<%BANNER%>

Economic Analysis of Pest Management in Peanuts

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20110113_AAAAET INGEST_TIME 2011-01-14T02:22:16Z PACKAGE UFE0007008_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 34276 DFID F20110113_AADECP ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH garciacasellas_m_Page_58.pro GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
fd077b5280d73c80e38e68f50de5dda3
SHA-1
d29cdf00c38afedb8ef5435e3e7ac7f6f111a8c0
21396 F20110113_AADDXJ garciacasellas_m_Page_56.pro
93ae7c1082da8b56979ee43a9c637a39
ae18e6d8b04e73f845ea7cdcc20ca755053becf3
1053954 F20110113_AADDWV garciacasellas_m_Page_23.tif
c1647800f03c077c16dda8532d9a6d46
4b1bc27f12cb06e0de7953787240c1ab88db0697
1913 F20110113_AADEDE garciacasellas_m_Page_13.txt
87d654a365e865507830bb8c7e42d88b
add568519206bca71481aaf825dadf2b90b80c3b
36292 F20110113_AADECQ garciacasellas_m_Page_60.pro
3ee0ba167dc7c6e47488aac0cd2095fa
ba185ecb969a4093b8e077789a302f9d926dbf9a
178473 F20110113_AADDXK garciacasellas_m_Page_47.jpg
e5e4dd76bf1783342960d6046bd6a39f
36514f0ec08c110b9860c31ae0f240a028d10845
50711 F20110113_AADDWW garciacasellas_m_Page_38.pro
9388942b5f5d940eb82810e233d00644
acd31a4c40621bc6cf221e76b70c2013cf010f28
1907 F20110113_AADEDF garciacasellas_m_Page_15.txt
5ef0fdf0fce3333e293922d28fbd76b1
d44f4ec4429215e18ffae3b5698c2f72ef1721f8
30509 F20110113_AADECR garciacasellas_m_Page_61.pro
9dfbc8b58c1cb3bf5d0b2e6ff1138b2a
324d6163c82b545647c594b3772688940a1e0d0e
F20110113_AADDXL garciacasellas_m_Page_77.tif
d29e87bea4349161330d71f16f53bfae
238c59fc8e4ebc8cbd9ab538b1f306ed44749ec8
207532 F20110113_AADDWX garciacasellas_m_Page_81.jpg
07e5be67141b3b90fe3c730ea657ac8c
67852b66446d685ab17600b917be5fa26306887e
2041 F20110113_AADEDG garciacasellas_m_Page_17.txt
4f2c9fb9c158d4b8aa739ef399d36fe2
681fe810e47da83664d8e9fda3ed616e42c1a070
24304 F20110113_AADECS garciacasellas_m_Page_63.pro
1cc1a2d629a0ef1ae7ca7ea413b477ad
9129f4a905d1f844bdba2313f847740f27cf83be
85332 F20110113_AADDXM garciacasellas_m_Page_90.QC.jpg
4dcbd15f3a1f43df3154207c83bf588b
014dc50b6f7b59409ae619e11d6a4d5f7762fc39
1398 F20110113_AADDWY garciacasellas_m_Page_61.txt
9f6f9cdce5ec171a096f707dbc83a8e0
683177ba7c7e638d65c7961f9fa96203e2e60a93
1545 F20110113_AADEDH garciacasellas_m_Page_28.txt
65d7a4dfa06f3a722b845c0fd67fa06b
cf5db126b45567c61f399ad4fa696401bf3e8c80
1802 F20110113_AADDYA garciacasellas_m_Page_22.txt
a7702142c4b4873b2cb020de9785dc44
f95cf1184e957f8664abb7ec72494297f5bc9f47
40717 F20110113_AADECT garciacasellas_m_Page_68.pro
09959b8afbb62fae67e5730da61a9db8
e0ba89a198076fb62a42ce8b9473cfb11f58af54
54052 F20110113_AADDXN garciacasellas_m_Page_69.QC.jpg
9f1c2b77663f12f4eb1b20d78a4af0d2
538f7e6d486bf36542a5374e8dc91c61c5be672f
F20110113_AADDWZ garciacasellas_m_Page_02.tif
5965a007b9acdaaaf8c570dc20bad50e
db499df6525b55b78a9e2487bc6dcfd9f069900e
2001 F20110113_AADEDI garciacasellas_m_Page_36.txt
2dbe195c28c1f6957949ef102dca8cf1
9dc46d8f2ce6dbe6da380872a5aaf8b093de3ab2
142126 F20110113_AADDYB UFE0007008_00001.xml FULL
a10aa6cc24b34efc303e673da531a87b
a93693e02643884f0456f4f27cef4c53f3094bf4
33336 F20110113_AADECU garciacasellas_m_Page_69.pro
46beafa4a9211fcb68da64289c75cecd
83c53cbacb8a2dba1225f3cfd15baebbcb5bbfc8
1929 F20110113_AADDXO garciacasellas_m_Page_25.txt
2ddb74f11c3f2f10b40441bc3dd3460e
9c537cd9dac925a4aa3c46fbfd4ac004ae8d45fd
2034 F20110113_AADEDJ garciacasellas_m_Page_39.txt
cc489c4f89ce68d59ce4f6eb6215f91f
142c71b90f28d39e4cdc60a0d8730a293802f20d
20042 F20110113_AADECV garciacasellas_m_Page_72.pro
6366cf6e1df552ecbdd07feedc016e11
73c438ce308302d6b0ab961a23e9a75a9d184169
208342 F20110113_AADDXP garciacasellas_m_Page_46.jpg
96bbf0ac8cef1e709f18026a3fbd83fe
6c1aefb52978d408dfd6c4632bf8fbf5e39f5041
31878 F20110113_AADECW garciacasellas_m_Page_74.pro
9682dab601a9dcbf5a8e4b6a936eb667
6a93b656b8479870030828f0df24be0135b4d817
F20110113_AADDXQ garciacasellas_m_Page_86.tif
3c8e57083a0229ba767ab30a1c579d43
c151f2d707e989ae9516dc4a9432a45017a4bf61
1925 F20110113_AADEDK garciacasellas_m_Page_46.txt
ba88b3b91193c15b01992e8f7155b911
007fbe9b3d713c470ce08e0bdd4a9359bd631022
244304 F20110113_AADDYE garciacasellas_m_Page_05.jpg
1ed62c86cf9d0979e0f49ff33acab4ea
747782e8f46d1535035cc2598955410dc8c7213c
6380 F20110113_AADDXR garciacasellas_m_Page_02.jp2
4543b23a537162c81179c9c0d99bea04
47cee123c8bd63901e7f663eabd6282d895809a3
1244 F20110113_AADEEA garciacasellas_m_Page_78.txt
5127382cd50ac80b1b2a2dfdd1edae7e
d79b83b33f70604cb03dce261c8e333f9d742fb0
1990 F20110113_AADEDL garciacasellas_m_Page_50.txt
340c2b0e046f0854f05c408430311556
11f4cdf98f291d76c0ad0bda6ef99681289b1d65
290601 F20110113_AADDYF garciacasellas_m_Page_07.jpg
b6a9b794a1387688d4340e0450cd169e
316bb5d57e4ea366cdd431f778c48d7a6d86e5b1
34709 F20110113_AADECX garciacasellas_m_Page_83.pro
a1f2051b4a0203978e07a497891c3831
6ab0e9362c3a19b9fac5a65853ba26b1cde08b41
44620 F20110113_AADDXS garciacasellas_m_Page_86.jp2
04369c338a3405f01796c5bb17fa65b2
4bafead9f078fd94c45df211a1719aa8bd1ea439
1761 F20110113_AADEEB garciacasellas_m_Page_79.txt
2b566249bfd4b9eff30551299bb5a207
119a667cbc8f94532b3ceb32522929cfa2b3fade
1895 F20110113_AADEDM garciacasellas_m_Page_52.txt
137a3a26559a39892637d1eef928d4da
ad97f13d722eceece7cd8d2744c697e8323f365f
204509 F20110113_AADDYG garciacasellas_m_Page_13.jpg
459833d363f098c188edf61b230caa50
b90d24eefa043237be1d1f31feedf427d5779d66
17313 F20110113_AADECY garciacasellas_m_Page_85.pro
bb7fe51e8b21be8a31c01832614d71c3
a763af7ef942507a969c53c40acf03b30110a530
F20110113_AADDXT garciacasellas_m_Page_44.tif
ef346d5ce8c57ea4d8021e73463594c4
b5b63c6c5ec2e6dcb1ecb3f0b897b911bce0ed93
1961 F20110113_AADEEC garciacasellas_m_Page_80.txt
89e261dedda9c9e75f688c2dccd02c97
54211cd562881e509eef82a84452fd4792a3254f
1796 F20110113_AADEDN garciacasellas_m_Page_53.txt
f1cd97a0179893831f2fe119a2366bda
5bbcd04b46cdafacc5bc08876e921c341c793ad8
207457 F20110113_AADDYH garciacasellas_m_Page_17.jpg
e2677707d91fc73ab823561e2642e522
70c852e6cebdc7505fabe5e4b1fbac045fc52bdf
57741 F20110113_AADECZ garciacasellas_m_Page_88.pro
8aa0b2eaf558a63aa30e05986252d65f
bced76945a9e8ea58eb540cab9cf86fef4ce9f54
1969 F20110113_AADDXU garciacasellas_m_Page_26.txt
880c7565406e3b80851d974d826b2244
94a91c3c7f42742d7fa70ca6dd3bd49a705c2617
1858 F20110113_AADEED garciacasellas_m_Page_82.txt
5c768cf370229d51fbfea7b00e22cd36
0148414096eb527aeaee88315ac59577ba8dd3a9
1893 F20110113_AADEDO garciacasellas_m_Page_54.txt
5efad9b6e8e0394a4578b747d9aa3e91
5d40534be4997e4fecf1737cd3e053a325105ced
232301 F20110113_AADDYI garciacasellas_m_Page_20.jpg
38b6a81b1f3e4476127b86b9639f8c0e
54bcb84ef1b5c21c7df18951b5d76d78c5d3a291
32987 F20110113_AADDXV garciacasellas_m_Page_59.pro
b43ced4dd0f53e10f93e94b23068a663
da0417cb62cb5b4b3934d4424c3cd521560444be
1065 F20110113_AADEEE garciacasellas_m_Page_84.txt
2c1a9747be47da9f3dba8d4a91573a86
0c470be963ce3efe75c9f6fb579b8c2e2ce639e6
1428 F20110113_AADEDP garciacasellas_m_Page_56.txt
7a1fa141874604662625fde57e131f13
1fee3e4a39466d9d4f0d7935fef53905f40d6ada
184597 F20110113_AADDYJ garciacasellas_m_Page_24.jpg
482919e0e3c12a3fafdcc0acd713286e
c95b13974d08fd146b5f0776414e5467755c9b2d
98099 F20110113_AADDXW garciacasellas_m_Page_30.jp2
b5b8bb811c86bc606ba0647da8f41578
9e5aa26f24ca3bcb1dc0355aab9c137b4f4cb871
1968 F20110113_AADEEF garciacasellas_m_Page_87.txt
5352268def63af435cc691cf0bfa2627
4f163b494fbef857efc0c7dff46ffc2fcf3bb50d
1680 F20110113_AADEDQ garciacasellas_m_Page_57.txt
64a6dcf1fa47ce0b19032b1488d5003f
dff8d90d2da25d6a628ecfccc3f9735d54e81340
201250 F20110113_AADDYK garciacasellas_m_Page_26.jpg
70a362624474f83e9a27d959142b5c9a
c5b14cd18dc1ea64a35abcb82b5278d5f0ee3681
1139 F20110113_AADDXX garciacasellas_m_Page_62.txt
11348d66fd241fd918db6e1a272d73a8
26908d645ec4fa869b95a0485413757db5eb4017
17604 F20110113_AADEEG garciacasellas_m_Page_01.QC.jpg
6650676f80fcaad6e7520f664d90e29f
eb59b89c954bc1b67e87360064e9179e22ec0417
138476 F20110113_AADDZA garciacasellas_m_Page_74.jpg
2919b24ad2708f50dbe0979c5d43eb00
8f3f7a7e0e1e14f122c425e333abb27ebbc213c0
1477 F20110113_AADEDR garciacasellas_m_Page_60.txt
9f34c7f15b239a884f860faae70e1a53
ce93db21ea13c8a26768b0a4d025a509db8cb76a
157193 F20110113_AADDYL garciacasellas_m_Page_28.jpg
a5327b064d4b446e38b8cf8917e5930c
1cb86ebb65c72c987e6e8bf1050bf4b5c618f01b
107121 F20110113_AADDXY garciacasellas_m_Page_81.jp2
4cf9effa3f0c4c9fe4be6902725d11ca
4aca4000a93d28e1012cfad1e01e71459bf6d207
3283 F20110113_AADEEH garciacasellas_m_Page_02thm.jpg
b4697fa812ea2cf927068e680f0a1022
775cf84c90e3356ce90b9718c97a51c8f260ae28
1314 F20110113_AADEDS garciacasellas_m_Page_66.txt
e0ca0ec471e1653f61b349b03b6e01ba
b12f627aebbb8a5f742b05f69bee5288e0bfc34b
186676 F20110113_AADDYM garciacasellas_m_Page_30.jpg
c434b0d2920ec8a1d594944f4f2aaa98
8e892db657b4973fbbae03adb0552e0b95696058
49412 F20110113_AADDXZ garciacasellas_m_Page_80.pro
6efde91fb4209356f92d83796e421cf0
f39511e3ed40bf08774761d55f94c95f975628ea
6358 F20110113_AADEEI garciacasellas_m_Page_02.QC.jpg
4f1f43f77d4c988f99a1624b73f3b329
701d4ff7cef44bc79b1639b158c5956258ffe924
130811 F20110113_AADDZB garciacasellas_m_Page_76.jpg
10c960caca18e5914e7c686d32de0629
3a3a41d70b37f46f017cc8788e0d51300300ae11
1813 F20110113_AADEDT garciacasellas_m_Page_68.txt
dad54ea70f2d554b38b7639d0473045e
1d5ad97602c6fae96e09b27235f84a621e91793b
187410 F20110113_AADDYN garciacasellas_m_Page_35.jpg
87b8aefa62f8e423e01d32a987d589d2
293d5505c06568551e41c22b1658e37ddd3541e7
4320 F20110113_AADEEJ garciacasellas_m_Page_03thm.jpg
c3fc951148b27daedd5ec4bb36718de1
eaf5489ada3c53f502cd1b6283d9f128681f0df7
150117 F20110113_AADDZC garciacasellas_m_Page_77.jpg
c874585180789086b984e4ea0e781cb7
8459cd4a0510e2789b49ab76db2562a01ae518d1
1310 F20110113_AADEDU garciacasellas_m_Page_70.txt
09641d10998d6cfec950c3e777f9a3c2
a93d41b38cf9a6444537f48fa830c334ed9dae9c
212116 F20110113_AADDYO garciacasellas_m_Page_36.jpg
0914e31a84eceeb642923266e059022f
8f820cce5fe02fe652fe2ba6f2d514e590b6f71c
51974 F20110113_AADEEK garciacasellas_m_Page_07thm.jpg
3a4fc2c7f7f365482cc144a4ed281ba0
2a88703aa167226182da082f9f292ec45972e756
194743 F20110113_AADDZD garciacasellas_m_Page_82.jpg
4136b14c534201f606c3cb8f72a4ac51
50e599e248f0f556cf5e797dab02976ab2d013a6
1508 F20110113_AADEDV garciacasellas_m_Page_71.txt
e50bc00521ce7fe282a6a494da41fc73
0604cdd8496cd590a46342971e640f44c504205d
207874 F20110113_AADDYP garciacasellas_m_Page_38.jpg
feda35428bfa50b12ba13b130a747bef
5b886b7e947264aa53a9901c7c144c4372484b2d
23103 F20110113_AADDZE garciacasellas_m_Page_01.jp2
8eae2835e06cb54d684fd82462a1700d
f1e907a17d581af9c0189df76508f0f033d1a920
1067 F20110113_AADEDW garciacasellas_m_Page_72.txt
5a6e90cae22ec2e8ff68831c2b4facff
5b9023ec88dab8b59f633fe87a0dfa377d0fb134
207214 F20110113_AADDYQ garciacasellas_m_Page_40.jpg
0db62502340207ae1e224ede6fb6240e
3d54daf763a877556e3acf34009c27a93b50ba36
51232 F20110113_AADEEL garciacasellas_m_Page_08thm.jpg
b1379558d3096b5c9fc71dc30a8bbf30
326d20e6ffebf7f71cdb422a9d2efe329609de2a
77458 F20110113_AADDZF garciacasellas_m_Page_04.jp2
6d92e2db64e9dfbf5398253f902cf37e
c37ee862202c2a229f75f9f57461e4a653784cf7
1666 F20110113_AADEDX garciacasellas_m_Page_75.txt
ffd1525b1d7a4a4796440597db427b7f
2db8bc4d19972b858310a69260b63df842fbb5da
156108 F20110113_AADDYR garciacasellas_m_Page_41.jpg
208820fd59d7bb5e1dcce16a256e2a4f
80352a9ea0da09b0a145bd7e44f09157729370b3
69916 F20110113_AADEFA garciacasellas_m_Page_35.QC.jpg
421d851b041a9c0e52f7bebb9681bf03
340e49e34bd1984f33ff6b076b45f1ecf3026bed
55270 F20110113_AADEEM garciacasellas_m_Page_09.QC.jpg
096857385c5ac9832c9b495e198dddc8
b0c0567f4ee61ca136917ce1dd52dd6486714114
643705 F20110113_AADDZG garciacasellas_m_Page_09.jp2
9da6f54ad4966083b5d6772f34430f7c
934c67f08f7d674d85a9dcf1cf510f2b936b90fa
1446 F20110113_AADEDY garciacasellas_m_Page_76.txt
e6c6acfcd222ed0a1db6b751d4e0a9a5
e5fdb58efe95aa310dccf43a02c63457aa2942e1
180662 F20110113_AADDYS garciacasellas_m_Page_42.jpg
a3601a693bb69ec06f1cf068d0c25707
fabe07f9cb04b2525f693debe825f420aad8fc22
78163 F20110113_AADEFB garciacasellas_m_Page_38.QC.jpg
7a1cfc9a5618a82fe75aef5c518a6027
3a746017e4bd0afe200eededf3eab3001e5fb4ed
61840 F20110113_AADEEN garciacasellas_m_Page_10.QC.jpg
d9417ff29ecba2fefa409302a94822b5
5515d757205ddcf8bafdb9c4cc93c10717fa212f
411501 F20110113_AADDZH garciacasellas_m_Page_14.jp2
e67eee14f0e5d118689547f4d68b8556
f1999e6d712a58cb953178493e8794068deb03bf
1457 F20110113_AADEDZ garciacasellas_m_Page_77.txt
b3ad4b2d79ca7d010d38ac88ddf6429d
2f775cee8d9439cec144795498b9a9940ec06594
167613 F20110113_AADDYT garciacasellas_m_Page_45.jpg
0a488fa8b51bd60b91014880a9a8998c
67e3e4eba6e9d4e734d7e946851ade2f931478dc
24332 F20110113_AADEFC garciacasellas_m_Page_40thm.jpg
50ef3d6f550441120a6d4927e3ff283f
71bc92aa528dd355c32b6ce0692de9624a3682c2
60073 F20110113_AADEEO garciacasellas_m_Page_12.QC.jpg
b50ec846d4db15b24704db3b946b664d
b2ed04b51cc96479ffbc020ae0c056fbd57146da
683712 F20110113_AADDZI garciacasellas_m_Page_18.jp2
189f12b16bf213da417a0359b418fa22
5d174bf9dab5ee39f37d0ef034e87d16aa1130ee
219129 F20110113_AADDYU garciacasellas_m_Page_49.jpg
f4d862a02595efa81d9684681da6088b
fcc80285ce78795c9816b4f20fa9ad3a85237fe5
20896 F20110113_AADEFD garciacasellas_m_Page_42thm.jpg
f507f598f50faf1f4e4ade48b6c99e70
a4238b3709dce3343ebf9710d3cb131346287329
23598 F20110113_AADEEP garciacasellas_m_Page_13thm.jpg
a2966f9c97d91e3a5fe0e6d49725fbb0
e27198a6a04dbac37c2d2f36dd21a8956a6c8477
97892 F20110113_AADDZJ garciacasellas_m_Page_22.jp2
4afd5e8212e1c6f2670d78bbd84ce611
0b61dee192a8f6875e1bc3bf0e513044e601c031
61591 F20110113_AADDYV garciacasellas_m_Page_56.jpg
0e45d1ce7da9c96724a740e000b21ff6
a92ad7aa0c2f4285b21c81bb2dcd30301be4a4cc
68335 F20110113_AADEFE garciacasellas_m_Page_44.QC.jpg
031b2ee34304ce2b80da34018d19ed2f
6d841fbead78608402922871804b2174a0a16bb4
38765 F20110113_AADEEQ garciacasellas_m_Page_14thm.jpg
3940930fd8dd830ded0fbb310eba6fcf
991a05f38e09121b9cb13c0db25f1a54dda118e5
80756 F20110113_AADDZK garciacasellas_m_Page_28.jp2
44e801e17011b920d658cd9c9d813dfa
9ed90f553abeb71df1adc1c8e5d3a0fbae05f95d
90903 F20110113_AADDYW garciacasellas_m_Page_65.jpg
1ca3b1c2e1b34c3905207ddb209df982
1403ea2bffff8218e31eee45c17f2e357e193362
59774 F20110113_AADEFF garciacasellas_m_Page_45.QC.jpg
344dd236a02be2744e3362af716d3220
b4e37194b0129ad557a282883c4fef9f6af89292
57672 F20110113_AADEER garciacasellas_m_Page_14.QC.jpg
356024e9a4f1b395a92a04231f6d8281
5614d37438e7aa7559b5a14f0106039bc1f939cc
86599 F20110113_AADDZL garciacasellas_m_Page_29.jp2
95a57b89f2799033c0b8b89646e08e7b
44c2e3199be68bc62bb36f8f0f6a10488998cb07
122167 F20110113_AADDYX garciacasellas_m_Page_66.jpg
dfc9dd2f6e13ff13a21a16ea8cb62138
dbb5b213129dbee05a8c281eede43e5bf814d782
77267 F20110113_AADEFG garciacasellas_m_Page_46.QC.jpg
b2a418ff15cb574ef71fea5275792f4a
bf454dcc735e0de1ff19e90b30bde8eeb2a236da
23644 F20110113_AADEES garciacasellas_m_Page_15thm.jpg
60717f0d908bf62ba3332e030e06ea95
cb10c47c1c4c9d930721a5f6b45d4b7813deaa79
110096 F20110113_AADDZM garciacasellas_m_Page_32.jp2
cefcc1d468ff41c116fdbc7f7f52ba01
ea5958fea29c83b8a7f5d2d3c7fd56fc2c185471
159156 F20110113_AADDYY garciacasellas_m_Page_67.jpg
f587d6c9e7a3a67fdfb79d9868601254
ae8e118cd74ed8422b2e7a2c76f1b8c8efbe7d69
65445 F20110113_AADEFH garciacasellas_m_Page_47.QC.jpg
876c5844ca1dd3195280933187055c42
f44b440c1076034664300dc0d94a3d21d33af186
75772 F20110113_AADEET garciacasellas_m_Page_19.QC.jpg
8ed98e3d73b9c290755e5ad6f8f119bc
e2bbb7d8a3c939d3e40b8befcc1abef86c6853fe
102365 F20110113_AADDZN garciacasellas_m_Page_34.jp2
cfcf27e644b071e029e8aa3b735fd309
ac4245ca2470c95f60856769ec9e4b98e5fdf663
171836 F20110113_AADDYZ garciacasellas_m_Page_68.jpg
9833ad4d349f3c012255f29d8f3b1e71
736bc1d4734a04c84f9e5c087f8aa3c1f25c685f
20150 F20110113_AADEFI garciacasellas_m_Page_48thm.jpg
91d158d5950bebc06ba2691277b5aaed
54cbbcd83d7484702d484d5191b5c6bdbd610d3b
23646 F20110113_AADEEU garciacasellas_m_Page_21thm.jpg
86133ca1044daa2558837c4334a60590
584cd1b6fcddf6ad23384381e5b59b2c4bda8b66
99101 F20110113_AADDZO garciacasellas_m_Page_35.jp2
30daef611f1571fdf6493c192cec5e23
bb92cd342a6f1068ee64d421882a7a999c95289f
23522 F20110113_AADEFJ garciacasellas_m_Page_50thm.jpg
e69b162a424c743eea83979dd0361c4e
01ba8f151a32390d0c63493183eaa044068c2cd4
75764 F20110113_AADEEV garciacasellas_m_Page_26.QC.jpg
a63614c83fa219878fc9b86f39d8ff16
0a57462560f317ad0116df004597b247cb863c47
108959 F20110113_AADDZP garciacasellas_m_Page_38.jp2
d3467348c2d306438c3d9dcb10cd8b89
6b3a8b597125420862c1e9d35b6e419c5197d7e7
20666 F20110113_AADEFK garciacasellas_m_Page_51thm.jpg
0893aa77f770280ea5688d7c30881d2e
4150ec7ba0856bb0f75d731809aba259372c8323
19970 F20110113_AADEEW garciacasellas_m_Page_28thm.jpg
fcac5da642fd95ad9e3aad6ea8fe6ecd
e9476771fda6c762832eaba3f47b3c9cf0b6a1eb
108961 F20110113_AADDZQ garciacasellas_m_Page_40.jp2
c7f8e09b0d13eaebce413946b9809d16
b363d1dc1506ac8e48f04ed5a6b69dc7b35151d3
34126 F20110113_AADEFL garciacasellas_m_Page_52.QC.jpg
0cdc4002bb1fa9100720b65a03f766cd
c9d7df9c2188b879763502bca789a8107aa31fb3
23938 F20110113_AADEEX garciacasellas_m_Page_32thm.jpg
b93aaa8fb5b16f3d4914fb80b186be87
80b6b20e57b3d2890022ddf6d9abe40cd4ace235
92730 F20110113_AADDZR garciacasellas_m_Page_42.jp2
b7289090f6a8f8e581736cc870371a51
b5e98c437c600297dbf5c899a66da643f3148cc5
18707 F20110113_AADEGA garciacasellas_m_Page_74thm.jpg
ae0ae85aa4f66c33655701e54f2b7944
da0c6ac56e57626b201927dc596b8539f2efdfd2
22759 F20110113_AADEEY garciacasellas_m_Page_33thm.jpg
568a4913f20085403fb7b9db151fec46
8279b73174d76e5f82ad118511b6bba807866c1c
96315 F20110113_AADDZS garciacasellas_m_Page_44.jp2
1d14b3e9b2f8a9d63fec121eafd8c991
3a5ead2a4322fcf3d354d6d9212d4d42d7af8b81
51285 F20110113_AADEGB garciacasellas_m_Page_74.QC.jpg
498e3b5e14fb7a0ff60cd73f74ea11ff
94b8cb892e35693e835d3a78b50cc380a91ec3e6
22233 F20110113_AADEFM garciacasellas_m_Page_53thm.jpg
fd7e40808f28cf833802c21581521c7c
fc6471065af791f01822e20a70ecb921ecbb1e02
73241 F20110113_AADEEZ garciacasellas_m_Page_33.QC.jpg
06ee9c7523af9f4cb789ad50a5482788
21374caf7a9cadd6393bb6502f82211de111cf67
106364 F20110113_AADDZT garciacasellas_m_Page_46.jp2
5a55b9957a5e1def3766d2210306e15f
108da7422ebd90d5b535940f46033512570ed5b1
20120 F20110113_AADEGC garciacasellas_m_Page_79thm.jpg
77df6459b08c565ba7fa19e3d138086c
dca42b23829e6cdd7ae28c3812e8513916fc2a91
72362 F20110113_AADEFN garciacasellas_m_Page_54.QC.jpg
141a551115b94c62f8f23b2b623b4f71
79c60ac0ac217ec187f065f046e16ccff588eba3
90668 F20110113_AADDZU garciacasellas_m_Page_48.jp2
74bb8d440e2500d3b2cd9c707754baa7
fde72a3f1809d8a527642ea264ae07ad75c3eec8
65090 F20110113_AADEGD garciacasellas_m_Page_79.QC.jpg
8be676bc9ebf82b78b34454fb3d5adae
99cdfbf8574743364ab221d767db7520589ba8d1
15612 F20110113_AADEFO garciacasellas_m_Page_55thm.jpg
29ea6e0f8daef84a4e57e350169aa12b
831d65be8d633a61c23039c42ee4ea8db1f3593d
48951 F20110113_AADDZV garciacasellas_m_Page_52.jp2
a1205db9e3af805173d629a8c0235e32
202b4ba8a9bbeaa57993a43e871d5f3ca7375b3c
76530 F20110113_AADEGE garciacasellas_m_Page_81.QC.jpg
8c6f057e01a2a0606af2a1a442613d1c
051b051ebfaa592a8fd8666872ba5793e93ba5e0
10371 F20110113_AADEFP garciacasellas_m_Page_56thm.jpg
452c6c71c6ea462ea5bce4a4cd0dd19b
6146e730d8dacc422168d23b868dc56ec3697d04
55108 F20110113_AADDZW garciacasellas_m_Page_62.jp2
17c99570f9ec5981ed0f7bb7b063e26f
5ccbdef59ec88cae1619744d75194c8e527e1390
72425 F20110113_AADEGF garciacasellas_m_Page_82.QC.jpg
a5890bc9c7d31b782f858f079c0296d7
1550134ee7736a438e16fcd39882f88c1adb10ba
55012 F20110113_AADEFQ garciacasellas_m_Page_58.QC.jpg
265f7cf3ceca88d58265348d36786b1b
fe446dd4d441fe2a0ef1702fc606eda93cce4b33
55048 F20110113_AADDZX garciacasellas_m_Page_63.jp2
aa4a54fd256fb21466e5a9eda3ed3d96
88e8a3486609c65c082839c0fb3a3e61fb92e311
11098 F20110113_AADEGG garciacasellas_m_Page_84thm.jpg
7838336d0bca0edc43cf0a16aaf15790
19448ae08649d11ad7d99d203050517d4cb5e17f
19778 F20110113_AADEFR garciacasellas_m_Page_60thm.jpg
66c3ee217c9fad6185baf07def9c1719
014454cf73726bd9d8e1cfb76bfd1abd12f0ce0b
46261 F20110113_AADDZY garciacasellas_m_Page_65.jp2
9dde73ebb2f387e802b82b033fc4637b
19c9d18529a83adb689d2bd1e3ae49dfeded7b7c
10460 F20110113_AADEGH garciacasellas_m_Page_86thm.jpg
6c6ac175dfbb3286e66629ac3e2556d0
8e56aa017eb5f9c07295fc57d25edc334edf4ed9
38020 F20110113_AADEFS garciacasellas_m_Page_62.QC.jpg
400245a2167e94b366d4affe3c4785cf
1640507a22cb6dbe3c2ff7d81453ff82d0600056
63903 F20110113_AADDZZ garciacasellas_m_Page_70.jp2
07edf66c2a297bd4d41f9cdb28eb8e02
3cbe2f88ad41411fb1a6945042c5e324f838bbf5
26819 F20110113_AADEGI garciacasellas_m_Page_86.QC.jpg
9d9b4913e71ff0e25d536601fd179ed1
1d0d9fbb19a4f1719d9b0f4ac24914e1aa1122a7
13106 F20110113_AADEFT garciacasellas_m_Page_63thm.jpg
47ac4b7bfc400021bdb9624c52ecd05d
e6410cfcfad55254c320869ab23c2e1212e619c4
111894 F20110113_AADEGJ garciacasellas_m_Page_88.QC.jpg
e901112ed93200c03f52ad5e430eecfc
e758eda3fb3abe6e71dfd7cc52a1898a4251e227
39850 F20110113_AADEFU garciacasellas_m_Page_65.QC.jpg
97a8a86b3ba7ccf72c007077004b2ff6
60c1d2c5847126f2673d5bff9674172f68b01812
50796 F20110113_AADEGK garciacasellas_m_Page_89thm.jpg
dfad30e68f5985cfc948b7d24f5ffb4a
e0467fea37e24e88cd67efe4267fbc71c7f59fab
21074 F20110113_AADEFV garciacasellas_m_Page_71thm.jpg
a912399c44b4d5a3a6636701078830dd
180333e7ae51a4fe6380647550583b5df3de5306
43534 F20110113_AADEGL garciacasellas_m_Page_90thm.jpg
dd1ee32c27cd963db89546b687fc65bc
3957eaaf85d395558698cb00595582d60a2c3ee6
59290 F20110113_AADEFW garciacasellas_m_Page_71.QC.jpg
d7c17c5ae8b259241f4c63aa8411e676
49cfa3170537915f11f0103635d7bc3aa8355b13
24205 F20110113_AADEGM garciacasellas_m_Page_91.QC.jpg
27e704e6b7080ea81dd35c3e358f0d16
b7e1ca310a133ac750d65b628d3a61c8dd0265a4
15858 F20110113_AADEFX garciacasellas_m_Page_72thm.jpg
2801aec05dac39697954b85d9f58a747
42ea2d1c2fe0d8df2694495b2c039d2f8db5fda8
36918 F20110113_AADEFY garciacasellas_m_Page_72.QC.jpg
08b8c850e3cd378297f9e5faa220c3f2
9b14b75b11900579800a7736376de3dc9c4427ba
109395 F20110113_AADEGN UFE0007008_00001.mets
753ffbd80a8c9b611dca404d61c2ab00
580f477f597ce58326996f5b27f6ba84fe169dcd
20773 F20110113_AADEFZ garciacasellas_m_Page_73thm.jpg
7f0f760a2bb8373d70bcc0c9ca38d349
5c86430cf5cb0c9a78fc18e0f2bdff5f105080fc
176799 F20110113_AADDIA garciacasellas_m_Page_64.jpg
7dfd4d14ed9568e661656803c7740a26
d0e890588c8de4761326673c88fb70bcd56e70f7
2053 F20110113_AADDIB garciacasellas_m_Page_37.txt
a6c316bbdfe401d37fea27522c84c290
92943bb1575852d69c7b6d2df10bcc95c671a7ca
106319 F20110113_AADDIC garciacasellas_m_Page_19.jp2
b47a81986e75a0fa090492f3271e5402
cea51e8e7dfa5fde44f2f46675f423babb7f6a7b
45597 F20110113_AADDID garciacasellas_m_Page_66.QC.jpg
678427540687e3a4ea1bfbeb75112a87
8231e9637cfa951e958c5f0fe01fb160d3ae5669
1467 F20110113_AADDIE garciacasellas_m_Page_41.txt
c411144be3a9eb7e7ade37a890233978
42ec3b75a5855995e41613124d7c8de57d430dc7
1926 F20110113_AADDIF garciacasellas_m_Page_81.txt
00a18defc06b36fbe043dc5ee249cabb
67b95ec2eb28b529943ac1bd06e38e68e8f8a81f
73883 F20110113_AADDIG garciacasellas_m_Page_34.QC.jpg
f21b307c9e5adaaebcc1e5a8677d6e77
0725cd1b9085eb476e3186d1c3aebf349518ad1d
67070 F20110113_AADDIH garciacasellas_m_Page_48.QC.jpg
5cb0dc834832a97510c62f4ef3202a6a
3a0deb7d6196cf921f0808850a4430618295a3da
2014 F20110113_AADDII garciacasellas_m_Page_40.txt
356624a52f9e40c48d38fa4914d85ba0
9daa1300bb34a0ecc6033358b1e82d131682a432
45616 F20110113_AADDIJ garciacasellas_m_Page_16thm.jpg
41aa9e05aa8f2f6322a5e1af8cd87012
fda8282887e7578946bfcfbada095509abd64b63
1760 F20110113_AADDIK garciacasellas_m_Page_24.txt
bd74610fb9377bff8ce8079501e3ab2c
dc8f288a5609c1f418585bebb76c53926f56a0fe
23155 F20110113_AADDIL garciacasellas_m_Page_23thm.jpg
d2766850d282a072104115725c4bf30b
c6de95ec79d6a9b1a22c2198c42ee0dc7135a178
25271604 F20110113_AADDHW garciacasellas_m_Page_06.tif
2b723c0913cb987050a1e007080f35ed
622538c152092cdd41de7b117f79e7942db311bb
44733 F20110113_AADDJA garciacasellas_m_Page_85.jp2
2559e5f2640c52827e493b722d72788e
00ec7798dd0014408b748424f35f8972db2c60f5
F20110113_AADDIM garciacasellas_m_Page_33.tif
e05d926104c48e8e179c54295218e2a3
9c7155412659ca1d17f8ffd50731e6a66d0e08f5
1942 F20110113_AADDHX garciacasellas_m_Page_20.txt
52a44cf2d37c358a13bce11746ce6906
a6c9d8dde6996f21c1ea73411b5a205b8f84475a
79730 F20110113_AADDJB garciacasellas_m_Page_67.jp2
fa3adf0a3190cd390babe928a5f1b41e
570f68d478b06a9978d44967641dcc769f736c8b
58005 F20110113_AADDIN garciacasellas_m_Page_77.QC.jpg
0843c4e7d31c10f747127edb1b065f3b
9518e6a1fdd3d09b2222163a29f45b03180ee8cf
123817 F20110113_AADDHY garciacasellas_m_Page_70.jpg
6a69ec555d25a2832042cc4ad524ef05
bd6a0719d5cd223ba972a00b3665cfbd4df1e6da
12700 F20110113_AADDJC garciacasellas_m_Page_78thm.jpg
bea9babc3be2d3711d406fd0cd8ae65b
e4f24bfb68c1ef9d1c596e804f67851c1360dce2
2573 F20110113_AADDIO garciacasellas_m_Page_05.txt
9a2964453185cb5241b26c7a8da36faa
8f81a9770e30bd4922d5317b09ffb000955260b5
112114 F20110113_AADDHZ garciacasellas_m_Page_63.jpg
5e22850c7b79f3c80176b32e32727a6d
7e7d0c00bfa04ac3cd97e611168bc7be8fc7cf45
81219 F20110113_AADDJD garciacasellas_m_Page_41.jp2
79512caa96277084859c055f60a817f1
6d3b9d9c2cdee5733aa9c7b15bdcd009c5955f40
75216 F20110113_AADDIP garciacasellas_m_Page_25.jp2
f6f8abfedcce7722d31a91911afd677f
206c02798392e3fe88e9c39067b0badbd1cb7f4e
65721 F20110113_AADDJE garciacasellas_m_Page_51.QC.jpg
0ac95a3c97ce9c81668cd13858d8393b
9f6e32115defc18b79f974e617ecad56401d2329
21069 F20110113_AADDJF garciacasellas_m_Page_75thm.jpg
c94745c4bdd1d0668002583084c60c47
31c8cb415b8209e6b6578f285364fe0e11fcb67d
154435 F20110113_AADDIQ garciacasellas_m_Page_18.jpg
c0fef3c0e789ec538820a8919c595c24
37b689d4627e2603a0a627f964b815301e77bbbe
41164 F20110113_AADDJG garciacasellas_m_Page_64.pro
b238f86ea1324199363a7fa6765f57e3
e73c6014850314699e59dc637cfc5f558501bf08
1618 F20110113_AADDIR garciacasellas_m_Page_48.txt
2fee3227bc6927513c40515310aa5f19
4949b4e8d82546e34ab397228fc5ded45b12ff91
F20110113_AADDIS garciacasellas_m_Page_39.tif
c50a5128f4a6e3600182820c0918dfa8
c04bd69cf508ecf4257b766ab7f64e6d297bc7ed
173908 F20110113_AADDJH garciacasellas_m_Page_48.jpg
ee21be704502cd4b592acc4d33024843
73c1fb1e014e036089d8d5d47561c0d0bca00bf6
61201 F20110113_AADDIT garciacasellas_m_Page_73.QC.jpg
6fe9488885e341d62539fed04a8be7ce
5c36976a920da67f10a0a400f9beeb626b8d5435
94739 F20110113_AADDJI garciacasellas_m_Page_52.jpg
cbff681b271bec89c51f4441f3773196
59b4216b433483295b1459dd4ecc0a67854f5284
18071 F20110113_AADDIU garciacasellas_m_Page_65.pro
2cac15ac42af529a57d6fa74fac5f4a1
aae8e0c7a6553b86fd9f1d9a6613a90c76fd01db
207765 F20110113_AADDJJ garciacasellas_m_Page_32.jpg
c570ae7b55c881843cdb85acc3e9d8ad
6680aa7fa65b38ac1a811a53a2ad55d980d4d0ec
736 F20110113_AADDIV garciacasellas_m_Page_09.txt
288080b7dbdf40c175c1f45d1ce54b85
cd6ffe9f6c9de77c469199c68c9b0fa675ee54b0
20841 F20110113_AADDJK garciacasellas_m_Page_68thm.jpg
e6e9bbf10d69a1dffa263d53a02b5d98
c7905df15b879fbb4eefa8d00efeea60c1e61042
2346 F20110113_AADDIW garciacasellas_m_Page_88.txt
554fb5b1ce663d6fad738851691a6f7c
94a621736601bb6dacffecefb4a0a7942d658040
47196 F20110113_AADDJL garciacasellas_m_Page_55.QC.jpg
5281587c39d8807a84c3b0454dc23594
20ba42796b9854d3d9bed528b9e508fcf7022141
