Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:43:25.549Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Apple Pest Management: A Cost Analysis of Alternative Practices

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2017

Daniel Rossi ,
Pritam S. Dhillon  and
Laura Hoffman
Daniel Rossi
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, Cook College, New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08903
Pritam S. Dhillon
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, Cook College, New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08903
Laura Hoffman
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana
Get access

Extract

Pest control efforts for tree fruits, as well as other agricultural crops, have intensified in the U.S. during the past few decades. This increase is the result of the increase in pest population, the Food and Drug Administration's reduction in tolerance levels of insect parts permitted in foods, and the raising of cosmetic standards by food wholesalers and retailers (Hough and Gallahan).

Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Journal of the Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , Fall 1983 , pp. 77 - 81
Copyright
Copyright © Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, Publication Number D-02110-1-83, supported by State funds and U.S. Hatch Act. The authors would like to thank Dean Polk of the New Jersey Cooperative Extension Service for his support during the data collection phase of the project.

References

Christensen, R.L. and Prokopy, R.J. 1979. “Impact on Costs and Energy Requirements of Adopting Alternate Middle Spray Techniques in Apple Orchards,” Journal of the Northeast Agricultural Economics Council, 8 (2): 243–274.Google Scholar
Funt, R.C., 1982. Unpublished data. Cooperative Extension Service, The Ohio State University, Columbus.Google Scholar
Gerling, W.D., 1982. A Survey of the Cost of Growing and Harvesting Apples in Eastern New York in 1981 and Eleven Year Review, Cooperative Extension Service, Cornell University, Hudson Valley Laboratory, Highland, New York.Google Scholar
Hepp, R.E., 1976. Alternative Delivery Systems for Farmers to Obtain Integrated Pest Management Services, Agricultural Economics Report No. 298, Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing.Google Scholar
Hoffman, L., 1983. The Economics of Apple Production: An Investigation of Alternative Pest Management Systems by Southern New Jersey Growers in 1981. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Hough, J.A. and Gallahan, D., New Directions in Pest Management, New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca.Google Scholar
McKibbon, E.C., 1980. Apple Production Costs. An Update of Standard and Size – Controlling Trees, Ontario, 1976, 1978 and 1979, Economics Branch, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food Legislative Buildings, Queen's Park, Toronto.Google Scholar
Norgaard, R.B., 1976. “Integrating Economics and Pest Management,” in Integrated Pest Management, New York Plenum Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
Polk, D., 1982. Unpublished data, Cooperative Extension Service, Rutgers – The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick.Google Scholar
Smith, O.C., 1981. Apples Enterprise Cost Analysis, Cooperative Extension Service, University of Georgia, College of Agriculture, Athens.Google Scholar
White, G. B. and Thompson, P., 1982. “The Economic Feasibility of Tree Fruit Integrated Pest Management in the Northeast,” Journal of the Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council, 11 (2): 39–45.Google Scholar