Ag Ch 1 (07)a United States Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service Agricultural Chemical Usage Postharvest Applications - Oats and Potatoes Summary March 2007 Table of Contents Page Overview - Oats. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Highlights - Oats. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Chemical Applications Tables - Oats Percent Treated and Total Applied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Chemical Application Rates and Total Applied. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Chemical Applications by Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Chemical Applications by When Applied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Pest Management Practices - All Grains Handled Percent of Operations Using Strategies and Practices. . . . . . . . . . . 9 Strategies Used in Determining Fumigation Schedule. . . . . . . . . . . .18 Overview - Potatoes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 Highlights - Potatoes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 Chemical Applications Tables - Potatoes Percent Treated and Total Applied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 Chemical Application Rates and Total Applied. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 Chemical Applications by Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26 Chemical Applications by When Applied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26 Pest Management Practices - Potatoes Percent of Operations Using Strategies and Practices. . . . . . . . . . .27 Survey Procedures and Estimation Procedures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29 Reliability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29 Terms and Definitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 Pesticide Classes, Common Names, and Trade Names . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 Survey Instrument. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35 Report Features. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51 Postharvest Chemical Use Estimates for Oats Oats Overview: The agricultural chemical use estimates in this report are based on data compiled from the 2006 Oats Postharvest Chemical Use Survey. The Postharvest Survey was conducted for oats marketed from August 1, 2005 to July 31, 2006 which covers the 2005 crop. All results refer to pesticide applications and integrated pest management at off-farm storage and processing facilities after the oats were harvested. On-farm postharvest applications were beyond the scope of this survey. There were 1,079 oat storage and processing facility reports summarized across the 12 surveyed States. The U.S. map below shows the number of summarized reports by State. There were insufficient reports to publish chemical data at the State level for Iowa, Kansas, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and Texas for chemical application rates. No pesticides were reported in Illinois, Michigan, Nebraska, or Ohio. After harvest, oats are generally marketed through local and/or terminal elevators, except those which are used on the farm. The diagram below shows the traditional postharvest marketing channels for oats. Most oats are used for livestock feed. This grain may be pulled out of the marketing channel at any point. Processors are also recipients of the grain at any point along the marketing channel. The totals for the Program States, as well as individual State totals where data permit, are published for the percent of oats treated, number of applications, rate per application, rate per marketing year, and the total amount of active ingredient applied. A table detailing total pesticide usage by class for the Program States is also included. Totals for the Program States and individual State totals are published for the percent of grain treated, number of applications, rate per application, rate per marketing year, and the total amount of active ingredient applied. The Program States include the major oat producing States. Oats moving from a local elevator to a terminal elevator were duplicated in the total amount handled. The intent of the survey was to obtain the entire amount of chemicals applied to the stored oats; therefore, this duplication in quantity handled is necessary. No provision was made for cross-State movement. The State or region of origin was not part of the survey, so all of the oats handled in a program State were included in this survey. In addition to chemical applications, grain storage operators were also asked a series of questions pertaining to their pest management practices. Answers to these questions are summarized and included in the report. A copy of the survey instrument used to collect the data is also included. Highlights for Oats Pesticides: Aluminum phosphide and malathion were the top two chemicals used on oats, based on percent of volume treated. Aluminum phosphide is an insecticidal fumigant used to kill insects, insect larvae, and mites. Malathion is an insecticide. Of the total chemical applications made to oats in 2005-06 in the 12 Program States, 43 percent was applied by mixing pellets/tablets, 26 percent by direct powdering, 13 percent by top dress, 9 percent by direct spray, 6 percent by re- circulation, and 4 percent by seed treatment. Of the total chemical applications made to oats in 2005-06 in the 12 Program States, 20 percent was applied on inbound oats, 26 percent during binning of oats, and 54 percent while the oats were stored. Operations in the following States applied the listed chemicals to oats after harvest. However, there were an insufficient number of reports to publish State level usage data. Iowa: aluminum phosphide, malathion, and silicon dioxide. Kansas: aluminum phosphide and malathion. Minnesota: malathion and silicon dioxide. North Dakota: aluminum phosphide. Pennsylvania: aluminum phosphide, malathion, and silicon dioxide. Texas: aluminum phosphide and methoprene. Wisconsin: cyfluthrin and methyl bromide. Pest Management Practices: The pest management practices section of the questionnaire asked for mechanical devices or cleaning practices used at the operations surveyed. The timing for inspecting and measuring temperatures in the storage units varies by the season. Therefore, the responses to these pest management questions are organized by "Spring and Summer" and "Fall and Winter." Oats: Postharvest Chemical Applications, Percent Treated and Total Applied, Program States, 2005-06 Marketing Year 1/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : : Percent Treated and Total Applied State : Volume :----------------------------------------------------- :Handled : Insecticide : Fungicide : Other Chemical -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : 1,000 Percent 1,000 Percent 1,000 Percent 1,000 : Bu. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. : IL : 1,244 IA : 38,933 0.3 0.1 KS : 1,974 * * MI : 1,746 MN : 30,412 5.7 0.8 NE : 9,525 ND : 10,236 * * OH : 2,579 PA : 2,867 * * SD : 22,342 21.5 0.4 TX : 10,541 * * WI : 14,669 1.9 0.4 : Program States :147,069 5.9 1.9 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * Insufficient reports to publish data. 1/ Blank cells represent no data reported for the item. Oats: Postharvest Chemical Applications, Program States, 2005-06 Marketing Year -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Agricultural : Volume : Appli- : Rate per : Rate per : Total Chemical : Treated : cations : Application : Mkt. Year : Applied -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : Percent Number Pounds per 1,000 Bu. 1,000 Lbs : Insecticides: : Aluminum phosphide : 5.1 1.0 0.057 0.057 0.4 Malathion : 0.7 1.0 0.415 0.415 0.4 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Oats: Postharvest Chemical Applications, Minnesota, 2005-06 Marketing Year -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Agricultural : Volume : Appli- : Rate per : Rate per : Total Chemical : Treated : cations : Application : Mkt. Year : Applied -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : Percent Number Pounds per 1,000 Bu. 1,000 Lbs : Insecticides: : Aluminum phosphide : 4.8 1.0 0.052 0.052 0.1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Oats: Postharvest Chemical Applications, South Dakota, 2005-06 Marketing Year -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Agricultural : Volume : Appli- : Rate per : Rate per : Total Chemical : Treated : cations : Application : Mkt. Year : Applied -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : Percent Number Pounds per 1,000 Bu. 1,000 Lbs : Insecticides: : Aluminum phosphide : 19.6 1.0 0.040 0.040 0.2 Malathion : 2.6 1.0 0.405 0.405 0.2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Oats: Postharvest Chemical Applications, Wisconsin, 2005-06 Marketing Year -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Agricultural : Volume : Appli- : Rate per : Rate per : Total Chemical : Treated : cations : Application : Mkt. Year : Applied -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : Percent Number Pounds per 1,000 Bu. 1,000 Lbs : Insecticides: : Malathion : 0.6 1.0 0.411 0.411 * -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * Total applied is less than 50 pounds. Oats: Postharvest Chemical Use, Method of Application, Program States, 2005-06 Marketing Year ---------------------------------------- Method of Application : Oats ---------------------------------------- : Percent : Direct Powdering : 26 Direct Spray : 9 Mixing Pellets/Tablets : 43 Re-Circulation : 6 Seed Treatment : 4 Top Dress : 13 : Total : 100 ---------------------------------------- Oats: Postharvest Chemical Use, Timing of Application, Program States, 2005-06 Marketing Year ---------------------------------------- When Applied : Oats ---------------------------------------- : Percent : In Bound : 20 During Binning : 26 While Stored : 54 : Total : 100 ---------------------------------------- This page intentionally left blank. All Grains Handled: Pest Management Practices, Percent of Operations Utilizing Practice, Program States, 2005-06 Marketing Year 1/ 2/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : State Practice :----------------------------------------- : IL : IA : KS : MI : MN : NE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : Percent : Mechanical Devices: : : Aeration controller : 30 50 48 41 35 59 Deep bin sampler : 4 6 12 4 6 18 Grain spreader : 27 28 10 12 21 37 Phosphine pellet dispenser : 3 8 45 5 4 18 Protein analyzer : 3 11 9 6 16 10 Power probe : 45 46 33 6 14 47 Re-circulation fumigation device : 4 5 17 4 5 15 Temperature cable : 42 36 71 16 26 59 : Cleaning Activities: : : Clean aeration ducts : 80 78 80 62 69 85 Control vegetation around bins : 97 95 98 94 93 100 Core bins after filling : 81 77 44 64 58 88 Fumigate empty bins : 45 54 66 30 29 56 Hose down empty warehouse bins : 20 8 18 7 11 Pick up spilled grain : 97 98 97 96 92 100 Sweep or vacuum empty bins : 91 95 92 87 84 97 Other cleaning activities : 12 4 3 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : State Practice :----------------------------------------- : ND : OH : PA : SD : TX : WI : ALL -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : Percent : Mechanical Devices: : : Aeration controller : 59 44 13 30 40 13 37 Deep bin sampler : 3 5 9 12 2 6 Grain spreader : 8 30 13 11 12 15 20 Phosphine pellet dispenser : 12 2 4 10 32 2 10 Protein analyzer : 80 5 1 50 20 2 17 Power probe : 12 28 10 12 7 23 Re-circulation fumigation device : 1 1 4 2 5 Temperature cable : 19 65 1 17 20 18 33 : Cleaning Activities: : : Clean aeration ducts : 84 82 38 66 60 60 71 Control vegetation around bins : 99 98 78 95 96 93 94 Core bins after filling : 59 58 16 54 16 45 58 Fumigate empty bins : 25 72 34 33 52 30 43 Hose down empty warehouse bins : 7 12 6 2 28 8 9 Pick up spilled grain : 100 98 87 98 92 94 96 Sweep or vacuum empty bins : 100 92 81 95 80 87 90 Other cleaning activities : 2 7 4 3 6 4 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1/ Descriptions of these items are included in the Terms and Definitions section of this report on pages 30-32. 