|
HISTORIC NOTE
The publications in this collection do
not reflect current scientific knowledge
or recommendations. These texts
represent the historic publishing
record of the Institute for Food and
Agricultural Sciences and should be
used only to trace the historic work of
the Institute and its staff. Current IFAS
research may be found on the
Electronic Data Information Source
(EDIS)
site maintained by the Florida
Cooperative Extension Service.
Copyright 2005, Board of Trustees, University
of Florida
(j V
January 1987 Bulletin 868
Economic and Environmental
Aspects of Aerial
and Ground Applications
of Pesticides
in Florida Agriculture
Max R. Langham and Linda McGrail
1 ..
Agricultural Experiment Stations
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida, Gainesville
J. M. Davidson, Dean of Research
ECONOMIC AND ENVIRO4WINTAL ASPECTS OF
AERIAL AND GROUND APPLICATIONS OF PESTICIDES
IN FLORIDA AGRICULTURE
Max R. Langham and Linda McGrail
June, 1986
Food and Resource Economics Department
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was financed from funds from three sources, the Flor-
ida Agricultural Aviation Association (FAAA), the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, and the Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations.
The study was initially encouraged by Harold F. Brown while serving as
president of FAAA and as chairman of its Government Affairs Committee.
The officers of FAAA were concerned about the image of their industry
and the lack of definitive information about its contributions to
agricultural production. Funds to conduct the surveys to collect data
were provided by FAAA. Federal funds from the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency under grant number CR-808527-02-4 were used to compile and
analyze the data and prepare this report. The contents of this report
do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Florida Agri-
cultural Aviation Association or the Environmental Protection Agency,
nor does the mention of any trade names or commercial products consti-
tute endorsement or recommendation for use.
In addition to the funding organizations the authors express
appreciation to the following individuals for their encouragement--to
Harold F. Brown, Charles "Chuck" Stone, and Lee Turnquist, members of
FAAA; and to Robert Esworthy, Arnold L. Aspelin, and Mark A. Luttner
of the Environmental Protection Agency. Mr. Richard L. Lipsey, for-
merly Pesticide Coordinator for the Institute of Food and Agricultural
Sciences, provided early leadership and encouragement. Dr. V.G. Perry
and Leo Polopolus, Assistant Dean of Florida Agricultural Experiment
Stations and Chairman of the Food and Resource Economics Department,
i
respectively, at the time of the study provided administrative support
and encouragement.
Mr. Charles Carroll, Area Supervisor, and Mr. John Hart, National
Coordinator, both with the Senior Community Service Employment Pro-
gram, National Retired Teachers Association and American Association
of Retired Person, provided valuable support in recruiting field staff
and in providing administrative support to the field staff during the
data collection phase. For these valuable services we are grateful.
Special thanks are extended to the aerial operators and farmers
who cooperated in providing data. Mr. Carroll Potter shared his post-
World War II experiences as an aerial operator in Florida with us and
enriched our background on aerial operations.
Finally, we wish to thank Kathryn Ting for drafting a brief his-
tory of aerial operations in Florida and Patricia Smart, Bobbie Hart,
and Toni Glover for typing this report.
The authors accept sole responsibility for any errors in the
report.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...............................................
LIST OF TABLES.................................. ..... ............ v
LIST OF FIGURES............................................... viii
SUMMARY .................. .................................... x
INTRODUCTION .................................................. 1
Objectives.............................................. 3
Data Used............................................... 3
Brief History of Aerial Application of
Pesticides in Florida Agriculture...................... 7
PART I. AERIAL OPERATORS..................................... 11
Industry Equipment....................................... 12
Aircraft............................................ 12
Support Equipment.................................... 12
Mixing Systems...................................... 17
Aerial Operations....................................... 17
Airspeed............................................ 21
Wind Speed.......................................... 24
Flaggers............................................ 27
Cost Analysis........................................... 27
Costs Conditioned on Level of Operations............. 29
Costs and Returns by Major Crops.................... 36
Ground Personnel........................................ 39
Industry Capacity....................................... 42
Aircraft Accidents...................................... 45
iii
Page
Adverse Effects on Human Health and the Environment....... 45
Humans................................................ 45
Animals............................................. 47
Crops............................................... 48
Waste Disposal...................................... 49
Buffer Zones........................................ 51
Problems Facing the Industry............................. 52
PART II. FARMERS (CENTRAL AND WEST FLORIDA) .................. 59
Use of Aerial Services by Sample Farmers.................. 59
Advantages and Disadvantages......................... 60
Farmers' Costs for Using Ground Equipment
for Pest Control...................................... 65
Costs by Crop Treated................................ 65
Costs Conditioned on Level of Operations............. 68
Farmers' Opinions on Risks of Aerial vs.
Ground Methods...................................... ...... 77
Personnel Handling Pesticides ......................... 80
The Environment......................................... 80
Human Health ......................................... 80
Mixing Systems...................................... 82
Waste Disposal...................................... 82
Non-Crop Uses of Pesticides on Sample Farms............... 84
Sources of Pest Control Information...................... 84
Guidelines for Control Programs...................... 86
PART III. ENERGY USE IN AERIAL AND GROUND METHODS............ 91
PART IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS................. 94
Limitations of Study ................................. 103
APPENDIX 1..................................................... 106
REFERENCES ................................................... 111
iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Makes of aircraft, number in use, prices paid,
and years in use....................................... 13
2 Range of hopper capacities and fuel use
reported by aerial operators........................... 14
3 Types of support vehicles, number in use by
respondents, prices paid, and years in use............. 15
4 Spray nozzles and tips used by aerial operators......... 16
5 Acreages treated by aerial operators, percent
treated by fixed wing equipment, and average
charges per acre for helicopter and fixed
winged services....................................... 18-19
6 Airspeeds flown while dispersing chemicals
by airplane........................................... 22
7 Airspeeds flown while dispersing chemicals
by helicopter......................................... 23
8 Wind speeds compatible with spraying by airplane....... 25
9 Wind speeds compatible with spraying by helicopter..... 26
10 Protective gear and marking devices used by flaggers... 28
11 Components of average cost per hour for treatment
by airplane weighted by number of acres treated
by each firm.......................................... 30
12 Components of average cost per hour for treatment
by helicopter weighted by number of acres treated
by each firm ........................................... 31
13 Costs and returns per acre for treatment of
selected crops by airplane............................. 40
14 Pesticide loaders in aerial operations................. 41
15 One way frequency distributions for years of
education and years of experience of persons
loading pesticides for aerial operations............... 43
V
Table Page
16 Weighted average percentage by which acres
sprayed by airplane and helicopters could be
increased, by month.................................... 44
17 Constraints on ability to expand aerial service
to meet increased demand.............................. 46
18 Aircraft accidents reported by aerial operators........ 46
19 Facilities for handling rinse water and frequency
of use by aerial operators............................. 50
20 Methods for disposing of waste containers and
frequency of use by aerial operators................... 50
21 Buffer zone distances between aerial operations
and specified sites which would result in 0, 10,
and 20 percent loss of business....................... 52
22 Major industry problems reported by aerial operators... 54
23 Farm use of aerial services............................ 61
24 Reasons reported by farmers for not using
aerial services in 1979................................ 61
25 Advantages of aerial application reported by farmers... 62
26 Disadvantages of aerial application reported
by farmers............................................ 63
27 Components of weighted average cost per acre
for ground treatment.................................. 66
28 Average fixed and variable costs per acre in
treating selected crops with ground equipment........... 67
29 Farmers' opinions on the comparative risks of
pesticide exposure from aerial and ground
spraying for applicating personnel...................... 78
30 Farmers' opinions on the comparative risks of
pesticide exposure from aerial and ground
spraying for people other than applicators
in the vicinity of the treatment....................... 79
31 One way frequency distributions for years
of education and years of experience of
farmers and farm workers handling pesticides........... 81
vi
Table Page
32 Methods of disposing of containers as reported
by farmers ........................................ 83
33 Methods of disposing of waste water from
cleaning equipment as reported by farmers.............. 83
34 Types of livestock treated and major pests
on sample farms....................................... 85
35 Farmers' sources of pest control information........... 85
36 Farmers' sources of guidance for timing
of pest control....................................... 87
37 Farmers' source of guidance for amount of
pesticide to use....................................... 89
38 Farmers' sources of guidance for choosing pesticides... 90
39 Estimated BTU's of energy required to treat
selected crops by ground and aerial methods............ 93
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Locational distribution of aerial operators,
number of operators, and number of respondents
by area, 1979......................................... 5
2 Locations of the farming regions surveyed,
number of farmers, and number of respondents
by county and by region, 1979.......................... 6
3 Plot of average total cost per hour for
treatment by airplanes on hours flown and
a graph of Equation 3 through the data................. 34
4 Plot of average total cost per acre treated
by airplanes on acres treated and a graph of
Equation 4 through the data............................ 35
5 Plot of average total cost per hour for
treatment by helicopters on hours flown and
a graph of Equation 5 through the data................. 37
6 Plot of average total cost per acre treated
by helicopters on acres treated and a graph
of Equation 6 through the data......................... 38
7 Plot of average total cost per hour for treatment
with ground methods on hours of treatment and a
graph of Equation 9 through the data................... 70
8 Plot of average total cost per acre treated
by ground methods on acres treated and a graph
of Equation 10 through the data........................ 71
9 Plot of average total cost per acre of citrus treated
by ground methods on acres of citrus treated and a
graph of Equation 11 through the data.................. 72
10 Plot of average total cost per acre of corn treated
by ground methods on acres of corn treated and a
graph of Equation 12 through the data.................. 73
11 Plot of average total cost per acre of soybeans
treated by ground methods on acres of soybeans
treated and a graph of Equation 13 through the data.... 74
viii
Figure Page
12 Plot of average total cost per acre of peanuts
treated by ground methods on acres of peanuts
treated and a graph of Equation 14 through the data.... 75
13 Plot of average total cost per acre of pasture
treated by ground methods on acres of pasture
treated and a graph of Equation 15 through the data.... 76
ix
SUMMARY
This study was an economic inquiry into selected aspects of aer-
ial vs. ground application of pesticides on Florida crops.
The data came from two surveys for the 1979 fiscal year. The
first survey represented an attempt at a census of all 79 aerial oper-
ators in Florida in that year. Of these, 49 (62 percent) cooperated
by providing data on their operations. The second survey was of a
sample of farmers in two subregions in the state--a four-county (Lake,
Orange, Seminole, and Sumter) Central Florida area and a two-county
(Escambia and Santa Rosa) West Florida area. The limited amount of
funds available for field work was a prime factor in determining sam-
ple size. Sixty percent of the farmers in the sample of 133
responded.
Major investments in aerial operations are in equipment and human
capital. For the 39 operators providing complete information on the
cost of equipment, the average investment (in 1979 dollars) was
$178,000 in aircraft and $37,600 in support equipment for a total
investment of $215,600. There was no explicit attempt in this study
to measure the investment in human capital required to become an expe-
rienced aerial operator. Some operators learned to fly in the mili-
tary and have used that base from which to learn the specialized
skills needed to be an aerial operator. Others enter through civilian
flight schools including a few specialized schools designed to train
agricultural pilots. Experience is the great teacher.
x
In 1979 fixed wing aircraft were predominate. Airplanes only
were used by 39 of the 49 aerial applicators; nine used helicopters
only and one reported both types of equipment. A typical set of sup-
port facilities included a maintenance shop, a loading area (permanent
and/or mobile) and a complement of support vehicles. Most operations
had two pickups and two larger trucks. Pickups were used as general
utility vehicles. The larger trucks were more specialized and were
used to haul water (tank trucks), mixing equipment, fertilizer, etc.
