Citation
Economic Analysis of Pest Management in Peanuts

Material Information

Title:
Economic Analysis of Pest Management in Peanuts
Creator:
GARCIA-CASELLAS, MARIA JOSE
Copyright Date:
2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Capital costs ( jstor )
Cost estimates ( jstor )
Diseases ( jstor )
Fixed costs ( jstor )
Fungicides ( jstor )
Infestation ( jstor )
Peanuts ( jstor )
Pests ( jstor )
Production costs ( jstor )
Variable costs ( jstor )
City of Marianna ( local )

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright Maria Jose Garcia-Casellas. Permission granted to University of Florida to digitize and display this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Embargo Date:
8/7/2004
Resource Identifier:
56813772 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

garciacasellas_m ( .pdf )

garciacasellas_m_Page_16.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_61.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_84.txt

garciacasellas_m_pdf.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_17.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_83.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_77.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_25.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_44.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_64.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_30.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_82.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_18.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_21.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_70.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_65.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_47.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_33.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_88.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_56.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_86.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_60.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_63.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_58.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_39.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_67.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_76.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_14.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_09.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_32.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_89.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_85.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_68.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_08.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_03.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_80.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_90.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_48.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_24.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_40.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_69.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_12.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_45.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_43.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_66.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_20.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_29.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_35.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_11.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_13.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_06.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_22.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_72.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_53.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_91.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_62.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_34.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_04.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_54.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_01.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_42.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_75.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_26.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_05.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_02.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_36.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_28.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_79.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_87.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_31.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_46.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_49.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_10.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_52.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_15.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_81.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_74.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_23.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_55.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_41.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_73.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_59.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_19.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_07.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_57.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_38.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_27.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_71.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_37.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_51.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_78.txt

garciacasellas_m_Page_50.txt


Full Text











ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF PEST MANAGEMENT IN PEANUTS


By

MARIA JOSE GARCIA-CASELLAS
















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

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2004

































Copyright 2004

by

Maria Jose Garcia-Casellas


































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
















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Berger for his valuable knowledge in the field.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

patience and for always being there for me.





















TABLE OF CONTENTS


page


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


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


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


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


CHAPTER


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


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

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

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



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


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

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

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

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

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

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













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




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


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

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

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




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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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


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

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




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


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


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

















LIST OF TABLES


Table pg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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










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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


















LIST OF FIGURES


Figure pg

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

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

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

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

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

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
















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

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF PEST MANAGEMENT IN PEANUTS

By

Maria Jose Garcia-Casellas

August 2004

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

for the maj or insect pests need re-evaluating.

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

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

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

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

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

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

were included as whole plots in each management system.









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

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

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

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

respect to yield, quality and income above variable costs.

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

management practice in contributions to economic returns, especially between the

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

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

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

quality, cost, and resulting income.















CHAPTER 1
INTTRODUCTION

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

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

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

leading exporting countries in the world peanut market.

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

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

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

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

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

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

program are a necessity.

International Peanut Trade

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

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

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

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

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

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

& Fletcher, 2002).









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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

during the same period with some growth the 1990s.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

two years is shown in figure 1-2.





1J-1


China


India Unites States
PRODUCERS


Nigeria


Indonesia


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


i II


EXPCFI"T


2001/2002
| 52002/20031


Vietnam


China


Unites States


Argentina
EXPORTERS


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


Agricultural Service,


India









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

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

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

decreasing (Revoredo & Fletcher, 2002).

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

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

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

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

increased further to 91 percent during 2000-2003.

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

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

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

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

second largest importer during the 1990s.

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

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

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

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

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

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

period 2000-2003.

Peanut Products

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

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










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

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

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

Other
1%
Snacks
23%





Peanut butter
52%

Candy
24%


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

production the year before.










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

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

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

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

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

approximately 6.5 pounds per year.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

chocolate confections contain peanuts or peanut butter.

Peanut Production in the U.S.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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










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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Figure 1-4.




VC
10%



SW
22%






68%





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

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

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

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









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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2002, and $ 94.2 million in 2003.

The U.S. Peanut Program

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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









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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

supply conditions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

substantial increase in USDA outlays to maintain producer income.

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

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

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









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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

graded upon delivery if farm stored.

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

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

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

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

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

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

prices to fully reflect the new market structure.

Southeast Peanuts

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

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

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

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

agricultural income from peanuts (Fletcher, 2002).










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

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

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

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

communities.

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

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

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

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

region (Hearn, 1995).

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

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

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

production occurs in North Carolina and Virginia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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










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

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

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

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

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

the prices that farmers receive.

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

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

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

summer climate favors the development of several destructive diseases.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shields may reach 20 percent of expected yields.

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

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

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

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










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

are usually highest in light, sandy soils.

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

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

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

collapse, and finally plant death.

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

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

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

could be saved by improving production management.

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

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

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

pesticides.



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



Insecticides
21%
Insecticides
A B 28%
Fungicides
38%


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










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

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

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

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

selecting the proper variety according to the location conditions.

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

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

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

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

pound.

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

Problem Statement

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

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










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

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

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

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

re-evaluating.

Obj ectives

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

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

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

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

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

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

C99R were included as whole plots in each management system.

Data summary and economic analysis from two years, allowing extension

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

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

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

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

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

Organization of Thesis

Chapter 1 is the introductory chapter, containing information on international

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

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

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









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

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

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

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

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

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

conclusions and study limitations are included in Chapter 5.















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

Peanut Production

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

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

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

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

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

(Wright et al., 2002).

Peanut Types

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

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

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

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

water requirement and produce smaller seeds.

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

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

Valencia belong to the fastigiata subspecies.

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

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

in some candies.










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

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

have an excellent flavor.

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

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

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

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

in Oklahoma and Texas.

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

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

have lower yields than Virginia types.

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

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

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

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

important type for all shelled uses.

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

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

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

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

peanuts .









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

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

1995).

Peanut Varieties

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

days (Putman el at., 2004).

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

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

this study are:

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

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

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

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

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

compared to Southern Runner.

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

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

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










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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Threats to Peanut Production

Insect and Disease Management

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

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

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

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

determine the presence of damaging pest levels.

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

low cost approaches to disease management. Meticulous scouting and accurate

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

tactics and crop protection products.

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

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

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

below economic thresholds.










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

The use of weather-based disease advisories minimizes unnecessary pesticide

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

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

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

the next crop of peanuts is planted.

Diseases

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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










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

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

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

most common diseases are noted below.

Leafspot diseases

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

years .

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

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

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

defoliation and yield losses of 50 percent are possible.

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

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

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

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

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










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

more time to mature.

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

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

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

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

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

Southern stem rot

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

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

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

percent or more of expected yields or more.

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Aerts & Nesheim, 2001).

Tomato spotted wilt virus (TSWV)

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

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

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

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









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

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

in the southeast and the entire industry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Manipulation of plant populations and planting times partially suppress TSWV in

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

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

acceptable agronomic type and partial resistance to TSWV.

Insects

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

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

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

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

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

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

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









Foliage feeding insect pests

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

apparent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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









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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peg and pod feeding pests

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

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










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

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

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

Southern Corn Rootworm. The southern corn rootworm has increased in

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nematodes

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

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

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

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

occasionally destroy crops when the infection is wide spread.

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

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

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

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










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

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

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

seriously damage peanuts cropped behind permanent pasture grasses.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plant Disease Control

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

resistance.

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

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









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

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

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

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

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

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

Chemicals

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

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

and other possible diseases in the field.

The most important component of resistance management is fungicide selection as

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

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

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

by not exceeding the total number of recommended sprays.

An extension pathologist with Virginia Tech Tidewater Agricultural Research and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

broad spectrum fungicide.









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

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

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

and Abound and Headline are strobilurin fungicides.

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

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

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

recommended in peanut production.

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

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

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

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

variety of crops.

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

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

scheme .

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

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

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















CHAPTER 3
MATERIAL AND METHODS

Introduction and Experiment Overview

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

runaway .

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

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

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

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

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

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

in each management system.

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

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

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

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









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

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

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

2000).

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

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

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

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

cultivars in both locations.

Experimental Design

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

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

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

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

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

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

shown in Figure 3.1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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










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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Integrated Pest Management scheme was based on a management system

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

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

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

time between fungicide applications.

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

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










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

reduced pesticide use, less environmental contamination and delayed development of

resistant populations (Sprenkel, 2003).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

applications and the rates of products applied.

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

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

None Orthene 4.00 oz. 1
Fungicides: Fungicides:

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









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

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

was applied in Florida while Orthene was applied in Alabama.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8:00PM). It also uses the 5-day average rain probability forecast and the rain forecast for

each day within that 5-day average. The rules of the advisory are very helpful since rain

may be irregular and there is access to only a limited number of rain estimates in the

peanut producing regions. Note that regardless of what the advisory says, the first

fungicide application should be made immediately if leafspot is seen (two or more spots

per plant) in the lower leaves of the plant.

During the season insect damage or any indicators of disease on the peanuts were

checked. A few early leafspot lesions were found and some plants were diagnosed with

Rhizoctonia.










For the low input management scheme the minimum rates of recommended

pesticides were applied. Bravo Ultra and Folicur were applied as noted in Table 3-3.

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

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

None Orthene 4.00 oz. 1
Fungicides: Fungicides:

Folicur 7.2 oz. 3 Folicur 7.2 oz. 3
Bravo Ultra 0.9 lb. 4 Bravo 720 1.0 pt. 3

Assessing Pest Problems

Disease data were collected for leafspot and Tomato Spot Wilt Virus (TSWV).

Plants were rated for TSWV; symptoms were increasing with time and were more visible.

Counts of Tomato Spotted Wilt severity were assessed by determining the number of

wilted plants found in two rows.

At the beginning of the season most of the plants were severely spotted from the

herbicide spray making difficult to assess the amount of leafspot present on the plant. By

midseason no significant amount of leafspot was found on any of the plots, however in

Florida, it was present on an adj acent field that had not been in grass last year and on

some ViruGard plots. Leafspot was rated using the Florida 1-10 scoring system from the

middle rows of each plot; the scale is shown in Table 3-4. This scale is based on the level

of lesions in the canopy and the level of defoliation, with 1 being a healthy plant with no









disease and 10 a dead plant. This was developed for researchers to be able to compare

yields vs. disease for further use.

Percent of canopy was also rated, ranging from 93% to 70% in August, 2003 in

Florida. Only a few stray weeds were pulled in 2002, however, many plots were very

weedy during 2003. The severe weed problem was probably due to the heavy nematode

infestation which slowed vine growth and left the middles exposed throughout most of

the season, and the large amount of rainfall which may have leached out the pre plant

herbicide. Larger broadleaf weeds such as morning glory were hand pulled.

Several methods can be used to sample for foliage-feeding pests of peanuts.

According to Sprenkel (2003), however, the shake-cloth method appears to give the most

consistent results. Working equally well for both someone learning to sample peanuts as

well as someone with considerable experience. The shake-cloth or beat-cloth method uses

the standard 36"x 36" cloth that is fastened to two dowel rods.

Using this method to check for insects, estimated levels were low in Florida. A few

insects were present but not enough to warrant spraying. Thrips damage was assessed in

Alabama by a subj ective visual rating on a 0 10 scale with 0 meaning no damage.

Threshold levels are another way of indicating when there is a need to spray.

Counts of white mold severity were assessed in Alabama by determining the

number of loci. One locus was defined as 1 or less foot of consecutive symptoms and

signs of the disease.









Table 3-4. Leafspot Resistance Rating System Used for Plant Appearance Score.
RANK DESCRIPTION
1.0 No disease.
1.1 Trace- only a lesion or 2 in canopy- hard to find.
1.5 Very few lesions in bottom canopy but easier to find that above.
2.0 Very few lesions (none on upper canopy); probably at least a few spots
on most plants.
2.5 A few more and some on mid canopy.
3.0 Few lesions (very few on upper canopy); spots getting easy to find and
often distributed from bottom to top.
3.5 Spots easy to find, well distributed, more than a 3.0 but defoliation hasn't
occurred.
4.0 Some lesions with more on upper canopy and slight defoliation
noticeable; roughly 5-10% defoliation.
5.0 Lesions noticeable even on upper canopy with noticeable defoliation; you
can see lesions from end of plots.
6.0 Lesions numerous and very evident on upper canopy with significant
defoliation (50+%); defoliation a maj or determinant.
7.0 Lesions numerous on upper canopy with much defoliation (75-90%);
defoliation a maj or determinant.
8.0 Upper canopy covered with lesions with high defoliation (90-96%);
defoliation a maj or determinant.
9.0 Very few leaves remaining and those covered with lesions; some plants
completely defoliated (99-100%).
10.0 Plants dead.

Harvesting and Drying Decisions

Harvest decisions were made based on maturity. Not all varieties mature at the

same time. Cultural practices and environmental conditions can also affect the maturity.

Digging too early or too late can affect flavor, grade, milling quality and shelf life. As

Huber (2003) expressed, harvesting mature peanuts is critical.

Every peanut variety has a maturity range; however, this may vary from year to

year due to several factors. Weather is the most prominent cause of maturity variations,

other factor include planting date and disease pressure. Fields should be checked using a

maturity testing method. Runner varieties should be checked 110 days after planting; 95

days for early maturities (Huber, 2003).









According to Huber (2003), the most widely used maturity testing methods are the

shell-out and the hull-scrape method. Both methods require removing the pods from a

representative sample. The first is less obj ective than the latter. The shell-out method

involves assessing the color inside the shell and on the seed coat. The seed coat may be

part pink but the shell may show no color. The hull-scrape method uses color changes to

the shell under its outer layer of skin. The saddle area of the shell is scraped with a knife

and the color of the exposed shell is studied to indicate maturity.This method involves the

use of a peanut profile board available at the county extension offices.

Harvest decisions were also made based on the knowledge that relative humidity

impacts peanut picking. When the relative humidity is high, the plant material becomes

moist. Pickers tear moist husks and the damp stems do not separate well resulting in poor

quality and low yield. Conditions are favorable for picking when the relative humidity is

below 50%. Picking may continue until the relative humidity is greater than 80%. The

harvest advisory provides a two day relative humidity forecast and indicates the time of

day during which peanut picking is favored.

After the peanuts were dug and combined, they were dried. The four-center 40 foot

rows were harvested for yield. A 200-g sample of peanut pods was removed from each

treatment to be graded. This was done for each of the three cultivars after drying.

Grading System for Peanuts

After drying, peanuts were graded. The purpose of grading is to determine the

percentage of Total Sound Mature Kernels (TSMK) and the Sound Splits (SS). The

peanuts that graded above a specific level for TSMK can be used for candy or salted

peanuts. These are whole nuts, with the right size for the type, not split, with no









blemishes, discoloration or mold. SS are the deduction made for excess splits (separated

peanut halves).

The process of grading included weighting out 200 grams of peanuts, shelling the

peanuts, removing the hulls and sizing the peanuts by using a series of three sieves; the

ones that stay on top of the first are referred to as jumbos, the ones that stay on top of the

second are the desirable size and those on the third are too small. The peanuts on the top

two screens are checked for blemishes and discoloration; those that are not good are

removed. The remaining good peanuts are weighed, and the weight in grams is divided

by the weight of the 200 gram sample. This gives the percent Sound Mature Kernels

(SMK). These peanuts are then split in half and using a UV light checked for mold. If

mold is found, the entire lot of peanuts will be rej ected. The premiums and discounts

used in the analysis of this research are based on USDA information and are shown in

Table 3-5.

Depending on the peanut quality, farmers in the loan receive a premium or discount

per ton of peanuts produced. Peanuts receive a grade that will range between 50 and 84;

however, normally grades range from 68 to 78. If the quality is high, a premium is added;

if the peanut quality is low they received a discount.

The premium or discount obtained varies depending on the peanut type. For

Virginia type $4.98 per ton is added or subtracted to the price for each percentage

increase or decrease, for Runner $4.88, for Spanish $4.86 and $5.14 for Valencia type.










Table 3-5. Premium and Discount Charts for Ton of Runner Type Peanuts
SMK + SS Premium/Di scount
(Dollars/ton)
84 54.28
83 49.40
82 44.52
81 39.64
80 34.76
79 29.88
78 25.00
77 20.12
76 15.24
75 10.36
74 5.47
73 0.59
72 -4.29
71 -9.17
70 -14.05
69 -18.93
68 -23.81
67 -28.69
66 -33.57
65 -38.46
64 -43.34
63 -48.22
62 -53.10
61 -57.98
60 -62.86
59 -67.74
58 -72.62
57 -77.50
56 -82.38
55 -87.27
54 -92.15
53 -97.03
52 -101.91
Source: USDA, RMA.

Statistical Methodology and Data Analysis

Budgets were developed in order to calculate the costs involved in producing one

acre of peanuts. Budgets were estimated for each treatment in both of the states, having a

total of six budgets used for both years of the study. These budgets were developed based









on the format of the North Florida Research and Education Center Budgets (Hewitt,

2004).

A cost is defined as a charge that must be made for an item used in the production

of a good or a service. The total cost of production, includes both cash and noncash costs.

Castle, Becker and Nelson (1987) defined cash costs as involving out of pocket

expenditure, such as purchases of fertilizers, fuel and chemicals.

Costs can also be classified as fixed or variable. Fixed costs are those incurred

whether anything is produced or not. These costs stay constant regardless of the

production decision. Variable costs change with the production; they can be avoided if

there is no production. Noncash costs are more difficult to identify since they do not

involve a cash outlay. These include unpaid family labor, or the improved value of the

farmer' s own land.

Considering the production of peanuts, the capital cost of the tractors and

machinery are fixed costs. The costs for fertilization, spraying, and harvesting are

variable costs. Variable costs are more important in making decisions about production.

Variable costs are affected by the decision made, while fixed costs may not be affected.

Input returns should always be greater than their variable costs.

Based on this information and the importance of the variable cost for farm business

decisions, only the variable costs were used in the analysis. First, quality was calculated

based on the additions or subtractions (showed in Table 3-5) made to a standard price of

$375 per ton of peanuts. Yield for each cultivar and treatment was multiplied by the

standard $375/ton plus the appropriate premium or discount for quality to obtain the









Revenue. After that, variable costs were subtracted from the revenues to obtain the

income above variable costs (IAVC).

Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences statisticians at the University of Florida

(personal communication, May 27, 2004 and June 1, 2004) suggested the use of Analysis

of Variance (ANOVA) for this study. The analysis of variance procedure "attempts to

analyze the variation of a response and to assign portions of this variation to each of a set

of independent variables" (Mendenhall and Scheaffer, 1973, p. 458). ANOVA is the

method of comparing means of the various groups. First, it looks at the variation within

groups, then works out how that variation would translate into differences between the

groups, taking into account how many subj ects there are in the groups. If the observed

differences are greater than expected, statistical significance is present.

Any experiment rarely includes all the variables that affect the response. Random

variation in the response is observed even though all independent variables were held

constant. The obj ective of the ANOVA is to identify important independent variables in

a research proj ect and to determine how they interact and affect the response.

The assumptions underlying the analysis of variance are that populations from

which the samples were obtained must be normally or approximately normally

distributed, the samples must be independent, the variances of the populations must be

equal, and the groups must have the same sample size.

A single test can be done to check if there are differences between the means at our

chosen probability level. Analysis of variance enables us to detect significant differences

between the treatments as a whole. It does not establish, however, which treatments differ










from one another. A method to compare treatment means for significant differences is

required.

R.A. Fisher developed a method in the 1920s for simultaneously comparing means

of several groups, primarily for data from agricultural experiments. The heart of this

analysis is a significance test, using the F distribution, for detecting evidence of

differences between the population means. The test was called Fishers Least Significance

Difference Test or LSD for short.

Fisher' s LSD test was used to compare the means. Means were considered different

if there were at 0.05 or less level of significance. This test makes a comparison of means

within group test, grouping being the cultivars to test whether or not there is any

difference. Means across cultivars and across treatments can be calculated.

SAS version 8 was the program selected; PROC ANOVA was the procedure used

to analyze cultivars and management schemes. Also the interaction effect between

cultivars and treatments was observed. Each of the categories was analyzed by year and

by location in terms of the IAVC, yield, and quality.



















