a yield of of two procedures similar to that used 336 x 85 percent = 286 lb per acre. for yields. Annual application cost All of the alternative treatments are is proportional to the number of appli­ estimated to have 100 percent effec­ cations, and its expected value is tiveness on acreages with low levels of estimated from the expected number of infestation, the potential yield being applications derived in table 35. Data the expected yield. on the number of applications estimated for each pesticide alternative and each When weighted by the appropriate acreage category by infestation level probabilities (table 34), the expected are weighted by the expected distribu­ yield for the total treated acreage is tion of acreage among infestation cate­ 341 lb/acre with toxaphene and varies gories. From table 31, with toxaphene,

56 51 percent of the treated acreage will CIJ I Cl.> I receive one application, 28 percent will '0 I ..... I r~ceive four applications, and 21 per­ .....<:,) I .... I cent will receive seven applications for <:,) , Cl.> I a weighted average of 3.1 applications CIJ I c:: I per treated acre. Without toxaphene, ..... I I ..... the expected number of applications is , cO I .....<:,) 6.4, 4.4, or 4.4, depending on which of I c.o IC"l l:l.O the three alternatives is used. , ...... o I~ ClJM .....o ~ CO By premultiplying numbers of appli­ cO :::l cations by rates of applications before o the above calculations, expected values o for the annual rate of material applica­

tion can be obtained. In the cotton ll) study, rates are assumed to be indepen­ dent of the severity of infestation, and therefore directly multiplicable by the expected number of applications. Table ll) 36 shows the chemical cost per acre, t­ per year, calculated as the product of . 1) the rate per acre per application in pounds, 2) the chemical cost per pound, arid 3) the expected number of applica­ tions per treated acre. ~ Cl.> ,o..-t Toxaphene + methyl parathion (MP), S . applied at 3 lb a.i. /acre, with a chem­ ::sM ical cost of $2.85 applied 3.1 times, is Z expected to cost $8.84 per year ($2.85 x 3.1) on the average treated acre. Expected annual costs for alternatives I I~ vary from $12.32 per acre to $20.24 per :00 I • acre. ,00 I CIJ At $1.75 per application, the ~ expected cost of applying toxaphene + ..... '0 methyl parathion to the average treated o, ll) acre is $5.42. Total annual treat­ I 00 I • ment cost for material and application 1C"l expenses is estimated at $14.26 in the ,I average year, $5.76 less than the cost I for EPN + MP, $10.12 less than MP, and .... $13.68 less than Azodrin®. CIJ o CIJ <:,) '0 Aggregation of alternatives within C::::s o• the State is based on survey response OM for the proportionate distribution of ~ the toxaphene acreage to be distributed among the three alternatives. For example,. in this State the 1.60 million Cl.> acres treated with toxaphene + MP 'were ...... '0 c.o .....<:,) replaced with alternatives as follows; M .... <:,) EPN + MP - 0.16 million (10 percent), MP .....Cl.> Cl.> alone - 0.48 million (30 percent), and .0 .....CIJ cO ...... Azodrin® - 0.96 million (60 percent). E-t

57 Low-Volume Uses reregistration review (RPAR) by EPA and may not be available as alternatives to Besides the high-volume uses of toxaphene for cutworm control. toxaphene discussed previously, there are several low-volume uses that warrant Substitute insecticides for cut­ attention for several reason. These worm control on celery and collards in reasons include: 1) No registered Arizona are more acutely toxic and alternatives, or 2) registered alterna­ generally more costly. Alabama uses tives thatare, relative to toxap hene , toxaphene for cutworm control on cucum­ considered to be less effertive, less bers and squash because the alterna­ safe, or less available in local tireas. tive insecticides are less effective. Oklahoma also finds that alternative To identify the commodities for insecticides are less effective for which the factors were pertinent, State cutworm control. Toxaphene is one of pesticide liaison representatives were the few materials available that is sent a list of toxaphene uses and asked effective against armyworms and cut­ to indicate which of these were impor­ worms on dry peas. Carbaryl is less tant to their State. The low-volume effective than toxaphene in low infes­ uses discussed here are those for which tation situations and ineffective when there was a high response rate from the high cutworm infestations occur in State liaison representatives and those vegetable seedlings in Mississippi, for which the assessment team identi­ where it is estimated that more than fied particular insect problems. These half of the acres would incur cutworm uses· include vegetables, seed onions, damage if toxaphene were canceled (27). Southern peas, seed alfalfa, sunflowers, corn, sheep and goats, swine, and beef Low-Volume Uses--Onions cattle quarantine. (Seed Crop)