2/ Blank cells represent no data reported for the item. All Grains Handled: Pest Management Practices, Percent of Operations Utilizing Practice, Program States, 2005-06 Marketing Year, Spring and Summer 1/ 2/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : State Practice :----------------------------------------- : IL : IA : KS : MI : MN : NE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : Percent : Inspected for insects: : : Concrete Silos: : : Daily : 9 3 6 6 Twice a week : 1 2 7 Weekly : 16 11 22 2 4 15 Every two weeks : 6 6 10 5 2 15 Monthly : 19 12 30 16 10 19 Other : 3 4 8 1 1 Do not monitor : 1 2 8 1 Do not have structure : 48 62 19 63 81 43 : Steel Bins and Tanks: : : Daily : 10 6 5 10 7 1 Twice a week : 2 6 1 10 Weekly : 26 18 17 17 13 21 Every two weeks : 9 13 11 7 18 25 Monthly : 41 39 36 36 36 28 Other : 6 10 10 2 6 4 Do not monitor : 3 5 6 13 11 1 Do not have structure : 6 6 15 10 7 9 : Other Structures: : : Daily : 1 3 1 10 3 3 Twice a week : 1 1 2 4 Weekly : 15 9 6 5 10 3 Every two weeks : 7 7 2 9 15 Monthly : 7 14 15 8 24 9 Other : 1 4 3 Do not monitor : 3 4 5 6 6 1 Do not have structure : 64 59 71 70 45 65 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --continued All Grain Handled: Pest Management Practices, Percent of Operations Utilizing Practice, Program States, 2005-06 Marketing Year, Spring and Summer (continued) 1/ 2/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : State Practice :----------------------------------------- : ND : OH : PA : SD : TX : WI : ALL -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : Percent : Inspected for insects: : : Concrete Silos: : : Daily : 2 3 3 6 4 1 3 Twice a week : 6 1 1 1 Weekly : 9 18 3 3 2 9 Every two weeks : 9 4 1 3 17 1 5 Monthly : 18 19 1 8 21 13 Other : 3 2 2 Do not monitor : 1 4 3 1 1 2 Do not have structure : 58 46 89 77 58 91 65 : Steel Bins and Tanks: : : Daily : 6 10 11 7 4 8 7 Twice a week : 3 6 5 3 4 3 Weekly : 15 15 17 13 13 20 17 Every two weeks : 12 4 8 6 13 8 11 Monthly : 46 35 13 49 38 28 35 Other : 4 8 3 8 15 7 Do not monitor : 7 7 8 12 13 6 7 Do not have structure : 7 23 30 8 13 12 11 : Other Structures: : : Daily : 7 5 12 8 6 5 Twice a week : 1 1 2 3 1 Weekly : 13 5 11 13 5 9 Every two weeks : 19 2 5 8 8 2 7 Monthly : 39 3 9 44 4 5 16 Other : 2 3 3 8 3 Do not monitor : 3 7 9 1 3 4 Do not have structure : 16 78 49 23 88 68 56 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1/ Numbers for each type of structure may not add to 100 due to rounding. 2/ Blank cells represent no data reported for the item. All Grains Handled: Pest Management Practices, Percent of Operations Utilizing Practice, Program States, 2005-06 Marketing Year, Fall and Winter 1/ 2/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : State Practice :----------------------------------------- : IL : IA : KS : MI : MN : NE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : Percent : Inspected for insects: : : Concrete Silos: : : Daily : 9 3 6 4 Twice a week : 1 1 1 6 Weekly : 12 9 18 4 4 12 Every two weeks : 4 6 9 2 2 15 Monthly : 22 13 34 16 9 22 Other : 3 4 9 1 1 Do not monitor : 1 2 2 11 2 1 Do not have structure : 48 62 19 63 81 43 : Steel Bins and Tanks: : : Daily : 10 5 5 10 6 1 Twice a week : 1 2 6 1 7 Weekly : 22 16 16 15 13 18 Every two weeks : 7 14 7 5 15 19 Monthly : 44 38 41 36 38 36 Other : 7 11 10 2 7 7 Do not monitor : 3 7 6 17 13 3 Do not have structure : 6 6 15 10 7 9 : Other Structures: : : Daily : 1 2 1 10 3 3 Twice a week : 1 1 2 4 Weekly : 13 7 6 5 8 Every two weeks : 6 8 1 8 13 Monthly : 10 14 15 6 24 12 Other : 1 4 3 Do not monitor : 3 4 6 8 8 3 Do not have structure : 64 59 71 70 45 65 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --continued All Grains Handled: Pest Management Practices, Percent of Operations Utilizing Practice, Program States, 2005-06 Marketing Year, Fall and Winter (continued) 1/ 2/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : State Practice :------------------------------------------------ : ND : OH : PA : SD : TX : WI : ALL -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : Percent : Inspected for insects: : : Concrete Silos: : : Daily : 2 3 3 3 4 1 3 Twice a week : 4 1 1 1 Weekly : 9 15 1 5 8 2 8 Every two weeks : 10 2 1 3 13 1 5 Monthly : 17 23 3 10 17 1 14 Other : 3 2 2 Do not monitor : 1 6 3 2 1 3 Do not have structure : 58 46 89 77 58 91 65 : Steel Bins and Tanks: : : Daily : 4 10 11 3 4 7 6 Twice a week : 3 4 5 2 3 3 Weekly : 15 14 15 14 21 17 16 Every two weeks : 12 4 7 7 8 5 10 Monthly : 47 35 16 48 33 30 37 Other : 4 8 4 8 18 8 Do not monitor : 7 11 9 14 13 7 9 Do not have structure : 7 23 30 8 13 12 12 : Other Structures: : : Daily : 7 5 12 4 5 4 Twice a week : 1 2 3 1 Weekly : 13 5 8 14 4 8 Every two weeks : 16 4 5 8 8 2 7 Monthly : 43 3 11 44 4 5 17 Other : 2 3 3 9 3 Do not monitor : 3 6 11 3 3 5 Do not have structure : 16 78 49 23 88 68 56 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1/ Numbers for each type of structure may not add to 100 due to rounding. 2/ Blank cells represent no data reported for the item. All Grains Handled: Pest Management Practices, Percent of Operations Utilizing Practice, Program States, 2005-06 Marketing Year, Spring and Summer 1/ 2/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : State Practice :----------------------------------------- : IL : IA : KS : MI : MN : NE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : Percent : Measured Grain Temperature: : : Concrete Silos: : : Daily : 1 4 5 1 3 Twice a week : 4 3 3 2 15 Weekly : 11 12 41 7 6 16 Every two weeks : 6 3 9 2 13 Monthly : 4 8 12 11 6 3 Other : 1 4 2 1 Do not monitor : 23 4 8 15 7 6 Do not have structure : 48 62 19 63 80 43 : Steel Bins and Tanks: : : Daily : 1 5 2 8 1 3 Twice a week : 4 4 2 2 1 18 Weekly : 30 14 34 11 16 22 Every two weeks : 13 11 8 5 16 21 Monthly : 13 20 13 25 23 9 Other : 3 9 7 1 4 Do not monitor : 30 32 18 40 34 13 Do not have structure : 4 6 15 10 7 10 : Other Structures: : : Daily : 2 1 2 1 1 Twice a week : 1 2 2 6 Weekly : 16 6 7 5 10 7 Every two weeks : 3 5 3 7 12 Monthly : 3 8 6 2 17 1 Other : 3 1 3 Do not monitor : 12 14 13 21 19 6 Do not have structure : 65 60 70 68 46 63 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --continued All Grains Handled: Pest Management Practices, Percent of Operations Utilizing Practice, Program States, 2005-06 Marketing Year, Spring and Summer (continued) 1/ 2/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : State Practice :----------------------------------------- : ND : OH : PA : SD : TX : WI : ALL -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : Percent : Measured Grain Temperature: : : Concrete Silos: : : Daily : 1 4 1 2 Twice a week : 11 3 Weekly : 7 24 3 8 2 11 Every two weeks : 9 3 8 4 Monthly : 17 3 3 3 13 6 Other : 1 1 1 Do not monitor : 17 5 11 10 13 6 9 Do not have structure : 58 46 87 77 58 90 64 : Steel Bins and Tanks: : : Daily : 3 2 3 4 4 3 Twice a week : 2 5 3 Weekly : 13 24 8 8 4 10 16 Every two weeks : 1 8 1 7 8 3 9 Monthly : 28 19 7 30 17 14 18 Other : 4 2 1 3 4 5 4 Do not monitor : 43 17 50 42 54 46 34 Do not have structure : 7 25 30 7 13 13 12 : Other Structures: : : Daily : 3 1 4 1 Twice a week : 2 1 Weekly : 13 2 5 7 8 4 7 Every two weeks : 1 1 7 2 4 Monthly : 25 1 5 19 4 2 8 Other : 1 1 1 3 2 2 Do not monitor : 38 15 36 36 23 21 Do not have structure : 17 78 49 24 88 68 56 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1/ Numbers for each type of structure may not add to 100 due to rounding. 