N S Each plot 8 rows by 40 feet

W Replication 1 Replication 2
24 rows T1 H T2 I
C99

T2 I T3 L


T3 L T1 H




24 rows T4 H T6 L
GA Green

T5 I T4 H


T6 L T5 I




24 rows T7 H T8 I
ViruGard

T8 I T7 H


T9 L T9 L



|---40 feet -------------| 10ft- |----------40 ft -----------|


1, 4, 7 = High
2, 5, 8 = IPM
3, 6, 9 = Low

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


Rliaion 3
T3 L


T2 I


T1 H




T4 H


T6 L


T5 I




T8 I


T9 L


T7 H


|-----------40 ft ----------|


Rliaion 4
T1 H


T3 L


T2 I




T5 I


T4 H


T6 L




T9 L


T7 H


T8 I


|------------40 ft -------


C99











GA Green











ViruGard






|--------20 ft --------|


C99











GA Green











ViruGard














CHAPTER 4
EMPIRICAL RESULTS

Introduction

The study involves the economic analysis of three management systems designated

as high, IPM, and low inputs applied to three different peanut varieties: C99, Georgia

Green and ViruGard. This research was done to evaluate pest management efficiency,

peanut yield, peanut grade, and economic return.

In this chapter, the empirical results of the analysis are discussed. Analysis of

variance and the Fisher' s LSD test for the means are also presented. The LSD test used to

compare means shows the significant differences between the cultivars and the

management schemes. Yield, quality and income above variable costs data from two

years of study at two locations was used to analyze the factors studied in this research.

Estimating Production Costs

Budgets were developed in order to calculate the costs involved in producing one

acre of peanuts. Budgets were estimated for each treatment in both of the states. Each

budget is divided into cash expenses and fixed costs.

Cash expenses included the cost of seed, fertilizer, gypsum, herbicides,

insecticides, fungicides, scouting fee, tractor and machinery (this varies depending on the

scheme followed), drying and cleaning cost, peanut assessment and hired labor. Land rent

was estimated in $75 per acre. Interest on cash expenses was calculated based on a 10%

interest rate for a 6 month period. Fixed costs consist of the tractor and machinery costs.










Budgets for each of the management schemes in both states were calculated and shown in

Tables 4-1 through 4-6.

In Florida, per acre cash expenses estimated for the high treatment was $618, which

compared to $476 for the IPM scheme, and $439 for the low. The main difference

observed within the management schemes is the use of fungicides (Tables 4-1, 4-2, and

4-3 ).

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


Item
Cash expenses:
Seed
Fertilizer
Nitrogen (N)
Phosphate (P205)
Potash (K20)
Gypsum (Spread)
Herbicide
Insecticide
Fungicide
Scouting fee
Tractor (Machinery)
Drying and cleaning
Peanut Assessment
Hired labor
Land rent
Interest on cash expenses*
Total cash expenses
Fixed costs:
Tractor (Machinery)
Total fixed costs
Total costs


Unit Quantity Price


Value


lb. 100.00 $ 0.60 $ 60.00


lb.
lb.
lb.
cwt.
acre
acre
acre
acre
acre
ton
ton
hr.
acre
dol .



acre


10.00
40.00
60.00
10.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
588.78


0.35
0.25
0.16
2.60
35.09
5.00
205.10
5.50
60.00
34.00
6.00
7.00
75.00
0.05


3.50
10.00
9.60
26.00
35.09
5.00
205.10
5.50
60.00
68.00
12.00
14.00
75.00
29.44
$ 618.22


1.00 130.00 130.00
130.00
$ 748.22


* 10% for 6 months










For the low input treatment, fungicides costs were $64, an increase of 40% is

shown in the IPM with a cost of $90, however, a larger increase is shown in the high

treatment where fungicides went up to $205, 200% more than the low scheme. The use

of Abound at the applied rate caused the maj or increase in the high input scheme.

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


Item
Cash expenses:
Seed
Fertilizer
Nitrogen (N)
Phosphate (P205)
Potash (K20)
Gypsum (Spread)
Herbicide
Insecticide
Fungicide
Scouting fee
Tractor (Machinery)
Drying and cleaning
Peanut Assessment
Hired labor
Land rent
Interest on cash expenses*
Total cash expenses
Fixed costs:
Tractor (Machinery)
Total fixed costs
Total costs


Unit Quantity


Price


Value


lb. 100.00 $ 0.60 $ 60.00


lb.
lb.
lb.
cwt.
acre
acre
acre
acre
acre
ton
ton
hr.
acre
dol .



acre


10.00
40.00
60.00
10.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
453.31


0.35
0.25
0.16
2.60
35.09
0.00
89.62
5.50
45.00
34.00
6.00
7.00
75.00
0.05


3.50
10.00
9.60
26.00
35.09
0.00
89.62
5.50
45.00
68.00
12.00
14.00
75.00
22.67
$ 475.97


1.00 100.00 100.00
100.00
$ 575.97


* 10% for 6 months










Table 4-3. Estimated Costs of Producing One Acre of Peanuts in North Florida, Using the
Low Input Treatment.
Item Unit Quantity Price Value
Cash expenses:
Seed lb. 100.00 $ 0.60 $ 60.00
Fertilizer
Nitrogen (N) lb. 10.00 0.35 3.50
Phosphate (P205) lb. 40.00 0.25 10.00
Potash (K20) lb. 60.00 0.16 9.60
Gypsum (Spread) cwt. 10.00 2.60 26.00
Herbicide acre 1.00 35.09 35.09
Insecticide acre 1.00 0.00 0.00
Fungicide acre 1.00 64.22 64.22
Scouting fee acre 1.00 5.50 5.50
Tractor (Machinery) acre 1.00 35.00 35.00
Drying and cleaning ton 2.00 34.00 68.00
Peanut Assessment ton 2.00 6.00 12.00
Hired labor hr. 2.00 7.00 14.00
Land rent acre 1.00 75.00 75.00
Interest on cash expenses* dol. 417.91 0.05 20.90
Total cash expenses $ 438.80
Fixed costs:
Tractor (Machinery) acre 1.00 85.00 85.00
Total fixed costs 85.00
Total costs $ 523.80

* 10% for 6 months

In Alabama, the difference in budgets followed the same pattern as Florida,

fungicides being the greatest cause of the cost differences. As shown in Tables 4-4

through 4-6, low treatment had a cost of $71 for fungicides, IPM cost $106 for fungicides

while the high input scheme cost $204; nearly triple the cost of the low input treatment.

However, Alabama showed another maj or difference from Florida, this due to insecticide

use; $5.00 for both low and IPM, compared to $52 for the high treatment.










The total cash expenses were $626 for the high scheme, $458 for IPM, and $411

for the low treatment. A peanut producer would spend $215 more per acre of production

if using the high treatment over the low (Tables 4-4 to 4-6).

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


Item
Cash expenses:
Seed
Fertilizer
Nitrogen (N)
Phosphate (P205)
Potash (K20)
Gypsum (Spread)
Herbicide
Insecticide
Fungicide
Scouting fee
Tractor (Machinery)
Drying and cleaning
Peanut Assessment
Hired labor
Land rent
Interest on cash expenses*
Total cash expenses
Fixed costs:
Tractor (Machinery)
Total fixed costs
Total costs


Unit Quantity Price


Value


lb. 100.00 $ 0.60 $ 60.00


lb.
lb.
lb.
cwt.
acre
acre
acre
acre
acre
ton
ton
hr.
acre
dol .



acre


10.00
40.00
60.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
595.97


0.35
0.25
0.16
2.60
22.74
51.98
203.66
5.50
60.00
34.00
6.00
7.00
75.00
0.05


3.50
10.00
9.60
0.00
22.74
51.98
203.66
5.50
60.00
68.00
12.00
14.00
75.00
29.80
$ 625.77


1.00 130.00 130.00
130.00
$ 755.77


* 10% for 6 months










Table 4-5. Estimated Costs of Producing One Acre of Peanuts in Headland Alabama,
Using the IPM Treatment.
Item Unit Quantity Price Value


Cash expenses:
Seed
Fertilizer
Nitrogen (N)
Phosphate (P205)
Potash (K20)
Gypsum (Spread)
Herbicide
Insecticide
Fungicide
Scouting fee
Tractor (Machinery)
Drying and cleaning
Peanut Assessment
Hired labor
Land rent
Interest on cash expenses*
Total cash expenses
Fixed costs:
Tractor (Machinery)
Total fixed costs
Total costs


lb. 100.00 $ 0.60 $ 60.00


lb.
lb.
lb.
cwt.
acre
acre
acre
acre
acre
ton
ton
hr.
acre
dol .


10.00
40.00
60.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
436.12


0.35
0.25
0.16
2.60
22.74
5.00
105.78
5.50
45.00
34.00
6.00
7.00
75.00
0.05


3.50
10.00
9.60
0.00
22.74
5.00
105.78
5.50
45.00
68.00
12.00
14.00
75.00
21.81
$ 457.93


1.00 100.00 100.00
100.00
$ 557.93


acre


* 10% for 6 months










Table 4-6. Estimated Costs of Producing One Acre of Peanuts in Headland Alabama,
Using the Low Input Treatment.
Item Unit Quantity Price Value


Cash expenses:
Seed
Fertilizer
Nitrogen (N)
Phosphate (P205)
Potash (K20)
Gypsum (Spread)
Herbicide
Insecticide
Fungicide
Scouting fee
Tractor (Machinery)
Drying and cleaning
Peanut Assessment
Hired labor
Land rent
Interest on cash expenses*
Total cash expenses
Fixed costs:
Tractor (Machinery)
Total fixed costs
Total costs


lb. 100.00 $ 0.60 $ 60.00


lb.
lb.
lb.
cwt.
acre
acre
acre
acre
acre
ton
ton
hr.
acre
dol .


10.00
40.00
60.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
391.72


0.35
0.25
0.16
2.60
22.74
5.00
71.37
5.50
35.00
34.00
6.00
7.00
75.00
0.05


3.50
10.00
9.60
0.00
22.74
5.00
71.37
5.50
35.00
68.00
12.00
14.00
75.00
19.59
$ 411.30


85.00
85.00
$ 496.30


1.00 85.00


acre


* 10% for 6 months









Research Results

Data from both years and states separately resulted in findings of interest after the

analysis. All conclusions are based on a minimum significance ofP< .05.

Analysis of variance was the model used to determine if the differences expressed

in the findings are statistically significant. SAS was run for both years and both states to

analyze the factors studied in this research. An LSD test was done to compare the means.

In the t grouping, the means with the same letters are not significantly different as shown

in the result Tables.

Yields

Treatments

Yields in pounds per acre obtained in each plot were averaged. Yields obtained in

both years for each treatment are showed in Table 4-7. In Florida, the management

system that attained the highest yields from both years of study combined was the high

input treatment, followed closely by the IPM treatment. The high input scheme had

significantly different yields with respect to the low input. No difference was shown

between high and IPM or IPM and low schemes. In Alabama, no significantly difference

was found between treatments with respect to yield.

