IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea10/61745.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Powdery Mildew Risk And Forecasting In Wine Grapes: Do Growers Change Risk Management Strategies In Response To Disease Forecasts?

Author

Listed:
  • Lybbert, Travis J.
  • Magnan, Nicholas
  • Gubler, W. Douglas

Abstract

How and how well growers manage the risks inherent in agriculture has direct welfare implications for producers and consumers at both local and societal levels. While better weather, pest and disease forecast information are rapidly disseminating among producers and are often touted as promising inputs to production and risk management, little is known about how this new information actually shapes producer behavior in practice. We argue that better forecast information can benefit growers and improve their capacity to manage disease and pests effectively, but that we must jointly consider the various margins of adjustment available to growers in order to properly understand their response to this improved information. Using the case of California wine grape growers and high resolution panel data that includes plot-level powdery mildew treatments, we characterize growers’ response to a popular powdery mildew risk model that generates forecast in the form of a daily risk index (PMI). Our analysis suggests that growers using the PMI primarily adjust their choice of product in response to the PMI by switching to higher potency synthetic fungicides when the risk is high. Since these products have longer minimum intervals, this implies that – if anything – PMI users have longer intervals as the PMI increases. Our preliminary results also suggest that the net environmental impact of this documented multi-dimensional response to the PMI may actually be negative, although we emphasize that these are preliminary results. Futhermore, it is important to note that the magnitude of this effect is small compared to the general improvements in wine grape growers’ environmental impact over the past several years.

Suggested Citation

  • Lybbert, Travis J. & Magnan, Nicholas & Gubler, W. Douglas, 2010. "Powdery Mildew Risk And Forecasting In Wine Grapes: Do Growers Change Risk Management Strategies In Response To Disease Forecasts?," 2010 Annual Meeting, July 25-27, 2010, Denver, Colorado 61745, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea10:61745
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.61745
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/61745/files/Do%20Disease%20Forecasts%20Change%20Treatment%20Strategies%20v2.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.61745?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Eli Feinerman & Joseph A. Herriges & Derald Holtkamp, 1992. "Crop Insurance as a Mechanism for Reducing Pesticide Usage: A Representative Farm Analysis," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 14(2), pages 169-186.
    2. Cheryl Brown & Lori Lynch & David Zilberman, 2002. "The Economics of Controlling Insect-Transmitted Plant Diseases," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(2), pages 279-291.
    3. Darwin C. Hall & Richard B. Norgaard, 1973. "On the Timing and Application of Pesticides," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 55(2), pages 198-201.
    4. Khanna, Madhu & Zilberman, David, 1997. "Incentives, precision technology and environmental protection," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 25-43, October.
    5. Maria Travisi, Chiara & Nijkamp, Peter & Vindigni, Gabriella, 2006. "Pesticide risk valuation in empirical economics: a comparative approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(4), pages 455-474, April.
    6. Christopher B. Barrett, 1998. "The Value of Imperfect ENSO Forecast Information: Discussion," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(5), pages 1109-1112.
    7. Cowan, Robin & Gunby, Philip, 1996. "Sprayed to Death: Path Dependence, Lock-In and Pest Control Strategies," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 106(436), pages 521-542, May.
    8. Carlson, Gerald A. & Zilberman, David & Miranowski, John, 1993. "Agricultural and Resource Economics," Staff General Research Papers Archive 11104, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Atallah, Shady S. & Gómez, Miguel I. & Conrad, Jon M., 2013. "A Bioeconomic Model of Plant Disease Management under Spatial-Dynamic Externalities: Grapevine Leafroll Disease," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 151144, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lybbert, Travis J. & Magnan, Nicholas & Gubler, W. Douglas, 2012. "Multi-Dimensional Responses to Risk Information: How do Winegrape Growers Respond to Disease Forecasts and to What Environmental Effect?," Working Papers 162521, Robert Mondavi Institute Center for Wine Economics.
    2. Levy, Amnon & Caputo, Michael R., 2008. "Optimal control of locusts in subsistence farming areas," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 191(2), pages 504-516, December.
    3. Olson, Lars J., 2006. "The Economics of Terrestrial Invasive Species: A Review of the Literature," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 35(1), pages 178-194, April.
    4. Wilson, Clevo & Tisdell, Clem, 2001. "Why farmers continue to use pesticides despite environmental, health and sustainability costs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 449-462, December.
    5. Zilberman, David & Templeton, Scott R. & Khanna, Madhu, 1999. "Agriculture and the environment: an economic perspective with implications for nutrition1," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(2-3), pages 211-229, May.
    6. Chalak, Morteza, 2014. "Optimal Control for a Dispersing Biological Agent," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 39(2), pages 1-19.
    7. Saphores, Jean-Daniel & Conrad, Jon M., 1996. "The Economic Threshold With a Stochastic Pest Population: An Application to the European Red Mite," Working Papers 127904, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    8. O'Shea, Lucy & Ulph, Alistair, 2008. "The role of pest resistance in biotechnology R&D investment strategy," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 213-228, March.
    9. David Zilberman & Eunice Kim & Sam Kirschner & Scott Kaplan & Jeanne Reeves, 2013. "Technology and the future bioeconomy," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 44(s1), pages 95-102, November.
    10. LOFGREN Asa & MILLOCK Katrin & NAUGES Céline, 2007. "Using Ex Post Data to Estimate the Hurdle Rate of Abatement Investments - An application to the Swedish Pulp and Paper Industry and Energy Sector," LERNA Working Papers 07.06.227, LERNA, University of Toulouse.
    11. Lichtenberg, Erik & Zilberman, David & Archibald, Sandra O., 1990. "Economics and Pesticides," Working Papers 197750, University of Maryland, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    12. Magali Aubert & Geoffroy Enjolras, 2012. "Quand le surdosage devient la norme : un diagnostic des exploitations viticoles françaises," Post-Print hal-02749128, HAL.
    13. David A. Hennessy, 2006. "On Monoculture and the Structure of Crop Rotations," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(4), pages 900-914.
    14. Millock, Katrin & Xabadia, Angels & Zilberman, David, 2012. "Policy for the adoption of new environmental monitoring technologies to manage stock externalities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 102-116.
    15. Chen, Ming & Karp, Larry S., 2001. "Environmental Indices for the Chinese Grain Sector," CUDARE Working Papers 6259, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    16. Ciarli, Tommaso & Ràfols, Ismael, 2019. "The relation between research priorities and societal demands: The case of rice," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 949-967.
    17. Stavins, Robert & Jaffe, Adam & Newell, Richard, 2000. "Technological Change and the Environment," Working Paper Series rwp00-002, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    18. Gomez-Limon, Jose Antonio & Riesgo, Laura & Arriaza Balmón, Manuel, 2003. "Multi-Criteria Analysis Of Factors Use Level: The Case Of Water For Irrigation," 2003 Annual Meeting, August 16-22, 2003, Durban, South Africa 25836, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    19. James, Jennifer S. & Pardey, Philip G. & Alston, Julian M., 2008. "Agricultural R&D Policy: A Tragedy of the International Commons," Staff Papers 43094, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
    20. Avila-Santamaria, Jorge J. & Useche, Maria P., 2016. "Urea Subsidies and the Decision to Allocate Land to a New Fertilizing Technology: Ex-ante Analysis in Ecuador," 2016 Annual Meeting, February 6-9, 2016, San Antonio, Texas 229851, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:aaea10:61745. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.