Sufficient data were not available In 1975, 3,578 acres of onions were to permit preparation of partial budgets harvested for seed in the United States for these low-volume uses. There may (124). Toxaphene is used to control be significant cost and yield impacts on cutworms in seed onions in Washington, the producers of these commodities who and thrips in California, Idaho, Texas, apply toxaphene, but the dimensions are and Washington. Toxaphene is the only unknown at this time. material recommended for cutworm con­ trol on seed onions in Washington. In Low-Volume Uses--Vegetables Oregon, carbaryl has been recommended, but it has been only minimally effective Toxaphene is important for control in controlling cutworms. In addition, of cutworms in many vegetable crops. carbaryl poses a greater to The most important uses, as reported by alkali, honey, and bumble bees than the State liaison representatives, are does toxaphene. as follows: Nine States - cole crops, tomatoes, and seedling plants (not spec­ The onion thrip is a very small ified by type of vegetable); seven insect that punctures the leaves and States - beans and cabbage; four States stems and sucks up the exuding sap from - carrots and lettuce; three States­ the plant. Thrips cause onion plants to celery, collards, and dry or green peas; blast or to stop growing, and the plants and one State - cucumbers, kale, pep­ do not mature; therefore, seed produc­ pers, spinach, squash, and dry beans tion is stopped. Entire fields can be (124). Alternative insecticides for cut­ destroyed by this pest, especially in worm control on most vegetables include dry seasons. Thrips are difficult: to , carbaryl, , control because they feed between the methyl parathion, , parathion, leaves and mostly out of reach of insec­ and trichlorfon. In addition, lindane ticides. Toxaphene is the insecticide and BHC are currently undergoing of choice for control of onion thrips

58 on Washington seed onions because it production. Trichlorfon, parathion, and adheres to the onion leaf and has resid­ can be used for cutworm and ual activity. Azinphosmethyl is the lygus bug control; however, dimethoate registered alternative for the control is currently undergoing reregistration of thrips (27). review (RPAR) by EPA and may not be available. In addition, carbaryl can Low-Volume Uses--Southern Peas be used for lygus bug control.

The cowpea curculio is a major pest Cutworms are generally a problem of Southern peas and can be a limiting in the spring of the year when the factor in their production. States soil is cold and damp. Toxaphene gives reporting toxaphene use for control of good control of cutworms under these cowpea curculio include Alabama, conditions and has residual activity. Georgia, Mississippi, Missouri, North The alternative insecticides are less Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas. effective and have a shorter residual life. For lygus bug control, toxaphene Five of the seven States reported is effective and safe for pollinating having to apply three to four toxaphene bees. The alternatives give good ly­ applications per acre in 1976 to control gus bug control but are more toxic to cowpea curculio. In these five States, bees. This is especially true of carba­ 54,900 acres (90 pct) needed treatment ryl. Production losses may occur from in 1976. Aldicarb, carbaryl, and meth­ increased damage due to pest insects oxychlor are alternatives for control of and from decreased seed set due to the cowpea curculio (84). These alternative destruction of pollinating bees with the insecticides have given erratic control alternative insecticides. and are generally less effective than toxaphene. Carbaryl provides no control Low-Volume Uses--Sunflowers of cowpea curculio in North Carolina, and production for human consumption As a native plant, sunflowers· co­ could be reduced substantially due to evolved with a broad complex of insect larvae in the peas. Without toxaphene, pests that are economically important. it is expected that most of the Southern Sunflower acreage increased tenfold from pea acreage in Alabama, Mississippi, 1969 to 1977. In 1969, 201,500 acres North Carolina, and Georgia would be were planted to sunflowers. The sun­ infested with the cowpea curculio. Com­ flower acreage increased to 1.2 million mercially, Southern peas are grown for acres in 1975, and by 1977 it was 2.1 processing as shelled peas. Processors million acres. The estimated value of may be either reluctant to accept the the 1977 crop was $350.5 million, based cowpeas , or they may discount the price on a production of 1,402 million tons they pay if the crop is infested with and a price of $250 per ton (130). cowpea curculio larvae (27). The entire Great Plains has large Low-Volume Uses--Alfalfa Seed Crops areas that are marginal for soybean and corn production because of limited The nine States of Arizona, Idaho, precipitation. It is anticipated that New Mexico, Minnesota, Oregon, South sunflower production could spread into Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Washington these areas. Currently, most of the produced over 50 percent of all alfalfa sunflower acreage is in Minnesota, North seed produced in the United States in Dakota, and South Dakota. 1975 (130). These States listed toxa­ phene as essential to alfalfa seed It is estimated that virtually all production because alternative insecti­ acreage of sunflowers in the United cides were less effective or less safe. States is infested with one or more economically important insect pests, Toxaphene is used to control cut­ including armyworms, army cutworms, worms a.nd lygus bugs in alfalfa seed grasshoppers, and sunflower beetles.