2/ Blank cells represent no data reported for the item. All Grains Handled: Pest Management Practices, Percent of Operations Utilizing Practice, Program States, 2005-06 Marketing Year, Fall and Winter 1/ 2/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : State Practice :----------------------------------------- : IL : IA : KS : MI : MN : NE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : Percent : Measured Grain Temperature: : : Concrete Silos: : : Daily : 1 4 2 1 3 Twice a week : 6 2 3 7 Weekly : 10 11 36 9 6 16 Every two weeks : 6 3 12 2 1 13 Monthly : 4 9 16 11 5 10 Other : 1 4 2 1 Do not monitor : 23 4 9 15 7 7 Do not have structure : 48 62 19 63 80 41 : Steel Bins and Tanks: : : Daily : 1 5 1 6 1 3 Twice a week : 6 2 2 1 7 Weekly : 29 14 30 13 15 23 Every two weeks : 12 11 9 5 19 18 Monthly : 15 22 14 25 22 21 Other : 3 9 8 1 4 Do not monitor : 30 31 21 42 34 13 Do not have structure : 4 6 15 10 7 10 : Other Structures: : : Daily : 2 1 2 1 1 Twice a week : 3 1 4 Weekly : 15 7 6 7 10 7 Every two weeks : 3 4 5 10 12 Monthly : 3 8 6 2 14 3 Other : 3 1 3 Do not monitor : 12 14 13 21 19 6 Do not have structure : 65 60 70 68 46 63 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --continued All Grains Handled: Pest Management Practices, Percent of Operations Utilizing Practice, Program States, 2005-06 Marketing Year, Fall and Winter (continued) 1/ 2/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : State Practice :----------------------------------------- : ND : OH : PA : SD : TX : WI : ALL -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : Percent : Measured Grain Temperature: : : Concrete Silos: : : Daily : 1 1 1 1 Twice a week : 1 11 2 Weekly : 6 20 5 13 2 10 Every two weeks : 12 3 4 4 Monthly : 17 6 3 3 13 7 Other : 1 1 1 Do not monitor : 17 5 11 11 13 6 9 Do not have structure : 58 46 87 77 58 90 64 : Steel Bins and Tanks: : : Daily : 1 3 3 1 4 3 Twice a week : 1 2 4 5 3 Weekly : 12 21 5 8 8 10 15 Every two weeks : 4 9 3 8 4 2 9 Monthly : 27 21 7 30 17 14 20 Other : 4 2 1 3 4 7 4 Do not monitor : 43 17 52 43 50 45 34 Do not have structure : 7 23 30 7 13 13 11 : Other Structures: : : Daily : 3 1 1 1 Twice a week : 1 2 1 Weekly : 12 2 1 8 8 4 7 Every two weeks : 1 1 7 1 4 Monthly : 25 1 7 20 4 2 8 Other : 1 1 1 3 3 2 Do not monitor : 38 15 37 38 23 21 Do not have structure : 17 78 50 24 88 68 56 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1/ Numbers for each type of structure may not add to 100 due to rounding. 2/ Blank cells represent no data reported for the item. All Grains Handled: Pest Management Practices, Strategies Used in Determining Fumigation Schedule, Program States, 2005-06 Marketing Year 1/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : State Practice :------------------------------------------------ : IL : IA : KS : MI : MN : NE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : Percent of Operations : Preset calendar date : 5 4 10 27 4 2 Bin samples : 30 36 29 14 22 20 Combined with other handling : operations : 15 6 13 15 9 11 Insect trap counts : 5 1 3 Visual grain inspection : 40 51 43 44 58 67 Other : 5 1 1 8 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : State Practice :------------------------------------------------- : ND : OH : PA : SD : TX : WI : ALL --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : Percent of Operations : Preset calendar date : 24 6 4 7 6 Bin samples : 25 6 13 33 35 32 28 Combined with other handling : operations : 5 31 14 35 7 12 Insect trap counts : 5 6 6 8 3 Visual grain inspection : 65 65 31 41 29 47 49 Other : 13 8 2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1/ Blank cells represent no data reported for the item. Postharvest Chemical Use Estimates for Potatoes Potato Overview: The agricultural chemical use estimates in this report are based on data compiled from the 2006 Potato Postharvest Chemical Use Survey. The Postharvest Survey was conducted for potatoes marketed from August 1, 2005 to July 31, 2006 which covers the 2005 crop. All results refer to pesticide applications and integrated pest management at off-farm warehouses, shippers, and processors and farms with storage facilities. There were 615 warehouse, shipper, processor, and grower reports summarized across 9 States. The U.S. map below shows the number of summarized reports by State. After harvest, potatoes are generally marketed to processors or to the fresh market through packers and shippers. This is largely based on variety. A portion of these potatoes go from the field to the storage facility. These are later marketed either to processors or to packers and shippers for the fresh market as the need arises. The diagram below demonstrates the traditional postharvest marketing channels for potatoes. The totals for the Program States, as well as individual State totals where data permit, are published for the percent of potatoes treated, number of applications, rate per application, rate per marketing year, and the total amount of active ingredient applied. A table detailing total pesticide usage by class for the Program States is also included. Totals for the Program States and individual State totals are published for the percent of potatoes treated, number of applications, rate per application, rate per marketing year, and the total amount of active ingredient applied. The Program States include the major potato producing States. Potatoes moving from a storage operator to a packer and shipper will be duplicated in the total amount handled. The intent of the survey was to obtain the entire amount of chemicals applied to the potatoes, so this duplication in quantity handled is necessary. No provision was made for cross-State movement. The State or region of origin of the potatoes was not part of the survey, so all of the potatoes handled in a Program State were