1777 F20110113_AADDIX garciacasellas_m_Page_73.txt
a13f999f8afd44ccf5c69e3b562fb0a5
8c5c8539150f8a50b50bd006f2e69344eb076955
1051967 F20110113_AADDKA garciacasellas_m_Page_05.jp2
1bd8173fcba512fa83be9407156c285a
d926e3c48c1024b8009e9e8b5e6261fe6e7715c3
40813 F20110113_AADDJM garciacasellas_m_Page_51.pro
a06f3fdc5117883a5a0ab467085d3019
8ba3e3f1e9c32593b3a8085894f832cee23539bb
33555 F20110113_AADDIY garciacasellas_m_Page_71.pro
fa4c54d8ddebbcda3c73f8a7b6f4b652
6816e19e13644192db58091be5d078ab41c2f18e
1471 F20110113_AADDKB garciacasellas_m_Page_59.txt
0cde5c75c1a8c5d3a409d92bb6b0dc21
f50a95f15cbb6a0c1e1a8b2427f462e0b508d445
22833 F20110113_AADDJN garciacasellas_m_Page_82thm.jpg
27e5a3a7399d81722cbe27bbbca2c949
7e10e31e76bff6ba0679e457e5603389de59faf3
1746 F20110113_AADDIZ garciacasellas_m_Page_42.txt
651bc06ab2943236fe06586f98a8d18c
a3aac89e21140d6e27aba8f8575f59a1901975e8
112637 F20110113_AADDKC garciacasellas_m_Page_37.jp2
a3ad41a8f655f503bb01906a86804f36
ae719139edd8eb7e0fd25cd64f8a1f65a528e31f
153761 F20110113_AADDJO garciacasellas_m_Page_58.jpg
67e86a1165cfa0d01d771cd205868b54
274df1509c8fbc5732d70fe02d05f83bab6c8557
84079 F20110113_AADDKD garciacasellas_m_Page_16.QC.jpg
a3f10ee4ef685a1f7de2289fcd9acea6
dad4c6f31ca4bf241c64b263536fc8f32c939ca0
21653 F20110113_AADDJP garciacasellas_m_Page_64thm.jpg
d38ae6f112c1125d7bf5558cb429a7ba
9d9f7923bff1a3c7e1561ec0d5ef317d4eba7a56
76397 F20110113_AADDKE garciacasellas_m_Page_69.jp2
dfe713aefb4398e4e53c7704100248c5
297cb1af2258d68df5331efcd612bcba283ed47d
30653 F20110113_AADDJQ garciacasellas_m_Page_84.QC.jpg
57ae756482bc3fa0c6783bebf435e44d
4df027635e75db001d2c178b814dd141e0c2f11f
49907 F20110113_AADDKF garciacasellas_m_Page_59.QC.jpg
55470639b4c97aad5c30b550983b7d2e
a9babf56d4a43d9b916d99df399e2a5d529e6155
24263 F20110113_AADDKG garciacasellas_m_Page_62.pro
937a21c35dcb62d4bda3d613d392efbd
2ac2f432a42b1c88e763bdfdce625379408964d6
1535 F20110113_AADDJR garciacasellas_m_Page_67.txt
e76003f257b08967c5b5286c863447f9
472fc7eaf8d03e3413357e533eb5bf680854abe5
49847 F20110113_AADDKH garciacasellas_m_Page_20thm.jpg
a3fa6b194f6b0bf7094c69e9df70fe69
a9a8325206a23e8ab9a329cdc1e7695756b576d9
1515 F20110113_AADDJS garciacasellas_m_Page_74.txt
24031d97c3d35559390e55460f678890
c71b9bccc6013ffd6e0d045bee0a0ce6e1191f0f
1136 F20110113_AADDKI garciacasellas_m_Page_65.txt
1a3d13c48ea48a8e594eeadc4d21331f
ea0cdd0ee4abdb8e32cd44d93a85b13281a0f7d2
2315 F20110113_AADDJT garciacasellas_m_Page_89.txt
30a1c72b50f91f8a7abf6e2781c4d389
f684aa506576c3b8c06407c32b23987da8c78651
40028 F20110113_AADDKJ garciacasellas_m_Page_47.pro
2d3c8d62c6c8e71bfbd728c80302c660
8e544be1eb26f2a6ae80e5774a8b39ad0f00caf4
65182 F20110113_AADDJU garciacasellas_m_Page_29.QC.jpg
b1efc90f54201a4eeba426bf57ec5c8c
787a888a63b69bb183dc5321c8fecdda3ba58db7
24904 F20110113_AADDKK garciacasellas_m_Page_81thm.jpg
459a5971e4f3c6f0330f595654797b64
06b4a2a3b2d9ac117a4068aac9ddb4ab3887e22e
18026 F20110113_AADDJV garciacasellas_m_Page_25thm.jpg
c60a48cd7e403551b5391038c601c050
e5c538c6c32196e48052af709057f159e49113d1
F20110113_AADDKL garciacasellas_m_Page_21.tif
e20fc1a3b3e8a5950864fa766b0436bc
7503c7125fe7fe030b5032002fa47d057ecfde37
1691 F20110113_AADDJW garciacasellas_m_Page_10.txt
7c7295dd584ec13d03185acf7a392a6e
ef7cd85f188412eda8ba200b7a20ef9ab6661d15
73761 F20110113_AADDLA garciacasellas_m_Page_21.QC.jpg
0af17eb14b46568d7f639c5c38dca26d
fb006a89b136839287c5934a81975f3b6553fc95
23426 F20110113_AADDKM garciacasellas_m_Page_54thm.jpg
9da00aa43150609d0b9f968c97b77da3
e6f93a7e0476f8cb66a20cda6b57cbf5f313776d
7494 F20110113_AADDJX garciacasellas_m_Page_01.pro
f49824b4c17dbf66de46c8311217d818
f4d862f817427340d296ba2a5a6943a4678689b4
1091 F20110113_AADDLB garciacasellas_m_Page_63.txt
45cc338c889996b099f173c1c8e9d9b9
aee77d887257722c9993327a728ed4fe816d7359
50414 F20110113_AADDKN garciacasellas_m_Page_39.pro
8dfd2f7fbf008c46bbd463419280fe27
bad3fd73cc495e8cd3273be3866df59e0ec5047a
3920 F20110113_AADDJY garciacasellas_m_Page_03.pro
8433f3e9bf207b29042753edce393ad5
de94d4c77d422825b5ef3981c59f439821edd5ad
1793 F20110113_AADDLC garciacasellas_m_Page_35.txt
b73504f1e54c695cd30255252f046124
6d28c9d4a49ef9c0b3d538834b0428481c525670
200601 F20110113_AADDKO garciacasellas_m_Page_54.jpg
eb07cc040ed2a86f751590ad45dbc29f
3c9f14d5726b1297c4e41d3396e28f06d6e25c67
100585 F20110113_AADDJZ garciacasellas_m_Page_11.jpg
8024c9dff9286a6120d3cfc5c5dd79e0
bb9015f48326905935eaf82c1f34c37202e56c11
94356 F20110113_AADDLD garciacasellas_m_Page_87.QC.jpg
a275253254746e74c158f80d2a6000ce
9bd10479ae4562f9e7607f7e2a497c31a403e560
31188 F20110113_AADDKP garciacasellas_m_Page_91.jp2
7d302ad1ac3dc72d7bfd0ff1eb7f6be4
63b6c31cbdd803989e910d8aba2a2f577c4600b6
77204 F20110113_AADDLE garciacasellas_m_Page_85.jpg
fc76e56e901be1f251a179e4e048075d
66f83e249ca66b10acf62dcbfe66e329367f0a09
51034 F20110113_AADDKQ garciacasellas_m_Page_76.QC.jpg
5a5885be4c98b3aed76eb7ad3baa14eb
6a41d1f0b7e73b7360ff37ec0f1bc8806f2f55c0
10553 F20110113_AADDLF garciacasellas_m_Page_85thm.jpg
5cbf032ed13882eb1700961be64109c5
f699822ebfee06b46ad33ff689320fa5683ff8ce
854550 F20110113_AADDKR garciacasellas_m_Page_24.jp2
c76604d3d29961210d7aa37552b67d22
b647fed766e9ce71c418945dfb9b9362edd59dc3
48080 F20110113_AADDLG garciacasellas_m_Page_26.pro
d9441bc199cc4634ce7137c53b3d2df8
bf4691366e3b8dd541a78633b1f479fbc3393304
89688 F20110113_AADDLH garciacasellas_m_Page_51.jp2
b6310db1e0df7ab8d06fbeb7b9165578
23556010c4548b1ad99c208ca5c18c4d42820f77
215882 F20110113_AADDKS garciacasellas_m_Page_39.jpg
d3a7ed610034bf6225d02f0347b7e906
7e4fb2d7ad60d29e4a2d0f9bc436aa74571759e2
101406 F20110113_AADDLI garciacasellas_m_Page_72.jpg
fe6563557599cdb85301c368295cdb6d
357c6638283bebef85c7ec4f0d6c816472a092ce
12680 F20110113_AADDKT garciacasellas_m_Page_14.pro
8a847b23b2e4031d3f422d80fe1f373c
f2a223c25eff2121b81d1a39cf70d6bcc715464d
90573 F20110113_AADDLJ garciacasellas_m_Page_79.jp2
f22120608ed3ef12dfb0fb4afb9c10b6
eedf947eac1fc09bd5e076d73678dd077d6f4fdf
29023 F20110113_AADDKU garciacasellas_m_Page_55.pro
d8c797ba7a10d5848de44b060a8021d0
fc14fb5abbae74e30beb7e518b5c41ddb6869b7f
37670 F20110113_AADDLK garciacasellas_m_Page_75.pro
fe1bc41a82615d9a881125f2955bf179
c4021ce4954f5690d84575591137e719b66a4e0d
108238 F20110113_AADDKV garciacasellas_m_Page_17.jp2
c706a3cbe5e936ebd802813ef2d7382b
ca4466ab815814ad048f04bf6e85af8892ac735f
1932 F20110113_AADDLL garciacasellas_m_Page_19.txt
e6ad15eff38526a6015d5e34fcb126f1
e8ecc3de66d1dcd435d794af6e683afb300051cb
F20110113_AADDKW garciacasellas_m_Page_15.tif
ed0e60c188204579e750a0656e0bfa2a
3ad221dc96a89ec3ce190b81aa0245e3f7ffc14e
24214 F20110113_AADDLM garciacasellas_m_Page_43thm.jpg
2a0e412fbca5535fe30cd53e8df2ea06
025f17030ccc9944dff4b7270577227c03587b8b
37064 F20110113_AADDKX garciacasellas_m_Page_45.pro
e19ada9cd39cc6b35a590f1ff6f062dc
d32fa0276d3dcdc81e6a5fd7939eb02bf29e3efe
F20110113_AADDMA garciacasellas_m_Page_76.tif
f0cd61f753165794a0943989bbcbf007
dec247ae69f1d1180f9df1c01204c341197174f9
20369 F20110113_AADDLN garciacasellas_m_Page_77thm.jpg
7a9cdba97cf513063b960c214d85a1f5
404e77026832c768b3dde4cb486ece9cb8b9c291
F20110113_AADDKY garciacasellas_m_Page_11.tif
093cc19666dc0de9b0752bc3e6cdfdcf
137a3d6985a0229cc7bdec2b3491024d02593ace
1991 F20110113_AADDMB garciacasellas_m_Page_32.txt
e1abdeae87938b9cd44d7a4890d035a4
d8a05d0dd09001b0a37203ec21b3b6c6d2cd4151
46233 F20110113_AADDLO garciacasellas_m_Page_06thm.jpg
ee34bb7556343fe0e2aa08dae9167cf6
a1b43a228818fd519574c81699959aefa802588b
171613 F20110113_AADDKZ garciacasellas_m_Page_51.jpg
1878e656f04bf58bb1bbfc28af8a7600
e7270b4324da6553f85b77cfb66df2e411e61861
F20110113_AADDMC garciacasellas_m_Page_60.tif
e34d3a225db3355bbfc81b29ce204a40
be38f0333da10822b6fd98a66bd85d1c9c5dfb3c
1051945 F20110113_AADDLP garciacasellas_m_Page_06.jp2
0d1d72540c752413917fd017250b3005
0f6114743e211d41f98ffd28247dc78baf8129f2
46660 F20110113_AADDMD garciacasellas_m_Page_82.pro
57e8cf8cd173eda50b01b0e6a9879d7e
9b2cbf4662015bfae3d133aaeb25dd8b1320750c
50883 F20110113_AADDLQ garciacasellas_m_Page_17.pro
3b2dfd854ceeecca68321607b5e31f5f
5e2742f53485128852b3950b2e067af34cda6e06
F20110113_AADDME garciacasellas_m_Page_24.tif
0c3f535e2c7a7394901d38c470a18787
12cd64cfcbb856ee3b6f73d7553b723589120044
175669 F20110113_AADDLR garciacasellas_m_Page_79.jpg
a6fe56cb8b1300160ccb87ddd6ab0778
c3a9e6c7181fa683d7e20dde33ca2167c5026160
175711 F20110113_AADDMF garciacasellas_m_Page_16.jpg
cd9ba7fc2b910aa3dc134600bc64bdac
f3b62faaba3f602b6cffda517f63acd1aee029a0
82032 F20110113_AADDLS garciacasellas_m_Page_37.QC.jpg
0cdc256eba39bc99209451153c958dfc
9501d7c99a06338132ee03395ac77157319dc9b6
2802 F20110113_AADDMG garciacasellas_m_Page_06.txt
1daa4777cf99923d7e47bffffca5c453
9f1785a95759a19a3f413a6edcfe287f1db29662
F20110113_AADDMH garciacasellas_m_Page_46.tif
1d092afbbf6107de88e05f5c82556a9a
c8eb97a68dbe3b4753f68d5b9559135ac6cb859f
1863 F20110113_AADDLT garciacasellas_m_Page_21.txt
aa5c0157255214dc9bed2d43dc3345e9
d1f69da7b1553efe3bbc969b28b7adfc3a1625ff
15955 F20110113_AADDMI garciacasellas_m_Page_02.jpg
6baa67d12c78189a5d125e2c0d865072
51ee1e55853dcde85c413a495c7ca4e7d1c5aea3
46761 F20110113_AADDLU garciacasellas_m_Page_31.pro
15f000bd9acf4f2c0982ee39cff52574
d8bcc705e6b8e7941708d28818f47b856343badd
48323 F20110113_AADDMJ garciacasellas_m_Page_46.pro
48afb06a33b73bec8343b1df3a268332
6fb10ffbb20db06025d131bcf4b227613cd83100
816330 F20110113_AADDLV garciacasellas_m_Page_16.jp2
c81e0341efcbe4b6d94b55b4371ab55d
70b5f806bd7cd7599847da982f9f6af3d20d363d
20002 F20110113_AADDMK garciacasellas_m_Page_12thm.jpg
22db05cf0dccd59b560c7201a76e23e6
86e5c05404aa1acdbbb1f1208f0b65b3cd99d05e
194902 F20110113_AADDLW garciacasellas_m_Page_33.jpg
beb0e5400a2defae441163684856441c
d2133d99de1e6b874008a2c90666243bcf81ad53
23550 F20110113_AADDML garciacasellas_m_Page_49thm.jpg
90d38f4e5d97cd053dab6532c9b60db1
52130b1a7fd08cdb552f20009c6ad7e92b58d856
154417 F20110113_AADDLX garciacasellas_m_Page_69.jpg
5e701508a6fba35c57ed67ed08630c56
fb004fa03fd1772aa642da944deea39c4081cbba
171033 F20110113_AADDNA garciacasellas_m_Page_10.jpg
fbbd818c46e2d6389063f9b7a006bcc4
f32e69dcd61e0f8b9425820e7d2f3c9b3ef06032
1605 F20110113_AADDMM garciacasellas_m_Page_12.txt
cb3ffd19ea976011cbc9213b56261b1f
d2c25cf7fdefd55352c18f274af09145f425934b
161805 F20110113_AADDLY garciacasellas_m_Page_57.jpg
3d627e299e7f6c7bf81a659ab0de230f
2dc3ba7119df1531bfab7cef8569abe5dbbfce06
F20110113_AADDNB garciacasellas_m_Page_74.tif
959511cd88750806fe0bdea39221dd2e
8eda1b52981908630cbe1b29bb6ded84612ad4a7
168431 F20110113_AADDMN garciacasellas_m_Page_75.jpg
7f1e6af318aca9c5b2f0c0ad7653808d
fde114dff04534033672cba54f28cceae491ed87
F20110113_AADDLZ garciacasellas_m_Page_81.tif
2a1d1cd489e05ab40d6df7981db21528
dd9d0d3a2454615ab3b360da6c83378e81d7528e
1832 F20110113_AADDNC garciacasellas_m_Page_44.txt
4501605b1fc7d026f5007927df3c4aed
827aeb00e018b9fa45a1f3bfdce65d18fdb2b3c5
164583 F20110113_AADDMO garciacasellas_m_Page_60.jpg
4fefcaec8d51a5b33ee2135a5c2f88bf
458c60659fd7753098b6393eef7e0f75950bac31
F20110113_AADDND garciacasellas_m_Page_79.pro
bec247578c835ab2d4b32d8098e84426
6cdafbb2bc466c15571b868077bb204024ef60e0
97118 F20110113_AADDMP garciacasellas_m_Page_78.jpg
6358a34e3d0ec593e25da6ff6b4c1496
6b4ffd6252c70451c957c89175a05dcc7075d1b5
74133 F20110113_AADDNE garciacasellas_m_Page_43.QC.jpg
3f566de204665ef68958e3a3b00f2b3b
f9e176f736d59534ef3a0887f0d9c843d38a94db
73711 F20110113_AADDMQ garciacasellas_m_Page_49.QC.jpg
74cbc6ce132606acb46d873629725903
619cf7f7b304d4554281ee8d6792a4b4e845a124
67723 F20110113_AADDNF garciacasellas_m_Page_68.QC.jpg
b978f7f57c7eb9cc35b573da97efc3d1
b7a98e84dfd8e628ce63b26e98d5ebe5a1950089
103590 F20110113_AADDMR garciacasellas_m_Page_54.jp2
b885da414375dd5a7f5468f29ee5dfd9
99b3aa61aba88125f4583a57bc9a107a5a75cfde
24052 F20110113_AADDNG garciacasellas_m_Page_19thm.jpg
9e31f0b162eac06a264028fa9f583d9b
d3c899a255a5fafe7b2b06002461a3b659eaa701
F20110113_AADDMS garciacasellas_m_Page_03.tif
b7b2a0eea5c2dc01a91007ac49191fd5
df559ffee4d54b879b66ce15dcba4bd185613799
18890 F20110113_AADDNH garciacasellas_m_Page_04thm.jpg
7db9326137e824d1f462f5604a5348d4
123962e7e561872df900ef6bdc8c1edee50b195c
64906 F20110113_AADDMT garciacasellas_m_Page_64.QC.jpg
17318ba0a4f431d4a61895ac101f4160
79db25e7abe11bd933d7f14be2c5c86952aef94d
F20110113_AADDNI garciacasellas_m_Page_85.tif
e405688328712a4ed1dc69d602947ebe
d70686e715f79e6d2505fc0ea6918693e9810af7
26424 F20110113_AADDNJ garciacasellas_m_Page_56.QC.jpg
b876e23f141e5f32dff61779538079b2
2b53c1ae2f86b347044a4bb7caeb94a93dfec7d1
68995 F20110113_AADDMU garciacasellas_m_Page_76.jp2
e4bd36a03a66ac223a542030be24312c
2acf3843a75172b880afc18d1c07c9516d8de1db
F20110113_AADDNK garciacasellas_m_Page_28.tif
ee3acbefb826cdb5a9c7a62e0e675fd0
600c1da112b963a45e6d1bfb1336a4753c6e1be3
204944 F20110113_AADDMV garciacasellas_m_Page_19.jpg
f898f26a535fd46c8dcc544d5ebedd68
05bfefbde091a6fda79bb76255786433488b9029
133326 F20110113_AADDNL garciacasellas_m_Page_61.jpg
869b735ced9fb7b4f7b3ba20eff22ca7
45bf1fbcd18edfef4f40ef988c0e62aef542f0bf
76188 F20110113_AADDMW garciacasellas_m_Page_15.QC.jpg
e31efce15801a3a97c0a6d9e0e9aa5d4
8dceea582fccf3c942bad6c81c50660dd0d41c9a
16066 F20110113_AADDOA garciacasellas_m_Page_61thm.jpg
32959aa2e4350339bcace9f1caf3fbf0
54c246f89467ac62ff5320a5ed7079252bebd5b3
28622 F20110113_AADDNM garciacasellas_m_Page_27.QC.jpg
59068571c9fecfe6407eca5c3ab2d73c
27948a8271bd79051c1c3777321e62c01aac0408
102522 F20110113_AADDMX garciacasellas_m_Page_15.jp2
467cf6e505c37489a3c6c034a36dff0c
ae58a161183a8feac9130a329a2dd321cb0e9fcf
26990 F20110113_AADDOB garciacasellas_m_Page_85.QC.jpg
47e397aa4ac8aaea6723da28a740e474
d754eaacf1ce1cbc4b62839af4bb1db44542756e
64285 F20110113_AADDNN garciacasellas_m_Page_42.QC.jpg
546c7d485a8d7a42bb3d1a9ab04e1aca
e694a645a3c91d140e00df91ccc8966781690a49
F20110113_AADDMY garciacasellas_m_Page_82.tif
d414e9d58c0e79ec372f89c190aa4952
9399a34f128444a7d381f39f275e1f83f081cda4
117473 F20110113_AADDOC garciacasellas_m_Page_07.QC.jpg
5c23b7cc2b51fe2bd1f3c311eecd404f
61e7129f10a92c475a60e9002e208717819a8ffd
219383 F20110113_AADDNO garciacasellas_m_Page_37.jpg
a156c6cf55659e2c239f703b1ea001a1
b8a101d533a5bfed9342efcbe9c0a6df69607708
F20110113_AADDMZ garciacasellas_m_Page_75.tif
0a2bf31d78c5d0a19bb4beaf0ccdac0c
8fa13ea56507234c475089786619eecac2cddfea
37054 F20110113_AADDOD garciacasellas_m_Page_78.QC.jpg
47df2a2f65f5caaab60d9f483b69e15b
68e2f86afc1659a9c0c3bbbde9763e21b86a4f42
57134 F20110113_AADDNP garciacasellas_m_Page_89.pro
b52d8e9d89f11f3cf6704b930dfa03cd
5d7081c65dfaa5064fd457a7e0c8b02f5906b642
150468 F20110113_AADDNQ garciacasellas_m_Page_59.jpg
8c8898c9230a974a30e92efb9a5082b0
541880488467b3e68f173480c14db676959b0bc1
77266 F20110113_AADDOE garciacasellas_m_Page_40.QC.jpg
6f7e7179ec78ac842970c8ad5d5d7947
507969338515c1afb1cea49948bad84bcf4a3ba8
50243 F20110113_AADDNR garciacasellas_m_Page_32.pro
87ec9cc302e17347714517c3b9988918
f199adf7d9c9c6c89d5c07923b16738a02655f21
F20110113_AADDOF garciacasellas_m_Page_25.tif
e3f86affdf11adc3ae388307ddf910cf
0199b99b732331623753a31711ebdc0f2ed76fea
F20110113_AADDNS garciacasellas_m_Page_59.tif
f20649e53a23bcd56f9453c074f2696d
0100e0c0f8c02f75c2636a02b6f7ae4de00410c7
1634 F20110113_AADDOG garciacasellas_m_Page_51.txt
f5016da4e5234c26b8b66f33fd65781f
563871235df7536d3569fabe1a5f32738e22032f
16880 F20110113_AADDNT garciacasellas_m_Page_84.pro
a47cd87a29662c5f9d596416fe46160f
f7fb4c612d693c4981f5357a512db3ab6e0796fc
18787 F20110113_AADDOH garciacasellas_m_Page_83thm.jpg
bbf61c8cb9d7694e789b88f9c0258206
ce4d5f51ef9ac0f0985303ccdfc1db359c59a0f0
F20110113_AADDNU garciacasellas_m_Page_29.tif
f2878fb28c6599edbb76ee2250d3b0e5
118ed91a49fda94d6ac51fe71e51a25fb54b49ef
200873 F20110113_AADDOI garciacasellas_m_Page_15.jpg
6fc03abd54cd31e1f24f2eb11d8ed6db
3be7ef08ad172b060a5f67cc14f0a00bce03d8c3
26775 F20110113_AADDOJ garciacasellas_m_Page_03.jpg
be710e3e0ab937c65793997bc2d7f2c8
c0c224e116b6cecf0e4c7065a6f7ff7f324044c9
1656 F20110113_AADDNV garciacasellas_m_Page_69.txt
b5df918e2ad1744849c2c05fac48dd35
5dcde88e8046fd2732184f070783dd7edd37546d
38668 F20110113_AADDOK garciacasellas_m_Page_57.pro
a33d82d09f3027d9463ac9cd8b0cabaa
0eca249727949ffd0646926666c212c7e1c23df2
F20110113_AADDNW garciacasellas_m_Page_20.jp2
2d193e16a56d2dc9b3444e31f6360cd6
6525e11363603dfc97ec79b1839ac27fa5b7032c
194976 F20110113_AADDOL garciacasellas_m_Page_43.jpg
e782126a6e01d51c0ef862326820290a
836d40d5f91734a77bc202909d27bb73a3443acd
56771 F20110113_AADDNX garciacasellas_m_Page_28.QC.jpg
0cb6569ece967932a9ea5eaf65af614f
4858469ca7200391b2788f91461a73a542ae588e
73527 F20110113_AADDPA garciacasellas_m_Page_59.jp2
d58199f4e1cc70c4372a8dfcd083d56a
91feb8606e25826d145491d98de6d5f0393f418d
51852 F20110113_AADDOM garciacasellas_m_Page_37.pro
e29a2c14e58c25599115aaf7f13f8533
42bf70792f7a8a9ba5d3d7c609188a4432136be9
76675 F20110113_AADDNY garciacasellas_m_Page_80.QC.jpg
2001fc0b01dd6f382d663aa47b4ced68
ad18bd238bcec4dc6e7c9a51e232c7c8e2e7fe40
49996 F20110113_AADDPB garciacasellas_m_Page_40.pro
77a7f9ea272f9ddd895b2b839f3decc6
983df2f67e3803d1ceb25b6c2912fc79913965e9
45697 F20110113_AADDON garciacasellas_m_Page_24thm.jpg
0170bd3d48a824c46e1061403c5764ff
7d0a7dd388504b176527cf370e4a596f58a59b53
1317 F20110113_AADDNZ garciacasellas_m_Page_86.txt
66d1bd6aab764f138b7c607b1dd0b796
4573e51aa14ada1dec70d59777483f00643b9c73
79930 F20110113_AADDPC garciacasellas_m_Page_17.QC.jpg
c5eae7cc9cbe95bc2e4d1a63c9e7d639
dce8c424708ef83ff3ea70ab3cea4c91016e093d
78846 F20110113_AADDOO garciacasellas_m_Page_86.jpg
333748cb8908a516af06752ee3061f7e
ff8f293e39c526d344f2fd4f9cc51d8b27d88780
75614 F20110113_AADDPD garciacasellas_m_Page_31.QC.jpg
2940ad70bc4e21ab05e8b2f7cd7b88a0
22051555643ab8adc8c271a7830424e8003bf377
103249 F20110113_AADDOP garciacasellas_m_Page_31.jp2
345aa10c74da874a26adaeaca7d10e28
75565593cf697d3a3c4df042efcd707ab4f47672
51385 F20110113_AADDPE garciacasellas_m_Page_88thm.jpg
74c19f22157822d11dd5d6b1c1c0e7fc
63f028647b9f35d818ee97c286f0e59af51c283a
1871 F20110113_AADDOQ garciacasellas_m_Page_34.txt
80c1a56d5a62177ef6a315e82957d8ef
1b65d2054a5a44db3329651727706dbde9a707d3
75596 F20110113_AADDPF garciacasellas_m_Page_13.QC.jpg
92b65bfb1fc9044bc7f362c6ace3b13e
80c3a7d8abc5d029e03bb77e528e1fbebdf06b73
F20110113_AADDOR garciacasellas_m_Page_69.tif
65dfff5abbeff85948c4448f0aa6a899
3d44c5bd7cd6dd3fd1685a4ae22797b704534644
68967 F20110113_AADDPG garciacasellas_m_Page_53.QC.jpg
1f23370f39c79466a50badbde995173c
3e2f8c39f378241bd4fb2838fef1912eeacc0159
155366 F20110113_AADDOS garciacasellas_m_Page_04.jpg
2d257eeee08dfcca53c72d1460295a1a
826ef360774130437da797f337247770c27e6c60
921 F20110113_AADDPH garciacasellas_m_Page_11.txt
d11fb8e41beec21105fa4688b75e5a4a
ab8f1b6d614bcccf84db4b35097f896637cb8c6a
36073 F20110113_AADDOT garciacasellas_m_Page_41.pro
e819ad74638148f011f3929cf1d256c8
426a27234d774ceefc46471180459f22d66f69a6
1674 F20110113_AADDPI garciacasellas_m_Page_90.txt
837a43f13abb0f3276cda76a92c56ba9
94c39672f4be77804a3b6c104c18d67bb017867f
21884 F20110113_AADDOU garciacasellas_m_Page_67thm.jpg
82a73276a3da57845f389616fb173583
16ef4223729fa1d00f4044b045707f0c74e6b2c5
131 F20110113_AADDPJ garciacasellas_m_Page_02.txt
b253c9692d8e80e3c94beda5d1320326
5392a5b474ac27bd337a541393b0f1044adfc763
F20110113_AADDOV garciacasellas_m_Page_01.tif
0e25db4d5d9c0e45041f2e68d7dae117
2e09449f13569d0455051fcd7a3a43152f575445
161449 F20110113_AADDPK garciacasellas_m_Page_73.jpg
6baf0b52c65a37c94d8e768bf9a3233c
2fc7abddd414de89ec344831b62c2fe5152f464e
F20110113_AADDPL garciacasellas_m_Page_42.tif
fdb207385f3df28f48eb24ecbfd972d0
741d336c74a39cd12a44fca4870b5dab5cc9df8e
193395 F20110113_AADDOW garciacasellas_m_Page_34.jpg
342f37e3e141573f399bb5804191842f
c4cf32c0192425e39e72fad4db4e359e0a30ec8b
192904 F20110113_AADDQA garciacasellas_m_Page_21.jpg
046be5c4a086db12acd38ced95004daa
94ee704328929ec2c43e55b28b2b06ddb5d1f83b
F20110113_AADDPM garciacasellas_m_Page_04.tif
33b4b9c16fe6b17284153e13c584c1ac
ed726fc2820a76606832166ef5d0c930f328945e
6821 F20110113_AADDOX garciacasellas_m_Page_01thm.jpg
b882d47101f8d6ffb3534df4a634eb53
54cfd82e3180d7721680f8ee636fbcbdf5d946e1
1887 F20110113_AADDQB garciacasellas_m_Page_23.txt
5f1575adcd0e27e53cfc033faecef57f
5b00329098d7053dc69b55958bd934dc1b35837e
F20110113_AADDPN garciacasellas_m_Page_22.tif
4982873fa8cf2e6eebff3311c4383e6c
3cb0d089ad169256013e3b186c5ae5fd810eb1f7
63541 F20110113_AADDOY garciacasellas_m_Page_66.jp2
332cda2c50a965376b845489f94f9d82
270f8aa725daf06d27fddc764b9027864a3fbb8e
149948 F20110113_AADDQC garciacasellas_m_Page_83.jpg
52d5aa02ccfea361777a83e4fd969a58
9a60d9c8c7119fa4bdc24273d80d7a1246eb5293
F20110113_AADDPO garciacasellas_m_Page_51.tif
7568b4d153b945ab6846d6ae9069d1f7
5c56f79e10ef99e796b9d7f803c5464ae822f7b5
142703 F20110113_AADDOZ garciacasellas_m_Page_25.jpg
decba2f873fcbcca05ae594a9c158ec3
b2ec8d471a9f6b919712c2dc8b92154e5eedb348
8328 F20110113_AADDQD garciacasellas_m_Page_03.QC.jpg
d7b79aab7fd5d2b6fba47b46ba56cda9
1c0cf52b9e7b554102d584fc83d4955b8f308cf9
F20110113_AADDPP garciacasellas_m_Page_89.tif
b391e4a0fe905ff1bd62b2e5dd1e462a
9f7a69d90a85b9273df644bc11e571f00b2b56ba
543 F20110113_AADDQE garciacasellas_m_Page_91.txt
54521122de654aa87be95ca53dfa02b7
ee878f677c0f6cca44c5b1da515050a24fa831ec
40164 F20110113_AADDPQ garciacasellas_m_Page_63.QC.jpg
d21ef0c1dcae456925119e21a1aa226e
b78f22abaf2fb8edd2c406cd6e4a12e21c2adfa0
22822 F20110113_AADDQF garciacasellas_m_Page_30thm.jpg
8d864fb2f36215d48b78f4b09dc6bec4
241c769a601266b8c1fa4e7c38f6f6edc399ecb0
46812 F20110113_AADDPR garciacasellas_m_Page_33.pro
e4ae001bf1d548b95a59d19b7ca68473
9006008b19b2cdc8a7e0b16eee893fed58b165e4
27691 F20110113_AADDQG garciacasellas_m_Page_70.pro
50e9fdb984ac21f15152568c51eb547c
3614fedb5fe2d2a842a64703bebc151fb2c1ebaa
103461 F20110113_AADDPS garciacasellas_m_Page_20.QC.jpg
f800152afda0d4b8e5e8cffb00dfcf46
49eb24c656396a0323ef8b4429c4cde4d9a8ce83
17862 F20110113_AADDQH garciacasellas_m_Page_58thm.jpg
63d5db521c52a8c368c931dc4e137535
0112d6b88598788f2bfd9b77f526d87350808b62
47968 F20110113_AADDPT garciacasellas_m_Page_13.pro
4b0e7c891a52d896aac83533fdf8fda8
20be76d79ca5680ef67c792b404030d5c044701e
1051982 F20110113_AADDQI garciacasellas_m_Page_08.jp2
dba940f38e9306eac819c5b4e6e7867f
23d03218cfe46b9c2eb78c776a71b8c57b2b32b5
46179 F20110113_AADDPU garciacasellas_m_Page_87thm.jpg
cd5a7ffb9a4fd5fe4c716d3f02cc3f60
541bb16073970cc2c3c6621439f08d236ed41e7c
112949 F20110113_AADDQJ garciacasellas_m_Page_49.jp2
ef9c845fc2d9080c5951041f41b30946
585a7a38f67ad60db398632b36fff4d2f2df8197
32599 F20110113_AADDPV garciacasellas_m_Page_77.pro
32f5a356ec11cb814cb1c82689112feb
b1e30c7bb1445acbc4ddffd2adc53ee1399946ff
70030 F20110113_AADDQK garciacasellas_m_Page_27.jpg
e8c74598577661a739569f6d35b66095
e5e331de22deacd026020493ed76ca523cce2c01
86196 F20110113_AADDPW garciacasellas_m_Page_84.jpg
bdbca623579e032715bbfcfcd5e11593
d8d461fb57693ee964c36ef9f357a2dd492590ce
83126 F20110113_AADDQL garciacasellas_m_Page_60.jp2
8bdcacdf2c832bae7de19bfd60da4243
a4992d36398e8e5a58548c2fc0a046ad52111a5c
47417 F20110113_AADDQM garciacasellas_m_Page_23.pro
526623d5003493a57f2634d198f29a5f
7536a51419417e346b8745c90d3b55b2ed7009b3
977452 F20110113_AADDPX garciacasellas_m_Page_90.jp2
eabe591dbacefc96f0dcab0b63496690
31eaaad702602579bef6e102fd4d90a2dbc61aa5
37869 F20110113_AADDRA garciacasellas_m_Page_11.QC.jpg
67cd527bb802a1fe0816647f44b8ca89
dec5316f35af27f4f2e7fe2866d51af37cbf6fcd
72449 F20110113_AADDQN garciacasellas_m_Page_23.QC.jpg
9dfdd4f499e24469ffd334d587a24804
1e74f3a6853fdd3ff53266726085864a413c88d2
188459 F20110113_AADDPY garciacasellas_m_Page_53.jpg
7d5428b9f2ae9a10c9153a913e557435
2e58cabd32f935d8fb8be418cec6c8e079eb0c6e
1868 F20110113_AADDRB garciacasellas_m_Page_33.txt
a95291f084e18b6f457c44f7ff928547
00010f3c5253a0ee2b99a41f123367398ca4ecd4
2112 F20110113_AADDQO garciacasellas_m_Page_08.txt
e638e0096a0f546a1f853af3fce58e37
c57f47510d717d0c77fa990d9a6c669afaac3d87
50722 F20110113_AADDPZ garciacasellas_m_Page_36.pro
37c9500df8fea4e040a19528a2a1ccd9
f6b179d7cd49070982a5f4578e03483458c8ad48
87996 F20110113_AADDRC garciacasellas_m_Page_05.QC.jpg
9cdd594aaa207b518d7dc027bcb290a5
733df3198ea018c7870cc9a207e99e832751b85f
F20110113_AADDQP garciacasellas_m_Page_66.tif
7c8f94d1bda44e52c6336b295e91905b
1228f4bdd90d4073a6fb8fef875744de22a04f62
F20110113_AADDRD garciacasellas_m_Page_38.tif
d89a5520e69d44131857375a32f5f4d9
672294970763fe8530e631f9f2ac858290dca61b
195491 F20110113_AADDQQ garciacasellas_m_Page_31.jpg
ebd8746e86c0d30e79d48b335551c5cc
6f712dfe945b336ae5c1c509725195009786f8e1
228474 F20110113_AADDRE garciacasellas_m_Page_87.jpg
95750a71debca370b6c4bf546e88f2b2
589f69198ba994af294da29173eb3771cd31a2be
F20110113_AADDQR garciacasellas_m_Page_36.tif
11cd6f022961e7c747901b81ed9326d0
2bcfc4008fe12f354cf17927bae9778718bbd5c6
F20110113_AADDRF garciacasellas_m_Page_63.tif
8f1dcab8ef61048c39f0a46c0c0f35b0
845e41f4973ec60f9cacc55511e94b6af6f9ee6a
46122 F20110113_AADDQS garciacasellas_m_Page_21.pro
8d9a55793bb780022fdb203c0a96e636
7330e8162413f0ad11e24d174864decb1d54e329
17831 F20110113_AADDRG garciacasellas_m_Page_76thm.jpg
1c008348ddfd7f2cb2192f64ea69a89b
f52cea02d635c3a598f4ff1e54872cc3c95deea7
36333 F20110113_AADDQT garciacasellas_m_Page_73.pro
c561b3f8a88dbe64b174ec9fccd8ed63
a74923a6224857b153f2c803a7128fb01c1a17d5
105761 F20110113_AADDRH garciacasellas_m_Page_80.jp2
a7afc14431aeff6b18abbf884fa95001
eff0480022731864a433b4d942e6b3b29d0e0b0a
222 F20110113_AADDQU garciacasellas_m_Page_03.txt
70e638ea7355324f2e565ef9009d9d88
b0ce6c0240cf34ba6e58a51dba1f4353c5495125
91038 F20110113_AADDRI garciacasellas_m_Page_64.jp2
e00f6cddea600ae358758da0a7f4acf1
c9d60dbced6be384f3c4e70ca827ef45ea72868b
109490 F20110113_AADDQV garciacasellas_m_Page_36.jp2
538402df08728a4c5436ead62e96dd53
88b708bc87b38013b851e5f8c1ee164ba78f3ac4
205744 F20110113_AADDRJ garciacasellas_m_Page_50.jpg
21e851565483bf0b801a4d621a4df46a
5cd501ccf429a7a560777381108f1ce6029bba8b
F20110113_AADDQW garciacasellas_m_Page_47.tif
a28c94487ed828abcd5d051ab841a49d
02deb300930db1f8e4674b5398a30ccec946fedb
24165 F20110113_AADDRK garciacasellas_m_Page_38thm.jpg
cf18287b331fe092d21ea61a9bec2802
d1190913d27b10716236348d156e9079be7dbd84
24326 F20110113_AADDQX garciacasellas_m_Page_80thm.jpg
1857ba9ec077806499bb406af876d31c
67965c3d3623d71ad7468e5ddc0562c6ec03f5ba
F20110113_AADDRL garciacasellas_m_Page_58.tif
0e2f9254928e550a25881f4c5209f41c
b5be1ae275d72d526d7a467c9dc9d347441817c1
105780 F20110113_AADDSA garciacasellas_m_Page_26.jp2
fe7fdf225581ae2fc2c90c01b7d94bbb
de2f57af6e751ceedcb4c2a08ecb8358b96c56c3
86907 F20110113_AADDRM garciacasellas_m_Page_10.jp2
cda167daf9ed853077a131b990f08c91
3c5e6ede7964df1ddf6b0d1b6f4112c5d3fe346e
109163 F20110113_AADDQY garciacasellas_m_Page_09.jpg
acc19859e78d4a0366ad90a1afc247c1
f0506a66a7d00de28f82cdc36be50ac76c9f5223
19907 F20110113_AADDSB garciacasellas_m_Page_10thm.jpg
9b2e3fce6a8f2bf24b1cc3b7a9414694
bc69b9ee384a1229a1e766625887e193e41acf89
77422 F20110113_AADDRN garciacasellas_m_Page_50.QC.jpg
c39a8d86611d367961b8692933730f36
94199c119987f937e9877d0abf928da08852383a
102760 F20110113_AADDQZ garciacasellas_m_Page_23.jp2
696ced3e1d60ffe9bb5ac2f01a70756e
a9fa88c7bf77e9a69b99507a13e5da17662f1b22
1051972 F20110113_AADDSC garciacasellas_m_Page_07.jp2
fd64bc9084d2cf21db710050112746d5
c76430ae4b2764e838329238fd4dfbae31b37981
1465 F20110113_AADDRO garciacasellas_m_Page_02.pro
9e7865c196c0722d900712bf29e25261
5843e7987726004e8a25beb6c77a7e5263414a5b
F20110113_AADDSD garciacasellas_m_Page_88.tif
b581f41826543088c0d3a42d75bca047
c8811c0d1da1a1df951c4ffa36e2e48a82d35ff4
22738 F20110113_AADDRP garciacasellas_m_Page_35thm.jpg
daa2dc2d335f98122d6e08640c1fee9c
f593db75f29ad4adf46ea41143d83ee71f093a2b
69928 F20110113_AADDSE garciacasellas_m_Page_22.QC.jpg
c65a207032836a4b55ebd7b729733a67
6f30d16a1f38004dbba99b9b525a16c645505dfd
17692 F20110113_AADDRQ garciacasellas_m_Page_09.pro
63d746a4e5688c61545c1fe74ded53c3
cd7a312384b3b4a70368d769b8fa9d1709c68667
2008 F20110113_AADDSF garciacasellas_m_Page_38.txt
8323afd164a4ff4da8533e2e056fd4a7
393287e8e315cc23ab15bb686f85a5db727e20ed
68868 F20110113_AADDRR garciacasellas_m_Page_61.jp2
a7e028d7bb89c75f7c6f45428db09f03
dadf410f4efd0548904e22e463f44da3747b52fc
F20110113_AADDSG garciacasellas_m_Page_50.tif
155fda13ec0ee8bf28c86836d61f0cd8
d56e430cf627b8ac0af5828ad74c4f68e440f111
111427 F20110113_AADDRS garciacasellas_m_Page_14.jpg
884295b65eb67fd144858ad0ad053a76
207b0997421bc7623859ab71361d067717d50f87
F20110113_AADDSH garciacasellas_m_Page_07.tif
8a634323c3427618f7b90b2420daf4e5
6b31cbdba3a91a60d6da30b5c7280f4d17995eda
34617 F20110113_AADDRT garciacasellas_m_Page_09thm.jpg
fa711e799bb2e624e158ad697baf8959
da7e9048a5ac53e8775000ee575785d1863481d9
19651 F20110113_AADDSI garciacasellas_m_Page_57thm.jpg
230c49c76fa24b04e8fdd91fcfa27165
a9edd849bfafa8592c582314ca0af9b9f92ad737
282716 F20110113_AADDRU garciacasellas_m_Page_89.jpg
0c737793800253399ae703beadedf4ea
106ab7cb65ec660afa66342b40c9f89522475f3e
F20110113_AADDSJ garciacasellas_m_Page_88.jp2
62f92cee2f942e798ab6f285b3d4e8b0
276adf1de8aa19b47fc63fadbce53e9628e41251
12062 F20110113_AADDRV garciacasellas_m_Page_52thm.jpg
9513d38572be4f0b32ec33dd49d52bd7
8c897b9c73beba4f0bdc95671f7f88df71305613
97445 F20110113_AADDSK garciacasellas_m_Page_53.jp2
ba588086e3fe296b07eed51d6bb4f08c
de7969af91a76219c27e05bea955cc2610f1a5ef
61448 F20110113_AADDRW garciacasellas_m_Page_60.QC.jpg
dc39a4f361d39a93e5787ebd04f9429f
0eab7e14e3572914c79d6479bcb30cdf9256fdfc
45079 F20110113_AADDSL garciacasellas_m_Page_53.pro
29997db8c64b1e029b6a18a7026c3f4f
5c025f5360c08e3fef211ba5abbc0c9c8b2cdd73
1591 F20110113_AADDRX garciacasellas_m_Page_29.txt
ea3b2fffe503c0ab7c7e0e7139d8588a
92ed4b9b459d6fc011ac53e6d505a436c8527401
1629 F20110113_AADDTA garciacasellas_m_Page_16.txt
6021bdc9c81bc084eb311e8c366e9d01
081ace24d06bad5ebea46da197a6a4dd39c54660
163373 F20110113_AADDSM garciacasellas_m_Page_12.jpg
4d72fe80855ea5843493ba271a2af03b
160dd7f0ea84c512c489bebb4f94b331ec9f4f01
66094 F20110113_AADDRY garciacasellas_m_Page_55.jp2
62ec8722c57b1643be566ca465abf080
16dafa0a0da6d9aa7660389e881039006432107e
47074 F20110113_AADDSN garciacasellas_m_Page_34.pro
f9bbf837a13541db96b22c3c1f16e6b6
ae6867968d46fe43ea7138c5250ef9478ac7282a
26422 F20110113_AADDTB garciacasellas_m_Page_66.pro
8424bef0fa70396dc0077d11488836ba
b326c98cc7532e15016ffe9b783d5c0a562553b9
48499 F20110113_AADDSO garciacasellas_m_Page_70.QC.jpg
34087b517e9ea556218671c3d8063fc0
5ef885d8c8dc1d0cf09048c8dab1a52944482ef9
112780 F20110113_AADDRZ garciacasellas_m_Page_08.QC.jpg
bc59295d8fe672e04f28325268cacf5d
b279b6c64181e3c5c7e3b18afabc3fbd259104ee
49437 F20110113_AADDTC garciacasellas_m_Page_50.pro
2949c4f9cb280ed0b088803822631cff
c2b026d219b87dad80682be0dda106cfd835a301
15309 F20110113_AADDSP garciacasellas_m_Page_65thm.jpg
64edcb79caf74d974e4aded5155d4b11
22ba57e7b08590d7c05700a19ed9629b0b5bfa16
1054428 F20110113_AADDTD garciacasellas_m_Page_56.tif
e9cda9c3a7d2d7e44e044bd51c2286fa
7821a8e7b97f08c253002ff09b1e0b0f0229074f
75819 F20110113_AADDSQ garciacasellas_m_Page_18.QC.jpg
fcff80d1b5b1e97db48b686dad89c9dc
fb181cc4ab6c700f2b11cec823c3e230950e83e7
24784 F20110113_AADDTE garciacasellas_m_Page_17thm.jpg
27f0dc61b3ef29de9372c28bd9067f16
e8f742f94fb05b1c1bc6ae5e6ab39646d96dd5a6
51571 F20110113_AADDSR garciacasellas_m_Page_11.jp2
8c9d2da8bce5590dc0130892efea5b78
57018533a36fe6faa00485496c64441e639d678a
23715 F20110113_AADDTF garciacasellas_m_Page_26thm.jpg
2de7fe8e095059dcdfdfa917817e153c
ce5c06942206a82d0e5d4765b5e7285d9b05794f
104918 F20110113_AADDSS garciacasellas_m_Page_13.jp2
d31070823315fcc2f67d45cd44a551ee
92c654ab25cdf6ebdce980e8cab3923887922869
296185 F20110113_AADDTG garciacasellas_m_Page_88.jpg
38d5b71192e6e62c4bbf2f4b8ddfcc8c
aa0db7d8ed3248526118a57b23f7d2d337da7f66
23497 F20110113_AADDST garciacasellas_m_Page_22thm.jpg
a33e9ee98ff46de280f5197bfecc7f61
5b869334b2cc7f0e42f1611bf36274737aa8f738
406 F20110113_AADDTH garciacasellas_m_Page_01.txt
8b98742803b2b953fc9aa00e14cef35a
42e85b10d1dcad7670a86d7a9c8cfbf85ff1b96b
1254 F20110113_AADDSU garciacasellas_m_Page_18.txt
cdca665cf9342512e19c6489af126594
ceadfd845f2688c1701ab440751b1b39b3928fbe
15691 F20110113_AADDTI garciacasellas_m_Page_27.pro
72d3ba4336483472e3db805a5a73d61a
33df2498d971c94c16f28ff780854b31013d3355
1051943 F20110113_AADDSV garciacasellas_m_Page_87.jp2
553487367b79bf668367f60919e3dba9
0f7818bc36e1ff319fe278684f06cc7d46bf09c5
283526 F20110113_AADDTJ garciacasellas_m_Page_08.jpg
b23679c8efa0efb5852d8c5bd1895dbc
30314eddeaab402d401d1669586b75a6724b900d
103510 F20110113_AADDSW garciacasellas_m_Page_33.jp2
872eca2cc782a43f4a0ae340d60114c1
3451447e1ca536aed9e7ca017d569c5c23b68848
37003 F20110113_AADDTK garciacasellas_m_Page_27.jp2
bb828298d8df6a108aec4860593e63a0
5f6113d05f1e6f198f03f2570cedba8ab7fdc017
1497 F20110113_AADDSX garciacasellas_m_Page_45.txt
eae3cfcdd96e9385a68081854a36d3ae
8b9d79b213e6d1037f6a39561919436093698d9b
61094 F20110113_AADDTL garciacasellas_m_Page_41.QC.jpg
c1c323c38bf3814ff5c83d9460315970
c7dd5f48744f04e60c6f611c6bcc1fec4931dccc
1903 F20110113_AADDSY garciacasellas_m_Page_43.txt
2940fee0bb006991b0d11a958fd755bf
e593a98d9a953223786acd6885f72fecce7f4ace
11328 F20110113_AADDUA garciacasellas_m_Page_03.jp2
378afd5d314055890727898fa4ff5e0d
88b22ac1291fbbc73e6ece68aeda611e76375b8f
624 F20110113_AADDTM garciacasellas_m_Page_27.txt
a0d5e2acd178fcc2160f87bacfede7f1
eebe3c49db84c0cd9e2496417dd7e8b28e866c2a
89528 F20110113_AADDSZ garciacasellas_m_Page_47.jp2
92564fdf29c04df4bd6f2b5511380d11
d72b298bfa38cc447d587b07c38edcd2c859a0d3
56417 F20110113_AADDUB garciacasellas_m_Page_83.QC.jpg
30a1c19299a3f5dc758007633930ab74
4360d5e5ffbbb00e5eae14ec54bef2a7c451210e
20985 F20110113_AADDTN garciacasellas_m_Page_29thm.jpg
3e97c5e76b1245865a0107f36fb22659
3e84d94bccbdcc18ea3bfdf5cdfe3f6e1716da14
101647 F20110113_AADDUC garciacasellas_m_Page_43.jp2
4a0206b77c6c2bd5c1a240b4ac96beb2
477ad0717cfbb68da27c0f35316fa18bfab7c2fd
22127 F20110113_AADDTO garciacasellas_m_Page_34thm.jpg
b2fdec9d06f5be45fee4934359215d1d
77e0c9ca2d634bbfe0ffc472e4ae01de163e7f4d
203990 F20110113_AADDUD garciacasellas_m_Page_80.jpg
4352e148589f0fd26e04257a41268581
5be7e9c4e90d2f1abf5d8bb8eb444e3f670ea068
65250 F20110113_AADDTP garciacasellas_m_Page_67.QC.jpg
08f85586606351e3774a298e26f80616
e068d4b1f67a8f8228124ac52785a253a938d855
2240 F20110113_AADDUE garciacasellas_m_Page_49.txt
0153d97387e6eca87fb18033b7fa2021
b9ad819eb648dce39b0008932eaf9af9662afb68
52574 F20110113_AADDTQ garciacasellas_m_Page_08.pro
dfa808ab3bfbe581af60f271a3874f61
2b9f1e650911e874e90ed3b30de44fb856d4e541
540 F20110113_AADDUF garciacasellas_m_Page_14.txt
47dbf5b67264f09d022a2e05ebcae532
271a9781ae462eb5a1f41a7545d7ba39e6a5093b
F20110113_AADDTR garciacasellas_m_Page_43.tif
7ce9a234b3502e48d00c3eaeb6d0f527
2c449a9731456e795752af1fcbaa56b7bf89ef3c
77816 F20110113_AADEAA garciacasellas_m_Page_71.jp2
da6f1c42883db3ddf5e4547e1055f90e
ed15e56cbfdcba2b1aded340f23653b3e17715b8
42949 F20110113_AADDUG garciacasellas_m_Page_84.jp2
4f6796ec15114cdd30da6e02f660326a
ae3802434b63c089505b0e915aba05a68f1142f7
F20110113_AADDTS garciacasellas_m_Page_73.tif
d46bf15272f9b21aa264435fb773c5eb
a2467f05b5964dfae1c74d9a0d0b4f6e251e6563
50969 F20110113_AADEAB garciacasellas_m_Page_72.jp2
cdacfccc5c45c40ea2934deb9441cc5e
17fd8b6119aceaec0e3129fa17806f8af67f681a
199304 F20110113_AADDUH garciacasellas_m_Page_23.jpg
1b9b85ab568e92f35f75ad760c98057e
c8021fef729dc269a438e18f50e9ea4ab4182ae8
F20110113_AADDTT garciacasellas_m_Page_08.tif
e96f913fa6640b2b2c3189fc4337fcd8
aa4985e095a4e9adb09ee7ad266f5e771eb43486
82930 F20110113_AADEAC garciacasellas_m_Page_73.jp2
41b0372ea8bca23d80e7b3482a3a01e0
39e07202624420f68a231ecf8cac30ba6db78fc5
1437 F20110113_AADDUI garciacasellas_m_Page_85.txt
dffd9cea57ec6f2864d111b8333853d8
98a8992752e6fd724f299ee88dd4d77200faf3c9
61484 F20110113_AADDTU garciacasellas_m_Page_91.jpg
4673f649b36291e65c3fa2e0bbbdeb79
496044397f73b772fae3e0d5f4a1d9062268857a
71720 F20110113_AADEAD garciacasellas_m_Page_74.jp2
5f70868fa586eed6f556af5e08272fc3
06918b8e49d6d0514b53e671658d70522a043533
64430 F20110113_AADDUJ garciacasellas_m_Page_75.QC.jpg
0fe25bad2c98abf46f3d15d6f0ceb8c6
f4499782b7707746865915e271e98c74b1c70e4e
23622 F20110113_AADDTV garciacasellas_m_Page_36thm.jpg
5cf69498945786e7f1efbd23722a646a
dabb3a61ab2fdf53e2db9edc7a4c3131b3ec05bc
75974 F20110113_AADEAE garciacasellas_m_Page_77.jp2
9d12c9dc0af26d0ff893c9ea15db20ea
1717517189aacd5cd08be6914a908978a98fde1c
1176 F20110113_AADDUK garciacasellas_m_Page_55.txt
5222a44026df12efb60600a5fac0477f
7bf6ec87b9c7a8dca730c58501cad442f48b3ffe
126006 F20110113_AADDTW garciacasellas_m_Page_55.jpg
103392ae5c650370f68153768301c9bf
651c09d7b77dba6e380574e0f0ed0e83c3447300
49991 F20110113_AADEAF garciacasellas_m_Page_78.jp2
aa297c4da6a44095f14a9531f8071525
40f5225833f7c89b5a964679670d343eaa4d91a2
47962 F20110113_AADDUL garciacasellas_m_Page_87.pro
462135f1e4a924638c1d10ba77625172
d009b6621cc26db308f6a7a0bfa43712f4881f13
26468 F20110113_AADDTX garciacasellas_m_Page_18.pro
840fccc05fcfebfdc514abaac60a8a37
68ca5d5e50fee47004d78efaac0d148e22e105f7
98832 F20110113_AADEAG garciacasellas_m_Page_82.jp2
9527a22037ee08dab9f84f001b68fdcb
1a1783af585dc812c0a550f66c349651b75d5bd3
274412 F20110113_AADDVA garciacasellas_m_Page_06.jpg
0a386bec9145480bc5b14d96b62d0f81
882378dbe12e4913a6de0a8d019d9612552a3201
24171 F20110113_AADDUM garciacasellas_m_Page_46thm.jpg
a192c2aa06e39ebe67db3eb2b1f45a55
d89d8d0e2df3cdc836c61b2fd4b063942f76e33f
78266 F20110113_AADDTY garciacasellas_m_Page_36.QC.jpg
634fadbb7aaf0f73b579e61f240bf34c
dce1cc1468f5719bacef370fcf1653a9bef88316
58473 F20110113_AADDVB garciacasellas_m_Page_04.QC.jpg
51c421de70468df180ac99c24ba59fed
c5629aab2cf6da5b3eccc82417655d63c8db5819
168544 F20110113_AADDUN garciacasellas_m_Page_29.jpg
8ed0cc0dd4a488ed4abbf150dd4aafa2
98d24cdcc7e4fe4ac97105b7883fb4f6f41a25bc
97309 F20110113_AADDTZ garciacasellas_m_Page_06.QC.jpg
c13ac3e76da91dd2a43e7dc9ca0beb8c
8ca21c2326b687b03c56e024a1f5fbe0d417411d
78262 F20110113_AADEAH garciacasellas_m_Page_83.jp2
aa8421fa5c64eb4e26736456fc55f34f
20e04a5d264001eb671d2c3b3205579491bca390
1635 F20110113_AADDVC garciacasellas_m_Page_47.txt
fbd45b06e3f49f3c311a44c962500740
fe084c4a2c9d9530f58d47684edd0514fd9136fa
22381 F20110113_AADDUO garciacasellas_m_Page_44thm.jpg
d017d0f3f017951b0251b2578077f3f5
4f89c74800666255e79ffed1a51af7c6390cce13
F20110113_AADEAI garciacasellas_m_Page_05.tif
5a64d5b5acb0f3eff3fff5d99fce8b0d
0c09e4d4436aaaaea998e3a7e9797cb095e9a1bf
110565 F20110113_AADDVD garciacasellas_m_Page_62.jpg
77daeb7fc3357f325f7f4d04cd339335
a946beed4aa2dba6a979455f2007345fe9cfbcff
F20110113_AADDUP garciacasellas_m_Page_32.tif
7d3ae1e6e3916e10d8188acb3b8a2c97
d519020379abe9d586fb75eeb8fc68b4fd436d0a
F20110113_AADEAJ garciacasellas_m_Page_10.tif
2c214c9c4583737172f63e9217cfb9f9
78e449455008cc2e3711ed1027bb74640a7c9488
F20110113_AADDVE garciacasellas_m_Page_48.tif
6062698167c80ddc5b5000be95ac91bd
03681107030bb36798a104ee0628b3549d5125ef
21131 F20110113_AADDUQ garciacasellas_m_Page_47thm.jpg
07a9f910512cefbe50cc5cfcafeaac4f
7a186342dd14c2996f6b54f7d48d932911e86782
F20110113_AADEAK garciacasellas_m_Page_13.tif
02a3020cbbc126781e82c14fc9cbfcbe
e5a01dfb5bd8bed005fbbb326821f259c1508fa5
1890 F20110113_AADDVF garciacasellas_m_Page_31.txt
4a76c688c67b352c4ee6510b9825bf56
c6a1242dd2c91077b3060c578fb39e70b87d6ef5
1721 F20110113_AADDUR garciacasellas_m_Page_64.txt
6fb602b91ccd493e39600fb4dd0f9363
1c5106a403672aa31a5e111c960022dd2dee3d1c
F20110113_AADEBA garciacasellas_m_Page_53.tif
4a2483e5a623f3f49af5f3d721be49ae
5683437079fedb38b888076a5dae5b228f613dc0
F20110113_AADEAL garciacasellas_m_Page_16.tif
b47825f9b48ef3a1600d23ab39b2884e
0aa24388df1bc859db3816384c58efa77892cfaf
F20110113_AADDVG garciacasellas_m_Page_19.tif
93022b9bdee0ceec4871895e94466ffc
a44de06a33e5f22b52fe9323aac8e3e62e3d95ce
38533 F20110113_AADDUS garciacasellas_m_Page_10.pro
cfe24d3d97a788fdaf58c48ebb572880
38f5784730e6a1e933307ce5c483242b96320614
F20110113_AADEBB garciacasellas_m_Page_54.tif
8fb10688b45feaf32e500c039324e1ff
9a8384aa308bc7255b057a4f1304e22c9414d524
F20110113_AADEAM garciacasellas_m_Page_17.tif
fbe633da1b17d922939afe3826b7acaf
7f33812832bb85c03df2a38b6151c54a83836a6a
109109 F20110113_AADDVH garciacasellas_m_Page_89.QC.jpg
aabdc894d6ac811f00c2c76b5cd2b120
fd3be2b18d427517eb4c6d4e51eb60e0189eeb95
49398 F20110113_AADDUT garciacasellas_m_Page_01.jpg
175597fe57017d0ef24ecaa1eb40900c
3a338afc411a69fbd8e86d4008b67c7f81169efb
F20110113_AADEBC garciacasellas_m_Page_57.tif
8b280a84a03dcbe526d419e6db4bf601
f925b1b21f2d4216c4744b0c3a42fdebb87b1796
F20110113_AADEAN garciacasellas_m_Page_18.tif
6f007f0718e71a599cd037f63e72da3c
0901f9222428a5a5b7a9efdc310c02612676581d
84338 F20110113_AADDVI garciacasellas_m_Page_12.jp2
faa3c4ef073350a8e7c39adc6aeb9d31
6a66f3e55ec455f5fefe9f96f761e2fccd34d4de
59693 F20110113_AADDUU garciacasellas_m_Page_57.QC.jpg
5d18def22ffbf486c3c57ef2b5b2a7ec
e0fd7f901030db19821b9c0ba0acbd9a44fa4d51
F20110113_AADEBD garciacasellas_m_Page_61.tif
d7c2e3d0edcb52eba737c711b26c401c
f1e4ad51868cb0ee6352902ec9615ad8aff738f1
F20110113_AADEAO garciacasellas_m_Page_20.tif
291499c8d137220e1082b2ea278a0511
2c97cbaaa117bda6b02c312115f9f2441fb68e64
84076 F20110113_AADDVJ garciacasellas_m_Page_45.jp2
60c863f0071675db55a07b679c7c143b
7173c5683b140c438804f004c18d6f9915abcffb
73209 F20110113_AADDUV garciacasellas_m_Page_30.QC.jpg
22d1d2b737233206cfe6c1a2df382697
2166314b7dfcb7cff5060825550781ddc225b129
F20110113_AADEBE garciacasellas_m_Page_62.tif
e68c61010a80c9d3cf1ec76940960925
b23d1a01d792efbd04e9822b41bf50b865760b6d
F20110113_AADEAP garciacasellas_m_Page_26.tif
5cbc556b229592543f2d67c0345a563c
a15570fcec5f3d41562bd3df0bd947ebba0cf678
148340 F20110113_AADDVK garciacasellas_m_Page_71.jpg
c82094b3e5cdde58b0a5af1c0579cc8f
96ddebc9f695f11775ea73becc206ee4295a5d18
77502 F20110113_AADDUW garciacasellas_m_Page_58.jp2
81e961ce917f5cc36e64e4b6f7b91d7d
32b04f3667627504a89bcc7b06ebb63239f59b0d
F20110113_AADEBF garciacasellas_m_Page_64.tif
3efa54d2f63c40382e6774418bef896a
37acb5cea4a8c17ac57d4208c4d701581180a041
F20110113_AADEAQ garciacasellas_m_Page_27.tif
fe5d6a6e96e072819fa4f19a5698fd86
9f3f9aa58549bf1c4adfd3de9c7ed15bcedcca60
24957 F20110113_AADDVL garciacasellas_m_Page_37thm.jpg
d451a38fe362a17d6ab056e165de58fc
00b0fd084cd7e839169e8ac6a54478345baa1f70
53503 F20110113_AADDUX garciacasellas_m_Page_25.QC.jpg
32c43630811ca3f034d92fd3376f1d56
ca39f6947f3411e36e46a2f33c6c6a8faa30e67a
F20110113_AADEBG garciacasellas_m_Page_65.tif
82bc3dfc355b35e005494206fea06fd6
3a758eee93783cc7bd59e42eba4ea77803460fc3
F20110113_AADEAR garciacasellas_m_Page_30.tif
3056e15c9fea72dcdc0bbf4c22079bda
c811eaef11348b77b0b01c48807e41f4ba2c00e9
42818 F20110113_AADDVM garciacasellas_m_Page_18thm.jpg
bd4c8ad1b5e5baf05ef4d3e9077b84ec
fb24fc8f6cfb07f88d42e4fc9c405d6808f1ad6b
77886 F20110113_AADDUY garciacasellas_m_Page_32.QC.jpg
29d11f42323c4cd883e5fb0b1f3b25df
1e2d56c46e59afec53327eea4d5af41f1f850195
F20110113_AADEBH garciacasellas_m_Page_67.tif
cd2e273bfa58e7575d60bd785e704d74
f07604b020ba30f27e47b5747da11f616e74e290
12693 F20110113_AADDWA garciacasellas_m_Page_11thm.jpg
976a7b462ba48e81edceee6aa1e54e0d
18b32cd3df158fa64607e3d57a0540ae330dd86b
F20110113_AADEAS garciacasellas_m_Page_31.tif
ef1ec97ddfb3a1d9531903664b02294d
5249f9f7befc5e92cf365d999864db4a708d5fd0
1797 F20110113_AADDVN garciacasellas_m_Page_30.txt
603d31e5f8a84b913e20202e0c57d534
be908664281c5f7f0eb518efce7207b73302ce34
34179 F20110113_AADDUZ garciacasellas_m_Page_67.pro
3739d395a4a12646ac91f6b250ef70a0
46d778f5c27ada2d9dc00bbff62c85471ccc741a
F20110113_AADDWB garciacasellas_m_Page_90.tif
95217061e843b8feed31d26deec45a9b
1cdbc083dac2888a5b6b3d1a80cea105ec3f788a
F20110113_AADEAT garciacasellas_m_Page_34.tif
fbf3036da46406f764d915ee1e72a038
44a3bfaa42bd6823b39c9db9b84f36be43f02112
19737 F20110113_AADDVO garciacasellas_m_Page_45thm.jpg
640c81ef4029143f8dfc40a43aed12cd
cf9c8913f104ce215650107f8f7239082f51c210
F20110113_AADEBI garciacasellas_m_Page_68.tif
df79e298e9e98792256a32e4fc1603b5
7a32d8e8a0bdc640e8ec437c62abbd352b0874b8
85726 F20110113_AADDWC garciacasellas_m_Page_57.jp2
25c086e21f4daf59effb1f95a5058db1
c8f391862df25786c0e1612d2e62e7bc17e3e075
F20110113_AADEAU garciacasellas_m_Page_35.tif
2be4c858554b77b7f1fc9498a2cab4fe
937a0ece16a2d9ffc1231f29ea3d1932119b1d63
187073 F20110113_AADDVP garciacasellas_m_Page_44.jpg
d9d1ada6abe95995f42acf660443c732
1ec415d2df951a5f8afd4613dad49b7d5c5b3523
F20110113_AADEBJ garciacasellas_m_Page_70.tif
5f7ea0c54802c1c30574b32561b31df5
ec195cf2a90e4992e7dfb2627ee0a634a647944d
44316 F20110113_AADDWD garciacasellas_m_Page_05thm.jpg
075298a4f041d39969488cb702dcd88f
f1865a78d4dd37f97f6a126b45abc588b2dd3b75
F20110113_AADEAV garciacasellas_m_Page_37.tif
a97ff116e5cb09f074063185eb8a94d6
360cefef927c2a0d1281007ca3c6ee999b3f620d
90659 F20110113_AADDVQ garciacasellas_m_Page_68.jp2
1ae5e5ea23157d468bd7dc81ab5fdddb
baf317e545dbdeaf806fc8be2a7d538b2e9bdd79
F20110113_AADEBK garciacasellas_m_Page_71.tif
1161e0b80fd736cb80925a1c6ce0752e
4426fbd3d127c98ccf1553cc77b65f79013990e8
1543 F20110113_AADDWE garciacasellas_m_Page_58.txt
cb9147b55cee91fbcb7ab331ce6373b1
db557bf01cbd01a11a3b692b5b4e1c0dc2b9be3f
F20110113_AADEAW garciacasellas_m_Page_40.tif
1da551e4e40003ced263ffba775f67cd
d9ebd8ae404a0e9fc87c19955eb29727b5a178be
85762 F20110113_AADDVR garciacasellas_m_Page_75.jp2
305b67a7aeeabe96af66fea9c9161515
092aebb6cefc30c55c81350aaca1c70944407950
48213 F20110113_AADECA garciacasellas_m_Page_19.pro
a206736fdc16c8ac83adcf6024119438
2f6032827b491fde8f2ec44fda22b98bab5046c1
F20110113_AADEBL garciacasellas_m_Page_72.tif
4567daece057f5417d91f722fa78fc55
93d35c98defc357bf315badd41671917467e4dc1
17356 F20110113_AADDWF garciacasellas_m_Page_59thm.jpg
7510c5bc3195751ae14c90f44428d543
785047495f2a91d9a92ec6ba4bae07a3af79ffac
F20110113_AADEAX garciacasellas_m_Page_41.tif
9347f0c1bd789b496ff854d354f734a8
538d40c3630116c0fa9490572cef389629426b0b
48358 F20110113_AADDVS garciacasellas_m_Page_81.pro
59143f19e66629d3b0f63b4f78ef53b3
8d7c1626c6c8058d56eaa369e6d0ce18c14a425b
49098 F20110113_AADECB garciacasellas_m_Page_20.pro
ba4d0b9a469de7d053ec65ba94d8d55b
ce0cc5885018999f7d33334a2f4fc01a576b6d0c
F20110113_AADEBM garciacasellas_m_Page_78.tif
88ab2788a9aedf9e9f688993c96f08ad
0ebecb86edf505c6ac5fecdb1cea12a2feab98ac
16215 F20110113_AADDWG garciacasellas_m_Page_66thm.jpg
76e24c2f39a63f83a081d4dde3a61a60
4f48309b7dc53ac271dde129ba371198ce83c8a3
F20110113_AADEAY garciacasellas_m_Page_45.tif
6eaa2b58153b87b42aba2413c528f409
f05a3756ef67c4598276a492ee9dc8b3c92f30d0
192990 F20110113_AADDVT garciacasellas_m_Page_22.jpg
bda73dee6c98cc299f7bf85655b9d201
e32598d276934b0e698d690d7562477425ee08ef
45202 F20110113_AADECC garciacasellas_m_Page_22.pro
e6c6e8212e8b8476ab31c74d2bddf563
5b4a4180e277becb08d2587780024331cbe4806d
F20110113_AADEBN garciacasellas_m_Page_79.tif
f9b141462698d2a5e6579ba6fe4bb56d
6a727576c0e556be92efed58f5aa0090d58c462f
19137 F20110113_AADDWH garciacasellas_m_Page_41thm.jpg
568f555ea41f25aa9d0371a66ebb40a8
a2faadaed5264c3a1a7753556d519debbfdcc853
F20110113_AADEAZ garciacasellas_m_Page_52.tif
c4a953df2cc5b8b14d57534458541c06
88864337a7d3a8234d6cc29c35f35c96350a3c17
29963 F20110113_AADDVU garciacasellas_m_Page_76.pro
a11d46de6cd2e8356535d5abffe461ef
126d87f10afcfa8d2dbac659cb2004e9f1b206ec
34840 F20110113_AADECD garciacasellas_m_Page_24.pro
1345c0da04023ec996d07df9f2abef63
0872f49555b79879fc1b6db44ac8a7aa4f5bfb5a
F20110113_AADEBO garciacasellas_m_Page_80.tif
1819a04e3986f3746f083e49c586762b
cec83868f097635d7b4d104e8bd9ad3f6aecabc6
F20110113_AADDWI garciacasellas_m_Page_14.tif
a6112bed78a652df0ea32f640ed808c5
70cda49e9ab48eab04eb1a3c46ae7612e84008e0
52912 F20110113_AADDVV garciacasellas_m_Page_49.pro
3ceba111ba3041e4babb95f3db789b02
162f4e61082e2d6db4dc6a367878198a5dc531cf
33195 F20110113_AADECE garciacasellas_m_Page_25.pro
ca54ce4dfd8b147a9afd65cb326613f7
dfa64be8fa916544ec589be01db5b57641a50152
F20110113_AADEBP garciacasellas_m_Page_83.tif
1f5b2e8243f8fec6216a3977003e55e4
e27dd61ce3d9fdde2efad39d82fab1e7a7844ad8
13127 F20110113_AADDWJ garciacasellas_m_Page_62thm.jpg
9041a2568432174ccc743304a9dadf0c
13405dc0fe7bd1c32080fb94624efe54634de230
F20110113_AADDVW garciacasellas_m_Page_09.tif
655f8bd1a64885e5f67d5f36a9a6997d
09b9848073554628efa162bde574369ef24c87da
35708 F20110113_AADECF garciacasellas_m_Page_28.pro
e919d1e8732a244cdc04b2cf10f65eb1
e43452f54ddfcba6e4fe6dea99bc5bad5b15070a
F20110113_AADEBQ garciacasellas_m_Page_87.tif
9320e3124a04ae00fb421ecd52cff77b
b2cee747a5a371ae0337c52aaf5699bf728f2d98
106936 F20110113_AADDWK garciacasellas_m_Page_50.jp2
e8ae83b6f88bfa0233bcdd330c21cfb7
14acc9720f98d8fc6125889b142616d1b1ee79af
2231023 F20110113_AADDVX garciacasellas_m.pdf
f01c6fa1e0cb44014eb78d44587167cd
0874d97aa1f1c6d1a508fc28f1f3e2f24d8869af
39287 F20110113_AADECG garciacasellas_m_Page_29.pro
1cfed7510d757530c18280613ff08c48
d67835a1ab24a83862e6cc5a4f8e0be1dd916181
F20110113_AADEBR garciacasellas_m_Page_91.tif
009d2889917bcad3122047ab892660c3
89bfdb40fe5ac6b9776a579aea1c6d5bc861258e
207172 F20110113_AADDWL garciacasellas_m_Page_90.jpg
030352c29b12188a5d583ec445db1215
badbe8032b015f2abe2774abb0a53ce4641efc38
F20110113_AADDVY garciacasellas_m_Page_12.tif
a8c3c6f750f9fa18d3565e9753d77263
7ba38dd8c1b5e7d7e62e8b1ba2a29a008d60bffd
44826 F20110113_AADECH garciacasellas_m_Page_30.pro
25895ee946dce8ede1b328b4a8219c61
c0975fd719753b0e7813e2763ff37ddf98e41ffd
F20110113_AADDXA garciacasellas_m_Page_84.tif
b19f44ff5a2b546eebc836adc61e973d
392af765975ff2ddfe055b90166dc431dd2b5991
35111 F20110113_AADEBS garciacasellas_m_Page_04.pro
e9c44997bd04fd5f1ddb63ef501edb16
d61e768f0dc861134434d21b3642ec6924f07de3
F20110113_AADDWM garciacasellas_m_Page_55.tif
4e0c3d3762688775fa9c0fef770c7de3
8be47f4f6a5982bb3502f35bf97bccdea160c756
F20110113_AADDVZ garciacasellas_m_Page_83.txt
fa33f63e93f063d01bc1bd43fdaed965
2e7feeae2e28ee17d8a0144e051d44df7e56cb7a
45078 F20110113_AADECI garciacasellas_m_Page_35.pro
89718110a4e9616bbaaf24a43e163f3f
eb748e9416518f891171d15f8ce99c702664b6c8
F20110113_AADDXB garciacasellas_m_Page_49.tif
c186bc36571ae1e8f3f99981d8300d5a
4c4d237bfef6f59ff0d3734a1687ac8654b34ecc
56857 F20110113_AADEBT garciacasellas_m_Page_05.pro
6ad27c858dee6e69177eeb12f91a95fa
256c4d21a12d62d309eeeab3290dd594ec415b07
80675 F20110113_AADDWN garciacasellas_m_Page_39.QC.jpg
722d8e46c9216c673da8464fdb3b058c
1fba38679788831c26354dd883db15d1e3fece15
100523 F20110113_AADDXC garciacasellas_m_Page_21.jp2
17db48e3489893be9a42ee1c44ed8266
b452b52af012da275a8a41f2b8fcafd763c8c1f9
63730 F20110113_AADEBU garciacasellas_m_Page_06.pro
0b86eb41da388910471a11b48b5c0d33
77459440a1405bceccb6aded7b536845271aa668
9089 F20110113_AADDWO garciacasellas_m_Page_27thm.jpg
9e14bf5496a8b34c869ae7e602a5c969
c5835911e8dab4e1bf7e27e89c750d3476ae71d4
41785 F20110113_AADECJ garciacasellas_m_Page_42.pro
a098094854404c85b1b154d8b1b200b1
968440da70cd09bc3efb2582f264004a225f339b
32859 F20110113_AADDXD garciacasellas_m_Page_56.jp2
69d739133e7cf4d3994a96ca017a2bf7
d563df2ed17721a9e139b577be93b3cc4feafe07
52910 F20110113_AADEBV garciacasellas_m_Page_07.pro
9efc7aa88e92b2229d91da6e1db6b243
175896e24f8581ede8d6e4d9eb81a38c01c0f7a6
8492 F20110113_AADDWP garciacasellas_m_Page_91thm.jpg
16f6342179ab81334ee33afb2fa74b1a
55154b541812fffcf6ad51f695f2830ba145c9cb
47164 F20110113_AADECK garciacasellas_m_Page_43.pro
0c71a1793d59af24a16c6ea78053a054
681e05988313775fa3d82ca10a3d5fb16471d7b9
84444 F20110113_AADDXE garciacasellas_m_Page_24.QC.jpg
655d658f5e4812b0e55213e88c4ef240
a06438eaa1bc6f20834b1da3fbe9f8d7dc229176
22853 F20110113_AADEBW garciacasellas_m_Page_11.pro
f494dbf4269f8a451f5596944051e149
2dedf9de86becba7f4de4f49024a84b46af2476d
111284 F20110113_AADDWQ garciacasellas_m_Page_39.jp2
25e909b5a9e0a6dba93219b20c491598
57a1abb840bdde979f64c982bfdd6b83a436f860
43011 F20110113_AADECL garciacasellas_m_Page_44.pro
3b5185601679acc4a4dea665abf06a26
e74a68407c6a0f8125136a32a7c51a1fb6f99e0c
46118 F20110113_AADDXF garciacasellas_m_Page_61.QC.jpg
5194940021d66dd562077dd8fff863af
40ed5d01469e243ca148b6ba5b354f1101c88b2a
37647 F20110113_AADEBX garciacasellas_m_Page_12.pro
24021b8271b3e2d3a7b4d47d498ed5f5
553f67f071aa05235d5b0fe5e81f751799dce2b5
19291 F20110113_AADDWR garciacasellas_m_Page_69thm.jpg
a1cb55abcc7ee0d0fad7791dc1d56f9c
16486ecd695ef69d2af31cd7089a3478af1db678
40602 F20110113_AADEDA garciacasellas_m_Page_90.pro
358797400112564ce416773c7019f002
cd7baaca45d9f02cb12287956db4fa2f015cb87d
40210 F20110113_AADECM garciacasellas_m_Page_48.pro
35e62d48e35b91af0d114589e2c11569
76b371f6dc4052bb625c87544c2d5ef7647f4613
16081 F20110113_AADDXG garciacasellas_m_Page_70thm.jpg
61187a39bb256761d025c9096e462f73
f05214252baf43617e15f85f77ff58d8f84793c8
46859 F20110113_AADEBY garciacasellas_m_Page_15.pro
60cec224ba808153b133768c5d59cb6c
32f5e38f8bdffe664b22fe876c898276ab58f455
F20110113_AADDWS garciacasellas_m_Page_89.jp2
9b7d130cb50a2154dcd3faf7583079f9
da751cd9901a1be28e57c4c8f21d5c1cf2c4e084
12364 F20110113_AADEDB garciacasellas_m_Page_91.pro
96699567aaa4ff341e7e6196460eade1
e7e4dd56dae8e6bcdc40b408fd9e127a2ba7b9ce
20948 F20110113_AADECN garciacasellas_m_Page_52.pro
254674596555ee7e63204f1526347757
5e6526e0a2bad404dfce558dc2f6e76063c28c1d
20895 F20110113_AADDXH garciacasellas_m_Page_78.pro
53406376ab4053071183126216a259df
e835e1679c37dffe6cd4e4809b5536e926af08eb
33662 F20110113_AADEBZ garciacasellas_m_Page_16.pro
c19eb42878a52f0688ba8306c957c097
34473ce7038d9a75043e0e47695f5702887efcbc
24995 F20110113_AADDWT garciacasellas_m_Page_39thm.jpg
9092f1cb01a8f9463dd2109267535ed2
e9e10b4719f90594618819384d19449133647bd9
1460 F20110113_AADEDC garciacasellas_m_Page_04.txt
92a6733aeaf88ed069b46968ba24d695
45cb4eafeb008ad6179be549787c1b28d398287a
47629 F20110113_AADECO garciacasellas_m_Page_54.pro
9503106e8366a6a5d55d64bcc81e270a
da1126017fe2b6c9d354f6087f1380f3f0835332
16665 F20110113_AADDXI garciacasellas_m_Page_86.pro
3ebbb5c770c138f30f6fd20f98cea443
1fccc694346b29bad49eb85a0764fff23a43d9da
23690 F20110113_AADDWU garciacasellas_m_Page_31thm.jpg
ef988437cf9b2f69d81c348f762690f3
986646c2209dba9676c1c602289a62074943c215
2193 F20110113_AADEDD garciacasellas_m_Page_07.txt
db5c9c555bd3015de56a383b351fc62c
d0f8b1393acb000eaf323f1185eb45e2a86ad7c9



PAGE 1

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF PEST MANAGEMENT IN PEANUTS By MARIA JOSE GARCIA-CASELLAS A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2004

PAGE 2

Copyright 2004 by Maria Jose Garcia-Casellas

PAGE 3

To my parents Layda and Javier, my grandpa rents Roberto and Layda, and my siblings Javier and Alejandrina, for all their love and support.

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my deep appreciation to the chairman of my supervisory committee, Professor Timothy Hewitt. This work would not be possible without his help and guidance. I would also like to thank the other members of the committee, Dr. Thomas Spreen and Dr. Richard Sprenkel, for their help and contributions. I would also like to express my gratitude to Mr. John Smith for his valuable assistance, especially in the analysis section, to Professor Ron Weeks who made it possible for me to ensure the financial support during the program, and to Mr. Don Berger for his valuable knowledge in the field. Special thanks are also extended to Dr. Leslie Clarke for her encouragement and support. I also appreciate the support of my fellow students that made this time easier. I also would like to thank the faculty and staff of the Food and Resource Economics Department of the University of Florida for their assistance and for always being friendly, and the Health Policy and Epidemiology staff for making me feel part of their family. I am especially grateful to my mom, who taught me to follow my dreams and for her constant support and love throughout the duration of my study. Finally, I would like to thank Alicia and Leonardo, for their encouragement, patience and for always being there for me. iv

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................vii LIST OF FIGURES...........................................................................................................ix ABSTRACT.........................................................................................................................x CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 International Peanut Trade............................................................................................1 Peanut Products............................................................................................................4 Peanut Production in the U.S........................................................................................6 The U.S. Peanut Program.............................................................................................8 Southeast Peanuts.......................................................................................................10 Problem Statement......................................................................................................14 Objectives...................................................................................................................15 Organization of Thesis................................................................................................15 2 OVERVIEW OF PEANUT PRODUCTION AND PEST PROBLEMS IN THE SOUTHEAST.............................................................................................................17 Peanut Production.......................................................................................................17 Peanut Types.......................................................................................................17 Peanut Varieties...................................................................................................19 Threats to Peanut Production......................................................................................20 Insect and Disease Management.........................................................................20 Diseases...............................................................................................................21 Leafspot diseases..........................................................................................22 Southern stem rot.........................................................................................23 Tomato spotted wilt virus (TSWV)..............................................................23 Insects..................................................................................................................24 Foliage feeding insect pests..........................................................................25 Peg and pod feeding pests............................................................................26 Nematodes...........................................................................................................27 v

PAGE 6

Plant Disease Control.................................................................................................28 Chemicals...................................................................................................................29 3 MATERIAL AND METHODS..................................................................................31 Introduction and Experiment Overview.....................................................................31 Experimental Design..................................................................................................32 Assessing Pest Problems.............................................................................................36 Harvesting and Drying Decisions...............................................................................38 Grading System for Peanuts.......................................................................................39 Statistical Methodology and Data Analysis................................................................41 4 EMPIRICAL RESULTS............................................................................................46 Introduction.................................................................................................................46 Estimating Production Costs.......................................................................................46 Research Results.........................................................................................................53 Yields..........................................................................................................................53 Treatments...........................................................................................................53 Cultivars..............................................................................................................55 Florida vs. Alabama.............................................................................................56 Grade...........................................................................................................................59 Treatments...........................................................................................................59 Cultivars..............................................................................................................60 Florida vs. Alabama.............................................................................................60 Revenue......................................................................................................................62 Income Above Variable Costs....................................................................................62 Treatments...........................................................................................................62 Cultivars..............................................................................................................64 Florida vs. Alabama.............................................................................................66 5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.........................................................................68 Summary.....................................................................................................................68 Conclusions.................................................................................................................68 Limitations on the Study.............................................................................................72 APPENDIX YIELDS.......................................................................................................73 LIST OF REFERENCES...................................................................................................76 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.............................................................................................80 vi

PAGE 7

LIST OF TABLES Table page 1-1 U.S. Annual Average Peanut Price: 1990-2003.......................................................14 3-1 Input Application Rates for the High Input Management Scheme Per Acre...........33 3-2 Input Application Rates for the IPM Management Scheme Per Acre.....................34 3-3 Input Application Rates for the Low Input Management Scheme Per Acre............36 3-4 Leafspot Resistance Rating System Used for Plant Appearance Score...................38 3-5 Premium and Discount Charts for Ton of Runner Type Peanuts.............................41 4-1 Estimated Costs of Producing One Acre of Peanuts in North Florida, Using the High Input Treatment................................................................................................47 4-2 Estimated Costs of Producing One Acre of Peanuts in North Florida, Using the IPM Treatment..........................................................................................................48 4-3 Estimated Costs of Producing One Acre of Peanuts in North Florida, Using the Low Input Treatment................................................................................................49 4-4 Estimated Costs of Producing One Acre of Peanuts in Headland Alabama, Using the High Input Treatment..........................................................................................50 4-5 Estimated Costs of Producing One Acre of Peanuts in Headland Alabama, Using the IPM Treatment....................................................................................................51 4-6 Estimated Costs of Producing One Acre of Peanuts in Headland Alabama, Using the Low Input Treatment..........................................................................................52 4-7 Average Yields for Florida and Alabama by Treatment Scheme, 2002-2003.........54 4-8 Average Yields for Florida and Alabama by Treatment vs. Cultivar, 2002-2003...54 4-9 Average Yields for Florida and Alabama by Cultivar, 2002-2003..........................55 4-10 Average Yields for Florida and Alabama by Cultivar vs. Treatment, 2002-2003...56 4-11 Comparison of Average Yield by Location, Alabama and Florida, 2002-2003......57 vii

PAGE 8

4-12 Monthly Rainfall Data in Inches: 2002-2003 by Selected Months..........................58 4-13 Comparison of Average Yield Versus Pesticide Treatments, Alabama and Florida, 2002-2003...................................................................................................58 4-14 Average Quality for Florida and Alabama by Treatment Scheme, 2002-2003........59 4-15 Average Quality for Florida and Alabama by Treatment vs. Cultivar, 2002-2003.60 4-16 Average Quality for Florida and Alabama by Cultivar, 2002-2003........................61 4-17 Average Quality for Florida and Alabama by Cultivar vs. Treatment, 2002-2003.61 4-18 Average Revenue for Florida and Alabama (Dollars/Acre), 2002-2003.................62 4-19 Average Income Above Variable Cost for Florida and Alabama by Treatment Scheme (Dollars/Acre), 2002-2003..........................................................................63 4-20 Average Income Above Variable Cost for Florida and Alabama by Treatment vs. Cultivar (Dollars/Acre), 2002-2003.........................................................................64 4-21 Average Income Above Variable Cost for Florida and Alabama by Cultivar (Dollars/Acre), 2002-2003.......................................................................................65 4-22 Average Income Above Variable Cost for Florida and Alabama by Cultivar vs. Treatment (Dollars/Acre), 2002-2003......................................................................65 4-23 Comparison of Average Income Above Variable Cost Versus Cultivars Alabama and Florida, 2002-2003............................................................................................67 4-24 Comparison of Average Income Above Variable Cost Versus Pesticide Treatments Alabama and Florida, 2002-2003..........................................................67 A-1 Yields in Pounds Per Acre: Average 2002-2003.....................................................73 A-2 Yields in Pounds Per Acre, Florida and Alabama: Average 2002...........................74 A-3 Yields in Pounds Per Acre, Florida and Alabama: Average 2003...........................75 viii

PAGE 9

LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1-1 Major World Producers of Peanut: 2002-2003..........................................................3 1-2 Peanut Oilseed Exports: 2002-2003...........................................................................3 1-3 Food Uses of Peanuts in the United States.................................................................5 1-4 Breakdown in Regions of Peanut Production in U.S. 2003.......................................7 1-5 Chemical Cost for Peanuts in the Southeast Region. A) Costs Including Nematicides. B) Costs with No Nematicides...........................................................13 3-1 Map of Replications in Florida Test.........................................................................45 ix

PAGE 10

Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF PEST MANAGEMENT IN PEANUTS By Maria Jose Garcia-Casellas August 2004 Chair: Timothy D. Hewitt Major Department: Food and Resource Economics Currently twenty-five to thirty percent of the input costs of producing peanuts are allocated to managing the major insect pests and diseases. Because of the economic distress experienced by many southeastern growers, they are looking for ways to lower the cost of production. Pest control decisions by peanut producers need to be based upon sound science, and many producers lack in this aspect. Also, based upon changes in production and cultural practices, and the peanut cultivars grown, economic thresholds for the major insect pests need re-evaluating. Field experiments were conducted in 2002 and 2003 at the University of Florida North Florida Research and Education Center in Marianna, Florida, and at Wiregrass Research and Extension Center in Headland, Alabama. The study was done to assess the impact of three management systems on the economics of peanut production. The managements systems designated as low, Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and high were evaluated as splitplots, while peanut cultivars ViruGard, Georgia Green, and C99R were included as whole plots in each management system. x

PAGE 11

A strip-plot design with cultivars was used. In this design, the three different cultivars are laid out in horizontal strips, which are then split into subplots with different treatment schemes. The analysis of variance and the LSD test used to compare means show the significant differences between the cultivars and the management schemes with respect to yield, quality and income above variable costs. The results in this research indicated that variety is not as important as pest management practice in contributions to economic returns, especially between the varieties C99 and Georgia Green. With the new peanut program provisions, there is a need to examine production practices that reduce costs and to look at ways of optimizing income above variable costs. This is why it is important for growers to look at yield, quality, cost, and resulting income. xi

PAGE 12

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Peanuts are an important part of the crop economy in the United States and especially in the southeast region where they provide the majority of agriculture income in many of the peanut producing counties. Since the 1970s the U. S. has been one of the leading exporting countries in the world peanut market. Peanut production is threatened by pests and diseases in addition to weather conditions and other cultural factors. Also, international competition and the current farm program in effect are important factors in decision making by peanut producers and the success of the industry as a whole. For these reasons, growers need to seek ways to increase productivity and determine possible ways to lower production costs to be successful. Variety selection and a prudent insect and disease management control program are a necessity. International Peanut Trade Peanut, Arachis hypogaea, is one of the main oilseeds in the world. According to USDA estimates for the crop year 2002/2003 (FAS, USDA, 2004), world oilseed production was 329.75 million metric tons, of this total approximately 10 percent was the share of peanut, 60 percent was soybean, 10 percent cottonseed, 10 percent rapeseed and 10 percent other oilseeds. According to USDA data from the period 1972-2000, 90 percent of the world peanut production was produced by developing countries (Revoredo & Fletcher, 2002). 1

PAGE 13

2 According to Revoredo and Fletcher (2002), the world peanut market can be disaggregated into four geographic regions: America, Africa, Asia and the rest of the world. Except for Europe, three regions account for 99 percent of total production. China is the number one peanut producing counting with 40% of the world production, followed by India with 25%, and the United States with 6%. World average in-shell peanut production was 31.3 million metric tons during 1999-2003. Peanut production grew at an annual rate of 2.5 percent between the years 1972 to 2003. This increase in production was due both to an increase in the harvested area and an increase in peanut yields, the latter being the main reason in the growth of production. Yields increased 1.9 percent per year during the period 1972-2000, growing from 0.8 to 1.37 metric tons per hectare. The area harvested remained relatively stable during the same period with some growth the 1990s. Peanut trade accounts for about 4 percent of the world production, equivalent to 9.2% of world oilseed production. However, in countries like Nicaragua, Argentina and the U.S., a significant percentage of the crop is exported (Fletcher & Smith, 2002). China, India, United States, Nigeria and Indonesia are the top five world producers of peanut oilseed. Although their percentage of world production has changed a little over time, the trend remains constant (Figure 1-1). The U.S., China, India and Argentina shared about 67 percent of the world edible peanut exports, in the 1990s and about 83 percent for the years 2000-2003 (FAS, USDA, 2004 A). These four countries dominate the peanut trade but their individual market shares have changed significantly over the last three decades. Export data from the last two years is shown in figure 1-2.

PAGE 14

3 16000 14818 14415 14000 12000 10000PRODUCTION 7600 2001/2002 8000 2002/2003 6000 5200 4000 1940 1506 1510 1490 2000 1086 1033 0 China India Unites States Nigeria Indonesia PRODUCERS Figure 1-1. Major World Producers of Peanut: 2002-2003. (Source: Foreign Agricultural Service, Official USDA Estimates for May 2004 B.) 1200 1,092 1000 906 800 EXPORTS 2001/2002 600 2002/2003 400 317 268 222 190 200 160 105 105 60 0 China Unites States A rgentina India Vietnam EXPORTERS Figure 1-2. Peanut Oilseed Exports: 2002-2003. (Source: Foreign Agricultural Service, Official USDA Estimates for May 2004 A.)

PAGE 15

4 Since 1990s international trade of peanuts has gone through a number of changes. China, U.S., and Argentina have consolidated their positions as leading exporting countries in the peanut market, however their share of world total exports has been decreasing (Revoredo & Fletcher, 2002). The trend of the six major exporters, China, United States, Argentina, India, Vietnam and Nicaragua, has been increasing. Revoredo and Fletcher (2002) observed that while on average during the 1972-75 period the major exporters captured 70.8 percent of the total exports, during the 1996-2000 period their share reached 85 percent and increased further to 91 percent during 2000-2003. Imports exhibit a different trend. While the EU and Asian countries are still the main importers, the trend observed on the share by country is decreasing toward a more fragmented market. The EU countries, together with Japan and Canada have been historically the main importers of peanuts; on the other hand, Indonesia was ranked as the second largest importer during the 1990s. According to Revoredo and Fletcher (2002), the world market of peanuts may be considered a residual market, in the sense that only a small fraction of the world production is committed to exports and imports with a high fraction of the production being used domestically. Total volume of peanut exports has been growing since the late 1980s even though at a modest rate, increasing for the 1976-80 period from an average of 1.1 million metric tons to 1.5 during 1996-2000 and to 1.8 million metric tons during the period 2000-2003. Peanut Products Peanuts are also an important oil crop worldwide. Most peanuts produced are crushed for oil and protein meal. The United States is the main country producing

PAGE 16

5 peanuts used in edible products such as peanut butter, roasted peanuts, peanut candies, snack peanuts and confectionery, especially with chocolate. As shown in Figure 1-3, peanut butter remains the main food use of peanuts in the United States. Othe r 1% Snacks 23% Peanut butte r 52% Candy 24% Figure 1-3. Food Uses of Peanuts in the United States. (Source: Foreign Agricultural Services, USDA, 2003.) China, India and the United States process about two-thirds of the total peanut utilization in the world. Utilization among these countries differs substantially. According to the University of Georgia (2002), the total amount of peanuts used for crushing and food purposes in China was approximately 40% for food and 60% for crushing. Indias share of crushing was 92% while the United Stated has increased its share for food over time, reaching 77% on average during 1996-2000. Use of peanuts in food products has steadily increased over time. Crushing peanuts for oil and meal, however, remains the most important use for peanuts. This varies year to year primarily because of fluctuations in production and foreign demand. U.S. peanut oil production rose to 259 million pounds in 2002/03, from the 230 million pounds production the year before.

PAGE 17

6 In terms of consumption, whole peanut utilization for food purposes has been increasing. Unlike other countries where the major end products are peanut oil, cake and meal, the primary market for U.S. peanuts is edible (whole) peanut consumption; primarily peanut butter. Peanuts that are used for food purposes require a higher quality than those used for crushing. Per capital whole peanut consumption in U.S. is approximately 6.5 pounds per year. Peanuts supply one-sixth of the worlds vegetable oil. Only 15 percent of the U.S. production is normally crushed for oil. Export of processed peanuts and specialty peanut products has gradually increased. Some of these products in the U.S. are peanut butter, packaged nuts (includes salted, unsalted, flavored, and honey-roasted nuts), snack peanuts, peanut oil, and peanut flour; they are also used in confectionery. Americans consume more than 300 million pounds of snack peanuts a year. Fifty two percent of the U.S. peanut production is used to make peanut butter, and about 24 percent is sold as snacks or in-shell peanuts, often roasted with salt and spicy seasonings. The confectionery industry uses about 24 percent of the U.S. crop to make candy; many chocolate confections contain peanuts or peanut butter. Peanut Production in the U.S. After analyzing USDA data for U.S. peanut production and exports from the years 1972 to 2000, Revoredo and Fletcher (2002) concluded that movements in exports in the U.S. are associated to movements in production. U.S. peanut production for the year 2003 accounted for 4.14 billion pounds, an increase from the 2002 production of 3.32 billion pounds, even though the area planted suffered a decrease in the same time period from 1.35 to 1.34 million acres. The harvested area increased from 1.2 to 1.3 million acres from the years 2002 to 2003, at the same time the U.S. showed an increase in peanut

PAGE 18

7 yields from 2,571 pounds in 2002 to 3,159 pounds in 2003.Yields were higher because weather conditions were ideal and rotations are improving through out the peanut belt. Peanut production and primary processing are concentrated in nine states that can be divided into three regions. The Georgia-Florida-Alabama-South Carolina region, referred to as the Southeast; the Texas-Oklahoma-New Mexico region, referred to as the Southwest; and the Virginia-North Carolina region, referred to as Virginia-Carolina region. The southeast accounts for 68 percent of U.S. peanut production, as shown in Figure 1-4. VC 10% SW 22% SE 68% Figure 1-4. Breakdown in Regions of Peanut Production in U.S. 2003. (Source: NASS, USDA, 2003.) In 2003 most states reported mostly good to excellent yields due to near-perfect weather both for growing and harvesting. The largest producing region, the southeastern states, harvested 1,358,000 short tons of peanuts, 45 percent above 2002. Harvested

PAGE 19

8 acreage was 857,000 acres, again 9 percent up from last year. Yield in the 4-state area averaged 3,238 pounds per acre, 804 pounds above 2002. In Florida, peanut producers harvested an average of 3,000 pounds per acre from 115,000 acres; accounting for 345 million pounds of peanuts in 2003. Alabama harvested 2,750 pounds per acre from 185,000 acres; with a total production of 508.75 million pounds of peanut in the same year. According to USDA, the 2003/04 season average farm price is projected to range from 16.25 to 19.25 cents per pound, compared with 18.24 cents in 2002/03. State revenue for peanuts was $35.2 million dollars in Florida in 2002, and $63.5 million in 2003. Alabama obtained revenues of $62.2 million dollars in 2002, and $ 94.2 million in 2003. The U.S. Peanut Program After the Great Depression, economic conditions led Congress in 1934 to institute a program of national emergency to control the domestic supply of peanuts and protect producer income. The program was originally intended to be provisional but a type of peanut program remains in effect. The program consists of three components: a poundage quota, an import quota and non-recourse loans. The Farms Bill passed by the U.S. Government in 2002, included radical changes to the peanut program making it similar to other agriculture programs for crops such as wheat, corn and rice. Under the quota program before 2002, the federal government paid peanut farmers $610 per ton of peanut, nearly twice the world market price, for a government-set quota. After exceeding this quota, farmers received a guarantee of $132 per ton for peanuts sold mainly for oil and meal. These quotas were established in the 1930s and could be passed from generation to generation of farmers or could be sold but could not be transferred

PAGE 20

9 outside of a state. Farmers with no quota could not sell their peanuts domestically; however, they could buy or rent the rights from a quota holder. By replacing the marketing system established 60 years ago, the Farm Bill of 2002 made significant changes in the peanut program. The most significant change in the previous peanut program was to revoke the quota system established in the 1930s. In its place, the peanut program would operate similarly to the traditional commodity crops, such as feed grains, wheat and rice. The program also contained provisions for a peanut quota buyout. Peanut producers holding quotas would also be compensated 11 cents per pound annually over the period 2002-2006. Provisions of the new peanut program include marketing program loan rates, the weekly national posted price and disposition of last years crop still in storage. Contracting is allowed and producers may contract modest premiums before harvest. Premiums are often determined by the market and supply conditions. The 2002 Farm Bill established a marketing loan program and loan deficiency payments (LDPs) to treat peanuts similar to other commodities (corn, soybean, cotton). By law, the national average loan rate is $355 per ton, though specific rates have been set for specific types of peanuts. Premiums and discounts are applied for quality factors. A GAO analysis concluded that the new program would lessen the adverse effect on consumers by lowering average peanut prices, but these lower prices would be offset by a substantial increase in USDA outlays to maintain producer income. According to USDA (2003), to be eligible for a loan or LDP the producer must share in the risk of producing the commodity, be compliant with conservation and wetland requirements and have and retain beneficial interest in the peanuts until the loan

PAGE 21

10 or the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) takes title to the commodity. A producer is considered to have beneficial interest in the commodity if the producer has control and title of the commodity and is exposed to risk of loss. To be eligible for a loan or LDP the peanuts must have been produced and harvested by an eligible producer and be in storable conditions; must be merchantable for feed, food or other uses as determined by CCC and meet the specific commodity eligibility requirements for nonrecourse by CCC. Also peanuts have to be Virginia, Spanish, Runner or Valencia types, not have been shelled or crushed and must be inspected and graded if warehouse stored. And finally, peanuts must be inspected and graded upon delivery if farm stored. Because of the previous programs and marketing structure, there is no reported cash price for peanuts as for other crops; consequently the USDA establishes a price. The USDA reports a national posted price, which will determine loan repayment when the price is below the loan rate. The USDA will have the necessary resources to ensure the posted price as an accurate presentation of the value of the farmers, using information from both domestic and foreign sales transactions. Time will be required for peanut prices to fully reflect the new market structure. Southeast Peanuts While peanuts may be regarded as a minor crop on a national scale, peanuts are an integral component of southern agriculture and the southern rural economy. According to the U.S. Ag Census, peanuts provide the majority of agriculture income in many of the peanut producing counties in the South. Many of these counties obtain 50-70% of their agricultural income from peanuts (Fletcher, 2002).

PAGE 22

11 Many of the peanut products manufacturing facilities are located in the local southern communities. The first level of value-added activity of peanuts involving shelling is performed in the same local southern communities. As Fletcher (2002) observed, this provides jobs as well as additional economic activity to the southern communities. Each dollar generated in the peanut industry creates a ripple effect throughout hundreds of other sectors in the economy, generating even more spending. Given this multiplier effect, studies have estimated that the peanut industry in 1995 was responsible for more than $1.3 billion in total economic output and 16,242 jobs in the southeast region (Hearn, 1995). As Fletcher (2002) reported, peanut infrastructure has developed in three areas primarily in the south. Approximately 60% of the production occurs in Georgia, Florida and Alabama; about 25% in Oklahoma, Texas and New Mexico; and the remaining production occurs in North Carolina and Virginia. Many changes are occurring in the way the southeast region and U.S. as a whole produce and market peanuts. The ability to obtain profits through peanut production is at risk because of factors such as weather, domestic policies, trade policies, regulations, price and increasing cost of production. Profit is a function of yield, price, quality and cost. Therefore, in order to increase or maintain profits, special attention needs to be given to these variables. Since price is the variable over which farmers have limited control, it is important to pay close attention to the cost structure which producers may have some control. Attempting to reduce cost using improved or more resistant varieties

PAGE 23

12 and a good use of pesticides are ways to improve profits. Yields play a fundamental role so trying to increase them while maintaining the same cost is a priority. Currently 30-50% of the input costs of producing peanuts is allocated to managing weed, insects and diseases. Southeastern growers are looking for ways to lower the cost of production because of the implementation of the new peanut program, which lowers the prices that farmers receive. In peanut production, as in all agriculture, risk and uncertainty exist due to production factors and market conditions. Pests are the major factors limiting yield, quality, and profitability of peanut production in the southeast region. The hot and wet summer climate favors the development of several destructive diseases. Leafspot diseases, white mold and root-knot nematodes cause the greatest damage to peanuts in the southeast region. Also, substantial losses occur from Rhizoctonia limb rot and peanut rust. Early leafspot and to a greater extent late leafspot are the most widespread and potentially destructive peanut diseases. White mold, also called Southern stem rot and stem blight, is another damaging disease of peanuts. This disease occurs in almost every field where peanuts have been cultivated. Yield loss to white mold is heaviest where peanuts are grown each year or every other year. Estimated losses in these fields may reach 20 percent of expected yields. Plant parasitic nematodes may also limit the production of peanuts. The more often the peanuts are grown on the same land, the higher the risk of significant crop injury. The peanut root-knot nematode is the most destructive and widely distributed nematode pest of peanut; it is found in about 40 percent of Alabamas peanut fields. Other nematodes

PAGE 24

13 that damage peanuts are the lesion nematode and the ring nematode. These populations are usually highest in light, sandy soils. Tomato spotted wilt (TSWV) is one of the most damaging virus diseases of peanuts. Symptoms may be seen first about 14 to 21 days after seedling emergence. Late TSWV infection can cause a decline in plant vigor, yellowing of the foliage, vine collapse, and finally plant death. Reducing expenses is an important goal of any peanut producer. By improving production management, cost could be decreased a minimum of $15 an acre. Using Floridas 115,000 acres of peanuts as an example; a minimum of $1,725,000 dollars could be saved by improving production management. The breakdown of chemical cost applied in peanut production is shown in Figure 1-5. Some farmers applied nematicides during the season; however, not all of them follow the same practice. This makes a big difference in the percentage used for the other pesticides. Fungicides Herbicides 23% Insecticides 28% 49% Herbicides Nematicides 24% 17% Insecticides 21% Fungicides 38% A B Figure 1-5. Chemical Cost for Peanuts in the Southeast Region. A) Costs Including Nematicides. B) Costs with No Nematicides. (Source: University of Georgia, Representative Farm Budgets, 2002.)

PAGE 25

14 Economic losses occur each year from the inefficient use of pesticides. Threshor insect pest should be based on produ olds for the majction economics not fixed interval ray regimes. Peanut producers may be able to reduce insect and disease inputs without sacrificing yield or crop quality by utilizing a lower cost management scheme and selecting the proper variety according to the location conditions. With the new peanut program, peanut producers are receiving lower prices so they must reduce costs or increase yield to maintain historical profit levels. The prices per unit of peanuts from 1990 are shown in Table 1-1. From 1990 to 2001 prices fluctuated from 0.3 to 0.215 and with the new program in 2002 the price decreased to 0.178 dollars per pound. Table 1-1. U.S. Annual Average Peanut Price: 1990-2003 Unit sp Price per Years Dollars/lb 1990 0.300 1991 0.263 1992 0.286 1993 0.296 1994 0.281 1995 0.271 1996 0.281 1997 0.280 1998 0.298 1999 0.232 2000 0.300 2001 0.215 2002 0.178 2003 0.184 Probl tateme Source: Agricultural Statistics Data Base NASS, USDA. em Snt Currently 25-30% of the input costs of producing peanuts are allocated to anaging the major insect pests and diseases. Because of the economic crisis most m

PAGE 26

15 southeastern growers are in, they a re looking for ways to lower the cost of production. Pest c and d economics of peanut production; evaluating the economic returns under the management schemes utilizing threrieties of peanuts. The primary pests target and dland, Alabama and at the Nsity region. Also, the problem statement and the objectives of the study are expressed in this chapter. Chapter 2 is an overview of peanut production and the pest problems in the ontrol decisions by peanut producers need to be based upon sound science,growers do not always consider this aspect. Also, based upon changes in productionpractices and peanut cultivars grown, economic thresholds for the major insect pests neere-evaluating. Objectives The main objective of this study is to assess the impact of three management systems on the e different va ed for management are thrips, foliage feeders, soil insects as well as soil borneleafspot diseases in peanuts. The management systems designated as low, IPM and high are evaluated as split-plots, while three peanut cultivars, Georgia Green, ViruGard, and C99R were included as whole plots in each management system. Data summary and economic analysis from two years, allowing extension recommendations to be revised are another objective of the study. The study was established at the Wiregrass Research and Extension Center in Hea orth Florida Research and Education Center in Marianna, Florida under the direction of Ron Weeks and Richard Sprenkel, entomologists with Auburn Univerand the University of Florida, respectively; with funding from the National Peanut Board. Organization of Thesis Chapter 1 is the introductory chapter, containing information on international peanut trade, peanut products, the peanut program and the peanuts in the southeast

PAGE 27

16 southeast Unites States. Peanut production, types and varieties, as well as threats to peanu t production are included in this chapter. Chapter 3 is a description of the mateand methods used in this research. Experiment overview, experimental design, assepest problems, harvesting and drying decisions, and statistical methodology and data analysis are included. Chapter 4 consists of the empirical results of the study. Cost ofproduction estimates and the research results are explained in this chapter. The summconclusions and study limitations are included in Chapter 5. rial ssing ary,

PAGE 28

CHAPTER 2 OVERVIEW OF PEANUT PRODUCTION AND PEST PROBLEMS IN THE SOUTHEAST Peanut Production Peanut is a very important part of the row crop economy in Florida. Peanut is a high management; high input crop and the costs of inputs have steadily increased while peanut farmers are competing in a global market that keeps price low. Yields have been stagnant for years, even with new varieties and technology. Therefore to remain competitive, farmers must find ways to improve production efficiency or increase yields (Wright et al., 2002). Peanut Types Peanuts are divided into two subspecies, hypgaea and fastigiata. The hypgaea do not flower on the main stem, generally mature later, have a high water requirement, have alternate branching patterns and produce large seeds. The fastigiata produce flowers on the main stem, have sequential branching, mature earlier relative to hypgaea, have a low water requirement and produce smaller seeds. The U.S. market has four types of peanuts: Virginia, Runner, Spanish, and Valencia. Virginia and Runner are part of the hypgaea subspecies, and Spanish and Valencia belong to the fastigiata subspecies. Virginia Type. This type of peanut is desirable in the peanut market because of their high yield, large pod size and good flavor. These are also used in snack peanuts and in some candies. 17

PAGE 29

18 Runner TypeThese peanuts get their name from the fact that they tend to have a prostrate or running growth habit. They are usually used to make peanut butter. They have an excellent flavor. Spanish Type. These peanuts have smaller kernels covered with a reddish-brown skin. They are used predominantly in peanut candies, with significant quantities used for snack nuts and peanut butter. Spanish peanuts have a higher oil content than the other types of peanuts which is advantageous when crushing for oil. They are primarily grown in Oklahoma and Texas. Valencia Type. This type has multi-kernel pod characteristics and red seed coat. Valencia has a distinctive flavor preferred by some customers. In general these peanuts have lower yields than Virginia types. Soil type, climate, and operation of the peanut program provisions establish the location of peanut production. Area is a main determinant in what to produce. The southeast region grows mostly the medium-kernel runner peanuts used mostly in peanut butter, and in smaller amounts for snack peanuts and candy. Runners are the most important type for all shelled uses. The southwest grows more Runner type than Spanish now. Virtually all the Spanish peanut production is in Oklahoma and Texas. The Virginia-Carolina region grows mostly large-kernel Virginia peanut that are roasted for use as ballpark peanuts or cleaned, in shell-peanuts. As shelled peanuts, Virginias are also used as cocktail nuts and snack peanuts.

PAGE 30

19 The Valencia type is grown in New Mexico. This type of peanut, with its long shell containing three or four kernels, is excellent for roasting in the shell (Sanford and Evans, 1995). Peanut Varieties Peanut production starts with a variety selection because the objective is to grow the highest yielding variety that you can market. Peanut markets can be locally specialized. Consumer acceptance and marketability are influenced by factors such as pod size, shape, kernel skin color, multi-kernel pods and flavor. Variety selection will also depend on soil type and length of growing season. The Spanish type matures sooner (90 to 120 days) than Runner or Virginia types. Most Valencia varieties mature in 90 to 110 days while Runner and Virginia require 130 to 150 days (Putman el at., 2004). Varieties should be chosen on the basis of yield, grade, and pest resistance, and then on the basis of the maturity that best fits the farming operation. The varieties used in this study are: Georgia Green. This Runner type peanut cultivar released in 1995 was developed at the University of Georgia. Georgia Green is highly productive and has very good stability across many environments. It has been shown to have a higher yield and dollar return than the Florunner. It also produced higher percentage of total sound mature kernels (TSMK). Georgia Green shows good resistance to tomato spotted wilt virus, compared to Southern Runner. ViruGard is a Runner type peanut cultivar that matures in about 135 days; however, depending on the growing season it can mature earlier than other commonly grown varieties such as GK-7 and Georgia Green when planted in the same field. It is a

PAGE 31

20 cross between NC-7 and Florunner and has a spreading bunch growth habit. ViruGard is more upright than GK-7 with smaller leaflets. It has a light pink seed coat color and seed size is larger than most currently grown varieties with more jumbo kernels. Another characteristic is its TSWV tolerance similar to Georgia Green or Southern Runner. Although ViruGard was used in the experimental design this variety was not accepted as a variety to be used in the southeast and is not currently grown. C99R has a relatively large pod for a Runner type and has the advantage of high yield and good tomato spotted wilt resistance. This variety matures in about 150 days, 2 or 3 weeks after Georgia Green. Its disadvantage is slower maturity. Threats to Peanut Production Insect and Disease Management Prudent disease management of disease is essential to profitable peanut production. Resistant cultivars, early disease detection, weather-based prediction, scouting, long rotations and proper pesticide selections are the basic elements of a disease management strategy. Scouting is a procedure where the crop is sampled in an arranged approach to determine the presence of damaging pest levels. According to Shew (2004), early detection is critical in developing effective and low cost approaches to disease management. Meticulous scouting and accurate identification of diseases is essential for selection of the most appropriate management tactics and crop protection products. The use of cultural and chemical controls achieves maximum benefits and rotation and resistant cultivars generally reduce the number of pathogens. Pesticides should be used only when cultural practices have not been sufficient to reduce pathogen levels below economic thresholds.

PAGE 32

21 To be effective, fungicides should be applied before or soon after disease appears. The use of weather-based disease advisories minimizes unnecessary pesticide applications and adds precision to applications by anticipating disease outbreaks (Shew, 2004). For many diseases such as tomato spotted wilt, Cylidrocladium black rot, Sclerotinia blight, pod rot and nematodes, management decisions must be made before the next crop of peanuts is planted. Diseases Some peanut diseases can greatly reduce quality and yield, as well as monetary returns by retarding desirable plant development or by diverting product utilization. Some diseases, such as leafspot and rust are obvious in appearance while others, like root rots and pod rots, frequently are unnoticed until dry weather occurs or until harvest. All peanut producers annually experience loss from one or more diseases on their crop. A disease control strategy is an essential component of any peanut production program. Yield reductions associated with foliar diseases such as leafspot form the greatest threat of all diseases to southern United States. Early and late leafspot can potentially cause annual losses of around $600 million. In most parts of Florida, tomato spotted wilt virus (TSWV) has caused major peanut damage in recent years. Growers rely on resistant varieties, planting dates and plant populations, and a systemic insecticide applied at planting to reduce damage from TSWV. White mold can cause damage too. However, the magnitude of damage and resulting crop loss varies with the time of occurrence, environmental conditions and, more importantly, the disease organism (Aerts & Nesheim, 2001). These factors will influence choices of control needed. No one management measure will be totally effective for all peanut diseases. A series of coordinated control measures is necessary to do a proper job.

PAGE 33

22 Using good sanitation and cultural practices that lead to vigorous plant growth can control most of the specific diseases. No peanut varieties are immune to disease, but there is a wide range in susceptibility. Some of the important differences with respect to the most common diseases are noted below. Leafspot diseases Over the years, many of researchers working with peanuts have learned that peanut leafspot can cause extremely high yield losses. Early and late leafspots are the most widespread and the most damaging foliar diseases of peanut (Damicone & Melouk, 1999). Each year, peanut producers in Florida contend with this complex of foliar diseases. Weather conditions like rainfall or irrigation followed by high humidity during the growing season can contribute to it. The fungus Cercospora arachidicola causes early leafspot, and the fungus Cercosporidium personatum causes late leafspot. These fungi are present in most locations every year but are especially troublesome during wet and humid years. The leafspot fungi attack any aboveground portion of the plant. Yield loss occurs due to reduction of effective leaf area and weakening of stems and pegs that results in pods left in the field. When the leafspot pathogen is not controlled, nearly complete defoliation and yield losses of 50 percent are possible. Aerts and Nesheim (2001) found that yield losses may vary from near zero to as much as 91 percent in research tests. In Florida, on a statewide basis, annual yield losses attributed to peanut leafspot vary from 5 to 40 percent (Aerts & Nesheim, 2001). Leafspot control is essential to prevent heavy defoliation and peg infection which reduce yield. Spanish varieties seem to be affected earlier than Runner types, but Runners

PAGE 34

23 provide a greater potential for disease increase late in the season because they require more time to mature. Applying fungicides when there is excess of moisture and humidity during the growing season can control leaf diseases. Fungicide applications should begin before leafspots become established. Most products do not eradicate existing infections but rather work to prevent infection. In order to prevent or delay the development of resistance by the organisms, two or more types of fungicide need to be applied. Southern stem rot Also called white mold and stem blight, this disease occurs in almost every field where peanuts have been cultivated. Yield loss to white mold is heaviest where peanuts are grown each year or every other year. Estimated losses in these fields may reach 20 percent or more of expected yields or more. White mold is primarily a midto lateseason disease. Stems, pegs, roots and nuts are susceptible to infection. The first sign is a sudden wilting of a stem branch. The leaves on the wilted vines or stems quickly turn brown and die. Usually the wilting and death of the remaining stems on a diseased plant will follow. This fungus also attacks the roots, pods, and pegs of a peanut plant. Disease pods turn dark brown and disintegrate. The white mold fungus will survive in the soil as sclerotia until the next susceptible crop (Aerts & Nesheim, 2001). Tomato spotted wilt virus (TSWV) TSWV is one of the most damaging viruses of peanut. This virus causes a serious disease of peanuts in Florida and was first discovered in the state in 1986. Yield decreases of greater than 50% have been caused by tomato spotted wilt virus, (Kucharek, 2000). While some people from the Plant Pathology Department at UF stated that this

PAGE 35

24 disease would never be a problem, the fact is that it is the first virus to have a negative impact on peanut production in Florida, and it has been devastating to peanut production in the southeast and the entire industry. TSWV is a thrips-vectored virus, causing white etching-like ringspots on leaflets. If the infection occurs early, stunting of plant occurs. Buds may die and turn brown, and plants may be abnormally yellow, claimed Aerts and Nesheim (2001). Symptoms may be seen first about 14 to 21 days after seedling emergence. Any additional new leaves are only half their normal size and crinkled displaying a selection of chlorotic ringspots and line patterns. Late TSWV infection can cause a decline in plant vigor, yellowing of the foliage, vine collapse, and finally plant death (Kucharek, 2000). Manipulation of plant populations and planting times partially suppress TSWV in peanut. Cultivar selection has become another major tactic. Georgia Green is currently the predominant cultivar grown in the southeastern United States because of its acceptable agronomic type and partial resistance to TSWV. Insects Many insects attack peanut, and they may damage any part of the plant. Insect pests of peanut are fairly widespread across the production area. Insect problems vary from one season to the next as well as during the growing season because of varying factors such as weather and cultural practices. Depending on the damage they cause, insects can be divided in two groups. One, with insects that primarily damage foliage and other that damages the pods, pegs, and roots. The following are the most common insect pests found in Florida, based mostly on Sprenkel (2002) work.

PAGE 36

25 Foliage feeding insect pests Thrips. Several species of thrips cause damage to peanut. Each spring soon after crop emergence, peanuts are infested by adults, which migrate from a large variety of wild and cultivated hosts. The winged adult thrips vary from yellow to dark brown and the nymphs are wingless and yellow in color. According to Aerts and Nesheim (2001), thrips feed by rasping the young leaves of the bud and sucking up the plant fluid. This results in scarred and deformed leaves. Severe infestations cause stunting of the plants and delayed development. Thrips are also the vector of tomato spotted wilt virus. The timing of thrips infestations and damage are hard to predict, so at-planting insecticide treatments are more reliable than curative treatments. As Sprenkel (2002) expressed, significant acreage is treated annually for which monetary benefit is not immediately apparent. Twospotted spider mite. This is an insect-related pest that is inconspicuous and small, but when abundant, spider mite feeding damage is apparent. Spider mites feed by inserting their mouthparts into the plant and sucking out the plant juices. As the population increases, the feeding damage may cause the entire leaflet to turn brownish-yellow and die. Spider mite populations tend to increase more rapidly in hot, dry weather, causing more damage, even though they may be present in all types of weather. Fall armyworm. The stripes and coloration of the fall armyworm are very variable; however they can be identified by a white inverted Y mark in from of the head. Beet armyworms can be identified by a black spot on each side of the body just behind the head. The adult moth lays eggs in a fuzzy cluster, they hatch and the caterpillars move and feed together. Frequently large numbers congregate and move together feeding on foliage, thus the name armyworms. Early in the season, they often

PAGE 37

26 attack the vines and feed on developing buds. When the leaves expand, they acquire a ragged appearance because of this type of feeding (Aerts & Nesheim, 2001). Velvetbean caterpillars. A second type of foliage feeding worm is the Velvetbean caterpillar. These insects attack foliage, strip plants of leaves and destroy the terminal buds. They are normally more numerous late in the season, before harvest. Velvetbean caterpillars are green to black and usually have stripes running the length of the body. These insects are very active when disturbed. Adult moths are light brown and have a diagonal dark line across their wings (Aerts & Nesheim, 2001). Corn earworm. The corn earworm can be a serious pest of peanut in Florida. Adding to defoliation during the season, larvae are also able of causing damage after the peanuts are dug, by feeding on the drying peanuts. Adults are active at night and very strong flyers; this allows them to infest a host at significant distances from where they emerged from the pupal stage. According to Sprenkel (2002), there is a potential for the development of a large population and considerable damage to peanut late in the season since the corn earworm has numerous cultivated and wild hosts in north Florida. Leafhoppers. These small and green or brownish wedge shaped insects sometimes are called sharpshooters. All leafhoppers are wedge-shaped and very active, commonly flying ahead of a person walking through peanut fields. Leafhoppers have piercing sucking mouthparts and damage peanuts by sucking sap from leaves and buds causing leaf tips to turn yellowish-white or fringes of the leaf to turn brown. This yellowing reduces photosynthesis, results in leaf deterioration, and might lead to defoliation. Peg and pod feeding pests Lesser cornstalk borer. This is one of the most important economic pests of peanuts in the southeastern United States. Lesser cornstalk borer is associated with hot,

PAGE 38

27 dry weather; it also tends to be more of a serious pest on sandy soils when compared with heavier soils. It is a very active larva with alternating brown and purple bands on its body. Their feeding on the pegs and pods causes most of the economic losses. Southern Corn Rootworm. The southern corn rootworm has increased in importance as an economic pest of peanut especially in wet weather and on heavier soils in the southeast. The larva is the damaging stage, the adult known as the spotted cucumber beetle does very little damage to peanut, although is a general feeder on a number of hosts. Feeding is mostly confined to the pods; however many times the larvae are away from the feeding sites in the soil making them very difficult to find. Wireworms. Numerous species of wireworms can cause damage to peanuts. This damage to pods is similar to that caused by the southern corn rootworm. Yet, the holes in the pods are larger and have a more ragged edge. Larvae are very difficult to find in the soil due to their dark color. Most species require two years to develop in full meaning that the larvae may be already in the soil when a peanut crop is planted. Nematodes Nematodes are widespread and destructive pests on peanuts. For example, each year in Alabama, 5 to 10 percent of potential peanut yield is estimated to be lost due to nematodes (Hagan, 1994). Nematodes are microscopic worms, parasitic in nature and live in the soil and infect plants. Typically, they infect small areas of fields but can occasionally destroy crops when the infection is wide spread. Root-knot nematodes cause gall formations on peanut roots, pegs, and pods. Plants severely infected by root-knot nematodes have stunted growth and are lighter in color. Root-lesion nematodes affect roots, pegs, and pods. It can be identified best by the presence of small spots on pods. These spots are tan with a dark center.

PAGE 39

28 According to Hagan (1994), nematode populations are generally highest in light and sandy soils. The more often peanuts are grown in a field, the greater the risk of damage caused by nematodes, especially peanut root-knot. On the other hand, they rarely seriously damage peanuts cropped behind permanent pasture grasses. Nematode-damaged peanuts typically show yellow foliage and may wilt at midday, even if soil moisture levels are adequate for good plant growth. Vines may be so stunted that they do not lap or shade out the row middles, making the peanuts more sensitive to drought. Severely stunted peanuts frequently die if stressed by hot, dry weather. Damaging nematodes are never evenly distributed across a field; scattered patches with damage can range in size from a few feet to several acres. Control of a nematode pest of peanut can be accomplished with crop rotation, early maturing cultivars and nematicides. Plant Disease Control It is important to practice good disease resistance management in order to delay the onset of what could be a serious issue. Insect and plant resistance to several classes of insecticides and fungicides caused problems in many different crops. An extension pathologist with the University of Florida, Tom Kucharek (as cited in Holman, 2002) indicated that resistance by disease-causing organisms to fungicides with specific modes of action would happen in some point of time. On the other hand, there are series of things we can do to delay this resistance. According to Holman (2002), these include crop rotation, choosing varieties with some resistance and fungicide selection. These management decisions can help even do they have only an indirect effect on pathogen resistance. Insecticides should be applied only when needed. Sprenkel (2003) claimed that experience has shown that 40-60% of the peanuts will probably not need any insecticide

PAGE 40

29 treatments. There has been a practice of treating for insects and leafspot at the same time. Data indicate leaf-feeding insects would not require more than two applications during leafspot treatments. Total defoliation from leafspot and insects should not exceed 20%. Leafspot control should be approached on a preventative basis; treat for insect defoliators only as the infestation indicates. Unnecessary use of insecticides kills beneficial insects and can cause build-up of pest insects later in the season (Sprenkel, 2003). Chemicals A wide array of chemicals is registered for disease control in peanuts. The selection of the most effective and economical chemical requires knowledge of the target disease and other possible diseases in the field. The most important component of resistance management is fungicide selection as well as rotating modes of action. The fungicides vulnerability to resistance is determined by the mode of action. Resistance can be delayed by mixing or alternating sprays of fungicides with different modes of action, using fungicides at the recommended rates and by not exceeding the total number of recommended sprays. An extension pathologist with Virginia Tech Tidewater Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Pat Phipps (as cited in Holman, 2002), explains that fungicides can be either broad spectrum or site specific. The most vulnerable are generally site specific in the metabolic pathways of the fungus. Being so specific, there is a risk of the fungus being able to change and overcome it. The fungicides that are broad spectrum in activity hit more than one site. Auburn University plant pathologist, Austin Hagan (as cited in Holman, 2002) adds that the risk of resistance would be significant if producers repeatedly used a fungicide that is only active at one or two sites without the use any broad spectrum fungicide.

PAGE 41

30 Clorothalonil, the generic name for a broad-spectrum fungicide, such as Bravo Ultrex, is helpful in disease management. Triazole and strobilurin materials are fungicides that act at one site in the fungal cell. Tilt and Folicur are Triazole fungicides, and Abound and Headline are strobilurin fungicides. According to Kucharek, materials such as Abound have a very specific mode of action so it is imperative that growers alternate it (Holman, 2002). Making use of a broad-spectrum fungicide along with other site-specific fungicides is highly recommended in peanut production. Abound seems to be an effective tool for managing soilborne diseases. This product is part of a line of chemistry that originated with compounds derived from mushrooms. The active ingredient, azoxystrobin, has a mode of action different that any other previously labeled fungicide and it is active on a very wide range of fungi pathogenic to a variety of crops. Abound is the most expensive peanut fungicide option so it is wise to use it only in the most needed situations. Abound was used in this experiment for the high management scheme. Growers should examine plants for soil insect damage to get some idea of the level of damage they have. It is important to keep in mind that damaged pods decay and fall off the plant so you may not be seeing all pods damage when peanuts are dug.

PAGE 42

CHAPTER 3 MATERIAL AND METHODS Introduction and Experiment Overview Field experiments were conducted in 2002 and 2003 at the University of Florida North Florida Research and Education Center in Marianna, FL, located in the panhandle of Florida and at Wiregrass Research and Extension Center in Headland, AL, located in southeast Alabama. The soil type at Marianna is Chipola loamy sand with organic matter of less than 1% while the soil type of Headland is a Dothan sandy loam with organic matter less than 1%. The Marianna experiment was planted in soil that was categorized as a disturbed soil. This soil had been heavily compacted due to previous use as grass airport runaway. The study was done to assess the impact of three management systems on the economics of peanut production. The primary pests targeted for management are thrips, foliage feeders, soil insects as well as soil borne and leafspot diseases in peanuts. The managements systems designated as, low, Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and high, are evaluated as splitplots, while peanut cultivars, ViruGard (early maturity), Georgia Green (intermediate maturity), and C99R (late maturity), will be included as whole plots in each management system. Variety selection was made due to climatic conditions and variety resistance pest for the problems in the areas where the tests were located. Leafspot is one of the most common and destructive diseases in the southeastern United States. C99R and Georgia Green had proven to be somewhat resistant. Georgia Green is a predominate cultivar 31

PAGE 43

32 grown in the region because of its desirable agronomic characteristics and partial resistance to TSWV and leafspot, southern stem rot and rust (Kucharek, 2000). The variety C99R has a partial resistance to leafspot, white mold, TSWV and rust (Kucharek, 2000). The varieties C99R, Georgia Green and ViruGard were planted on May 17 th 2002 with a 2 deep moisture in Florida and later in 2003 (May 29), due to wet weather conditions that prevented earlier planting. In 2002 peanuts were planted at Headland on May 16 th and on May 12 th in 2003. The planting rate was 100 lb seed per acre for all cultivars in both locations. Experimental Design A strip-plot design with cultivars was used. In this design, the three different cultivars are laid out in horizontal strips, which are then split into subplots with different treatment schemes. The three cultivars were planted in 24-row strips across the field, one strip per cultivar. Each 24-row strip contained four replications. Within each replication there were three randomized treatments. Plot size was eight 40-foot rows spaced 3 feet (0.9m) for a total of 36 plots. A map of the plots and treatments used in the design is shown in Figure 3.1. As seen in the map, each replication contains nine plots with nine different treatments. Three plots of each treatment were designated as high; three as IPM and another three as low input. Treatments were randomized within the strip. For the high input treatment the maximum rates of recommended pesticides were applied. Detail of applications for both states is shown in table 3-1. Fungicide applications were fairly similar in both states. Folicur and Abound were used the same number of applications, however, two additional applications of Bravo were applied in

PAGE 44

33 Florida for added control of leafspot. Insecticide programs across the states were different; Florida used only Orthene to control insects while Alabama applied Temik, Lorsban, Karate and Comite. For weed management, Florida test contained Strongarm, Cadre and Prowl while the Alabama plots used Strongarm and Sonalan. The differences are due to the weed composition at each site and the local conditions. The same herbicide application rate was followed in all of the three management schemes. Table 3-1. Input Application Rates for the High Input Management Scheme Per Acre. FLORIDA ALABAMA Name Dosage Applications Name Dosage Applications Herbicides: Herbicides: Cadre 1.44 oz. 1 Sonalan 1.00 qt. 1 Prowl 2.50 oz. 1 Strongarm 0.45 oz. 1 Strongarm 0.45 oz. 1 Insecticides: Insecticides: Orthene 4.0 oz. 1 Temik 1.00 lb. Ai 1 Lorsban 2.00 lb. Ai 1 Karate 2.00 oz. 1 Comite 2.00 oz. 1 Fungicides: Fungicides: Folicur 7.2 oz. 4 Folicur 7.2 oz. 4 Bravo Ultra 1.37 lb. 3 Bravo Wts. 1.5 pt. 1 Bravo Ultra 0.9 lb. 4 Bravo 720 1.0 pt. 4 Abound 20 oz. 2 Abound 20 oz. 2 The Integrated Pest Management scheme was based on a management system where some of the treatments are applied according to the AU Pest Production Model. The AUPnut advisory is designed to help time fungicide applications for control of leafspot in peanuts. It uses the number of rain events and the 5-day forecast to adjust the time between fungicide applications. IPM programs promote the integration of all applicable control measures to avoid buildup of damaging populations or to restrain numbers of the pest after it is established.

PAGE 45

34 IPM programs generally use chemical controls as a last resort and therefore result in reduced pesticide use, less environmental contamination and delayed development of resistant populations (Sprenkel, 2003). The goal of IPM is to apply the most up-to-date technology to keep pest populations below economic levels. This way, growers can produce a quality crop more profitably with minimal effects on the environment (Weeks et al., 2000). IPM includes techniques for managing pests including crop rotation, use of resistant varieties, proper use of tillage, fertility management, conservation of beneficial insects, biological control materials, irrigation management, and use of pheromone traps to monitor adult insect populations. Weeks et al. (2000) agreed that scouting is a fundamental part of IPM. For the IPM treatment, Table 3-2 shows the number of applications and the rates of products applied. Table 3-2. Input Application Rates for the IPM Management Scheme Per Acre. FLORIDA ALABAMA Name Dosage Applications Name Dosage Applications Herbicides: Herbicides: Cadre 1.44 oz. 1 Sonalan 1.00 qt. 1 Prowl 2.50 oz. 1 Strongarm 0.45 oz. 1 Strongarm 0.45 oz. 1 Insecticides: Insecticides: None Orthene 4.00 oz. 1 Fungicides: Fungicides: Folicur 7.2 oz. 4 Folicur 7.2 oz. 4 Bravo Ultra 1.37 lb. 1 Bravo 720 1.5 pt. 1 Bravo Ultra 0.9 lb. 2 Bravo 720 1.0 pt. 2 Tilt 2.0 oz. 2 Tilt 2.0 oz. 2

PAGE 46

35 For the IPM scheme the fungicides Bravo, Tilt and Folicur were applied in both states. The main difference between states was illustrated in insecticides; no insecticide was applied in Florida while Orthene was applied in Alabama. Spray application decisions were made based on the AUPnut Rules for peanut leafspot control. The AUPnut leafspot advisory was developed a decade ago by the Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station (AAES) researchers to improve the timing of fungicide applications needed for early and late leafspot on peanut. Advisories such as AUPnut generally cut out one to three sprays per season and help farmers save money. According to Yancy Jr. (2004), researchers have found that applications of Folicur and Abound can be scheduled using AUPnut. Research has shown that fungicide applications and disease control program costs can be reduced without jeopardizing peanut yield or quality by adopting weather-based spray advisories such as AUPnut (Hagan et al., 2000). The advisory is generated based on the number of rainfall events (24-hour period with more than 1/10th of an inch of rain and/or irrigation or fog beginning before 8:00PM). It also uses the 5-day average rain probability forecast and the rain forecast for each day within that 5-day average. The rules of the advisory are very helpful since rain may be irregular and there is access to only a limited number of rain estimates in the peanut producing regions. Note that regardless of what the advisory says, the first fungicide application should be made immediately if leafspot is seen (two or more spots per plant) in the lower leaves of the plant. During the season insect damage or any indicators of disease on the peanuts were checked. A few early leafspot lesions were found and some plants were diagnosed with Rhizoctonia.

PAGE 47

36 For the low input management scheme the minimum rates of recommended pesticides were applied. Bravo Ultra and Folicur were applied as noted in Table 3-3. Table 3-3. Input Application Rates for the Low Input Management Scheme Per Acre. FLORIDA ALABAMA Name Dosage Applications Name Dosage Applications Herbicides: Herbicides: Cadre 1.44 oz. 1 Sonalan 1.00 qt. 1 Prowl 2.50 oz. 1 Strongarm 0.45 oz. 1 Strongarm 0.45 oz. 1 Insecticides: Insecticides: None Orthene 4.00 oz. 1 Fungicides: Fungicides: Folicur 7.2 oz. 3 Folicur 7.2 oz. 3 Bravo Ultra 0.9 lb. 4 Bravo 720 1.0 pt. 3 Assessing Pest Problems Disease data were collected for leafspot and Tomato Spot Wilt Virus (TSWV). Plants were rated for TSWV; symptoms were increasing with time and were more visible. Counts of Tomato Spotted Wilt severity were assessed by determining the number of wilted plants found in two rows. At the beginning of the season most of the plants were severely spotted from the herbicide spray making difficult to assess the amount of leafspot present on the plant. By midseason no significant amount of leafspot was found on any of the plots, however in Florida, it was present on an adjacent field that had not been in grass last year and on some ViruGard plots. Leafspot was rated using the Florida 1-10 scoring system from the middle rows of each plot; the scale is shown in Table 3-4. This scale is based on the level of lesions in the canopy and the level of defoliation, with 1 being a healthy plant with no

PAGE 48

37 disease and 10 a dead plant. This was developed for researchers to be able to compare yields vs. disease for further use. Percent of canopy was also rated, ranging from 93% to 70% in August, 2003 in Florida. Only a few stray weeds were pulled in 2002, however, many plots were very weedy during 2003. The severe weed problem was probably due to the heavy nematode infestation which slowed vine growth and left the middles exposed throughout most of the season, and the large amount of rainfall which may have leached out the pre plant herbicide. Larger broadleaf weeds such as morning glory were hand pulled. Several methods can be used to sample for foliage-feeding pests of peanuts. According to Sprenkel (2003), however, the shake-cloth method appears to give the most consistent results. Working equally well for both someone learning to sample peanuts as well as someone with considerable experience. The shake-cloth or beat-cloth method uses the standard 36x 36 cloth that is fastened to two dowel rods. Using this method to check for insects, estimated levels were low in Florida. A few insects were present but not enough to warrant spraying. Thrips damage was assessed in Alabama by a subjective visual rating on a 0 10 scale with 0 meaning no damage. Threshold levels are another way of indicating when there is a need to spray. Counts of white mold severity were assessed in Alabama by determining the number of loci. One locus was defined as 1 or less foot of consecutive symptoms and signs of the disease.

PAGE 49

38 Table 3-4. Leafspot Resistance Rating System Used for Plant Appearance Score. RANK DESCRIPTION 1.0 No disease. 1.1 Traceonly a lesion or 2 in canopyhard to find. 1.5 Very few lesions in bottom canopy but easier to find that above. 2.0 Very few lesions (none on upper canopy); probably at least a few spots on most plants. 2.5 A few more and some on mid canopy. 3.0 Few lesions (very few on upper canopy); spots getting easy to find and often distributed from bottom to top. 3.5 Spots easy to find, well distributed, more than a 3.0 but defoliation hasnt occurred. 4.0 Some lesions with more on upper canopy and slight defoliation noticeable; roughly 5-10% defoliation. 5.0 Lesions noticeable even on upper canopy with noticeable defoliation; you can see lesions from end of plots. 6.0 Lesions numerous and very evident on upper canopy with significant defoliation (50+%); defoliation a major determinant. 7.0 Lesions numerous on upper canopy with much defoliation (75-90%); defoliation a major determinant. 8.0 Upper canopy covered with lesions with high defoliation (90-96%); defoliation a major determinant. 9.0 Very few leaves remaining and those covered with lesions; some plants completely defoliated (99-100%). 10.0 Plants dead. Harvesting and Drying Decisions Harvest decisions were made based on maturity. Not all varieties mature at the same time. Cultural practices and environmental conditions can also affect the maturity. Digging too early or too late can affect flavor, grade, milling quality and shelf life. As Huber (2003) expressed, harvesting mature peanuts is critical. Every peanut variety has a maturity range; however, this may vary from year to year due to several factors. Weather is the most prominent cause of maturity variations, other factor include planting date and disease pressure. Fields should be checked using a maturity testing method. Runner varieties should be checked 110 days after planting; 95 days for early maturities (Huber, 2003).

PAGE 50

39 According to Huber (2003), the most widely used maturity testing methods are the shell-out and the hull-scrape method. Both methods require removing the pods from a representative sample. The first is less objective than the latter. The shell-out method involves assessing the color inside the shell and on the seed coat. The seed coat may be part pink but the shell may show no color. The hull-scrape method uses color changes to the shell under its outer layer of skin. The saddle area of the shell is scraped with a knife and the color of the exposed shell is studied to indicate maturity.This method involves the use of a peanut profile board available at the county extension offices. Harvest decisions were also made based on the knowledge that relative humidity impacts peanut picking. When the relative humidity is high, the plant material becomes moist. Pickers tear moist husks and the damp stems do not separate well resulting in poor quality and low yield. Conditions are favorable for picking when the relative humidity is below 50%. Picking may continue until the relative humidity is greater than 80%. The harvest advisory provides a two day relative humidity forecast and indicates the time of day during which peanut picking is favored. After the peanuts were dug and combined, they were dried. The four-center 40 foot rows were harvested for yield. A 200-g sample of peanut pods was removed from each treatment to be graded. This was done for each of the three cultivars after drying. Grading System for Peanuts After drying, peanuts were graded. The purpose of grading is to determine the percentage of Total Sound Mature Kernels (TSMK) and the Sound Splits (SS). The peanuts that graded above a specific level for TSMK can be used for candy or salted peanuts. These are whole nuts, with the right size for the type, not split, with no

PAGE 51

40 blemishes, discoloration or mold. SS are the deduction made for excess splits (separated peanut halves). The process of grading included weighting out 200 grams of peanuts, shelling the peanuts, removing the hulls and sizing the peanuts by using a series of three sieves; the ones that stay on top of the first are referred to as jumbos, the ones that stay on top of the second are the desirable size and those on the third are too small. The peanuts on the top two screens are checked for blemishes and discoloration; those that are not good are removed. The remaining good peanuts are weighed, and the weight in grams is divided by the weight of the 200 gram sample. This gives the percent Sound Mature Kernels (SMK). These peanuts are then split in half and using a UV light checked for mold. If mold is found, the entire lot of peanuts will be rejected. The premiums and discounts used in the analysis of this research are based on USDA information and are shown in Table 3-5. Depending on the peanut quality, farmers in the loan receive a premium or discount per ton of peanuts produced. Peanuts receive a grade that will range between 50 and 84; however, normally grades range from 68 to 78. If the quality is high, a premium is added; if the peanut quality is low they received a discount. The premium or discount obtained varies depending on the peanut type. For Virginia type $4.98 per ton is added or subtracted to the price for each percentage increase or decrease, for Runner $4.88, for Spanish $4.86 and $5.14 for Valencia type.

PAGE 52

41 Table 3-5. Premium and Discount Charts for Ton of Runner Type Peanuts SMK + SS Premium/Discount (Dollars/ton) 84 54.28 83 49.40 82 44.52 81 39.64 80 34.76 79 29.88 78 25.00 77 20.12 76 15.24 75 10.36 74 5.47 73 0.59 72 -4.29 71 -9.17 70 -14.05 69 -18.93 68 -23.81 67 -28.69 66 -33.57 65 -38.46 64 -43.34 63 -48.22 62 -53.10 61 -57.98 60 -62.86 59 -67.74 58 -72.62 57 -77.50 56 -82.38 55 -87.27 54 -92.15 53 -97.03 52 -101.91 Source: USDA, RMA. Statistical Methodology and Data Analysis Budgets were developed in order to calculate the costs involved in producing one acre of peanuts. Budgets were estimated for each treatment in both of the states, having a total of six budgets used for both years of the study. These budgets were developed based

PAGE 53

42 on the format of the North Florida Research and Education Center Budgets (Hewitt, 2004). A cost is defined as a charge that must be made for an item used in the production of a good or a service. The total cost of production, includes both cash and noncash costs. Castle, Becker and Nelson (1987) defined cash costs as involving out of pocket expenditure, such as purchases of fertilizers, fuel and chemicals. Costs can also be classified as fixed or variable. Fixed costs are those incurred whether anything is produced or not. These costs stay constant regardless of the production decision. Variable costs change with the production; they can be avoided if there is no production. Noncash costs are more difficult to identify since they do not involve a cash outlay. These include unpaid family labor, or the improved value of the farmers own land. Considering the production of peanuts, the capital cost of the tractors and machinery are fixed costs. The costs for fertilization, spraying, and harvesting are variable costs. Variable costs are more important in making decisions about production. Variable costs are affected by the decision made, while fixed costs may not be affected. Input returns should always be greater than their variable costs. Based on this information and the importance of the variable cost for farm business decisions, only the variable costs were used in the analysis. First, quality was calculated based on the additions or subtractions (showed in Table 3-5) made to a standard price of $375 per ton of peanuts. Yield for each cultivar and treatment was multiplied by the standard $375/ton plus the appropriate premium or discount for quality to obtain the

PAGE 54

43 Revenue. After that, variable costs were subtracted from the revenues to obtain the income above variable costs (IAVC). Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences statisticians at the University of Florida (personal communication, May 27, 2004 and June 1, 2004) suggested the use of Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for this study. The analysis of variance procedure attempts to analyze the variation of a response and to assign portions of this variation to each of a set of independent variables (Mendenhall and Scheaffer, 1973, p. 458). ANOVA is the method of comparing means of the various groups. First, it looks at the variation within groups, then works out how that variation would translate into differences between the groups, taking into account how many subjects there are in the groups. If the observed differences are greater than expected, statistical significance is present. Any experiment rarely includes all the variables that affect the response. Random variation in the response is observed even though all independent variables were held constant. The objective of the ANOVA is to identify important independent variables in a research project and to determine how they interact and affect the response. The assumptions underlying the analysis of variance are that populations from which the samples were obtained must be normally or approximately normally distributed, the samples must be independent, the variances of the populations must be equal, and the groups must have the same sample size. A single test can be done to check if there are differences between the means at our chosen probability level. Analysis of variance enables us to detect significant differences between the treatments as a whole. It does not establish, however, which treatments differ

PAGE 55

44 from one another. A method to compare treatment means for significant differences is required. R.A. Fisher developed a method in the 1920s for simultaneously comparing means of several groups, primarily for data from agricultural experiments. The heart of this analysis is a significance test, using the F distribution, for detecting evidence of differences between the population means. The test was called Fishers Least Significance Difference Test or LSD for short. Fishers LSD test was used to compare the means. Means were considered different if there were at 0.05 or less level of significance. This test makes a comparison of means within group test, grouping being the cultivars to test whether or not there is any difference. Means across cultivars and across treatments can be calculated. SAS version 8 was the program selected; PROC ANOVA was the procedure used to analyze cultivars and management schemes. Also the interaction effect between cultivars and treatments was observed. Each of the categories was analyzed by year and by location in terms of the IAVC, yield, and quality.

PAGE 56

45 E N S Each plot 8 rows by 40 feet W Replication 1 Replication 2 Replication 3 Replication 4 24 rows T1 H T2 I T3 L T1 H C99 T2 I T3 L C99 T2 I T3 L C99 T3 L T1 H T1 H T2 I 24 rows T4 H T6 L T4 H T5 I GA Green T5 I T4 H GA Green T6 L T4 H GA Green T6 L T5 I T5 I T6 L 24 rows T7 H T8 I T8 I T9 L ViruGard T8 I T7 H ViruGard T9 L T7 H ViruGard T9 L T9 L T7 H T8 I |---40 feet --------------| 10ft|----------40 ft -----------| |--------20 ft --------| |-----------40 ft ----------| |-10ft-| |------------40 ft ---------| 1, 4, 7 = High 2, 5, 8 = IPM 3, 6, 9 = Low Figure 3-1. Map of Replications in Florida Test.

PAGE 57

CHAPTER 4 EMPIRICAL RESULTS Introduction The study involves the economic analysis of three management systems designated as high, IPM, and low inputs applied to three different peanut varieties: C99, Georgia Green and ViruGard. This research was done to evaluate pest management efficiency, peanut yield, peanut grade, and economic return. In this chapter, the empirical results of the analysis are discussed. Analysis of variance and the Fishers LSD test for the means are also presented. The LSD test used to compare means shows the significant differences between the cultivars and the management schemes. Yield, quality and income above variable costs data from two years of study at two locations was used to analyze the factors studied in this research. Estimating Production Costs Budgets were developed in order to calculate the costs involved in producing one acre of peanuts. Budgets were estimated for each treatment in both of the states. Each budget is divided into cash expenses and fixed costs. Cash expenses included the cost of seed, fertilizer, gypsum, herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, scouting fee, tractor and machinery (this varies depending on the scheme followed), drying and cleaning cost, peanut assessment and hired labor. Land rent was estimated in $75 per acre. Interest on cash expenses was calculated based on a 10% interest rate for a 6 month period. Fixed costs consist of the tractor and machinery costs. 46

PAGE 58

47 Budgets for each of the management schemes in both states were calculated and shown in Tables 4-1 through 4-6. In Florida, per acre cash expenses estimated for the high treatment was $618, which compared to $476 for the IPM scheme, and $439 for the low. The main difference observed within the management schemes is the use of fungicides (Tables 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3). Table 4-1. Estimated Costs of Producing One Acre of Peanuts in North Florida, Using the High Input Treatment. Item Unit Quantity Price Value Cash expenses: Seed lb. 100.00 $ 0.60 $ 60.00 Fertilizer Nitrogen (N) lb. 10.00 0.35 3.50 Phosphate (P205) lb. 40.00 0.25 10.00 Potash (K20) lb. 60.00 0.16 9.60 Gypsum (Spread) cwt. 10.00 2.60 26.00 Herbicide acre 1.00 35.09 35.09 Insecticide acre 1.00 5.00 5.00 Fungicide acre 1.00 205.10 205.10 Scouting fee acre 1.00 5.50 5.50 Tractor (Machinery) acre 1.00 60.00 60.00 Drying and cleaning ton 2.00 34.00 68.00 Peanut Assessment ton 2.00 6.00 12.00 Hired labor hr. 2.00 7.00 14.00 Land rent acre 1.00 75.00 75.00 Interest on cash expenses* dol. 588.78 0.05 29.44 Total cash expenses $ 618.22 Fixed costs: Tractor (Machinery) acre 1.00 130.00 130.00 Total fixed costs 130.00 Total costs $ 748.22 10% for 6 months

PAGE 59

48 For the low input treatment, fungicides costs were $64, an increase of 40% is shown in the IPM with a cost of $90, however, a larger increase is shown in the high treatment where fungicides went up to $205, 200% more than the low scheme. The use of Abound at the applied rate caused the major increase in the high input scheme. Table 4-2. Estimated Costs of Producing One Acre of Peanuts in North Florida, Using the IPM Treatment. Item Unit Quantity Price Value Cash expenses: Seed lb. 100.00 $ 0.60 $ 60.00 Fertilizer Nitrogen (N) lb. 10.00 0.35 3.50 Phosphate (P205) lb. 40.00 0.25 10.00 Potash (K20) lb. 60.00 0.16 9.60 Gypsum (Spread) cwt. 10.00 2.60 26.00 Herbicide acre 1.00 35.09 35.09 Insecticide acre 1.00 0.00 0.00 Fungicide acre 1.00 89.62 89.62 Scouting fee acre 1.00 5.50 5.50 Tractor (Machinery) acre 1.00 45.00 45.00 Drying and cleaning ton 2.00 34.00 68.00 Peanut Assessment ton 2.00 6.00 12.00 Hired labor hr. 2.00 7.00 14.00 Land rent acre 1.00 75.00 75.00 Interest on cash expenses* dol. 453.31 0.05 22.67 Total cash expenses $ 475.97 Fixed costs: Tractor (Machinery) acre 1.00 100.00 100.00 Total fixed costs 100.00 Total costs $ 575.97 10% for 6 months

PAGE 60

49 Table 4-3. Estimated Costs of Producing One Acre of Peanuts in North Florida, Using the Low Input Treatment. Item Unit Quantity Price Value Cash expenses: Seed lb. 100.00 $ 0.60 $ 60.00 Fertilizer Nitrogen (N) lb. 10.00 0.35 3.50 Phosphate (P205) lb. 40.00 0.25 10.00 Potash (K20) lb. 60.00 0.16 9.60 Gypsum (Spread) cwt. 10.00 2.60 26.00 Herbicide acre 1.00 35.09 35.09 Insecticide acre 1.00 0.00 0.00 Fungicide acre 1.00 64.22 64.22 Scouting fee acre 1.00 5.50 5.50 Tractor (Machinery) acre 1.00 35.00 35.00 Drying and cleaning ton 2.00 34.00 68.00 Peanut Assessment ton 2.00 6.00 12.00 Hired labor hr. 2.00 7.00 14.00 Land rent acre 1.00 75.00 75.00 Interest on cash expenses* dol. 417.91 0.05 20.90 Total cash expenses $ 438.80 Fixed costs: Tractor (Machinery) acre 1.00 85.00 85.00 Total fixed costs 85.00 Total costs $ 523.80 10% for 6 months In Alabama, the difference in budgets followed the same pattern as Florida, fungicides being the greatest cause of the cost differences. As shown in Tables 4-4 through 4-6, low treatment had a cost of $71 for fungicides, IPM cost $106 for fungicides while the high input scheme cost $204; nearly triple the cost of the low input treatment. However, Alabama showed another major difference from Florida, this due to insecticide use; $5.00 for both low and IPM, compared to $52 for the high treatment.

PAGE 61

50 The total cash expenses were $626 for the high scheme, $458 for IPM, and $411 for the low treatment. A peanut producer would spend $215 more per acre of production if using the high treatment over the low (Tables 4-4 to 4-6). Table 4-4. Estimated Costs of Producing One Acre of Peanuts in Headland Alabama, Using the High Input Treatment. Item Unit Quantity Price Value Cash expenses: Seed lb. 100.00 $ 0.60 $ 60.00 Fertilizer Nitrogen (N) lb. 10.00 0.35 3.50 Phosphate (P205) lb. 40.00 0.25 10.00 Potash (K20) lb. 60.00 0.16 9.60 Gypsum (Spread) cwt. 0.00 2.60 0.00 Herbicide acre 1.00 22.74 22.74 Insecticide acre 1.00 51.98 51.98 Fungicide acre 1.00 203.66 203.66 Scouting fee acre 1.00 5.50 5.50 Tractor (Machinery) acre 1.00 60.00 60.00 Drying and cleaning ton 2.00 34.00 68.00 Peanut Assessment ton 2.00 6.00 12.00 Hired labor hr. 2.00 7.00 14.00 Land rent acre 1.00 75.00 75.00 Interest on cash expenses* dol. 595.97 0.05 29.80 Total cash expenses $ 625.77 Fixed costs: Tractor (Machinery) acre 1.00 130.00 130.00 Total fixed costs 130.00 Total costs $ 755.77 10% for 6 months

PAGE 62

51 Table 4-5. Estimated Costs of Producing One Acre of Peanuts in Headland Alabama, Using the IPM Treatment. Item Unit Quantity Price Value Cash expenses: Seed lb. 100.00 $ 0.60 $ 60.00 Fertilizer Nitrogen (N) lb. 10.00 0.35 3.50 Phosphate (P205) lb. 40.00 0.25 10.00 Potash (K20) lb. 60.00 0.16 9.60 Gypsum (Spread) cwt. 0.00 2.60 0.00 Herbicide acre 1.00 22.74 22.74 Insecticide acre 1.00 5.00 5.00 Fungicide acre 1.00 105.78 105.78 Scouting fee acre 1.00 5.50 5.50 Tractor (Machinery) acre 1.00 45.00 45.00 Drying and cleaning ton 2.00 34.00 68.00 Peanut Assessment ton 2.00 6.00 12.00 Hired labor hr. 2.00 7.00 14.00 Land rent acre 1.00 75.00 75.00 Interest on cash expenses* dol. 436.12 0.05 21.81 Total cash expenses $ 457.93 Fixed costs: Tractor (Machinery) acre 1.00 100.00 100.00 Total fixed costs 100.00 Total costs $ 557.93 10% for 6 months

PAGE 63

52 Table 4-6. Estimated Costs of Producing One Acre of Peanuts in Headland Alabama, Using the Low Input Treatment. Item Unit Quantity Price Value Cash expenses: Seed lb. 100.00 $ 0.60 $ 60.00 Fertilizer Nitrogen (N) lb. 10.00 0.35 3.50 Phosphate (P205) lb. 40.00 0.25 10.00 Potash (K20) lb. 60.00 0.16 9.60 Gypsum (Spread) cwt. 0.00 2.60 0.00 Herbicide acre 1.00 22.74 22.74 Insecticide acre 1.00 5.00 5.00 Fungicide acre 1.00 71.37 71.37 Scouting fee acre 1.00 5.50 5.50 Tractor (Machinery) acre 1.00 35.00 35.00 Drying and cleaning ton 2.00 34.00 68.00 Peanut Assessment ton 2.00 6.00 12.00 Hired labor hr. 2.00 7.00 14.00 Land rent acre 1.00 75.00 75.00 Interest on cash expenses* dol. 391.72 0.05 19.59 Total cash expenses $ 411.30 Fixed costs: Tractor (Machinery) acre 1.00 85.00 85.00 Total fixed costs 85.00 Total costs $ 496.30 10% for 6 months

PAGE 64

53 Research Results Data from both years and states separately resulted in findings of interest after the analysis. All conclusions are based on a minimum significance of P< .05. Analysis of variance was the model used to determine if the differences expressed in the findings are statistically significant. SAS was run for both years and both states to analyze the factors studied in this research. An LSD test was done to compare the means. In the t grouping, the means with the same letters are not significantly different as shown in the result Tables. Yields Treatments Yields in pounds per acre obtained in each plot were averaged. Yields obtained in both years for each treatment are showed in Table 4-7. In Florida, the management system that attained the highest yields from both years of study combined was the high input treatment, followed closely by the IPM treatment. The high input scheme had significantly different yields with respect to the low input. No difference was shown between high and IPM or IPM and low schemes. In Alabama, no significantly difference was found between treatments with respect to yield. Yields obtained for each variety and management scheme are showed in detail in Table 4-8. The average yields from the different cultivars within each treatment, had no significant differences for the high input scheme in Florida and Alabama. In IPM Georgia Green had significantly higher yields than ViruGard. No significant differences were shown between Georgia Green and C99 or between C99 and ViruGard in Florida.

PAGE 65

54 Table 4-7. Average Yields for Florida and Alabama by Treatment Scheme, 2002-2003. Treatment Yield LSD Location Mean t Grouping FL High 2830 A FL IPM 2566 AB FL Low 2200 B AL High 4599 A AL IPM 4218 A AL Low 4183 A Means with the same letter are not significantly different. Table 4-8. Average Yields for Florida and Alabama by Treatment vs. Cultivar, 2002-2003. State Cultivar Treatment HIGH LSD* IPM LSD LOW LSD Florida C99 2822 A 2187 AB 2259 B GG 2745 A 2633 A 3154 A VG 2923 A 1778 B 2284 B Alabama C99 5139 A 4246 A 4711 A GG 4238 A 4245 A 3967 B VG 4419 A 4060 A 3976 B Means with the same letter are not significantly different.

PAGE 66

55 The IPM scheme in Alabama had no significant differences due to cultivars. In the low input treatment, Georgia Green was significantly higher than C99 or ViruGard in Florida. In Alabama, C99 had significantly higher yields than Georgia Green or ViruGard. Cultivars The information in Table 4-9 indicated that the greatest yield obtained in Florida cultivars was from Georgia Green. This variety obtained significantly higher yield than the cultivar ViruGard. No differences were found between Georgia Green and C99 or between C99 and ViruGard in both years. The variety C99 had significantly higher yields than ViruGard and Georgia Green in Alabama. ViruGard and Georgia Green showed no significant differences in this location. Table 4-9. Average Yields for Florida and Alabama by Cultivar, 2002-2003. Location Cultivar Yield LSD* Mean t Grouping FL GG 2844 A FL C99 2423 AB FL VG 2328 B AL C99 4698 A AL VG 4152 B AL GG 4150 B Means with the same letter are not significantly different.

PAGE 67

56 The information in Table 4-10 shows the difference in means for the management schemes within a cultivar. The Florida test obtained significantly higher yields with the C99 variety using the high input treatment than using IPM or low treatments. Treatments were not significantly different for Georgia Green, and ViruGard showed differences between high and IPM schemes. High input treatment obtained higher yields than IPM, however, no significant differences were found between high and low or between low and IPM treatments. Table 4-10. Average Yields for Florida and Alabama by Cultivar vs. Treatment, 2002-2003. State Treatment Cultivar C99 LSD GG LSD VG LSD Florida HIGH 2822 A 2744 A 2923 A IPM 2187 B 2633 A 1778 B LOW 2259 B 3154 A 2283 AB Alabama HIGH 5139 A 4238 A 4419 A IPM 4246 B 4245 A 4060 A LOW 4711 AB 3967 A 3976 A Means with the same letter are not significantly different. In Alabama, the high input scheme obtained significantly higher yields in variety C99 than IPM. Varieties Georgia Green and ViruGard had no significant differences between treatments. Florida vs. Alabama From these numbers the assumption that one cultivar is better than other, in terms of yield, cannot be made since there is no consistency observed in the results thorough

PAGE 68

57 the locations and years. Georgia Green yielded highest in Florida during the study, while C99 yielded highest in Alabama. In terms of treatments, high input scheme was observed to have better results with respect to the other treatments in Florida. However, no significant differences were found in Alabama. Yield was also analyzed against location and year to find out if Florida and Alabama were significantly different. There were no significant differences observed in yields between the years 2002 and 2003; the average mean was 3,360 pounds per acre in 2002 and 3,505 in 2003. Yields in Alabama were significantly greater than Florida in this study even thought on-farm data generally reflect the opposite trend. This could be due to a nematode problem that affected Florida plots which due to the study design was not treated. This effect may have caused a reduction in yields. The average yield per acre for both states is shown in Table 4-11, and indicates a significant difference between states. The yields per acre by plot in both locations on average from both years of study are shown in Appendix A. Alabama had almost doubled Florida yields; total average was 4,333 and 2,531 pounds per acre respectively. The highest plot yield was 3,479 pounds in Florida, while Alabama had a plot yield of 5,187 pounds per acre. Table 4-11. Comparison of Average Yield by Location, Alabama and Florida, 2002-2003. Location Yield lb/A Mean LSD t Grouping AL 4333 A FL 2531 B Means with the same letter are not significantly different.

PAGE 69

58 Rainfall could be another factor influencing location and year information since moisture is a constrain factor for dry land production. Rainfall affected both yields and pest problems. Rainfall data for both locations is shown in Table 4-12. Table 4-12. Monthly Rainfall Data in Inches: 2002-2003 by Selected Months. 2002 2003 Months FL AL FL AL April 5.78 3.35 4.89 9.22 May 2.19 2.86 3.11 3.35 June 3.45 3.94 6.11 8.76 July 10.34 4.15 7.84 7.50 August 3.30 3.11 5.99 6.23 September 11.83 2.91 2.39 4.67 October 7.36 4.26 3.58 1.82 Total 44.25 24.58 33.91 41.55 Source: National Weather Service, U.S. Department of Commerce. No significant difference was observed in yield due to cultivar. Also cultivar-treatment interactions had no significant effect on yield. However, significant differences were found in yield due to treatment. High input treatment showed higher yields than IPM treatment but no significant difference was found between high and low treatment or between low and IPM (Table 4-13). Table 4-13. Comparison of Average Yield Versus Pesticide Treatments, Alabama and Florida, 2002-2003. Means with the same letter are not significantly different. Treatment Yield lb/A Mean LSD t Grouping High 3714 A A Low 3392 B A B IPM 3191 B

PAGE 70

59 Grade The grades obtained for the test ranged from 67 to 74 the first year in Florida and from 53 to 71 in the second. In Alabama, grades ranged from 67 to 76 the first year and 72 to 78 the second. Premiums over quality are awarded from grades of 73 or more. In terms of economic returns, grade has a great impact since farmers gain a premium or discount based on it. Special attention need to be given to peanut quality by good production and harvesting practices. Treatments As shown in Table 4-14, no significant difference was observed in treatments in terms of quality in either of the locations. Looking at each of the treatments, varieties had no significant differences on grades within the treatment. This was observed both in Florida and Alabama (Table 4-15). Table 4-14. Average Quality for Florida and Alabama by Treatment Scheme, 2002-2003. Treatment TSMK LSD Location Mean t Grouping FL IPM 69 A FL High 68 A FL Low 68 A AL High 74 A AL Low 73 A AL IPM 73 A Means with the same letter are not significantly different.

PAGE 71

60 Table 4-15. Average Quality for Florida and Alabama by Treatment vs. Cultivar, 2002-2003. State Variety Treatment HIGH LSD IPM LSD LOW LSD Florida C99 67 A 68 A 68 A GG 66 A 68 A 67 A VG 70 A 70 A 69 A Alabama C99 74 A 74 A 73 A GG 74 A 74 A 74 A VG 73 A 72 A 73 A Means with the same letter are not significantly different. Cultivars In terms of quality, Florida indicated that ViruGard was graded significantly better than Georgia Green. No differences were observed between ViruGard and C99 or C99 and Georgia Green. In Alabama, no significant differences were found within the cultivars (Table 4-16). The management schemes for both locations had no significant differences in grades within each of the cultivars used in the research (Table 4-17). Florida vs. Alabama The analysis on quality expressed as the premium or discount paid for peanuts demonstrate that Alabama had a higher quality than Florida. This could be due to the nematode problem in Florida during the second year of the study. In addition, problems with drying the peanuts resulted in some moldy peanuts. The lowest grade in Florida was 53 and the highest 74, while Alabama obtained 67 and 78 respectively. The differences were greater during the second year of the experiment.

PAGE 72

61 Table 4-16. Average Quality for Florida and Alabama by Cultivar, 2002-2003. Location Cultivar TSMK LSD Mean t Grouping FL VG 70 A FL C99 68 AB FL GG 67 B AL GG 74 A AL C99 74 A AL VG 73 A Means with the same letter are not significantly different. Table 4-17. Average Quality for Florida and Alabama by Cultivar vs. Treatment, 2002-2003. State Treatment Cultivar C99 LSD GG LSD VG LSD Florida HIGH 67 A 66 A 70 A IPM 68 A 68 A 70 A LOW 68 A 67 A 69 A Alabama HIGH 74 A 74 A 73 A IPM 74 A 74 A 72 A LOW 73 A 74 A 73 A Means with the same letter are not significantly different. There were no significant differences in quality produced by each cultivar or differences observed among treatments after analyzing the combined data. Years showed

PAGE 73

62 differences; 2002 quality was better than 2003. The cause could be the problems affecting Florida production and differences in moisture from year to year. No interactive effects on quality were observed. Revenue Revenue was calculated from the yield and the premium or discount added to the base price of $375 dollars per ton of peanuts. For this research, these numbers were calculated but not analyzed statistically since the purpose of the study is to focus on the economic return. Revenue was calculated as a step to obtain the income after subtracting the cost of production. Details of the revenue for the two states are shown in Table 4-18. Table 4-18. Average Revenue for Florida and Alabama (Dollars/Acre), 2002-2003. Location Variety Treatment HIGH IPM LOW Florida C99 976 773 792 GG 923 924 1079 VG 1059 648 828 Alabama C99 1954 1607 1774 GG 1599 1615 1511 VG 1665 1515 1490 Income Above Variable Costs Treatments As discussed in Chapter 3; in terms of decision making, income above variable costs (IAVC) is the most important variable to take into consideration. After subtracting the cost of production, the only management scheme in Florida that gives a positive return is the low input, with an average return of $11 per acre. Low input treatment had significantly higher IAVC than IPM or high input schemes. However, no significant

PAGE 74

63 differences were found between IPM and high input. IPM treatment had a negative IAVC of -$85 and the high treatment of -$125 per acre. In Alabama, treatment options continue with the same trend showing Florida. Again, low input is the treatment with the highest economic returns with $371 per acre produced; IPM obtained $331 dollars and the high input treatment showed the lowest return of $224. These numbers are shown in detail in Table 4-19. Statistically, low input treatment had significantly greater IAVC than high input. No differences were found between low and IPM or IPM and high schemes. Table 4-19. Average Income Above Variable Cost for Florida and Alabama by Treatment Scheme (Dollars/Acre), 2002-2003. Location Treatment IAVC LSD Mean t Grouping FL Low 11 A FL IPM -85 B FL High -125 B AL Low 371 A AL IPM 331 AB AL High 244 B Means with the same letter are not significantly different. The average IAVC and the LSD test for the cultivars within each treatment is shown in Table 4-20. High input treatment showed no significant differences in IAVC between the cultivars in both locations. In Florida, every cultivar had negative returns, while Alabama had positive.

PAGE 75

64 For the IPM treatment in Florida, C99 and Georgia Green had a little better IAVC than ViruGard, even though the three cultivars had negative returns. Alabama showed no significant differences in the cultivars using the same scheme. Looking at the low input treatment results, Georgia Green had significantly higher IAVC than C99 in Florida. The only cultivar with positive economic return within the low input scheme was Georgia Green, with a return of $101 dollars per acre. In Alabama, C99 had significantly greater IAVC than Georgia Green using the low input treatment. However, no differences between C99 and Georgia Green or Georgia Green and ViruGard were found. Table 4-20. Average Income Above Variable Cost for Florida and Alabama by Treatment vs. Cultivar (Dollars/Acre), 2002-2003. State Variety Treatment HIGH LSD IPM LSD LOW LSD Florida C99 -130 A -89 AB -43 B GG -157 A -14 AB 101 A VG -89 A -152 B -25 AB Alabama C99 351 A 345 A 462 A GG 173 A 349 A 331 AB VG 206 A 299 A 320 B Means with the same letter are not significantly different. Cultivars No significant differences with respect of IAVC were found in Florida cultivars. Note that having no significant difference, does not mean that every cultivar gives the same income above variable costs. In this research the data showed no significant difference but in real life, farmers could find differences in yields and quality upon

PAGE 76

65 varieties, depending on the cultural practices and weather condition of the location where they are planting. As shown in Table 4-21, all the varieties had negative returns, Georgia Green had -$23, C99 had -$87, and ViruGard with -$88 dollars per acre. Table 4-21. Average Income Above Variable Cost for Florida and Alabama by Cultivar (Dollars/Acre), 2002-2003. Location Cultivar IAVC LSD Mean t Grouping FL GG -23 A FL C99 -87 A FL VG -88 A AL C99 386 A AL GG 284 B AL VG 275 B Means with the same letter are not significantly different. In Alabama the numbers were positive; C99 was the variety with higher returns after variable costs with $386, followed by Georgia Green with $284, and ViruGard with $275. C99 had significantly greater IAVC than the other two varieties. Treatment options had no significant difference in terms of IAVC for the cultivar C99 in both locations (Table 4-22). The low input scheme gave significantly greater IAVC than high input for the Georgia Green cultivar in Florida. No differences were found between low and IPM or between IPM and high input. Alabama had no differences

PAGE 77

66 between treatment schemes for Georgia Green. Both locations also showed no significant differences between treatments for the variety ViruGard. Table 4-22. Average Income Above Variable Cost for Florida and Alabama by Cultivar vs. Treatment (Dollars/Acre), 2002-2003. State Treatment Cultivar C99 LSD GG LSD VG LSD Florida HIGH -130 A -156 B -89 A IPM -89 A -14 AB -152 A LOW -43 A 101 A -25 A Alabama HIGH 351 A 173 A 206 A IPM 345 A 349 A 299 A LOW 462 A 331 A 320 A Means with the same letter are not significantly different. Florida vs. Alabama Income above variable costs is very different between the two states, even though in terms of cost both states have similar expenditures. This was due to the lower quality and quantity of the peanuts at the Florida location compared to Alabama. Although quality did seem to have an impact in terms of the revenue, after considering the costs incurred to produce, the impact is even greater. If the combined data from both states in both years is examined, there are no significant differences among cultivars with respect to IAVC. For the treatment schemes, low gives greater IAVC than IPM treatment, and IPM greater than high treatment (Tables 4-23 and 4-24).

PAGE 78

67 Table 4-23. Comparison of Average Income Above Variable Cost Versus Cultivars Alabama and Florida, 2002-2003. Cultivar IAVC $/A Mean LSD t Grouping C99 149 A GG 131 A VG 93 A Means with the same letter are not significantly different. Table 4-24. Comparison of Average Income Above Variable Cost Versus Pesticide Treatments Alabama and Florida, 2002-2003. Treatment IAVC $/A Mean LSD t Grouping Low 191 A IPM 123 B High 59 C Means with the same letter are not significantly different. Year is not a significant factor when IAVC data from both states are combined. If both years are combined, location is still a significant factor, with Alabama having a greater IAVC principally due to differences in yield but also because of the quality premium Alabama had relative to Florida.

PAGE 79

CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Summary Field experiments were conducted in 2002 and 2003 at the University of Florida North Florida Research and Education Center in Marianna, Florida and at the Wiregrass Research and Extension Center in Headland, Alabama. The study was done to assess the impact of three management systems on the economics of peanut production. The managements systems designated as low, Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and high were evaluated as splitplots, while peanut cultivars: ViruGard, Georgia Green, and C99R were included as whole plots in each management system. A split plot design with cultivars was used. In this design, the three different cultivars are laid out in horizontal strips, which are then split into subplots with different treatment schemes. The analysis of variance and the LSD test used to compare means show the significant differences between the cultivars and the management schemes with respect to yield, quality and income above variable costs. Conclusions In this study, no significant differences were found in yield, quality or income above variable costs of combined data due to the use of different cultivars. However, for farmers this may vary depending on the local conditions. Varieties are developed to best fit the growing conditions of the locations where they are originally developed. Since varieties are developed based on the local conditions, using a cultivar developed in a particular region tends to be more beneficial. At the same time, some 68

PAGE 80

69 varieties may not fit the area where they are planted. A cultivar developed for the southeast region could be used in Florida and Georgia since both locations have similar climatic conditions and share some cultural characteristics. However, a variety developed in Marianna would likely better be suited for Florida than in another state. Even though the high input management treatment resulted in significantly higher yields, this treatment was found to be the least desirable in terms of economic returns. In dry land conditions a farmer choosing the treatment called high input will get higher yields but this management scheme would not necessarily pay for the added inputs. Looking at the whole picture, treatment called low input is the one that gives the best economic returns of the three used in this research, based again on dry land conditions. No significant differences in quality were found among treatments. The quality obtained is an important factor in price received. Also, cultivar-treatment interactions had no significant effect on yield or quality. Cultural or climate differences can be found when looking at the data by year. No significant differences were observed in yield between the year 2002 and 2003. In terms of quality, year 2002 was better than 2003. Climate conditions could be one of the causes of this difference, since moisture and rainfall level were higher in 2002. Another cause of the yield difference was the problem with nematodes that resulted in lower quality and peanut yield in Florida in 2003. The Alabama test obtained both significantly greater yield and higher quality than the Florida test in this study. Florida data was affected by factors like rainfall, nematodes and Tomato Spotted Wilt Virus, which combined created abnormal yields. Soil differences may also have had an effect on these results.

PAGE 81

70 Yields were significantly higher in Florida from the high input scheme compared to the low input; and higher yields with Georgia Green compared to ViruGard. No differences were found in Georgia Green and C99 or C99 and ViruGard. Alabama had no significant differences in yields due to treatments. The cultivar C99 gave higher yields than ViruGard or Georgia Green in Alabama. In terms of quality, Florida had no significant differences due to management schemes. ViruGard graded better than Georgia Green. No differences in grades were found between ViruGard and C99 or C99 and Georgia Green. In Alabama, there were no significant differences in quality due to treatments or cultivars. The results in Florida showed no significant differences in income above variable costs among cultivars. The low input scheme yielded significantly greater IAVC than IPM or high input schemes in both years of study. In Alabama, C99 gave greater IAVC than Georgia Green or ViruGard. Income above variable costs was significantly greater for the low input treatment than the high input; no significant difference was shown between low and IPM or IPM and high input schemes. In conclusion, combined data suggest that there are no significant differences among cultivars. This could be due to a lack of data. More data would allow a more precise estimating of the means; therefore the difference between means could be smaller and still be considered statistically significant. Instead of combining the two states, the analysis of variance is more sensitive by individual state. Also, nematode and TSWV problems in Florida caused yield losses that may had an effect on the data. Since nematode control and TSWV damage are very important and are related many research projects are being conducted on TSWV. Nematodes and TSWV affect

PAGE 82

71 quality and yield and research toward better managing these pests is important. Quality is an important factor of the overall price farmers receive, obviously affecting economic returns. Variety is not as important as pest management practices in terms of economic returns, especially between C99 and Georgia Green. The study may have been improved with another cultivar as one of the varieties. The cultivar ViruGard is not currently used in the southeast and the results of this study offer one reason for not using ViruGard. In dry land, the low input management scheme tends to be more feasible in terms of economic return. High input treatment may lead to higher yield but is not justified after considering the costs incurred. For irrigated land, this may not be the case. More research needs to be done to compare irrigated versus non irrigated peanuts. In some counties of the southeast, irrigation is used on 50 percent of the production and yield variability is often decreased. Soil conditions and soil types are important factors; they caused major differences in both locations. Weather factors are also important; moisture is a driving constrain factor in dry land production. Years with more uniform rainfall tend to be better for peanut production and the results of this study confirm it. Farmers usually think in terms of yield; however this study illustrates that quality is very important to the price received. There is a need to focus more on maintaining quality instead of just increasing yields. The results of this research justify these conclusions. Increasing yields is not going to result in higher income if quality and costs of production are not considered. Managing inputs is critical in a good farm management scheme.

PAGE 83

72 With the new peanut program provisions, there is a need to examine ways to reduce costs and optimize income above variable costs. Analyzing the complete management scheme of yields, quality, costs, and resulting income are important. Limitations on the Study The use of a peanut variety other than ViruGard may have been more useful for the study in terms of providing another comparison similar to those varieties more commonly used by farmers. A different regime of nematicides and herbicides uses according to the location needs may have improved the resulting yields and quality and the effect on income. The experiment would have been more useful if the tests were conducted in similar types of soil conditions with similar rotation systems. Soil conditions proved to be an important factor, so using soil with conditions that are more representative of the area of peanut production is imperative. Yields attained in the Florida site are below the average production of Florida farmers. State yield averages in Florida are typically higher than Alabama but the study data showed an opposite view. This may have been due to soil conditions and problems with nematodes for the Florida site that could be improved if a pest management scheme more in accordance with the conditions at each location was followed.

PAGE 84

APPENDIX YIELDS Table A-1 Yields in Pounds Per Acre: Average 2002-2003. Treatment Rep FL AL 1 1 2504 4610 1 2 3268 4614 1 3 2542 4914 1 4 2975 3575 2 1 2118 4260 2 2 1796 3811 2 3 1904 4288 2 4 2929 3879 3 1 2210 4356 3 2 1937 3344 3 3 2339 4201 3 4 2548 3966 4 1 1955 5172 4 2 3439 4660 4 3 2336 4523 4 4 3248 4737 5 1 2246 4460 5 2 2015 3326 5 3 2790 4646 5 4 3479 4546 6 1 2890 3643 6 2 3096 3530 6 3 2848 2686 6 4 3780 3866 7 1 2863 5159 7 2 2811 5155 7 3 3191 4755 7 4 2825 5187 8 1 1900 4224 8 2 1724 3879 8 3 1690 4515 8 4 1798 4365 9 1 2182 4655 9 2 2453 4642 9 3 2028 4719 9 4 2471 5127 2531 4333 73

PAGE 85

74 Table A-2. Yields in Pounds Per Acre, Florida and Alabama: Average 2002. Treatment Rep FL AL 1 1 2372 4873 1 2 2795 4945 1 3 2819 5526 1 4 3378 3103 2 1 2100 4428 2 2 1765 3784 2 3 2268 4927 2 4 3378 4864 3 1 2036 4809 3 2 1629 3684 3 3 3011 5272 3 4 2468 4610 4 1 1661 3983 4 2 1382 3920 4 3 2460 4591 4 4 2220 4002 5 1 1981 3929 5 2 1238 3312 5 3 2659 4827 5 4 3306 5290 6 1 1885 2894 6 2 2388 3248 6 3 2332 1379 6 4 4089 4691 7 1 3091 4519 7 2 3035 4492 7 3 3713 4083 7 4 3290 4510 8 1 2444 3276 8 2 1925 3475 8 3 2148 4020 8 4 2188 3167 9 1 2787 4555 9 2 2931 4029 9 3 2723 4555 9 4 3386 5063 2536 4184

PAGE 86

75 Table A-3. Yields in Pounds Per Acre, Florida and Alabama: Average 2003. Treatment Rep FL AL 1 1 2636 4347 1 2 3740 4283 1 3 2264 4302 1 4 2572 4047 2 1 2136 4093 2 2 1828 3839 2 3 1540 3648 2 4 2480 2895 3 1 2384 3902 3 2 2244 3004 3 3 1668 3131 3 4 2628 3321 4 1 2248 6362 4 2 5496 5400 4 3 2212 4456 4 4 4276 5472 5 1 2512 4991 5 2 2792 3340 5 3 2920 4465 5 4 3652 3802 6 1 3896 4392 6 2 3804 3812 6 3 3364 3993 6 4 3472 3040 7 1 2636 5799 7 2 2588 5817 7 3 2668 5427 7 4 2360 5864 8 1 1356 5173 8 2 1524 4283 8 3 1232 5009 8 4 1408 5563 9 1 1576 4755 9 2 1976 5254 9 3 1332 4882 9 4 1556 5191 2527 4482

PAGE 87

LIST OF REFERENCES Aerts, M.J., and O.N. Nesheim. 2001. Florida Crop/Pest Management Profiles: Peanuts. University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. Cooperative Extension Service. Extension bulletin CIR 1260. Gainesville, FL Agricultural Weather Information Service, Inc. 1998. AUPnut Rules for Peanut Leaf Spot Control. Retrieved July 4, 2004, from http://www.awis.com/samples/edu/aupnut.html Agricultural Weather Information Service, Inc. 1998. Jensen-Boyle Leaf Spot Advisory for Peanuts. Retrieved July 4, 2004, from http://www.awis.com/samples/edu/lspot.html Anderson, V.L. and R.A. McLean. 1974. Design of Experiments, a Realistic Approach. Marcel Dekker, Inc. Dallas, Texas. Castle, E.N., M.H. Becker, and A.G. Nelson. 1987. Farm Business Management: The Decision-Making Process. Third Edition. Macmillan Publishing Company. New York, New York. Damicone, J. P., and H. A. Melouk. 1999. Foliar Diseases of Peanut. Oklahoma State University Division of Agricultural Science and Natural. Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service. Extension bulletin F-7655. Stillwater, Oklahoma. Fletcher, S.M. 2002. Peanuts: Responding to Opportunities and Challenges from an Intertwined Trade and Domestic Policies. The University of Georgia, National Center for Peanut Competitiveness. Athens, GA. Fletcher, S. M. and N.B. Smith. 2002. Leaflet 4. Peanut Trade and the World Trade Organization. The University of Georgia, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics. Athens, GA. Fletcher, S.M. and N.B. Smith. 2001. Peanut Policy. The University of Georgia, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics. Athens, GA. Hagan, A. 1994. Nematode Pests of Peanut. Auburn University. Extension bulletin. ANR-393. Auburn, AL. 76

PAGE 88

77 Hagan, A., K. Bowen, E. Bauske, R. Getz, and S. Adams. 2000, Spring. Watching the Weather: Peanut Disease Advisory Now Contains Rainfall Estimates. Highlights of Agricultural Research Vol.47, No.1. Harrison, A. and D. Stuart. 2002, August. USDA Announces Peanut Program Features. News Release, United States Department of Agriculture. Release No. 0357.02. Hearn, R. 1995. AU Study Says Peanut Subsidy Cuts Would be Costly to Southeast. Auburn University News. Auburn, AL. Hewitt, T. 2004. Field Crop Budgets. North Florida Research and Education Center. Retrieved July 4, 2004 from http://nfrec.ifas.ufl.edu/Hewitt/budgets.htm#Field%20Crops Holman, S., 2002, July. Practicing Good Disease Resistance Management. The Peanut Grower. Vol.14, No. 8. Retrieved July 4, 2004 from: www.peanutgrower.com/home/2002_JulyResistance.html Huber, A., 2003, July. Predicting Maturity. The Peanut Grower. Vol.15, No.8. Jordan, D.L., J.E. Bailey, J.S. Barnes, C.R. Bogle, S.G. Bullen, A.B. Brown, et al. 2002. Yield and Economic Return of Ten Peanut-Based Cropping Systems. Agronomy Journal, 94: 1289-1294. Kemerait, B., T. Brenneman and A. Culbreath. 2004. Peanut Disease Control. 2004 Georgia Pest Management Handbook, Agronomic Crops. The University of Georgia. Athens, GA. Kucharek, T.A. 2000. Around Florida: A Brief Treatise on the Evolution of Plant Disease Control in Peanut. PLP News. Volume 4, Issue 4. Gainesville, Florida. Mendenhall, W. and R.L. Scheaffer. 1973. Mathematical Statistics with Applications. Wadsworth Publishing Company. North Scituate, MA. Phipps, P.M. (n.d.). Peanut Diseases. Virginia Tech, VAES Tidewater Agricultural Research and Extension Center. Blacksburg, VA. Putnam, D.H., E.S. Oplinger, T.M. Teynor, E.A. Oelke, K.A. Kelling, and J.D. Doll. 2004. Peanut. Alternative Field Crops Manual. Minnesota and Wisconsin Extension Services. Queensland Government. 2004. Harvesting Peanuts. Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries. Retrieved July 4, 2004, from http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/fieldcrops/8118.html Representative Farm Budgets. 2002. The University of Georgia College of Agricultural & Environmental Sciences. Athens, GA.

PAGE 89

78 Revoredo, C. L. and S.M. Fletcher. 2002. World Peanut Market: An Overview of the Past 30 Years. The University of Georgia, College of Agricultural & Environmental Sciences. Research Bulletin No. 437. Athens, GA. Revoredo, C.L. and S.M. Fletcher. 2002. Analysis of the World Trade in Peanuts. The University of Georgia, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Paper. Athens, GA Sanford, S. and S. Evans.1995. Peanuts: Background for 1995 Farm Legislation. United States Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Economic Report, Number 710. Washington, D.C. SAS Version 8. 1999. SAS Institute Inc. Cary, NC. Schabenberger, O. 1996. A SAS Macro for Analyzing Strip-Plot Experiments. Retrieved June 30, 2004, from http://home.nc.rr.com/schabenb/Strip-Plot.html Shew, B. 2004. 2004 Peanut Production Guide (pp.73-96). Peanut Disease Management. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. Sprenkel, R.K. 2002. Identification and Monitoring of Insect Pests in Peanut. University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. Cooperative Extension Service. Extension bulletin ENY 668. Quincy, FL. Sprenkel, R.K. 2003. Insect Management in Peanuts. University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. Cooperative Extension Service. Extension bulletin ENY 403. Quincy, FL. United States Department of Agriculture. 2003, July. Peanut Marketing Assistance Loan and Loan Deficiency Payment. Farm Service Agency. United States Department of Agriculture. 2003, November. Field Crops, Crop Production. Florida Agricultural Statistics Service (FASS). Orlando, Fl. United States Department of Agriculture. 2003. Food Uses of Peanuts in the U.S. Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). United States Department of Agriculture. 2003. Oil Crops Situation and Outlook. Economic Research Service. United States Department of Agriculture. 2003. Regions of Peanut Production. NASS. United States Department of Agriculture. 2003-2004. Agricultural Statistics Data Base, NASS. United States Department of Agriculture. 2004 B, May. Major Oilseeds: World Supply and Distribution. Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS).

PAGE 90

79 United States Department of Agriculture. 2004, February. Field Crops, Acreage, Production, and Value. Florida Agricultural Statistics Service (FASS). Orlando, Fl. United States Department of Agriculture. 2004 A, May. Peanut Oilseed: World Supply and Distribution. Top Countries: Current Marketing Year. Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). United States Department of Agriculture. 2002, October. Peanut Loss Adjustment Standards Handbook. Risk Management Agency (RMA). FCIC-25320. United States Department of Commerce. 2002-2003. Record of River and Climatological Observations. National Weather Service. Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. 2004, January. U.S. Peanut Production up 25 Percent from 2002; U.S. Cotton Production up 6 Percent. Press Release. Weeks, R., A. Hagan, W. Foshee, D.L. Hartzog, and J.W. Everest. 2000. Peanuts Pest Management Scout Manual. Alabama Cooperative Extension System. Extension bulletin. ANR-598. Wright, D.L., J.J. Marois, J.R. Rich, R.K. Sprenkel, and E.B. Whitty. 2002. Conservation Tillage Peanut Production. University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. Cooperative Extension Service. Extension bulletin SS-AGR-185. Gainesville, FL. Yancy Jr., C. 2000, May. Rain Gauge Not Required. The Peanut Farmer. Vol.36, No.5. Retrieved July 4, 2004 from www.peanutfarmer.com/backissues/May2000/story4.asp Yancy, C. 2003, June. Peanut Farms Faring Better, Still on Shaky Ground. Southeast Farm Press.

PAGE 91

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Maria Jose Garcia-Casellas was born on March 19, 1977, in Merida Yucatan, Mexico. She graduated from the Universidad de Yucatan in 2000, obtaining a bachelors degree in accounting. In August 2000 she enrolled at the University of Florida as an exchange student, following a concentration in business. She continued her studies at the University of Florida as a graduate student to pursue a Master of Science in food and resource economics. 80


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0007008/00001

Material Information

Title: Economic Analysis of Pest Management in Peanuts
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0007008:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0007008/00001

Material Information

Title: Economic Analysis of Pest Management in Peanuts
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0007008:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text











ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF PEST MANAGEMENT IN PEANUTS


By

MARIA JOSE GARCIA-CASELLAS
















A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2004

































Copyright 2004

by

Maria Jose Garcia-Casellas


































To my parents Layda and Javier, my grandparents Roberto and Layda, and my siblings
Javier and Alej andrina, for all their love and support.
















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my deep appreciation to the chairman of my supervisory

committee, Professor Timothy Hewitt. This work would not be possible without his help

and guidance. I would also like to thank the other members of the committee, Dr. Thomas

Spreen and Dr. Richard Sprenkel, for their help and contributions.

I would also like to express my gratitude to Mr. John Smith for his valuable

assistance, especially in the analysis section, to Professor Ron Weeks who made it

possible for me to ensure the financial support during the program, and to Mr. Don

Berger for his valuable knowledge in the field.

Special thanks are also extended to Dr. Leslie Clarke for her encouragement and

support. I also appreciate the support of my fellow students that made this time easier. I

also would like to thank the faculty and staff of the Food and Resource Economics

Department of the University of Florida for their assistance and for always being friendly,

and the Health Policy and Epidemiology staff for making me feel part of their family.

I am especially grateful to my mom, who taught me to follow my dreams and for

her constant support and love throughout the duration of my study.

Finally, I would like to thank Alicia and Leonardo, for their encouragement,

patience and for always being there for me.





















TABLE OF CONTENTS


page


ACKNOWLEDGMENT S .............. .................... iv


LI ST OF T ABLE S ........._... ..... .__ .............. vii...


LIST OF FIGURES .............. .................... ix


AB S TRAC T ......_ ................. ............_........x


CHAPTER


1 INTRODUCTION ................. ...............1.......... ......


International Peanut Trade............... ...............1..
Peanut Products ................. .. ...............4..
Peanut Production in the U. S ................ ...............6...............

The U.S. Peanut Program .............. ...............8.....
Southeast Peanuts .............. ...............10....
Problem Statement ................. ...............14.................

Obj ectives ................. .. ........ ...............15.......
Organization of Thesis ................. ...............15................



2 OVERVIEW OF PEANUT PRODUCTION AND PEST PROBLEMS INT THE
SOUTHEAST ................. ...............17.......... .....


Peanut Production ................. ...............17.................

Peanut Types .............. ...............17....
Peanut Varieties ................. ...............19.................
Threats to Peanut Production ................. ...............20................

Insect and Disease Management .............. ...............20....
Diseases ................ ...............21.................

Leafspot diseases ................. ...............22........... ....
Southern stem rot ........................... ..............2

Tomato spotted wilt virus (TSWV) ................. .............. ......... .....23
Insects ................. .......... .. ...............24......

Foliage feeding insect pests............... ...............25.
Peg and pod feeding pests .............. ...............26....
Nem atodes .............. ...............27....













Plant Disease Control .............. ...............28....
Chem icals .............. ...............29....




3 MATERIAL AND METHODS............... ...............31


Introduction and Experiment Overview ................. ...............31................

Experimental Design .............. ...............32....
Assessing Pest Problems ................. ...............36........... ....
Harvesting and Drying Decisions ................. ...............38........... ...

Grading System for Peanuts ................. ...............39..
Statistical Methodology and Data Analysis............... ...............41




4 EMPIRICAL RESULTS .............. ...............46....


Introducti on ................. .............. ...............46.......

Estimating Production Costs............... ...............46.
Research Results ................. ...............53.................
Y iel ds ................ ...............53.......... ......

Treatm ents .............. ...............53....
Cultivars .............. ...............55....

Florida vs. Alabama............... ...............56
Grade............... ...............59.

Treatm ents .............. ...............59....
Cultivars .............. ...............60....

Florida vs. Alabama............... ...............60
Revenue .............. ...... ....... ............6

Income Above Variable Costs ................ ...............62................
Treatm ents .............. ...............62....

Cultivars .............. ...............64....
Florida vs. Alabama............... ...............66




5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................ ...............68................


Summary ................. ...............68.................
Conclusions.................. .............6

Limitations on the Study ................. ...............72................




APPENDIX YIELD S ................ ...............73........... ....


LIST OF REFERENCES ................. ...............76........... ....


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .............. ...............80....

















LIST OF TABLES


Table pg

1-1 U. S. Annual Average Peanut Price: 1990-2003 ................. ......... ................14

3-1 Input Application Rates for the High Input Management Scheme Per Acre...........33

3-2 Input Application Rates for the IPM Management Scheme Per Acre. ....................34

3-3 Input Application Rates for the Low Input Management Scheme Per Acre............36

3-4 Leafspot Resistance Rating System Used for Plant Appearance Score. ..................38

3-5 Premium and Discount Charts for Ton of Runner Type Peanuts ................... ..........41

4-1 Estimated Costs of Producing One Acre of Peanuts in North Florida, Using the
High Input Treatment. ................. ...............47..............

4-2 Estimated Costs of Producing One Acre of Peanuts in North Florida, Using the
IPM Treatment. .............. ...............48....

4-3 Estimated Costs of Producing One Acre of Peanuts in North Florida, Using the
Low Input Treatment. ............. ...............49.....

4-4 Estimated Costs of Producing One Acre of Peanuts in Headland Alabama, Using
the High Input Treatment ................. ...............50......__....

4-5 Estimated Costs of Producing One Acre of Peanuts in Headland Alabama, Using
the IPM Treatment. .............. ...............51....

4-6 Estimated Costs of Producing One Acre of Peanuts in Headland Alabama, Using
the Low Input Treatment. ............. ...............52.....

4-7 Average Yields for Florida and Alabama by Treatment Scheme, 2002-2003. .........54

4-8 Average Yields for Florida and Alabama by Treatment vs. Cultivar, 2002-2003...54

4-9 Average Yields for Florida and Alabama by Cultivar, 2002-2003 ........................55

4-10 Average Yields for Florida and Alabama by Cultivar vs. Treatment, 2002-2003. .56

4-11 Comparison of Average Yield by Location, Alabama and Florida, 2002-2003. ....57










4-12 Monthly Rainfall Data in Inches: 2002-2003 by Selected Months. .........................58

4-13 Comparison of Average Yield Versus Pesticide Treatments, Alabama and
Florida, 2002-2003 ................ ............. .................. .................58

4-14 Average Quality for Florida and Alabama by Treatment Scheme, 2002-2003........59

4-15 Average Quality for Florida and Alabama by Treatment vs. Cultivar, 2002-2003. 60

4-16 Average Quality for Florida and Alabama by Cultivar, 2002-2003. ................... .....61

4-17 Average Quality for Florida and Alabama by Cultivar vs. Treatment, 2002-2003. 61

4-18 Average Revenue for Florida and Alabama (Dollars/Acre), 2002-2003. .................62

4-19 Average Income Above Variable Cost for Florida and Alabama by Treatment
Scheme (Dollars/Acre), 2002-2003 ................. ...............63........... ....

4-20 Average Income Above Variable Cost for Florida and Alabama by Treatment vs.
Cultivar (Dollars/Acre), 2002-2003 ......................... .......... ................64

4-21 Average Income Above Variable Cost for Florida and Alabama by Cultivar
(Dollars/Acre), 2002-2003 .......... ................ ............... ........ ...._...65

4-22 Average Income Above Variable Cost for Florida and Alabama by Cultivar vs.
Treatment (Dollars/Acre), 2002-2003 ................ ...............65........... ....

4-23 Comparison of Average Income Above Variable Cost Versus Cultivars Alabama
and Florida, 2002-2003 ......... ................ ............... ......... ........ ..67

4-24 Comparison of Average Income Above Variable Cost Versus Pesticide
Treatments Alabama and Florida, 2002-2003 ................ ................ ......... .67

A-1 Yields in Pounds Per Acre: Average 2002-2003 .......... ................ ...............73

A-2 Yields in Pounds Per Acre, Florida and Alabama: Average 2002. ..........................74

A-3 Yields in Pounds Per Acre, Florida and Alabama: Average 2003 .................. .........75


















LIST OF FIGURES


Figure pg

1-1 Maj or World Producers of Peanut: 2002-2003 ................ .......... ................. 3

1-2 Peanut Oilseed Exports: 2002-2003 ................ ......................... ............3

1-3 Food Uses of Peanuts in the United States ................. ...............5..........

1-4 Breakdown in Regions of Peanut Production in U. S. 2003. ................ .................. 7

1-5 Chemical Cost for Peanuts in the Southeast Region. A) Costs Including
Nematicides. B) Costs with No Nematicides. ............. ...............13.....

3-1 Map of Replications in Florida Test ................. ...............45........... ..
















Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF PEST MANAGEMENT IN PEANUTS

By

Maria Jose Garcia-Casellas

August 2004

Chair: Timothy D. Hewitt
Major Department: Food and Resource Economics

Currently twenty-five to thirty percent of the input costs of producing peanuts are

allocated to managing the major insect pests and diseases. Because of the economic

distress experienced by many southeastern growers, they are looking for ways to lower

the cost of production. Pest control decisions by peanut producers need to be based upon

sound science, and many producers lack in this aspect. Also, based upon changes in

production and cultural practices, and the peanut cultivars grown, economic thresholds

for the maj or insect pests need re-evaluating.

Field experiments were conducted in 2002 and 2003 at the University of Florida

North Florida Research and Education Center in Marianna, Florida, and at Wiregrass

Research and Extension Center in Headland, Alabama. The study was done to assess the

impact of three management systems on the economics of peanut production. The

managements systems designated as low, Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and high

were evaluated as split- plots, while peanut cultivars ViruGard, Georgia Green, and C99R

were included as whole plots in each management system.









A strip-plot design with cultivars was used. In this design, the three different

cultivars are laid out in horizontal strips, which are then split into subplots with different

treatment schemes. The analysis of variance and the LSD test used to compare means

show the significant differences between the cultivars and the management schemes with

respect to yield, quality and income above variable costs.

The results in this research indicated that variety is not as important as pest

management practice in contributions to economic returns, especially between the

varieties C99 and Georgia Green. With the new peanut program provisions, there is a

need to examine production practices that reduce costs and to look at ways of optimizing

income above variable costs. This is why it is important for growers to look at yield,

quality, cost, and resulting income.















CHAPTER 1
INTTRODUCTION

Peanuts are an important part of the crop economy in the United States and

especially in the southeast region where they provide the maj ority of agriculture income

in many of the peanut producing counties. Since the 1970s the U. S. has been one of the

leading exporting countries in the world peanut market.

Peanut production is threatened by pests and diseases in addition to weather

conditions and other cultural factors. Also, international competition and the current farm

program in effect are important factors in decision making by peanut producers and the

success of the industry as a whole. For these reasons, growers need to seek ways to

increase productivity and determine possible ways to lower production costs to be

successful. Variety selection and a prudent insect and disease management control

program are a necessity.

International Peanut Trade

Peanut, Arachis hypogaea, is one of the main oilseeds in the world. According to

USDA estimates for the crop year 2002/2003 (FAS, USDA, 2004), world oilseed

production was 329.75 million metric tons, of this total approximately 10 percent was the

share of peanut, 60 percent was soybean, 10 percent cottonseed, 10 percent rapeseed and

10 percent other oilseeds. According to USDA data from the period 1972-2000, 90

percent of the world peanut production was produced by developing countries (Revoredo

& Fletcher, 2002).









According to Revoredo and Fletcher (2002), the world peanut market can be

disaggregated into four geographic regions: America, Africa, Asia and the rest of the

world. Except for Europe, three regions account for 99 percent of total production. China

is the number one peanut producing counting with 40% of the world production, followed

by India with 25%, and the United States with 6%.

World average in-shell peanut production was 31.3 million metric tons during

1999-2003. Peanut production grew at an annual rate of 2.5 percent between the years

1972 to 2003. This increase in production was due both to an increase in the harvested

area and an increase in peanut yields, the latter being the main reason in the growth of

production. Yields increased 1.9 percent per year during the period 1972-2000, growing

from 0.8 to 1.37 metric tons per hectare. The area harvested remained relatively stable

during the same period with some growth the 1990s.

Peanut trade accounts for about 4 percent of the world production, equivalent to

9.2% of world oilseed production. However, in countries like Nicaragua, Argentina and

the U. S., a significant percentage of the crop is exported (Fletcher & Smith, 2002).

China, India, United States, Nigeria and Indonesia are the top five world producers

of peanut oilseed. Although their percentage of world production has changed a little over

time, the trend remains constant (Figure 1-1).

The U. S., China, India and Argentina shared about 67 percent of the world edible

peanut exports, in the 1990s and about 83 percent for the years 2000-2003 (FAS, USDA,

2004 A). These four countries dominate the peanut trade but their individual market

shares have changed significantly over the last three decades. Export data from the last

two years is shown in figure 1-2.





1J-1


China


India Unites States
PRODUCERS


Nigeria


Indonesia


Figure 1-1. Major World Producers of Peanut: 2002-2003. (Source: Foreign Agricultural
Service, Official USDA Estimates for May 2004 B.)


i II


EXPCFI"T


2001/2002
| 52002/20031


Vietnam


China


Unites States


Argentina
EXPORTERS


Figure 1-2. Peanut Oilseed Exports: 2002-2003. (Source: Foreign
Official USDA Estimates for May 2004 A.)


Agricultural Service,


India









Since 1990s international trade of peanuts has gone through a number of changes.

China, U.S., and Argentina have consolidated their positions as leading exporting

countries in the peanut market, however their share of world total exports has been

decreasing (Revoredo & Fletcher, 2002).

The trend of the six major exporters, China, United States, Argentina, India,

Vietnam and Nicaragua, has been increasing. Revoredo and Fletcher (2002) observed that

while on average during the 1972-75 period the maj or exporters captured 70.8 percent of

the total exports, during the 1996-2000 period their share reached 85 percent and

increased further to 91 percent during 2000-2003.

Imports exhibit a different trend. While the EU and Asian countries are still the

main importers, the trend observed on the share by country is decreasing toward a more

fragmented market. The EU countries, together with Japan and Canada have been

historically the main importers of peanuts; on the other hand, Indonesia was ranked as the

second largest importer during the 1990s.

According to Revoredo and Fletcher (2002), the world market of peanuts may be

considered a residual market, in the sense that only a small fraction of the world

production is committed to exports and imports with a high fraction of the production

being used domestically. Total volume of peanut exports has been growing since the late

1980s even though at a modest rate, increasing for the 1976-80 period from an average of

1.1 million metric tons to 1.5 during 1996-2000 and to 1.8 million metric tons during the

period 2000-2003.

Peanut Products

Peanuts are also an important oil crop worldwide. Most peanuts produced are

crushed for oil and protein meal. The United States is the main country producing










peanuts used in edible products such as peanut butter, roasted peanuts, peanut candies,

snack peanuts and confectionery, especially with chocolate. As shown in Figure 1-3,

peanut butter remains the main food use of peanuts in the United States.

Other
1%
Snacks
23%





Peanut butter
52%

Candy
24%


Figure 1-3. Food Uses of Peanuts in the United States. (Source: Foreign Agricultural
Services, USDA, 2003 .)

China, India and the United States process about two-thirds of the total peanut

utilization in the world. Utilization among these countries differs substantially.

According to the University of Georgia (2002), the total amount of peanuts used for

crushing and food purposes in China was approximately 40% for food and 60% for

crushing. India's share of crushing was 92% while the United Stated has increased its

share for food over time, reaching 77% on average during 1996-2000.

Use of peanuts in food products has steadily increased over time. Crushing peanuts

for oil and meal, however, remains the most important use for peanuts. This varies year to

year primarily because of fluctuations in production and foreign demand. U.S. peanut oil

production rose to 259 million pounds in 2002/03, from the 230 million pounds

production the year before.










In terms of consumption, whole peanut utilization for food purposes has been

increasing. Unlike other countries where the major end products are peanut oil, cake and

meal, the primary market for U. S. peanuts is edible (whole) peanut consumption;

primarily peanut butter. Peanuts that are used for food purposes require a higher quality

than those used for crushing. Per capital whole peanut consumption in U.S. is

approximately 6.5 pounds per year.

Peanuts supply one-sixth of the world's vegetable oil. Only 15 percent of the U.S.

production is normally crushed for oil. Export of processed peanuts and specialty peanut

products has gradually increased. Some of these products in the U. S. are peanut butter,

packaged nuts (includes salted, unsalted, flavored, and honey-roasted nuts), snack

peanuts, peanut oil, and peanut flour; they are also used in confectionery.

Americans consume more than 300 million pounds of snack peanuts a year. Fifty

two percent of the U. S. peanut production is used to make peanut butter, and about 24

percent is sold as snacks or in-shell peanuts, often roasted with salt and spicy seasonings.

The confectionery industry uses about 24 percent of the U. S. crop to make candy; many

chocolate confections contain peanuts or peanut butter.

Peanut Production in the U.S.

After analyzing USDA data for U. S. peanut production and exports from the years

1972 to 2000, Revoredo and Fletcher (2002) concluded that movements in exports in the

U.S. are associated to movements in production. U.S. peanut production for the year 2003

accounted for 4. 14 billion pounds, an increase from the 2002 production of 3.32 billion

pounds, even though the area planted suffered a decrease in the same time period from

1.35 to 1.34 million acres. The harvested area increased from 1.2 to 1.3 million acres

from the years 2002 to 2003, at the same time the U.S. showed an increase in peanut










yields from 2,571 pounds in 2002 to 3,159 pounds in 2003.Yields were higher because

weather conditions were ideal and rotations are improving through out the peanut belt.

Peanut production and primary processing are concentrated in nine states that can

b e divi ded into three regi ons. The Georgia-Flori da-Al ab ama- South Carolina regi on,

referred to as the Southeast; the Texas-Oklahoma-New Mexico region, referred to as the

Southwest; and the Virginia-North Carolina region, referred to as Virginia-Carolina

region. The southeast accounts for 68 percent of U.S. peanut production, as shown in

Figure 1-4.




VC
10%



SW
22%






68%





Figure 1-4. Breakdown in Regions of Peanut Production in U.S. 2003. (Source: NASS,
USDA, 2003 .)

In 2003 most states reported mostly good to excellent yields due to near-perfect

weather both for growing and harvesting. The largest producing region, the southeastern

states, harvested 1,358,000 short tons of peanuts, 45 percent above 2002. Harvested









acreage was 857,000 acres, again 9 percent up from last year. Yield in the 4-state area

averaged 3,238 pounds per acre, 804 pounds above 2002.

In Florida, peanut producers harvested an average of 3,000 pounds per acre from

1 15,000 acres; accounting for 345 million pounds of peanuts in 2003. Alabama harvested

2,750 pounds per acre from 185,000 acres; with a total production of 508.75 million

pounds of peanut in the same year. According to USDA, the 2003/04 season average

farm price is proj ected to range from 16.25 to 19.25 cents per pound, compared with

18.24 cents in 2002/03. State revenue for peanuts was $35.2 million dollars in Florida in

2002, and $63.5 million in 2003. Alabama obtained revenues of $62.2 million dollars in

2002, and $ 94.2 million in 2003.

The U.S. Peanut Program

After the Great Depression, economic conditions led Congress in 1934 to institute a

program of national emergency to control the domestic supply of peanuts and protect

producer income. The program was originally intended to be provisional but a type of

peanut program remains in effect. The program consists of three components: a

poundage quota, an import quota and non-recourse loans. The Farms Bill passed by the

U.S. Government in 2002, included radical changes to the peanut program making it

similar to other agriculture programs for crops such as wheat, comn and rice.

Under the quota program before 2002, the federal government paid peanut farmers

$610 per ton of peanut, nearly twice the world market price, for a govemnment-set quota.

After exceeding this quota, farmers received a guarantee of $132 per ton for peanuts sold

mainly for oil and meal. These quotas were established in the 1930's and could be passed

from generation to generation of farmers or could be sold but could not be transferred









outside of a state. Farmers with no quota could not sell their peanuts domestically;

however, they could buy or rent the rights from a quota holder.

By replacing the marketing system established 60 years ago, the Farm Bill of 2002

made significant changes in the peanut program. The most significant change in the

previous peanut program was to revoke the quota system established in the 1930s. In its

place, the peanut program would operate similarly to the traditional commodity crops,

such as feed grains, wheat and rice. The program also contained provisions for a peanut

quota buyout. Peanut producers holding quotas would also be compensated 11 cents per

pound annually over the period 2002-2006. Provisions of the new peanut program

include marketing program loan rates, the weekly national posted price and disposition of

last year' s crop still in storage. Contracting is allowed and producers may contract

modest premiums before harvest. Premiums are often determined by the market and

supply conditions.

The 2002 Farm Bill established a marketing loan program and loan deficiency

payments (LDPs) to treat peanuts similar to other commodities (corn, soybean, cotton).

By law, the national average loan rate is $355 per ton, though specific rates have been set

for specific types of peanuts. Premiums and discounts are applied for quality factors. A

GAO analysis concluded that the new program would lessen the adverse effect on

consumers by lowering average peanut prices, but these lower prices would be offset by a

substantial increase in USDA outlays to maintain producer income.

According to USDA (2003), to be eligible for a loan or LDP the producer must

share in the risk of producing the commodity, be compliant with conservation and

wetland requirements and have and retain beneficial interest in the peanuts until the loan









or the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) takes title to the commodity. A producer is

considered to have beneficial interest in the commodity if the producer has control and

title of the commodity and is exposed to risk of loss.

To be eligible for a loan or LDP the peanuts must have been produced and

harvested by an eligible producer and be in storable conditions; must be merchantable for

feed, food or other uses as determined by CCC and meet the specific commodity

eligibility requirements for nonrecourse by CCC. Also peanuts have to be Virginia,

Spanish, Runner or Valencia types, not have been shelled or crushed and must be

inspected and graded if warehouse stored. And finally, peanuts must be inspected and

graded upon delivery if farm stored.

Because of the previous programs and marketing structure, there is no reported

cash price for peanuts as for other crops; consequently the USDA establishes a price. The

USDA reports a national posted price, which will determine loan repayment when the

price is below the loan rate. The USDA will have the necessary resources to ensure the

posted price as an accurate presentation of the value of the farmers, using information

from both domestic and foreign sales' transactions. Time will be required for peanut

prices to fully reflect the new market structure.

Southeast Peanuts

While peanuts may be regarded as a minor crop on a national scale, peanuts are an

integral component of southern agriculture and the southern rural economy. According to

the U. S. Ag Census, peanuts provide the maj ority of agriculture income in many of the

peanut producing counties in the South. Many of these counties obtain 50-70% of their

agricultural income from peanuts (Fletcher, 2002).










Many of the peanut products manufacturing facilities are located in the local

southern communities. The first level of value-added activity of peanuts involving

shelling is performed in the same local southern communities. As Fletcher (2002)

observed, this provides jobs as well as additional economic activity to the southern

communities.

Each dollar generated in the peanut industry creates a ripple effect throughout

hundreds of other sectors in the economy, generating even more spending. Given this

multiplier effect, studies have estimated that the peanut industry in 1995 was responsible

for more than $1.3 billion in total economic output and 16,242 jobs in the southeast

region (Hearn, 1995).

As Fletcher (2002) reported, peanut infrastructure has developed in three areas

primarily in the south. Approximately 60% of the production occurs in Georgia, Florida

and Alabama; about 25% in Oklahoma, Texas and New Mexico; and the remaining

production occurs in North Carolina and Virginia.

Many changes are occurring in the way the southeast region and U.S. as a whole

produce and market peanuts. The ability to obtain profits through peanut production is at

risk because of factors such as weather, domestic policies, trade policies, regulations,

price and increasing cost of production. Profit is a function of yield, price, quality and

cost. Therefore, in order to increase or maintain profits, special attention needs to be

given to these variables. Since price is the variable over which farmers have limited

control, it is important to pay close attention to the cost structure which producers may

have some control. Attempting to reduce cost using improved or more resistant varieties










and a good use of pesticides are ways to improve profits. Yields play a fundamental role

so trying to increase them while maintaining the same cost is a priority.

Currently 30-50% of the input costs of producing peanuts is allocated to managing

weed, insects and diseases. Southeastern growers are looking for ways to lower the cost

of production because of the implementation of the new peanut program, which lowers

the prices that farmers receive.

In peanut production, as in all agriculture, risk and uncertainty exist due to

production factors and market conditions. Pests are the maj or factors limiting yield,

quality, and profitability of peanut production in the southeast region. The hot and wet

summer climate favors the development of several destructive diseases.

Leafspot diseases, white mold and root-knot nematodes cause the greatest damage

to peanuts in the southeast region. Also, substantial losses occur from Rhizoctonia limb

rot and peanut rust. Early leafspot and to a greater extent late leafspot are the most

widespread and potentially destructive peanut diseases. White mold, also called Southern

stem rot and stem blight, is another damaging disease of peanuts. This disease occurs in

almost every Hield where peanuts have been cultivated. Yield loss to white mold is

heaviest where peanuts are grown each year or every other year. Estimated losses in these

Shields may reach 20 percent of expected yields.

Plant parasitic nematodes may also limit the production of peanuts. The more often

the peanuts are grown on the same land, the higher the risk of significant crop injury. The

peanut root-knot nematode is the most destructive and widely distributed nematode pest

of peanut; it is found in about 40 percent of Alabama' s peanut Hields. Other nematodes










that damage peanuts are the lesion nematode and the ring nematode. These populations

are usually highest in light, sandy soils.

Tomato spotted wilt (TSWV) is one of the most damaging virus diseases of

peanuts. Symptoms may be seen first about 14 to 21 days after seedling emergence. Late

TSWV infection can cause a decline in plant vigor, yellowing of the foliage, vine

collapse, and finally plant death.

Reducing expenses is an important goal of any peanut producer. By improving

production management, cost could be decreased a minimum of $15 an acre. Using

Florida' s 1 15,000 acres of peanuts as an example; a minimum of $1,725,000 dollars

could be saved by improving production management.

