Journal of the NACAA
ISSN 2158-9429
Volume 3, Issue 2 - December, 2010

Editor:

The Correlation of Ohio Certified Private Pesticide Applicators Pesticide Label Use to Reported Behaviors

Prochaska, S.C., Extension Educator, The Ohio State University

ABSTRACT

A descriptive correlational study of Ohio Certified Private Pesticide Applicators (OCPPA) was conducted to measure reported pesticide label use and examine its relationship to rate of pesticide used, wind velocity at which pesticide applications cease, pesticide record keeping and quality of Extension training programs. A moderate association exists between OCPPA label use and the quality of Extension training sessions.
The Correlation of  Ohio Certified Private Pesticide Applicator Pesticide Label Use to Reported Behaviors
 
Introduction 
 
 Pesticides are widely used in the production of corn and soybeans with approximately 97 percent of Ohio's 3.5 million acres of corn and 4.4 million acres of soybeans having received a pesticide (herbicide) application in 2005 (National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2006). A recommended strategy to improve farmer pesticide use behaviors was to include in Extension pesticide training, the personal and social benefits of laws and regulations (Bricker, Martin, Janssen, & Whitford, 2004).  It is both a mandate of state and federal law and an imperative for pesticide applicators to read and follow pesticide label directions in order to minimize health and environmental risks associated with pesticide applications (Fishel & Andre, 2001; Prochaska, 2007; Prochaska, 1997).  To reduce pesticide application problems, it is important to understand applicator behaviors (Hall, 2005).
 
Purpose and Objectives
 
The purpose of this study was to describe and examine the relationship of Extension training to Ohio Certified Private Pesticide Applicators (OCPPA) reported pesticide label use, pesticide record keeping, rate of pesticide used and wind velocity at which pesticide applications ceased.  The target population of the study consisted of OCPPA eligible to be recertified in 2005  and OCPPA in North Central Ohio growing corn and soybeans in 2009. The study results may be useful to Extension educators in planning future pesticide training events as well as evaluating certified applicators current pesticide use practices.
            Objectives of the study included:
 
           1.  Examination of the relationships (correlation)  of OCPPA label use, pesticide record keeping,
                pesticide rate  used, wind velocity at which pesticide applications ceased and quality of
                Extension training sessions.  
           2. Description of OCPPA label use over eleven components. 
             
Methods   
                 
A valid and reliable survey instrument was developed for an earlier study of private applicators and this instrument (with very slight modification) was used to obtain pesticide label use, herbicides use and safety equipment use of private applicators (Prochaska, 1993).  As such, the variable, “reported pesticide label of use of OCPPA” was an eleven item measure of private applicators pesticide label use. Six responses were possible for each pesticide label item. The six descriptors for usage of the individual pesticide label component follow: 
  •  I typically don't;
  •  Only when I have an emergency;
  •  When I am using a pesticide for the first time;
  •  At the beginning of the season;
  •  I usually read this part each time I use a pesticide; and
  •  I always read this part each time I use a pesticide.
The instrument was administered by Extension agricultural educators at county level pesticide recertification sessions using a modified random cluster sampling approach at private pesticide applicator certification sessions.   With the total private applicators population slightly less than 20,000, a sample of sufficient size (297) was used to provide a .95 confidence interval for the population parameter with a sampling error of plus or minus seven. 
 
Because non-response error can bias study results; early responders were compared to late responders and were  found to be similar over this general population characteristic. Results of this study may be generalized to OCPPA  growing corn and soybeans. The sampling frame of Ohio certified private pesticide applicators is maintained by the Ohio Department of Agriculture. Completion of the survey instrument was completely voluntary and the study was approved by Ohio State University Human Subjects Research Review Board. 
 
Data anlaysis was performed with SPSS software licensed through Ohio State University. 
 
Results
 
To analyze the variable "Extension Training Sessions" OCPPA  were asked to rate the quality of the training session by choosing one of the following descriptors: 1) Poor;   2) Fair; 3) Average; 4) Good; 5) Excellent.  With a mean of 4.1, OCPPA rated training sessions as good.
 
For the variable “ Pesticide Records",  OCPPA were asked to choose one of the following to describe their pesticide record keeping behavior : keep only records of restricted use pesticide applications; keep only records of insecticide applications; keep only records of herbicide applications; keep records of all pesticide applications; do not keep records.  With a mean value of 3.7, OCPPA are primarily keeping records of all pesticide applications.      
 
Pesticide drift has been identified as major regulatory issue by state departments of agriculture. As such OCPPA were asked to identify the wind velocity (choices were: 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30) when spraying ceased.  The mean for this variable was 10.8 MPH (17.6 Km/h) which depending upon product used and area treated may or may not be acceptable. 
 
The variable "Pesticide Rate" is defined as of application of pesticides by OCPPA in reference to the “pesticide labeled rate” (always less than labeled rate, sometimes at less than labeled rate, at the labeled rate, sometimes more than labeled rate, and always at more than labeled rate).  The mean value for this variable would indicate OCPPA  primarily apply pesticides at the labeled rate or less than labeled rate. Descriptive statistics for the above variables are in Table 1.
 
 
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for OCPPA Use Variables
 
Mean
STD
N
Label Use
4.2672
.89512
202
Wind (MPH or Km/H) at which application ceased
10.88 or 17.6 
4.032
227
Pesticide Rate
1.3074
1.01896
309
Pesticide Records
3.71
.88
209
Extension Training Session
4.16
.869
224
 
 
A mean and standard deviation for OCPPA pesticide label use was calculated for each label component (Table 2). There was a difference in how often individual components are read.  Application use rates and tank mix information were the most commonly read label components.  The oveall mean was calculated over the eleven label components at 4.27 which would indicate OCPPA are reading parts of the label at least when a  pesticide is initially used.
 
