Douglas T'). Oiiara and John K iillison

E. Brordur Browno, Director

Charlrr W. Laughlin Wllllrm C, McCormick Assocfete Dlrector Associate Director Northern Region Southern Region

fhdrll J. Cotor, Chairman, Div. Agricultural Communieatlons

Oorothy Sprnr Kathl.rm Shewn Publicstions Editor Technical Editor

Wltlirm Rllnsver Qury Msrlar, Cover Design Aft r)illmctor

~ q ~ o u n d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

O b j e s c t i ~ e m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Psanut Productfon Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Peanut Typca Crom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 D l s l r i b u e ion by S i a c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Distribution by Irrigation Practlcc . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Crop Rotation Pract i c ~ a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Yield. Price. and Revenue Rwctvad . . : . . . . . . . . . 7 Compurl~un of Yield8 by Pruductfan Chernrtcrircit irrr . . . . 7

S i z e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Irr igat ion Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Irrigation Practlcr - S i r e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Pesticide-US@ Characteriartics . . . . . . . . . . . . . lo Pest Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 P e s t c o n t r o l Advice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 Types elf Sproy EquipwnE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 Spray Volume of Acrlnlly Appllcd Treatment. s . . . . . . . 15 Pesticide UHC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 Pesticide Use by Pest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Weeds 2 5 D t ~ e a ~ c a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5 Inaec t s 2 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pcstlcide Performonce 30 . . . Comparison of Y l r l d a by Pe~ticidc Treatment Levels. 30

Treatment . Level - S t % * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3

s m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :)b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References 38

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AppendbI 39

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ l L x 1 1 40

The authors art ~ r r t a f u l to the peenut grorero who provided tho aurvey infometion on whlch thin report l u bared,

The author@ wieh t o extend 8rr t i rudr to Salrurhl S. Thmaon, axt~nnlon plant p a t h n l g l r t , br?part.nnt of Plant Patholo~y , Coastal Plain Rxparlmwnt Stat ion, Cooperative P,rtcnalon Sorvlce, Tif tan, GA; La Jallar R. Eppsrnon and Dale I I , Cnrlcy, hatit w i t h the Dcpartacnt of Agrlculturrl P!onomlca, Geot$la Experiment Statlon, Experiment, GAP and to two rnanysaur rsviarcrra with thr Department of Agricultural konoclicr a t the 1Jnlvorrity ot Ccorgir for the l r many valuable l w i ~ h t s and rru~t~nntiona. They haw contrlhuted t o improving the owrnl1, quality of thln raport; b w e v e t , the authors are eolely rsnponrib1,r for any rcmalnln~ orrorr.

Thankr s l ea go t o Charles t o k e y , J r . , for ~ d s i a i e t c r i ~ the quantlonnrircllr and for prelinlnary data nnalye ls . Both taaks in?olvcci r substantial amount uf time,

Profile a d Peatiaide-Ulss Characbtirrticr of &sir P w u t Growem

Georgia har maintained i t r porition urr the lrrdlna producer of peanut8 i n the United Stater ainrcs 1944 (USDA 1955-1982). Ourin8 the 1975-82 period grower, in Caorgin producnd an avarrpa of 4311 of rha national crop ( tsblc 1).

Pactora contributing to Caorgia's dcminancs ham baan a lama ehate of nat ions1 peanut acreage and rbova-averuaa ylaldn, Prraur ac tawe hse remained relat iv~rly conatant i n tha United S t a t ~ r with an average of 1.52 million acrrsr over the 1975-79 pcriod (USDA 1976-00). Acreage i n Georgia avar t h i r aamca parlod averaged 525,800 a c m , 35% of the rutibn.1 coral. h r i q the 1980-82 period, 8 c r s a p in tha United Stater awraged 1.39 aj1,llon acrea; Ceorgls accounted lor 37% of the t o t a l (USDA 1981, 19821,

Peanut yieldr in C e o r ~ k a v ~ r ~ g c d 3136 Ib/acrs, comparstl with a national average of 2547 lb/scre durinp tire 1975-79 period (USM 1976-80). Yields over the 1980-82 pariod averaged 2687 I.b/acra for Georgia and 2335 fur the United Starea (USDA 1981-82).

This report 16 bared on Infontation obtained from a survey, publiarhtd data from the agricultural ctnsua, and U.S. Dopartausnt of Agriculture peanut production data. Three main rcctions of ~ k l s report include 1) the mthodology of the rample and rurvey; 2 ) production data c o a p r i s i ~ acreage, t y p r , i rr igr t ion, yield, price, rnd ravanw; and 3) pcrticidc-related lllfororrt ion including port control rdvtca, matarfalr uosd, area t r e a t d , nltmbdr and ra te of app11~8tion1, a d m t a r i a l cost.

Douqlas D. Charti rr a rew~arcbi cwr&nolor I1 arrd lot,n H, Alliwn ia n prcrlwx.rr in ttrn Ikrrpttrt. mnt of Aqrrcultural Ecmrrornrcs, IJIYIP~JL~I~Y 01 t k r g m thIImp* tri A,rjrrc:ult urrcr, Ckar,jra Expwrrl- mnt Stbticw~~ Exwrimrit, Gwrqra 30212. AIttrtru~~h ttrn* rarwrt:h c k r l k d in his rnrxrrl hnlc h n iunded ~ R ~ i l y by thc~ Untted Env~r~nmunntal f'rcflrrc~korr ~yen4y t~ndr?r blrtantn Aqraram! N u h r CR4KKW-02 0 totha Un~veralty 01 C;rW;grr/~a, GWJ~~IB E n ~ ~ r r m n t Slntrun, it haa rat hien ~~ubjdClsd to the Ag@ncyer requ~rchll per rrnd ~Jfnlnlnlrntrva rMvI+w arid, !lrarralor@, dat?a nolt n-rrly rsilw~ the views d !he Envtranmmtal Prrvfwtrsrr A c ~ r a q , and nu etlrnrrtrl an, ckrmmnt should be rnland. Addllianally, the m~flrun of !raQ mmw of mmmrclal prwcjudn doea not mdltufe erdommt or r w m m n 6 I i o n Ior \JIM.

Thla rtudy war caaducted l o r thras rcsroor: 1) t o provide curmat informt ian about the I)t;ructurb and caimpoaition of the peanut production sector, 2 ) t o develop a profi le of perticidcurre and c~urac t .a r i r r ic r of ure, and 3) t o e x a m l ~ the e f fec t r of pcaticide urn on yields, Specific objactiver were 1) t o col lect praductlon data p ~ r i a i n i q to peanut aerraage, yieldr, nad income; 2 ) t o e r t h a t e narpla and r t r t e rcrerge, yields, price, and incoma; 3) t o collect pert icida-uw data raf iardiq area t rested, amber of rpplicat lane, paundn af active i u t c d i e n t ( A l ) applied, rad aa t c r i a l expawe; b ) , t o csrt lmutn part i c i d c u m charrctcr is t icu; and 5 t o exaolnr t h e df f f omncer i n yield anaaciated with variour peet iclde practicer.

Methodology

Tlrb PLrrt r tap of tho raopling process war t o develop a ureter l i a t of the n m k r of f a m e and acreage harvertcd for a l l cQunties produciw peanuts i a Georgia reprcsentina the population udiverse (rppanrlix 11. On the barria of turveeted acnage, the popaation univsrlra war divided in to 12 equal group8 fro@ which one-twrd of thew aroupn were rsndmly selected. Thir determined the caundta t o b* raapled, 1 7 counticsr ( a m figure 11, and represented the kample univerra (apprndix I ) . A systematic rample u s i r q two sample Jlsiahte (avnry eighteenth grower w i t h an allotaent aize of 50 acres O$ 1 ~ 8 8

a d every n i n t h grower with an nllatmcnt s ize of 50.1 acres o r more) establirhed the i n i t l a l saaplc of peanut grovcrr, representing 11% of the an#plc universe. n i i e uaa further narrowed by a subample obta in iw the @ample uaad in tMa rtudy,

Peraur growerr were surveyed durina the f a l l and vinter of $980-81 by parronal lntcrviaw. Data collected included acreage, h i s tor ica l productton uy t o a fivo-year period with related peet problem, and i rr igat ion and rotation practices. Data relating t o pesticMe-use charclct~riat ics consisted of aource of pesticLde advice, perticide rpray data (acreage t rested, number of applications, application ra te or quantity applied, and material expense or unit coat) along w i t h the taQet pant f a r which the grower sprayed and the peeticideta overall perfornrncc nr perceived by the producer. The response rate was 85% as 58 of the 384 growers surveyed did not provide survey infoxmation. Cancerniw thear 326 completed surveys, e m double counting occurred when the owner ( lereor) and operator ( leame) were both rurveyed, rince both nmes rppearcd on USM-ASCS peanut allotment lists from which the 8mple war drawn, Unfortunately this was discovered a f t e r the s u m y war completed a d preliminary e r ror check8 wcn run. Diecardi~g there double counts then b roqh t the number of usuable r u m y e t o 279.

Trblr 1 Umtd Slrrr h a u l Ptwdunmn by Slrtr, 1@5.1982

State 1975 1976 1nr 1978 'r ' R n * l a * x I

AL PL C A YS Hn NC OK SC TX V A U.S. Total

197g 1960 1981 1.982 Mil. l b , X X I X

A t 585 14.8 265 11.5 603 15, l 531 15.4 PL 180 4.5 14 3 6.2 178 4 . 5 158 4,6 C A 1,705 43.0 99 5 43.2 1,655 41.6 1,516 44.0 YS 12 U, 3 8 0.4 13 0.3 r - N?1 2 5 0.6 2 2 1.0 25 0,6 25 0.7 NC 378 9.5 291 12.7 556 14,O 413 12.1 0 K 2 64 6.7 140 6.1 109 4.7 172 5.0 SC 32 0.8 14 0.6 39 1.0 30 0.9 TX 533 13.4 293 l2,7 39 3 9.9 319 9,3 V A 2 54 6.4 I30 5.6 331 8,3 275 8.0 U.S. Total 3,968 100.0 2,301 100.0 3,982 100.0 3,441 100.0 ,, j b , " fl',.*l .*.,,,,,X!f.,, W8.1, I#!>, , V~~I . , ,w:

.... 1: '.' ,, ~ ! v f > $ ! ! l f , t ~ ! , + 1 ,,,I ' , i I . ! , I 4 ', ,. $<,91!.ir7 *.,alt,;:",7* 8 ,\, ! w V # 8 I ) , I , I A ! ( ' f n q l ' , ' ' ] ~ l ? 4 ! 4 8 J

! * , # ? V ) , l < , ? i ~ ' , ! , , : V ~ ~ ~ l ! ' , # l ! , ' : l u i ,

Pmnut Production Data

Peanut Types Crown

The sampled farms represented 27,065 acres af peanutr c w p r i r i q three rypte during 1980 (table 2). Runner paanuta r a p r c r ~ n t essent ia l ly a l l the acreage in Georgia (99-100% d u r l q the 197680 period).

Distribution by Size

A dis t r ibut ion of rampled peanut f ame and rcrcrge rpprarr in table 3, MSS f a m r f e l l withfn relativaly am11 s i ze group8 -- 582 had under 75 acres of peanuts and only 2% of the C8ma had ovar 400 acres i n 1980, Mort of thc acreage ( 5 % ) war di r t t ibutad awq the groupe o w r 100 acres t o 400 acrcr with the size group 100.1-.200 acrer +firnln*in 1 fnt 36q n~f the , C ~ ~ O C i n 1980.

?&lo 2. Acr-s ol h n u t Trim G r m by SImpiad 01+0rg~ PMIU~ Crnw*~ . 19% I*) --..r(**.-..

Xy paa -ma-"-

Category - Year Runners V i ~ t a l a 9 n l s h nb t, a ~ -

- - - * . . Growarr Report lng:

1976 100.0 1977 100.0 1978 SO0,O 1979 98.5 1980 99.6

Ac reago : 1976 (No.) 14,947.1 20.0 em 14,C)hY. I

(%I 99.9 0.1 - to0.0 1977 (No. 18,733.1 - - IH,7:1'!. 1

(x) 100.0 - .. 100. 0 1978 (No. 21,971.2 67.0 w 22,0119.4

(X I 99.7 0.3 - 100. o 1979 (No.) 26,112.2 167.0 15.0 2b,614.2

(2) ' 99.3 o.6 0.1 1.0 CJ . (J

1980 (No . ) 26,903.3 127.0 3 5 . 0 27,0h5.3 ( X ) 99.4 0.5 0, I ---,- 100.0

.I I,,.!. " l ( , t 4 th?""'l f. !I,,. ?,"" ' , I * ' , t a , . , ' , , I . , I , . I 1 , , . I . (11

: ~ ~ d r ~ w i,jt; V ~ Y ~ ; ~ , , m ~ , r , j ; . ~ i ,,,.*,, 2 , i q V 6 ( , #+ , * ,%

S t a t e acrraac estimatas totaled 530,000 nCreH i n 19H0, drr*lvvrl o n the bas is of the aamplt! eatifantea an4 oarnplt? wtri~lttr u l r t r ~ an expansion f a c t o r t o reprewnt the Rtatr popultic.lon lace s p p e n d l s 1 frrr a der ivat ion of the cxpanrion fac to r# ) .

Two s i z e groupa, up t o 100 acrcn (0.1-100 a c r r r ) and over 1UO acres a r e used f o r f u r t h c t anslysia, i n thie report. Horc of thn? farmer (68%) were contained i n the alze group up t o 100 ncrex, w h i l e '142 u l the acreage was representad by the group over 100 rcres In sisc?. The a n r a g e s i z e of the operation was 37 acrd/farm f o r fama up to 100 acres i n eize and 226 a ~ r c / f a n o €or famr over 100 ncren In eite, which rcprerented r e l a t ivr ly large product ion oprrat ion@, Tha ove ral 1 average s i z e of operation# war 97 acre/frrnr.