Yields obtained for each variety and management scheme are showed in detail in

Table 4-8. The average yields from the different cultivars within each treatment, had no

significant differences for the high input scheme in Florida and Alabama. In IPM Georgia

Green had significantly higher yields than ViruGard. No significant differences were

shown between Georgia Green and C99 or between C99 and ViruGard in Florida.










Table 4-7. Average Yields fon Florida and Alabant by Treatrnent Schenue, 2002-2003.

Location Treatment Yield LSD*
Mean t Grouping

FL High 2830 A

FL IPM 2566 Ad3

FL Lony 2200 B



ALl High 4599 A

ALl IPhi 4218 A

AUL Lony 4183 A

Means with the same letter are not significantly different.

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

State Cultivar Treatment
HIGH LSD* IPM LSD LOW LSD
Florida
(199 2822 At 2187 AUB 2259 B

(GG 2745 At 2633 At 3154 At

912 2923 A 1778 B 2284 B

Alabama
(199 5139 At 4246 At 4711 AL

(GG 423 8 At 4245 At 3967 B

912 4419 A 4060 A 3976 B

Means with the same letter are not significantly different.










The IPM scheme in Alabama had no significant differences due to cultivars. In the

low input treatment, Georgia Green was significantly higher than C99 or ViruGard in

Florida. In Alabama, C99 had significantly higher yields than Georgia Green or

ViruGard.

Cultivars

The information in Table 4-9 indicated that the greatest yield obtained in Florida

cultivars was from Georgia Green. This variety obtained significantly higher yield than

the cultivar ViruGard. No differences were found between Georgia Green and C99 or

between C99 and ViruGard in both years. The variety C99 had significantly higher yields

than ViruGard and Georgia Green in Alabama. ViruGard and Georgia Green showed no

significant differences in this location.

Table 4-9. Average Yields for Florida and Alabama by Cultivar, 2002-2003.
Location Cultivar Yield LSD*
Mean t Grouping

FL GG 2844 A

FL C99 2423 AB

FL VG 2328 B



AL C99 4698 A

AL VG 4152 B

AL GG 4150 B

Means with the same letter are not significantly different.










The information in Table 4-10 shows the difference in means for the management

schemes within a cultivar. The Florida test obtained significantly higher yields with the

C99 variety using the high input treatment than using IPM or low treatments. Treatments

were not significantly different for Georgia Green, and ViruGard showed differences

between high and IPM schemes. High input treatment obtained higher yields than IPM,

however, no significant differences were found between high and low or between low

and IPM treatments.

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

State Treatment Cultivar
C99 LSD* GG LSD* VG LSD*
Florida
HIGH 2822 A 2744 A 2923 A

IPM 2187 B 2633 A 1778 B

LOW 2259 B 3154 A 2283 AB

Alabama
HIGH 5139 A 423 8 A 4419 A

IPM 4246 B 4245 A 4060 A

LOW 4711 AB 3967 A 3976 A

Means with the same letter are not significantly different.

In Alabama, the high input scheme obtained significantly higher yields in variety

C99 than IPM. Varieties Georgia Green and ViruGard had no significant differences

between treatments.

Florida vs. Alabama

From these numbers the assumption that one cultivar is better than other, in terms

of yield, cannot be made since there is no consistency observed in the results thorough










the locations and years. Georgia Green yielded highest in Florida during the study, while

C99 yielded highest in Alabama. In terms of treatments, high input scheme was observed

to have better results with respect to the other treatments in Florida. However, no

significant differences were found in Alabama.

Yield was also analyzed against location and year to Eind out if Florida and

Alabama were significantly different. There were no significant differences observed in

yields between the years 2002 and 2003; the average mean was 3,360 pounds per acre in

2002 and 3,505 in 2003.

Yields in Alabama were significantly greater than Florida in this study even

thought on-farm data generally reflect the opposite trend. This could be due to a

nematode problem that affected Florida plots which due to the study design was not

treated. This effect may have caused a reduction in yields. The average yield per acre for

both states is shown in Table 4-11, and indicates a significant difference between states.

The yields per acre by plot in both locations on average from both years of study

are shown in Appendix A. Alabama had almost doubled Florida yields; total average was

4,333 and 2,531 pounds per acre respectively. The highest plot yield was 3,479 pounds in

Florida, while Alabama had a plot yield of 5,187 pounds per acre.

Table 4-11. Comparison of Average Yield by Location, Alabama and Florida, 2002-
2003.
Yield lb/A LSD
Location
Mean t Grouping

AL 4333 A

FL 2531 B

Means with the same letter are not significantly different.










Rainfall could be another factor influencing location and year information since

moisture is a constrain factor for dry land production. Rainfall affected both yields and

pest problems. Rainfall data for both locations is shown in Table 4-12.

Table 4-12. Monthly Rainfall Data in Inches: 2002-2003 by Selected Months.
2002 2003
Months FL AL FL AL
April 5.78 3.35 4.89 9.22
May 2.19 2.86 3.11 3.35
June 3.45 3.94 6.11 8.76
July 10.34 4.15 7.84 7.50
August 3.30 3.11 5.99 6.23
September 11.83 2.91 2.39 4.67
October 7.36 4.26 3.58 1.82
Total 44.25 24.58 33.91 41.55
Source: National Weather Service, U.S. Department of Commerce.


No significant difference was observed in yield due to cultivar. Also cultivar-

treatment interactions had no significant effect on yield. However, significant differences

were found in yield due to treatment. High input treatment showed higher yields than

IPM treatment but no significant difference was found between high and low treatment or

between low and IPM (Table 4-13).

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


Yield lb/A LSD*
Treatment
Mean t Grouping

High 3714 A
A
Low 3392 B A

IPM 3191 B

Means with the same letter are not significantly different.









Grade

The grades obtained for the test ranged from 67 to 74 the first year in Florida and

from 53 to 71 in the second. In Alabama, grades ranged from 67 to 76 the first year and

72 to 78 the second. Premiums over quality are awarded from grades of 73 or more. In

terms of economic returns, grade has a great impact since farmers gain a premium or

discount based on it. Special attention need to be given to peanut quality by good

production and harvesting practices.

Treatments

As shown in Table 4-14, no significant difference was observed in treatments in

terms of quality in either of the locations. Looking at each of the treatments, varieties had

no significant differences on grades within the treatment. This was observed both in

Florida and Alabama (Table 4-15).

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

Location Treatment TSMK LSD*
Mean t Grouping

FL IPM 69 A

FL High 68 A

FL Low 68 A


AL High 74 A

AL Low 73 A

AL IPM 73 A

* Means with the same letter are not significantly different.










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

State Variety Treatment
HIGH LSD IPM LSD LOW LSD
Florida
C99 67 A 68 A 68 A
GG 66 A 68 A 67 A
VG 70 A 70 A 69 A

Alabama
C99 74 A 74 A 73 A
GG 74 A 74 A 74 A
VG 73 A 72 A 73 A

Means with the same letter are not significantly different.

Cultivars

In terms of quality, Florida indicated that ViruGard was graded significantly better

than Georgia Green. No differences were observed between ViruGard and C99 or C99

and Georgia Green. In Alabama, no significant differences were found within the

cultivars (Table 4-16). The management schemes for both locations had no significant

differences in grades within each of the cultivars used in the research (Table 4-17).

Florida vs. Alabama

The analysis on quality expressed as the premium or discount paid for peanuts

demonstrate that Alabama had a higher quality than Florida. This could be due to the

nematode problem in Florida during the second year of the study. In addition, problems

with drying the peanuts resulted in some moldy peanuts. The lowest grade in Florida was

53 and the highest 74, while Alabama obtained 67 and 78 respectively. The differences

were greater during the second year of the experiment.









Table 4-16. Average Quality for Florida and Alabama by Cultivar, 2002-2003.
Location Cultivar TSMK LSD
Mean t Grouping


VG

C99

GG


AL GG 74 A

AL C99 74 A

AL VG 73 A

* Means with the same letter are not significantly different.


Table 4-17. Average Quality for Florida and Alabama by
2003.
State Treatment Cultivar
C99 LSD* GG
Florida
HIGH 67 A 66

IPM 68 A 68

LOW 68 A 67


Cultivar vs. Treatment, 2002-


LSD

A

A

A


LSD*

A

A

A


Alabama
HIGH 74 A 74 A 73 A

IPM 74 A 74 A 72 A

LOW 73 A 74 A 73 A

Means with the same letter are not significantly different.

There were no significant differences in quality produced by each cultivar or

differences observed among treatments after analyzing the combined data. Years showed










differences; 2002 quality was better than 2003. The cause could be the problems affecting

Florida production and differences in moisture from year to year. No interactive effects

on quality were observed.

Revenue

Revenue was calculated from the yield and the premium or discount added to the

base price of $375 dollars per ton of peanuts. For this research, these numbers were

calculated but not analyzed statistically since the purpose of the study is to focus on the

economic return. Revenue was calculated as a step to obtain the income after subtracting

the cost of production. Details of the revenue for the two states are shown in Table 4-18.

Table 4-18. Average Revenue for Florida and Alabama (Dollars/Acre), 2002-2003.
Location Variety Treatment
HIGH IPM LOW
Florida
C99 976 773 792
GG 923 924 1079
VG 1059 648 828

Alabama
C99 1954 1607 1774
GG 1599 1615 1511
VG 1665 1515 1490


Income Above Variable Costs

Treatments

As discussed in Chapter 3; in terms of decision making, income above variable

costs (IAVC) is the most important variable to take into consideration. After subtracting

the cost of production, the only management scheme in Florida that gives a positive

return is the low input, with an average return of $11 per acre. Low input treatment had

significantly higher IAVC than IPM or high input schemes. However, no significant









differences were found between IPM and high input. IPM treatment had a negative IAVC

of -$85 and the high treatment of -$125 per acre.

In Alabama, treatment options continue with the same trend showing Florida.

Again, low input is the treatment with the highest economic returns with $371 per acre

produced; IPM obtained $331 dollars and the high input treatment showed the lowest

return of $224. These numbers are shown in detail in Table 4-19. Statistically, low input

treatment had significantly greater IAVC than high input. No differences were found

between low and IPM or IPM and high schemes.

Table 4-19. Average Income Above Variable Cost for Florida and Alabama by Treatment
Scheme (Dollars/Acre), 2002-2003.
Location Treatment IAVC LSD
Mean t Grouping

FL Low 11 A

FL IPM -85 B

FL High -125 B



AL Low 371 A

AL IPM 331 AB

AL High 244 B

Means with the same letter are not significantly different.

The average IAVC and the LSD test for the cultivars within each treatment is

shown in Table 4-20. High input treatment showed no significant differences in IAVC

between the cultivars in both locations. In Florida, every cultivar had negative returns,

while Alabama had positive.










For the IPM treatment in Florida, C99 and Georgia Green had a little better IAVC

than ViruGard, even though the three cultivars had negative returns. Alabama showed no

significant differences in the cultivars using the same scheme.

Looking at the low input treatment results, Georgia Green had significantly higher

IAVC than C99 in Florida. The only cultivar with positive economic return within the

low input scheme was Georgia Green, with a return of $101 dollars per acre. In Alabama,

C99 had significantly greater IAVC than Georgia Green using the low input treatment.

However, no differences between C99 and Georgia Green or Georgia Green and

ViruGard were found.

Table 4-20. Average Income Above Variable Cost for Florida and Alabama by Treatment
vs. Cultivar (Dollars/Acre), 2002-2003.
State Variety Treatment
HIGH LSD IPM LSD LOW LSD
Florida
C99 -130 A -89 AB -43 B
GG -157 A -14 AB 101 A
VG -89 A -152 B -25 AB

Alabama
C99 351 A 345 A 462 A
GG 173 A 349 A 331 AB
VG 206 A 299 A 320 B

Means with the same letter are not significantly different.


Cultivars

No significant differences with respect of IAVC were found in Florida cultivars.

Note that having no significant difference, does not mean that every cultivar gives the

same income above variable costs. In this research the data showed no significant

difference but in real life, farmers could find differences in yields and quality upon









varieties, depending on the cultural practices and weather condition of the location where

they are planting.

As shown in Table 4-21, all the varieties had negative returns, Georgia Green had -

$23, C99 had -$87, and ViruGard with -$88 dollars per acre.

Table 4-21. Average Income Above Variable Cost for Florida and Alabama by Cultivar
(Dollars/Acre), 2002-2003.
Location Cultivar IAVC LSD
Mean t Grouping

FL GG -23 A

FL C99 -87 A

FL VG -88 A



AL C99 386 A

AL GG 284 B

AL VG 275 B

Means with the same letter are not significantly different.

In Alabama the numbers were positive; C99 was the variety with higher returns

after variable costs with $386, followed by Georgia Green with $284, and ViruGard with

$275. C99 had significantly greater IAVC than the other two varieties.

Treatment options had no significant difference in terms of IAVC for the cultivar

C99 in both locations (Table 4-22). The low input scheme gave significantly greater

IAVC than high input for the Georgia Green cultivar in Florida. No differences were

found between low and IPM or between IPM and high input. Alabama had no differences










between treatment schemes for Georgia Green. Both locations also showed no significant

differences between treatments for the variety ViruGard.

Table 4-22. Average Income Above Variable Cost for Florida and Alabama by Cultivar
vs. Treatment (Dollars/Acre), 2002-2003.
State Treatment Cultivar
C99 LSD* GG LSD* VG LSD*
Florida
HIGH -130 A -156 B -89 A

IPM -89 A -14 AB -152 A

LOW -43 A 101 A -25 A

Alabama
HIGH 351 A 173 A 206 A

IPM 345 A 349 A 299 A

LOW 462 A 331 A 320 A

Means with the same letter are not significantly different.

Florida vs. Alabama

Income above variable costs is very different between the two states, even though

in terms of cost both states have similar expenditures. This was due to the lower quality

and quantity of the peanuts at the Florida location compared to Alabama. Although

quality did seem to have an impact in terms of the revenue, after considering the costs

incurred to produce, the impact is even greater.

If the combined data from both states in both years is examined, there are no

significant differences among cultivars with respect to IAVC. For the treatment schemes,

low gives greater IAVC than IPM treatment, and IPM greater than high treatment (Tables

4-23 and 4-24).










Table 4-23. Comparison of Average Income Above Variable Cost Versus Cultivars
Alabama and Florida, 2002-2003.
IAVC $/A LSD
Cultivar
Mean t Grouping

C99 149 A

GG 131 A

VG 93 A

Means with the same letter are not significantly different.


Table 4-24. Comparison of Average Income Above Variable Cost Versus Pesticide
Treatments Alabama and Florida, 2002-2003.
IAVC $/A LSD
Treatment
Mean t Grouping

Low 191 A

IPM 123 B

High 59 C

Means with the same letter are not significantly different.


Year is not a significant factor when IAVC data from both states are combined. If

both years are combined, location is still a significant factor, with Alabama having a

greater IAVC principally due to differences in yield but also because of the quality

premium Alabama had relative to Florida.















CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

C99R were included as whole plots in each management system.

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

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

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

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

respect to yield, quality and income above variable costs.

Conclusions

In this study, no significant differences were found in yield, quality or income

above variable costs of combined data due to the use of different cultivars. However, for

farmers this may vary depending on the local conditions. Varieties are developed to best

fit the growing conditions of the locations where they are originally developed.

Since varieties are developed based on the local conditions, using a cultivar

developed in a particular region tends to be more beneficial. At the same time, some









varieties may not fit the area where they are planted. A cultivar developed for the

southeast region could be used in Florida and Georgia since both locations have similar

climatic conditions and share some cultural characteristics. However, a variety developed

in Marianna would likely better be suited for Florida than in another state.

Even though the high input management treatment resulted in significantly higher

yields, this treatment was found to be the least desirable in terms of economic returns. In

dry land conditions a farmer choosing the treatment called high input will get higher

yields but this management scheme would not necessarily pay for the added inputs.

Looking at the whole picture, treatment called low input is the one that gives the best

economic returns of the three used in this research, based again on dry land conditions.

No significant differences in quality were found among treatments. The quality

obtained is an important factor in price received. Also, cultivar-treatment interactions had

no significant effect on yield or quality.

Cultural or climate differences can be found when looking at the data by year. No

significant differences were observed in yield between the year 2002 and 2003. In terms

of quality, year 2002 was better than 2003. Climate conditions could be one of the causes

of this difference, since moisture and rainfall level were higher in 2002. Another cause of

the yield difference was the problem with nematodes that resulted in lower quality and

peanut yield in Florida in 2003.

The Alabama test obtained both significantly greater yield and higher quality than

the Florida test in this study. Florida data was affected by factors like rainfall, nematodes

and Tomato Spotted Wilt Virus, which combined created abnormal yields. Soil

differences may also have had an effect on these results.









Yields were significantly higher in Florida from the high input scheme compared to

the low input; and higher yields with Georgia Green compared to ViruGard. No

differences were found in Georgia Green and C99 or C99 and ViruGard. Alabama had no

significant differences in yields due to treatments. The cultivar C99 gave higher yields

than ViruGard or Georgia Green in Alabama.

In terms of quality, Florida had no significant differences due to management

schemes. ViruGard graded better than Georgia Green. No differences in grades were

found between ViruGard and C99 or C99 and Georgia Green. In Alabama, there were no

significant differences in quality due to treatments or cultivars.

The results in Florida showed no significant differences in income above variable

costs among cultivars. The low input scheme yielded significantly greater IAVC than

IPM or high input schemes in both years of study. In Alabama, C99 gave greater IAVC

than Georgia Green or ViruGard. Income above variable costs was significantly greater

for the low input treatment than the high input; no significant difference was shown

between low and IPM or IPM and high input schemes.

In conclusion, combined data suggest that there are no significant differences

among cultivars. This could be due to a lack of data. More data would allow a more

precise estimating of the means; therefore the difference between means could be smaller

and still be considered statistically significant. Instead of combining the two states, the

analysis of variance is more sensitive by individual state. Also, nematode and TSWV

problems in Florida caused yield losses that may had an effect on the data.

Since nematode control and TSWV damage are very important and are related

many research proj ects are being conducted on TSWV. Nematodes and TSWV affect










quality and yield and research toward better managing these pests is important. Quality is

an important factor of the overall price farmers receive, obviously affecting economic

returns .

Variety is not as important as pest management practices in terms of economic

returns, especially between C99 and Georgia Green. The study may have been improved

with another cultivar as one of the varieties. The cultivar ViruGard is not currently used

in the southeast and the results of this study offer one reason for not using ViruGard.

In dry land, the low input management scheme tends to be more feasible in terms

of economic return. High input treatment may lead to higher yield but is not justified after

considering the costs incurred. For irrigated land, this may not be the case. More research

needs to be done to compare irrigated versus non irrigated peanuts. In some counties of

the southeast, irrigation is used on 50 percent of the production and yield variability is

often decreased.

Soil conditions and soil types are important factors; they caused maj or differences

in both locations. Weather factors are also important; moisture is a driving constrain

factor in dry land production. Years with more uniform rainfall tend to be better for

peanut production and the results of this study confirm it.

Farmers usually think in terms of yield; however this study illustrates that quality is

very important to the price received. There is a need to focus more on maintaining quality

instead of just increasing yields. The results of this research justify these conclusions.

Increasing yields is not going to result in higher income if quality and costs of production

are not considered. Managing inputs is critical in a good farm management scheme.










With the new peanut program provisions, there is a need to examine ways to reduce

costs and optimize income above variable costs. Analyzing the complete management

scheme of yields, quality, costs, and resulting income are important.

Limitations on the Study

The use of a peanut variety other than ViruGard may have been more useful for the

study in terms of providing another comparison similar to those varieties more commonly

used by farmers. A different regime of nematicides and herbicides uses according to the

location needs may have improved the resulting yields and quality and the effect on

income.

The experiment would have been more useful if the tests were conducted in similar

types of soil conditions with similar rotation systems. Soil conditions proved to be an

important factor, so using soil with conditions that are more representative of the area of

peanut production is imperative.

Yields attained in the Florida site are below the average production of Florida

farmers. State yield averages in Florida are typically higher than Alabama but the study

data showed an opposite view. This may have been due to soil conditions and problems

with nematodes for the Florida site that could be improved if a pest management scheme

more in accordance with the conditions at each location was followed.