included in this survey. In addition to chemical applications, potato storage operators were also asked a series of questions pertaining to their pest management practices. Answers to these questions are summarized and included in the report. A copy of the survey instrument used to collect the data is also included. Highlights for Potatoes Pesticides: Chlorpropham, calcium hypochlorite, and napthalene were the top three active ingredients used on potatoes, based on percent of volume treated. Chlorpropham and napthalene are growth regulators used to inhibit sprout growth on potatoes. Calcium hypochlorite is a sanitizer used to disinfect potatoes. Of the total chemical applications made to potatoes in 2005-06 in the 9 Program States, 70 percent was applied by gas/fog, 19 percent by direct spray, 8 percent by mist, 2 percent by seed treatment, and 1 percent by immersion. Of the total chemical applications made to potatoes in 2005-06 in the 9 Program States, 8 percent was applied to potatoes that were not in storage, 5 percent before storage, 55 percent during storage, and 32 percent after storage. Operations in the following States applied the listed chemicals to potatoes after harvest. However, there were an insufficient number of reports to publish State level usage data. Colorado: chlorine dioxide and thiabendazole (TBZ). Idaho: chlorine, peroxyacetic acid, phosphorus acid, pseudo-syring ESC-10, sodium hypochlorite, and thiabendazole (TBZ). Maine: calcium hpyochlorite, fludioxonil, hydrogen peroxide (dioxide), methyl bromide, phosphorus acid, and sodium hypochlorite. Michigan: chlorine, fludioxonil, imidacloprid, mancozeb, napthalene, pseudo-syring ESC-10, and thiophanate methyl. Minnesota: hydrogen peroxide (dioxide), peroxyacetic acid, and sodium hypochlorite. North Dakota: fludioxonil and mancozeb. Oregon: chlorine dioxide, napthalene, and thiabendazole (TBZ) Washington: bacillus subtilis, chlorine dioxide, and hydrogen peroxide (dioxide). Wisconsin: chlorine dioxide and thiabendazole (TBZ). Pest Management Practices: The pest management practices section of the questionnaire asked for mechanical devices and cleaning practices used at the operations surveyed. This section also asked the time intervals that stored potatoes were checked for insects and temperature and/or humidity. Potatoes: Postharvest Chemical Applications, Percent Treated and Total Applied, Program States, 2005-06 Marketing Year 1/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : : Percent Treated and Total Applied State : Volume :----------------------------------------------------- :Handled : Insecticide : Fungicide : Other Chemical -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : 1,000 Percent 1,000 Percent 1,000 Percent 1,000 : Cwt. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. : CO : 20,471 * * 78.6 3.5 ID :165,139 0.6 1.0 58.8 86.9 ME : 14,631 * * 9.3 0.2 46.0 17.7 MI : 8,686 * * * * 55.6 6.0 MN : 16,691 31.6 1.0 ND : 35,247 * * 32.5 17.4 OR : 30,610 * * 67.0 7.1 WA :126,779 * * 43.9 18.4 WI : 26,620 * * 61.1 26.0 : Program States :444,876 * * 0.8 2.3 52.6 184.1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * Insufficient reports to publish data. 1/ Blank cells represent no data reported for the item. Potatoes: Postharvest Chemical Applications, Program States, 2005-06 Marketing Year -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Agricultural : Volume : Appli- : Rate per : Rate per : Total Chemical : Treated : cations : Application : Mkt. Year : Applied -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : Percent Number Pounds per Cwt. 1,000 Lbs : : Calcium hypochlorite : 5.4 1.0 * * 4.2 Chlorine dioxide : 2.9 1.0 * * 0.1 Chlorpropham : 47.5 1.1 0.001 0.001 168.1 Fludioxinil : 0.1 1.0 * * 1/ Hydrogen peroxide : 3.0 1.1 * * 0.8 Napthalene : 5.0 1.0 * * 10.7 Sodium hypochlorite : 0.3 1.3 * * 1/ Thiabendazole (TBZ) : 0.6 1.0 * * 0.3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * Rate applied less than 0.0005 pounds. 1/ Total applied less than 50 pounds. Potatoes: Postharvest Chemical Applications, Colorado, 2005-06 Marketing Year -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Agricultural : Volume : Appli- : Rate per : Rate per : Total Chemical : Treated : cations : Application : Mkt. Year : Applied -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : Percent Number Pounds per Cwt. 1,000 Lbs : : Chlorpropham : 65.4 1.2 * * 1.5 Hydrogen peroxide : 10.7 1.0 * * 0.1 Napthalene : 18.5 1.1 * 0.001 1.9 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * Rate applied less than 0.0005 pounds. Potatoes: Postharvest Chemical Applications, Idaho, 2005-06 Marketing Year -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Agricultural : Volume : Appli- : Rate per : Rate per : Total Chemical : Treated : cations : Application : Mkt. Year : Applied -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : Percent Number Pounds per Cwt. 1,000 Lbs : : Calcium hypochlorite : 14.4 1.0 * * 4.2 Chlorine dioxide : 4.5 1.0 * * 0.1 Chlorpropham : 50.6 1.1 0.001 0.001 74.7 Hydrogen peroxide : 6.0 1.1 * * 0.7 Napthalene : 7.6 1.0 0.001 0.001 7.1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * Rate applied less than 0.0005 pounds. Potatoes: Postharvest Chemical Applications, Maine, 2005-06 Marketing Year -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Agricultural : Volume : Appli- : Rate per : Rate per : Total Chemical : Treated : cations : Application : Mkt. Year : Applied -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : Percent Number Pounds per Cwt. 1,000 Lbs : : Chlorpropham : 43.9 1.0 0.003 0.003 17.7 Thiabendazole (TBZ) : 9.1 1.0 * * 0.1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * Rate applied less than 0.0005 pounds. Potatoes: Postharvest Chemical Applications, Michigan, 2005-06 Marketing Year -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Agricultural : Volume : Appli- : Rate per : Rate per : Total Chemical : Treated : cations : Application : Mkt. Year : Applied -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : Percent Number Pounds per Cwt. 1,000 Lbs : : Chlorpropham : 52.6 1.0 0.001 0.001 6.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Potatoes: Postharvest Chemical Applications, Minnesota, 2005-06 Marketing Year -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Agricultural : Volume : Appli- : Rate per : Rate per : Total Chemical : Treated : cations : Application : Mkt. Year : Applied -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : Percent Number Pounds per Cwt. 1,000 Lbs : : Chlorpropham : 31.5 1.0 * * 1.