59 There are no registered pesticides or these pests. For cutworm control on alternative cultural methods available corn, Iowa notes that 5 percent car­ to control these pests. Pest problems baryl bait, an effective alternative, have increased as sunflower acreage is more expensive and may not be increased and became more concentrated available in sufficient quantities if geographically. sizable cutworm infestations occur (27) • The total sunflower production losses due to insect pests in 1975 Low-Volume Uses--Sheep and Goats was estimated to be 8.1 percent (57). This loss might have been greater Losses attributed to ticks and in 1975 had not specific exemptions mites attacking sheep and goats were under Section 18 of FIFRA been granted estimated to be about $30 million a to North Dakota, South Dakota, and· year between 1951 and 1960 (122). Cur­ Minnesota for the use of toxaphene rent losses are estimated to be $43 for the control of army cutworms and million a year (ARS National Research the sunflower beetles. The exemption Program - NRP 20480). In 1971, $340,000 for North Dakota was to treat 150,000 were spent on insecticides for insect acres of sunflowers infested with the control on 20 million sheep (29). There army cutworms and an additional 125,000 were approximately 14 million sheep acres infested with the sunflower and goats on farms in the United beetle (137). This was 55 percent of States on January 1, 1977 (131). These the total commercial sunflower crop in animals are subject to infestation by North Dakota. Minnesota was granted sheep ked, mange mites, lice, and fleece exemption to treat 50 percent of its worms. acreage for army cutworm, and an additional 25 percent for sunflower Several States consider toxaphene beetles (136). important for treating sheep and goats for the following pests: Fleece worm ­ South Dakota's exemption was for 7 States, lice - 16 States, mites - 13 treatment of 50,000 acres of sunflowers States, and sheep ked or tick - 22 for army cutworms (138). States. There are several alternative materials available for fleece worms, Low-Volume Uses--Corn keds, and lice, including carbaryl, coumaphos, , diazinon, dioxa­ The total amount of toxaphene thion, lindane, malathion, and ronnel. used to treat corn in 1971 was 182,000 Lindane is currently undergoing re­ pounds on 140,000 acres (2). In 1976, registration review (RPAR) by EPA and 94,000 pounds were used on 223,000 may not be available for use. acres of corn, less than 1 percent of the total planted acreage. For mites, however, there are very few effective materials available. Toxaphene was reported used for Those approved by the USDA (APHIS) for cutworm, armyworm, and grasshopper control of scab mites include coumaphos, control in corn. The States reporting lime sulfur, and . toxaphene use for the control of these insects include Arkansas, Dela'­ If both toxaphene and lindane are ware, Iowa, Indiana, Kansas, Mary­ no longer available, there will be no land, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, material registered for control of Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, chorioptic scab mite on sheep and scab Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, mite on goats. If both lindane and South Dakota, Texas, West Virginia, toxaphene are no longer available for and Wisconsin. Toxaphene is the use on sheep, control of psoroptic scab preferred insecticide because the mite on sheep and scab mite on goats alternatives are considered to be will be extremely difficult, as the either less safe or less effective for remaining materials are inefficient.

60 Low-Volume Uses--Swine going reregistration review (RPAR) by EPA and may not be available. There were approximately 58 million swine on farms in the United States on Low-Volume Uses--Beef December 1, 1977 (134). Fifteen States Cattle Quarantine and the USDA (APHIS) used toxaphene to control lice on swine. The States are: Cattle offered for importation into California, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, the United States from Mexico are also Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Mississippi, treated. The animals must be presented Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Ten­ free of ticks and scabies. They are nessee, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin. given an inspection by palpitation while Several pesticides are registered for restrained in a chute and, if found free control of lice on swine, including car­ of the pests, must have a precautionary, baryl, coumaphos, crotoxyphos, dicroto­ dipping before being allowed entry into phos, dioxathion, , lindane, the United States. A permitted toxa­ malathion, methoxychlor, , phene dip is used beca.use a single dip piperonyl butoxide, , stiro­ in toxaphene provides protection against fos, and ronnel. both fever ticks and scabies mites. The number of cattle imported from Mexico Toxaphene was recommended by the for a representative number of years USDA (APHIS) and the following States is: for mite control: Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Mis­ Year Number of cattie al souri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah. 1971 754,866 Materials registered for mange mite 1972 819,210 control include lindane, lime sulfur, 1973 836,437 and toxaphene. Lime sulfur is no longer 1974 627,106 used to any extent because it requires 1975 136,675 special equipment and handling of the 1976 313,607 bl animals is difficult. al Source: Schubert 1977 (107). The elimination of toxaphene would hi This figure does not include leave lindane as the most workable al­ the numbers imported through ports ternative for control of lice and mites along the border between Mexico and on swine. Lindane is currently under­ California, Arizona, and New Mexico.

REFERENCES

1. Anderson, L. D., and E. L. Atkins, 4. Anonymous. USDA, ARS Charleston, Jr. Pesticide usage in relation S • C., Annual Report; 1957. to beekeeping. Annu. Rev. Ento­ 5. Anonymous. USDA, ARS Charleston, mol. 13:213; 1968. S.C., Annual Report; 1958. 2. Andrilenas, P. A. Farmer's use of 6. Anonymous. Arizona Agric. Coop. pesticides in 1971--Quantities. Ext. Servo and Agric. Exp. Stn. USDA, ERS Agric. Econ. Rep. No. Bull. A-54; 1968. 252,56 pp.; 1974. . 7 • Anonymous. US DA, ARS Tallullah, 3. Anonymous. Insect control in wheat La., 4th Quarterly Report; 1969. by soil and seed treatments. Fort 8. Anonymous. Texas Agric. Exp. Stn. Hayes Experiment Station's Agron­ Consolidated PH 2670-2674; 1969. omy Field Day Bulletin, pp. 17-24; 9. Anonymous. Texas Agric. Exp. Stn. June 11, 1952. Dep. Tech. Rep. No. 14; 1970.