APPENDIX
YIELD S

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









Table A-2. Yields in Pounds Per Acre, Florida and
Treatment Rep FL
1 1 2372
1 2 2795
1 3 2819
1 4 3378
2 1 2100
2 2 1765
2 3 2268
2 4 3378
3 1 2036
3 2 1629
3 3 3011
3 4 2468
4 1 1661
4 2 1382
4 3 2460
4 4 2220
5 1 1981
5 2 1238
5 3 2659
5 4 3306
6 1 1885
6 2 2388
6 3 2332
6 4 4089
7 1 3091
7 2 3035
7 3 3713
7 4 3290
8 1 2444
8 2 1925
8 3 2148
8 4 2188
9 1 2787
9 2 2931
9 3 2723
9 4 3386
2536


Alabama: Average 2002.
ALl
4873
4945
5526
3103
4428
3784
4927
4864
4809
3684
5272
4610
3983
3920
4591
4002
3929
3312
4827
5290
2894
3248
1379
4691
4519
4492
4083
4510
3276
3475
4020
3167
4555
4029
4555
5063
4184









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
















LIST OF REFERENCES


Aerts, M.J., and O.N. Nesheim. 2001. Florida Crop Pest Ma'~nagement Profiles: Peanuts.
University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. Cooperative
Extension Service. Extension bulletin CIR 1260. Gainesville, FL

Agricultural Weather Information Service, Inc. 1998. A UPnut Rules for Peanut LeafSpot
Control. Retrieved July 4, 2004, from
http://www.awi s. com/sampl es/edu/aupnut.html

Agricultural Weather Information Service, Inc. 1998. Jensen-Boyle LeafSpot Advisory
for Peanuts. Retrieved July 4, 2004, from
http://www. awi s. com/s ampl es/e du/1 sp ot.html

Anderson, V.L. and R.A. McLean. 1974. Design of Experiments, a Realistic Approach.
Marcel Dekker, Inc. Dallas, Texas.

Castle, E.N., M.H. Becker, and A.G. Nelson. 1987. Farm Business\a~na~geentent The
Decision-Making Process. Third Edition. Macmillan Publishing Company. New
York, New York.

Damicone, J. P., and H. A. Melouk. 1999. Foliar Diseases of Peanut. Oklahoma State
University, Division of Agricultural Science and Natural. Department of
Entomology and Plant Pathology. Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service.
Extension bulletin F-7655. Stillwater, Oklahoma.

Fletcher, S.M. 2002. Peanuts: Responding to Opportunities and Challenges ~on; an
Intertwined Trade and Domestic Policies. The University of Georgia, National
Center for Peanut Competitiveness. Athens, GA.

Fletcher, S. M. and N.B. Smith. 2002. Leaflet 4. Peanut Trade and the World Trade
Organization. The University of Georgia, Department of Agricultural and Applied
Economics. Athens, GA.

Fletcher, S.M. and N.B. Smith. 2001. Peanut Policy. The University of Georgia,
Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics. Athens, GA.

Hagan, A. 1994. Nematode Pests ofPeanut. Auburn University. Extension bulletin.
ANR-393. Auburn, AL.










Hagan, A., K. Bowen, E. Bauske, R. Getz, and S. Adams. 2000, Spring. Watching the
Weather: Peanut Disease Advisory Now Contains Rainfall Estimates. Highlights of
Agricultural Research Vol.47, No. 1.

Harrison, A. and D. Stuart. 2002, August. USDA Announces Peanut Program Features.
News Release, United States Department of Agriculture. Release No. 0357.02.

Hearn, R. 1995. A UStudy Says Peanut Subsidy Cuts Would be Costly to Sambeau~l~
Auburn University News. Auburn, AL.

Hewitt, T. 2004. Field Crop Budgets. North Florida Research and Education Center.
Retrieved July 4, 2004 from
http://nfrec.ifas.ufl.edu/Hewitt/budgets.ht#il%0rp

Holman, S., 2002, July. Practicing Good Disease Resistance Management. The Peanut
Grower. Vol.14, No. 8. Retrieved July 4, 2004 from:
www.peanutgrower. com/home/2002_JulyResi stance.html

Huber, A., 2003, July. Predicting Ma'~turity. The Peanut Grower. Vol.15, No.8.

Jordan, D.L., J.E. Bailey, J.S. Barnes, C.R. Bogle, S.G. Bullen, A.B. Brown, et al. 2002.
Yield and Economic Return of Ten Peanut-Based Cropping Systems. Agronomy
Journal, 94: 1289-1294.

Kemerait, B., T. Brenneman and A. Culbreath. 2004. Peanut Disease Control. 2004
Georgia Pest Management Handbook, Agronomic Crops. The University of
Georgia. Athens, GA.

Kucharek, T.A. 2000. Around Florida~: A Brief Treatise on the Evohition ofPlan2t
Disease Control in Peanut. PLP News. Volume 4, Issue 4. Gainesville, Florida.

Mendenhall, W. and R.L. Scheaffer. 1973. Mathematical Statistics with Applications.
Wadsworth Publishing Company. North Scituate, MA.

Phipps, P.M. (n.d.). Peanut Diseases. Virginia Tech, VAES Tidewater Agricultural
Research and Extension Center. Blacksburg, VA.

Putnam, D.H., E.S. Oplinger, T.M. Teynor, E.A. Oelke, K.A. Kelling, and J.D. Doll.
2004. Peanut. Alternative Field Crops Manual. Minnesota and Wisconsin
Extension Services.

Queensland Government. 2004. Harvesting Peanuts. Department of Primary Industries
and Fisheries. Retrieved July 4, 2004, from
http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/fielderops/8 118.html

Representative FarmFFFFF~~~~~~~FFFFFF Budgets. 2002. The University of Georgia College of Agricultural
& Environmental Sciences. Athens, GA.










Revoredo, C. L. and S.M. Fletcher. 2002. World Peanut Market: An Overview of the Past
30 Years. The University of Georgia, College of Agricultural & Environmental
Sciences. Research Bulletin No. 437. Athens, GA.

Revoredo, C.L. and S.M. Fletcher. 2002. Analysis of the World Trade in Peanuts. The
University of Georgia, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Paper.
Athens, GA

Sanford, S. and S. Evans.1995. Peanuts: Background for 1995 FarmFFFFF~~~~~~~FFFFFF Legislation. United
States Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Economic Report, Number 710.
Washington, D.C.

SAS Version 8. 1999. SAS Institute Inc. Cary, NC.

Schabenberger, O. 1996. A SAS Macro for Analyzing Strip-Plot Experiments. Retrieved
June 3 0, 2004, from http://home.nc.rr. com/schab enb/Strip-Pl ot.html

Shew, B. 2004. 2004 Peanut Production Guide (pp.73-96). Peanut Disease Management.
North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service.

Sprenkel, R.K. 2002. Identification and Monitoring ofhisect Pests in Peanut. University
of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. Cooperative Extension
Service. Extension bulletin ENY 668. Quincy, FL.

Sprenkel, R.K. 2003. hIsect Ma'~nagement in Peanuts. University of Florida, Institute of
Food and Agricultural Sciences. Cooperative Extension Service. Extension bulletin
ENY 403. Quincy, FL.

United States Department of Agriculture. 2003, July. Peanut Marketing Assistance Loan
and Loan Deficiency Payment. Farm Service Agency.

United States Department of Agriculture. 2003, November. Field Crops, Crop
Production. Florida Agricultural Statistics Service (FASS). Orlando, Fl.

United States Department of Agriculture. 2003. Food Uses of Peanuts in the U. S. Foreign
Agricultural Service (FAS).

United States Department of Agriculture. 2003. Oil Crops Situation and Outlook.
Economic Research Service.

United States Department of Agriculture. 2003. Regions of Peanut Production. NASS.

United States Department of Agriculture. 2003-2004. Agricultural Statistics Data Base,
NASS.

United States Department of Agriculture. 2004 B, May. Major Oilseeds: World Supply
andDistribution. Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS).










United States Department of Agriculture. 2004, February. Field Crops, Acreage,
Production, and Value. Florida Agricultural Statistics Service (FASS). Orlando,
Fl.

United States Department of Agriculture. 2004 A, May. Peanut Oilseed: World Supply
and Distribution. Top Countries: Current Marketing Year. Foreign Agricultural
Service (FAS).

United States Department of Agriculture. 2002, October. Peanut Loss Adjustment
Standard~~dddsdddddd~~~~ Handbook. Risk Management Agency (RMA). FCIC-25320.

United States Department of Commerce. 2002-2003. Record of River and Climatological
Observations. National Weather Service.

Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. 2004, January. U.S. Peanut
Production up 25 Percent from 2002; U.S. Cotton Production up 6 Percent. Press
Release.

Weeks, R., A. Hagan, W. Foshee, D.L. Hartzog, and J.W. Everest. 2000. Peanuts Pest
Management Scout Manual. Alabama Cooperative Extension System. Extension
bulletin. ANR-598.

Wright, D.L., J.J. Marois, J.R. Rich, R.K. Sprenkel, and E.B. Whitty. 2002. Conservation
Tillage Peanut Production. University of Florida, Institute of Food and
Agricultural Sciences. Cooperative Extension Service. Extension bulletin SS-AGR-
185. Gainesville, FL.

Yancy Jr., C. 2000, May. Rain Gauge Not Required. The Peanut Farmer. Vol.36, No.5.
Retrieved July 4, 2004 from
www. peanutfarm er. comb acki issue s/May200 O0/story4 .asp

Yancy, C. 2003, June. Peanut FarmsF~~~~FFFFF~~~~FFFF Faring~~~~FFFFF~~~~FFFF Better, Still on shaly~~ Ground. Southeast
Farm Press.
















BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Maria Jose Garcia-Casellas was born on March 19, 1977, in Merida Yucatan,

Mexico. She graduated from the Universidad de Yucatan in 2000, obtaining a bachelor' s

degree in accounting. In August 2000 she enrolled at the University of Florida as an

exchange student, following a concentration in business. She continued her studies at the

University of Florida as a graduate student to pursue a Master of Science in food and

resource economics.