D i r t r i b t i o n by I r r i g a t i o n Practice

Sampled f a n s and acreage were furrhor grouped in to i r r iga t ion cate8or ler (table 4). IIarultr indicate tha t 29X of the growera who p 8 n i c i p a t e d i n the su rwy i r r iga ted a l l t k c l r pernut land. In tenra of acrecylet, 48% of the acnaga repmaentad by the survey vsr an fsmr rlhtna p n r r p a r t i a l l y lrrigarcd their peanut land (aoarbinatlon)* T U m category contained 8007 i r r i8a ted fierce rad 4998 nonirrlgrtad acre8 of peuautr, briwiaig the t o t a l i r r iga ted t o 13,247 ac res (4%) rod awrtrri*atd to l3.819 WM8 (SU). Eatturcr for that s t a t e a r e

Tabla J Drrtrrbu!tan w l Sbmpled Podnut Farmr and Acreaga by Size Groups, Gwrqia, 1980

Saaple Entlmatea State iIatissteea Sizc Catsgory Pa ma Ac rcagc A t m q t -- -'x?%s No. x No. I No.

0.1-10 4 1 14.7 247.9 0.9 6,777 10.1.-25 4 h 16.3 797.8 2.9 21,810 2 5.1-50 ft 6 16.5 1,749.3 6.5 47,240 50.1-75 3 0 10.7 1,857.5 6.9 38,622 75, I -100 2 7 0. 7 2,319.5 8.6 49,584 100.1-2UO 4 3 19.0 7,026.0 25.9 144,789 2Or). 1-:1(JO 15 5.4 3,550.4 13.1 64,805 30(J, 1400 15 5.4 5,276.0 19.5 91,952 400.1 firm1 nwt b 2 . 1 4,240.9 15.7 64,422 Total 279 LOO. 0 27,065.3 100.0 530,000 , , , , , . , I # , , 1 ,! , ., . , , a 3 , r , : .! , , , . , , ,, , . ,, , ,+ I - T I , , , ;gV , , , 1 c l , ,: ,,, a k l , d t : u , . T , .< .,*

- 1 { + ! ! & , $ , , " % ,, i * . . ! , ' '

, ' I < , , , , ' , , "2 I*$,

Tcstria 4 I3im1ril1ut1on rif Snmplad G o r y t s Pearrut Falmfi and Acrclage by Irriqat~on Practrce. 1m - Peanut State 1 -

Cat ego ry - f a Ac reage AGerge No, X No. X 80.

Lrri8ated on2y 81 29.0 5,239.8 19.4 103,689 ' Nonlrrlgcitt.!rl only 125 44.8 8,820.5 32.6 194,666 (habinat lon:b

J r c i ~ ~ t c d * - 8,006.8 29.6 12 3,887 Nonirrigatad - - 4,998.2 18.4 101,758

Totrrl comhlnatllon 73 26.2 13,005.0 48.0 231,645 Total. 279 100.0 27,065.3 100.0 530,000

Total lrrlgaprdC - - 23,246.6 48.9 227,576 Total nonirrllatodd - - 13,818.7 51.1 302,424 Ctollzd total 279 100.0 27,065.3 100.0 530,000

7 :i P ,v : ,~ , , , , v ~ , r ~ . ~ t r ~ , : 1 ; , ' !+,,, s~.r.i,;~ ,$ ? , , : .i : !*I, ; U t , , , , I ? , & c . , t j , \ ~ , w t * , ~ t ~ . h . $ , ~ ~ f t r. .I !h ~ + ~ $ ! t ~ ~ , g ~ . ~ . ; h i '7 , !a$,{ 7% : #',I . $ . ,: tq $~,,<,tt,,l * a l t t 8 v 7 : \," :

I , !I. PI..^':,!,, "i'rr;., .$r.li i > r r . , $ , : , :< .. ) I+V : *':, , [ w , ? , , ,' r '.\q r ? . , ,*T ! I* , b ~ ! , , f ? ~ f i i , l r ~ , v 3 , ~ q 4 r , t I! ,A, ; I ! ) , j , t ,8 i 3 ' Q?, -*>.!,;#. $ Y > A ! t : ! - , - , *!I.$* , r ~ 1 1 . $ d ~ t 6 j r w * ,:! !!;PI: ,t f$w~j~,

t .,: . *, ,I : ,:K !.3!#4 *,.rn,,Jr- t ?.AT*:: * ' ,It f ) ? ! 7 I,a:?\:~ I ;-:",,: 1% **%.I $7 ,I!> : ,A, :*..% 2< '.r, ! & Y T , B w!,*-?Y. i'W \,'i at :*bz>:w * % \ ! v 9 .!

I .+) l l ~ l '

• ,s .. : ' ! i i , , < ~ m , * ~ <:,v.~r.yt.\ l ' ~ . ~ n , . + . , v ~ v t * ~ , 'W 1,H

103,689 ncrce on tams that irrigactld dl1 their peanut land a d 231,645 acma on farus that irrigated soat of t h i r land. Conrideriag a l l irrigated and nonirrigated peanut acreage, i t 10 ertieated that 227,576 acne mrc irrQrtced md 302,424 acre* were noairtigated i n Caomia in 1980.

Crop Rota t ion Prac t i ce r

Peanut growhr. p a r t i c i p a t l q i n the r u m y supplied information oa their crop r o t a t i o n plans f o r peanuts ( t a b l o 5). Tha arowsrr v r ra grouped by 1 ~ q t h ( i n yeam) of a i a i l r r r o t a t i o n p r r c t i c a r , A t h t s t - y e a r crop r o t a t i o n plan wa8 the m r t corrcrn p rac t i ca , ~ccouatin$ f o r 52% of a l l grororr , f o l l w e d by a t w y a a r r o t a t i o n plaa (40%). Only 8% of the grovera surveyed used r faur-yarr crop rota t ion plan. Within theac th ree ~ ~ a e r r l typdn of r o t a t i o m more firowor8 (612) l i s t e d a peanut-corn ro ta t ion plan tlran any o t h r r plaa. O f a l l three-year r o t a t i a n p lanr , mora Browerr (402) l i s t e d a peanut-corn-con ro ta t ion plan followed by r peanut-corn-roybsan r o t a t i o n plan (272). Both r o t a t i o n plana -- peanut a-corn-corn-c o m and peanut 6-saybcanr-corn-mull a r a i o r -- MM wqua1,ly coarron four-year r o t a t i o n plane with 24X each of the &rawerr( aurvayad.

Yield. Pr ice . and Income Rccaived

Surveyed peanut growera provided up t o f lve yavro of production and income d a t a on t h e i r operation, Average y ia ld r ( l b l r c r a ) , averyar p r i c e recclved per pound and ton, and average income? par acre warm ca lcu la ted ( t a b l e 6).

The o v e r a l l average yie ld f o r the flvc-yrmr psrlarf (1976-89) uar 2964 l b l a c r e . A l l yeare but 1980 were above t h i r rrvaryla,, exemplifying t h e acvere drought t h a t occurred i n chin yanr. Avarrla y i e l d s ra-ed from a high of 3491. lb lnc re In 1976 t o a low of 2024 lh /ac re i n 1980.

P r i ces received by rurveyed Georgir peanut growerr f luctuated year ly from a low of t413.89/ton i n 1976 t o a high of t465.22/ton l a 1980. The average p r i c e received f o r t h e five-year period war est imated a t an average of $432.91/ton (22dl lb) compamd t o the na t ione l a w r a g e of $426.32/ton (2 LLIlb) (USDA 1981).

Xncoae received by surveyed peanut growerr ramad f roar a l,ow of $459.04/acre i n 1980 t o a high of $739.72/acre i n 1978, with a f ive-year ayerage of $642,97/acre.

Comparieoaa of Yields by Production Ct laractcr i r t icr

Mean y i ~ l d r of psanutr were f u n h e r extmimd t o r d i f f r r e n c e r I n t h e production c h a r a c t e r l ~ t i c r of s i z e and i r r i g a t i o n pract ice . Thir consis ted of a s t a t i r t i t . 1 t c r t (Student ' s L t a r t ) f o r two wrrurl populations with unlrmnn and unequal v r r i ancar , which asamload Eha null hypothesir that the observed aeanr a r e a q u r l v r r ru r an a l t e r n a t i v e hypothesir that tha obrctrvtd mean, r r e not.

Size. A c a p a t i w n of .can pecan y i a l d r by tha r i te of operation - ebowrcd t h a t r s a n y ie ld8 f o r f a n r up t o 100 r c r a r , 414 over 100 a c m e were not r i g n i f f c a n t l y d l f f c r e n t a t the 5 o r 102 lava1 f o r each y u r a d o v a r a l l yecrrr (table 7). For tha f1ve-ys.r averry~e, wan y i a l d r were er reo t l r r l ly tht n u s a c m r n r i m groupr, 2935 l b / a c r r f o r f a n , up t o 100 acres in mite and 2931 lb/ .cre f o r f a w over 100 . c r a m la rim. lhir would imply that producrarr a r e w i n g very riullrr prod11ctIoa practlcsrr r q p r d l e r m of the rim of tblt oparation.

Trbln 9 Crop Rolatian ffrn ol %mpl+d G*argla Pmnur Crowrrt, 1seO

Ymarr Rotation Cmwarr Rdportiq f

No X

Twrryaar ra ta t ion plan: Pernc~tn, corn Plltnnut a , noyberaa Yennuta, laall grains Praanurrr, r o m &/or a w l 1 graine Parnnutn. corn 6 / o r cot ton Yalrrrutt~, corn &/or aoybcrna Peanutn, corn & / o r tobacco Puanrit 8 , rnrnb Pennuta, cotton &/or corn &/o r

whtant &/or s r ~ l n ~crrgtlun

Peanuts, ~ l o n l l gr~rlnn &/o r id le larut Plarnute, hay Paanutn, clopbean &/or tobrrcco Paanut e , corn &/o r ~ r a l n ~orgtrua

TlnLfil

T I t n e - m ro ta t ion plqn: T Z i i ~ t e , corn, rornCfi" Pesnuta, corn, swll. Rr t n ~ @ P~plnuta, corn, soyhanu 3 Pe(lnutlb, corn, tobacco t8e(inutli, corn, cot ton Pernut a, peanut r , corn Pennuta, woybean~, cot ton Paunut r, oeybennn, e a s l l grelua Psanuta, swL1 grnlns, grain ~orghum Pcenute, cOm, gra in sorghum Paanuta, sgybeana, grain aorphura Paanuta, -11 g r s ln r , amnll g ra ins Yeanuta, ailplybeane, vageteblce Tatol

Feuryear Puanuta, Peanut e , Peanuta, Paanut a , Peanut@ , Peanut li , Paanuta, Peanut a, Total

ro ta t ion plan: tarn, corn, corn corn, corn, s o y b a n s corn, reybeana, groin soghun corn, eoybans , corn cattcm, corn, emall gralne =Ye, lye, Fye #mall gralns , corn, corn eoybeenr, corn, small grains

n Yrvw ri.jrb.r,*n :t,il- ::t,:::tmv; &*.! j w r x L C :t,r* gbtn,~ulr\r x d s ~ v ~ ~ c i fnert ir u a !rv mt ;WMU~M!. LY'PW. tt?lh.t~,~~ plan w n s t)vF hLf ir IA

&warid@ Ihf. t.mr .i*..r? .'ln;l In nim the c h , k < k , 1 Vwr otd thtr rs rnw 'mt rwr) Inw y*~n)

L' !!a16 tws. y w - rr'~nxtu1 vnvn rb7a?.ln jukn \a lirlirwl*il ~ d . 1 wrr:!*r by a t.r>rar crop h9r Utndaf Jr&#Ahg I. Li;,mksw rkir t .?. 'i-lt;dhynl rl!R ~ ) y k m v e $4 f t ~ t ~ h . , ~ ~ dl i i l r l r l i ;~ TYYJmm ~ L * I V ~ ~ W M WI IN(NI cn i h b hfV. tarn?$ lirn~ll orurrna nm 61mn.i o~ n ivwf ,rr%p nr z q r 0or)rtg 'hn W t n W m!WC% kw- pR?i\O1 ~ ~ T V M ' W ~ dJd WE's D h d i n Q . t 'TU, :rl'%aan !he ,-vrrrnl: pwmu rwhbr ttiarr #ha m w n r Lw t j y , t d 13;nr .w'(YL4LId in IhO l tabhi u*l i'?g LU ahn b m %JIY.~~ I l l r rvwwtp ( r t i.Lxwj). Ehnut &rww JMO 1%1

T*bk 6. Amrag. Ydd. hc*, and tnmm* k w r m l far & m p W PMnut Clmmrn, C h t y m . IW6 1- ?ear Avenge Yield PtIcu Racelrad Grora Tncoaaa

lblacra $!I b $/ton $/nr rs

1976 3,490.5 0,207 ~113,89 728.73 1977 2,992.5 0.21 1, 421.98 620.39 1978 3,430.7 0.216 431.91 739.72 1979 3,190.5 0.222 444.25 707.81 1980 2,023.9 0.223 64 5.22 459.04 All, yesrr 2,963.5 0.216 4 .12,91

-" 642.97 - "tt,,, ., : ! r , " , , ..,, %, + L " " ,,.,, i,",,! ! , f V . , I , # * , a!,

Table 7 Comparlmn ol Mean Yteldr ol Sernpled Gm>cy)a Peanut Growerr by S l ~ n crl C)pwrl~trtr. 1HIXti lW up .ra luu P ,*- acme Ovsr x ~ D ---". nc rnw

Year Man yield Obna l r l d "*r-

0hwa lblacre No. 0 .

