Does It Matter Who Scouts?
AbstractScouting is the most widely used integrated pest management (IPM) technique. It has been argued that only independent crop consultants provide unbiased scouting information. In contrast, chemical dealers inflate scouting reports and/or reduce economic thresholds in order to increase pesticide sales while farmers may use excessively low treatment thresholds due to risk aversion and/or overestimation of pest pressure. Since the majority of scouting is done by farmers and chemical dealer employees, it follows that scouting may not be a very effective means of reducing reliance on chemical pesticides. This study applies an implicit demand formulation of the Lichtenberg-Zilberman damage abatement model to data from a survey of Maryland field crop growers to examine differences in pesticide demand between growers using scouts trained and supervised by extension and those using chemical dealer employees or scouting themselves. Our results give partial support to those skeptical of the quality of scouting by farmers themselves and by consultants working for chemical dealers. We found that soybean growers using extension trained scouts had significantly lower pesticide demand than those using chemical dealer employees or scouting themselves. However, we found no significant differences in the pesticide demands for alfalfa, corn, and small grains. Since soybeans in Maryland are substantially more pesticide-intensive than corn, alfalfa, or small grains, these results suggest that it does matter who scouts when there is scope for substantial savings in pesticides.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by University of Maryland, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics in its series Working Papers with number 28600.
Date of creation: 2001
Date of revision:
Other versions of this item:
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- repec:jaa:jagape:v:29:y:1997:i:2:p:225-42 is not listed on IDEAS
- Atanu Saha & C. Richard Shumway & Arthur Havenner, 1997. "The Economics and Econometrics of Damage Control," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(3), pages 773-785.
- Alain Carpentier & Robert D. Weaver, 1997. "Damage Control Productivity: Why Econometrics Matters," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(1), pages 47-61.
- Alfons Oude Lansink & Alain Carpentier, 2001. "Damage Control Productivity: An Input Damage Abatement Approach," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(3), pages 11-22.
- Hubbell, Bryan J., 1997. "Estimating Insecticide Application Frequencies: A Comparison Of Geometric And Other Count Data Models," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 29(02), December.
- Bryan J. Hubbell & Gerald A. Carlson, 1998. "Effects of Insecticide Attributes on Within-Season Insecticide Product and Rate Choices: The Case of U.S. Apple Growers," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(2), pages 382-396.
- Alexander, Corinne E., 2002. "Role Of Information In The Decision To Adopt Genetically Modified Seed," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19862, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.