 
Table 2
 Reported Pesticide Label Use of Private Applicators
Mean and standard deviation by label component
Label Component
Mean
STD
N
PPE
4.05
1.2
200
Environmental Hazards
4.08
1.1
198
Container Disposal
3.92
1.4
198
Application Use Rates
4.99
.93
199
Directions for tank Mix
4.78
1.1
201
Crop Rotation Restrictions
4.39
1.2
200
Emergency Medical Treatment
3.77
1.3
199
Pesticide Storage Instruction
3.80
1.2
198
Field Re-Entry Intervals
4.27
1.3
198
Pests Controlled
4.54
1.1
196
Signal Word
4.22
1.3
195
 Mean over all components
4.27
1.2
202
 
 
Pearson correlations were calculated to examine the relationships between OCPPA label use, wind velocity at which OCPPA ceased application, rate of pesticide used by OCCPA and quality of Extension training sessions (Table 3).    A significant moderate positive association (r=.185, n=197) exists between OCPPA label use and the quality of OCPPA pesticide training sessions. A significant moderate negative association (r=-.160, n= 204) exists between the quality of Extension training and OCPPA record keeping.
 
 
 
Table 3
Correlations for OCPPA Label Use to Various Pesticide Use Behaviors
 
 
Label Use
wind
 Pesticide Rate
Extension Session
Pesticide Records
Label Use
Pearson Correlation
1
-.079
.041
.185**
.040
Sig. (2-tailed)
 
.262
.564
.009
.592
N
202
201
202
197
185
wind
Pearson Correlation
-.079
1
.059
-.043
-.035
Sig. (2-tailed)
.262
 
.374
.523
.615
N
201
227
227
222
208
Pesticide Rate
Pearson Correlation
.041
.059
1
.056
.112
Sig. (2-tailed)
.564
.374
 
.407
.107
N
202
227
309
224
209
Quality of Extension Training Programs
Pearson Correlation
.185**
-.043
.056
1
-.160*
Sig. (2-tailed)
.009
.523
.407
 
.022
N
197
222
224
224
204
Pesticide records
Pearson Correlation
.040
-.035
.112
-.160*
1
Sig. (2-tailed)
.592
.615
.107
.022
 
N
185
208
209
204
209
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
 
 
 
Conclusions and Implications
 
A significant moderate positive association exists between OCPPA label use and the quality of Extension pesticide training sessions. Certain components of the pesticide label are used more often by private applicators.  Application use rates, directions for tank mixes and pests controlled label components were more often used each time a pesticide was used (see Table 1). This conclusion follows well considering the following information: 1) 97% of  Ohio agricultural pesticides used are herbicides, 2) glyphosate and atrazine pesticide products constitute the largest percentages of materials applied on soybeans and corn respectively by OCPPA, 3) gyphosate is often tank mixed with other herbicides in both corn and soybean production, 4) multiple applications of glyphosate (using different rates and tank mix partners) are commonly made in Ohio corn and soybean production systems.  
 
Implications from this study might include the following: 
1. Results of this study indicate that pesticide label use of OCPPA  might be improved by high quality Extension training programs.
2. Label use and wind velocity at which application ceased and rate of pesticide used were not associated. Therefore other factors may be responsible for these behaviors and the literature suggested that economic factors may influence these behaviors.
3. Educators might consider adding economic factors of pesticide (herbicide) application timing to pesticide training sessions to better address both use of the pesticide label, rate of pesticide used, record keeping of pesticide use and drift management of pesticides.  This can be accomplished with herbicides in a number of different ways such as the appropriate use of preemergence products to aid in weed resistance to herbicides, widen environmental application window (wind velocity) , tillage, planting date, crop rotation, and  application equipment modification. 
4. New pesticide labels for certain herbicide products are addressing nozzle use, buffer zones and other factors.  These changes can be incoprated into future Extension training sessions on appropriate use of the pesticide label.
 
References
 
Bricker, J. T.; Martin, A. G.; Janssen, C. L.; & Whitford, F. (2004). Are all these rules necessary? Extension pesticide programming with a regulatory purpose. Available at: Journal of Extension [on-line], 42(5).http://www.joe.org/joe/2004october/rb1.php
 
Fishel, F. & Andre, P. (2001). Understanding the pesticide label. University of Missouri Extension. Available at: http://muextension.missouri.edu/explore/agguides/agengin/g01911.htm
 
Hall, F. (2005). The importance of spray drift management around the world. In Ramsay, C. (ed) Proceedings of the International Conference on Pesticide Application for Drift Management. October, 2004. Waikoloa, Hawaii. Retrieved March 5, 2010 from: http://pep.wsu.edu/drift04/proceedings.html
 
National Agricultural Statistics Service; Other Reports. (2006). Available at: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/other/    
 
Prochaska, (S.C. 2007). Reported pesticide label use behaviors of Ohio Certified Private Pesticide  Applicators.  Journal of Pesticide Safety Education. Retrieved March 8, 2010. Available at: http://maxpond.ext.vt.edu/ojs2/index.php/jpse/article/viewArticle/4
 
Prochaska, S.C. & Norland. E. (1998). Ohio farmer use of the pesticide label. Journal of Extension [on-line], 36(1). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1998february/rb2.html
 
Prochaska, (S.C. 1993). Relationships of selected variables to the reported behaviors of certified private pesticide applicators in Ohio. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio