Whole Document Navigator (Click Here)    ---------------------------------- Top of Document Abstract Acknowledgements Introduction - The Florida Nursery Industry - Project Objectives Survey Methods - Questionnaire Development - Survey Sampling Design - Survey Implementation Survey Results - Chemical Use - Pest Management Practices - Pest Management Decision Making - Production Area, Systems, Crops, Sales, Employment and Costs Literature Cited List of Appendices Footnotes Disclaimer Copyright Infomation

Pest Management Practices and Chemical Use in Florida's Ornamental Plant Nursery Industry ¹

Alan W. Hodges, Michael J. Aerts and Catherine A. Neal²

Abstract

A survey of ornamental plant nursery firms in Florida was conducted to document pest management practices and chemical use in 1995. Wholesale ornamental nurseries in 16 Florida counties were randomly selected for the survey, which was administered through personal interviews by University of Florida County Extension faculty and assistants. A total of 221 firms were surveyed. These firms had annual sales of $138 million, 3,503 acres of production area, and 3,460 employees. Survey respondents used greenhouse, open container, and field production systems, and had crops including foliage, trees, woody ornamentals, bedding plants, flowers, liners, and other crops. The majority of growers reported that costs for pest management, including materials, labor, and equipment, represented less than 5 percent of direct costs of production. Insecticides were reported used by 98 percent of respondents, fungicides by 90 percent, herbicides by 88 percent, growth regulators by 47 percent and soil fumigants by 4 percent. Respondent firms used an average of 5.8 different insecticides, 2.1 herbicides, 4.2 fungicides and 1.0 growth regulators. The most commonly used pesticides were the fungicides metalaxyl (Subdue), copper, mancozeb and chlorothalonil (Bravo, Daconil), the herbicides glyphosate (Roundup) and oxadiazon (Ronstar), and the insecticides acephate (Orthene), diazinon and avermectin (Avid). Most respondents considered pest management and scouting to be the responsibility of the owner(s) rather than employee managers, growers or other specialist. Two-thirds of firms reported scouting for pests more than once a week, but less than half of firms followed a schedule for deliberate scouting on a regular basis. The incidence of 30 specific integrated pest management (IPM) practices followed ranged from 3 to 83 percent. Fifteen percent of respondents reported using biological control agents, primarily against mites and whiteflies on palms and other foliage plants.

Acknowledgements

Support for this survey project and publication was provided by the National Agricultural Pesticide Impact Assessment Program (NAPIAP) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Norman Nesheim is the state liason representative for this program. University of Florida/IFAS county faculty who conducted survey interviews with growers were Gary Brinen, Gerri Cashion, Michael Demaree, David DeVoll, Terry Delvalle, David Dinkins, Patricia Grace, Liz Felter, DeArmand Hull, Linda Landrum, Cathy Neal, Bill Schall, Roger Newton, Dan Schrader, Bob Whitty, and Andy Rose. Howard Bardsley conducted numerous interviews in Dade County as a temporary contractor. Ken Portier and Jean Stewart of the UF/IFAS Statistics Department performed statistical analysis of the data.

Introduction

The Florida Nursery Industry

The ornamental nursery industry in Florida is the second largest in the United States, with 5061 farms, annual revenues exceeding $1 billion, production area of 35 thousand acres in the open and 147 million square feet under greenhouse or shadehouses (U.S. Dept. Commerce, 1993). The industry in Florida has significant production of woody ornamentals, tropical foliage, and flowering plant products (Hodges and Haydu, 1996).

The humid, sub-tropical environment in Florida is ideal for plant production, but is also highly conducive to many pest organisms. Some pests are endemic to nursery sites and are active year round in Florida. This ornamental nursery industry intensively manages pests because a low threshold for economic damage is dictated by the consumer's demand for cosmetically unblemished plants. However, the use of pesticides for control of pests represents not only a significant economic cost to nursery producers, but also may harm non-target organisms in the agro-ecosystem and may pose a risk to health and safety of nursery workers and neighboring communities.

Project Objectives

This survey project was undertaken to document pest management practices and chemical use in Florida's commercial ornamental nursery industry, as part of the educational efforts of the University of Florida/IFAS. This project was organized under State Major Program FL112, which seeks to serve the needs of commercial ornamental plant growers for information on pest management. This survey was conducted in 1996 and concerned activities of respondents in 1995. A followup survey is planned in approximately 5 years to measure changes taking place in the industry and to assess the impacts of UF/IFAS programs during the intervening period.

Survey Methods

Questionnaire Development

The survey instrument was developed according to methods described by Salant and Dillman (1994) and in consultation with UF/IFAS faculty, and was pretested with several firms to assure that questions were clear to respondents and were answerable. Information requested by the questionnaire was as follows:

1. Production areas used in 1995, by type of crop and type of production systems used (acres or square feet). Production systems specifically covered included greenhouse/shadehouse systems, open growing areas for containerized plants, and open growing areas for field grown plants. Specific types of crops included tropical foliage plants, trees, woody ornamental shrubs, bedding plants, floriculture crops, liners, and others.

2. Use of specific chemical products, including insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, growth regulators, and soil fumigants, by specific formulation. Some 88 individual chemical active ingredients were identified as being labeled for nursery use. In the case of insecticides and fungicides, information was also requested on the types of insects or diseases targeted. Respondents were asked to indicate simply whether or not each chemical was used in 1995; it was not feasible to quantify the level of use in terms of number of applications or area treated.

3. Types of pest scouting, frequency conducted, and person responsible.

4. Application of pest control treatments according to a predetermined schedule or only when pests are detected, or both, for each of the four classes of pests: insects, nematodes, weeds, diseases.

5. Use of 10 possible considerations for deciding whether to administer a pest control treatment: pest population level, pest population changing, degree of pest damage, pest life stage, presence of predators/parasites, plant disease inoculum level, weather, treatment cost, projected marketing date, labor availability.

6. Use of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) practices, selected from a list of 30 possible practices.

7. Use of biological control agents, including type(s) of organism(s) used, pest(s) targeted, crop(s) treated, and the average area treated.

8. The importance of seven issues for pest management: improving control of pests, increasing ability to work in the nursery, increasing salable plants, lowering environmental impact, lowering cost of production, reducing potential pesticide resistance, reducing use of pesticides.

9. Disposal practices for empty pesticide containers.

10. Expenses for pest control, including labor, materials and equipment as a percentage of total direct costs.

11. Hourly wages for employees involved in pest control activities.

12. The number of full time equivalent employees working for the company and the number involved specifically in pest management activities.

13. Nursery product sales of the company in 1995, either actual sales, or the appropriate category representing a range of figures.

Survey Sampling Design

The population of ornamental horticulture firms for this survey was taken from the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry (FDACS-DPI) certified nursery directory, listing a total of 7268 firms for 1995. Some 4300 firms having wholesale business in ornamental or native plant products were considered eligible for the survey pool. Firms were excluded which had only retail business or grew only non-ornamental plants (e.g. citrus). In order to measure effects of location or business size on pest management practices and chemical use, firms in the survey pool were stratified into 3 size classes based upon plant inventory, and three regions of the state, North, Central, and South, corresponding to USDA plant hardiness zones 9a, 9b, and 10. The firm size classification was based upon the most recent DPI inventory data available for each firm.Sample numbers required for this survey were calculated to achieve a target precision of plus or minus 10 percent in estimating the true mean of continuous variables (e.g. acreage) at a statistical confidence level of 90 percent. A target sample size of 262 firms was calculated to meet these parameters, based on an estimated coefficient of variation of 0.30 for continuous variables. This number represented about 6 percent of the population of eligible firms. The required sample numbers were allocated to each survey stratum, by firm size and geographic region, as shown in Table 1 .

Nursery firms were surveyed in 18 Florida counties, including Highlands, Lake, Orange, Hillsborough, Pasco, Manatee, Citrus, Seminole, Volusia, Sumter, Brevard, Alachua, Bradford, Duval, Putnam, Martin, Dade, and Broward ( Figure 1 ). The required sample numbers were distributed among these counties in proportion to their share of the total population of firms within each region. For each county, a list of firms was randomly generated for the survey, by firm size class (large, medium, small). These lists contained twice as many firms as required for the final sample, in order to allow for replacement of non-responding firms.

Survey Implementation

Introductory letters were mailed to firms selected for the survey to describe the nature of the survey. Interviewers called upon selected firms in advance to obtain consent from the company owner or Chief Executive officer, and to arrange an appointment to conduct the interview with a designated company representative who is "most knowledgeable about the company's pest management practices" . Every effort was made to contact the randomly selected firms in order to minimize bias in the survey. In cases where it was not possible to contact the firm, or the owner or manager chose not to participate in the survey, a replacement firm was selected from the list of alternates.

Because of the large amount of information to be collected and the confidential nature of some information, questionnaires were administered by personal interviews with company representatives. In most cases, UF/IFAS agents conducted the interviews. Enumerators were hired to assist with the survey in 3 counties (Dade, Hillsborough, Putnam). Interviews were conducted by asking each question and recording the respondent's answer on the survey form. Enumerators were given detailed explanations for each specific question, and were instructed to develop a standardized presentation or manner of asking the questions. Completed questionnaires were returned to the project leaders for data checking, entry and analysis.

Survey Results

Usable survey questionnaires were completed by 221 respondent firms. Counties in the North, Central, and South Florida regions represented 12, 39, and 49 percent of sampled firms, respectively. Dade, Hillsborough, Broward, and Orange counties each contributed at least 24 respondents to the survey. The numbers of firms surveyed in each county are given in Appendix Table A1 .

Chemical Use

Survey respondents were queried about their use of 32 insecticides, 24 herbicides, 18 fungicides, 11 growth regulators and 3 soil fumigants that are labeled for use on ornamental crops. In most cases, information was collected on specific formulations of chemicals. Results for the number and percentage of firms using each chemical are presented below in Tables 3-7: insecticides used are summarized in Table 3 , herbicides in Table 4 , fungicides in Table 5 , growth regulators in Table 6 , and a summary by chemical class, production system and crop in Table 7 .

Insecticides were used against pests including aphids, borers, caterpillars, leafminers, mites, nematodes, scales, thrips and whiteflies ( Table 2 ). Mites, aphids, and whiteflies were the most important pests targeted, representing 18, 17 and 16 percent of total insecticide uses, respectively ( Table 2 ).

At least one of the 32 insecticides listed in the questionnaire was used by nearly all (98%) of firms surveyed, and this result did not differ significantly across regions, crop specialties, production systems or firm size classes. The most commonly used insecticides were acephate (Orthene), diazinon, and avermectin (Avid), which were used by 59, 43 and 43 percent of firms, respectively ( Table 3 ). Reduced risk insecticides, such as Bacillus thuringiensis , insecticidal soaps and horticultural oils, were used by 32, 30 and 29 percent of nurseries, respectively. On average, 5.8 different insecticides were used by an individual firm, more than any other class of pesticides ( Table 7 ). The number of different insecticides used by individual firms was higher in South Florida (6.4) than in other regions, for bedding plants (8.6) and floriculture crops (7.1), and for larger firms (11.9).

Herbicides were classified as pre-emergent or post-emergent types. At least one herbicide was used by 88 percent of survey respondents, however, in the northern part of Florida a somewhat lower percentage of firms (74%) used any herbicides. The most commonly used pre-emergent herbicides were oxadiazon (Ronstar), oryzalin (Surflan), oxyfluorfen plus pendimethalin (OHII), isoxaben plus trifluralin (Snapshot TG), and oxyflourfen plus oryzalin (Rout), used by 25, 15, 13, 11 and 9 percent of firms, respectively ( Table 4 ). Glyphosate (Roundup, Expedite), a post-emergent, non-selective herbicide was the most commonly used of all chemicals, used by 82 percent of growers. On average, 2.1 different herbicides were used by an individual firm ( Table 7 ).

Fungicides were widely used to combat plant diseases in Florida's nursery industry, due to the very hot and humid conditions which are favorable for fungal organisms. Some type of fungicide was reported used by 90 percent of firms. The most commonly used fungicides were metalaxl (Subdue), copper (Kocide), mancozeb (Dithane), chlorothalonil (Bravo, Daconil), fosetyl aluminum (Aliette), etridiazole plus thiophanate methyl (Banrot), iprodione (Chipco 26019), and thiophanate methyl (Cleary 3336, Domain, SysTec 1998), which were used by 34 to 57 percent of growers, respectively ( Table 5 ). On average, 4.2 different fungicides were used by the typical firm ( Table 7 ). A somewhat higher number of fungicides were used by firms with greenhouse production systems and for growing bedding plants, while fewer fungicides were used for field production systems for trees and woody ornamentals.

Growth regulators were used in the nursery industry generally less than for the preceeding three classes of chemicals. At least one growth regulator was used by 47 percent of surveyed firms. The most commonly used growth regulators were daminozide (B-Nine), IBA (Hormodin) and paclobutrazol (Bonzi), used by 17 to 13 percent of firms ( Table 6 ). IBA is used as a rooting hormone while daminozide and paclobutrazol are used to control plant size and form, primarily for floriculture crops. Typically, an individual firm used only one plant growth regulator ( Table 7 ), while bedding plant and floriculture producers used a greater diversity of these chemicals (2.7, 1.9, respectively).

Soil fumigants are no longer used nearly to the extent that they once were, since most growers now purchase sterilized growing media. Only 4 percent of growers used any soil fumigant. Two percent of firms used steam, and 1 percent used methyl bromide/chloropicrin.

Pest Management Practices

Integrated Pest Management. A list of 30 integrated pest management (IPM) practices were identified as potentially appropriate for use in Florida's ornamental nurseries. The percentage of surveyed firms that reported using each of these practices is summarized in Table 8 . The most commonly used IPM practices were removal of infested plants or parts, alternating pesticides, inspecting incoming stock, elevating or spacing plants for air circulation, and using least toxic pesticides, which were utilized by 83 to 71 percent of firms, respectively. The least commonly used IPM practices included screening to exclude pests (21%), using mulches to suppress weeds (16%), monitoring pests with pheromone traps (13%), treating retention pond water (4%) and using sanitized water foot baths (3%).

Scouting. Management of pests in the nursery requires current and accurate information about the state of pest populations, in order to determine whether application of pest control treatments are appropriate, and what treatment is most efficacious. Scouting of nursery production areas to monitor pests is one of the keystones of Integrated Pest Management. Table 9 presents results of surveyed growers regarding their pest scouting practices. Most firms (90%) reported making observations during routine tasks in the nursery, however this is not truly scouting in the sense of IPM. Deliberate, scheduled observations of pests were reported by 42 percent of growers, while 12 percent used systematic sampling procedures to quantitatively assess pest populations. Only 3 percent of firms did not scout for pests in any way. Note that these response options were not mutually exclusive, so some firms indicated following more than one type of scouting practice. Two-thirds of firms reported that scouting was done more than once per week ( Table 10 ).

Traditionally, many pest control treatments were applied preventatively according to a predetermined schedule, regardless of the presence of pests or perceived pest pressure. From an integrated pest management standpoint this practice is undesirable because it may often represent a needless use of pesticides. The alternative is to apply pest control treatments only when scouting indicates that pests are in fact present, or when season or environmental factors can be reliably used to predict pest occurrence (e.g. for diseases). Table 11 shows that both of these practices are still common in the nursery industry, however, for each type of pest, more firms applied control treatments based on the presence of pests. Use of the preventative schedule approach was highest for combating diseases (57%) since most fungicides are preventative rather than curative. In the case of herbicides, only the pre-emergent or selective types can be used in the pots or on crops. Control treatments applied on any basis were quite low for nematodes.

Biological Controls. Use of natural living predators or parasites to control pests is an important and growing area of integrated pest management. Use of biocontrols was reported by 15 percent of firms (37). Specific biocontrol agents used are summarized in Table 12 . Predatory mites were the most commonly reported biocontrol agent used, and mites were the most common pest targeted by biocontrols. Other pests targeted by biocontrols included whiteflies, aphids, mealybugs, fungus gnats, scales, thrips, caterpillars, banana moths, shoreflies, nematodes, beetles, and root diseases. Palms and other types of tropical foliage plants were the most frequently mentioned crops on which biocontrols were used, however several types of woody ornamentals and flowering crops were also reported. The area treated with biological controls, area in which organisms were released, averaged 2.7 acres, and ranged as high as 25 acres.