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * Rate applied less than 0.0005 pounds. Potatoes: Postharvest Chemical Applications, North Dakota, 2005-06 Marketing Year -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Agricultural : Volume : Appli- : Rate per : Rate per : Total Chemical : Treated : cations : Application : Mkt. Year : Applied -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : Percent Number Pounds per Cwt. 1,000 Lbs : : Chlorpropham : 32.5 1.0 0.002 0.002 17.4 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Potatoes: Postharvest Chemical Applications, Oregon, 2005-06 Marketing Year -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Agricultural : Volume : Appli- : Rate per : Rate per : Total Chemical : Treated : cations : Application : Mkt. Year : Applied -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : Percent Number Pounds per Cwt. 1,000 Lbs : : Chlorpropham : 56.5 1.0 * * 6.8 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * Rate applied less than 0.0005 pounds. Potatoes: Postharvest Chemical Applications, Washington, 2005-06 Marketing Year -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Agricultural : Volume : Appli- : Rate per : Rate per : Total Chemical : Treated : cations : Application : Mkt. Year : Applied -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : Percent Number Pounds per Cwt. 1,000 Lbs : : Chlorpropham : 41.8 1.1 * * 18.0 Napthalene : 1.5 1.0 * * 0.3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * Rate applied less than 0.0005 pounds. Potatoes: Postharvest Chemical Applications, Wisconsin, 2005-06 Marketing Year -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Agricultural : Volume : Appli- : Rate per : Rate per : Total Chemical : Treated : cations : Application : Mkt. Year : Applied -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : Percent Number Pounds per Cwt. 1,000 Lbs : : Chlorpropham : 61.0 1.0 0.001 0.002 24.9 Napthalene : 6.0 1.0 0.001 0.001 1.2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Potatoes: Postharvest Chemical Use, Method of Application, Program States, 2005-06 Marketing Year ---------------------------------------- Method of Application : Potatoes ---------------------------------------- : Percent : Direct Spray : 19 Gas/Fog : 70 Immersion : 1 Mist : 8 Seed Treatment : 2 : Total : 100 ---------------------------------------- Potatoes: Postharvest Chemical Use, Timing of Application, Program States, 2005-06 Marketing Year ---------------------------------------- Timing of Application : Potatoes ---------------------------------------- : Percent : Not Stored : 8 Before Storage : 5 During Storage : 55 After Storage : 32 : Total : 100 ---------------------------------------- Potatoes: Pest Management Practices, Percent of Operations Utilizing Practice, Program States, 2005-06 Marketing Year 1/ 2/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : State Practice :--------------------------------------- : CO : ID : ME : MI : MN -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : Percent : Mechanical Devices: : : Aeration controller : 15 74 50 46 50 Re-circulation fumigation device : 12 25 6 15 4 : Cleaning Activities: : : Clean aeration ducts : 85 78 69 64 85 Clean and disinfect potato warehouses : 92 87 85 82 92 Clean and sanitize packing/processing : facilities : 96 79 82 80 73 Control vegetation : 92 97 85 90 92 Pick up spilled potatoes/clean : surrounding areas : 96 96 85 92 89 Use pest/rodent control measures : 92 56 70 78 79 Other activities : -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : State Practice :--------------------------------------- : ND : OR : WA : WI : ALL -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : Percent : Mechanical Devices: : : Aeration controller : 57 76 43 53 57 Re-circulation fumigation device : 10 31 32 23 17 : Cleaning Activities: : : Clean aeration ducts : 90 95 73 87 77 Clean and disinfect potato warehouses : 98 100 76 98 88 Clean and sanitize packing/processing : facilities : 88 93 71 84 81 Control vegetation : 98 100 81 98 92 Pick up spilled potatoes/clean : surrounding areas : 98 100 79 100 92 Use pest/rodent control measures : 83 45 69 75 68 Other activities : 3 * -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * Less than 0.5 %. 1/ Descriptions of these items are included in the Terms and Definitions section of this report on pages 30-32. 2/ Blank cells represent no data reported for the item. Potatoes: Pest Management Practices, Percent of Operations Utilizing Practice, Program States, 2005-06 Marketing Year 1/ 2/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ : State Practice :--------------------------------------- : CO : ID : ME : MI : MN ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ : Percent : Inspected for insects: : : Automatically : 8 2 3 3 5 Hourly : * Daily : 36 18 24 8 32 Twice a week : 4 14 7 9 14 Weekly : 20 39 31 18 25 Other : 4 5 12 Do not monitor : 32 22 30 49 25 : Measured Potato Temperature and/or Humidity: : : Automatically : 40 7 12 28 23 Hourly : 1 3 5 Daily : 44 65 57 30 43 Twice a week : 4 14 15 5 5 Weekly : 8 10 16 8 5 Other : * Do not monitor : 4 3 1 26 21 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ : State Practice :--------------------------------------- : ND : OR : WA : WI : ALL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ : Percent : Inspected for insects: : : Automatically : 9 3 Hourly : * Daily : 35 21 15 17 22 Twice a week : 6 7 13 7 10 Weekly : 23 17 40 33 31 Other : 2 24 2 5 5 Do not monitor : 34 31 21 38 29 : Measured Potato Temperature and/or Humidity: : : Automatically : 11 19 33 25 16 Hourly : 7 3 1 Daily : 61 45 36 49 54 Twice a week : 4 10 8 4 11 Weekly : 13 17 11 5 11 Other : 7 3 1 Do not monitor : 5 2 9 15 7 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ * Less than 0.5%. 1/ Numbers for each type of structure may not add to 100 due to rounding. 