IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

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

Listed author(s):
  • Lybbert, Travis J.
  • Magnan, Nicholas
  • Gubler, W. Douglas

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.

If 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.

File URL:
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Agricultural and Applied Economics Association in its series 2010 Annual Meeting, July 25-27, 2010, Denver, Colorado with number 61745.

in new window

Date of creation: 2010
Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea10:61745
Contact details of provider: Postal:
555 East Wells Street, Suite 1100, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202

Phone: (414) 918-3190
Fax: (414) 276-3349
Web page:

More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
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.:

in new window

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. Khanna, Madhu & Zilberman, David, 1997. "Incentives, precision technology and environmental protection," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 25-43, October.
  6. 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.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:aaea10:61745. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.