61 10. Anonymous. Texas Agric. Exp. Stn. general toxicology. Academic Dep. Tech. Rep. No. 19; 1970. Press, New York, N. Y., 230 pp.; 11. Anonymous. Oklahoma Agric. Exp. 1976. Stn. South Central Research Sta­ 26. Belisle, A. A., W. L. Reichel, tion Report (Mimeo); 1973. L. N. Locke, and others. Resi­ 12. Anonymous. Pee Dee Experiment dues of organochlorine pesti­ 'Station, Florence, S.C., Annual cides, polychlorinated biphenyl, Report; 1973. and mercury. and autopsy data 13. Anonymous. Bioenvironmental Insect for bald eagles, 1969-70. Pes­ Control Laboratory, Stoneville, tic. Monit. J. 6(3); 133-138; Miss., Annual Report; 1974. 1972. 14. Anonymous. Texas Agric. Exp. Stn. 27. Bergman, P. W. Toxaphene use Dep. Tech. Rep. No. 22; 1974. patterns and critical needs. 15. Anonymous. Arkansas Agric. Exp. USDA, Extension Service (Mimeo), Stn. report for annual conference 48 pp.; 1977. on cotton-insect research and 28. Bidleman, T. F., and C. E. Olney. control (Mimeo); 1975. Long range transport of toxaphene 16. Anonymous. Mississippi Bioenviron­ insecticide in the atmosphere mental Insect Control Laboratory, of the Western North Atlantic. Annual Report, Stoneville, Miss.; Nature 257:475-477; 1975. 1975. 29. Blake, H. T., and P. A. Andrilenas. 17. Anonymous. USDA, ARS Fourth Farmer's use of pesticides 'in Quarterly Report, Florence, S. C. ; 1971--Expenditures. USDA, ERS, 1975. Agric. Econ. Rep. No. 296, 42 18. Anonymous. Louisiana petition to pp.; 1975. U~S. EPA for emergency use 30. Bradley, J. R., Jr. Summary 01 of DDT on cotton for control of cotton insect research. Dep. of tobacco budworm (Mimeo, tables Entomology, North Carolina &ta(~ 1-4); 1975. University report (Ur. putlhthecH ; 19. Anonymous. Arkansas Agric. Exp. 1972. Stn. report for annual confer­ 31. Bradley, J. R.. J1'., T. J. Sheets, ence on cotton-insect research and M. D. Jackson. DDT and and control (Mimeo, tables 1-3); toxaphene movement in surface 1976. watel' from cotton plots • J. 20. Anonymous. ARS National Research Environ. Qual. 1:102-105; 1972. Program NRP No. 20480. Control 32. Bruce, R. R., L. A. Harper, of insects affecting livestock. R. A. Leonard, and others. A USDA, ARS, 99 pp.; 1976. model for runoff of pesticides 21. Anonymous. ARS National Research from small upland watersheds. J. Program NRP No. 20850. Control Environ. Qual. 4: 541-548; 1975. of insects affecting man. USDA, 33. Burns, J. E. Organochlorine pesti­ ARS, 52 pp.; 1976. cide and polychlorinated biphenyl 22. Anonymous. College Station ARS residues in biopsied human adi­ report for annual conference on pose tissue--Texas 1969-72. Pes­ cotton-insect research and con­ tic. Monit. J. 7(3/4):122-126; trol; January 5-7, 1976. 1974. 23. Anonymous. Louisiana State Univ. 34. Butler, P. A. Organochlorine resi­ report for annual conference on dues in estuarine mollusks, cotton-insect research and con­ 1965-72. National Pesticide Mon­ trol (Mimeo); January 5-7, 1976. itoring Program. Pestic. Monit. 24. Anonymous. Texas Agric. Exp. Stn. J. 6(4):238-362; 1973. report for annual conference on 35. Carey, A. E., Go B. Wiersma, and cotton-insect reseal'ch and con­ H. Tai. Pesticide residues in trol (Mimeo); 1976. urban soils from fourteen United 25. Ariens, E. J., A. A. Simonis, and States cities, 1970. Pestic. J. Offermeier. Introduction to Monit. J. 10(2): 54-60; 1976.

62 36. Carlson, G. A., and E. N. Castle. rats. Bull. Environ. Contam. Economics of pest control. In Toxicol. 12:320-327; 1974. Pest Control Strategies for the 48. Daniels, N. E. Insects affecting Future. Natl. Acad. Sci., Wash­ alfalfa seed production. J. ington, D.C., 376 pp.; 1972. Econ. EntomoL 48:339-340; 1955. 37. Chalfant, R. B. Cowpea curculio: 49. Deichmann, W. B. Organochlorine Control in southern Georgia. J. pesticides and liver cancer Econ. Entomol. 66:727-729; 1973. deaths in the USA. Talk pre­ 38. Chernoff, N., and B. D. Carver. sented at the 4th Int. Symp. Fetal toxicity of toxaphene in Chern. and Tox. , aspects of rats and mice. Bull. Environ. environmental quality. Munich, Contam. Toxicol. 15:660-664; Germany; Sept. 9-10, 1975. 1976. 50. Duggan, R. E., H. C. Barry, and 39. Claborn, H. V., H. D. Mann, M. C. L. Y. Johnson. Pesticide resi­ Ivey, and others. Excretion of dues in total diet samples (II). toxaphene and Strobane in the Pestic. Monit. J. 1(2): 2-12; 1967. milk of dairy cows. J. Agric. 51. Eichers, T. , P. Andrilenas, R. Food Chern. 11: 286-289; 1963. Jenkins, and others. Q uantities 40. Claborn, H. V., R. D. Radeleff, and of pesticides used by farmers in R. C. Bushland. Pesticide resi­ 1964. USDA, ERS Agric. Econ. dues in meat and milk--a research Rep. No. 131, 37 pp.; 1968. report. ARS 33-63, USDA, 46 pp. ; 52 . Eichers, T. , P. Andrilenas, H. 1960. Blake, and others. Quantities of 41. CI; '1. M. M., and W. F. Spencer. pesticides used by farmers in Dls;;;ipation of pesticides from 1966. USDA, ERS Agric. Econ. soil by volatilization of degra­ Rep. No. 179, 61 pp.; 1970. dation products 1. Lindane and 53. Elmore, J. C., and R. E. CaL~pbell. DDT. Environ. Sci. Technol. Control of the pepper weevil. 6:910-914; 1972. J. Econ. Entomol. 47:1141-1143; 42. Corneliussen, P. E. Pesticide 1954. residues in total diet samples 54. Epstein, S. S. , E. Arnold, J. (IV). Pestic. Monit. J. 2(4): Andrea, and others. Detection of 140-152; 1969. chemical mutagens by the dominant 43. Corneliussen, P. E. Pesticide lethal assay in the mouse. Toxi­ residues in total diet samples col. Applo Pharmacol. 23:288-325; (V). Pestic. Monlt. J. 4(3): 1972. 89-105; 1970. 55. Ferguson, W. L. Farmers' expendi­ 44. Corneliussen, P. E. Pesticide tures for custom pesticide set'­ residues in total diet samples vice, 1971. USDA, ERS Agric. (VI). Pestic. Monit. J. 5(4): Econ. Rep. No. 314, 31 pp.; 313-330; 1972. November 1975. 45. Crockett, A. B., G. G. Wiersma, 56. Fowler, D. L., and .T. N. Mahan. H. Tai, and others. Pesticide The Pesticide Revielt7 1976. US DA, residue levels in soils and ASCS, 42 pp.; 1977. crops, FY-70. National Soils 57. Gandy, D. Sunflowers, a new con­ Monitoring Program (II). Pestic. tender for the world oilseed Monit. J. 8(2):69-97; 1974. market. Southeast Farm Press; 46. Cromartie, E., W. L. Reichel, L. N. November 16, 1977. Locke, and others. Residues of 58. Goltfelty, D. E. Personal communi­ organochlorine pesticides and cation, 1977. polychlorinated biphenyl, and 59. Goltfelty, D. E., and J. H. Caro. autopsy data for bald eagles, Introduction, transport and fate 1971-72. Pestic. Monit. J. 9(1): of persistent pesticides in the 11-14; 1975. atmosphere. American Chemical 47. Crowder, L. A., andE. F. Dindal. Society Symp. Sere No. 17:42-62; ?C -"75.

63 60. Goltfelty, D. E., and A. W. Taylor. Pestic. Monit. J. 3(3): 145-171; Personal communication, 1977. 1969. 61. Green, G. L., and J. J. Janes. 72. Hercules, Inc. Hercules toxaphene, Control of budworms on sweet corn Summary of toxicological investi­ in central and south Florida. gations. Bull. T 105A, 12 pp.; J. Econ. Entomol. 63:579-582; [Undated] . 1970. 73. Hercules, Inc. Toxaphene use pat­ 62. Griffith, F. D., Jr., and R.. V. terns and environmental aspects. Blanke. Blood organochlorine Prepared for Pesticide Regulation pesticide levels in Virginia Division, ARS, USDA, 172 pp. residents. Pestic. Monit. J. (Mimeo); Oct. 29, 1970. 8(4):219-224; 1975. 74. Janes, M. J. Corn earworm and fall 63. Grube, A. H., and G. A. Carlson. armyworm: Comparative larval Cotton insect control in North populations and insecticidal con­ Carolina. Dep. of E(;onomics and trol of sweet corn in Florida. Business, North Carolina State J. Econ. Entomol. 68:657-658; University, Raleigh (Mimeo); 1975. August 1977. 75. Johnson, R. D., and D. D. Manske. 64. Guenzi, W. D., and W. E. Beard. Pesticide residues in total diet Volatilization of lindane and DDT samples (IX). Pestic. Monit. J. from soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. 9(4):157-169; 1976. Proc. 34:443-447; 1970. 76. Kallman, B. Jo, O. B. Cope, and 65. Hartstack, A. W., Jr., R. L. R. J. Navarre. Distribution and Ridgway, and S. L. Jones. Dam­ detoxication of toxaphene in age to cotton by the bollworm Clayton Lake, New Mexico. Am. and tobacco budworm. J. Econ. Fish Soc. Trans. 91:14-22; 1962. Entomol. 71:239-243; 1978. 77. Keith, J.O., and E. G. Hunt. 66. Headley, J. C. Economics of agri­ Levels of insecticide residues in cultural pest control. Annu. fish and wildlife in California. Rev. Entomo!. 17:273-286; 1972. Trans. 31st N. Am. Wildl. Nat. 67. Heath, R. G. Nationwide residues Resour. Conf. 31:150-177; 1966. of organochlorine pesticides in 78. Kennedy, G. L., J. P. Frawley, and wings of mallards and black J. C. Calandra. Multigeneration ducks. Pestic. Monit. J. 3(2): reproductive effects of three 115-123; 1969. pesticides in rats. Toxico!. 68. Heath, R. G., and S. A. Hill. Appl. Pharmacol. 25: 589-596; Nationwide organochlorine and 1973. mercury residues in wings of 79. Khalifa, S., R. L. Holmstead, and adult mallards and black ducks J. E. Casida. Toxaphene degrada­ during the 1969-70 hunting sea­ tion by iron (II) protoporphyrin son. Pestic. Monit. J. 7(3/4): systems. J. Agric. Food Chern. 153-164; 1974. 24:277-282; 1976. 69. Heckler, G. B. Human health survey 80. Lackey, R. W. Observations on the --toxaphene. Report to Hercules, percutaneous absorption of toxa­ Inc. (2 page Mimeo); March 10, phene in the rabbit and the cI.og. 1977. II. J. Ind. Hyg. Toxicol. Jl: 70. Henderson, C., A. Inglis, and 155-157; 1949. W. L. Johnson. Organochlorine 81. Lancaster, J. L., Jr., C. J. Brown, insecticide residues in fish-­ and R. S. Honea. Steers gained fall 1969. National Pesticide more when ticks were controlled. Monitoring Program. Pestic. Arkansas Farm Research 4: 6; Monit. J. 5(1) :1-11; 1971. 1955. 71. Henderson, C., W. L. Johnson, and 82. Lichtenberg, J. J., J. W. Eichel­ A. Inglis. Organochlorine insec­ berger, R. C. Dressman, and ticide residues in fish. Nation­ other. Pesticides in surface al Pesticide Monitoring PrOP"T'A m. of the United States--A

64 5-year summary, 1964-68. Pestic. 94. Nash, R. G., M. L. Beall, Jr., and Monit. J. 4(2):71-86; 1970. W. G. Harris. Toxaphene and '83. MacKay, D., and A. W. Wolkoff. 1,1, 1-trichloro-2 , 2 - bis(p-chloro= Rate of evaporation of low-solu­ phenyI)ethane (DDT) losses from bility contaminants from water cotton in an agroecosystem cham­ bodies to atmosphere. Environ. ber. J. Agric. Food Chern. 25 Sci. Techno!. 7: 611-614; 1973. (2):336-341; 1977. 84. Magness, J. R., G. M. Markle, and 95. Nash, R. G., and E. A. Woolson. C. C. Compton. Food and feed Persistence of chlorinated hy­ crops of the U. S. A descriptive drocarbon insecticides in soils. list classified according to po­ Science 157: 924-926; 1967. tential pesticide residues. IR-4 96. Nickerson, P. R., and K. R. Bar­ Bull., 254 pp.; 1971. behenn. Organochlorine residues 85. Manske, D. D., and P. E. Corne­ in starlings, 1972. Pestic. liussen. Pesticide residues in Monit. J. 8(4):247-254; 1975. total diet samples (VII). Pes­ 97. Ohsawa, T., J. R. Knox, S. Khali­ tic. Monit. J. 8(2):110-124; fa, and other. Metabolic de­ 1974. chlorination of toxaphene in 86. Manske, D. D., and R. D. John­ rats. J. Agric. Food Chern. son. Pesticide residues in total 23:98-106; 1975. diet samples (VIII). Pestic. 98. Ortega, P., W. J. Hayes, Jr., and Monit. J. 9(2):94-105; 1975. W. F. Durham. Pathologic 87. Manske, D. D., and R. D. John­ changes in the liver of rats son. Pesticide and other after feeding low levels of chemical residues in total diet various insecticides. American samples (X). Pestic. Monit. J. Medical Association Arch. 10(4): 134-148; 1977. Pathol. 64:614-622; 1957. 88. Martin, R. J., and R. E. Duggan. 99. Parencia, C. R. Beltwide experi­ Pesticide residues in total diet ment report. USDA, ARS (Mimeo); samples (III). Pestic. Monit. J. 1967. 1(4):11-20; 1968. 100. Parencia, C. R. Beltwide experi­ 89. Martin, W. E. Organochlorine in­ ment report. USDA, ARS (Mimeo); secticide residues in starlings. 1968. Pestic. Monit. J. 3(2):102:114; 101. Parencia, C. R. Beltwide experi­ 1969. ment report. USDA, ARS (Mimeo); 90. Martin,W. E.,andP. R.Nickerson. 1971. Organochlorine residues in star­ 102. Parr, J. R., and S. Smith. Degra­ lings--1970. Pestic. Monit. J. dation of toxaphene in selected 6(1):33-40; 1972. anaerobic soil environments. 91. Mehrle, P. M., and F. L. Mayer, Soil Sci. 121~52-57; 1976. Jr. Toxaphene effects on growth 103. Reichel, W. L., E. Cromartie, and bone composition of fathead T. G. Lamont, and others. Pes­ minnows, Pimephales promelas. J. ticide residues in eagles. Pes­ Fish. Res. Board Can. 32:593­ tic. Monit. J. 3(3): 142: 144; 598; 1975. 1969. 92. Mehrle, P,. M., and F. L. Mayer, 104. Reidinger, R. F., Jr., and D. G. Jr. Toxaphene effects on growth Crabtree. Organochlorine resi­ and development of brook trout dues in golden eagles, United (Salvelinus fontinalis). J. Fish. States--March 1964 - July 1971. Res. Board Can. 32: 609-613; 1975. Pestic. Monit. J. 8(1):37-43; 93. Mrak, E. M. (Chairman). Report of 1974. the Secretary's commission on 105. Russell, E. E. Tests with DDT, pesticides and their relationship chlordane, toxaphene, and ben­ to environmental health. U. S. zene hexachloride for control of Dep. Health, Education, and Wel­ Lygus spp. on seed alfalfa in fare, 677 pp.; 1969. southern Arizona, 1945-48.

65 Bureau Entomol. and Plant Quar. , 116. Taft, H. M., and A. R. Hopkins. USDA, E-788, 13 pp., 1949. USDA, ARS, 3d Quarterlyreports, 106. RVR Associates. U.S. pesticide Florence, S.C.; 1970-73. market. Confidential study, 117. Taylor, A. W. Personalcommunica­ EPA; 1976. tion, 1977. 107. Schubert, G. o. Chief Staff Vet­ 118. Taylor, A. W., D. E. Goltfelty, erinarian, USDA/APHIS. Data on B. C. Turner, and others. the use of toxaphene in the cat­ Volatilization of dieldrin and tle scabies eradication program heptachlor residues from field obtained by personal communica­ vegetation. J. Agric. Food tion with M. McWhorter, EPA; Chern. 25(3):542-548; 1977. October 1977. 119. Terriere, L. C., U. Kiigemagi, 108. Shelanski, A. H. In Report to A. R. Gerlach, and other. The Environmental Protection Agency persistence of toxaphene in lake "Aspects of pesticidal use of water and its uptake by aquatic toxaphene terpene polychlori­ plants and animals. J. Agric. nates on man and the environ­ Food Chern. 14: 66-69; 1966. ment" by C and E Division, EPA 120. Treon, J. F., F. Cleveland, B. [Unpublished]; 1947. Poynter, and others. The 109. Singmaster, J. A., III, and D. G. physiologic effects of feeding Crosby. Talk entitled "Vola­ various concentrations over pro­ tilization of hydrophobic pes­ longed periods. Kettering Lab­ ticides from water. " 173d oratory [Unpublished report], American Chemical Society Natl. cited by FAO/WHO. WHO/Food Meeting, March 21-25, New Ad. 69: 35; 1969. Orleans, La.; 1977. 121. USDA, APHIS. Meat and poultry 110. Snedecor, G. W. Statisticalmeth­ inspection residue survey; 1973­ ods applied to experiments in 76. agriculture and biology. 5th ed. 122. USDA, ARS. Losses in Agriculture. Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames. USDA Agric. Handb. No. 291, 12 534 pp.; 1956. pp.; 1965. 111. Spencer, W. F., andM. M. Cliath. 123. USDA, ERS. 1976 National Pesti­ Desorption of lindane from soil cide Usage Survey, Preliminary as related to vapor density. data [Unpublished]; 1977. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 34:574­ 124. USDA, Federal-State Assessment 578; 1970. Team. Assessment of toxaphene 112. Steelman, C. D., and P. E. Schil­ in agriculture (Mimeo) 76 pp.; ling. Economics of protecting 1977. cattle from mosquito attack rel­ 125. USDA, Federal-State Assessment ative to injury thresholds. J. Team. Material costs per appli­ Econ. Entomol. 70:15-17; 1977. cation for toxaphene plus methyl 113. Stone, M. W., F. S. Foley, and parathion obtained by personal R. E. Campbell. Field tests communication with the toxaphene with various insecticides for assessment team from Hercules the control of Lygus bugs and Chemical Corporation estimate corn earworm on lima beans. J. ($4.60); Fred Cooke, USDA, CED Econ. Entomol. 53:397-403; 1960. ($2.75); Art Grube, N. C. State 114. Swoboda,A. R., G. W. Thomas, F. University ($3.00); and Gold B. Cady, and others. Distri­ Kist Corp. ($2.75); 1977. bution of DDT and toxaphene 126. USDA, Federal-State Assessment in Houston black clay on three Team. Application rates and watersheds. Environ. Sci. Tech­ prices obtained by personal com­ nolo 5:141-145; 1971. munication with the toxaphene 115. Taft, H. M. Beltwide experiment assessment team and their staff report. USDA, ARS (Mimeo); from Southern States Coopera­ 1974. tive; October 1977. 66 127. USDA, Federal-State Assessment exemptions to control cutworms Team. Costs of labor per appli­ in South Dakota. South Dakota cation obtained by the toxaphene State University. Federal assessment team from informal Register 40(139): 30316; 1975. discussions with livestock ento­ 139. U • S • Environmental Protection mologists and agricultural econ­ Agency. Human Effects Monitor­ omists; 1977 c ing Branch. National study of 128. USDA, Federal-,State Assessment agricultural, governmental, and Team. 1976 Biological Survey industrial uses of pesticides; for Toxaphene Assessment. Com­ August 1976. pleted survey forms; 1977. 140. Warnick, S. L. Organochlorine 129. USDA, SRS. Crop production 1973 pesticide levels in human serum annual summary. Crop production and , Utah--fiscal (CrPr 2-1(77»; January 1974. years 1967-71. Pestic. Monit. 130. USDA, SRS. Crop production 1976 J. 6(1):9-13; 1972. annual summary. Crop production 141. Watson, M., W. W. Benson, and J. (CrPr 2-1(77»; January 1977. Gabica. Serum organochlorine 131. USDA, SRS. Sheep and goats. pesticide levels in people in Livestock, general (LvGn 1 southern Idaho. Pestic. Monit. (1-77», 7 pp; January 1977. J. 4(2):47-50; 1970. 132. USDA, SRS. Cattle. Livestock, 142. White, D. H. Nationwide residues general (LvGn 1 (2-77», 16 pp.; of organochlorines in starlings, February 1977. 1974. Pestic. Monit. J. 10(1): 133. USDA, SRS. Agricultural prices 10-17; 1976. annual summary 1976. Crop 143. Wiersma, G. B., P. F. Sand, and production (CrPr 1-3 (77», 183 R. L. Schutzmann. National pp.; June 1977. Soils Monitoring Program--six 134. USDA. SRS. Hogs and pigs. Meat States, 1967; Pestic. Monit. J. Animals (MtAn 4 (12-77», 20 5(2):223-227; 1971. pp.; December 1977. 144. Wiersma, G. B., H. Tai, and P. F. 135. USDA, State Assessment Team. Sand. Pesticide residues in Pesticide impact assessment, soil from eight cities--1969. endrin. Office of Environmental Pestic. Monit. J. 6(2):126-129; Quality Activities; November 1972. 1976. 145. G. B., H. Tai, and P. F. Sand. 136. U.S. Environmental Protection Pesticide residue levels in Agency. Issuance of a specific soils FY 1969. National Soils exemption to control army cut­ Monitoring Program. Pestic. worm and sunflower beetles, Monit. J. 6(3):194-228; 1972. Minnesota. Federal Register 40 146. Willis, G. H. Personal communi­ (137):29921; 1975. cation, 1977. 137. U. S. Environmental Protection 147. Willis, G. H., L. L. McDowell, Agency. Issuance of a specific J. F. Parr, and other. Pesti­ exemption to control army cut­ cide concentrations and yields worm and sunflower beeltes, in runoff and sediment from a North Dakota, Federal Register Mississippi delta watershed. 40(137):29921; 1975. Proc. 3d Fed. Interagency Sedi­ 138. U. S. Environmental Protection mentation Conf. PF 245 100: 3-53 Agency. Issuance of specific to 3-64; 1976.

*u.s. GOVEllNMENT PIUNTING OFFICI-:; 1981-0-728-580/1866

67 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SCIENCE AND EDUCATIDN ADMINISTRATIDN WASHINGTON. D.C. 202110 POSTAGE AND FEES PAID U. S. DEPARTMENT OF OFFICIAL BUSINESS AGRICULTURE "ENALTV I"OR ....IVATI: U'E. I:aOO AGR 101 t

'.' :

"

---- •