Pesticide Container Disposal. Disposal of pesticide containers in a safe manner is an important practice for avoiding exposure of residual pesticides to non-target organisms and to humans who may be unaware of their dangers. Seventy five percent of nursery firms in Florida reported that pesticide containers were disposed of in municipal solid waste (MSW) collection containers, while 20 percent burned containers on their property ( Table 13 ). Approximately two-thirds of firms (63%) indicated a willingness to take empty pesticide containers to a local recycling facility if it were available.

Pest Management Decision Making

The importance accorded to pest management in ornamental nurseries is reflected by the 80 percent of surveyed firms in which the owner or family member was reported to be the person responsible for making pest management decisions ( Table 14 ). Professional managers or growers were responsible for pest management decisions in 33 and 24 percent of firms, respectively. These results were similar concerning the specific task of scouting, with owners or family members being the responsible person for 78 percent of firms, and employees for 49 percent of firms. Consulting services for pest management are a growth industry, but only 3 percent of firms relied on consultants, and 2 percent of firms used scouting services as of this survey.

Many factors may potentially come into consideration for determining whether to treat for pests. Survey respondents were questioned about their consideration of 10 possible factors, as summarized in Table 15 . The most important factors were pest population level, weather, degree of pest damage and pest population change, which were considered by 90 to 55 percent of firms respectively. Other factors were considered by 30 to 50 percent of firms, except labor availability (20%). A reasonable explanation for the low level of awareness about presence of predators/parasites (33%) and plant disease inoculum level (30%) may be that growers do not generally know how to recognize or identify these indicators.

The importance of seven issues for pest management in the nursery industry were ranked by survey respondents as shown in Table 16 . A composite index of importance was constructed by weighting the number of respondents ranking each issue first, second, third, etc., with higher weightings given to higher rankings. The most important issue for pest management was "improve control of pests", followed by "increase salable plants", and "reduce use of pesticides". Although "increase salable plants" had a higher number of first place rankings, "improve control of pests" had a higher composite score because of broad support in first, second, and third place rankings. Issues which were of less concern were "increase ability to work in the nursery", "reduce potential pesticide resistance", "lower cost of production", and "lower environmental impact".

Production Area, Systems, Crops, Sales, Employment and Costs

Production Area . A total of 3503 acres were reported under production by survey respondents, as summarized in Table 17. Area reported for greenhouse, open containerized, and open field production areas represented 28, 56, and 16 percent of the total area, respectively. A total of 209 firms (95%) reported having some greenhouse or shadehouse production systems, 196 (89%) had some open containerized areas, and 50 (23%) had open field areas. Tree crops had the largest area, representing 35 percent of the total production area, while foliage represented 26 percent, woody ornamentals (shrubs) represented 25 percent, bedding plants and floriculture crops together represented 10 percent, and liners and other crops comprised 5 percent. Production area per firm averaged 7.7 (+/- 1.5) acres, and ranged as high as 600 acres.

Nursery Product Sales. Total sales reported by respondents for 1995 were estimated at $138 million. A majority of respondents reported sales of less than $500 thousand (M), while some 6 percent of respondents had sales of $2 million (MM) or greater ( Table 18 ). Among the 42 firms that reported actual sales, the average was $1,208,660, and the maximum was $30MM.

Sales were analyzed by crop and production system specialty as shown in Table 19 . Greenhouse, open container, and open field production systems accounted for an estimated 61, 34 and 5 percent of total sales respectively. Foliage was the most important crop with 47 percent of sales, followed by woody ornamentals (19%), bedding plants (12%) and trees (10%). Other and unspecified crops together accounted for 6 percent of sales.

Employment and Wages. Surveyed firms reported a total of 3460 fulltime employees, which represented an average of 15.6 employees per firm. The largest firm had 425 employees. A total of 304 fulltime employees, or about 9 percent of the workforce, were dedicated to pest management, averaging 1.4 per firm and ranging up to 15. Wages paid (not including fringe benefits) for pest control employees averaged $7.47 per hour, and ranged from $4.00 to $18.25.

Costs for Pest Management. Sixty percent of firms reported that total expenses for pest management, including materials, labor and equipment, represented 5 percent or less of their total direct costs of production, as shown in Table 20 . However, 20 percent of firms reported that pest control costs were 16 to 20 percent of total direct production costs, and 1 percent of firms had costs greater than 20 percent.

Literature Cited

Dillman, D.A. and P. Salant, 1994. How to Conduct Your Own Survey. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Hodges, A.W. and J.J Haydu, 1996. The changing structure of Florida's ornamental plant nursery industry, 1989--1994. Economics Report ER96-1, Univ. Fla. Food & Resource Economics Dept., Gainesville, 22 pp.

US Department of Commerce, 1993. 1992 Census of Agriculture, Vol. 1, Geographic Area Series, Part 9, Florida State and County Data . AC92-A-9. Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census, Washington DC.

List of Appendices

• Appendix A. Summary of Survey Results by County.
• Table A1 . Sales and labor measures, by county, Florida ornamental nurseries, 1995.
• Table A2 . Production acreage, by county, Florida ornamental nurseries, 1995.
• Table A3 . Percentage of firms using pesticides or biocontrols, by class, county and region, Florida ornamental nurseries, 1995.
• Table A4 . Average number of pesticides used per firms, by chemical class, county and region, Florida ornamental nurseries, 1995.

Tables

Table 1. Survey sample numbers targeted, by firm size class and Florida region.

Plant Inventory Units	Firm Size Class	Florida Region			Total
		South	North	Central
100,000 to over 500,000	Large	29	16	30	75
10,000 to 100,000	Medium	32	23	33	88
Under 10,000	Small	33	32	34	99
Total		94	71	97	262

Table 2. Target pests treated with insecticides and miticides by Florida ornamental nurseries, 1995.

Pest	Total Number of Uses	Percentage of Total Uses
Aphids	387	17%
Borers	55	2%
Caterpillars	246	11%
Leafminers	98	4%
Mites	415	18%
Nematodes	21	1%
Scales	263	12%
Thrips	183	8%
Whiteflies	360	16%
Other	217	10%

Table 3. Insecticides and miticides used by Florida ornamental nurseries, 1995.

Technical Name	Brand Name	Percent of Firms Using
acephate*	Orthene	59%
diazinon*	Diazinon	43%
avermectin*	Avid	43%
dienochlor	Pentac Aquaflow	32%
Bacillus thuringiensis	Javelin, Dipel	32%
carbaryl	Sevin, Sevimol	32%
dimethoate*	Cygon	32%
insecticidal soaps*		30%
horticultural oils*		29%
bifenthrin	Talstar	28%
malathion	Malathion	27%
chlorpyrifos	Dursban	27%
tau-fluvalinate*	Mavrik Aquaflow	24%
imidacloprid	Merit	18%
fenpropathrin*	Tame	17%
endosulfan	Thiodan	17%
dicofol*	Kelthane	14%
azadirachtin	Azatin, Margosan-O	12%
kinoprene	Enstar	10%
lindane	Lindane	9%
oxamyl	Oxamyl, Vydate	9%
fenoxycarb	Logic, Precision	7%
diflubenzuron	Ornamite	6%
bendiocarb	Dycarb, Turcam	6%
disulfoton	Di-Syston	5%
permethrin	Ambush, Pounce	5%
cyfluthrin	Baythroid, Tempo	4%
fenamiphos	Nemacur	2%
chinomethionate	Morestan	1%
ethoprop	Mocap	1%
oxydemeton-methyl	Metasystox	<1%
methiocarb	Mesurol	<1%
carbofuran	Furadan	<1%
trichlorfon	Dylox	0%
azinphos-methyl	Guthion	0%
* miticides

Table 4. Herbicides used by Florida ornamental nurseries, 1995.