Florida operators were involved in pest control on a wide variety
of agricultural crops. The estimated acres of crops sprayed by air in
Florida in 1979 were 4.8 million. Multiple applications of some acre-
age means that not nearly all of Florida's crops are sprayed by air.
Nevertheless, aerial operations in Florida provide significant input
into agricultural production and the total acres sprayed by air
including the multiple applications exceed the acres in crops.
Spray programs varied widely by crop. Some operators were
closely involved with the producer in establishing the sequence of
pesticide, fungicide, or fertilizer applications for a particular
crop. Most, however, carried out treatment as specifically requested
by the producers.
When choosing from among alternative methods dollar costs become
a major economic factor. For a farmer who has not invested in ground
equipment, the estimated average total cost of doing the job with
indigenous labor and purchased or rented equipment must be compared
with custom rates as a part of the decision process. For a farmer who
has already invested in the necessary equipment, the sunk costs in
xi
equipment do not enter the cost calculations in making a decision
among alternative ways to do the job. In this latter comparison it is
the variable or out-of-pocket costs (including the opportunity cost of
farm labor at the time the services are needed) which become impor-
tant.
The average "total cost per hour flown" by airplane for all firms
in 1979 was $220.28 (in 1979 dollars). On a per acre treated basis
the average total cost was $2.80 and average net returns were $-.39
(see table). If 1979 was a rather typical year as most operators
suggested, the industry is essentially one that does not permit the
average operator to cover all cost and one that leaves no excess prof-
its. The considerable variation in the average net returns observed
did suggest that some of the operators could have enjoyed sizable
profits while others suffered serious losses.
Summary of Application Costs by Method
Method of application
Ground
Item Airplane Helicopter equipment
- - - dollars per acre - - -
Average fixed cost .70 1.81 3.45
Average variable cost 2.10 4.17 5.18
Average total cost 2.80 5.98 8.63
Average total returns
from fees charged 2.41 7.69 NA
Average net returns -.39 1.71 NA
NA = not applicable.
xii
For firms using helicopters, the average total cost per hour
flown in 1979 was $277.65 (in 1979 dollars). Over a half a million
acres of crops were treated at an average total cost per acre of $5.98
and average net returns above all costs were $1.71 (see table). Heli-
copters are often used under special circumstances such as small
irregular fields and fields near congested areas. Also, there are
fewer firms with the helicopters competing for available business.
These and other reasons may help explain why helicopters can command
fees that yield profits.
The average total costs per hour and per acre using ground
equipment excluding the cost of spray materials were $28.81 and $8.63,
respectively. The weighted average total cost per acre for aerial
applications is less than the weighted average total cost for ground
applications as shown in the table.
The effectiveness of aerial and ground applications in control-
ling pests was not tested in this study. Therefore, cost comparisons
are meaningful only if one assumes that the application methods as
equally effective.
There was considerable variation among growers in the average
total cost per acre of ground applications. A portion of this varia-
tion was associated with the number of acres treated. Larger acreages
permit a farmer to spread fixed costs over more acres and to take
advantage of possible economies of scale.
Estimates of energy use indicated that on the average ground
methods used about 4.5 times as much energy per acre as did aerial
methods. Since treatment of citrus trees with air blast sprayers and,
xiii
to a lesser extent, dusters requires a lot of energy, the ratio of
ground to aerial energy use drops to 2.7 if we exclude citrus. The
lower energy use by aerial application suggests that aerial methods
will become more competitive with ground methods if the price of
energy increases relative to labor and capital equipment.
The survey responses indicated that aerial operators and farmers
handling toxic substances in Florida incurred low out-of-pocket costs
attributable to adverse effects on human and animal health. Also,
from the responses there seemed to be no serious problems associated
with observable environmental impacts or problems with drift.
Respondents in both surveys consistently indicated that less than
one percent of purchased pesticides were discarded or not used. The
high costs of these substances provide a strong motive not to waste
them. The disposal of waste containers remains a problem. Most con-
tainers are eventually buried in public or private landfills. On-site
inspection and testing would be required to determine if the burying
of these containers constitutes a hazard to ground water, and was not
a part of this study. Respondents did seem aware of potential prob-
lems associated with container disposal, and the description of dis-
posal methods being used showed sensitivity to such problems.
There was no clear indication whether persons handling pesticides
in aerial applications were more qualified than those using ground
methods. The average level of education was higher (12.0 vs. 10.6
years) for aerial handlers but the years of experience was lower (7.4
vs. 14.5). The intensity of experience was greater for aerial han-
dlers so the years of experience does not provide an ideal proxy for
xiv
comparing experience levels. Because of large observed variations in
both education and experience levels, there were not statistically
significant differences in either of these characteristics of handlers
when comparing aerial and ground operations. No data were collected
which would permit a measurement of the relative technical qualifica-
tions of either group.
The study did not reveal that farmers perceived any distinguish-
ing environmental tradeoffs between aerial and ground methods. The
noise level is greater for aerial--particularly fixed wing because of
turn around space needs--and this factor led to occasional complaints
to operators from residents near the treatment site.
In conclusion, agricultural aviation plays an important part in
Florida in assisting farmers to control pests. It is a small but
important industry. In 1979, there were only 79 known aerial opera-
tors in the state. This small industry treated an estimated 4.8 mil-
lion acres of crops--a little more than the total acreage planted to
crops. Of course, not all crops are aerially treated and there is
multiple spraying of some crops. When fields are wet or the crops
grown on them do not permit the passage of ground equipment without
serious crop damage, aerial application provides the only practical
treatment method available. In other situations agricultural pro-
ducers may choose from among custom aerial, custom ground, and the use
of their own labor and equipment. In these latter cases, aerial
application is a cost effective, low energy alternative.
xv
ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS OF
AERIAL AND GROUND APPLICATIONS OF PESTICIDES
IN FLORIDA AGRICULTURE
Max R. Langham and Linda McGrail
INTRODUCTION
Since Rachel Carson's book, Silent Spring, there has been a
marked increase in the demand for environmental quality. This shift
in demand has resulted from society's growing awareness of its
interest in a healthful environment. This rising demand has also
greatly increased the need for assessment of costs and benefits of
certain practices that have potentially negative effects on the
environment from society's point of view.
Major difficulties in attempting to assess the net societal bene-
fits (whether they be positive or negative) are associated with meas-
urement problems in complex physical and biological systems and with
the fact that there are economic externalities (spillover effects)
which may not enter the calculus of managers making decisions with
regard to the use of potentially harmful substances simply because
these externalities are not measured in a market. As a consequence,
Max R. Langham is Professor of Food and Resource Economics and
Linda McGrail was Research Assistant in Food and Resource Economics,
University of Florida.
2
there are nearly always conflicts of interest represented by alterna-
tive courses of action which must be finally resolved in the public
arena.
Perhaps nowhere are the environmental issues more complex than in
food production. Pests compete with people for food in all phases of
food production, storage, processing, and distribution. Estimates
suggest that insects and disease reduce human food supplies by about
one-third in food production processes (Ennis, et al. 1975).1 This
loss of food to pests drives up the price of food to consumers.
In Florida's agriculture, competition with pests for food is
particularly keen. The warm, moist climate provides an attractive
environment for a large number of pests, and profitable agricultural
production requires sophisticated methods of pest control.
Interests in the environment and encroachments upon it have
remained strong. Agricultural producers must not only be sensitive to
these environmental interests but also control pests in both an eco-
nomically and technically efficient manner if they are to be cost
effective in producing food. Integrated pest management methods which
combine biological and chemical control methods have evolved as a
consequence of multiple objectives of modern pest control.
lIf one includes losses during harvesting, processing, storage,
and distribution estimates range up to losses of 50 percent (Brody,
1975).
3
Objectives
When field application of a treatment is required as a part of
integrated pest management procedures, efficiency criteria require
consideration of alternative application methods available to the
producer. This study is an economic inquiry into selected aspects of
aerial vs. ground application of pesticides and nutrients on Florida
crops. Specific objectives were to:
1. estimate the cost of applying pesticides by air and compare
this with the cost of ground application methods,
2. compare fees charged per acre by crop for contract aerial
application of pesticides with producer application costs,
3. determine the relative energy efficiency of aerial vs. ground
methods,
4. provide descriptive information on alternative pesticide
application methods which may be useful in the future for
assessing the economic effects on aerial application of any
regulatory actions which may be proposed,
5. determine the capability of aerial applicators to increase
capacity under current and near term conditions,
6. provide information on externalities caused by application of
pesticides, and
7. quantify the benefits and costs to producers and consumers of
alternative pesticide application methods.
Data Used
The data came from two surveys for the 1979 fiscal year. The
first survey represented an attempt at a census of all 79 aerial oper-
ators in Florida in that year. Of these, 49 (62 percent) cooperated
4
by providing data on their operations. The general locations of the
eight areas of activity in the state and the number of aerial opera-
tors and respondents in each area are given in Figure 1.
The second survey was of a sample of farmers in two subregions in
the state--a four-county (Lake, Orange, Seminole, and Sumter) Central
Florida area and a two-county (Escambia and Santa Rosa) West Florida
area (Figure 2). The sample was drawn from a USDA sampling frame.
The limited amount of funds available for field work was a prime fac-
tor in determining sample size. Sixty percent of the farmers in the
sample responded (Figure 2).
This second survey was restricted to two subregions largely in
order to diminish the interviewers' travel costs. The Central Florida
region was chosen to provide information from citrus and vegetable
farmers. The West Florida area was chosen to represent field and row
crop production. The latter sample was more representative of farms
in the region because it is a more homogeneous area with respect to
crops grown. The sample from the Central Florida area was more heav-
ily weighted toward citrus growers than was the population of farmers
in the region.
The producer questionnaire was designed to obtain information on
ground operations that could be compared with data on aerial opera-
tions. Both questionnaires2 went through a series of revisions based
on feedback from other researchers and, for the aerial survey, from
2The questionnaire and introductory letters for the aerial survey
and the farmer survey are available from the senior author upon
request.
5
S2
AREA NUMBER OF NUMBER OFI "
AERIAL OPERATORS RESPONDENTS
1 12 8
2 10 5
3 7 7
4 117
5 7 6
6 8 5
7 9 6
8 12 5
OUT OF STATE 3 0
TOTAL 79 49 (622)
Figure 1.--Locational distribution of aerial operators, number of
operators, and number of respondents by areas, 1979.
6
AREA FARMERS NUMBER OF
IN SAMPLE QUESTIONNAIRES
CENTRAL FLORIDA
LAKE 28 12 ~g^ L
ORANGE 30 20
SEMINOLE 6 3
SUMTER 11 5 !"
SUBTOTALS 75 40
WEST FLORIDA
ESCAMBIA 24 16
SANTA ROSA 34 24
SUBTOTALS 58 40
TOTALS 133 80 (60%) ,' .
Figure 2.--Locations of the farming regions surveyed, number of farmers,
and number of respondents by county and by region, 1979.
7
selected aerial operators. The final versions resulted from field
tests by the principal investigator.
Interviewers were employees of the Senior Community Service
Employment Program, National Retired Teachers Association and American
Association of Retired Persons. For each survey, interviewers were
brought to the University of Florida for a one-day training session to
introduce them to the study and to familiarize them with the question-
naires to be used.
In both surveys the quality of the data undoubtedly varied among
respondents. Except for a few who referred to personal records to
provide more accurate responses, the interviewees answered the survey
questions from memory.
Brief History of Aerial Application of Pesticides
in Florida Agriculture
The introduction of aerial application in the United States
occurred shortly after World War I. In 1921, lead arsenate was suc-
cessfully applied to control leaf-eating moths on catalpa trees near
Troy, Ohio. The great majority of agricultural application activity,
however, was destined for the cotton and vegetable growing areas of
the South, Southwest, and Eastern Seaboard. One of the first commer-
cial operations was formed in 1924 by the Huff Daland Company. Based
3This historical sketch borrows from Lewis and Newton (1979) and
from conversations with Mr. Carroll Potter and his son Jan Potter of
Zellwood, Florida.
8
in Monroe, Louisiana, the Huff Daland Dusters benefitted from the work
of Dr. Bert R. Coad, U.S. Bureau of Entomology in Tallulah, Louisiana,
concerning the control of bollworm on cotton by aerial application of
calcium arsenate. While the treatment of cotton was the company's
primary activity, peaches and sugarcane were also important. In 1926
its pilots treated more than 87,000 acres.
As was characteristic of dusting operations in the early decades,
the Huff Daland Dusters attempted to lengthen their work season by
expanding into other regions. By 1927 Huff Daland pilots were operat-
ing in North Carolina, Arkansas, Texas, and California, and on the
cotton growing estates of Peru and Mexico. In 1933 the company, then
known as the Delta Air Corporation (later Delta Airlines), entered the
vegetable growing area of Homestead, Florida.
By 1939 some 200 planes in the U.S. had been converted for aerial
application. The availability of surplus aircraft and of World War II
pilots in the postwar era helped to spur the growth of agricultural
aviation nationwide. The Curtiss JN-6 ("Jenny") and DeHaviland DH-4
which predominated in the 1920's were succeeded by the Waco 9 and 10,
Travelaire 2000 and 4000, Stearman, Curtiss Commandaire, American
Eagle, Swallow and New Standard. Most agricultural pilots converted
their own planes, using plywood and plumbing fixtures and about 30
days of labor. The standard plane in use was the Stearman, a World
War II pilot trainer, with its front seat replaced by a hopper.
Carroll Potter, an Air Force veteran, was one of the first agri-
cultural pilots in the Zellwood area, a major vegetable producing
region just north of Orlando. Mr. Potter first came to Zellwood in
9
1946. Upon leaving the Air Force, he had intended to return to farm-
ing in West Texas. However, faced with farm equipment prices which
had quadrupled during the War, he decided to spend a few years flying
while waiting for prices to deflate. He joined a friend, Mr. Hughes,
who had been operating around Zellwood since the 1930's. Mr. Potter's
first plane was a Waco Sports, built before the Depression and pur-
chased for under $400. At that time an investment of more than $1000
in agricultural aircraft was considered unrecoverable.
A major crop in the Zellwood, Florida, area in the 1940's was
watermelons, which required aerial application of copper fungicides.
Mr. Potter recalled that the Delta Air pilots would compete with him
for that business when they passed through Zellwood on their way to
begin the cotton season in Louisiana. During this period he was
instrumental in the development of the Florida sweet corn industry.
Working with a local farmer and a chemical dealer in 1946-47, Potter
pioneered the control of earworm. Using daily applications of 40
pounds of 10 percent DDT per acre over the 21-day silking period, the
group achieved 98 percent worm-free corn. Today nearly 400,000 acres
of sweet corn in Florida are treated aerially with the current substi-
tutes for DDT.
Ten years later Mr. Potter discovered that fungus on his own corn
could be controlled effectively with aerial application of manzeb at
the rate of 5 gallons per acre. Previously, it had been applied by
ground sprayer at the manufacturer's recommended rate of 100 gallons
per acre.
10
One of the most dramatic uses of agricultural aviation in Florida
occurred in 1957 when infestations of the Mediterranean fruit fly were
found. Over six million acres were sprayed with bait consisting of
malathion plus protein hydrolysate. The largest plane utilized, a
converted B-17 bomber with a payload of 2400 gallons, was reported to
have treated 2400 acres in 15 minutes. Mr. Potter sprayed under con-
tract in an area running from Tampa to Miami; many pilots came from
out of state. Total eradication took less than 19 months. The timely
and effective control of the med fly and the resultant savings to the
citrus industry did much to promote aerial application in the state.
The use of DDT against mosquito and fly populations was another
aerial spraying program remembered by Mr. Potter as a popular one.
DDT was used extensively after World War II as the all-purpose pesti-
cide. As late as mid-May through July 1, 1965, the Potter operation
applied two million pounds of it, all loaded by hand from semi-trailer
to flatbeds to planes. However, it had such a high propensity to
drift that afternoon applications often forced cars on U.S. 441 to use
their headlights. Leaf crops in the area were sometimes contaminated
above tolerance levels.
Important technological changes have been made to protect the
pesticide applicators as well as the environment. Product labels now
give precautions, restrictions, and directions for use. Bulk packag-
ing, the change from open container to closed loading systems and the
transition from predominantly dry to predominantly liquid materials
have reduced worker exposure to pesticides. The World War II vintage
planes, which afforded low visibility for the pilot, have mostly been
supplanted by aircraft designed for agricultural uses.
11
Industry activities have expanded to include pasture seeding and
the application of herbicides and fertilizer. There has also been a
significant increase in competition. For example, when Mr. Potter
arrived in Zellwood in the forties there was one operator, compared
with twenty today. This increased activity has taken place at the
same time that suburban developments have spread rapidly in the midst
of agricultural land. With the growth in aerial spraying and in the
number of non-farm people living adjacent to cropland have come more
contact, and, in some cases, conflict between the two. This report is
intended to contribute to public knowledge and understanding of the
role of aviation in agriculture.
PART I. AERIAL OPERATORS
Major financial investments in the industry are in equipment and
human capital. For the 39 firms providing complete information on the
cost of equipment, the average investment per firm (in 1979 dollars)
was $178,000 in aircraft and $37,600 in support equipment for a
(137,500) (44,200)
total investment of $215,000. There was no explicit attempt in this
(165,600)
study to measure the investment in human capital required to become an
experienced aerial operator. Some operators learned to fly in the
military and have used that experience as a base from which to learn
4Numbers in parentheses below the averages represent standard
deviations.
12
the specialized skills needed to be an aerial operator. Others enter
through civilian flight schools including a few specialized schools
designed to train agricultural pilots. Experience is the great
teacher and most people engaged in the business have experienced acci-
dents and close calls. Indeed, an old timer stated that one rather
serious incident is normally required to make a good agricultural
pilot.
Industry Equipment
Aircraft
In 1979, fixed wing aircraft were predominant. Airplanes alone
were used by 39 of the 49 aerial applicators; nine used helicopters
and one reported both types of equipment. Table 1 lists the various
makes of aircraft reported, including a Cessna C-172 used for spot-
ting. Grumman, Cessna, and Piper were makers of the most popular
agricultural planes; most of the helicopters were Bell. The fuel use
per hour reported by aerial operators is presented in Table 2 by make
and size of aircraft.
Support Equipment
The major types of support equipment are listed in Table 3. Not
listed, but included in the financial analysis, are various miscella-
neous items such as permanent and portable tanks, trailers, loaders,
and mixing equipment. Reported information on nozzles and tips is in
Table 4. The Teejet was the basic spray nozzle while the Disc-Core
12
the specialized skills needed to be an aerial operator. Others enter
through civilian flight schools including a few specialized schools
designed to train agricultural pilots. Experience is the great
teacher and most people engaged in the business have experienced acci-
dents and close calls. Indeed, an old timer stated that one rather
serious incident is normally required to make a good agricultural
pilot.
Industry Equipment
Aircraft
In 1979, fixed wing aircraft were predominant. Airplanes alone
were used by 39 of the 49 aerial applicators; nine used helicopters
and one reported both types of equipment. Table 1 lists the various
makes of aircraft reported, including a Cessna C-172 used for spot-
ting. Grumman, Cessna, and Piper were makers of the most popular
agricultural planes; most of the helicopters were Bell. The fuel use
per hour reported by aerial operators is presented in Table 2 by make
and size of aircraft.
Support Equipment
The major types of support equipment are listed in Table 3. Not
listed, but included in the financial analysis, are various miscella-
neous items such as permanent and portable tanks, trailers, loaders,
and mixing equipment. Reported information on nozzles and tips is in
Table 4. The Teejet was the basic spray nozzle while the Disc-Core
12
the specialized skills needed to be an aerial operator. Others enter
through civilian flight schools including a few specialized schools
designed to train agricultural pilots. Experience is the great
teacher and most people engaged in the business have experienced acci-
dents and close calls. Indeed, an old timer stated that one rather
serious incident is normally required to make a good agricultural
pilot.
Industry Equipment
Aircraft
In 1979, fixed wing aircraft were predominant. Airplanes alone
were used by 39 of the 49 aerial applicators; nine used helicopters
and one reported both types of equipment. Table 1 lists the various
makes of aircraft reported, including a Cessna C-172 used for spot-
ting. Grumman, Cessna, and Piper were makers of the most popular
agricultural planes; most of the helicopters were Bell. The fuel use
per hour reported by aerial operators is presented in Table 2 by make
and size of aircraft.
Support Equipment
The major types of support equipment are listed in Table 3. Not
listed, but included in the financial analysis, are various miscella-
neous items such as permanent and portable tanks, trailers, loaders,
and mixing equipment. Reported information on nozzles and tips is in
Table 4. The Teejet was the basic spray nozzle while the Disc-Core
Table 1. Makes of aircraft, number in use, prices paid, and years in use.
Number
Number included Average purchase price Average years owned
in use in average All New Used New Used
- - 1979 dollars - -
Airplanes
Ag Cat 21 17 67,800 89,100 56,200 8 4
Ag Truck 18 17 50,500 55,300 28,000 4 4
Pawnee 16 12 37,400 58,100 26,600 7 5
Brave 14 11 68,100 68,200 67,900 3 2
Ag Wagon 11 11 32,000 38,200 15,500 4 3
Thrush Cmdr. 10 9 73,900 78,900 63,900 4 5
Air Tractor 4 3 72,100 83,100 50,200 2 2
Other 12 10 56,200 45,800 58,800 5 3
Helicopters
Bell 24 8 90,400 110,800 78,200 11 10
Bell Soloy 2 2 175,500 175,500 c 1 c
Other 11 8 65,600 94,900 55,800 17 6
"aOnly those aircraft for which both price and year purchased were reported.
blncludes makes with data reported by only one operator, aggregated to avoid disclosure of information
from particular firms. Airplanes in this category are four DC-3s, two unknown makes, and one each
Cessna, Emair, Stearman, Turbo-Thrush, Twin Beech, and Weatherly.
cNone reported.
dIncludes makes with data reported by only one operator, aggregated to avoid disclosure of information
from particular firms. Helicopters in this category are four unknown makes, four Sikorskys, and one
each Bell Mini, Hiller, and Hughes 500.
14
Table 2. Range of hopper capacities and fuel use reported by aerial
operators.
Hopper
Make HP capacity Fuel yse
- gal. - gal./hr. -
Airplanes
Ag Cat 600 200-300 18-46
Ag Truck 300 165-300 15-18
Pawnee 235 150 ( 14-20
Brave 285 270-300 18
Brave 375-400 270-300 24-26
Brave NR 275-280 16-20
Ag Wagon 240-300 200 16-20
Thrush Cmdr. NR 400 30-37
Air Tractor NR 600 35-40
DC-3 NR NR 1100
Turbo Thrush NR NR 50 (diesel)
Weatherly NR NR 26
Stearman NR 450 NR
Emair NR NR 50
Twin Beech NR NR 45
Aztec NR NR 25
Helicopters
Bell NR 60-80 12-15
Bell NR 100 20
Bell Soloy NR 140 22-25 (jet)
Sikorsky NR 250 40-50
Hughes 500 NR NR 24 (jet)
Bell Mini NR 60 12
Hiller NR NR 15
NR = not reported; NA = not available.
Table 3. Types of support vehicles, number in use by respondents, prices paid, and years in use.
Number
Number included Average purchase price Average years owned
Type in use in average All New Used New Used
- - 1979 dollars - -
Pickups 80 51 6,400 7,100 4,800 3 3
Larger trucks 26 19 8,500 9,200 7,600 6 6
Mixing trucks 9 4 38,500 70,000 28,000 1 6
Fertilizer flat bed trucks 8 6 4,100 b 4,100 b 7
Tank truck 7 5 5,300 b 5,300 b 3
Tractors 3 2 16,900 10,900 23,000 2 1
Semitrailers 2 2 32,200 54,700 9,700 3 16
Others 6 3 6,200 8,400 1,800 1 1
aonly those vehicles for which both price and year purchased were reported.
bNone reported.
cCar, station wagon, van, four-wheel drive, forklift, and crane truck, aggregated to avoid disclosure
of information from particular firms.
16
Table 4. Spray nozzles and tips used by aerial operators.
Number of
Make firms reporting
I. Nozzles
Airplanes
Teejet 30
Micronair 3
Teejet and Beecomist 1
Micronair and Beecomist 1
Teejet and spreader 2
Make uncertain 4
Number reporting 41
Helicopters
Teejet 8
Beecomist 1
Teejet and Beecomist 1
Microfoil 1
Varies with application 1
Number reporting 12
II. Tips
Airplanes
Not specified 26
Flat fan 1
Flood 1
Cone 4
Disc-core 6
Adjustable 2
Number reporting 40
Helicopters
Not specified 9
Disc-core 2
Number reporting 11
17
was the most common tip. The reported pressures at which materials
were dispensed varied over a wide range of 15 to 100 pounds per square
inch (psi). Pressures of 30 to 60 psi were common, with 40 the most
often reported.
A typical set of support facilities included a maintenance shop,
a loading area (permanent and/or mobile) and a complement of support
vehicles. Pickups were used as general utility vehicles. The larger
trucks were more specialized and were used to haul water (tank
trucks), mixing equipment, fertilizer, etc.
Mixing Systems
From verbal descriptions provided, the equipment used to mix and
load pesticides could perhaps best be described as variations on open
or partially closed systems. The typical operations used metered
pumps from pesticide containers and mixed ingredients in tanks with
some form of agitator system. Forty-two firms reported such open or
partially closed systems.
Six firms reported having closed systems. One was installed in
1966, two in 1970, and three in 1979. Installation cost was not
reported for the 1966 system. The average costs for the systems
installed in 1970 and 1979 were $3,000 and 21,000, respectively.
Aerial Operations
Florida operators are involved in pest control on a wide variety
of agricultural products. Table 5 lists those crops (including
17
was the most common tip. The reported pressures at which materials
were dispensed varied over a wide range of 15 to 100 pounds per square
inch (psi). Pressures of 30 to 60 psi were common, with 40 the most
often reported.
A typical set of support facilities included a maintenance shop,
a loading area (permanent and/or mobile) and a complement of support
vehicles. Pickups were used as general utility vehicles. The larger
trucks were more specialized and were used to haul water (tank
trucks), mixing equipment, fertilizer, etc.
Mixing Systems
From verbal descriptions provided, the equipment used to mix and
load pesticides could perhaps best be described as variations on open
or partially closed systems. The typical operations used metered
pumps from pesticide containers and mixed ingredients in tanks with
some form of agitator system. Forty-two firms reported such open or
partially closed systems.
Six firms reported having closed systems. One was installed in
1966, two in 1970, and three in 1979. Installation cost was not
reported for the 1966 system. The average costs for the systems
installed in 1970 and 1979 were $3,000 and 21,000, respectively.
Aerial Operations
Florida operators are involved in pest control on a wide variety
of agricultural products. Table 5 lists those crops (including
Table 5. Acreages treated by aerial operators, percent treated by fixed wing equipment, and average
charges per acre for helicopter and fixed wing services.a
Percent treated
Acres by fixed wing Average charge per acreb
Crop or activity treated equipment Helicopter Fixed wing
Crops for food and feed
Citrus 671,499 83 8.74 3.42
Corn, sweet and field 566,051 78 1.42 1.95
Soybeans 376,631 98 2.50 4.91
Sugarcane 247,962 59 1.65 1.44
Leafy vegetables 242,526 44 1.38 1.64
Potatoes 163,300 98 3.00 1.90
Melons 106,737 99 3.50 2.41
Pasture, rye, and hay 94,010 99 3.50 2.52
Cabbage 58,104 30 2.62 1.99
Cotton 55,400 100 5.04
Peanuts 54,455 100 3.50
Miscellaneous vegetables and melons 51,000 71 5.00 0.97
Celery 45,003 67 1.38 1.85
Beans and peas 32,303 99 2.22
Lettuce 26,000 100 1.85
Radishes 23,000 100 1.74
Tomatoes 22,816 100 1.52
Carrots 21,400 100 1.58
Wheat 19,000 100 4.50
Rice 18,103 67 1.82 3.00
Chicory 12,500 100 1.65
Escarole 12,500 100 1.65
Cucumbers 10,291 61 3.50 1.82
Avocados 8,000 100 1.25
Sorghum and millet 7,100 100 4.88
Peppers 3,904 100 2.31
Squash 3,360 100 1.42
Mangoes 3,000 100 1.62
Peaches 2,400 100 c
Eggplant 240 100 3.00
Strawberries 106 100 c
Subtotal 2,958,701
Continued
Table 5. Acreages treated by aerial operators, percent treated by fixed wing equipment, and average
charges per acre for helicopter and fixed wing services (continued).
Percent treated
Acres by fixed wing Average charge per acreb
Crop or activity treated equipment Helicopter Fixed wing
Other crops
Tobacco 25,003 100 2.51
Sod 3,000 100 4.00
Pine trees 90 100 11.66
Subtotal 28,093
Other
Mosquito control 1,450,000 100 0.24
Native range 415,360 100 0.59
Undifferentiated 222,935 100 0.37
Canal, ditches and ditchbanks,
other weed control, and aquatics 13,600 0 18.20
Subtotal 2,101,895
Total 5,088,689
Estimated state total
for all cropsb 4,815,443
aData represent information obtained from 48 aerial operators.
bThis estimate was based on the assumption that the activity of non-respondents was proportional to
their numbers.
cNot reported.
20
aquatic weeds and mosquito control) ranked by magnitude of total acres
treated. Also shown are the percentage treated by fixed wing equip-
ment and the average fees charged per acre by plane and helicopter.
Land in farms in Florida comprises approximately 13.3 million acres
(Thompson). Of these, about one-third (33.8 percent in 1978, the last
year for which data were available) were, planted to crops. The esti-
mated number of acres of crops sprayed by air in Florida in 1979 was
4.9 million, or approximately 109 percent of the crop acreage. Of
course, multiple applications on some acreage and multiple cropping
means that not all of Florida's crops are sprayed by air. Neverthe-
less, aerial operations in Florida provide significant input into
agricultural production.
Operators seemed to base charges on unique conditions at the time
of agreement to perform the service. This situation is as one would
expect in an industry which is normally quite competitive. However,
timing, available equipment, and other unique circumstances can intro-
duce noncompetitive behavior in contracts for particular jobs. Rates
for helicopter services normally exceed those for fixed wing equip-
ment. Higher rates for helicopters are attributable in part to less
competition. Another factor is slower application speeds, which
increase cost but provide greater control of substances being applied.
In addition, helicopters can be used in areas where congestion or
other restrictions on turn around space preclude the use the air-
planes.
Spray programs varied widely by crop. Some operators were
closely involved with the producer in establishing the sequence of
21
pesticide, fungicide, or fertilizer applications for a particular
crop. Most, however, carried out treatment as specifically requested
by the producers.
Attempts to obtain detailed information on target pests and con-
trol substances were not very successful. Individual customer
receipts from one operator indicated that nearly every job has unique
features.
Typical rates of coverage were about 78 acres per hour with fixed
wing aircraft and about 44 acres per hour with helicopters.
Airspeed
For operators using fixed wing equipment, airspeed seemed to be
more a function of type of plane and pilot preference than of crop
sprayed. For example, the range in airspeeds for a Cessna Ag Truck
might be listed as 90 to 115 mph while for an Ag Tractor, 100 to 135
mph, and some pilots expressed a desire to fly as fast as possible for
optimal aircraft control. Table 6 shows the number of fixed wing
operators who consider particular flying speeds either preferable or
acceptable for pesticide application.
Helicopter operators did vary speed according to crop. Citrus
was sprayed at about one-half the speed of other crops (Table 7). One
operator indicated that the highest speeds were used on pastures.
Another said that when applying herbicides he flew 10 to 15 mph slower
than when applying insecticides and fungicides. The reason for this
slower speed was to provide greater control of drift.
22
Table 6. Airspeeds flown while dispersing chemicals by airplane
Airspeed Desired Minimum Maximum
MPH - - Number of firms reporting - - -
60 1
65 1
70 1
75
80 3 1
85
90 5 7b
95 1 2 1
100 12b 6
105 1 2
110 7 2 5
115 3 3
120 6 6b
125 1
130 1 3
135 1
140
145
150 Ic
aNot all firms provided all three speeds. A few firms provided
different speeds for different aircraft.
bModal response.
'Mosquito control.
23
Table 7. Airspeeds flown while dispersing chemicals by helicopter.
Citrus Other crops
Airspeed Desired Minimum Maximum Desired Minimum Maximum
MPH - - - - Number of firms reporting - - - -
18 2a
20 4a 1
22 2a
25 1 1
30 2
35 1
40 1 1
45 2a 2A
50 2a
55 2a 1
60 1 1 1
80 1
aModal response.
24
Wind Speed
Asking question about wind speed is a little like asking "How
long is a piece of string?" There are many answers and in this case
they depend upon the environment in which the operator is working--
including the crop involved, the objects or crops in contiguous areas,
the substances being dispersed; and wind direction.
Responses for fixed wing equipment are recorded in Table 8.
There seemed to be a preference for a slight wind. One operator
explained that since it is necessary to overlap spray swaths, a little
wind is desirable so that they do not have to fly back through the
spray. Wind speeds below 6 mph were preferred by 69 percent of the
operators, and 74 percent indicated that the maximum wind speed at
which they would spray was 10 mph or less.
Helicopter operators definitely preferred lower wind speeds than
operators of fixed wing equipment. All seven helicopter respondents
choose 3 mph or less as optimal, and eight of ten considered 8 mph or
less to be the maximum (Table 9).
There was a difference of opinion on the relation between wind
speed and the crop being treated. One airplane pilot expressed a
preference for higher winds when spraying corn and citrus; another
wanted less wind when spraying citrus. One helicopter pilot reported
that the top wind speed at which citrus should be treated is 3 mph
slower than for other crops. Lower wind speeds are required when
there is danger from drift. Operators using both types of aircraft
stated that the maximum was 5 mph slower when spraying herbicides than
when applying fungicides or insecticides.