The breakdown of chemical cost applied in peanut production is shown in Figure 1-

5. Some farmers applied nematicides during the season; however, not all of them follow

the same practice. This makes a big difference in the percentage used for the other

pesticides.



Fungicides
Nematicides Herbicides
49% Herbicides
24% / L17% 23%



Insecticides
21%
Insecticides
A B 28%
Fungicides
38%


Figure 1-5. Chemical Cost for Peanuts in the Southeast Region. A) Costs Including
Nematicides. B) Costs with No Nematicides. (Source: University of Georgia,
Representative Farm Budgets, 2002.)










Economic losses occur each year from the inefficient use of pesticides. Thresholds

for the maj or insect pest should be based on production economics not Eixed interval

spray regimes. Peanut producers may be able to reduce insect and disease inputs without

sacrificing yield or crop quality by utilizing a lower cost management scheme and

selecting the proper variety according to the location conditions.

With the new peanut program, peanut producers are receiving lower prices so they

must reduce costs or increase yield to maintain historical profit levels. The prices per unit

of peanuts from 1990 are shown in Table 1-1. From 1990 to 2001 prices fluctuated from

0.3 to 0.215 and with the new program in 2002 the price decreased to 0.178 dollars per

pound.

Table 1-1. U.S. Annual Average Peanut Price: 1990-2003
Price per
Unit
Years Dollars/1b
1990 0.300
1991 0.263
1992 0.286
1993 0.296
1994 0.281
1995 0.271
1996 0.281
1997 0.280
1998 0.298
1999 0.232
2000 0.300
2001 0.215
2002 0.178
2003 0.184
Source: Agricultural Statistics Data Base NASS, USDA.

Problem Statement

Currently 25-30% of the input costs of producing peanuts are allocated to

managing the maj or insect pests and diseases. Because of the economic crisis most










southeastern growers are in, they are looking for ways to lower the cost of production.

Pest control decisions by peanut producers need to be based upon sound science, and

growers do not always consider this aspect. Also, based upon changes in production

practices and peanut cultivars grown, economic thresholds for the maj or insect pests need

re-evaluating.

Obj ectives

The main objective of this study is to assess the impact of three management

systems on the economics of peanut production; evaluating the economic returns under

the management schemes utilizing three different varieties of peanuts. The primary pests

targeted for management are thrips, foliage feeders, soil insects as well as soil borne and

leafspot diseases in peanuts. The management systems designated as low, IPM and high

are evaluated as split-plots, while three peanut cultivars, Georgia Green, ViruGard, and

C99R were included as whole plots in each management system.

Data summary and economic analysis from two years, allowing extension

recommendations to be revised are another obj ective of the study. The study was

established at the Wiregrass Research and Extension Center in Headland, Alabama and at

the North Florida Research and Education Center in Marianna, Florida under the

direction of Ron Weeks and Richard Sprenkel, entomologists with Auburn University

and the University of Florida, respectively; with funding from the National Peanut Board.

Organization of Thesis

Chapter 1 is the introductory chapter, containing information on international

peanut trade, peanut products, the peanut program and the peanuts in the southeast

region. Also, the problem statement and the objectives of the study are expressed in this

chapter. Chapter 2 is an overview of peanut production and the pest problems in the









southeast Unites States. Peanut production, types and varieties, as well as threats to

peanut production are included in this chapter. Chapter 3 is a description of the material

and methods used in this research. Experiment overview, experimental design, assessing

pest problems, harvesting and drying decisions, and statistical methodology and data

analysis are included. Chapter 4 consists of the empirical results of the study. Cost of

production estimates and the research results are explained in this chapter. The summary,

conclusions and study limitations are included in Chapter 5.















CHAPTER 2
OVERVIEW OF PEANUT PRODUCTION AND PEST PROBLEMS INT THE
SOUTHEAST

Peanut Production

Peanut is a very important part of the row crop economy in Florida. Peanut is a

high management; high input crop and the costs of inputs have steadily increased while

peanut farmers are competing in a global market that keeps price low. Yields have been

stagnant for years, even with new varieties and technology. Therefore to remain

competitive, farmers must find ways to improve production efficiency or increase yields

(Wright et al., 2002).

Peanut Types

Peanuts are divided into two subspecies, hypgaea and fastigiata. The hypgaea do

not flower on the main stem, generally mature later, have a high water requirement, have

alternate branching patterns and produce large seeds. The fastigiata produce flowers on

the main stem, have sequential branching, mature earlier relative to hypgaea, have a low

water requirement and produce smaller seeds.

The U.S. market has four types of peanuts: Virginia, Runner, Spanish, and

Valencia. Virginia and Runner are part of the hypgaea subspecies, and Spanish and

Valencia belong to the fastigiata subspecies.

Virginia Type. This type of peanut is desirable in the peanut market because of

their high yield, large pod size and good flavor. These are also used in snack peanuts and

in some candies.










Runner Type- These peanuts get their name from the fact that they tend to have a

prostrate or running growth habit. They are usually used to make peanut butter. They

have an excellent flavor.

Spanish Type. These peanuts have smaller kernels covered with a reddish-brown

skin. They are used predominantly in peanut candies, with significant quantities used for

snack nuts and peanut butter. Spanish peanuts have a higher oil content than the other

types of peanuts which is advantageous when crushing for oil. They are primarily grown

in Oklahoma and Texas.

Valencia Type. This type has multi-kernel pod characteristics and red seed coat.

Valencia has a distinctive flavor preferred by some customers. In general these peanuts

have lower yields than Virginia types.

Soil type, climate, and operation of the peanut program provisions establish the

location of peanut production. Area is a main determinant in what to produce. The

southeast region grows mostly the medium-kernel runner peanuts used mostly in peanut

butter, and in smaller amounts for snack peanuts and candy. Runners are the most

important type for all shelled uses.

The southwest grows more Runner type than Spanish now. Virtually all the Spanish

peanut production is in Oklahoma and Texas. The Virginia-Carolina region grows mostly

large-kernel Virginia peanut that are roasted for use as ballpark peanuts or cleaned, in

shell-peanuts. As shelled peanuts, Virginias are also used as cocktail nuts and snack

peanuts .









The Valencia type is grown in New Mexico. This type of peanut, with its long shell

containing three or four kernels, is excellent for roasting in the shell (Sanford and Evans,

1995).

Peanut Varieties

Peanut production starts with a variety selection because the obj ective is to grow

the highest yielding variety that you can market. Peanut markets can be locally

specialized. Consumer acceptance and marketability are influenced by factors such as

pod size, shape, kernel skin color, multi-kernel pods and flavor.

Variety selection will also depend on soil type and length of growing season. The

Spanish type matures sooner (90 to 120 days) than Runner or Virginia types. Most

Valencia varieties mature in 90 to 110 days while Runner and Virginia require 130 to 150

days (Putman el at., 2004).

Varieties should be chosen on the basis of yield, grade, and pest resistance, and

then on the basis of the maturity that best fits the farming operation. The varieties used in

this study are:

Georgia Green. This Runner type peanut cultivar released in 1995 was developed

at the University of Georgia. Georgia Green is highly productive and has very good

stability across many environments. It has been shown to have a higher yield and dollar

return than the Florunner. It also produced higher percentage of total sound mature

kernels (TSMK). Georgia Green shows good resistance to tomato spotted wilt virus,

compared to Southern Runner.

ViruGard is a Runner type peanut cultivar that matures in about 135 days;

however, depending on the growing season it can mature earlier than other commonly

grown varieties such as GK-7 and Georgia Green when planted in the same field. It is a










cross between NC-7 and Florunner and has a spreading bunch growth habit. ViruGard is

more upright than GK-7 with smaller leaflets. It has a light pink seed coat color and seed

size is larger than most currently grown varieties with more jumbo kernels. Another

characteristic is its TSWV tolerance similar to Georgia Green or Southern Runner.

Although ViruGard was used in the experimental design this variety was not accepted as

a variety to be used in the southeast and is not currently grown.

C99R has a relatively large pod for a Runner type and has the advantage of high

yield and good tomato spotted wilt resistance. This variety matures in about 150 days, 2

or 3 weeks after Georgia Green. Its disadvantage is slower maturity.

Threats to Peanut Production

Insect and Disease Management

Prudent disease management of disease is essential to profitable peanut production.

Resistant cultivars, early disease detection, weather-based prediction, scouting, long

rotations and proper pesticide selections are the basic elements of a disease management

strategy. Scouting is a procedure where the crop is sampled in an arranged approach to

determine the presence of damaging pest levels.

According to Shew (2004), early detection is critical in developing effective and

low cost approaches to disease management. Meticulous scouting and accurate

identification of diseases is essential for selection of the most appropriate management

tactics and crop protection products.

The use of cultural and chemical controls achieves maximum benefits and rotation

and resistant cultivars generally reduce the number of pathogens. Pesticides should be

used only when cultural practices have not been sufficient to reduce pathogen levels

below economic thresholds.










To be effective, fungicides should be applied before or soon after disease appears.

The use of weather-based disease advisories minimizes unnecessary pesticide

applications and adds precision to applications by anticipating disease outbreaks (Shew,

2004). For many diseases such as tomato spotted wilt, Cylidrocladium black rot,

Sclerotinia blight, pod rot and nematodes, management decisions must be made before

the next crop of peanuts is planted.

Diseases

Some peanut diseases can greatly reduce quality and yield, as well as monetary

returns by retarding desirable plant development or by diverting product utilization. Some

diseases, such as leafspot and rust are obvious in appearance while others, like root rots

and pod rots, frequently are unnoticed until dry weather occurs or until harvest.

All peanut producers annually experience loss from one or more diseases on their

crop. A disease control strategy is an essential component of any peanut production

program. Yield reductions associated with foliar diseases such as leafspot form the

greatest threat of all diseases to southern United States. Early and late leafspot can

potentially cause annual losses of around $600 million. In most parts of Florida, tomato

spotted wilt virus (TSWV) has caused maj or peanut damage in recent years.

Growers rely on resistant varieties, planting dates and plant populations, and a

systemic insecticide applied at planting to reduce damage from TSWV. White mold can

cause damage too. However, the magnitude of damage and resulting crop loss varies with

the time of occurrence, environmental conditions and, more importantly, the disease

organism (Aerts & Nesheim, 2001). These factors will influence choices of control

needed. No one management measure will be totally effective for all peanut diseases. A

series of coordinated control measures is necessary to do a proper j ob.










Using good sanitation and cultural practices that lead to vigorous plant growth can

control most of the specific diseases. No peanut varieties are immune to disease, but there

is a wide range in susceptibility. Some of the important differences with respect to the

most common diseases are noted below.

Leafspot diseases

Over the years, many of researchers working with peanuts have learned that peanut

leafspot can cause extremely high yield losses. Early and late leafspots are the most

widespread and the most damaging foliar diseases of peanut (Damicone & Melouk,

1999). Each year, peanut producers in Florida contend with this complex of foliar

diseases. Weather conditions like rainfall or irrigation followed by high humidity during

the growing season can contribute to it. The fungus Cercospora arachidicola causes early

leafspot, and the fungus Cercosporidium personatum causes late leafspot. These fungi are

present in most locations every year but are especially troublesome during wet and humid

years .

The leafspot fungi attack any aboveground portion of the plant. Yield loss occurs

due to reduction of effective leaf area and weakening of stems and pegs that results in

pods left in the field. When the leafspot pathogen is not controlled, nearly complete

defoliation and yield losses of 50 percent are possible.

Aerts and Nesheim (2001) found that yield losses may vary from near zero to as

much as 91 percent in research tests. In Florida, on a statewide basis, annual yield losses

attributed to peanut leafspot vary from 5 to 40 percent (Aerts & Nesheim, 2001).

Leafspot control is essential to prevent heavy defoliation and peg infection which

reduce yield. Spanish varieties seem to be affected earlier than Runner types, but Runners










provide a greater potential for disease increase late in the season because they require

more time to mature.

Applying fungicides when there is excess of moisture and humidity during the

growing season can control leaf diseases. Fungicide applications should begin before

leafspots become established. Most products do not eradicate existing infections but

rather work to prevent infection. In order to prevent or delay the development of

resistance by the organisms, two or more types of fungicide need to be applied.

Southern stem rot

Also called white mold and stem blight, this disease occurs in almost every field

where peanuts have been cultivated. Yield loss to white mold is heaviest where peanuts

are grown each year or every other year. Estimated losses in these fields may reach 20

percent or more of expected yields or more.

White mold is primarily a mid- to late- season disease. Stems, pegs, roots and nuts

are susceptible to infection. The first sign is a sudden wilting of a stem branch. The

leaves on the wilted vines or stems quickly turn brown and die. Usually the wilting and

death of the remaining stems on a diseased plant will follow. This fungus also attacks the

roots, pods, and pegs of a peanut plant. Disease pods turn dark brown and disintegrate.

The white mold fungus will survive in the soil as sclerotia until the next susceptible crop

(Aerts & Nesheim, 2001).

Tomato spotted wilt virus (TSWV)

TSWV is one of the most damaging viruses of peanut. This virus causes a serious

disease of peanuts in Florida and was first discovered in the state in 1986. Yield

decreases of greater than 50% have been caused by tomato spotted wilt virus, (Kucharek,

2000). While some people from the Plant Pathology Department at UF stated that this









disease would never be a problem, the fact is that it is the first virus to have a negative

impact on peanut production in Florida, and it has been devastating to peanut production

in the southeast and the entire industry.

TSWV is a thrips-vectored virus, causing white etching-like ringspots on leaflets. If

the infection occurs early, stunting of plant occurs. Buds may die and tumn brown, and

plants may be abnormally yellow, claimed Aerts and Nesheim (2001). Symptoms may be

seen first about 14 to 21 days after seedling emergence. Any additional new leaves are

only half their normal size and crinkled displaying a selection of chlorotic ringspots and

line patterns. Late TSWV infection can cause a decline in plant vigor, yellowing of the

foliage, vine collapse, and finally plant death (Kucharek, 2000).

Manipulation of plant populations and planting times partially suppress TSWV in

peanut. Cultivar selection has become another maj or tactic. Georgia Green is currently

the predominant cultivar grown in the southeastern United States because of its

acceptable agronomic type and partial resistance to TSWV.

Insects

Many insects attack peanut, and they may damage any part of the plant. Insect pests

of peanut are fairly widespread across the production area. Insect problems vary from one

season to the next as well as during the growing season because of varying factors such

as weather and cultural practices. Depending on the damage they cause, insects can be

divided in two groups. One, with insects that primarily damage foliage and other that

damages the pods, pegs, and roots. The following are the most common insect pests

found in Florida, based mostly on Sprenkel (2002) work.









Foliage feeding insect pests

Thrips. Several species of thrips cause damage to peanut. Each spring soon after

crop emergence, peanuts are infested by adults, which migrate from a large variety of

wild and cultivated hosts. The winged adult thrips vary from yellow to dark brown and

the nymphs are wingless and yellow in color. According to Aerts and Nesheim (2001),

thrips feed by rasping the young leaves of the bud and sucking up the plant fluid. This

results in scarred and deformed leaves. Severe infestations cause stunting of the plants

and delayed development. Thrips are also the vector of tomato spotted wilt virus. The

timing of thrips infestations and damage are hard to predict, so at-planting insecticide

treatments are more reliable than curative treatments. As Sprenkel (2002) expressed,

significant acreage is treated annually for which monetary benefit is not immediately

apparent.

Twospotted spider mite. This is an insect-related pest that is inconspicuous and

small, but when abundant, spider mite feeding damage is apparent. Spider mites feed by

inserting their mouthparts into the plant and sucking out the plant juices. As the

population increases, the feeding damage may cause the entire leaflet to turn brownish-

yellow and die. Spider mite populations tend to increase more rapidly in hot, dry weather,

causing more damage, even though they may be present in all types of weather.

Fall armyworm. The stripes and coloration of the fall armyworm are very

variable; however they can be identified by a white inverted "Y" mark in from of the

head. Beet armyworms can be identified by a black spot on each side of the body just

behind the head. The adult moth lays eggs in a fuzzy cluster, they hatch and the

caterpillars move and feed together. Frequently large numbers congregate and move

together feeding on foliage, thus the name armyworms. Early in the season, they often









attack the vines and feed on developing buds. When the leaves expand, they acquire a

ragged appearance because of this type of feeding (Aerts & Nesheim, 2001).

Velvetbean caterpillars. A second type of foliage feeding worm is the Velvetbean

caterpillar. These insects attack foliage, strip plants of leaves and destroy the terminal

buds. They are normally more numerous late in the season, before harvest. Velvetbean

caterpillars are green to black and usually have stripes running the length of the body.

These insects are very active when disturbed. Adult moths are light brown and have a

diagonal dark line across their wings (Aerts & Nesheim, 2001).

Corn earworm. The comn earworm can be a serious pest of peanut in Florida.

Adding to defoliation during the season, larvae are also able of causing damage after the

peanuts are dug, by feeding on the drying peanuts. Adults are active at night and very

strong flyers; this allows them to infest a host at significant distances from where they

emerged from the pupal stage. According to Sprenkel (2002), there is a potential for the

development of a large population and considerable damage to peanut late in the season

since the corn earworm has numerous cultivated and wild hosts in north Florida.

Leafhoppers. These small and green or brownish wedge shaped insects sometimes

are called sharpshooters. All leafhoppers are wedge-shaped and very active, commonly

flying ahead of a person walking through peanut fields. Leafhoppers have piercing

sucking mouthparts and damage peanuts by sucking sap from leaves and buds causing

leaf tips to tumn yellowish-white or fringes of the leaf to turn brown. This yellowing

reduces photosynthesis, results in leaf deterioration, and might lead to defoliation.

Peg and pod feeding pests

Lesser cornstalk borer. This is one of the most important economic pests of

peanuts in the southeastern United States. Lesser cornstalk borer is associated with hot,










dry weather; it also tends to be more of a serious pest on sandy soils when compared with

heavier soils. It is a very active larva with alternating brown and purple bands on its

body. Their feeding on the pegs and pods causes most of the economic losses.

Southern Corn Rootworm. The southern corn rootworm has increased in

importance as an economic pest of peanut especially in wet weather and on heavier soils

in the southeast. The larva is the damaging stage, the adult known as the spotted

cucumber beetle does very little damage to peanut, although is a general feeder on a

number of hosts. Feeding is mostly confined to the pods; however many times the larvae

are away from the feeding sites in the soil making them very difficult to find.

Wireworms. Numerous species of wireworms can cause damage to peanuts. This

damage to pods is similar to that caused by the southern corn rootworm. Yet, the holes in

the pods are larger and have a more ragged edge. Larvae are very difficult to find in the

soil due to their dark color. Most species require two years to develop in full meaning

that the larvae may be already in the soil when a peanut crop is planted.

Nematodes

Nematodes are widespread and destructive pests on peanuts. For example, each

year in Alabama, 5 to 10 percent of potential peanut yield is estimated to be lost due to

nematodes (Hagan, 1994). Nematodes are microscopic worms, parasitic in nature and live

in the soil and infect plants. Typically, they infect small areas of fields but can

occasionally destroy crops when the infection is wide spread.

Root-knot nematodes cause gall formations on peanut roots, pegs, and pods. Plants

severely infected by root-knot nematodes have stunted growth and are lighter in color.

Root-lesion nematodes affect roots, pegs, and pods. It can be identified best by the

presence of small spots on pods. These spots are tan with a dark center.










According to Hagan (1994), nematode populations are generally highest in light

and sandy soils. The more often peanuts are grown in a field, the greater the risk of

damage caused by nematodes, especially peanut root-knot. On the other hand, they rarely

seriously damage peanuts cropped behind permanent pasture grasses.

Nematode-damaged peanuts typically show yellow foliage and may wilt at midday,

even if soil moisture levels are adequate for good plant growth. Vines may be so stunted

that they do not lap or shade out the row middles, making the peanuts more sensitive to

drought. Severely stunted peanuts frequently die if stressed by hot, dry weather.

Damaging nematodes are never evenly distributed across a field; scattered patches with

damage can range in size from a few feet to several acres. Control of a nematode pest of

peanut can be accomplished with crop rotation, early maturing cultivars and nematicides.

Plant Disease Control

It is important to practice good disease resistance management in order to delay the

onset of what could be a serious issue. Insect and plant resistance to several classes of

insecticides and fungicides caused problems in many different crops. An extension

pathologist with the University of Florida, Tom Kucharek (as cited in Holman, 2002)

indicated that resistance by disease-causing organisms to fungicides with specific modes

of action would happen in some point of time. On the other hand, there are series of

things we can do to delay this resistance. According to Holman (2002), these include crop

rotation, choosing varieties with some resistance and fungicide selection. These

management decisions can help even do they have only an indirect effect on pathogen

resistance.

Insecticides should be applied only when needed. Sprenkel (2003) claimed that

experience has shown that 40-60% of the peanuts will probably not need any insecticide









treatments. There has been a practice of treating for insects and leafspot at the same time.

Data indicate leaf-feeding insects would not require more than two applications during

leafspot treatments. Total defoliation from leafspot and insects should not exceed 20%.

Leafspot control should be approached on a preventative basis; treat for insect defoliators

only as the infestation indicates. Unnecessary use of insecticides kills beneficial insects

and can cause build-up of pest insects later in the season (Sprenkel, 2003).

Chemicals

A wide array of chemicals is registered for disease control in peanuts. The selection

of the most effective and economical chemical requires knowledge of the target disease

and other possible diseases in the field.

The most important component of resistance management is fungicide selection as

well as rotating modes of action. The fungicide's vulnerability to resistance is determined

by the mode of action. Resistance can be delayed by mixing or alternating sprays of

fungicides with different modes of action, using fungicides at the recommended rates and

by not exceeding the total number of recommended sprays.

An extension pathologist with Virginia Tech Tidewater Agricultural Research and

Extension Center, Pat Phipps (as cited in Holman, 2002), explains that fungicides can be

either broad spectrum or site specific. The most vulnerable are generally site specific in

the metabolic pathways of the fungus. Being so specific, there is a risk of the fungus

being able to change and overcome it. The fungicides that are broad spectrum in activity

hit more than one site. Auburn University plant pathologist, Austin Hagan (as cited in

Holman, 2002) adds that the risk of resistance would be significant if producers

repeatedly used a fungicide that is only active at one or two sites without the use any

broad spectrum fungicide.









Clorothalonil, the generic name for a broad-spectrum fungicide, such as Bravo

Ultrex, is helpful in disease management. Triazole and strobilurin materials are

fungicides that act at one site in the fungal cell. Tilt and Folicur are Triazole fungicides,

and Abound and Headline are strobilurin fungicides.

According to Kucharek, materials such as Abound have a very specific mode of

action so it is imperative that growers alternate it (Holman, 2002). Making use of a

broad-spectrum fungicide along with other site-specific fungicides is highly

recommended in peanut production.

Abound seems to be an effective tool for managing soilborne diseases. This product

is part of a line of chemistry that originated with compounds derived from mushrooms.

The active ingredient, azoxystrobin, has a mode of action different that any other

previously labeled fungicide and it is active on a very wide range of fungi pathogenic to a

variety of crops.

Abound is the most expensive peanut fungicide option so it is wise to use it only in

the most needed situations. Abound was used in this experiment for the high management

scheme .

Growers should examine plants for soil insect damage to get some idea of the level

of damage they have. It is important to keep in mind that damaged pods decay and fall off

the plant so you may not be seeing all pods damage when peanuts are dug.















CHAPTER 3
MATERIAL AND METHODS

Introduction and Experiment Overview

Field experiments were conducted in 2002 and 2003 at the University of Florida

North Florida Research and Education Center in Marianna, FL, located in the panhandle

of Florida and at Wiregrass Research and Extension Center in Headland, AL, located in

southeast Alabama. The soil type at Marianna is Chipola loamy sand with organic matter

of less than 1% while the soil type of Headland is a Dothan sandy loam with organic

matter less than 1%. The Marianna experiment was planted in soil that was categorized as

a disturbed soil. This soil had been heavily compacted due to previous use as grass airport

runaway .

The study was done to assess the impact of three management systems on the

economics of peanut production. The primary pests targeted for management are thrips,

foliage feeders, soil insects as well as soil borne and leafspot diseases in peanuts. The

managements systems designated as, low, Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and high,

are evaluated as split- plots, while peanut cultivars, ViruGard (early maturity), Georgia

Green (intermediate maturity), and C99R (late maturity), will be included as whole plots

in each management system.

Variety selection was made due to climatic conditions and variety resistance pest

for the problems in the areas where the tests were located. Leafspot is one of the most

common and destructive diseases in the southeastern United States. C99R and Georgia

Green had proven to be somewhat resistant. Georgia Green is a predominate cultivar









grown in the region because of its desirable agronomic characteristics and partial

resistance to TSWV and leafspot, southern stem rot and rust (Kucharek, 2000). The

variety C99R has a partial resistance to leafspot, white mold, TSWV and rust (Kucharek,

2000).

The varieties C99R, Georgia Green and ViruGard were planted on May 17th, 2002

with a 2" deep moisture in Florida and later in 2003 (May 29), due to wet weather

conditions that prevented earlier planting. In 2002 peanuts were planted at Headland on

May 16th and on May 12th in 2003. The planting rate was 100 lb seed per acre for all

cultivars in both locations.

Experimental Design

A strip-plot design with cultivars was used. In this design, the three different

cultivars are laid out in horizontal strips, which are then split into subplots with different

treatment schemes. The three cultivars were planted in 24-row strips across the field, one

strip per cultivar. Each 24-row strip contained four replications. Within each replication

there were three randomized treatments. Plot size was eight 40-foot rows spaced 3 feet

(0.9m) for a total of 36 plots. A map of the plots and treatments used in the design is

shown in Figure 3.1.

As seen in the map, each replication contains nine plots with nine different

treatments. Three plots of each treatment were designated as high; three as IPM and

another three as low input. Treatments were randomized within the strip.

For the high input treatment the maximum rates of recommended pesticides were

applied. Detail of applications for both states is shown in table 3-1. Fungicide

applications were fairly similar in both states. Folicur and Abound were used the same

number of applications, however, two additional applications of Bravo were applied in










Florida for added control of leafspot. Insecticide programs across the states were

different; Florida used only Orthene to control insects while Alabama applied Temik,

Lorsban, Karate and Comite. For weed management, Florida test contained Strongarm,

Cadre and Prowl while the Alabama plots used Strongarm and Sonalan. The differences

are due to the weed composition at each site and the local conditions. The same herbicide

application rate was followed in all of the three management schemes.

Table 3-1. Input Application Rates for the Hih Inpu Management Scheme Per Acre.
FLORIDA ALABAMA
Name Dosage Applications Name Dosage Applications
Herbicides: Herbicides:

Cadre 1.44 oz. 1 Sonalan 1.00 qt. 1
Prowl 2.50 oz. 1 Strongarm 0.45 oz. 1
Strongarm 0.45 oz. 1
Insecticides: Insecticides:

Orthene 4.0 oz. 1 Temik 1.00 lb. Ai 1
Lorsban 2.00 lb. Ai 1
Karate 2.00 oz. 1
Comite 2.00 oz. 1
Fungicides: Fungicides:

Folicur 7.2 oz. 4 Folicur 7.2 oz. 4
Bravo Ultra 1.37 lb. 3 Bravo Wts. 1.5 pt. 1
Bravo Ultra 0.9 lb. 4 Bravo 720 1.0 pt. 4
Abound 20 oz. 2 Abound 20 oz. 2

The Integrated Pest Management scheme was based on a management system

where some of the treatments are applied according to the AU Pest Production Model.

The AUPnut advisory is designed to help time fungicide applications for control of

leafspot in peanuts. It uses the number of rain events and the 5-day forecast to adjust the

time between fungicide applications.

IPM programs promote the integration of all applicable control measures to avoid

buildup of damaging populations or to restrain numbers of the pest after it is established.










IPM programs generally use chemical controls as a last resort and therefore result in

reduced pesticide use, less environmental contamination and delayed development of

resistant populations (Sprenkel, 2003).

The goal of IPM is to apply the most up-to-date technology to keep pest

populations below economic levels. This way, growers can produce a quality crop more

profitably with minimal effects on the environment (Weeks et al., 2000).

IPM includes techniques for managing pests including crop rotation, use of

resistant varieties, proper use of tillage, fertility management, conservation of beneficial

insects, biological control materials, irrigation management, and use of pheromone traps

to monitor adult insect populations. Weeks et al. (2000) agreed that scouting is a

fundamental part of IPM. For the IPM treatment, Table 3-2 shows the number of

applications and the rates of products applied.

Table 3-2. Input Application Rates for the IPM Management Scheme Per Acre.
FLORIDA ALABAMA
Name Dosage Applications Name Dosage Applications
Herbicides: Herbicides:

Cadre 1.44 oz. 1 Sonalan 1.00 qt. 1
Prowl 2.50 oz. 1 Strongarm 0.45 oz. 1
Strongarm 0.45 oz. 1
Insecticides: Insecticides:

None Orthene 4.00 oz. 1
Fungicides: Fungicides:

Folicur 7.2 oz. 4 Folicur 7.2 oz. 4
Bravo Ultra 1.37 lb. 1 Bravo 720 1.5 pt. 1
Bravo Ultra 0.9 lb. 2 Bravo 720 1.0 pt. 2
Tilt 2.0 oz. 2 Tilt 2.0 oz. 2









For the IPM scheme the fungicides Bravo, Tilt and Folicur were applied in both

states. The main difference between states was illustrated in insecticides; no insecticide

was applied in Florida while Orthene was applied in Alabama.

Spray application decisions were made based on the AUPnut Rules for peanut

leafspot control. The AUPnut leafspot advisory was developed a decade ago by the

Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station (AAES) researchers to improve the timing of

fungicide applications needed for early and late leafspot on peanut. Advisories such as

AUPnut generally cut out one to three sprays per season and help farmers save money.

According to Yancy Jr. (2004), researchers have found that applications of Folicur and

Abound can be scheduled using AUPnut. Research has shown that fungicide applications

and disease control program costs can be reduced without jeopardizing peanut yield or

quality by adopting weather-based spray advisories such as AUPnut (Hagan et al., 2000).

The advisory is generated based on the number of rainfall events (24-hour period

with more than 1/10th of an inch of rain and/or irrigation or fog beginning before

8:00PM). It also uses the 5-day average rain probability forecast and the rain forecast for

each day within that 5-day average. The rules of the advisory are very helpful since rain

may be irregular and there is access to only a limited number of rain estimates in the

peanut producing regions. Note that regardless of what the advisory says, the first

fungicide application should be made immediately if leafspot is seen (two or more spots

per plant) in the lower leaves of the plant.

During the season insect damage or any indicators of disease on the peanuts were

checked. A few early leafspot lesions were found and some plants were diagnosed with

Rhizoctonia.










For the low input management scheme the minimum rates of recommended

pesticides were applied. Bravo Ultra and Folicur were applied as noted in Table 3-3.

Table 3-3. Input Application Rates for the Low Input Management Scheme Per Acre.
FLORIDA ALABAMA
Name Dosage Applications Name Dosage Applications
Herbicides: Herbicides:

Cadre 1.44 oz. 1 Sonalan 1.00 qt. 1
Prowl 2.50 oz. 1 Strongarm 0.45 oz. 1
Strongarm 0.45 oz. 1
Insecticides: Insecticides:

None Orthene 4.00 oz. 1
Fungicides: Fungicides:

Folicur 7.2 oz. 3 Folicur 7.2 oz. 3
Bravo Ultra 0.9 lb. 4 Bravo 720 1.0 pt. 3

Assessing Pest Problems

Disease data were collected for leafspot and Tomato Spot Wilt Virus (TSWV).

Plants were rated for TSWV; symptoms were increasing with time and were more visible.

Counts of Tomato Spotted Wilt severity were assessed by determining the number of

wilted plants found in two rows.

At the beginning of the season most of the plants were severely spotted from the

herbicide spray making difficult to assess the amount of leafspot present on the plant. By

midseason no significant amount of leafspot was found on any of the plots, however in

Florida, it was present on an adj acent field that had not been in grass last year and on

some ViruGard plots. Leafspot was rated using the Florida 1-10 scoring system from the

middle rows of each plot; the scale is shown in Table 3-4. This scale is based on the level

of lesions in the canopy and the level of defoliation, with 1 being a healthy plant with no









disease and 10 a dead plant. This was developed for researchers to be able to compare

yields vs. disease for further use.

Percent of canopy was also rated, ranging from 93% to 70% in August, 2003 in

Florida. Only a few stray weeds were pulled in 2002, however, many plots were very

weedy during 2003. The severe weed problem was probably due to the heavy nematode

infestation which slowed vine growth and left the middles exposed throughout most of

the season, and the large amount of rainfall which may have leached out the pre plant

herbicide. Larger broadleaf weeds such as morning glory were hand pulled.

Several methods can be used to sample for foliage-feeding pests of peanuts.

According to Sprenkel (2003), however, the shake-cloth method appears to give the most

consistent results. Working equally well for both someone learning to sample peanuts as

well as someone with considerable experience. The shake-cloth or beat-cloth method uses

the standard 36"x 36" cloth that is fastened to two dowel rods.

Using this method to check for insects, estimated levels were low in Florida. A few

insects were present but not enough to warrant spraying. Thrips damage was assessed in

Alabama by a subj ective visual rating on a 0 10 scale with 0 meaning no damage.

Threshold levels are another way of indicating when there is a need to spray.

Counts of white mold severity were assessed in Alabama by determining the

number of loci. One locus was defined as 1 or less foot of consecutive symptoms and

signs of the disease.









Table 3-4. Leafspot Resistance Rating System Used for Plant Appearance Score.
RANK DESCRIPTION
1.0 No disease.
1.1 Trace- only a lesion or 2 in canopy- hard to find.
1.5 Very few lesions in bottom canopy but easier to find that above.
2.0 Very few lesions (none on upper canopy); probably at least a few spots
on most plants.
2.5 A few more and some on mid canopy.
3.0 Few lesions (very few on upper canopy); spots getting easy to find and
often distributed from bottom to top.
3.5 Spots easy to find, well distributed, more than a 3.0 but defoliation hasn't
occurred.
4.0 Some lesions with more on upper canopy and slight defoliation
noticeable; roughly 5-10% defoliation.
5.0 Lesions noticeable even on upper canopy with noticeable defoliation; you
can see lesions from end of plots.
6.0 Lesions numerous and very evident on upper canopy with significant
defoliation (50+%); defoliation a maj or determinant.
7.0 Lesions numerous on upper canopy with much defoliation (75-90%);
defoliation a maj or determinant.
8.0 Upper canopy covered with lesions with high defoliation (90-96%);
defoliation a maj or determinant.
9.0 Very few leaves remaining and those covered with lesions; some plants
completely defoliated (99-100%).
10.0 Plants dead.

Harvesting and Drying Decisions

Harvest decisions were made based on maturity. Not all varieties mature at the

same time. Cultural practices and environmental conditions can also affect the maturity.

Digging too early or too late can affect flavor, grade, milling quality and shelf life. As

Huber (2003) expressed, harvesting mature peanuts is critical.

Every peanut variety has a maturity range; however, this may vary from year to

year due to several factors. Weather is the most prominent cause of maturity variations,

other factor include planting date and disease pressure. Fields should be checked using a

maturity testing method. Runner varieties should be checked 110 days after planting; 95

days for early maturities (Huber, 2003).









According to Huber (2003), the most widely used maturity testing methods are the

shell-out and the hull-scrape method. Both methods require removing the pods from a

representative sample. The first is less obj ective than the latter. The shell-out method

involves assessing the color inside the shell and on the seed coat. The seed coat may be

part pink but the shell may show no color. The hull-scrape method uses color changes to

the shell under its outer layer of skin. The saddle area of the shell is scraped with a knife

and the color of the exposed shell is studied to indicate maturity.This method involves the

use of a peanut profile board available at the county extension offices.

Harvest decisions were also made based on the knowledge that relative humidity

impacts peanut picking. When the relative humidity is high, the plant material becomes

moist. Pickers tear moist husks and the damp stems do not separate well resulting in poor

quality and low yield. Conditions are favorable for picking when the relative humidity is

below 50%. Picking may continue until the relative humidity is greater than 80%. The

harvest advisory provides a two day relative humidity forecast and indicates the time of

day during which peanut picking is favored.

After the peanuts were dug and combined, they were dried. The four-center 40 foot

rows were harvested for yield. A 200-g sample of peanut pods was removed from each

treatment to be graded. This was done for each of the three cultivars after drying.

Grading System for Peanuts

After drying, peanuts were graded. The purpose of grading is to determine the

percentage of Total Sound Mature Kernels (TSMK) and the Sound Splits (SS). The

peanuts that graded above a specific level for TSMK can be used for candy or salted

peanuts. These are whole nuts, with the right size for the type, not split, with no









blemishes, discoloration or mold. SS are the deduction made for excess splits (separated

peanut halves).

The process of grading included weighting out 200 grams of peanuts, shelling the

peanuts, removing the hulls and sizing the peanuts by using a series of three sieves; the

ones that stay on top of the first are referred to as jumbos, the ones that stay on top of the

second are the desirable size and those on the third are too small. The peanuts on the top

two screens are checked for blemishes and discoloration; those that are not good are

removed. The remaining good peanuts are weighed, and the weight in grams is divided

by the weight of the 200 gram sample. This gives the percent Sound Mature Kernels

(SMK). These peanuts are then split in half and using a UV light checked for mold. If

mold is found, the entire lot of peanuts will be rej ected. The premiums and discounts

used in the analysis of this research are based on USDA information and are shown in

Table 3-5.

Depending on the peanut quality, farmers in the loan receive a premium or discount

per ton of peanuts produced. Peanuts receive a grade that will range between 50 and 84;

however, normally grades range from 68 to 78. If the quality is high, a premium is added;

if the peanut quality is low they received a discount.

The premium or discount obtained varies depending on the peanut type. For

Virginia type $4.98 per ton is added or subtracted to the price for each percentage

increase or decrease, for Runner $4.88, for Spanish $4.86 and $5.14 for Valencia type.










Table 3-5. Premium and Discount Charts for Ton of Runner Type Peanuts
SMK + SS Premium/Di scount
(Dollars/ton)
84 54.28
83 49.40
82 44.52
81 39.64
80 34.76
79 29.88
78 25.00
77 20.12
76 15.24
75 10.36
74 5.47
73 0.59
72 -4.29
71 -9.17
70 -14.05
69 -18.93
68 -23.81
67 -28.69
66 -33.57
65 -38.46
64 -43.34
63 -48.22
62 -53.10
61 -57.98
60 -62.86
59 -67.74
58 -72.62
57 -77.50
56 -82.38
55 -87.27
54 -92.15
53 -97.03
52 -101.91
Source: USDA, RMA.

Statistical Methodology and Data Analysis

Budgets were developed in order to calculate the costs involved in producing one

acre of peanuts. Budgets were estimated for each treatment in both of the states, having a

total of six budgets used for both years of the study. These budgets were developed based









on the format of the North Florida Research and Education Center Budgets (Hewitt,

2004).

A cost is defined as a charge that must be made for an item used in the production

of a good or a service. The total cost of production, includes both cash and noncash costs.

Castle, Becker and Nelson (1987) defined cash costs as involving out of pocket

expenditure, such as purchases of fertilizers, fuel and chemicals.

Costs can also be classified as fixed or variable. Fixed costs are those incurred

whether anything is produced or not. These costs stay constant regardless of the

production decision. Variable costs change with the production; they can be avoided if

there is no production. Noncash costs are more difficult to identify since they do not

involve a cash outlay. These include unpaid family labor, or the improved value of the

farmer' s own land.

Considering the production of peanuts, the capital cost of the tractors and

machinery are fixed costs. The costs for fertilization, spraying, and harvesting are

variable costs. Variable costs are more important in making decisions about production.

Variable costs are affected by the decision made, while fixed costs may not be affected.

Input returns should always be greater than their variable costs.

Based on this information and the importance of the variable cost for farm business

decisions, only the variable costs were used in the analysis. First, quality was calculated

based on the additions or subtractions (showed in Table 3-5) made to a standard price of

$375 per ton of peanuts. Yield for each cultivar and treatment was multiplied by the

standard $375/ton plus the appropriate premium or discount for quality to obtain the









Revenue. After that, variable costs were subtracted from the revenues to obtain the

income above variable costs (IAVC).

Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences statisticians at the University of Florida

(personal communication, May 27, 2004 and June 1, 2004) suggested the use of Analysis

of Variance (ANOVA) for this study. The analysis of variance procedure "attempts to

analyze the variation of a response and to assign portions of this variation to each of a set

of independent variables" (Mendenhall and Scheaffer, 1973, p. 458). ANOVA is the

method of comparing means of the various groups. First, it looks at the variation within

groups, then works out how that variation would translate into differences between the

groups, taking into account how many subj ects there are in the groups. If the observed

differences are greater than expected, statistical significance is present.

Any experiment rarely includes all the variables that affect the response. Random

variation in the response is observed even though all independent variables were held

constant. The obj ective of the ANOVA is to identify important independent variables in

a research proj ect and to determine how they interact and affect the response.

The assumptions underlying the analysis of variance are that populations from

which the samples were obtained must be normally or approximately normally

distributed, the samples must be independent, the variances of the populations must be

equal, and the groups must have the same sample size.

A single test can be done to check if there are differences between the means at our

chosen probability level. Analysis of variance enables us to detect significant differences

between the treatments as a whole. It does not establish, however, which treatments differ










from one another. A method to compare treatment means for significant differences is

required.

R.A. Fisher developed a method in the 1920s for simultaneously comparing means

of several groups, primarily for data from agricultural experiments. The heart of this

analysis is a significance test, using the F distribution, for detecting evidence of

differences between the population means. The test was called Fishers Least Significance

Difference Test or LSD for short.

Fisher' s LSD test was used to compare the means. Means were considered different

if there were at 0.05 or less level of significance. This test makes a comparison of means

within group test, grouping being the cultivars to test whether or not there is any

difference. Means across cultivars and across treatments can be calculated.

SAS version 8 was the program selected; PROC ANOVA was the procedure used

to analyze cultivars and management schemes. Also the interaction effect between

cultivars and treatments was observed. Each of the categories was analyzed by year and

by location in terms of the IAVC, yield, and quality.



















N S Each plot 8 rows by 40 feet

W Replication 1 Replication 2
24 rows T1 H T2 I
C99

T2 I T3 L


T3 L T1 H




24 rows T4 H T6 L
GA Green

T5 I T4 H


T6 L T5 I




24 rows T7 H T8 I
ViruGard

T8 I T7 H


T9 L T9 L



|---40 feet -------------| 10ft- |----------40 ft -----------|


1, 4, 7 = High
2, 5, 8 = IPM
3, 6, 9 = Low

Figure 3-1. Map of Replications in Florida Test.


Rliaion 3
T3 L


T2 I


T1 H




T4 H


T6 L


T5 I




T8 I


T9 L


T7 H


|-----------40 ft ----------|


Rliaion 4
T1 H


T3 L


T2 I




T5 I


T4 H


T6 L




T9 L


T7 H


T8 I


|------------40 ft -------


C99











GA Green











ViruGard






|--------20 ft --------|


C99











GA Green











ViruGard














CHAPTER 4
EMPIRICAL RESULTS

Introduction

The study involves the economic analysis of three management systems designated

as high, IPM, and low inputs applied to three different peanut varieties: C99, Georgia

Green and ViruGard. This research was done to evaluate pest management efficiency,

peanut yield, peanut grade, and economic return.

In this chapter, the empirical results of the analysis are discussed. Analysis of

variance and the Fisher' s LSD test for the means are also presented. The LSD test used to

compare means shows the significant differences between the cultivars and the

management schemes. Yield, quality and income above variable costs data from two

years of study at two locations was used to analyze the factors studied in this research.

Estimating Production Costs

Budgets were developed in order to calculate the costs involved in producing one

acre of peanuts. Budgets were estimated for each treatment in both of the states. Each

budget is divided into cash expenses and fixed costs.

Cash expenses included the cost of seed, fertilizer, gypsum, herbicides,

insecticides, fungicides, scouting fee, tractor and machinery (this varies depending on the

scheme followed), drying and cleaning cost, peanut assessment and hired labor. Land rent

was estimated in $75 per acre. Interest on cash expenses was calculated based on a 10%

interest rate for a 6 month period. Fixed costs consist of the tractor and machinery costs.










Budgets for each of the management schemes in both states were calculated and shown in

Tables 4-1 through 4-6.

In Florida, per acre cash expenses estimated for the high treatment was $618, which

compared to $476 for the IPM scheme, and $439 for the low. The main difference

observed within the management schemes is the use of fungicides (Tables 4-1, 4-2, and

4-3 ).

Table 4-1. Estimated Costs of Producing One Acre of Peanuts in North Florida, Using the
High Input Treatment.


Item
Cash expenses:
Seed
Fertilizer
Nitrogen (N)
Phosphate (P205)
Potash (K20)
Gypsum (Spread)
Herbicide
Insecticide
Fungicide
Scouting fee
Tractor (Machinery)
Drying and cleaning
Peanut Assessment
Hired labor
Land rent
Interest on cash expenses*
Total cash expenses
Fixed costs:
Tractor (Machinery)
Total fixed costs
Total costs


Unit Quantity Price


Value


lb. 100.00 $ 0.60 $ 60.00


lb.
lb.
lb.
cwt.
acre
acre
acre
acre
acre
ton
ton
hr.
acre
dol .



acre


10.00
40.00
60.00
10.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
588.78


0.35
0.25
0.16
2.60
35.09
5.00
205.10
5.50
60.00
34.00
6.00
7.00
75.00
0.05


3.50
10.00
9.60
26.00
35.09
5.00
205.10
5.50
60.00
68.00
12.00
14.00
75.00
29.44
$ 618.22


1.00 130.00 130.00
130.00
$ 748.22


* 10% for 6 months










For the low input treatment, fungicides costs were $64, an increase of 40% is

shown in the IPM with a cost of $90, however, a larger increase is shown in the high

treatment where fungicides went up to $205, 200% more than the low scheme. The use

of Abound at the applied rate caused the maj or increase in the high input scheme.

Table 4-2. Estimated Costs of Producing One Acre of Peanuts in North Florida, Using the
IPM Treatment.


Item
Cash expenses:
Seed
Fertilizer
Nitrogen (N)
Phosphate (P205)
Potash (K20)
Gypsum (Spread)
Herbicide
Insecticide
Fungicide
Scouting fee
Tractor (Machinery)
Drying and cleaning
Peanut Assessment
Hired labor
Land rent
Interest on cash expenses*
Total cash expenses
Fixed costs:
Tractor (Machinery)
Total fixed costs
Total costs


Unit Quantity


Price


Value


lb. 100.00 $ 0.60 $ 60.00


lb.
lb.
lb.
cwt.
acre
acre
acre
acre
acre
ton
ton
hr.
acre
dol .



acre


10.00
40.00
60.00
10.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
453.31


0.35
0.25
0.16
2.60
35.09
0.00
89.62
5.50
45.00
34.00
6.00
7.00
75.00
0.05


3.50
10.00
9.60
26.00
35.09
0.00
89.62
5.50
45.00
68.00
12.00
14.00
75.00
22.67
$ 475.97


1.00 100.00 100.00
100.00
$ 575.97


* 10% for 6 months










Table 4-3. Estimated Costs of Producing One Acre of Peanuts in North Florida, Using the
Low Input Treatment.
Item Unit Quantity Price Value
Cash expenses:
Seed lb. 100.00 $ 0.60 $ 60.00
Fertilizer
Nitrogen (N) lb. 10.00 0.35 3.50
Phosphate (P205) lb. 40.00 0.25 10.00
Potash (K20) lb. 60.00 0.16 9.60
Gypsum (Spread) cwt. 10.00 2.60 26.00
Herbicide acre 1.00 35.09 35.09
Insecticide acre 1.00 0.00 0.00
Fungicide acre 1.00 64.22 64.22
Scouting fee acre 1.00 5.50 5.50
Tractor (Machinery) acre 1.00 35.00 35.00
Drying and cleaning ton 2.00 34.00 68.00
Peanut Assessment ton 2.00 6.00 12.00
Hired labor hr. 2.00 7.00 14.00
Land rent acre 1.00 75.00 75.00
Interest on cash expenses* dol. 417.91 0.05 20.90
Total cash expenses $ 438.80
Fixed costs:
Tractor (Machinery) acre 1.00 85.00 85.00
Total fixed costs 85.00
Total costs $ 523.80

* 10% for 6 months

In Alabama, the difference in budgets followed the same pattern as Florida,

fungicides being the greatest cause of the cost differences. As shown in Tables 4-4

through 4-6, low treatment had a cost of $71 for fungicides, IPM cost $106 for fungicides

while the high input scheme cost $204; nearly triple the cost of the low input treatment.

However, Alabama showed another maj or difference from Florida, this due to insecticide

use; $5.00 for both low and IPM, compared to $52 for the high treatment.










The total cash expenses were $626 for the high scheme, $458 for IPM, and $411

for the low treatment. A peanut producer would spend $215 more per acre of production

if using the high treatment over the low (Tables 4-4 to 4-6).

Table 4-4. Estimated Costs of Producing One Acre of Peanuts in Headland Alabama,
Using the High Input Treatment.


Item
Cash expenses:
Seed
Fertilizer
Nitrogen (N)
Phosphate (P205)
Potash (K20)
Gypsum (Spread)
Herbicide
Insecticide
Fungicide
Scouting fee
Tractor (Machinery)
Drying and cleaning
Peanut Assessment
Hired labor
Land rent
Interest on cash expenses*
Total cash expenses
Fixed costs:
Tractor (Machinery)
Total fixed costs
Total costs


Unit Quantity Price


Value


lb. 100.00 $ 0.60 $ 60.00


lb.
lb.
lb.
cwt.
acre
acre
acre
acre
acre
ton
ton
hr.
acre
dol .



acre


10.00
40.00
60.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
595.97


0.35
0.25
0.16
2.60
22.74
51.98
203.66
5.50
60.00
34.00
6.00
7.00
75.00
0.05


3.50
10.00
9.60
0.00
22.74
51.98
203.66
5.50
60.00
68.00
12.00
14.00
75.00
29.80
$ 625.77


1.00 130.00 130.00
130.00
$ 755.77


* 10% for 6 months










Table 4-5. Estimated Costs of Producing One Acre of Peanuts in Headland Alabama,
Using the IPM Treatment.
Item Unit Quantity Price Value


Cash expenses:
Seed
Fertilizer
Nitrogen (N)
Phosphate (P205)
Potash (K20)
Gypsum (Spread)
Herbicide
Insecticide
Fungicide
Scouting fee
Tractor (Machinery)
Drying and cleaning
Peanut Assessment
Hired labor
Land rent
Interest on cash expenses*
Total cash expenses
Fixed costs:
Tractor (Machinery)
Total fixed costs
Total costs


lb. 100.00 $ 0.60 $ 60.00


lb.
lb.
lb.
cwt.
acre
acre
acre
acre
acre
ton
ton
hr.
acre
dol .


10.00
40.00
60.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
436.12


0.35
0.25
0.16
2.60
22.74
5.00
105.78
5.50
45.00
34.00
6.00
7.00
75.00
0.05


3.50
10.00
9.60
0.00
22.74
5.00
105.78
5.50
45.00
68.00
12.00
14.00
75.00
21.81
$ 457.93


1.00 100.00 100.00
100.00
$ 557.93


acre


* 10% for 6 months










Table 4-6. Estimated Costs of Producing One Acre of Peanuts in Headland Alabama,
Using the Low Input Treatment.
Item Unit Quantity Price Value


Cash expenses:
Seed
Fertilizer
Nitrogen (N)
Phosphate (P205)
Potash (K20)
Gypsum (Spread)
Herbicide
Insecticide
Fungicide
Scouting fee
Tractor (Machinery)
Drying and cleaning
Peanut Assessment
Hired labor
Land rent
Interest on cash expenses*
Total cash expenses
Fixed costs:
Tractor (Machinery)
Total fixed costs
Total costs


lb. 100.00 $ 0.60 $ 60.00


lb.
lb.
lb.
cwt.
acre
acre
acre
acre
acre
ton
ton
hr.
acre
dol .


10.00
40.00
60.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
391.72


0.35
0.25
0.16
2.60
22.74
5.00
71.37
5.50
35.00
34.00
6.00
7.00
75.00
0.05


3.50
10.00
9.60
0.00
22.74
5.00
71.37
5.50
35.00
68.00
12.00
14.00
75.00
19.59
$ 411.30


85.00
85.00
$ 496.30


1.00 85.00


acre


* 10% for 6 months









Research Results

Data from both years and states separately resulted in findings of interest after the

analysis. All conclusions are based on a minimum significance ofP< .05.

Analysis of variance was the model used to determine if the differences expressed

in the findings are statistically significant. SAS was run for both years and both states to

analyze the factors studied in this research. An LSD test was done to compare the means.

In the t grouping, the means with the same letters are not significantly different as shown

in the result Tables.

Yields

Treatments

Yields in pounds per acre obtained in each plot were averaged. Yields obtained in

both years for each treatment are showed in Table 4-7. In Florida, the management

system that attained the highest yields from both years of study combined was the high

input treatment, followed closely by the IPM treatment. The high input scheme had

significantly different yields with respect to the low input. No difference was shown

between high and IPM or IPM and low schemes. In Alabama, no significantly difference

was found between treatments with respect to yield.

Yields obtained for each variety and management scheme are showed in detail in

Table 4-8. The average yields from the different cultivars within each treatment, had no

significant differences for the high input scheme in Florida and Alabama. In IPM Georgia

Green had significantly higher yields than ViruGard. No significant differences were

shown between Georgia Green and C99 or between C99 and ViruGard in Florida.










Table 4-7. Average Yields fon Florida and Alabant by Treatrnent Schenue, 2002-2003.

Location Treatment Yield LSD*
Mean t Grouping

FL High 2830 A

FL IPM 2566 Ad3

FL Lony 2200 B



ALl High 4599 A

ALl IPhi 4218 A

AUL Lony 4183 A

Means with the same letter are not significantly different.

Table 4-8. Average Yields for Florida and Alabama by Treatment vs. Cultivar, 2002-
2003.

State Cultivar Treatment
HIGH LSD* IPM LSD LOW LSD
Florida
(199 2822 At 2187 AUB 2259 B

(GG 2745 At 2633 At 3154 At

912 2923 A 1778 B 2284 B

Alabama
(199 5139 At 4246 At 4711 AL

(GG 423 8 At 4245 At 3967 B

912 4419 A 4060 A 3976 B

Means with the same letter are not significantly different.










The IPM scheme in Alabama had no significant differences due to cultivars. In the

low input treatment, Georgia Green was significantly higher than C99 or ViruGard in

Florida. In Alabama, C99 had significantly higher yields than Georgia Green or

ViruGard.

Cultivars

The information in Table 4-9 indicated that the greatest yield obtained in Florida

cultivars was from Georgia Green. This variety obtained significantly higher yield than

the cultivar ViruGard. No differences were found between Georgia Green and C99 or

between C99 and ViruGard in both years. The variety C99 had significantly higher yields

than ViruGard and Georgia Green in Alabama. ViruGard and Georgia Green showed no

significant differences in this location.

Table 4-9. Average Yields for Florida and Alabama by Cultivar, 2002-2003.
Location Cultivar Yield LSD*
Mean t Grouping

FL GG 2844 A

FL C99 2423 AB

FL VG 2328 B



AL C99 4698 A

AL VG 4152 B

AL GG 4150 B

Means with the same letter are not significantly different.










The information in Table 4-10 shows the difference in means for the management

schemes within a cultivar. The Florida test obtained significantly higher yields with the

C99 variety using the high input treatment than using IPM or low treatments. Treatments

were not significantly different for Georgia Green, and ViruGard showed differences

between high and IPM schemes. High input treatment obtained higher yields than IPM,

however, no significant differences were found between high and low or between low

and IPM treatments.

Table 4-10. Average Yields for Florida and Alabama by Cultivar vs. Treatment, 2002-
2003.

State Treatment Cultivar
C99 LSD* GG LSD* VG LSD*
Florida
HIGH 2822 A 2744 A 2923 A

IPM 2187 B 2633 A 1778 B

LOW 2259 B 3154 A 2283 AB

Alabama
HIGH 5139 A 423 8 A 4419 A

IPM 4246 B 4245 A 4060 A

LOW 4711 AB 3967 A 3976 A

Means with the same letter are not significantly different.

In Alabama, the high input scheme obtained significantly higher yields in variety

C99 than IPM. Varieties Georgia Green and ViruGard had no significant differences

between treatments.

Florida vs. Alabama

From these numbers the assumption that one cultivar is better than other, in terms

of yield, cannot be made since there is no consistency observed in the results thorough










the locations and years. Georgia Green yielded highest in Florida during the study, while

C99 yielded highest in Alabama. In terms of treatments, high input scheme was observed

to have better results with respect to the other treatments in Florida. However, no

significant differences were found in Alabama.

Yield was also analyzed against location and year to Eind out if Florida and

Alabama were significantly different. There were no significant differences observed in

yields between the years 2002 and 2003; the average mean was 3,360 pounds per acre in

2002 and 3,505 in 2003.

Yields in Alabama were significantly greater than Florida in this study even

thought on-farm data generally reflect the opposite trend. This could be due to a

nematode problem that affected Florida plots which due to the study design was not

treated. This effect may have caused a reduction in yields. The average yield per acre for

both states is shown in Table 4-11, and indicates a significant difference between states.

The yields per acre by plot in both locations on average from both years of study

are shown in Appendix A. Alabama had almost doubled Florida yields; total average was

4,333 and 2,531 pounds per acre respectively. The highest plot yield was 3,479 pounds in

Florida, while Alabama had a plot yield of 5,187 pounds per acre.

Table 4-11. Comparison of Average Yield by Location, Alabama and Florida, 2002-
2003.
Yield lb/A LSD
Location
Mean t Grouping

AL 4333 A

FL 2531 B

Means with the same letter are not significantly different.










Rainfall could be another factor influencing location and year information since

moisture is a constrain factor for dry land production. Rainfall affected both yields and

pest problems. Rainfall data for both locations is shown in Table 4-12.

Table 4-12. Monthly Rainfall Data in Inches: 2002-2003 by Selected Months.
2002 2003
Months FL AL FL AL
April 5.78 3.35 4.89 9.22
May 2.19 2.86 3.11 3.35
June 3.45 3.94 6.11 8.76
July 10.34 4.15 7.84 7.50
August 3.30 3.11 5.99 6.23
September 11.83 2.91 2.39 4.67
October 7.36 4.26 3.58 1.82
Total 44.25 24.58 33.91 41.55
Source: National Weather Service, U.S. Department of Commerce.


No significant difference was observed in yield due to cultivar. Also cultivar-

treatment interactions had no significant effect on yield. However, significant differences

were found in yield due to treatment. High input treatment showed higher yields than

IPM treatment but no significant difference was found between high and low treatment or

between low and IPM (Table 4-13).

Table 4-13. Comparison of Average Yield Versus Pesticide Treatments, Alabama and
Florida, 2002-2003.


Yield lb/A LSD*
Treatment
Mean t Grouping

High 3714 A
A
Low 3392 B A

IPM 3191 B

Means with the same letter are not significantly different.









Grade

The grades obtained for the test ranged from 67 to 74 the first year in Florida and

from 53 to 71 in the second. In Alabama, grades ranged from 67 to 76 the first year and

72 to 78 the second. Premiums over quality are awarded from grades of 73 or more. In

terms of economic returns, grade has a great impact since farmers gain a premium or

discount based on it. Special attention need to be given to peanut quality by good

production and harvesting practices.

Treatments

As shown in Table 4-14, no significant difference was observed in treatments in

terms of quality in either of the locations. Looking at each of the treatments, varieties had

no significant differences on grades within the treatment. This was observed both in

Florida and Alabama (Table 4-15).

Table 4-14. Average Quality for Florida and Alabama by Treatment Scheme, 2002-2003.

Location Treatment TSMK LSD*
Mean t Grouping

FL IPM 69 A

FL High 68 A

FL Low 68 A


AL High 74 A

AL Low 73 A

AL IPM 73 A

* Means with the same letter are not significantly different.










Table 4-15. Average Quality for Florida and Alabama by Treatment vs. Cultivar, 2002-
2003.

State Variety Treatment
HIGH LSD IPM LSD LOW LSD
Florida
C99 67 A 68 A 68 A
GG 66 A 68 A 67 A
VG 70 A 70 A 69 A

Alabama
C99 74 A 74 A 73 A
GG 74 A 74 A 74 A
VG 73 A 72 A 73 A

Means with the same letter are not significantly different.

Cultivars

In terms of quality, Florida indicated that ViruGard was graded significantly better

than Georgia Green. No differences were observed between ViruGard and C99 or C99

and Georgia Green. In Alabama, no significant differences were found within the

cultivars (Table 4-16). The management schemes for both locations had no significant

differences in grades within each of the cultivars used in the research (Table 4-17).

Florida vs. Alabama

The analysis on quality expressed as the premium or discount paid for peanuts

demonstrate that Alabama had a higher quality than Florida. This could be due to the

nematode problem in Florida during the second year of the study. In addition, problems

with drying the peanuts resulted in some moldy peanuts. The lowest grade in Florida was

53 and the highest 74, while Alabama obtained 67 and 78 respectively. The differences

were greater during the second year of the experiment.









Table 4-16. Average Quality for Florida and Alabama by Cultivar, 2002-2003.
Location Cultivar TSMK LSD
Mean t Grouping


VG

C99

GG


AL GG 74 A

AL C99 74 A

AL VG 73 A

* Means with the same letter are not significantly different.


Table 4-17. Average Quality for Florida and Alabama by
2003.
State Treatment Cultivar
C99 LSD* GG
Florida
HIGH 67 A 66

IPM 68 A 68

LOW 68 A 67


Cultivar vs. Treatment, 2002-


LSD

A

A

A


LSD*

A

A

A


Alabama
HIGH 74 A 74 A 73 A

IPM 74 A 74 A 72 A

LOW 73 A 74 A 73 A

Means with the same letter are not significantly different.

There were no significant differences in quality produced by each cultivar or

differences observed among treatments after analyzing the combined data. Years showed










differences; 2002 quality was better than 2003. The cause could be the problems affecting

Florida production and differences in moisture from year to year. No interactive effects

on quality were observed.

Revenue

Revenue was calculated from the yield and the premium or discount added to the

base price of $375 dollars per ton of peanuts. For this research, these numbers were

calculated but not analyzed statistically since the purpose of the study is to focus on the

economic return. Revenue was calculated as a step to obtain the income after subtracting

the cost of production. Details of the revenue for the two states are shown in Table 4-18.

Table 4-18. Average Revenue for Florida and Alabama (Dollars/Acre), 2002-2003.
Location Variety Treatment
HIGH IPM LOW
Florida
C99 976 773 792
GG 923 924 1079
VG 1059 648 828

Alabama
C99 1954 1607 1774
GG 1599 1615 1511
VG 1665 1515 1490


Income Above Variable Costs

Treatments

As discussed in Chapter 3; in terms of decision making, income above variable

costs (IAVC) is the most important variable to take into consideration. After subtracting

the cost of production, the only management scheme in Florida that gives a positive

return is the low input, with an average return of $11 per acre. Low input treatment had

significantly higher IAVC than IPM or high input schemes. However, no significant









differences were found between IPM and high input. IPM treatment had a negative IAVC

of -$85 and the high treatment of -$125 per acre.

In Alabama, treatment options continue with the same trend showing Florida.

Again, low input is the treatment with the highest economic returns with $371 per acre

produced; IPM obtained $331 dollars and the high input treatment showed the lowest

return of $224. These numbers are shown in detail in Table 4-19. Statistically, low input

treatment had significantly greater IAVC than high input. No differences were found

between low and IPM or IPM and high schemes.

Table 4-19. Average Income Above Variable Cost for Florida and Alabama by Treatment
Scheme (Dollars/Acre), 2002-2003.
Location Treatment IAVC LSD
Mean t Grouping

FL Low 11 A

FL IPM -85 B

FL High -125 B



AL Low 371 A

AL IPM 331 AB

AL High 244 B

Means with the same letter are not significantly different.

The average IAVC and the LSD test for the cultivars within each treatment is

shown in Table 4-20. High input treatment showed no significant differences in IAVC

between the cultivars in both locations. In Florida, every cultivar had negative returns,

while Alabama had positive.










For the IPM treatment in Florida, C99 and Georgia Green had a little better IAVC

than ViruGard, even though the three cultivars had negative returns. Alabama showed no

significant differences in the cultivars using the same scheme.

Looking at the low input treatment results, Georgia Green had significantly higher

IAVC than C99 in Florida. The only cultivar with positive economic return within the

low input scheme was Georgia Green, with a return of $101 dollars per acre. In Alabama,

C99 had significantly greater IAVC than Georgia Green using the low input treatment.

However, no differences between C99 and Georgia Green or Georgia Green and

ViruGard were found.

Table 4-20. Average Income Above Variable Cost for Florida and Alabama by Treatment
vs. Cultivar (Dollars/Acre), 2002-2003.
State Variety Treatment
HIGH LSD IPM LSD LOW LSD
Florida
C99 -130 A -89 AB -43 B
GG -157 A -14 AB 101 A
VG -89 A -152 B -25 AB

Alabama
C99 351 A 345 A 462 A
GG 173 A 349 A 331 AB
VG 206 A 299 A 320 B

Means with the same letter are not significantly different.


Cultivars

No significant differences with respect of IAVC were found in Florida cultivars.

Note that having no significant difference, does not mean that every cultivar gives the

same income above variable costs. In this research the data showed no significant

difference but in real life, farmers could find differences in yields and quality upon









varieties, depending on the cultural practices and weather condition of the location where

they are planting.

As shown in Table 4-21, all the varieties had negative returns, Georgia Green had -

$23, C99 had -$87, and ViruGard with -$88 dollars per acre.

Table 4-21. Average Income Above Variable Cost for Florida and Alabama by Cultivar
(Dollars/Acre), 2002-2003.
Location Cultivar IAVC LSD
Mean t Grouping

FL GG -23 A

FL C99 -87 A

FL VG -88 A



AL C99 386 A

AL GG 284 B

AL VG 275 B

Means with the same letter are not significantly different.

In Alabama the numbers were positive; C99 was the variety with higher returns

after variable costs with $386, followed by Georgia Green with $284, and ViruGard with

$275. C99 had significantly greater IAVC than the other two varieties.

Treatment options had no significant difference in terms of IAVC for the cultivar

C99 in both locations (Table 4-22). The low input scheme gave significantly greater

IAVC than high input for the Georgia Green cultivar in Florida. No differences were

found between low and IPM or between IPM and high input. Alabama had no differences










between treatment schemes for Georgia Green. Both locations also showed no significant

differences between treatments for the variety ViruGard.

Table 4-22. Average Income Above Variable Cost for Florida and Alabama by Cultivar
vs. Treatment (Dollars/Acre), 2002-2003.
State Treatment Cultivar
C99 LSD* GG LSD* VG LSD*
Florida
HIGH -130 A -156 B -89 A

IPM -89 A -14 AB -152 A

LOW -43 A 101 A -25 A

Alabama
HIGH 351 A 173 A 206 A

IPM 345 A 349 A 299 A

LOW 462 A 331 A 320 A

Means with the same letter are not significantly different.

Florida vs. Alabama

Income above variable costs is very different between the two states, even though

in terms of cost both states have similar expenditures. This was due to the lower quality

and quantity of the peanuts at the Florida location compared to Alabama. Although

quality did seem to have an impact in terms of the revenue, after considering the costs

incurred to produce, the impact is even greater.

If the combined data from both states in both years is examined, there are no

significant differences among cultivars with respect to IAVC. For the treatment schemes,

low gives greater IAVC than IPM treatment, and IPM greater than high treatment (Tables

4-23 and 4-24).










Table 4-23. Comparison of Average Income Above Variable Cost Versus Cultivars
Alabama and Florida, 2002-2003.
IAVC $/A LSD
Cultivar
Mean t Grouping

C99 149 A

GG 131 A

VG 93 A

Means with the same letter are not significantly different.


Table 4-24. Comparison of Average Income Above Variable Cost Versus Pesticide
Treatments Alabama and Florida, 2002-2003.
IAVC $/A LSD
Treatment
Mean t Grouping

Low 191 A

IPM 123 B

High 59 C

Means with the same letter are not significantly different.


Year is not a significant factor when IAVC data from both states are combined. If

both years are combined, location is still a significant factor, with Alabama having a

greater IAVC principally due to differences in yield but also because of the quality

premium Alabama had relative to Florida.















CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Summary

Field experiments were conducted in 2002 and 2003 at the University of Florida

North Florida Research and Education Center in Marianna, Florida and at the Wiregrass

Research and Extension Center in Headland, Alabama. The study was done to assess the

impact of three management systems on the economics of peanut production. The

managements systems designated as low, Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and high

were evaluated as split- plots, while peanut cultivars: ViruGard, Georgia Green, and

C99R were included as whole plots in each management system.

A split plot design with cultivars was used. In this design, the three different

cultivars are laid out in horizontal strips, which are then split into subplots with different

treatment schemes. The analysis of variance and the LSD test used to compare means

show the significant differences between the cultivars and the management schemes with

respect to yield, quality and income above variable costs.

Conclusions

In this study, no significant differences were found in yield, quality or income

above variable costs of combined data due to the use of different cultivars. However, for

farmers this may vary depending on the local conditions. Varieties are developed to best

fit the growing conditions of the locations where they are originally developed.

Since varieties are developed based on the local conditions, using a cultivar

developed in a particular region tends to be more beneficial. At the same time, some









varieties may not fit the area where they are planted. A cultivar developed for the

southeast region could be used in Florida and Georgia since both locations have similar

climatic conditions and share some cultural characteristics. However, a variety developed

in Marianna would likely better be suited for Florida than in another state.

Even though the high input management treatment resulted in significantly higher

yields, this treatment was found to be the least desirable in terms of economic returns. In

dry land conditions a farmer choosing the treatment called high input will get higher

yields but this management scheme would not necessarily pay for the added inputs.

Looking at the whole picture, treatment called low input is the one that gives the best

economic returns of the three used in this research, based again on dry land conditions.

No significant differences in quality were found among treatments. The quality

obtained is an important factor in price received. Also, cultivar-treatment interactions had

no significant effect on yield or quality.

Cultural or climate differences can be found when looking at the data by year. No

significant differences were observed in yield between the year 2002 and 2003. In terms

of quality, year 2002 was better than 2003. Climate conditions could be one of the causes

of this difference, since moisture and rainfall level were higher in 2002. Another cause of

the yield difference was the problem with nematodes that resulted in lower quality and

peanut yield in Florida in 2003.

The Alabama test obtained both significantly greater yield and higher quality than

the Florida test in this study. Florida data was affected by factors like rainfall, nematodes

and Tomato Spotted Wilt Virus, which combined created abnormal yields. Soil

differences may also have had an effect on these results.









Yields were significantly higher in Florida from the high input scheme compared to

the low input; and higher yields with Georgia Green compared to ViruGard. No

differences were found in Georgia Green and C99 or C99 and ViruGard. Alabama had no

significant differences in yields due to treatments. The cultivar C99 gave higher yields

than ViruGard or Georgia Green in Alabama.

In terms of quality, Florida had no significant differences due to management

schemes. ViruGard graded better than Georgia Green. No differences in grades were

found between ViruGard and C99 or C99 and Georgia Green. In Alabama, there were no

significant differences in quality due to treatments or cultivars.

The results in Florida showed no significant differences in income above variable

costs among cultivars. The low input scheme yielded significantly greater IAVC than

IPM or high input schemes in both years of study. In Alabama, C99 gave greater IAVC

than Georgia Green or ViruGard. Income above variable costs was significantly greater

for the low input treatment than the high input; no significant difference was shown

between low and IPM or IPM and high input schemes.

In conclusion, combined data suggest that there are no significant differences

among cultivars. This could be due to a lack of data. More data would allow a more

precise estimating of the means; therefore the difference between means could be smaller

and still be considered statistically significant. Instead of combining the two states, the

analysis of variance is more sensitive by individual state. Also, nematode and TSWV

problems in Florida caused yield losses that may had an effect on the data.

Since nematode control and TSWV damage are very important and are related

many research proj ects are being conducted on TSWV. Nematodes and TSWV affect










quality and yield and research toward better managing these pests is important. Quality is

an important factor of the overall price farmers receive, obviously affecting economic

returns .

Variety is not as important as pest management practices in terms of economic

returns, especially between C99 and Georgia Green. The study may have been improved

with another cultivar as one of the varieties. The cultivar ViruGard is not currently used

in the southeast and the results of this study offer one reason for not using ViruGard.

In dry land, the low input management scheme tends to be more feasible in terms

of economic return. High input treatment may lead to higher yield but is not justified after

considering the costs incurred. For irrigated land, this may not be the case. More research

needs to be done to compare irrigated versus non irrigated peanuts. In some counties of

the southeast, irrigation is used on 50 percent of the production and yield variability is

often decreased.

Soil conditions and soil types are important factors; they caused maj or differences

in both locations. Weather factors are also important; moisture is a driving constrain

factor in dry land production. Years with more uniform rainfall tend to be better for

peanut production and the results of this study confirm it.

Farmers usually think in terms of yield; however this study illustrates that quality is

very important to the price received. There is a need to focus more on maintaining quality

instead of just increasing yields. The results of this research justify these conclusions.

Increasing yields is not going to result in higher income if quality and costs of production

are not considered. Managing inputs is critical in a good farm management scheme.










With the new peanut program provisions, there is a need to examine ways to reduce

costs and optimize income above variable costs. Analyzing the complete management

scheme of yields, quality, costs, and resulting income are important.

Limitations on the Study

The use of a peanut variety other than ViruGard may have been more useful for the

study in terms of providing another comparison similar to those varieties more commonly

used by farmers. A different regime of nematicides and herbicides uses according to the

location needs may have improved the resulting yields and quality and the effect on

income.

The experiment would have been more useful if the tests were conducted in similar

types of soil conditions with similar rotation systems. Soil conditions proved to be an

important factor, so using soil with conditions that are more representative of the area of

peanut production is imperative.

Yields attained in the Florida site are below the average production of Florida

farmers. State yield averages in Florida are typically higher than Alabama but the study

data showed an opposite view. This may have been due to soil conditions and problems

with nematodes for the Florida site that could be improved if a pest management scheme

more in accordance with the conditions at each location was followed.















APPENDIX
YIELD S

Table A-1 Yields in Pounds Per Acre: Average 2002-2003.
Treatment Rep FL AL
1 1 2504 4610
1 2 3268 4614
1 3 2542 4914
1 4 2975 3575
2 1 2118 4260
2 2 1796 3811
2 3 1904 4288
2 4 2929 3879
3 1 2210 4356
3 2 1937 3344
3 3 2339 4201
3 4 2548 3966
4 1 1955 5172
4 2 3439 4660
4 3 2336 4523
4 4 3248 4737
5 1 2246 4460
5 2 2015 3326
5 3 2790 4646
5 4 3479 4546
6 1 2890 3643
6 2 3096 3530
6 3 2848 2686
6 4 3780 3866
7 1 2863 5159
7 2 2811 5155
7 3 3191 4755
7 4 2825 5187
8 1 1900 4224
8 2 1724 3879
8 3 1690 4515
8 4 1798 4365
9 1 2182 4655
9 2 2453 4642
9 3 2028 4719
9 4 2471 5127
2531 4333









Table A-2. Yields in Pounds Per Acre, Florida and
Treatment Rep FL
1 1 2372
1 2 2795
1 3 2819
1 4 3378
2 1 2100
2 2 1765
2 3 2268
2 4 3378
3 1 2036
3 2 1629
3 3 3011
3 4 2468
4 1 1661
4 2 1382
4 3 2460
4 4 2220
5 1 1981
5 2 1238
5 3 2659
5 4 3306
6 1 1885
6 2 2388
6 3 2332
6 4 4089
7 1 3091
7 2 3035
7 3 3713
7 4 3290
8 1 2444
8 2 1925
8 3 2148
8 4 2188
9 1 2787
9 2 2931
9 3 2723
9 4 3386
2536


Alabama: Average 2002.
ALl
4873
4945
5526
3103
4428
3784
4927
4864
4809
3684
5272
4610
3983
3920
4591
4002
3929
3312
4827
5290
2894
3248
1379
4691
4519
4492
4083
4510
3276
3475
4020
3167
4555
4029
4555
5063
4184









Table A-3. Yields in Pounds Per Acre, Florida and Alabama: Average 2003.
Treatment Rep FL ALl
1 1 2636 4347
1 2 3740 4283
1 3 2264 4302
1 4 2572 4047
2 1 2136 4093
2 2 1828 3839
2 3 1540 3648
2 4 2480 2895
3 1 2384 3902
3 2 2244 3004
3 3 1668 3131
3 4 2628 3321
4 1 2248 6362
4 2 5496 5400
4 3 2212 4456
4 4 4276 5472
5 1 2512 4991
5 2 2792 3340
5 3 2920 4465
5 4 3652 3802
6 1 3896 4392
6 2 3804 3812
6 3 3364 3993
6 4 3472 3040
7 1 2636 5799
7 2 2588 5817
7 3 2668 5427
7 4 2360 5864
8 1 1356 5173
8 2 1524 4283
8 3 1232 5009
8 4 1408 5563
9 1 1576 4755
9 2 1976 5254
9 3 1332 4882
9 4 1556 5191
2527 4482
















LIST OF REFERENCES


Aerts, M.J., and O.N. Nesheim. 2001. Florida Crop Pest Ma'~nagement Profiles: Peanuts.
University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. Cooperative
Extension Service. Extension bulletin CIR 1260. Gainesville, FL

Agricultural Weather Information Service, Inc. 1998. A UPnut Rules for Peanut LeafSpot
Control. Retrieved July 4, 2004, from
http://www.awi s. com/sampl es/edu/aupnut.html

Agricultural Weather Information Service, Inc. 1998. Jensen-Boyle LeafSpot Advisory
for Peanuts. Retrieved July 4, 2004, from
http://www. awi s. com/s ampl es/e du/1 sp ot.html

Anderson, V.L. and R.A. McLean. 1974. Design of Experiments, a Realistic Approach.
Marcel Dekker, Inc. Dallas, Texas.

Castle, E.N., M.H. Becker, and A.G. Nelson. 1987. Farm Business\a~na~geentent The
Decision-Making Process. Third Edition. Macmillan Publishing Company. New
York, New York.

Damicone, J. P., and H. A. Melouk. 1999. Foliar Diseases of Peanut. Oklahoma State
University, Division of Agricultural Science and Natural. Department of
Entomology and Plant Pathology. Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service.
Extension bulletin F-7655. Stillwater, Oklahoma.

Fletcher, S.M. 2002. Peanuts: Responding to Opportunities and Challenges ~on; an
Intertwined Trade and Domestic Policies. The University of Georgia, National
Center for Peanut Competitiveness. Athens, GA.

Fletcher, S. M. and N.B. Smith. 2002. Leaflet 4. Peanut Trade and the World Trade
Organization. The University of Georgia, Department of Agricultural and Applied
Economics. Athens, GA.

Fletcher, S.M. and N.B. Smith. 2001. Peanut Policy. The University of Georgia,
Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics. Athens, GA.

Hagan, A. 1994. Nematode Pests ofPeanut. Auburn University. Extension bulletin.
ANR-393. Auburn, AL.










Hagan, A., K. Bowen, E. Bauske, R. Getz, and S. Adams. 2000, Spring. Watching the
Weather: Peanut Disease Advisory Now Contains Rainfall Estimates. Highlights of
Agricultural Research Vol.47, No. 1.

Harrison, A. and D. Stuart. 2002, August. USDA Announces Peanut Program Features.
News Release, United States Department of Agriculture. Release No. 0357.02.

Hearn, R. 1995. A UStudy Says Peanut Subsidy Cuts Would be Costly to Sambeau~l~
Auburn University News. Auburn, AL.

Hewitt, T. 2004. Field Crop Budgets. North Florida Research and Education Center.
Retrieved July 4, 2004 from
http://nfrec.ifas.ufl.edu/Hewitt/budgets.ht#il%0rp

Holman, S., 2002, July. Practicing Good Disease Resistance Management. The Peanut
Grower. Vol.14, No. 8. Retrieved July 4, 2004 from:
www.peanutgrower. com/home/2002_JulyResi stance.html

Huber, A., 2003, July. Predicting Ma'~turity. The Peanut Grower. Vol.15, No.8.

Jordan, D.L., J.E. Bailey, J.S. Barnes, C.R. Bogle, S.G. Bullen, A.B. Brown, et al. 2002.
Yield and Economic Return of Ten Peanut-Based Cropping Systems. Agronomy
Journal, 94: 1289-1294.

Kemerait, B., T. Brenneman and A. Culbreath. 2004. Peanut Disease Control. 2004
Georgia Pest Management Handbook, Agronomic Crops. The University of
Georgia. Athens, GA.

Kucharek, T.A. 2000. Around Florida~: A Brief Treatise on the Evohition ofPlan2t
Disease Control in Peanut. PLP News. Volume 4, Issue 4. Gainesville, Florida.

Mendenhall, W. and R.L. Scheaffer. 1973. Mathematical Statistics with Applications.
Wadsworth Publishing Company. North Scituate, MA.

Phipps, P.M. (n.d.). Peanut Diseases. Virginia Tech, VAES Tidewater Agricultural
Research and Extension Center. Blacksburg, VA.

Putnam, D.H., E.S. Oplinger, T.M. Teynor, E.A. Oelke, K.A. Kelling, and J.D. Doll.
2004. Peanut. Alternative Field Crops Manual. Minnesota and Wisconsin
Extension Services.

Queensland Government. 2004. Harvesting Peanuts. Department of Primary Industries
and Fisheries. Retrieved July 4, 2004, from
http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/fielderops/8 118.html

Representative FarmFFFFF~~~~~~~FFFFFF Budgets. 2002. The University of Georgia College of Agricultural
& Environmental Sciences. Athens, GA.










Revoredo, C. L. and S.M. Fletcher. 2002. World Peanut Market: An Overview of the Past
30 Years. The University of Georgia, College of Agricultural & Environmental
Sciences. Research Bulletin No. 437. Athens, GA.

Revoredo, C.L. and S.M. Fletcher. 2002. Analysis of the World Trade in Peanuts. The
University of Georgia, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Paper.
Athens, GA

Sanford, S. and S. Evans.1995. Peanuts: Background for 1995 FarmFFFFF~~~~~~~FFFFFF Legislation. United
States Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Economic Report, Number 710.
Washington, D.C.

SAS Version 8. 1999. SAS Institute Inc. Cary, NC.

Schabenberger, O. 1996. A SAS Macro for Analyzing Strip-Plot Experiments. Retrieved
June 3 0, 2004, from http://home.nc.rr. com/schab enb/Strip-Pl ot.html

Shew, B. 2004. 2004 Peanut Production Guide (pp.73-96). Peanut Disease Management.
North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service.

Sprenkel, R.K. 2002. Identification and Monitoring ofhisect Pests in Peanut. University
of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. Cooperative Extension
Service. Extension bulletin ENY 668. Quincy, FL.

Sprenkel, R.K. 2003. hIsect Ma'~nagement in Peanuts. University of Florida, Institute of
Food and Agricultural Sciences. Cooperative Extension Service. Extension bulletin
ENY 403. Quincy, FL.

United States Department of Agriculture. 2003, July. Peanut Marketing Assistance Loan
and Loan Deficiency Payment. Farm Service Agency.

United States Department of Agriculture. 2003, November. Field Crops, Crop
Production. Florida Agricultural Statistics Service (FASS). Orlando, Fl.

United States Department of Agriculture. 2003. Food Uses of Peanuts in the U. S. Foreign
Agricultural Service (FAS).

United States Department of Agriculture. 2003. Oil Crops Situation and Outlook.
Economic Research Service.

United States Department of Agriculture. 2003. Regions of Peanut Production. NASS.

United States Department of Agriculture. 2003-2004. Agricultural Statistics Data Base,
NASS.

United States Department of Agriculture. 2004 B, May. Major Oilseeds: World Supply
andDistribution. Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS).










United States Department of Agriculture. 2004, February. Field Crops, Acreage,
Production, and Value. Florida Agricultural Statistics Service (FASS). Orlando,
Fl.

United States Department of Agriculture. 2004 A, May. Peanut Oilseed: World Supply
and Distribution. Top Countries: Current Marketing Year. Foreign Agricultural
Service (FAS).

United States Department of Agriculture. 2002, October. Peanut Loss Adjustment
Standard~~dddsdddddd~~~~ Handbook. Risk Management Agency (RMA). FCIC-25320.

United States Department of Commerce. 2002-2003. Record of River and Climatological
Observations. National Weather Service.

Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. 2004, January. U.S. Peanut
Production up 25 Percent from 2002; U.S. Cotton Production up 6 Percent. Press
Release.

Weeks, R., A. Hagan, W. Foshee, D.L. Hartzog, and J.W. Everest. 2000. Peanuts Pest
Management Scout Manual. Alabama Cooperative Extension System. Extension
bulletin. ANR-598.

Wright, D.L., J.J. Marois, J.R. Rich, R.K. Sprenkel, and E.B. Whitty. 2002. Conservation
Tillage Peanut Production. University of Florida, Institute of Food and
Agricultural Sciences. Cooperative Extension Service. Extension bulletin SS-AGR-
185. Gainesville, FL.

Yancy Jr., C. 2000, May. Rain Gauge Not Required. The Peanut Farmer. Vol.36, No.5.
Retrieved July 4, 2004 from
www. peanutfarm er. comb acki issue s/May200 O0/story4 .asp

Yancy, C. 2003, June. Peanut FarmsF~~~~FFFFF~~~~FFFF Faring~~~~FFFFF~~~~FFFF Better, Still on shaly~~ Ground. Southeast
Farm Press.
















BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Maria Jose Garcia-Casellas was born on March 19, 1977, in Merida Yucatan,

Mexico. She graduated from the Universidad de Yucatan in 2000, obtaining a bachelor' s

degree in accounting. In August 2000 she enrolled at the University of Florida as an

exchange student, following a concentration in business. She continued her studies at the

University of Florida as a graduate student to pursue a Master of Science in food and

resource economics.