1976 3,332.4 104 3,435. S 32 197 7 3,149.0 128 2,800.8 4 2 1978 3,424.8 16 5 3,356.1 4 9 1979 3,204.9 170 '1,21b.6 5 7 1980 1,656.1 153 1,732.4 4 3 A l l yearnc 2,934.7 720 2,931.1 22 3 A l l ycare 3,279.7 56 7 3,217.5 1.80

Irr igation prect ice. An c x n r i ~ t i o n of i r r L ~ a t i o n pracc lcan showed that mean yielde of irr igated pranutm and nnnirtlgrtcd peanutu for each y e H and a l l years were ai&nificantly d i f f a r ~ n t rut the 5% level ( table 8). Meen irrigated yield f o r a l l years rrvrraged 3385 lb/ncre in coaparison t o 2737 lb/acrc fa t nonirriqntcl4 pcanurn.

Irr igation practice -- size. The distribution of pernut fame nrul acnane by i r r l aa t lon practice waa further diffsrentisted by riza of - . operation (up to 100 acrer, and over 100 acrsa). Por oparationa that irr igated a l l the i r peanut acreage and fo r operrtionr that d id . not have any irr igated acreage, more frmr representsd tha group up t o 100 acrer l a s ize ( table 91, For operatiour that p a r t i ~ l l y irr1g;ated thLr Laad, more fares carprired th. Rroup over 100 acres l a miea. Corrcrtning acreage, fama over 100 acrar in aiza rccountsd for m a r of the i r r igated and noairrigatad acreage, 38% for irr igated acterg* and 37X f o r nonirrigclted acreage.

The &*rags r i s e of oparation raaged from 32 t o 57 acrrlfarm for fa- up t o 100 acm. l a ~ f 2 . e ~ and from 184 t o 245 acre/fat . f o r f a n e onsr l O O acmr i n size, which n p r s u a t s d r a k t i v e l y l a q c producttoa om@r4tions.

Irrigated PIunutr Woairtimrted B"anwt8

Year Mem yield oh' t h n yield 6ba8 1 blrc re No. 1 b/ac re Ha.

19 76 3,788.4" 2 6 3,2%.6* 110 1977 3,724.5" 3 7 2,907.4a 13 3 1978 3,877.8* 65 3,204.6* 149 1979 3,629.5" 79 2,982.8e 148 1960 2,454.2" 80 1,U3.9* 116 A l l yearr, 3,384.81 287 2,736.5* 656 A l l yerrr 3,744.w 207 3,080.8* 540

than yields were estimated and compamd, but due to a limited number of obrervationr in root groupr, the arulyr is i s weakend, Xcan yieldr of irr igated and nooirrigated peanuts of farar up t o qO acres in s i r e were rilprificantly different asoag one another a t the #% level for arch year and a l l years. For a11 years means were 33495 lb/acre and 2757 lb/acre for irr igated and nonlrrigated peanuts of fa,# up t o 100 &Ear i n s i t e ( table 10). Man yields of i r r i g l e d and nonirrigated peanutr of f a m r over 100 acme i n sib were r ignificrntly different among each other a t the 5% level @er a l l yaarr ht 1976, Estlmater were 3494 lblscre for irr igated p e d u t s ahd 2668 lb/rcre to r nonirrigatad peanutr for a l l years, There y&lds are very I(im1Lrr in magnitude t o chore in the s ize group up t o 100 acres, adl i n only one year (1977) mean yields acrors s ize groupe f o r t h e raae Wrlgatlon practice were significantly different a t the 1@ level.

Pesticide-Use Chsracteristica

Gmrpia peanut gromro who were surveyed were arked about pest problrlr encountered during previous growing rearonr, 1976-80 (table 11). 'The pert problem8 eacountend were due t o rpeciflc peat in fe r t r t l aa r and part icular pert-coot rol prreticer (perhap8 by the use of an laaffective particids, not applyiag the proper asount of spray, o r aot applyin$ the rpray a t the c r i t i c a l tlme) but a re not neceruvily probleu encouotemd thmughout the reason f o r all gmvrarr. M~ny emwerr reported pest problem could bQ diainlrbed d t h proper c m t rol.

More growam npor t sd problenr dus t o i m e c t r than t o d i ruue. ~uring th r 1980 m a r m 1% of the Brouera r e p o m d p m b l a r due t o tba leraar corn rtllk borer, 17% from folirga f d i q fnmctr , a d l?f fm md aptder Cites. Of a11 peat problea8 mported, problmm frcn

T*bk 9. Fa- kmd Alano with She ol Oprrrtrrur tot b m p b d Oorqra h n u r Gmwn by 191u and IrtmHbR P r k m , iW

Av#. 'Sine Pane knyr of F a n

No. S No , 1 acntfrrn

b d r r i f i a t e d only: bp t o 100 acws 35.1 3,187.) l1.B Over 100 bcma 26 5,633.0 20.8

Combinat ion: a ' frrigrted:

Up t o 100 acma - - Owr 100 acres - -

Noairrigatad: Up t o LOO acma - - Over 100 acne - -

Total Combinat ion: Up t o 100 acme 26 9.3 Over 100 acres 47 16.9

Total 2 79 100.0

Over 100 acree - - 10,182.9 37.6

Total Nonirrigatad: Up t o 100 acme - - 3,90I1.3 14.5 Over 100 acres - - 9,910.4 36.6

Grand Total 279 100.0 27,065.3 100.0 97.0 .I hw!-r*w-?A~, t ,$rr l jv : :~ t ! , , f , i y f"t!!,a,ly ,rrs&o!jy: tlmjr I*,.?+ ,,* !\ r* t? 11

t ! i i n , , J ! , r F , ~ M W I *%!'rqa,?fJ<'q ' 7, Ifirrr,,e I I ~ < , ! :r!~#~71r#j ,qi' ,%J r t ~ p I,, i l , t r f l , ~ I , , I + ' Y " J I ! C . , I (.*?I+ *!.,,,I f i t tt,,nm>t,

, , , I r , . , r , I , I : I , 3 . r : I f . I . t r ~ , . h , t . r S 1 l t * r ' ,.! f I . * r l t hp r h i v p f t . t . i r

:<,J($l??i

1. u r . rr Elnivnrr;ty ' ,4.,,rqro Itt*rt.ti' :.,.:vrrs .'dfi, i #!:

folidge feeding insectr ranked highcat over tho f 1 vur-ye4r period, Surptieingly, growers c$ted problaar due t o drouaht conditionn throughout the f fve-year period with more gtorerr u x p a t i e n c i q drought c o d i t i o n r la 1980 than ia a11 praviauo yanrr.

Pert Cantml Mvice

Surveyed gromrr wen arkcd t o indicate thei r lourea of pert control advice, with aort (98%) rerpondlag to tb l r quartion (table 12). Mvlct el ic i ted from chsrical compaaisr (parsoar1 c o o t a t mad written recoraDdrrtion# combimd) m p m ~ n t e d thb h r g e a t c b t q o v , witb 33% of rurvayad gmwarr reporting. Advice zalatlng t o cooperative a t c n r i o n mwice repremated the acblrt h r ~ a r t c r t q o ~ , with 22% of owwvlrs nsportiq (the f i r a t three categorler).

h t l , 7 9 6 153 3,102.31 414 3,701.4' 54 3,010.1* 126 , ! d o .,,I , > 4 % , , a , , : ,, , , ,+1, l , l ! t , ~ + , , , ,,,>, , , , I ,,,, ..,,,dtCmr , 1 . 4 7 , ! f 8 .Jq , *28 , ,,.,:!e,"v ~ , f t , , , 2 *,xv .rt,>%,{* 4! !b#" I * : bmi \lM>r,<] a1wt.a

,,$, ., 1 ' ,, , ', , 8 , ,,*, , !*wt,,. ,# ,, . L,,. , , t" . . , . , , $ 1 , , , , a : I ~ , ~ ~ , , ~ i n , f ; r * , & f t8, rw *t, , l . ,"!d ; q S t . a * ; $ r * . w ~ r b p r t r t d w j , 4 r , * ~ t,wymrtq.,t pr wit , ,

I rrp i 1 , , . , I M ! n . I . , , " , ! * * I Im.*r, ,rS; . .* , z l I 'c.sr.'&.r*r ; r r t ! * x . ~ .,.,. ,,,, a , , " ,$f", ,?, , ! ,. , @ h , f , I ,>$d , , ' I , ,'U* ; * , ,.

i , r , 8 , : , s , . , * , T c tv* , T 8 j ~ , , - , . ~ ~ I t i," : F ;q*r v , i w,w ,< ri,c w ' v t , f e , ,.,,j,kt ,$, t , ,**yw- 1 rw, lfd~fh7T+d eR ar\l*<iii6vt

, $ , , ! t , f b 8 e, ' -. $!,+ 7,. w * ; (,&,jq u ? t . e 8 ? , t t < t b s \ v t . I ,*t ' , .*"I$, v t u t~tal"frbd$,"S .?fw' $*tv*WtctWT

, , , f,,, ,. , ? Zr,? 17' $ ,*, ,, ., ,<,b ",,,, ,. ,$ * ' 1 ,;, ,, t , ,,,* , , & I,,, ",, ., , I t > , ,i%l , , , ~ ~ ~ I I I , ~ . . ~ c > ~ , ' , , l < ! l * . ~ ~ , " ~ > ~ 29, ll,*. k""*+: ! * \ I I : ) / . ~

, , ,.< , 7 ' w c,qt:*\, I . , L . z , l w . , ' 8 ' b."",

6 0 1 . , ,, I ':, ..,. , t , # ! < , c * , r ; ,, 1, ..*, r,,lL , ,, , , t . + , M ' v ,

Table I 1 Must Catnon P r ~ b l ~ m Ensounterd by S.mp1.d G.otpu Pwnvt Grown. 1974080

~ ~ a r kporting8 T -0 ry 1976 1977 1978 1979 1 1980

" . - - " . - . . - - - - c - - m e - - - , - - - - -

Pert P r o b l i q t Ka m r carrratalk borer SO. corn toet won Fu l i ~ e f cadera Velvet h a n caterpi l lar Cutwoma Red rpldar &tar Thripa Neratodrs , b d a p o t White mold S ick l~pod

T.bk 12. Wac Common 30utm d P*dtcrd* Ad* of SlmplKt CLS.u~yta Pwnut Crramir, lW Smrcs

Coop. 123t.t. Sarv.: Rrroarrl contact l 8 b, S Uri ttrn mcoulaadat lon 19 6.8

Clinic, rhort courra o r u e t l ~ 2 4 8.6 an. cot h r r a n r l c o a t a t 7 t 26.9

Wrlttan r e c m a d r t l o n 16 5.7 Pam Dumwt Plarronal contact b 2.1

Written r e c m & t l o n 2 0.7 Ratall cbmica l out le t 3 F 12.6 Ikokr, n q r t l a a r , nawrpaper 2 1 7.5 C a a r r c l a l rprayerr 2 Q , 7 Coratcir 1 rprryor otganirat ion L 0.4 Experienca 3 1 1 2 . 5 Other f a n e r r 1 U 3.6 Reusarch f a m 1 0.4 Handbook -4 1.4 Radio 1 0. h Conrultant 2 0.7 Laboratorlee 2 0.7 No nnpmre . 5 1. R Total 2 79 - IOU, 0 ----

,I , U ~ . ~ v w r q , r , ' I MU rcl~n i P*V<I i' .rvr.t '& ;j' dr

Type# of Spray Equipment

The data prerented ir tabla 13 stmu ttzc lmportamra of d i t f a r an t type8 o f rpray equipment umd on nraple farms I n 1979 and 1980 by typb of psrt icide, Equipment ueed i n preplnnt lwarporficton wall the morrr c m n typd of equipment urad Car harblcide application, w i t h 96% of tha grower6 mporting thlr in both ytara. Thir vaa used on f r m ~ m p m m ~ t i q ~ 96% of the surveyed acreage in 1980, wtrh aa o v a r a p r irnd unit of 97 acre8 king treated i n 19110. bppllcation by boom rgrayer e q u i p a t mu the racotld cour cwaron type of rsquipmnt urcd by rampled grorrrrr for harbkide rppl icr t lam, although t h i r mathad war ured t o &mat m m I C ~ ~ I ! than the praviwr method,

boom aprryerr ware the rort conon rprry equipmat urad for f u q i c i d e applfcatioar mng rurwyed growarr. Thlr ocrlrod wau reported by 692 of tbQ 8nrwecr fa 1980 rod 672; i n 1979, It wrr umd t o t m r t th mrt rcreqcs (42%) i n 1980 of the cquipwat urrsd f a r fuqllkida applicatiwrr, w i t h an amraga r f tad unit of 88 acrer ( table U), Zquipaent urad i n u r i a l app l l c r t ims nrr rhr uecoud roet c m o n

Trbla 13. MOSI Cdmmoa Trps d Spray Equ~pmra~ Uwd by Sunp1.d b r g h P w u t Orowmm k P w t d Tlpr, 1918- 1950

a knyr Warted Part ic ide Typar C m r r Reporting Total Mean Type at Spray Equiprrrnt 1979 1980 1979 1980 1979 1980

no, z NO, x - - - - - - - - r c n # - - - - - - Harbicldar I m p p l icat ion 3 1.1 3 llaor rprayar 233 86.1 236 l n jector on plantar 1 0.4 3 Air b h r t o r miat epraysr 4 1.4 3 illghboy 15 5.4 16 Rectrculrtlng rprryer 1 0.4 2 Praplrlnt iworporr t ion 267 96.4 268 Asr l r l appllcat tan 26 9.4 26 Wick bar' 5 1.11 7

P u ~ l c i b a r : Grrnulrr npplicat lan 33 11.9 33 11.9 3,606.8 4,682.6 109.3 141.9 Bow r ~ t r y e r 185 66.8 192 69.1 16.339.8 16.856.2 88.3 87.8 Alr bl;rt70r a t a t @prayer 12 4.3 13 4.7 2i416.1 2i227.4 201.3 171.3 Hiahboy 16 5.8 16 5.8 2,075.1 2,125.4 129.7 132.8 Praplnnt lncclrporatton 2 0.7 2 0.7 42.4 21.2 21.2 Aarlal appl lcrt ion 120 43.3 111 19.9 14.753.6 3 122.9 118.7

I n ~ c r l c i d a a : Granular applicrt l.on Boom aprayer 136 49.1 151 54.3 12,403.9 13,509. 91.2 89.5 lnjm tor on planter 6 2.2 7 2 . 5 851.0 867.f 141.8 123.9 Air blunt or mirt sprayer 9 3.2 11 4.0 1,224.2 1,100.6h 138.0 100.1 litahboy 12 4.3 12 4.3 1,277.5 1,365.8 106.5 113.8 Pnp t rn r incoryoir~tion 10 3.6 9 3.2 1,245.2 783.5 124.5 87.1 Aertal appltcattcrn 105 37.9 111 39.9 13,933.6 13,988.6 132.7 126.0

Punigsnt Neant ictde r In isctor on nlsnter

Hsrbtcidaa & Inwct lc ider : barn uprayar a 12 4.3 9 3.2 537.3 427.5 44.0 47.5 ~ n r i r l . rppllcat ion 3 1.1 3 1.1 569.0 441.0 189.7 147.0

lnaacticidre 6 Pungicldecr: Boom sprayer 3 1.1 3 1.1 106.5 106.3 35.5 35.4

t u q k i d e r p p l i c a t i m uthoct, The a m r q a r i sd un i t t m r t u d uur 119 actam i n 1980.

Spray equiprant uwd la i w c t t c i d . appl ics t ionr was r i r i b r t o that used 18 fun l i c lde rppl laa t ionr , Surnyad amwmrr l l r t e d th. kror sprayer a s bC1q the m a t CO~OZL mode of rppl ica t ion, followed by equipmaat urad i n a e r i a l uppl ica t ioar , g n n u h r appl ica t ioar , a d application by hllhboy. Tbm boom mpnyer wrr u u d by 54% of tb g m r r l a 1980, and 50% of tha r c r r y l e reeelvnd r n a t m a t f ram i t i n 1980.

Spray Voltma of Aerially Applied T r e r t u n t r

Data f o r varlour volurra of a e r i a l l y appllad rprayr of n u p l e d growerr were arranged by ps r t l c ida tyiro (s.8.. harblcldr) and apray volume ( i n gallon. of water umd per acre) ulcd i n t h e i r operation ( t a b l e 14).

Spray voluraa of herbicide. raagcsd from 4-7.5 a r l / r c ra . Of thr rpray voluutr reported, the v o l u e 5 @r l / ac re ranked h i g b r t i n 1979 and 1980 i n tern8 of f a m s a d acmaae.

Aer ia l fungic ide-application rpray voluaar r a ~ e d f rm 2.5-7 gal /acre i n 1979 and 3-7 gal/acre i n 1980. I n both yearr , t b moat common spray voluma war 5 gal/acre. Thir #pray voltme r e p m ~ a t e d E b la rgcet number of f a r r r and rcrsaae, 65 frrmr-1979, 61--1980, and 8641 a c r e r i n 1979, 8255 ac re r i n 1980. C n n a r r who urod t h i s rprry V O ~ W t t s a t ~ d t h e i r acnrage an aML.aJIQ 09 8.3 tima. i n 1979 and 6.9 timer i n 1900.

Aerial i n s e c t i c i d r r p p l l c a t ion rpray volurcar r n q e d ftoa 2.5-7 gal /acre i n 1979 and 3-7 8al /acm i n 1980 ( t ab le 1 A 8 with fungicides o f a11 rpray volume. reported, A volwu, of 5 ga l / ac t r wan used by a o r t growerr w h o reported u r l q a e r l a l inrar: t icid& appl ica t ioru . Mdi t io tml ly , 56% of the acma8e that rec6ivad t n a t m e n t f rol a e r i a l imaecticidra application^ -8 t mated with a lrpray volume of 5 gal/aorc. The averaae nusber of r p p l i c a t i o ~ for t h i n rpray volume var 2.1 t imerlacre fa 1979 and 2.3 t i u r l a c r e r i n 1980.

Pes t ic ide Ura

P e s t i c t d r u e e data ~ 0 ~ l i 8 t of 8-h 8Dd # t a t & 6 0 t i ~ t @ 8 for Lk. most c o ~ l o n hcrblcider, taogicidea, and insac t i c ide r w d by nrrmyad Ctorgi. peamat grower8 drriw tha 1979 a d 1980 rt.war. The c u p l r a d r t a t e e r t i u t e r i n t M a ~ c t i o a ir pmwnted by th. bturd rubr of chemical product8 becauld 4rOlOrr rrported p t o d u ~ t r l o t h i a 8mmmr ud a100 k c a u n of f d l i a r l ' L y and c h t i t y t o tb. i d u r t r y . Th. uaa of b n d ousr in thir report does wt i n d l c a n any ondararwot of o r d i .cr l . inr r lw *.iolt any product by th autborr, The c c n our, bad zurrcc, rod cht.fca1 name fo r each c b m i c a l product reported m a r * i n .ppaodir f I.

Tabk I4 N w k r d Fdrau, Acrwg* T r u t d , md Fr*gumcy d Sprry V d w d Aerial Tmtmmb br &mpid Olrargrr Pweut Qrmrr, by Pesticrd* Tvpr, 1979.1886

Qrcsqmnc y hcraagc Tm(~ted i f

h w t l c i d c Typat Pa mr 1979 1900 Sprry Va lubu - "Ftd rean 'fatal Yean - g n l l a c n - No

rn t imalrcrrr

Pungic l,dsn : 2 .5 3.0 3.5 4.8 4 . 3 4.5 5.0 6.0 6 .5 7.0

Not inltcnted

Inrac t i c idrr : 2 . 5 13,o 4.0 4 .3 4.5 5.0 5 . 5 6.0 6 . 5 7.0

Not inticatad

-1. a n h t . 8 nporrb for tku prodwtr mn 1) a e n q e (both tota l and parcant) t n r t e d during 1979 a d 1980, 2 ) rrwrwr n u h r of rppl ic8t ioar l a 1979 and 1980, 3) p a u d r aY act ive Ina;ndlmacr (AX) applied per acre d u r i q tb mason, and 41 u t r r i u l axpaan* p a t crcm for a e h product l i r t r d f o t both aearonrr, S t r t r l s a t l u t e r eonmiat af I) t o t a l r c r a q e tmatad , 2) t o t a l pound# o f AX rppllad, and 3) t a t n l ucrr ia l axpews of the mow cwaoa product tirtad for the 1919 and 1980 maasoar i n addit ion t o tlw overall expannn (or a r l # r ) by p e r t i c i d r type (hrbidcldrs, fungicide, and iaract lc td*),

Ftraulta indlcatc t b t 8-11 but one rurvay~d ~romr tmr tod t h s i t acreage with pesticide8 during the 1919 stat! 1980 nearour, with treatad acreage r e p r o r g . n t 1 ~ 27,061.h aemn in 19W,

The number n d propor t ion of chbalcnl prodwta unad OD I U Y J ~ ~ fansrr during the 1979 and 1980 aaarmurzw are shown l a table Sf,

b l a n 1.5L war the mat widely used t~erble lde product i n both 1979 and 1980, w i t h 257 (92%) of rha grorarr repurtinl( I t r ure nt l a r r t once during the 1980 &@@ran. Thla war fo l l awd by Anrmck i n bath acsrons with 83t of the tatnl . Tho nnzt two moat eoaaon harblclde products were Iasao 4EC and Vernaa 7EC.

Rravo $00 was the moat widely unati f'unglcide product In both 1979 and 1980, wlth 98% (1979) and 99% (1900) of a l l growara rnpnrting I t , use a t lhas t owe. Sulfur Super Slx wan rho, racnnd aor t wldrly urad f u ~ l c i r l e product, r ~ l p r a r e n t t w 87% i n 1979 a d 86% of t o t a l Rrowrr i n 1980.

Lannatc/Nudttn 1.8L roa the moat widely used lnracrlc lna l product, with 532; (1979) and 59% (1980) of all. g;rowcro r a p o r t i q i t r urr a t least once. Thlr was fa l low~d by Azadrla st, w l t h 381 of the growara i n 1979 and 44% in 1980.

Pesticide-usage data a m praaantnd La tablaa 16 rad 17 fo r 1979 end 1980, mrpectivcly. Durirq both yearr , aurvayad peanut growarr t ree tad the most acreage wttt~ Balun l.5t of a11 herblcidnl product@ reported. This particuLwr herbicide was rpplled t o 95% (1979) and 93% (1980) of treated surveyed acreage, Thio war followed by Ancrrck with 85% of the t o t a l i n 1979 and 83% i n 1980, A l l of t b h r b l c l d r l products were applied an Average a t 1.-1.5 t i m a 4 u r l q both naaronr. Attac 6 was applied i n s w h a aanncar t h r r i t , had the highart seamwL appl icat ion r a t e of the herbicidal productr rapartad, with 5.23 Ib AX/acre i n 1979 and 4.91 l b AI/acre l a 1980. Rouadup h.d the hw8e seasonal appl icat ion r a t e of the herbicidal producta i n both y r r r r , Bas-ran 4% had the higheot rearon*l u t t r l v l erpaaM of a l l herbicidal product8 i n both ysrrr, with $16,88/rcra la 1.979 and $19,80/acre I n 1900. P a n u t growerr l a tha r t a t c rptnc an a r t l u t a d $4.46 mill ion l a 1980 on &ten 1.5L a d applied 693,933 l b AX on 490,136 acres l a C a o r ~ i a .

Alachlorr &NO XI 1% b a r 0 1IK:

Seaafinz brkn 1.3L bentaton r h q m n 4SC Chhrambont h i k n 2 L Dieitrouin*t C o k x 2EC Mnoreb/Dfaitror Praoar~e 3aC Clypbure Iaopropylulna Salts

Roundup 3% Metohchlorr R u l 8EC t k p t a l u t Uahlp 2L Hrptalu + Dinowbr hncnrck - 2 + LEC

Toxaphsner Attac 8 - Toxaphene 8EC Attu: 6 - Toxaphens 6EC

Vomlate t V e r w 7 s

Captafol ! Dif o l a u n 4EC Carboxint Vf t a w 3 s Chlomthalonilt Bravo MO 4EC

Bran, 75U PQl8 + Ethopmpr PQIB + HOCAP, 10-3C PCNB + Paaeulfothioat PQJB + Damnit, FCNbr PCNB 10C

P a m 4 0 Sulfutt SuUur - S q r r Six 6P

SujLfu't 90D T t i p h a y l t i a Hydmxide: Super-Tin 4L

Du-Tur 5OW

Aldicarbt Temik 1OC 3 1.1 3 1.1 b l i k rU; 2 0 7.2 2 3 8.3

BTt D i p e l f.2 13111 IU/lb 1 0.4 1 0.4 ?Contiwad on next page)

Trbk 15. amtinuad

chemicrlr rt larrt opccra Ilrtatlalr Product 1980

No. 1 No. X

Xruaet kcidea, coat. Carbrryl: Sevln 805

Sevin 25W Savin 4P

Carbofurrrn: Purrdan 10C Dicofol: lb l tham 4 ? ? Dimthoate: Dimthoate 2.67EC Dinrlfoton: Diryrton BEC

Diryrton 1X POtlOf06: DyfoTUt~ Malathloa: Ualathion 5% Xtthamyl: Lannute/Nudrin 1,8L Hethy1 Parathion: Dypar 21, Homcrotophos: Azodrln 5L Parathion: Parathion 4P

ParatNon 10C Toxaphcne * Methyl

Parathion: 6ttac b + 3EC Trichlorf on: Dylox 1OC

Nematlcidesr Ethoprop: Hocap 6ec

Mocap 10C Fe~miphoe: N e ~ c u r 3SC

Nemiacur 1%

Gmwth Regulator: Aminozide: Kylar - 8%

Fuaigant Nemrtictde: Ethylene Dibromide: Soilbrom - 90EC 3 1.1 4 1.4

Tabb 16. U.ag43 DaZs for ?&& Cornman Fast~ctdes Rewried by Sampled G c o r c p a Pssaus G o m r s , 1979

Saaple E u t t i a t e b State Estlratr

Ava . f Active & t i e - a p p l i - i r e - ?%aterial &reage ingred- Haterial

bterlal: Product e f m -a utiw gent expease treated lent expense go, ?is. lbtacre tfacre no . lb. t

Ahehlor: tataao 11 UC Lasso 4EC

Bruef in: Iklan 1.5L Rentasom: Basrgran 4SC Chlatrmtien: h I & n 2L Dino.eb/Mnit ro:

PreQergc 3EC Clyphosate leopropylarfne

S n l t t Rouadup 3EC Hetolachlor: Dual 8EC H a p t e h m + Dltwseb:

Ancrack - 2 + 1 EX Tarrapbrae:

~ t t b ~ 8 - towhen+ ~ E C A t t u c 5 - torapbane 6%C

V e t a o l a t e : Vernam 7EC

Pungic tdes r Be-lt Banlate SOW 246.1 0.9 3.8 1.86 35.10 5,161 10,9U) 206,375 Carboxla: Vltavax 3W: 4 3 . 3 0.2 1.0 1 . 0 2 12.56 1,186 1,204 11,867 CbloruthloPil: Bra- SOD-4BC 26,458.3 99.4 6.9 7 .10 40.78 521,930 3,618,429 20,768,565

PCNB + Ethoprop: PCNB + H O C ~ . 10-3~ 3 , m.9 - 3- -~.~--=a-f;.m* - 60.3s 70,607 8,105,182 4,343,924

PC#I) + Peuoulfothiont Pam + D l ~ a t t 10-X 947.4 3.6 1.0 100.M3C 53.46 15.681 1,369,067 838,823

S W u t t Seer S i t 6F 23,629.7 88.8' 5.6 8.55 4 - 7 9 469,266 3,900,085 2,186,tm

Tabla 16. contiouod

Sample Emtimate Sute ~ o t i u t e ~ A%. 4 Acti= Act%- appl i - llrgrtd- Haterial Acreage lugred- 1C.teti.l

tbter lr l r froduct '~creagc treateda eatiom iemt expease treated teat No. X no. lblacn S/acre No, lb. S

Aldicarbr Tarik 10C 110.4 TePik U C 2,839.3

~ ~ t b r ~ r t sea^ tm 1 . , m . 3 Sevln 25U 390.0 Sevln 4F 383.5

C.tk>furanr Puxadan 10C 1,316.7 Mwtbts :

D i r s c b a t e 2.6WC 117.0 Meulfoton: Mayoton 8 s 1,317.8

D i r p t i n t 1X 937.0 Pooafor: Dyfcmate 10C 281.8 Hetblyl: Ismrateniudrin 1.a 18,818.8 )ICooocmtuphur: A d r i n 5 L 10,954.4 Pamthion: Patathion 10C 5,572.8

~ i i lbrcrr 9QEC 376.0 1.4 1,O t6,98 LO. 615 7,132 115,165 9L,U7 ? b e h si* :wk;-=-i.a +-+ pIrnrnma +I w '-7 PSII -.M.L -- a. M* a~ ze&d a born7 .m LW -.em -3 n- n-t *Msi-,n +* .+% z- -&.a> r;- -LC ;r lF t . - * ~ ? 1 - w e r.. -p-

1 4 d m Z C h * ?h k - 5 e%T_bZ* W F m- & - ?=. :'iPq F m -- -3XFC1 :ST=* L P %?-?Ze<

b P I m u ap$M%% I k z -leh;Yexlr. sr - e.sggXS -=.*r?

i TF-I ,W - zsi -. a*.- :.-* .A:. "-r*rr- V n a m nt R 5 a - r t ~ : S - i 3 3 :

Sarple E s t f r a t e S t r t e E a t h a t e b N Avg. t A c t i w e kti ra N

~ut&one 1.7SEC lil.cklor: Lasso I1 15G

Lssao 4EC Ilsnsf in: Balan 1.5L ?kntaurnr Bawran 4SC Chlomrka: Ihiben 2L ~ ~ o ~ ~ b / ~ i n i t ~ :

Prercrge 3EC Clypbrurte Iirop ropylaPirre Salt t R o u n i r p 3EC

I(ctolusUor: Dual 8EC N a p t a b + Dinoaeb:

Ancrack - 2 + 1 EC Torrpbtae:

A t t a c 8 - Toxapheae BEG A t t s c 6 - Toxaphrnt 6iX

V * r t r a h t e : V e t n a r 7EC

~hlorothaloail: Bta- 500-4EC 26,535.4

PCEIB: PCNR 1DC 55.0 P a B + Ethoprop:

PWB + Xocsp, 10-3G 3,515.7 PMB + Fenrulfothlon: PQlB + Ilrudt 10-3G 1,554.0

Sulfur: Super S i x 6P 23,079.8 Trlpbeayltin Hydroxide :

QLI-Ter 5OW 2,442.9 Continued on aert page)

~ w l e ~ a t i n t e state mtimateb A%. I A c t i v e Actin appli- ingred- Haterla1 A c m w e 1-red- ?luteHal

Uetetlal: P r o d u c t Acreage treateda cat ioae i t n t erpcnae treatad lent rrph~ra No. X No. lbfacro tlacra Ilo. lb. S

Iasacticides: Acaphate t O r t h e m e 7SU Aldlcerb: Temik 10G 110.4

Terlk 1% 3 ,088 .5 Clrhtylr Sevin 80s 1,689.7

S e r i n 2% 390.0 Se*n 4P 495.0

Crrbofurrnt P P W LOG l , ~ ~ . O Mcofol: Kelthana 4EC 80.8 Mlathoate:

Macthoatt 1 . 6 7 E G 172.5 Diaulfoton: Disyetoa 8EC 1,057.0

Dispton 1 % 980.0 P O Q ~ O B : Dyfo~atc 10C 321.0 b t h o r y l : L e a ~ t e h a d r f n 1.8L 19,120.7 Net-1 Parathion: Dypar 2L 286.6 Uo-totopbas: h o d r i n 5L 11,549.8 Rsatbian: Parath.lo~ 10C 6,076.h

Crornrr tmated tb m a l t acrea8e with Bravo SO4l of a11 fun&icLd*L product# raportad d u r i w both tha 1979 a d 1900 rcaalonr, follorad by Sulfur Supsr Six, btrvo 500 wrr applied on 9% of treatad acreygr i n 1919 and 982 in 1960. llrrvo 500 s l r o had the hidbr t n u k t of rpplicatiaur, 6.9 applicatlonr f a 1973 aad 7.1 applicatioas i n 1980, PCNB I& war appliad in ruch a manner that i t bad tha hi;llhurt wr4n*1 applicrtlon rate of: fungicidal productr, with 9.09 l b Al/acna i n 1980, and Bravo 500 had the h i~her ' t oeawnal u t c r f a l ergruaa of fuagicidal products, with $41.80/rcra in 1980. Surveyed growerr raported urfog two carrbinrtlon futqicidal productr, PCNB + Hocrp 10-36 and PCNI) + b a a n i t 10-3C d u r i q both ream^.

State e r t i u t e s indicate t b t $21,3 a i l l i on var spent by peanut growera in CQorglr to r Bravo 300, which war applied 3.7 a l l l i o a 'lb A I to 520,891 a c w r d u r i y the 1980 eaason.

t*mnate/Nudrin 1.8L war applied to the moat acreage (71%) of a l l inrlscticidal productr reported by rurveyad growerr l a 1979 awl 1980. Thlr war followed by Azodrin 5L and Parathion 10C. Surveyed growers appliad L.nnate/Nudrin 1.8L an average of t w tfmeo l a 1979 and 1980. S 6 r i t I 2% war ured In sach a aanaar that i t had the highear r e a s o ~ l application rate, with 9.04 l b AI/acro In both years, a 4 had the h i g h r t averalga nuobsr of applicationr, with 6.3 time# of a11 Snaecticidal products, Dyfonate 10E had t he highsat aiateri 1 expemc of the Larecticldal products, with $JO.llllacn (1979) and $9.5JIacre (1980). i;

I

Peanut grower6 in the s t a t e treated an eotiaated 356@26 a c n e with 315,468 l b A I of Ldnnats/Nudrin 1,8L, and rpcnt anfestimated $4.09 rrillion an thin product during the 1980 season in GeorECjra.

lurmyed #rovers also ursd a t uqg ic ide~cau t l c id t ln-i 1979 and 1980, nematic idcr in 1979 and 1980, and a growth regulatoq in 1980. Soil$mm 90% war applied t o 1.4% of treated acreage in 1979 and 1.6% i n 1980, Nomacur 15C a d Yocap LOG, naaaticidcs, were a p p l l d t o 1.8% and h 6 % , meprctivaly, of treated acreage i n 1979, and Moc* 6EC and Nocq 10C were applied t o 0.32 and 0.9% of the acreage in 1980, map@ctivaly, Kylar 8%. A growth rcglulator, m s applied to 0.7% of treated a c r e q a in 1980.

!brig the 1980 searon, peanut #rowers apent an e s t i ~ t a d $54.6 a l l l l on on the ao8t c m n l y urcd perticider i n peanut production in Cmrql., coerist 1% of $16.48 million on h ~ r b i c i d a l products, $29.67 riliinra on fuqj~icidal productr, $8.02 8illi00 on inrect ic idal productr, and the n u i n d a r on naocrticidea, f u i g a n t neuraticider, and growth tagul.torr.

Pert icide U m by Pert

Spacific data were collected emern fog perticide u . c / v t practice# t o d e t e r r i m bow producara use pesticide materials i n the .v field. An analysis of p r r t i c i d r u s a chaxacterirtica of atrvcayed

appear i n chi. rsccion a r e u t e r i a 1 a Gnrrarr npartwi u r i q tor r apsc i f l c p s r t ( r ) , It doer ~k8t ar .ceaur i ly follow that thaw a a t u r l r l r are s f f e c t i v n i n cootrollialll the apncific per t ( r1 , T h authotr do nnt m a n f o r t h a r s Eiaumr t o be l ~ t e r p r ~ l t e d ma nctmandatlnari Chay m m l y r a p n u a t reported pe r t i c ids urs. Addlt iooll ly, gFovlrrr reported p a e i e i d a u t e r i a l r not mcamcrndrd l a the 1919-1980 Ceargi* Peanut Wead Coacmrol, Direara Control, and Snrect Control Sprry Culdrr put out by tha Cooperative Extenrion Service Uairar t l ty of Gcoq i r . I n order t o ident i fy and @elect a p.caaticlde material-product lor urr i n cozltmlliog a pa r t l cu l s r per t , I t I r s q g a r t r d that $roware connult the current (1983) m r r i a a of ttw a b v s pmaaut rpray auid@r. .

Psrticida-uea chr roc te r i r t i c r tor the moat c o u ~ l a p r r t r r p r a y d on turmyed f n m r a r c p m w n t ~ d I n t ab les 18 and 19. Planannlal srrrror, annual grcrrrea, pe ramla l broadleaf uoedr, and Ibrrracrr ( a l l t ypoa) were the a o r t common weed probleaa nutveycad $rourrrr rncountr n d du ti* both 1979 and 1980 ~ r o w i q aeaaonn. Surveyed lromarr rrrpnnad t h t Zerfrpot and white mold Wefa ths most ccraaoa dlraaaas durtnq both reasona, while neaatdclatcr were reported only l a 1979. I n m c t r with socking mouth par ts , md spider r i t e s , s a i l in rac t r , and C o l l q a feedere were the moat camon inrect problemr ancountanad by rutvuycd growers du r ing both reaeonu. To avoid redundancy, only 1WO t lguma will be dliscusaad b a l ~ w .

Weads. Two herbicide m r t c r l r l r were l l a tud by #rawarm I n control e f f o m o r perennial gmrree and a n n u l firurra#. Bsnlsfin war applied t o 52% of the t o t a l t rea ted screaae f a r parcnnlal grarraa aml 58% of the t o t a l f o r annual graraes ( t ab la 19). Varnolats war applied t o tha remainder f a r both weed catejgorles. R c g a r d i ~ ~ r a s r a r of a l l rypar, 54% of the acreage was tzeated with bcaaflo, fo l lomd by naptala8 4 dinoeab and a lachlor , each accounrllyq For 23% of t o t a l t rea ted acrarga.

Seven hcrbictde a a t r r i a l s were urad by gcowarw t o control perennial broadleaf veedr during 1980 ( t ab le 191, Tha u t r r i r l that uae applied t o the most acrePge (44%) war 2,4-DB, Naptalna + b i a a ~ b was ured t q t r e a t the n r r t l a q e s t rhare of a c r a q a , a c c o u n t l ~ f o r 21%. f ollowcd by a lachlor and toxapbnc.

DImo.cr. Surveyed rowe eta reported u e i w thme funl~1cl.d. u t s r i a l r t o control 1438f.pot on psanutr durinll) 1980 ( t ab la 19). Chloroth.loni1 r c a p r e ~ n t d tho! larges t parcent of t o t a l a c r r N r t m a t a d , wlth 512, f o l l o w d by r u l f u r with 44%. The r m i a i a g 5% war t r ea ted with t r iphsny l t in hydroxida.

Gravare who tnar ted ear white wld umd both PCNB + athroprop and P m t fearul fothioa , raprccantiry 7M and 30% of t r a r t a d .cmr$a, oaspectively.

Inecctr . Growers who reported treatilyl, their ecMa#e for t l ~ a c t a v i t h x a s mouth p a r t s (rphidr, thr ipa , and potato larfkopprrr) wed

Tabio 18. W s a q e Data box Mosr Co-a Pert*clde M a f e d Fbpxted by Slmpted Gsbrp\a h o t G-rs frrr a Com- mon Pd. 1919

-le ~ s t ~ r c l t t stset ~ m t -tea Avg. I Aftivc Aetivr appli- ingrtd- Watcrial A c r e a g e tagreek- %aterial

?&mterlal: Product Acrewe treated cations S e n t expense t reaeed l e n t KO. Z W o . lb lacre Sfacre W o . l b S

w e e d s r - Peramfa1 ~ r a s a e s - . ~ B a M f i ~ 4,539.2 51.4 1.0 1.42 9.41 95,764 334.893 886.784 VemoZate 6,294.1 48.6 1 .0 1.88 5 -88 92,%0 171,645 525,537

Total 8,833.3 100.0 - - - 108,704 305,538 1,412,321 Axmuel Crasses:c

Benef i n 2.173.9 56.8 1.1 1.64 10.33 42,202 65,543 618,315 V t n m l a t e 1,653.3 43.2 1.1 2.11 5.93 32.658 65,002 183,995 Total 3,827.2 100.0 - - - 74,8W 130,545 602.269

Bnordleaf ~ e u i s : d Cblorarben 1.290.5 5 .5 1 .1 2.06 12-07 27,601 34,542 329,232 WaptaIsl + D l a o s e b 5,221.2 22-4 1.2 1.31 11.50 94,583 323,856 1,091,569 B l a o ~ b / ~ i n i tro 803.1 3.6 1.1 2 -26 5.44 13,821 30,587 80,273 Alschlor 3.286.8 14.1 1.2 3.88 1 6 61,867 241,441 993,381 ~omsphenei 2,495.5 10.7 1 .3 2.84 3.25 58,308 166,523 190,34l 2.4-DB 10,244.9 43.9 1 .5 0.48 2.76 198.631 95,382 550, -0 To-1 23,342.0 100.0 - - - 454,811 712,333 3,239,336

C r u s e . , A l l Types: ftaptalam + Dinoeeb 852.4 16.0 1.0 0.69 5.97 22,235 15.988 134,4643 muef in 2,449.5 46.1 1.0 1.23 7.99 57,%3 68,513. 449,434 Alachlor 837.0 15.7 1 . 0 2.99 12.13 17,850 50,422 204,317 Wenmhtr 1,177.8 22.2 1-0 2.22 6 1 24,725 54,951 141,750

TutrX 5,316.7 100.0 - - - 122,373 189,472 9%. 1459

D i r a i K a : ua~atobamr Clrbof uran

Leaf .pot : Chlorothaloai1 Triphenylt+n Hydroride Sulfur To-

Uhlte Wldr PCHI, + Ethoprop PCHB + P e ~ u l f o t N o n 'BbtrlL

?Gcmtlnued oe next pge )

sample ~sttlrate state g.tinatca Am. # Active Astf we appli- lngred- ?faterial Acreage ingred- Material

h t e r h l : Product Acreage treated cations . lent expease treated Gat t m e No. X No. lblac re S Iac re Wo. lb. S

Imocct a : Insceta with Sucking m t h Parre:= ~axaphene~ Aldicarb

Total Red Spider nitae: ~ r n t o p b . soil ~n.ccte:f h n t N m

Poliylc F s c d e ts : 8

Total 24,158.0 100.0 - - - 4!58,611 556,639 6,86l,2U

! c-*- J .- .-L;ls,%c :v * r .i:--- . -- ----r ---. a- .< .- -\> :--- .-; - - : * .-* -- i k w m ;.' 'a: a!-* . s&*x ,.;r.. x.'% ~- -.<+.- .-+.* e.-..*:- *.-: :..

h f p ; m f Z 1,,;-&5 ;.4. , -p -' - 3%- = -. -: r - *- - :-.-: . f

i e* r: --a-p. c e e a ; t l r .rl* -+--?--mp: : . . -P + < * - 7 .-. i,~~... - - ~ . - - -: . . - I.3 . : --*- - - :~- ih*; &* :m :*-*- -%**= .;-.