Full Text

PAGE 1

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

PAGE 2

Copyright 2004 by Maria Jose Garcia-Casellas

PAGE 3

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

PAGE 4

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

PAGE 5

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

PAGE 6

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

PAGE 7

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

PAGE 8

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

PAGE 9

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

PAGE 10

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

PAGE 11

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

PAGE 12

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

PAGE 13

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

PAGE 14

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

PAGE 15

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

PAGE 16

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

PAGE 17

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

PAGE 18

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

PAGE 19

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

PAGE 20

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

PAGE 21

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

PAGE 22

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

PAGE 23

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

PAGE 24

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

PAGE 25

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

PAGE 26

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

PAGE 27

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

PAGE 28

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

PAGE 29

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

PAGE 30

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

PAGE 31

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

PAGE 32

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

PAGE 33

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

PAGE 34

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

PAGE 35

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

PAGE 36

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

PAGE 37

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

PAGE 38

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

PAGE 39

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

PAGE 40

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

PAGE 41

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

PAGE 42

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

PAGE 43

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

PAGE 44

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

PAGE 45

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

PAGE 46

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

PAGE 47

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

PAGE 48

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

PAGE 49

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

PAGE 50

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

PAGE 51

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

PAGE 52

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

PAGE 53

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

PAGE 54

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

PAGE 55

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

PAGE 56

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

PAGE 57

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

PAGE 58

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

PAGE 59

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

PAGE 60

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

PAGE 61

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

PAGE 62

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

PAGE 63

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

PAGE 64

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

PAGE 65

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

PAGE 66

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

PAGE 67

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

PAGE 68

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

PAGE 69

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

PAGE 70

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

PAGE 71

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

PAGE 72

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

PAGE 73

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

PAGE 74

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

PAGE 75

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

PAGE 76

65 varieties, depending on the cultural practices and weather condition of the location where they are planting. As shown in Table 4-21, all the varieties had negative returns, Georgia Green had -$23, C99 had -$87, and ViruGard with -$88 dollars per acre. Table 4-21. Average Income Above Variable Cost for Florida and Alabama by Cultivar (Dollars/Acre), 2002-2003. Location Cultivar IAVC LSD Mean t Grouping FL GG -23 A FL C99 -87 A FL VG -88 A AL C99 386 A AL GG 284 B AL VG 275 B Means with the same letter are not significantly different. In Alabama the numbers were positive; C99 was the variety with higher returns after variable costs with $386, followed by Georgia Green with $284, and ViruGard with $275. C99 had significantly greater IAVC than the other two varieties. Treatment options had no significant difference in terms of IAVC for the cultivar C99 in both locations (Table 4-22). The low input scheme gave significantly greater IAVC than high input for the Georgia Green cultivar in Florida. No differences were found between low and IPM or between IPM and high input. Alabama had no differences

PAGE 77

66 between treatment schemes for Georgia Green. Both locations also showed no significant differences between treatments for the variety ViruGard. Table 4-22. Average Income Above Variable Cost for Florida and Alabama by Cultivar vs. Treatment (Dollars/Acre), 2002-2003. State Treatment Cultivar C99 LSD GG LSD VG LSD Florida HIGH -130 A -156 B -89 A IPM -89 A -14 AB -152 A LOW -43 A 101 A -25 A Alabama HIGH 351 A 173 A 206 A IPM 345 A 349 A 299 A LOW 462 A 331 A 320 A Means with the same letter are not significantly different. Florida vs. Alabama Income above variable costs is very different between the two states, even though in terms of cost both states have similar expenditures. This was due to the lower quality and quantity of the peanuts at the Florida location compared to Alabama. Although quality did seem to have an impact in terms of the revenue, after considering the costs incurred to produce, the impact is even greater. If the combined data from both states in both years is examined, there are no significant differences among cultivars with respect to IAVC. For the treatment schemes, low gives greater IAVC than IPM treatment, and IPM greater than high treatment (Tables 4-23 and 4-24).

PAGE 78

67 Table 4-23. Comparison of Average Income Above Variable Cost Versus Cultivars Alabama and Florida, 2002-2003. Cultivar IAVC $/A Mean LSD t Grouping C99 149 A GG 131 A VG 93 A Means with the same letter are not significantly different. Table 4-24. Comparison of Average Income Above Variable Cost Versus Pesticide Treatments Alabama and Florida, 2002-2003. Treatment IAVC $/A Mean LSD t Grouping Low 191 A IPM 123 B High 59 C Means with the same letter are not significantly different. Year is not a significant factor when IAVC data from both states are combined. If both years are combined, location is still a significant factor, with Alabama having a greater IAVC principally due to differences in yield but also because of the quality premium Alabama had relative to Florida.

PAGE 79

CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Summary Field experiments were conducted in 2002 and 2003 at the University of Florida North Florida Research and Education Center in Marianna, Florida and at the Wiregrass Research and Extension Center in Headland, Alabama. The study was done to assess the impact of three management systems on the economics of peanut production. The managements systems designated as low, Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and high were evaluated as splitplots, while peanut cultivars: ViruGard, Georgia Green, and C99R were included as whole plots in each management system. A split plot design with cultivars was used. In this design, the three different cultivars are laid out in horizontal strips, which are then split into subplots with different treatment schemes. The analysis of variance and the LSD test used to compare means show the significant differences between the cultivars and the management schemes with respect to yield, quality and income above variable costs. Conclusions In this study, no significant differences were found in yield, quality or income above variable costs of combined data due to the use of different cultivars. However, for farmers this may vary depending on the local conditions. Varieties are developed to best fit the growing conditions of the locations where they are originally developed. Since varieties are developed based on the local conditions, using a cultivar developed in a particular region tends to be more beneficial. At the same time, some 68

PAGE 80

69 varieties may not fit the area where they are planted. A cultivar developed for the southeast region could be used in Florida and Georgia since both locations have similar climatic conditions and share some cultural characteristics. However, a variety developed in Marianna would likely better be suited for Florida than in another state. Even though the high input management treatment resulted in significantly higher yields, this treatment was found to be the least desirable in terms of economic returns. In dry land conditions a farmer choosing the treatment called high input will get higher yields but this management scheme would not necessarily pay for the added inputs. Looking at the whole picture, treatment called low input is the one that gives the best economic returns of the three used in this research, based again on dry land conditions. No significant differences in quality were found among treatments. The quality obtained is an important factor in price received. Also, cultivar-treatment interactions had no significant effect on yield or quality. Cultural or climate differences can be found when looking at the data by year. No significant differences were observed in yield between the year 2002 and 2003. In terms of quality, year 2002 was better than 2003. Climate conditions could be one of the causes of this difference, since moisture and rainfall level were higher in 2002. Another cause of the yield difference was the problem with nematodes that resulted in lower quality and peanut yield in Florida in 2003. The Alabama test obtained both significantly greater yield and higher quality than the Florida test in this study. Florida data was affected by factors like rainfall, nematodes and Tomato Spotted Wilt Virus, which combined created abnormal yields. Soil differences may also have had an effect on these results.

PAGE 81

70 Yields were significantly higher in Florida from the high input scheme compared to the low input; and higher yields with Georgia Green compared to ViruGard. No differences were found in Georgia Green and C99 or C99 and ViruGard. Alabama had no significant differences in yields due to treatments. The cultivar C99 gave higher yields than ViruGard or Georgia Green in Alabama. In terms of quality, Florida had no significant differences due to management schemes. ViruGard graded better than Georgia Green. No differences in grades were found between ViruGard and C99 or C99 and Georgia Green. In Alabama, there were no significant differences in quality due to treatments or cultivars. The results in Florida showed no significant differences in income above variable costs among cultivars. The low input scheme yielded significantly greater IAVC than IPM or high input schemes in both years of study. In Alabama, C99 gave greater IAVC than Georgia Green or ViruGard. Income above variable costs was significantly greater for the low input treatment than the high input; no significant difference was shown between low and IPM or IPM and high input schemes. In conclusion, combined data suggest that there are no significant differences among cultivars. This could be due to a lack of data. More data would allow a more precise estimating of the means; therefore the difference between means could be smaller and still be considered statistically significant. Instead of combining the two states, the analysis of variance is more sensitive by individual state. Also, nematode and TSWV problems in Florida caused yield losses that may had an effect on the data. Since nematode control and TSWV damage are very important and are related many research projects are being conducted on TSWV. Nematodes and TSWV affect

PAGE 82

71 quality and yield and research toward better managing these pests is important. Quality is an important factor of the overall price farmers receive, obviously affecting economic returns. Variety is not as important as pest management practices in terms of economic returns, especially between C99 and Georgia Green. The study may have been improved with another cultivar as one of the varieties. The cultivar ViruGard is not currently used in the southeast and the results of this study offer one reason for not using ViruGard. In dry land, the low input management scheme tends to be more feasible in terms of economic return. High input treatment may lead to higher yield but is not justified after considering the costs incurred. For irrigated land, this may not be the case. More research needs to be done to compare irrigated versus non irrigated peanuts. In some counties of the southeast, irrigation is used on 50 percent of the production and yield variability is often decreased. Soil conditions and soil types are important factors; they caused major differences in both locations. Weather factors are also important; moisture is a driving constrain factor in dry land production. Years with more uniform rainfall tend to be better for peanut production and the results of this study confirm it. Farmers usually think in terms of yield; however this study illustrates that quality is very important to the price received. There is a need to focus more on maintaining quality instead of just increasing yields. The results of this research justify these conclusions. Increasing yields is not going to result in higher income if quality and costs of production are not considered. Managing inputs is critical in a good farm management scheme.

PAGE 83

72 With the new peanut program provisions, there is a need to examine ways to reduce costs and optimize income above variable costs. Analyzing the complete management scheme of yields, quality, costs, and resulting income are important. Limitations on the Study The use of a peanut variety other than ViruGard may have been more useful for the study in terms of providing another comparison similar to those varieties more commonly used by farmers. A different regime of nematicides and herbicides uses according to the location needs may have improved the resulting yields and quality and the effect on income. The experiment would have been more useful if the tests were conducted in similar types of soil conditions with similar rotation systems. Soil conditions proved to be an important factor, so using soil with conditions that are more representative of the area of peanut production is imperative. Yields attained in the Florida site are below the average production of Florida farmers. State yield averages in Florida are typically higher than Alabama but the study data showed an opposite view. This may have been due to soil conditions and problems with nematodes for the Florida site that could be improved if a pest management scheme more in accordance with the conditions at each location was followed.