2/ Blank cells represent no data reported for the item. Survey Procedures: The population for the 2006 Oat Postharvest Chemical Use Survey included off-farm facilities that stored or handled oats during the 2005- 06 marketing year. Off-farm facilities included mills, elevators, warehouses, terminals, and processors. The population for the 2006 Potato Postharvest Chemical Use Survey included off- farm facilities that stored or handled potatoes and farms with storage facilities. Off-farm facilities included warehouses, shippers, and processors. Farms with on-farm storage were also included in the population. Estimation Procedures: The chemical application data, reported by product names or trade names, were reviewed within State and across States for reasonableness and consistency. The reported data were compared with manufacturers' recommendations and data from other operations using the same product. Following this review, product information was converted to active ingredient level. Chemical data in this publication are reported at the active ingredient level. Detailed data within a table may not multiply across or add down due to independent rounding of the published values. Reliability: The surveys were designed so that the estimates are statistically representative of chemical use on the targeted commodities in the Program States. The reliability of these survey results is affected by sampling variability and non-sampling errors. Since all operations handling the crops of interest are not included in the sample, survey estimates are subject to sampling variability. The sampling variability expressed as a percent of the estimate is called the coefficient of variation (cv). Sampling variability of the estimates differed considerably by chemical and crop. Variability for estimates of percent of volume treated will be higher than the variability for estimates of application rates. This is because application rates have a narrower range of responses, which are recommended by the manufacturer of the product, and are generally followed. In general, the more often the chemical was applied, the smaller the sampling variability. For example, estimates of a commonly used active ingredient such as chlorpropham, will exhibit less variability than a rarely used chemical like fludioxinil. Non-sampling errors are errors that occur during a survey process, and unlike sampling variability, are difficult to measure. Non-sampling errors can occur in complete censuses as well as sample surveys. They are caused by the inability to obtain correct information from each person surveyed, differences in interpreting questions or definitions, and mistakes in coding or processing the data. Special efforts are taken at each step of the survey to minimize non- sampling errors. Terms and Definitions Active ingredient: The specific chemical which kills or controls the target pests. Usage data are reported by pesticide product and are converted to an amount of active ingredient. Aeration controller: An automatic (usually computer-based) system that determines the optimum running time (considering humidity and temperature) for aeration fans on the grain or potato storage units. They can usually be set for drying or storage mode. Agricultural chemicals: The active ingredients in pesticide products. Application rates: The average number of pounds of a pesticide active ingredient applied to a volume of a commodity. Rate per application is the average number of pounds applied in one application. Rate per marketing year is the average number of pounds applied counting multiple applications. Number of applications is the average number of times a treated volume receives a specific agricultural chemical. Common name: Officially recognized name for an active ingredient. This report shows active ingredient by common name. Core bins after filling: When grain is placed into a bin, it is usually filled from the top. Smaller particles, called fines, tend to concentrate in the center of the bin. This material compacts, restricting airflow which in turn affects grain temperatures and thus pests. For this reason, it is recommended that a portion of grain be extracted from the bottom center of the bin. This core can then be reloaded onto the top and spread over the surface to distribute the fines evenly. Deep bin sampler: Usually a vacuum type device that allows one to reach deep into a grain bin and sample grain that is normally out of reach to typical probe samplers. Direct powdering: Usually applying a fungicide or insecticide that is a powder or dust directly on to the grain. Fumigant: A substance or mixture of substances which produce a gas vapor, fume, or smoke intended to destroy insects, rodents, or bacteria. Grain spreader: When grain is loaded into the grain bin, it can first be put through a device that disperses the grain out from the fall line and fills the bin uniformly rather than forming a cone in the center of the bin. Immersion: A pesticide application method where potatoes are totally covered with the pesticide product. Immersion includes treatment of potatoes in flumes and dump tanks. Marketing year: Refers to the period immediately following harvest of the crop through the marketing or disposition of the crop. Mixing pellets/tablets: A pesticide application method where the grain is mixed with pellets or tablets. The pellets or tablets contain phosphine (aluminum phosphate) and form a gas. Phosphine is used as an insecticidal fumigant. Pesticides: As defined by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), pesticides include any substance or mixture of substances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling or mitigating any pest, and any substance or mixture of substances intended for use as a plant regulator, defoliant, or desiccant. The three classes of pesticides presented in this report and the pests targeted are: insecticides - insects, fungicides - fungi, and other chemicals - other forms of life. Miticides and nematicides are included as insecticides while, growth regulators and sanitizers are included as other chemicals. Postharvest: After the commodity is harvested from the field, any subsequent activity is termed postharvest. Postharvest chemical usage refers to chemical applications after the commodity is taken from the field. Phosphine pellet dispenser: Manually or automatically dispenses phosphine pellets to a stream of grain as it is loaded. Power probe: A fully integrated mechanized system for sampling stationary lots of grain in trucks or other conveyance. It obtains a representative sample by inserting a probe into the