2 : 3 - ; 7 - . - : - L

Sarple E s t i u t t A=. # Active appl i - tagred- Material

?laterial: Product AC-C treated castoar lrPt expenme Ilo. t 0 . lblurre S f a c r e

t rertsd ient rco. lb. t

w e d . s PI-1 ~ t u - s r b

BQsmfiu veraolata Tota l

*mmrl Cra8sca := hnef in V a r n o l r t e Total

llnoadlsaf Ql loramben lQaptr l ru + Diaoseb 0emef i n D t a o m e b / D i a i t n, Alachlor rorrpksnei 2,4-D3 Total

Glcslmets, All Typest + D i n o # b

-in Lllrchlor T W

- -

T o t a l 51;002.3 100.9 - .. Yhltm lroldt

P<aSLI + Ethoprop 3,378.2 6 9 1.1 108.71h PCRB + F e ~ l f o t h l o n 1,482.0 30.5 1.0 100.0~ St&& 4,860.2 100.0 - -

<Continztad oa rrart w e )

Sample stira ate state ~ a t t u t s * A m . f Active lbctirr appl i - ingred- Material k h q e i-red- ? & t s r i l l

Haterfa1 t . Product Acreage treated catlop. l e n t expease treated lent ~ P U No. Z N o . lb/acre t/acre No. Ib. S

In-t a : Ia8ect8 with Suckiag mutb hrtrxe ~orcrphcne~ 3,444.7 56.4 1.6 3.23 3-69 74,994 248,86B 284,019 Aldicarb 2,662.7 43.6 1.0 0.59 7.45 45,793 28,654 336,267

T o t a l 6,107.4 100.0 - - - 120.752 277.522 fA0,ZiM Rad Spider Hites: Momcrotopboe 9,466.0 100.0 2.1 1.30 6.61 185,106 245,933 1,253,628

Soil Insect a : f PamtMoa 6,Q?4.4 100.0 1.3 2.68 7.80 132,847 310,387 901.192

P o U a e P d e rs : B ~ o m u c r n t ~ h o r ~ 3,810.0 15.9 2.1 1.37 7.00 74,3943 97,671 3UiI.466 Methamy1 18,033.6 75.0 2.1 0.92 11.91 337,435 311,101 4,033,697 Carbryl 2,181.6 9.1 3.1 3.70 6.57 b4.394 150,827 324,516

T o t l l 24,033.2 100.0 - - - 456.Z47 559,599 1,858,681

t w o f ruec t ic ida l u t + r i r l r duriag the 1980 maron ( t ab l e 193. Toxrphbanr accounted fo r 56% of t o t a l t m a t r d aeruaye a d aXdicarb was applied t o the remiader (44%). Crowerr u n d ~ ~ ~ n o c m t o p b a exclurively fo r coatrol of tad w i d e r miter, and parathion war w e d sxcluoirely fo r moil i m e c t r by growurn.

Three insecticide materials ware reported by growers who t m a t t d t h e i r acnarga fo r fo l iy l e feederr. Crouets applied lcethoayl t o 75% of the acmyle, mnocrotopho6 accounted f o r 162 of the t o t a l , a d carbaryl war applied r o 9% of that acnage.

Paat icide Perfomawe

Data on the prrceived effact ivenasr of per t ic ide materials Uaed d u r i w the 1919 and 1980 maoonr by thoee ra.ponbing t o this quertion appear i a tables 20 and 21. The percent control obtained, however, i r based on growera' perceptions and not on ac tua l controlled t e r t plot data, much an eff icacy t e s t reuultr . Them data should not be interpreted and aubrt i tuted Eor efficacy t ea t re ru l ta , since they only reprereat w h a t grower's f e l t they achieved (subjective eet iaate6) from the i r par t icu lar per t lc ide practices and peot problems, In addition, i t should be aoted that producere reported some ru t c r i a l e $hat were not recoz~~lerulsd by the Cooperative itxtennion S e r v i c e / ~ n l v a ~ s l t y .of Grorgia, 1979-1980 Ceog ia Peanut Weed Control, Disease CoQtrol and Insect Control Spray Guider. I t i m suggested tha t growers co u l t the curmat version of theae peanut epray guides i n se lc $'!' t ing an appropriate material.

1

Crawerr who created t h e i r acreage for perennial 8 r a s b s ueed bsnef lo and wrao la t e in very similar lpaneers (iadicated by t& number of obaarvat ions), and mported tha t they achieved an a w rag$ perceht control of 86% and 80% during the 1980 season ( table 21). adf fin was used m r e of ten than vernolate by growern who reported trea#ing for annual grar re r , a c h l e v i ~ an average of 07% control dur ing 198&

SWveyed gromrs who traated f o r leafepot reported that chloroLhaloni1 and su l fu r both achieved 88% control on the amrage i n 1979 .ad 1980. PCNB 4 ethoprop was reported t o achicvc an amrage p e r c c e control of BOX i n 1979 and 76% i n 1980 by growers who t n a t e d for wMte mold.

Gtowars reported tha t during 1980, a ldicarb achieved an average of 85% coat ro l of in rec ta with rueking mouthparts. Growere reported chat monocrotophos achieved an average of 78% i n 1980 f o r control of red rpider altar, and parathion achlewd on a v e r q r of 68% i n 1980 f o r control of r o l l insecta. e t h y l was umd m o s t often by gromra f o r cantml of foliagca feeders and achieved an average of 87% during 1980 and 88% dutfw 1979.

Coaperiron of YieJdr by Pesticide Treatmnr LeveAel.

Acre y e , production, a d pert i c i d r u e e pract ices rare fur ther lnalyrrd t o axulna, dffferencer i n mean yie ld8 of the mopondentr by

3 1 Trblsla. P.rrsurt CanM obtuad by Mdr Coarrrwre lbattcide Matrrd R.po#*d S.nrpM O.org~~

b u t Gromn, 1879

~ a ~ a ~ Pert Cmupt Material %in Hux Hero Ob - - - - - - - -..-,..._ - No Uedsl - Pamania1 C r a a ~ a t basf in 70 9 5 136. t 40 Vennolate 40 95 (St. 7 4 1

Annual Grsrrtr: Benatf i n 40 100 83.6 25 Veraolste 40 100 83.1. 17

Broadleaf Wceda: Ch loranben 50 100 80.7 16 Naptrlam + Dinorcb 30 100 84.3 48 Di aoseb/Dini t ru 50 ' 95 60.1 10 Alachlor 30 9 5 76.8 33 ~ourphcne~ 5 5 100 81.3 2 1 2-4DB 4 5 100 84.7 100

Cramsgr, All Typer: Naptalaa + Dinoreb 80 100 89.5 S 1, BcnePln 60 100 87.9 31 Alachlor 80 101) 89.0 11 Vamlate 50 9 3 7 3 . 1 l.Q

D i Ma888 1

F G X X n : Ca rbof uran

Leafspot: Chlorothaloni 1 Triphenyltin Hydroxide Sulfur

UNte Hold: PCNB -t Enthoprop

Inrac t s : fnaecto with Sucking Mouth Partr: ToxaphtneC 4 0 200 83,2 54 Aldicarb 70 100 87.2 I5

Red Spider Yitee: Monocrotophor 50 100 87.1. $4

Soil Iaeectr: ParatMan 0 100 17.4 28 Foliage Feeders : Uoll~cmtoptios~ 55 100 86.8 2 7 Mthgg l 60 100 87.8 238 Carbaryl A

75 100 88.8 32 h e . it a h u M amphmltffJ the! thin ,.r,firroj ,a w t # a r y ~ r u c y c l i)ri,wms Irb l i , . - y 9m ( . . t v u ! I' t M a,trlriw * l v r l ~u*nnirn rnlimf Ittat6 a11 I,),

ym.trvr mararwn: h d on trrnfrullmj 6rpw:n.nr(nl !&r C,rrrwmrr mrrrr 5lum4 454. 'q\wr'l,n.rt w!,q+ gwr, cfn.Vi!,l ($+#I y t 4 ~ W U I W I / ' fid

eat*) FKO(~LICII t)MIY raCx>rfd WUUIIQ Tkd. !hew n,wmrbrrr*#rr cxa nrmril !c, I & i:l!nryt.rlrvrl~ (Irril a,rklrrudcll h r dl:u.b..y !MH FW~!)U 111 w1 drtm~. !t*r an, ttm melerarmin qrr+r.wm rvqm$wj unrir) ktf * rnrrw urnt fd 8. &wm ~ m ~ t j ~ Oaw an )n!*ryai d prmrr' : , ~ , n ! r ~ ! .qc fiwtt rmrrrsr rartirv !riot< r, 1rrr.l r @ : r r n ~ ( ~ Ttwrt(c:rn ~ I I I 1dw4 f r i

thrs mm~mum valm and mu rctmt to t f u ma*!mum vdur 8.4 t i ~ l I n r W b. Rdm to !ha n v m h sJ M a m a w h o w ohrrvarrim ! q , m i l n n b g 8 n v n&qd~<;ntlliil~ tly n 'afW**

c. to N)( mnmrw& tb C&,prdrwl L.xtnart~~>r, :r.nur*!Jnr*mr,ry 4 ( h r r e ~ i n IVFj, ILYZ) C h ~ r y ~ a r'aanfdt Wad G n h d . Dtrrrn Conw, end J m C:mrrt,i Spray ( L i $ t h S o w s : U m m t t y d GWrqm Padnut %m. IcW L I 1

Rasls8 Pert C m n t k t e r i r l

b -i . . . .. .. . . . . . . . .- Mia Ekr W n Obr - - - - - - - , X - - - - '--.. -

.a Weed r : =in1 Crt~rmr:

b.na9la Vs molr t e

Annua 1 Cra srar t bemf i n V e m l r t c

Brordlalf Waedr : Chlornnben Naptahm t Dinoreb host in ~ i n o r e b / ~ i n i t r o Alrchlor ToxrphelleC 2 , 4 4 8

Gtarser, All T y p e ! Naptaha + Dinorcbb Rsnrf in Uachlar

Df w a e r r i a LQIf! i

Chlorothrloai 1 0 100 87.7 238 Tripbnylt in Hydroxide 70 9 3 85.1 , 17 Sulfur 0 100 8 7 . 8 , 204

White Mold; PQB t EnUhoprop 40 9 5 6 75.7 I

!' 22

larectrt Inwctr with Sucking Mouth Rrtd: ~ o x q h a n d 40 100 82.1 51 Mdicarb 50 100 85.1 16

Rad Spider Miter: Hooocrotqhor 0 100 78.2 81

Soil Inrecar: Parathion 0 100 68.4 32

Foliage Federr t noaocrotqbrc 0 100 83.1 28 Mthoclpl ' 0 100 87.1 149 Cnrbaryl 60 100 87.4 30

NoM 11 rhtruld tnlrmphmtmt dtat tttw cxrrdml I, whet urrwyrd q n r w m kl! t h y mmmd $1 Ir a rubwtiw msarure rraltun than an b,

twt\va m u w tuad uni cmtrcltlrrd rx~rr~mtsl t ~ 9 h C;K>WWS *nm ask4 thm (~VMII(M Wtw wrr~nt mlmi did you mmtw' (or nach pmluc~ !hey m p ~ n d uurq TElur thnn. ntnarurra nw mnni t i ) hn intarpreid nr and rulmt~tumi br rlftca~) IM m I b In od dlflw, t h w am IkC. mslmab gmmm rqxwtwl uung iirr a ~wflicuiar pwt n 3rwtnrn Imarrantly ww im truavai untinub d pwrnnl wnlml a, l k l r mfuru* rattaw than a pain! atware h m i k rnm d a m t~

th mtntmum v o l u and nxu &rm trr the naxtmum valued !ha r w p b IW*n tu Mw n u m b d vbkvu~vnr *ham crtn &wathm rsu.runat!n a upmy ~ d l n a t r n a ~ ~ by s qtowar - w c RhhKIi IU thOm mbtww& nd nmunmrrd*d by !h Cwoimmt~n Exlanuon S*rnwvlrrlwmy ul G m q ~ 1914 IW Cwqta Pvmnur W d Conirnl U*nus Wd, and I ~ a q CantrtJ Spray Ciurrkn Suuw Untuarn~ty nl Cj*wora h u t Surwy EgeO Idst

mdow r p a y a p p l l r r t i s a l ap l r f o r l d l v i d u r l ya r r r aadl f o r a l l para. It rhovld bQ notdl tMt there a r e obrr rmd b l f t r m a e e r i a wan yield$; h o ~ m r , bQcaum of m r l a t i a a r l a peat population, aad del ian of tb study, true cauaal mla t ionrh lp r nay not be d a t e n i a r b l e , Rsekdtr fto. a prsvioua a t u d ~ of 1968 p r o d r r l r ~ a u m y d r t r null;llsrtad that peanut grower8 wltk a b o v c a m r r g r yiskdr P M ~ more p e o t i c i d ~ and r e c e i n d h i g h r t v t u m r on m m y rpent on part lcidaa than did Bmntr wlth Lower y ia ld r ( b l l i m n r d h r v i n 19761, To darerulna i f gtomrrr w i t h higher y l r l d r #till applied mom pert tcldan, t h y vrrr a r r a q d i n t o the f o l l o w l q #rouprr 1-5 applicationr, 6-10 rpplicatlona, and over 10 appl ica t ioar .

Rsaulta lndicate that 99.6% of t b rurwyed R r a n r a (278 i n 1980 and 277 I n 1979) t m r t e d t h e i r acreyla with par t ic ider ( t ab la 221, Treated acneage e s r r n ~ i a l l y accounted f o r 100% of thb t o t n l nurvrybd acmcga (27,065.3 i n 1980 and 26,614.2 I n 1979). A d l s t r l b u t l o a of f a m e a d acmage c h e s l f i e d by per t fc ide nppllcarton lavol atwrw tha t the 6-10 appl ica t ion group contained more Pamr (60X i n 1980 and 59% i n 1979) a s well aa morp, of the treated a c r a q a (73% i n 1980 rad 75% i n 1979). The average r i t e of operation of r u p l u d f a m a by nppl ica t lon lave1 i n 1980 war 59 a c r e / f a n f o r 1-5 rpp l t c r t lonr , 118 a c r r l f a m f o r 6-10 appl ica t ionr , and 189 a c r s / f r m tor g romrr u k l q over 10 pesticide sppllcatlone.

Comparirona of mean yic ldr f o r each applicatioa-leva1 @toup by iadividual yebrs and f o r a l l years r a r e made u r i n ~ r Dumrn'a a u l t i p l r range t e a t conducted a t the 5% probabll t ty level ( t a b l e 23). Rarul t r ind ica te t h a t the mean yie lds fo r tha graupr 1-5 rpp l i ca t ioa r and 6-10 appl ica t ions were not s i p i f fcantly d i f f e r e n t among OM another i n each year and f o r a l l yoatr. For the group, over 10 rpp1,leatlbnr Man yie lds were r lgn i f i can t ly d i f ferent from thore of thm $roup 1-5 appl ica t iona f o r the year# 1976, 1978, 1980, and for a11 y r r r r , rr well a s the group 5-10 sppl ica t ioo, fo r 1980 and f o r a l l y r r r r ( t ab la 23).

Treatment level - eiqe. The dla t r lbu t loa of' peanut f a m r and acreage by pes t ic ide application levcel war futthrrr d i t f ~ r a a t i a t s d by s i z e of operation (up to 100 a c n r aad o m r 100 ac ra r ) a d 1. pmoented i n t ab le 24. P a a r avar 100 acraa i n rim for rach app l i ca t ion 'group rapremnted re la t ive ly 1 a ~ a operaCSota8, 197 a c r t / f a n r t o 295 acre/ f a n , i n 1980; whsreaa, f rmr up t o 100 ac res la a i z e magod from 28 acre/L#m t o 49 a c r d f a m i n 1980.

b a n y i c l d r were e s t i u t e d f o r thane g r o u p a d corpariaonr wrm Pade ac ross r i z e gruupr withlo pc r t i c ide applic6tiarr lrrrlr, Diffarcsncsr i n Man y ia ld r were r i g n i f i a n t a t rhr 5% level f o r tha 1-5 ugplication group f o r 1978 only, a d f o r the omr-10-cppllcation group. t o r all years only u r i ~ a t w o - t r i k d Student 'r t t a r t ( t ab le 25). Comparimna of mem yie lds a t tha 1M l e v e l (Studaat t r t t e a t ) ind ica te that w a n r d i f fe red rignificcrntly acromr s i e a gtoupr f o r tb appl ica t ion 8roq over 10 y rp l i ca t ioa r f o r 1976 rad 1978; howlrvsr, becwu? of a 1Lrl tad n u b e r of obrcrvr t ioar i n tb owr-10-rppllcatlon emup, thd aaalyaia 1s makmted.

Tabla 22, Nuder of F u m ~ urd Acrwqa ol k p & d &or@ Pwnut G r o m by P d Tmtnunt Lnnl, 1911). lee0

PI nrr Acma%o i f f a n Appllcat l o w 1979 1900 1979 1m

No , No. X No. 1 No, X No. X r c r s / f am

1-5 108 38.8 104 37.2 6,136.3 23.1 6,095.4 22.5 56.8 58.6 6-10 164 59.0 167 59.9 19,825.0 74.5 19,642.0 72.6 120.9 117.6 Over 10 5 1.8 7 2.5 649.0 2.4 1,324.0 4 .9L29 .8189 .1 Nont nartlad 1 0.4 1 0.4 3.9 a 3.9 a 3.9 3.9 Total 278 100.0 279 100.0 26,614.2 100.0 27,065.3 100.0 95.7 97.0 . s im tlurr~ 0 l i ) ' < u

4 IJrutvrrrtt) oi ( h r n t ~ a I'nnhirl : ~ , i r v c . r L'Ht ! '#I

Table 23. Comptrrwn ol Mun Ymlda ol Ssmplod Georgia Peanut Growen by Pmtrcidr Applrcrtron Level, l(n6 lW

1976 3,226.3d 3,452.14e q880,Oe 1977 3,049.5d 3,145. M 1978 3,330.54 3,440.36~ 19 79 3,099.M 3,307.21 1900 ,, 1,534.66 1,985.14 All yurrc 2,812.1d 3,013,ld A l l y u r r 3,175.9d 3,334.M

i

Ni1t.7 l'lw !nmtkwr U ~ ~ V ~ ! I C > ~ I S ~T~I*W*III I~JI w) k t t +mtlt,ry .qrv 8 5 I ~ I ~ I < J W * ! o~k~lac @III.~ILS in i,d;'t . ' 4 ,!I l 8 I j ' . + , f . f a 19'Id. :L*, I!,

lYfcJ >M ItWI 4 i 4 1tk*i1 ywr#tl ,$txi IJ! III di y v * ~ t # ' 0 ! t l n ~ ~ ~ ' l ~ ~ a?lt'fj$ ltbl 8,) I ,4!!, l i l trz 1'J;: 14: I?: ;',l'M i f4 r u l't'Jit ih': tra

194%) 70J MI AII p ~ r n i ' ~ . N I *I! yrarn- s ~ v v v I ( : a:,fli~, f i ! \ :~19 ' !:I !':L'!, ': :r> ll*.'"? €1 111 t !??[J 8 1 7 : i iK {Jir; +I!: y ~ r * t ' nrul 2-4 in nli y~urn~ n Madl1 yjclti* wretcrw jp~ l~~ ,a ! in t ; trvcr .lfiuqn W I I ~ I I I ywttn w i l t , litlIr.r*~rlt i.r(Itprq no, ~~,lri,!!~.till!ly d~tlv~rv.ri~ dl IIIW ' ,t-wd, *ISI>I,~ l b ~ t i

t'nrb r mulltl~ba mclryn I**. I ) htajrrmnfb; tlm. .,vrrd mmr, Iclr ' h c , )%'I' !':Hi j**rtcxi

flny>rmnta Ibr. ,)wtr& trim Ithr tlbr. I!),'(, /'I:'' ~ * . l ~ ~ r ( i 1% JIJM. > - ! !:%r8' WYRII.. 11!\1.11,$1: 111 !wb. l!i:b v1wr I .%:I hl i!i!wp:et+xl us 0 1 ,

~?ul!~nr anti bre*Iu~itnt~ it,l.r~ lhr nnnl~xin wli! Lsaa tiir* vw*rnli n!fw, i h ~ w t i i w ~ r 8 ~ . c + ivit!, wrttrnnri* arr prvmttrl

;411trw ~ n \ w r n \ t y c ~ l <.*tt~te i b ~ t i t t !,!II m y IW i'h I

Tabla 21. DldribuM of A- 01 &pkd Olorgl* h u t G m n by PMccrdr Trntarclnt h w l md SLm, 11179-1860

Avae rim ~ppllfirtiom r PI nr krcl&&a of f a n

-, Slur 1979 IN0 lcms k. No. 1 80. X No. X r c t l r l f ~ n

'nn-mr

1-5 : - Up to 100 88 31.7 85 30.5 2,607.8 9.8 2,341.9 8 , t 29.b 27.6 over 100 20 7.2 19 6.8 3,528'5 13.3 3,749.4 13.9 176,4 197.1

Over 10: - Up to 100 3 1.1 3 1.1 146.0 0.5 146.0 0 , 5 4 1 3 , 7 4 8 . 7 Over 100 2 0.7 4 1.4 503.0 1.9 1,178.0 .6,3 251.9294.5

Nont reated 1 0 . 3 1 0 . 3 3.9 a 3.9 a 3'9 3.9

Total 278 100.0 279 100.0 26,614.2 100.0 27,065.3 100.0 95.7 97,Q ,$ b t w !rmt '! OY* , U , J V V I l S ~ ! ~ v v r ~ t t y ut t k ~ r " i ~ a ~' IWVJ! ! , . J ~ v w , % I I'ttd,

Table 25. Comparison ol Mmn Yvldu of Sbmplod Gwrq~r Pwnut Growsrm by Pe*t~crde Appl~crtron &v*l and Size, 1976.1880

1-5 applicatimr 6-10 applicrtionr , Owrr 10 applicrtionr Up to Ove r Up to Ovc r Up t a Ovrr

Year 100 acres 100 acre8 100rcrer 100 acre8 100rcrea 100 rctrr - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - a c r * - - - - - - - - - . . - - - - -

19 76 1,684.4 1,809.4 1,863.4 1,925.5 3,915.5a* 1,778.3*. 1977 2,866.9 2,978.0 3,064.9 3,038.0 3,5155 3,038.8 1978 2,774.8* 3,356.S 3,U0.6 3,273.0 3,709,6 3,666.7 1979 2,948.3. 2,908.9 3,013.5 3,108.5 3,691,7*a 3,250,0** 1980 3,261.5 3,390.4 3,393.4 3,344.8 4,045,O 3,825.0 Ml parab 2,795.9 2,970.1 2,9753 3,021.9 3,774.7* I , 161.9. All year8 3,U7.2 3,283.5 3,367.2 3,279.1 3,800.9* 3,532.0. Nrjrr The n u m b rrf nbmnnntwnc F;rmur,t !or w ~ ) , .nrrcr r y u ~ hn b,,ir>wa : '>~~fq,ili nlrrnr i t . 1 , - ,!#ra rwv nrul rrvntr i~brw r n l I-n

kvelyl Lj(i 10 in 197h. M 15 in jflj 78 15 111 ItX/H. R? iM ,ti l$L'.r rP" ;h r!, irMJ f,. /4 rri 4.1 ynq!r* q+ri Nfj V ) i f . dl InarJi ', l'lfil,

plt:.a~~vm rup to 1(8 wmnnd nvRF lm rrc,,w r ~ i l v , ~ l y ! - t r i i'~'!), 14 (: ir . ,'I2 ' V r l i l I{, ifM1;lh, Il!; 'i'.:~. 1 i!'! i i l ~ ) i J i t t l J'Mj h 4.12 .iYT;' m ail ya*lrla, ard TJ) X#,n ru ywrb !,MI lo npr&ar$r,rf~ '.,' .r.i 1ir1 +-ran rjvvr 10!ry.?r~ ~ ~ n % * * ! ~ i 2 ! i:, I!(/?,/!, d (

IF: it77 S!rti iW, '34 ,n im, . J4 j r r IW i5 3'it:r ail yoh,aO, err, 1 ; : 9 r 7 , n ; : yrmtrh

' b a n yraldr m uyrufl~r;srr!)y drkfemn~c st IIW Siu. Iw*.i ni.,rfl* life ar~,ulm w+!trsr, ~r*bv..r~$. ~ Q ! , I n l t ~ ~ r ~ '7"l"4f* urnif" a ~ I * " T ' m i l d

h f s r tw " h i y r l & am wnlitr:rntly drlf-? at ti* l(Pc Iruuni i i r , x m rrm grr41L(a w!tt,in p d > c , ~ f l r . nti$ili-stvc+ t(trl,rya WIG ii 'rn, !*~hl :jdu dunl'r f t a t

a bprmmtr the omrdl N a n 04 l)r 1Yf6 i'MJ rm~:xI

b Rnparrrnu rb -n tri th [nf? f.sysl,d [ k n , r r of V ~ L ' JT#P!V rlr ,cJ(JJ+I .!, ,(MI '!mi* 9hrl(. '47, ,~f~lrl66d"T1 Vli a?,

Wim, a d lndudrnp II lo h a ~ l y a r rllJ bro* th orerniY mwn clawr, Imm h,ah w d i w b n r r * a t0 rnnu.rtnmt h n n Unmmny of C b r q m P ~ n t r r %my If& i Wl

The lwrt camon p m u t type produced by runeyed peanut gromm i n Georgia ware rumera, which npmreatsd 99-100% of the acmqp dur41lg tha 1976-80 parid. The d i ~ r i b u t i o n of f a n 8 Ladicater that .art f ama f a l l within relat ively m a l l r i ze gmitpr (58% uem u&r 75 acmr i n r ise, 0% were over 200 acrsr, i n rirc d u r i ~ g 1980). Molt of the acmaae (59%) war dirtributed -0% the r ize group 100.1 - 400 acrea i n 1980, The r l t e group up t o 100 acrar contained 68? of thQ farar , whlle 74% of the rcmage war ntprereated by f a m r withfn the r i se mup o n r 100 acrua, In addition, ths r r s h t i m r i m of f a m r up t o id a r 37 c a and 226 acre/,., 100 scrar in ria*. Retultr iadicrte that 29% of tha ta rar and 192 o f the a c m q e ware on f a m e that irrigated a l l their palnut land i n 1980. For tp f iv r percent of the fanmr ard 33% of th acnrge were on famo that did not i r r iga te tbe i r laud d u r i ~ g 1980. State astirateit indicate that 43% of the t o t a l of 530,000 acre8 was i rr igated i n 1980; 57% uar nanirrigated.

Surveyed Georgia peanut growsrr indicated that 52% p rF t i ced a t h m t y a a r crop-rotation plan followed by a two-year plaa. Forty percent of the growers within the three-year plan kirted a peanut-com-corn rotation plan. Within the twp-lear plan, 6@ of the growsrr l i r t e d a peanut-corn rotation.

Jlks averrge yield of rurveyed growars uar 2964 lb/ac an ammgc, price of $432.91/ton (22Lllb1, and an averag of $6&2.97/acre over the five-year period (1976-80), An of maan yialdr by r i t e of operation indicated that f a s r ren t i a l ly tha ram yield, 2935 lb/acre and 2931 l b l a c n , a group@ (up t o 100 acmr and o m r 100 acrer, napectively) yaarr, Hean yield8 d i d not d i f f e r rignlficantly a t the lens4 f o r any year, A cwpariron of mean yield8 between Orrigated paan*# and mairr igated peanutr iadicr ter that for each y e a t and fo r

e r r r , over the 1976-80 period, mean peanut y i 4 d r were rign 4 icantly different a t the 5% l e w l . Overall ( f o r a t l years) irri*ted peanutr produced an average of 648 lb/acre lorn than n o n i r ~ r t a d peanut a.

kr rxu ina t ion of i r r iga t ion prrct icar by r l t t of operation 1ib.iicrtsd that f o r farm8 wlth a l l acrerge ir-rted o r nonirrtgated, the l lge group up t o 100 acres war chamctericed by a mlat lvely omall-rised operation, 35 a c n / f r a i rr igated aud 32 a c m / f a n nouirrltated. The rise of farms o m r 100 acre8 nbged from 181 a c m l f a a f o r i rr igated operationr, 217 a c r r f f a a fo r nonirrillated operatioar, a d 245 acra/fam f o r fanrr, with partial irrigation. A coaprrimo of mean yieldr acrorr i r r tga t ion practice r i t h l n r i t e gmup rhowrud that maan yialdr were r l ~ a & f i c a n t l y different a t the 5% lava1 fo r a l l yeara but 1976 only fo r the r i s e grcwp over 100 acnsr.

ha p m b l a r w o u n t 4 n d b.u t o tb I a r r a r c o n .talk h n r nn vrportd by 19% of the g m w r d p r a ' t i c i p a t l ~ So t h r rurmy, Thlr war f o ~ ~ d by gxQuera m p O r t i ~ p m b l w r d w to f o l l q e fbadlrrr and drowht coadition8. h a t - c o n ~ n s l advice war recriwrd fm charrical c a p r n i e o (33x1 f o l l o ~ d by tba cooparatim *xtanrion r r rv ica (13%).

8rowaro ~ c e p t oae 1pplie4 p ~ ~ t i c i d e r t o t h e i r acmyta durlrq the 19$0 ~ a a m n , m p r a m n t i a 99.63 of chr f r n r and carreat 1 ,411~ lOOt of t~18td .Crr)aar

Groware p a r t i c i p r t i q i n the rurwly l i r t e d equ ipun t urn4 f o r pnrpbnt incorporation a s the .oat cwoan mdr of &rblclda appl ica t ion, a c c o u n t i q f o r 96f of the g r o w r r In 1980. bow nprryarw warn reported by g r o w r r a r the r o r t common type of spray nqulpaant uurd i n fuqgicide and i n r ~ c t i c l d d applicatlonr. Of a l l rprsy wlumn reported, a m l w of 5 ga1Iacsa war u a d by aor t #rowerr who reported u a i q a e r i a l herbicide, f u q i c i d e , and Insect icida applicat lnnr .

A t o t a l of 55 chrtnical products wt~m uocrd In g romrr ' rprny p m g r a u i n 1979, a d 52 i n 1980. Balaa 1.5L ant Awrnck warn rpp l l rd t o the most acmaae of a l l herbicide product^ ured by rurvsryrd ~ m w a r a i n both year8 (932 and 83% i n 1980, Ntrpcactlvaly), Rrrvu 500 nod Sulfur Super SIX wore used t o t r e a t the moat acrlrqa of 111 Punalcldl~~ product6 (9% and 85% l a 1980, mrpacrlvnly). Of a l l t ~ t e c ~ l c l d a ptoductr f o r bo th years, LanaatelNudrfn l . B t wan appllssd t o tha aor t acreage (712 i n both yeam) fo r iculect control , Krtlmntaa f o r th* mtrte ind ica te tha t f o r the mort common peaticidar u r ~ d by rurvayad growerr, an estimated $54.6 a l l l i o a wan rpant c~n p r r t f c ida r urrd i n peanut production i n Georgia d u r i q the 1980 maaan.

Crorrrre reported tha t perennial bmudlcaf wcredr ware the #a*E corraon weed0 encountered, 1.cafspot war tho aor t common d i m a r e , and f o l i r g t feediag iaeectr uul red spider miten ware chia moot cocmon inaec t p e s t r duriag the 1980 nearen. Tha perrticidwure *nalyair by peat indicatee tha t peanut gtowarr appaar t o be f o l l o u i ~ partlcirla rscoaaondationo of s t a t e c0opetattvo cbxtenrian r r rv lcs r p a c l r l l r t r f o r moot peat groupt~~~; h o m ~ r , thdre am a w e pert group# f o r which g m u c r ~ reported ualng pa r t i c ids materiel# nor racoolarndad by Eha cooperative extenrion a c t r i c e a t tb time. I t is Y U & R Q I E ~ Q that growers conmult the cur m a t Coaparativc h t a n r i o n Sarv ica /~n lve r# i ty of Georgia, Georgia Peanut Weed Cantrol, Dlream Cantrol, awl Inrrrct Control Spray Cuidae i n o d e r t o se lec t A p s r t i c lde material/ product f o r uae i n control l ing a spcclf i c port problm.

h a l y m i r of p e r t i c i d a r r e pract icer inrllcrtad tha t 100% of ttw o u m y e d acreage war t rea ted with per t ic lde n r t s r i a l r , Pam8 a d screalle were t u n h e r e h s a i f led by p6aticirla app.l icrt ian hvutl, and m m l t o s b w t h a t 602 of the f a m r and 73% of tha rcrcda$r ware within the group 6-10 applicrt iwae i n 1980, Thb rvsraga a t r e of oprsratlan for the pesticide-application groups war 59 r / f a 1-5 u p p l i u t i o c u ; 118 a c r d f a m , 6-10 appllcationrl a d 189 a c r a / f a n p o m r 10 8ppl ica t io tu .

A caparrl .on of o h e r r a d usan yiaLd8 betraen paaticldm y l p l i c a t i o o levelm of rurveyatd peanut g m r s r a indicated that ..ra y i s U r of tbe group u a i q over 10 a p p l i c r t i o a r were r i g a i f t c r c u l y d l f f a n n t a t that 5X Item1 from the group u8iag 6-10 app l i ca t ion8 i n 1960 a d f o r a l l y a r e , Man ylaldr aaoag ttro aroupr u r i q 6-10 aoi 1-5 applicaticrru wen not r i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t among on+ acothr a t tha 52 level f o r aach year and f o r a l l years. Mean yie ld# were c a p a r r d ac ro re rlze groupe wi thin app l i ca t ion l e v e l r , and m a n y ie ld8 were a i g n i f i c a t l y d i f f e r e n t ac ro r s s i t e groups a t tha 5% l a m 1 within the 1-5 app l i ea t loa ~ r o u p for 1978 only, and over 10 app l i c r t iona f o r a l l years oaly.

References

Allison, J. R. and D. W , Parvin, Jr. A Technique t o Estimate Zaput R o d u c t i v i t y from Farm Data. Southern JOU-1 of AgqLcul tunl Econmicr. 8(2) , pp. 5-11, Dacemkr 1976. ,

;>

Berg, O. L. (ad.) 1981 Pars Chemicals Handbook. H e i r t e r ~ u b l @ h l ~ Company, Willoughby, OH; 1981.

b; 1 {k 0.9. b p a r t w n t of Agriculture. Crop Production, Annual s+ry,

Acreqte, Yield and Production. Crop Reporting ~ o a q . SRS. WaaM og ton, DC ; 1953-1982. 2, '1

"5'

U. S. bp.rtment of ~ r i c u l t u r e . Field Crop., Prodwtlon, ~ i@&it ion, al)ct Value. Crop Reporting Board. SRS, Wuhington, DC; q77-1982,

Sample universe 17 3,509 170,823

Syrtemtic ramplet <M acres 30.1 acres T o u l

Subample t '50 acres 250.1 acres Total

Completed rrurvegs: ~ 5 0 acres ,50.1 a c n e - Total

Usable rurvcys :a 50 acrsa

": 50.1 acres Total

Sample weight e : ':50 acres 13.66902 .550.1 a c n e 27.33804

Appendix 11. Cammoo Name, Braad bau, and Ghmri i &ma of Ch.nalcrl Ibf.nrlr Und by $unrlml G*orqu Pwnuf Growrs, by Pwtkidr Typr

Alrchlor: 2 - Chloro - 2 ' - 6' - die thy l - N - (methoxy - methyl) - acotnnilidc: La880 11 (1921, Laroo 4EC

beneiin: N - Butyl - n - e thy l - a , r , a - t r i f l w r o - 2 , 6 - d i d t r o - p - toluiditlbf Bslan 1.U

Bsntazon: 3 - ( 1 - Hethylethyl) - LH - 2, 1, 3 - b~.ilzothiadiazln - 4(3H) - one 2 , 2 - dioxide: Baragran 4SC

Chloramban: 3 - Amino - 2 , 5 - dichlorobaneoic acid: k i b e n 2L

Dln l t rou ine : N', @ - Diethyl - a , a, IJ - t r i f l u o r o - 3, 5 - dinl t rotoluena, 2, 4 - dirnine: Cabrax 2EC

Dinoaeb/Dlnitro: 2 - aec - butyl - 4, 6 - dinltropbanol: p r a m 4 3, 4

Glyphorare Ioopmpylmine Sa l t : i~opropylamine ~ a l t of N - (pho~p(oaac thp l ) g lyc imz Roundup 3EC

H ~ t b o l r c l ~ ) x t 2 - chloro - N - (2 - e thyl - 6 - aethylphanyl) - N $ (2 - o e t h a y - 1 - methylethyl) acetaaide: Dual 8 U: A

4

Naptahm + Dinorcb: nee above: Ancrack 2 t 1EC

Toraphem t Chlorinated camphem (content of combined chlorine, 47-693) : h t t ac 8, Attac 6

Vernola t e t S - Propylldprop ylthiocrrbaoste: Veruam 7EC

k p t d o l t c i a - N - ((1, 1, 2 , 2 - ~ e t r a c h l o m t h y l ) r h i o ) l - cyclobereps - 1, 2 - d ica rbo rh ide : Dffolatan bBC

(Coatinusd on next pane)

(Xllorothaloallt Tetmchlomi~phthrloalrriler Bran, SOU (BFd), 8rrvo 7W

PQlD t Ethoprop - re@ above: PCNB 4 Yocrp 10 - 3G

PCNB + Penrulfothlon: me above: PC14B + h r r n i t 10 - E SuUurr Sulfur: Sulfur 90D, Super 91r GF

T r i p b n y l t i n Hydroxide: t r l p~mny l t i n hydroxlda: kr-Ter $OW, S u p r ~ T l n 4L

Aldicarb: 2 - Methyl - 2 (acthyl thio) proplonaldahycle 0 - (aethylcarbaaroyl) oxirnat Temlk l S C , Teaik lOC

Baci l lus thuringicnsie: Dipel 7.2 b t l t . 1U/lb

Carbaryl: 1 - Napthyl N - mcthylcrrbuaatc: Sovln 25W, S ~ v l n R Q S , 9avln 4P

Carbofuran: 2 , 3 - Dihydro - 2, 2 - diacthyl - 7-hnzoluraay 1 methylcarbarmate: Puradan 10C

Dicofol: 4 - 4' - Dichloro - alpha - t r ichloro - asthylbaadhydrol, o r 1,X Bir (chlorophenyl) - 2 , 2 , 2 - t r ich laroothonl t k l t hana 4EC

Dieetboate: 0 , 0 - Dimethyl S - (N - oathylcarbaeoylmathyl) - phosphorodithloatc: Cyaon #EC, DcPend 2.67E

Poaofos: 0 - Ethyl - S - phienyLGthyLphorphoMulithlocrt~t Dyfonrt* lOC

Malathion: 0, 0 - Dinethyl S - (1, 2 - dicarb6thOxyathyf) pho~pbrodithio~te o r 0, 0 - dlae thyl phosphorodithioate of dicthyl asrcrptoauccla*tar Malathion 5EC