PAGE 84

APPENDIX YIELDS Table A-1 Yields in Pounds Per Acre: Average 2002-2003. Treatment Rep FL AL 1 1 2504 4610 1 2 3268 4614 1 3 2542 4914 1 4 2975 3575 2 1 2118 4260 2 2 1796 3811 2 3 1904 4288 2 4 2929 3879 3 1 2210 4356 3 2 1937 3344 3 3 2339 4201 3 4 2548 3966 4 1 1955 5172 4 2 3439 4660 4 3 2336 4523 4 4 3248 4737 5 1 2246 4460 5 2 2015 3326 5 3 2790 4646 5 4 3479 4546 6 1 2890 3643 6 2 3096 3530 6 3 2848 2686 6 4 3780 3866 7 1 2863 5159 7 2 2811 5155 7 3 3191 4755 7 4 2825 5187 8 1 1900 4224 8 2 1724 3879 8 3 1690 4515 8 4 1798 4365 9 1 2182 4655 9 2 2453 4642 9 3 2028 4719 9 4 2471 5127 2531 4333 73

PAGE 85

74 Table A-2. Yields in Pounds Per Acre, Florida and Alabama: Average 2002. Treatment Rep FL AL 1 1 2372 4873 1 2 2795 4945 1 3 2819 5526 1 4 3378 3103 2 1 2100 4428 2 2 1765 3784 2 3 2268 4927 2 4 3378 4864 3 1 2036 4809 3 2 1629 3684 3 3 3011 5272 3 4 2468 4610 4 1 1661 3983 4 2 1382 3920 4 3 2460 4591 4 4 2220 4002 5 1 1981 3929 5 2 1238 3312 5 3 2659 4827 5 4 3306 5290 6 1 1885 2894 6 2 2388 3248 6 3 2332 1379 6 4 4089 4691 7 1 3091 4519 7 2 3035 4492 7 3 3713 4083 7 4 3290 4510 8 1 2444 3276 8 2 1925 3475 8 3 2148 4020 8 4 2188 3167 9 1 2787 4555 9 2 2931 4029 9 3 2723 4555 9 4 3386 5063 2536 4184

PAGE 86

75 Table A-3. Yields in Pounds Per Acre, Florida and Alabama: Average 2003. Treatment Rep FL AL 1 1 2636 4347 1 2 3740 4283 1 3 2264 4302 1 4 2572 4047 2 1 2136 4093 2 2 1828 3839 2 3 1540 3648 2 4 2480 2895 3 1 2384 3902 3 2 2244 3004 3 3 1668 3131 3 4 2628 3321 4 1 2248 6362 4 2 5496 5400 4 3 2212 4456 4 4 4276 5472 5 1 2512 4991 5 2 2792 3340 5 3 2920 4465 5 4 3652 3802 6 1 3896 4392 6 2 3804 3812 6 3 3364 3993 6 4 3472 3040 7 1 2636 5799 7 2 2588 5817 7 3 2668 5427 7 4 2360 5864 8 1 1356 5173 8 2 1524 4283 8 3 1232 5009 8 4 1408 5563 9 1 1576 4755 9 2 1976 5254 9 3 1332 4882 9 4 1556 5191 2527 4482

PAGE 87

LIST OF REFERENCES Aerts, M.J., and O.N. Nesheim. 2001. Florida Crop/Pest Management Profiles: Peanuts. University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. Cooperative Extension Service. Extension bulletin CIR 1260. Gainesville, FL Agricultural Weather Information Service, Inc. 1998. AUPnut Rules for Peanut Leaf Spot Control. Retrieved July 4, 2004, from http://www.awis.com/samples/edu/aupnut.html Agricultural Weather Information Service, Inc. 1998. Jensen-Boyle Leaf Spot Advisory for Peanuts. Retrieved July 4, 2004, from http://www.awis.com/samples/edu/lspot.html Anderson, V.L. and R.A. McLean. 1974. Design of Experiments, a Realistic Approach. Marcel Dekker, Inc. Dallas, Texas. Castle, E.N., M.H. Becker, and A.G. Nelson. 1987. Farm Business Management: The Decision-Making Process. Third Edition. Macmillan Publishing Company. New York, New York. Damicone, J. P., and H. A. Melouk. 1999. Foliar Diseases of Peanut. Oklahoma State University Division of Agricultural Science and Natural. Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service. Extension bulletin F-7655. Stillwater, Oklahoma. Fletcher, S.M. 2002. Peanuts: Responding to Opportunities and Challenges from an Intertwined Trade and Domestic Policies. The University of Georgia, National Center for Peanut Competitiveness. Athens, GA. Fletcher, S. M. and N.B. Smith. 2002. Leaflet 4. Peanut Trade and the World Trade Organization. The University of Georgia, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics. Athens, GA. Fletcher, S.M. and N.B. Smith. 2001. Peanut Policy. The University of Georgia, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics. Athens, GA. Hagan, A. 1994. Nematode Pests of Peanut. Auburn University. Extension bulletin. ANR-393. Auburn, AL. 76

PAGE 88

77 Hagan, A., K. Bowen, E. Bauske, R. Getz, and S. Adams. 2000, Spring. Watching the Weather: Peanut Disease Advisory Now Contains Rainfall Estimates. Highlights of Agricultural Research Vol.47, No.1. Harrison, A. and D. Stuart. 2002, August. USDA Announces Peanut Program Features. News Release, United States Department of Agriculture. Release No. 0357.02. Hearn, R. 1995. AU Study Says Peanut Subsidy Cuts Would be Costly to Southeast. Auburn University News. Auburn, AL. Hewitt, T. 2004. Field Crop Budgets. North Florida Research and Education Center. Retrieved July 4, 2004 from http://nfrec.ifas.ufl.edu/Hewitt/budgets.htm#Field%20Crops Holman, S., 2002, July. Practicing Good Disease Resistance Management. The Peanut Grower. Vol.14, No. 8. Retrieved July 4, 2004 from: www.peanutgrower.com/home/2002_JulyResistance.html Huber, A., 2003, July. Predicting Maturity. The Peanut Grower. Vol.15, No.8. Jordan, D.L., J.E. Bailey, J.S. Barnes, C.R. Bogle, S.G. Bullen, A.B. Brown, et al. 2002. Yield and Economic Return of Ten Peanut-Based Cropping Systems. Agronomy Journal, 94: 1289-1294. Kemerait, B., T. Brenneman and A. Culbreath. 2004. Peanut Disease Control. 2004 Georgia Pest Management Handbook, Agronomic Crops. The University of Georgia. Athens, GA. Kucharek, T.A. 2000. Around Florida: A Brief Treatise on the Evolution of Plant Disease Control in Peanut. PLP News. Volume 4, Issue 4. Gainesville, Florida. Mendenhall, W. and R.L. Scheaffer. 1973. Mathematical Statistics with Applications. Wadsworth Publishing Company. North Scituate, MA. Phipps, P.M. (n.d.). Peanut Diseases. Virginia Tech, VAES Tidewater Agricultural Research and Extension Center. Blacksburg, VA. Putnam, D.H., E.S. Oplinger, T.M. Teynor, E.A. Oelke, K.A. Kelling, and J.D. Doll. 2004. Peanut. Alternative Field Crops Manual. Minnesota and Wisconsin Extension Services. Queensland Government. 2004. Harvesting Peanuts. Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries. Retrieved July 4, 2004, from http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/fieldcrops/8118.html Representative Farm Budgets. 2002. The University of Georgia College of Agricultural & Environmental Sciences. Athens, GA.

PAGE 89

78 Revoredo, C. L. and S.M. Fletcher. 2002. World Peanut Market: An Overview of the Past 30 Years. The University of Georgia, College of Agricultural & Environmental Sciences. Research Bulletin No. 437. Athens, GA. Revoredo, C.L. and S.M. Fletcher. 2002. Analysis of the World Trade in Peanuts. The University of Georgia, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Paper. Athens, GA Sanford, S. and S. Evans.1995. Peanuts: Background for 1995 Farm Legislation. United States Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Economic Report, Number 710. Washington, D.C. SAS Version 8. 1999. SAS Institute Inc. Cary, NC. Schabenberger, O. 1996. A SAS Macro for Analyzing Strip-Plot Experiments. Retrieved June 30, 2004, from http://home.nc.rr.com/schabenb/Strip-Plot.html Shew, B. 2004. 2004 Peanut Production Guide (pp.73-96). Peanut Disease Management. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. Sprenkel, R.K. 2002. Identification and Monitoring of Insect Pests in Peanut. University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. Cooperative Extension Service. Extension bulletin ENY 668. Quincy, FL. Sprenkel, R.K. 2003. Insect Management in Peanuts. University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. Cooperative Extension Service. Extension bulletin ENY 403. Quincy, FL. United States Department of Agriculture. 2003, July. Peanut Marketing Assistance Loan and Loan Deficiency Payment. Farm Service Agency. United States Department of Agriculture. 2003, November. Field Crops, Crop Production. Florida Agricultural Statistics Service (FASS). Orlando, Fl. United States Department of Agriculture. 2003. Food Uses of Peanuts in the U.S. Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). United States Department of Agriculture. 2003. Oil Crops Situation and Outlook. Economic Research Service. United States Department of Agriculture. 2003. Regions of Peanut Production. NASS. United States Department of Agriculture. 2003-2004. Agricultural Statistics Data Base, NASS. United States Department of Agriculture. 2004 B, May. Major Oilseeds: World Supply and Distribution. Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS).

PAGE 90

79 United States Department of Agriculture. 2004, February. Field Crops, Acreage, Production, and Value. Florida Agricultural Statistics Service (FASS). Orlando, Fl. United States Department of Agriculture. 2004 A, May. Peanut Oilseed: World Supply and Distribution. Top Countries: Current Marketing Year. Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). United States Department of Agriculture. 2002, October. Peanut Loss Adjustment Standards Handbook. Risk Management Agency (RMA). FCIC-25320. United States Department of Commerce. 2002-2003. Record of River and Climatological Observations. National Weather Service. Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. 2004, January. U.S. Peanut Production up 25 Percent from 2002; U.S. Cotton Production up 6 Percent. Press Release. Weeks, R., A. Hagan, W. Foshee, D.L. Hartzog, and J.W. Everest. 2000. Peanuts Pest Management Scout Manual. Alabama Cooperative Extension System. Extension bulletin. ANR-598. Wright, D.L., J.J. Marois, J.R. Rich, R.K. Sprenkel, and E.B. Whitty. 2002. Conservation Tillage Peanut Production. University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. Cooperative Extension Service. Extension bulletin SS-AGR-185. Gainesville, FL. Yancy Jr., C. 2000, May. Rain Gauge Not Required. The Peanut Farmer. Vol.36, No.5. Retrieved July 4, 2004 from www.peanutfarmer.com/backissues/May2000/story4.asp Yancy, C. 2003, June. Peanut Farms Faring Better, Still on Shaky Ground. Southeast Farm Press.

PAGE 91

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Maria Jose Garcia-Casellas was born on March 19, 1977, in Merida Yucatan, Mexico. She graduated from the Universidad de Yucatan in 2000, obtaining a bachelors degree in accounting. In August 2000 she enrolled at the University of Florida as an exchange student, following a concentration in business. She continued her studies at the University of Florida as a graduate student to pursue a Master of Science in food and resource economics. 80