grain, opening the probe to allow grain to enter, closing, and then the sample is pneumatically withdrawn from the probe. Processor: Operations that change the form of the commodity. They may have storage facilities as well. Protein analyzer: Usually infrared analyzers that can, within a matter of minutes, determine the composition of grain. Values obtained can include protein, oil, starch content, moisture content, and kernel density. Re-circulation fumigation device: A fan that is combined with PVC pipe on the outside of a grain or potato storage unit. The PVC runs from the top, down the sides, through the fan, and into the bottom of the grain storage unit. Rather than probing fumigant pellets into the grain mass from the surface of the grains, you can use a much lower concentration of fumigant and place the pellets in the PVC pipe from outside of the grain storage unit. Advantages include using less chemical, increased worker safety, and more uniform distribution of the gas since the fans force the fumigant throughout the grain mass. Temperature cable: Cable running from top to bottom in a storage unit that automatically measures grain temperature and outputs this information to a central system. Top Dress: Spraying the top of the grain with a pesticide product. Its primary purpose is to treat the space between the top of the grain and the top of the bin for insects. Trade name: A name given to a specific formulation of a pesticide product. A formulation contains a specific concentration of the active ingredient, carrier materials, and other ingredients such as emulsifiers and wetting agents. Some formulations, as in the case of pre-mixes, can contain more than one active ingredient. Volume handled: The amount of a commodity handled by the market segment. In this release, it is the total amount of a commodity summarized in the particular table that passed through the firms. Volume treated: The percentage of volume handled receiving one or more applications of a specific agricultural chemical. This report does not contain total quantity treatments. However, total quantity treatments can be calculated by multiplying the total volume handled by the percent of volume treated and the average number of applications. Pesticide Classes, Common Names, and Trade Names The following is a list of the pesticide classes, common names, and trade names of active ingredients in this publication. The classes are Insecticide(I), Fungicides (F), and Other chemicals (O). This list is provided as an aid in reviewing pesticide data. Pre-mixes are not cataloged. The list is not complete for all pesticides used on postharvest commodities and NASS does not mean to promote the use of any specific trade name. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Classes : Common Names : Trade Names ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I : Aluminum phosphide Aluminum Phosphide 55%, Gastoxin Fumigation : Tablets, Fumitoxin Tablets (55%) Fumitoxin : Pellets, Phostoxin Pellets, Weevil-Cide 60% Pellets : F : Bacillus subtillis Seranade Max, Serenada ASO : O : Calcium hypochlorite HTH 300 Gram Tablets, Calcium Hypochlorite O : Chlorine Drench-Chlor O : Chlorine dioxide Oxine, OxyFresh, Purogene O : Chlorpropham IVI Sprout Block CIPC 98%,CIPC 7A, Decco 270 : Aerosol, Decco 271 Aerosol, Decco 276 EC, Pin Nip : 98.6, Sprout Nip 7A, Sprout Nip EC, Spud Nip-4, : CIPC 2 EC, CIPC 98A, Pin Nip EC 2 EC, Shelf Life : 2EC, IVI Sprout Block 2 EC, Pin Nip Technical : Chlorpropham : I : Cyfluthrin Tempo SC Ultra : F : Fludioxonil Maxim MZ, Maxim 4FS : O : Hydrogen peroxide OxiDate, Tsunami 100 aka Oxy-15, StorOx : I : Imidacloprid Tops-MZ-Gaucho I : Malathion Malathion 57 EC, 6% Grain Protector, Malathion : Spray : F : Mancozeb Mancozeb 6% Firbark, Maxim MZ, Tops-Mz-Gaucho : I : Methoprene Dicaon II I : Methyl bromide Meth-O-Gas 100, Methyl Bromide 100 : O : Napthalene 1,4SHIP RTU Aerosol, 1,4Sight, Amplify Sprout : Inhibitor : O : Peroxyacetic acid Tsunami 100 aka Oxy-15 : F : Phosphorous acid Phostrol F : Pseudo syring ESC-10 Bio-Save 10 LP : I : Silicon dioxide Diatomaceous Earth Insecticide : O : Sodium hypochlorite Agclor 310, Bleach, All Liquid Bleach, Sodium : Hypochlorite Sanitizer, Chlorguard II Chlorinating : Solution : F : Thiabendazole (TBZ) Decco Salt No.19, Mertect 340-F F : Thiophanate-methyl Tops-MZ-Gaucho ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Report Features Releas ed March 28, 2007, by the Nation al Agricu ltural Statis tics Servic e (NASS) , Agricu ltural Statis tics Board, U.S. Depart ment of Agricu lture. For inform ation on "Agric ultura l Chemic al Usage" call (202) 720-6146, office hours 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. ET. General Questions should be directed to Chief, Environmental, Environmental, Economics, and Demographics Branch at (202)720-6146. Below are the commodity specialists to contact for additional information. Kevin Barnes, Chief, Environmental, Economics, and Demographics Branch (202)720-6146 Mark R. Miller, Head, Environmental and Demographics Section (202)720-0684 Liana Cuffman, Environmental Statistician (202)690-0392 ACCESS TO REPORTS!! For your convenience, there are several ways to obtain NASS reports, data products, and services: INTERNET ACCESS All NASS reports are available free of charge on the worldwide Internet. For access, connect to the Internet and go to the NASS Home Page at: www.nass.usda.gov. E-MAIL SUBSCRIPTION All NASS reports are available by subscription free of charge direct to your e- mail address. Starting with the NASS Home Page at www.nass.usda.gov, under the right navigation, Receive reports by Email, click on National or State. Follow the instructions on the screen. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PRINTED REPORTS OR DATA PRODUCTS CALL OUR TOLL-FREE ORDER DESK: 800-999-6779 (U.S. and Canada) Other areas, please call 703-605-6220 FAX: 703-605-6900 (Visa, MasterCard, check, or money order acceptable for payment.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ASSISTANCE For assistance with general agricultural statistics or further information about NASS or its products or services, contact the Agricultural Statistics Hotline at 800-727-9540, 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. ET, or e-mail: nass@nass.usda.gov. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.