25
Table 8. Wind speeds compatible with spraying by airplane.
Wind Speed Preferred Maximum
MPH - - Number of firms reporting--
0 2
1
2 3
3 1
4 1
5 4 4
6 2
7 1
8 2 2
9 1
10 14
15 4
25 2
30 1
0 3a 1
0 5 1
0 10 4
1- 2 2
2- 5 2
3- 4 1
3- 5 2
5- 6 1
8 10 1
8 -12 1
10 20 2
Unknown 1
aReported as ranges.
26
Table 9. Wind speeds compatible with spraying by helicopter.
Wind Speed Preferred Maximum
MPH - - Number of firms reporting - -
0 4
1
2
3 1
4
5 4
6
7 1
8 2
9
10 1
11
12 1
0 2a 1
0 -3 1
1 -3 1
aReported as ranges.
27
Flaggers
Sometimes in aerial operations it is useful to have a person
called a flagger on the ground to mark the swaths to be sprayed. Only
one-fourth of the 44 operators who responded said they used flaggers.
For the 11 who did, the protective equipment and marking devices used
are shown in Table 10.
When asked, "Could you use an automatic flagging device?", 14 of
37 respondents answered yes. The reason given for a few of the nega-
tive replies was that the fields worked were too small and irregularly
shaped to utilize flags. Some who said they could use these devices
indicated they would rather not because they are not very accurate,
not cost effective at 15 cents per flag, or not necessary with experi-
enced pilots.
Cost Analysis
Costs were classified as fixed or variable. Fixed costs repre-
sent those elements of cost which are incurred by the mere fact of
being in business and do not vary with the amount of business a firm
does. In this study, items classified as fixed costs were deprecia-
tion on aircraft and support equipment, interest, and insurance on
buildings and equipment.5 Variable costs, on the other hand, depend
Insurance costs on aircraft are difficult to unambiguously clas-
sify. Insurance costs based on hours flown would be a variable cost.
When an operator self insures his aircraft as some do, the insurance
risks assumed do vary with hours flown.
27
Flaggers
Sometimes in aerial operations it is useful to have a person
called a flagger on the ground to mark the swaths to be sprayed. Only
one-fourth of the 44 operators who responded said they used flaggers.
For the 11 who did, the protective equipment and marking devices used
are shown in Table 10.
When asked, "Could you use an automatic flagging device?", 14 of
37 respondents answered yes. The reason given for a few of the nega-
tive replies was that the fields worked were too small and irregularly
shaped to utilize flags. Some who said they could use these devices
indicated they would rather not because they are not very accurate,
not cost effective at 15 cents per flag, or not necessary with experi-
enced pilots.
Cost Analysis
Costs were classified as fixed or variable. Fixed costs repre-
sent those elements of cost which are incurred by the mere fact of
being in business and do not vary with the amount of business a firm
does. In this study, items classified as fixed costs were deprecia-
tion on aircraft and support equipment, interest, and insurance on
buildings and equipment.5 Variable costs, on the other hand, depend
Insurance costs on aircraft are difficult to unambiguously clas-
sify. Insurance costs based on hours flown would be a variable cost.
When an operator self insures his aircraft as some do, the insurance
risks assumed do vary with hours flown.
28
Table 10. Protective gear and marking devices used by flaggers.
Number of
Marking firms
Protective gear device using
Air-conditioned truck Truck with flags 3
Air-conditioned vehicle Mirror and strobe lights 1
Flaggers used for pasture Radio-controlled dune 2
only (no protective gear buggy
needed)
Flaggers used for fertilizer Truck 1
application only (no pro-
tective gear needed)
Long-sleeved shirt, long pants, Umbrella 1
boots, gloves, umbrella; does
not flag restricted chemicals
Rainsuit, boots, respirator Flags 1
Coveralls, mask, gloves Truck with flags 1
Men and protective clothing Red and white flags 1
furnished by customer if
he wants work flagged
Total 11
29
largely on the number of hours flown and the level of business activ-
ity. They were gas, oil, maintenance, salaries, and liability, work-
er's compensation, and group insurance.
The average total cost per hour flown by airplane for all firms
in 1979 was $220.28 (in 1979 dollars). The components of this cost
(90.26)
estimate are presented in Table 11. On a per acre treated basis the
average total cost was $2.80. The estimated average total return per
(2.04)
acre was $2.41 so that the estimated average net return per acre was
(.98)
$-.39. If 1979 was a rather typical year, as most operators sug-
(2.25)
gested, the industry is essentially one that does not permit the aver-
age operator to cover all costs and one that leaves no excess profit.
The large estimated standard error of the estimate of average net
return suggests that the estimate of $-.39 is subject to considerable
error and that some of the operators probably enjoyed sizeable profits
while others suffered serious losses.
For firms using helicopters, the average total cost per hour
flown in 1979 was $277.65 (in 1979 dollars). The components of this
(147.58)
cost estimate are presented in Table 12. Over half a million acres
were treated at an average total cost per acre of $5.98. The average
(6.55)
net return per acre above all costs was $1.71.
(3.72)
Costs Conditioned on Level of Operations
Airplanes. Regression analysis was used on the cross-firm data
to estimate the relationship between 1) average total cost per hour
for treatment by airplane and the number of hours flown and 2) average
30
Table 11. Components of average cost per hour for treatment by
airplane, weighted by number of acres treated by each firm.
Item of cost Amount (1979 dollars)
Averaged fixed cost $54.78
Depreciation $25.79
Interest 13.50
Insurance .7Z
Other 3.71
Average variable costs 165.50
Labor 71.53
Fuel 34.51
Maintenance 22.36
Insurance 6.74
Other 30.36
Average total cost $220.28
aMethods of computing costs are explained in Appendix 1.
property insurance.
cDues, miscellaneous equipment, rent for property, and taxes on
property and equipment.
dLiability and insurance for employees.
eRent for aircraft and other equipment, unemployment, payroll and
sales taxes, and operating costs for such items as advertising
supplies and utilities.
31
Table 12. Components of average cost per hour for treatment by
helicopter, weighted by number of acres treated by each
firm.
Item of cost Amount (1979 dollars)
Averaged fixed cost $84.13
Depreciation $42.10
Interest 20.78
Insurance 12.61
Others 8.64
Average variable costs 193.52
Labor 80.01
Fuel 28.24
Maintenance 36.22
Insurance 13.21
Other 35.84
Average total cost $277.65
aMethods of computing costs are explained in Appendix 1.
property insurance.
CDues, miscellaneous equipment, rent for property, and taxes on
property and equipment.
dLiability and insurance for employees.
eRent for aircraft and other equipment, unemployment, payroll and
sales taxes, and operating costs for such items as advertising
supplies and utilities.
32
total cost per acre treated by airplance and the total number of acres
treated. The functions estimated are given in equations (1) and (2).
(1) ATCH = 298.050 0.1460 H + .0000328 H2
(44.740) (.0663) (.0000176)
-2
R = .089 F = 2.64 n = 33
where ATCH is average total cost per hour flown in dollars and H is
hours flown.
(2) ATCA = 5.2496 .0000341 A + (7.2427)(10-11) A2
(1.1842) (.0000213) (6.03563)(10-11
-2
R = .042 F = 1.64 n = 27
where ATCA is average total cost per acre treated in dollars and A is
the number of acres treated.
-2
As one can see from the R's much of the observed variation in
average total cost per hour is explained by factors other than hours
flown. Although volume of business is important, many other factors
(such as accounting systems, management, and accuracy in reporting
data)6 were operative across firms to cause variation in the average
total cost per hour.
6Inaccuracies in reporting create an error in variables problem.
However, both hours flown and acres treated are believed to be report-
ed accurately since both variables are important measures of activity
for a firm. Since major inaccuracies appear in the cost data, these
errors would add to the error variance in the system and would reduce
the accuracy of but not bias the estimates.
33
With a quadratic specification of the mathematical form of
the relationship between average total cost and hours flown,
the equation defines a parabola which must turn up after at-
taining a minimum point. It is not clear from the data whether
costs turn up for a large volume of business. An alternative
model specification using a double logarithmic transformation
(linear in logarithms) gave the results shown in equations 3
and 4 and plotted in Figures 3 and 4.7
(3) In ATCH = 5.7130 0.07859 In H
(.62171) (0.09299)
R2 = .022 F = 0.71 n = 33
(4) In ATCA = 2.1169 0.10420 In A
(1.2330) (0.11341)
R2 = .031 F = 0.84 n = 27
Equation 1 suggests that there are significant (at the 10 per-
cent level) cost reductions up to approximately 2200 hours
flown and very little beyond that. In terms of acres, the
statistical results for both model specifications indicate that
the average total cost per acre is explained as well by the
unconditional mean as a mean conditioned on the number of acres
treated.
7As is often the case when very little of the variation is
explained by a regression equation, R is negative. Therefore,
R2 values were reported for equations 3 and 4. Since the
deviations are measured in logarithmic values and the R2's are
not corrected, the R2's for equations (3) and (4) are not
comparable with the 2 's from equations (1) and (2).
540
*
*
480-
420
' 360
*00
S
300
' 240
180
120
5 5
60o ; i | |
0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800 3200 3600 4000
Hours flown
Figure 3.--Plot of average total cost per hour for treatment by airplanes on hours flown and a graph of
Equation 3 through the data.
16
*
14-
*
12-
O10-
4-
0
01
a8-
6 -
0.
2- s
0 0
0 60,000 120,000 180,000 240,000 300000 360,000
Acres treated
Figure 4.--Plot of average total cost per acre treated by airplanes on acres treated and a graph of
Equation 4 through the data.
36
Helicopters. The average total cost per hour as a function of
hours flown is presented in equation (5). This equation was estimated
using regression and a double logarithmic transformation. This speci-
fication permits one to estimate a nonlinear function with the loss of
only two degrees of freedom. A similar function is given for average
total cost per acre in equation (6).
(5) In ATCH = 9.9905 0.67606 In H
(2.4175) (0.37999)
R2 = .022 F = 0.71 n = 33
(6) In ATCA = 16.0951 1.4156 In A
(3.2221) (0.31886)
R2 = .75 F = 19.71 n =7
Predicted values given by these functions along with plots of the
data are presented in Figures 5 and 6. The results suggest that aver-
age total cost per hour as a function of hours flown declines through-
out the range of the data. Average total cost per acre decreases
rather sharply up to about 30,000 acres and then levels off. Most
economies of size are exploited at a much smaller acreage than with
fixed wing equipment.
Costs and Returns by Major Crops
Airplanes. There is considerable arbitrariness in assigning
fixed costs to particular activities. If one allocated such cost on a
pro rata basis the average net return per acre treated by airplane for
700
600
S 500-
200-
100
0. i i 400 -
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Hours flown
Figure 5.--Plot of average total cost per hour for treatment by helicopter on hours flown and a graph of
Equation 5 through the data.
30
25
a
S20
0
u 15
a
S100
5
*
5,000 11,000 17,000 23,000 29,000 35,000 41,000
Acres treated
Figure 6.--Plot of average total cost per acre treated by helicopters on acres treated and a graph of
Equation 6 through the data.
39
seven major crops or crop categories ranges from $-3.11 to $.83 (Table
13).
Profitable crops are citrus and soybeans. On the average, treat-
ment of the other crops did not cover all costs. However, the treat-
ment of these crops did permit operators to cover their variable costs
and a part of their fixed investment in equipment--so in the short
run, this type of treatment activity makes economic sense and is con-
sistent with profit maximizing behavior.
Helicopters. Average total cost of treating citrus by helicopter
was $5.65 per acre. The average fee charged was $8.74 per acre
(2.21) (5.59)
which resulted in net returns above all costs of $3.09 per acre.
(4.86)
Because of the very skimpy nature of the data, costs and returns were
not estimated for other crops treated by helicopter. Again it is
important to point out that the partitioning of fixed cost across
crops is an arbitrary accounting process and one that has no basis in
cost theory.
Ground Personnel
As shown in Table 14, loading in most operations is done by a
ground crew employed by the aerial operator. In about 20 percent of
the firms the pilots are also involved in loading. In a few cases
customers assist with loading. Operators reported a problem of
obtaining qualified pesticide handling personnel. A typical wage rate
for such work was about $5.00 per hour in 1979. Candidates for such
jobs are normally unskilled laborers who learn on the job. With expe-
40
Table 13. Costs and returns per acre for treatment of selected crops
by airplane.
Average fee Average Average net
Crop or total return total cost return
- - - - dollars/acre - - - -
Citrus 3.63 2.75 .83
(1.13) (1.20) (1.33)
Corn 1.47 2.20 -.73
(.23) (1.37) (1.43)
Melons 2.78 3.83 -1.05
(1.70) (3.42) (3.43)
Pastures 2.44 3.58 -1.14
(.89) (2.86) (3.29)
Peanuts 2.33 5.44 -3.11
(.22) (10.69) (10.65)
Soybeans 2.20 2.00 .20
(.22) (1.70) (1.71)
Leafy vegetables 1.68 2.09 -.41
(.09) (4.90) (4.91)
aNumbers in parentheses represent standard errors.
bAverage fee for some crops in this table differs from the average
shown in Table 5 because only fees with corresponding cost per acre
were included in these calculations.
41
Table 14. Pesticide loaders in aerial operations.
Number of firms
Loaders reporting
Ground crew 31
Ground crew and pilots) 7
Ground crew and customer 2
Pilot(s) 2
Customer 1
Customer and pilot 1
42
rience with various pesticides and with the maintenance of equipment,
the workers become valuable employees, and about one-third of the
ground crew members have long tenure in their jobs. The education and
experience levels of persons loading pesticide material on aircraft
are presented in Table 15.
Industry Capacity
There was evidence of excess capacity in the industry at the
current level of demand for aerial services. Operators reported the
percentage by which they could increase the number of acres treated
with existing personnel and equipment. Table 16 presents an average
of their responses for each month, weighted by the total acreage
sprayed. Because of the seasonal nature of the business some opera-
tors do not spray at all during the winter. Only two (fixed wing)
stated that they had as much work year-round as they could do.
In case of a growth in demand beyond their capacity, 13 of the 44
applicators responding thought there would be real constraints on
their ability to enlarge. A scarcity of ground personnel and capable
pilots was the obstacle most often named (Table 17). Another was the
difficulty of obtaining fuel, either because of shortages in 1979 or
because of the investment necessary to purchase and store the minimum
quantity oil companies would deliver. Forthcoming government regula-
tions were the third constraint mentioned. According to the view of
two operators there can be no need for expansion, as the loss of agri-
cultural land to urbanization will prevent any increase in demand for
their services.
43
Table 15. One way frequency distributions for years of education and
years of experience of persons loading pesticides for
aerial operations.
Number of loaders with specified years of:
Years School Experience
0 0 7
1 0 12
2 1 13
3 0 7
4 0 3
5 0 8
6 1 5
7 2 2
8 2 2
9 0 0
10 4 5
11 5 1
12 57 1
13 1 1
14 5 1
15 1 5
16 7 2
17 1 0
18 0 1
19 0 0
20 0 4
21 0 0
22 0 0
23 0 0
24 0 0
25 0 2
26 0 0
27 0 0
28 0 2
29 0 0
30 0 1
31 0 0
32 0 0
33 0 0
34 0 1
Unknown 0 1
Total 87 87
Average level of education = 12.0 years
Average level of experience = 7.4 years
44
Table 16. Weighted average percentage by which acres sprayed by
airplanes and helicopters could be increased, by month.
Type aircraft
Month Airplanes Helicopters
- - - Percent - - -
January 214 49
February 216 49
March 202 45
April 188 18
May 182 18
June 187 24
July 192 40
August 203 43
September 201 41
October 193 30
November 204 37
December 214 40
percentages were weighted by acreage sprayed by each firm.
45
Aircraft Accidents
Most firms that have been in this line of business over a period
of years have experienced accidents involving equipment. A brief
account of accidents that occurred while taxiing or in flight is given
in Table 18.
In addition, two minor ground accidents were reported. A ground
crew member stepped of the tail of a plane and did $47 damage, and a
worker caught his finger in the belt drive of an air compressor. The
economic loss of this latter accident was $200; the extent of damage
to the finger was not stated.
Adverse Effects on auman Health and the Environment
Humans
Survey results indicated that three employees of firms providing
aerial services were affected by pesticide exposure in Florida in
1979. In one case a pilot inhaled methyl parathion fumes while
flying. He was treated in the emergency room and did not miss work.
Cost to the firm was about $50. In another instance, a worker loading
Acaraben got some in his eyes. They were washed with water and no
further medical attention was required, nor was any costs incurred.
In the most serious case, a worker spilled aldrin on his clothes and
did not change, although clothes were reportedly available. He missed
three days' work with effects described as chemical intoxication.
Estimated cost to the firm was $120.
46
Table 17. Constraints on ability to expand aerial service
to meet increased demand.
Number of firms
Constraint reporting
Personnel 5
Fuel 2
Congestion '2
Capital 1
Responsibility 1
None given 2
Total 13
Table 18. Aircraft accidents reported by aerial operators.
Equipment
Medical cost cost to
Accident Injury to firm firm
Taxiing accident; None reported None reported $16,900
wind, tail section,
and prop damage
Engine failure; Back and neck $1000 -0-a
aircraft totaled injury
Pilot error; Internal injuries $1500 $ 3,400b
aircraft totaled and broken ankle
Equipment failure Death of pilot $60,000
in flight not
associated with
spraying
Aircraft flew into None -0- $30,000
bad weather
aFully covered by insurance.
blnsurance deductible.
45
Aircraft Accidents
Most firms that have been in this line of business over a period
of years have experienced accidents involving equipment. A brief
account of accidents that occurred while taxiing or in flight is given
in Table 18.
In addition, two minor ground accidents were reported. A ground
crew member stepped of the tail of a plane and did $47 damage, and a
worker caught his finger in the belt drive of an air compressor. The
economic loss of this latter accident was $200; the extent of damage
to the finger was not stated.
Adverse Effects on auman Health and the Environment
Humans
Survey results indicated that three employees of firms providing
aerial services were affected by pesticide exposure in Florida in
1979. In one case a pilot inhaled methyl parathion fumes while
flying. He was treated in the emergency room and did not miss work.
Cost to the firm was about $50. In another instance, a worker loading
Acaraben got some in his eyes. They were washed with water and no
further medical attention was required, nor was any costs incurred.
In the most serious case, a worker spilled aldrin on his clothes and
did not change, although clothes were reportedly available. He missed
three days' work with effects described as chemical intoxication.
Estimated cost to the firm was $120.
45
Aircraft Accidents
Most firms that have been in this line of business over a period
of years have experienced accidents involving equipment. A brief
account of accidents that occurred while taxiing or in flight is given
in Table 18.
In addition, two minor ground accidents were reported. A ground
crew member stepped of the tail of a plane and did $47 damage, and a
worker caught his finger in the belt drive of an air compressor. The
economic loss of this latter accident was $200; the extent of damage
to the finger was not stated.
Adverse Effects on auman Health and the Environment
Humans
Survey results indicated that three employees of firms providing
aerial services were affected by pesticide exposure in Florida in
1979. In one case a pilot inhaled methyl parathion fumes while
flying. He was treated in the emergency room and did not miss work.
Cost to the firm was about $50. In another instance, a worker loading
Acaraben got some in his eyes. They were washed with water and no
further medical attention was required, nor was any costs incurred.
In the most serious case, a worker spilled aldrin on his clothes and
did not change, although clothes were reportedly available. He missed
three days' work with effects described as chemical intoxication.
Estimated cost to the firm was $120.
46
Table 17. Constraints on ability to expand aerial service
to meet increased demand.
Number of firms
Constraint reporting
Personnel 5
Fuel 2
Congestion '2
Capital 1
Responsibility 1
None given 2
Total 13
Table 18. Aircraft accidents reported by aerial operators.
Equipment
Medical cost cost to
Accident Injury to firm firm
Taxiing accident; None reported None reported $16,900
wind, tail section,
and prop damage
Engine failure; Back and neck $1000 -0-a
aircraft totaled injury
Pilot error; Internal injuries $1500 $ 3,400b
aircraft totaled and broken ankle
Equipment failure Death of pilot $60,000
in flight not
associated with
spraying
Aircraft flew into None -0- $30,000
bad weather
aFully covered by insurance.
blnsurance deductible.
47
There were two reported instances in 1979 of a person other than
an employee being affected by pesticides from aerial operations. In
one case a farm worker received some exposure to toxaphene. Any costs
associated with this incident were not determined. In the other case
a child with an allergy problem had a reaction to a benlate applica-
tion. The claim was settled out of court by an insurance company.
Costs were $119 for supposedly contaminated cowboy boots and belt, and
$450 in legal fees.
Each of the above incidents proved to be minor at the time of the
accident. This survey was not designed to investigate the existence
or extent of any long-run effects of pesticide exposure. Both the
survey results and informal conversations with personnel suggest that
aerial operators have respect for the toxicity of the chemicals and
exercise caution in handling them. They also recognize that their
business is one which is vulnerable to the attitudes and interests of
others and that their actions are subject to considerable scrutiny
because their activities are both audible and visible.
Animals
Two incidents involving fish were reported. A fish farmer filed
a $100 million suit against an aerial operator who had been spraying
groves in the general area of his farm. It was claimed that drift had
killed some fish and changed the reproductive habits of others, thus
ruining the farm. No specific chemicals were named. The case was
thrown out of court because the claimant would not produce evidence on
the profitability of his business. The applicator's expenses were
48
$700 in legal fees. In the second incident, 10 to 20 fish in a ditch
within a citrus grove were killed when the grove was sprayed with
ethion. There was no cost to the operator.
No other occurrences were reported from direct experience. How-
ever one operator repeated an unconfirmed account of an incident which
was supposedly associated with an itinerant sprayer. A few cows were
reported to have died from eating potash which had been spilled in the
field and not cleaned up.
Crops
Drift was the cause of one reported case of crop loss in 1979 and
was asserted to be the cause of another. At the time of the survey a
claim was under litigation that spraying of 2,4-D, nalquatic and
sticker had damaged a portion of an 18-acre field of caladiums. The
claim was in excess of $2,500 plus interest, and was covered by insur-
ance. The aerial operator questioned its legitimacy because of the
distance of the field from spraying activity and the wind direction at
the time of spraying. In the other case, paraquat drifted onto
planted pines, killing a few trees and costing the applicator $1,500.
Also reported was a dispute over an unforeseen effect on the
target crop. Fertilizer provided by the farmer was aerially applied
to watermelons. Two weeks later the farmer reported that the melons
could not be sold because they were marked by the fertilizer. He
claimed that application had been made too early in the day. The
operator said the fertilizer was put on after 5:00 P.M. The incident
was not covered by insurance, and had cost the operator $2,500 to
date, with final settlement pending.
49
Waste Disposal
The high cost of agricultural chemicals provides a strong incen-
tive to use them efficiently. Respondents estimated that less than
one percent of the chemicals purchased was not applied to crops.
Aircraft tanks are routinely flushed with clear water after they have
been emptied on the fields being treated. It is this rinse residue
which is generally wasted. Six firms reported collecting and reusing
the rinse water associated with routine spraying programs. Methods of
handling rinse water are presented in Table 19.8 Some firms reported
more than one method; however, there was no information obtained that
suggested that the method of disposal depended on the pesticide
involved.
Disposal of pesticide containers is another waste problem. Dump-
ing in a sanitary landfill was the most frequently used method (Table
20). Again some firms reported more than one method of disposal.
Many firms reported burning combustible materials, including the paint
on metal containers. Most reported rinsing and puncturing containers
and several rinsed, punctured, and crushed before disposal. Large
drums were normally sold to drum reclaimers.
It is difficult to know which specific type of equipment clean-
ing facility is preferable without knowing the soil and water charac-
teristics at the site. Methods of reuse rinse water by spraying resi-
due over treatment areas would minimize concentration of residues at
any one location.
50
Table 19. Facilities for handling rinse water and frequency of
use by aerial operators.
Facilities Number of firms using
Open pit or lagon 12
Septic or other underground tank 7
Spray on treatment site 7
Collect in tank and reuse 6
Special area designated for rinsing 6
Other 4
aDump, gravel area at far end of airport, natural reservoir, and
no special facility.
Table 20. Methods for disposing of waste containers and frequency
of use by aerial operators.
Method Number of firms using
Sanitary landfill 24
Sell drums to reclaimers 13
Return to customer 11
Burn combustible material, crush and bury 4
Rinse,b burn, and let rust 3
Stack up 1
Throw in pit 1
aThree reported burning before taking to landfill.
bone firm triple rinsed.
51
Buffer Zones
One means of reducing the problem of pesticide drift is to
increase the distance between the target and areas susceptible to
damage. Therefore, aerial operators were asked to estimate buffer
distances between their activities and 1) platted subdivisions, 2)
public bodies of water, and 3) domestic animal habitats (poultry
facilities, dairy and beef feed lots, and pasture and range). The
distances requested were those which would result in no loss of busi-
ness, a 10 percent loss, and a 20 percent loss. This was a very dif-
ficult question for the operators to answer because most of them had
not previously considered the distribution of their business in this
manner.
Approximately one-third of the aerial operators attempted to give
an answer. Some operators stated that it was not possible for them to
estimate these impacts because of odd sizes and shapes of fields.
Others thought the question did not pertain to them because the method
of operation or the location of their activities made buffer zones
unnecessary. Some said that buffer distances would not be economi-
cally feasible or in the interest of the general public.
Those operators who did provide answers did not give distances
for all situations. The number of respondents and the average dis-
tances they reported are given in Table 21. Large standard errors for
the distances given are due mainly to responses of zero feet. For
example, 10 respondents gave a positive (nonzero) estimate for the
distance from a platted subdivision which would result in no loss of
business. The remaining six operators estimated zero feet. The aver-
52
age of the positive responses was 112 and the standard error 66 com-
pared with 70 and 75, respectively, in Table 21.
Noise is another problem which buffer zones could alleviate.
Although there was not a specific question about it in the survey,
several operators indicated in informal discussions that they had had
a few calls concerning noise. Early morning hours are a prime time
for spraying because winds are normally calm then. This fact combined
with the growing number of rural non-farm residents in Florida will
undoubtedly lead to more such complaints in the future.
Problems Facing the Industry
The first question in the survey asked the aerial operators what
they believed were their industry's major problems in Florida. Its
poor public image was named by the largest number of respondents
(Table 22), and was most often attributed to misconceptions about the
risks of aerial spraying. Environmentalists and the media were criti-
cized for focusing on the dangers and ignoring the applicators' pro-
fessionalism and their positive contributions to food production. A
misunderstanding of the relationship between odor and toxicity was
thought to be the cause of unwarranted law suits. However, one opera-
tor remarked that the fear of being sued had brought about more
responsible operation. There was also acknowledgment that some pilots
do not make an effort to minimize drift or to avoid spraying field
workers, and thereby damage the reputation of the industry. Farmers
were seen as contributing to the problem when they consider only
Table 21. Buffer zone distances between aerial operations and specified sites which would result in 0,
10, and 20 percent loss of business.a
Loss of business
0% 10% 20%
Average Average Average
Number distance Number distance Number distance
Site description reporting (feet) reporting (feet) reporting (feet)
Domestic animal habitat:
Poultry facility 16 166 10 195 9 324
(229) (269) (507)
Dairy or feedlot 18 117 10 135 12 218
(168) (167) (398)
Pasture or range 16 139 9 128 13 230
(336) (175) (374)
Platted subdivision 16 70 10 160 12 335
(75) (196) (419)
Public body of water 17 185 11 202 9 491
(321) (217) (568)
aNumbers in parentheses are standard errors.
54
Table 22. Major industry problems reported by aerial operators.
Number of times
Problem mentioned
Negative public attitude 29
Excessive regulation 25
Increased operating costs 18
Urbanization 13
Insufficient information provided to
pesticide users 7
Shortage of fuel 6
Price undercutting 6
Shortage of qualified personnel 4
55
price, not quality, and reward the less conscientious pilots with
their business.
Many of the operators recommended counteracting the negative
publicity with a public relations campaign by their own association
and the pesticide manufacturers. They also called for increased com-
munication at the personal level by explaining to farmers and civic
groups the problems aerial applicators face. Besides wanting to edu-
cate the general public, several of the applicators thought that they,
and the farmers who hire them, need to know more about the pesticides
they use. Some operators wanted the chemical companies to make avail-
able such information as the damage their products might cause to
metal or wood. Some wanted the University system to offer instruction
in aerial spraying, and to provide better guidance and dissemination
of information. Required participation in the state and national
agricultural aviation associations was suggested as a means of keeping
more operators informed about industry problems as well as technologi-
cal developments. As one person noted, the industry should realize
that there are some drawbacks to pesticide use, and the public needs
to be aware of the problems of not using them.
Many aerial operators saw public misinformation and overreaction
by environmentalists at the root of the second most often named prob-
lem, excessive and discriminatory regulation. They believed their
work was controlled by too many agencies, and the safety and reporting
requirements were too strict, impractical, redundant, and scientif-
ically unfounded. EPA in particular was criticized for unreasonable
regulations. A few operators tended to associate all regulation with
the EPA even when the regulation was associated with a state program.
56
Some operators felt that their industry was inequitably treated
with respect to other pesticide users. For example, farmers who apply
pesticides do not have the same requirements as aerial applicators.
Some thought that the regulatory agencies focused on large operations,
leaving small operators poorly regulated.
To improve the situation, some respondents offered specific pro-
posals. One was that the responsibility for regulation be divided
between a state board solely in control of aerial applicators, and the
FAA in charge of aircraft and pilot licensing. Another was for recip-
rocal licenses among states in the Southeast, with similar tests
required. Color coded, recyclable drums, possibly plastic, were pro-
posed in order to lessen the possibility of using an improper pesti-
cide and to reduce waste disposal problems.
In general the operators wanted more industry input into the
regulatory process. They suggested improved lobbying, cooperative
efforts by NAAA and FAAA to monitor legislation, and representation
from the industry when regulations are being discussed. A contrasting
view was that better self-regulation by the industry would eliminate
most of their problems.
The third most important problem indicated by the survey was one
over which the aerial operators have little control, that is, the high
cost of operation. Their costs have been driven up by increased
prices for pesticides, gasoline, equipment and maintenance. They have
also been affected by insurance premiums and by the inability of oper-
ators to obtain adequate health insurance. In place of uniformly high
premiums to cover the losses of poorly trained and careless operators,
57
it was believed that a program of incentives and penalties would
encourage safe application and equipment improvement.
Inefficient equipment is another contributor to high operating
costs. One operator indicated that the equipment currently in common
use is at least ten years out of date, and that the products used are
not designed to coordinate with the equipment that dispenses them.
Another observed that there has been a reduction in research effort.
To stimulate the development of better equipment it was suggested that
the patent laws and the tax laws governing research expenses be
revised. An increase in government support for research and develop-
ment would provide further incentive.
Higher operating costs make it hard to earn a reasonable return on
investment while charging fees that farmers can afford. Various other
proposals for bringing down applicators' costs and, therefore, their
fees, would require some type of government action. Some operators
wanted help paying the cost of the new requirements. Some would like
a low interest loan program such as farmers have. Several thought
that fuel should be tax exempt when used for aerial application and
other agricultural purposes. Some wanted the government to control
the price of gasoline.
In certain parts of the state there was concern over cutthroat
competition--price cutting by itinerant operators, new operators un-
dercutting established ones, and prices being set without regard for
inflation.
In addition to cost problems there were input supply problems. A
few operators reported a scarcity of qualified pilots or ground per-
58
sonnel. Many more had difficulties with the supply of fuel. Some had
encountered a shortage and wanted agricultural uses to be given pri-
ority in allocation. Numerous others complained that the minimum
amount they were allowed to purchase cost more than they could afford
at one time and required too much storage space.
An issue receiving considerable attention in the United States
today is the urbanization of farm land. It is a major problem for
aerial applicators in two ways. Loss of cropland means loss of actual
or potential business for them. In addition, the interspersion of
houses and mobile homes with the remaining agricultural land makes
their work more difficult. Many operators felt that people who move
into the new developments from urban areas do not understand what
farming involves or what the applicators are doing. They go out to
watch the spraying, causing extra expense for operators and farmers
because the application cannot be completed. They complain about
noise and drift. The power lines built in the fields to serve their
houses are hazardous for the flyers. A strong desire was expressed by
aerial operators for the protection of prime farm land from develop-
ment.
Finally, the responding applicators made a few suggestions for
the industry itself. Some members believed that stronger state and
national associations were needed. The FAAA was seen as unrepresenta-
tive of small operators, who should become more involved in the organ-
ization. Communication within the industry was cited as an important
area in need of improvement. And a tempering of individual profit-
seeking with cooperation was urged in order to ensure the industry's
survival.
59
PART II. FARMERS (CENTRAL AND WEST FLORIDA)
The sample of farmers surveyed in the Central Florida region did
not produce the diversity of crops--particularly vegetables--grown in
the four county region. Citrus growers dominated the sample. In
contrast, the sample of farms in the West Florida region seemed more
representative of that area's agriculture.
The survey indicated that most respondents (73 of 80) felt that
1979 was a rather typical crop year from the perspective of their pest
control program. In West Florida two farmers thought there were more
pests than usual, while another reported a lighter than normal infes-
tation. One citrus grower felt that his timing was poor and his con-
trol measures not sufficient for fresh fruit. For another it was only
the second year of treatment after not spraying for many years. One
simply said it was a poor crop year and a seventh farmer did not give
a reason for his atypical year response.
Use of Aerial Services by Sample Farmers
Farms in West Florida relied on aerial application of chemicals
more heavily than those in the central part of the state (Table 23).
More Panhandle farmers had hired aerial services at some time. Only
13 percent of those reporting previous use did not use an aerial ser-
vice in 1979, in contrast with 64 percent in the central counties.
Several citrus growers viewed aerial spraying as an emergency or tem-
porary measure, to be used only when fast coverage was crucial or when
59
PART II. FARMERS (CENTRAL AND WEST FLORIDA)
The sample of farmers surveyed in the Central Florida region did
not produce the diversity of crops--particularly vegetables--grown in
the four county region. Citrus growers dominated the sample. In
contrast, the sample of farms in the West Florida region seemed more
representative of that area's agriculture.
The survey indicated that most respondents (73 of 80) felt that
1979 was a rather typical crop year from the perspective of their pest
control program. In West Florida two farmers thought there were more
pests than usual, while another reported a lighter than normal infes-
tation. One citrus grower felt that his timing was poor and his con-
trol measures not sufficient for fresh fruit. For another it was only
the second year of treatment after not spraying for many years. One
simply said it was a poor crop year and a seventh farmer did not give
a reason for his atypical year response.
Use of Aerial Services by Sample Farmers
Farms in West Florida relied on aerial application of chemicals
more heavily than those in the central part of the state (Table 23).
More Panhandle farmers had hired aerial services at some time. Only
13 percent of those reporting previous use did not use an aerial ser-
vice in 1979, in contrast with 64 percent in the central counties.
Several citrus growers viewed aerial spraying as an emergency or tem-
porary measure, to be used only when fast coverage was crucial or when
60
they did not have time to operate their own ground equipment (Table
24). Some farmers discontinued aerial application because of poor
results or bad experiences. In the western region, one reported
skipped rows and failure of the applicator to keep appointments.
Another had lost eight head of cattle when the plane "leaked" over his
pond.
The fees paid for aerial services by farmers in the sample were
often not reported, and when reported, it was not always clear whether
the fee included only the aerial service or the aerial service plus
chemicals. With the data available estimates of per acre application
fees were made for citrus, soybeans, corn, and peanuts. These esti-
mates (not including cost of chemicals) were $6.88, $3.42, $3.44, and
$2.96 per acre, respectively. In each case the average fee paid based
on farmer responses exceeded the average fee charged based on aerial
operation response.
Advantages and Disadvantages
"Best method," "Aerial is ideal," "Aerial or none"--these com-
ments were made by farmers when asked to list the advantages of aerial
application (Table 25). Specifically, respondents said that aerial
spraying can be done when the ground is wet and plants are tall; grass
grown for hay is not mashed; crops are not crushed or soiled; and a
large area can be sprayed in a short time, quickly knocking down the
pest population without tying up farm labor.
One of the disadvantages mentioned (Table 26) was drift, which is
hazardous to non-target plants and animals, wastes expensive chemi-
61
Table 23. Farm use of aerial services.
Central Floridaa West Floridab Total
Yes No Yes No Yes No
- - - Number of farms - - ---
Had used aerial service 22 18 39 1 61 19
Used aerial service
in 1979c 8 14 34 5 42 19
Did not use in 1979,
but expect to in future 3 7 1 2 4 9
aLake Orange, Seminole, and Sumter counties.
bEscambia and Santa Rosa counties.
cAsked only of people answering "yes" to first question.
Table 24. Reasons reported by farmers for not using aerial services
in 1979.
Central West
Reason Floridaa Floridab Total
- Number of farmers reporting -
Ground Equipment Adequate 7 0 7
Dissatisfied in Past 3 2 5
Spray Not Needed 0 2 2
Grove Too Small 1 0 1
No Answer 3 1 4
aLake, Orange, Seminole, and Sumter counties.
bEscambia and Santa Rosa counties.
62
Table 25. Advantages of aerial application reported by farmers.
Number of farmers reporting
Central West
Advantage Floridaa Floridab Total
Fast, timely 15 12 27
Avoids crop damage 1 17 18
Feasible in wet weather 2 14 16
Saves farm labor 1 11 12
None 11 1 12
Lower cost than ground application 7 1 8
Not limited by plant size 0 6 6
More effective, penetrates well,
good control on outside of canopy 1 4 5
Saves outlay on ground equipment 0 3 3
Other 0 4 4
No opinion 2 1 3
No answer 5 0 5
aLake, Orange, Seminole, and Sumter counties.
bEscambia and Santa Rosa counties.
CSafer; trained, dependable personnel.
63
Table 26. Disadvantages of aerial application reported by farmers.
Number of farmers reporting
Central West
Advantage Floridaa Floridab Total
Overspraying or
insufficient coverage 3 16 19
None 4 9 13
Expense 2 8 10
Impractical for congested
areas and small groves 7 0 7
Less effective for some
pests or pesticides 5 1 6
Doesn't penetrate foliage 3 2 5
Wind more restrictive 3 2 5
Danger from drift 0 5 5
Dependent on trustworthiness
or availability of pilot 0 5 5
Lack of control 3 0 3
No opinion 3 1 4
No answer 9 0 9
Others 1 1 2
aLake, Orange, Seminole, and Sumter counties.
bEscambia and Santa Rosa counties.
CLeaves own equipment idle; government regulation.
64
cals, and poor coverage. Other problems with coverage were reported:
overspraying, skips, failure to penetrate the tree canopy, and low
volume of material per acre due to weight limitations of the planes.
Various citrus growers found aerial treatment ineffective for fungus,
insects, application of summer oil or for fresh fruit. Some respon-
dents said that full coverage required the use of ground rigs to touch
up corners and ends, and some found aerial application unsuitable
because of size or location of field.
The cost of aerial application was seen as a benefit by some
farmers and a drawback by others. It was mentioned favorably more
often in Central Florida, where one citrus grower reported that he had
gotten excellent results at one-third the cost of ground treatment.
Another noted that dusting with sulphur was cheaper by air. In West
Florida, however, the cost was more frequently stated as a negative
factor.
For some users the advantage of an aerial service was the train-
ing, promptness or reliability of the personnel. However, some had
trouble getting a pilot when needed. Relying on the pilot to use the
right chemicals and mixtures and to cover the crop without overspray-
ing was a problem for others. One reported that a careless operator
had sprayed the garden and livestock near his house, and had killed
his neighbor's bull with spray. Farmers' experiences with individual
pilots influenced opinions of this method of pest control. One said
there were no disadvantages with a good pilot. One farmer, who said
there were no advantages, was very upset with a particular operator he
had hired.
68
their out of pocket costs (maintenance plus fuel) in choosing whether
to use their ground equipment or hire a custom service.
Costs Conditioned on Level of Operations
There was considerable variation in the average total cost per
acre and per hour. An attempt to explain a part of this variation
with a quadratic function of the level of operation is presented in
equations (7) and (8).
(7) ATCH = 57.904 0.0417 H + .00000721 H2
(6.891) (0.0217) (.00000470)
-2
R2 = .105 F = 2.42 n = 35
where ATCH is average total cost per hour and H is hours of ground
treatment.
(8) ATCA = 14.4366 0.00500 A + 0.0000004378 A2
(2.4066) (0.00326) (0.00000032)
-2 = .047 F = 1.30 n = 35
where ATCA is average total cost per acre and A is the number of acres
treated.
Least squares estimates of a double logarithmic specification of
these two functions are presented in equations (9) and (10).
(9) In ATCH = 4.4206 0.17498 In H
(0.2141) (0.04756)
R-2 = .269 F =13.54 n = 35
R =-.269 F= 13.54 n =-35
69
(10) In ATCA = 2.8798 0.12520 In A
(0.4375) (0.07467)
-2
R2 = .051 F = 2.81 n = 35
Figures 7 and 8 provide plots of the data and predicted values given
by equations (9) and (10), respectively. Figure 7 shows that the
average total cost per hour declines rather rapidly up to about 750
hours of treatment. Figure 8 shows that the cost per acre declines up
to about 2500 acres.
Equations (11)-(15) provides estimates of the relationship
between cost per acre and acres treated for citrus, corn, soybeans,
peanuts, and pasture. Plots of the data and predicted costs using the
respective equations are presented in Figures 9-13.
(11) Citrus: In ATCA1 = 3.4678 0.16682 In A1
(0.24663) (0.04348)
-2
R2 = .374 F = 14.72 n = 24
(12) Corn: In ATCA = 3.4498 0.28370 In A
(0.71284) (0.20545)
-2
R2 = .131 F 1.91 n = 7
(13) Soybeans: In ATCA3 = 3.2504 0.25351 In A
(0.61978) (0.11915)
2 = .213 F = 4.53 n 14
R = .213 F = 4.53 n 14
220
200
180
160
a 140
,-4
0
"" 120
100. -
& o
g 80.
5
60
40 .
20
20 0*0 0 -- ---0----------------------
0
: .. : .I. -, --- - | I -- -- --- ----
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Hours of treatment
Figure 7.--Plot of average total cost per hour for treatment with ground methods on hours of treatment and a
graph of Equation 9 through the data.
50
40
al
3 20
10.
2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Acres treated
Figure 8.--Plot of average total cost per acre treated by ground methods on acres treated and a graph of
Equation 10 through the dta.
Equation 10 through the data.
26
22
18
u 14
'-4
a 10
a
6- 0
21. .
6-
*
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000
Figure 9.--Plot of average total cost per acre of citrus treated by ground methods on acres of citrus treated
and a graph of Equation 11 through the data.
40
35
30
S25
0
*
0
5 15
1o
3 11 19 27 35 43 51 59 67 75 83
Acres treated
Figure 10.-Plot of average total coat per acre of corn treated by ground methods on acres of corn
treated and a graph of Equation 12 through the data.
20
*
18
16
14
S12
0
10
Q6
00
4
I8. s I
2
0
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840
Acres treated
Figure 11.--Plot of average total cost per acre of soybeans treated by ground methods on acres of soybeans
treated and a graph of Equation 13 through the data.
16
14
S*
12
10
8
S6
0
4 -
0 A
0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280
Figure 12.--Plot of average total cost per acre of peanuts treated by ground methods on areas of peanuts
treated and a graph of Equation 14 through the data.
60
50
: 40
-4
30
20
10
0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360
0 40 8 Acres treated
e t average total ot per acre of pasture treated by ground methods on acres of pasture treated
Figure 13.--P a aht of ve quatio 15 through the data,
and a graph of Equation 1 hog h aa
65
The survey suggested that farmers have the ability to discrimi-
nate between "good" and "bad" aerial services and, as in most busi-
nesses, inferior services drive away customers.
Farmers' Costs for Using Ground Equipment for Pest Control
The average total cost per acre and per hour of operation exclud-
ing the cost of spray material were $8.63 and $28.81, respectively.
(3.83) (13.77)
Components of weighted average cost per acre are given in Table 27.
The methods of computing costs are reported in Appendix 1.
Costs by Crop Treated
Table 28 provides a breakdown of average total cost per acre for
spraying five major crops. A word of caution is in order. The parti-
tioning of fixed costs to a particular crop enterprise is a rather
arbitrary accounting procedure. Here, fixed costs were partitioned in
proportion to the time the equipment was used to spray the respective
crop.
The cost of treating by ground methods has a sizeable component
of fixed cost. Average fixed costs ranged from 39 to 60 percent of
average total costs. After an investment is made in equipment, farm-
ers will want to use their own equipment as long as they can cover a
part of their fixed costs. Therefore, farmers who have the capability
of doing their own spraying will compare their average variable costs
with the cost of custom services. Farmers who have no alternative use
for their labor at the time treatment is needed may consider only
|