Technical Name	Brand Name	Percent of Firms Using
Post-emergent Herbicides
glyphosate	Roundup	82%
paraquat	Gramoxone	8%
diquat	Diquat, Reward	6%
potassium salts of fatty acids	Sharpshooter	2%
sethoxydim	Vantage	2%
pelargonic acid	Scythe	<1%
fluzifop-butyl	Take-Away, Fusilade, Ornemec	0%
fenoxaprop-ethyl	Acclaim	0%
Pre-emergent Herbicides
oxadiazon	Ronstar	25%
oryzalin	Surflan	15%
oxyflourfen + pendimethalin	OHII	13%
isoxaben + trifluralin	Snapshot TG	11%
oxyflourfen + oryzalin	Rout	9%
prodiamine	Barricade, Factor	8%
isoxaben + oryzalin	Snapshot DF	8%
pendimethalin	Pendulum, So. Weedgrass Control, Stomp	8%
metolachlor	Pennant, Dual	3%
isoxaben	Gallery	2%
napropamide	Devrinol	2%
diuron	Karmex	2%
oxyflourfen	Goal	2%
trifluralin	Treflan	1%
bromacil	Krovar	1%
princep	Simazine	<1%
glyphosinate-ammonium	Ignite, Finale	<1%
2,4-D	2,4-D	<1%
benefin + oryzalin	XL	<1%
oxyflourfen + oxadiazon	O-O	0%
metolachlor + simazine	Derby	0%
pronamide	Kerb	0%

Table 5. Fungicides used by Florida ornamental nurseries, 1995.

Technical Name	Brand Name	Percent of Firms Using
metalaxyl	Subdue	57%
copper-based	Kocide	51%
mancozeb	Dithane	45%
chlorothalonil	Bravo, Daconil	42%
fosetyl aluminum	Aliette	37%
etridiazole + thiophanate methyl	Banrot	37%
iprodione	Chipco 26019	36%
thiophanate methyl	Cleary 3336, Domain, SysTec 1998	34%
mancozeb + thiophanate methyl	Zyban, Duosan	17%
ethazole	Terrazole, Truban	14%
propiconazole	Banner	11%
triforine	Triforine	11%
PCNB	Terraclor	10%
triadimefon	Bayleton, Strike	8%
triflumizole	Terraguard	7%
dazomet	Basamid	0%

Table 6. Plant growth regulators used by Florida ornamental nurseries, 1995.

Technical Name	Brand Name	Percent of Firms Using
daminozide	B-Nine	17%
IBA	Hormodin	14%
paclobutrazol	Bonzi	13%
IBA + NAA + thiram	Rootone	11%
chlormequat chloride	Cycocel	11%
gibberellic acid	Gib-Gro	10%
ethephon	Florel	5%
uniconizole	Sumagic	5%
ancymidol	A-Rest	4%
IBA + NAA	Dip'N Grow	4%
dikegulac	Atrimmec	1%
maleic hydrazide	Royal Slo-Gro,Retard	0%
methyl esters of fatty acids	Off-Shoot-O	0%

Table 7. Average number of different chemicals used by ornamental nurseries in Florida, 1995, by chemical class, crop and production system.

Crop Specialty/ Production System Type	Insecticides	Herbicides	Fungicides	Growth Regulators
All Crops	5.8	2.1	4.2	1.0
Foliage	6.1	1.7	4.9	1.0
Trees	5.2	2.9	3.4	0.5
Woody ornamentals	5.5	2.4	3.9	0.6
Bedding plants	8.6	2.7	5.9	2.7
Floriculture	7.1	1.6	4.9	1.9
Liners	6.0	1.8	4.8	0.3
Other	4.3	1.7	3.2	0.5
All Systems	5.8	2.1	4.2	1.0
Container	5.5	2.4	3.7	0.6
Greenhouse	6.8	1.9	5.3	1.6
Field	4.9	2.2	3.8	0.2

Table 8. Integrated pest management (IPM) practices used by Florida ornamental nurseries, 1995.

Practice	Percent of Firms Practicing
Remove infested plants or plant parts	83%
Alternate pesticides (to avoid chemical resistence)	75%
Inspect incoming stock	74%
Elevate or space plants for air circulation	72%
Use least toxic pesticides for environment	71%
Manage irrigation to reduce pests	69%
Spot treatment with pesticides	69%
Use cultivation, hand weeding	60%
Disinfect benches/ground cover (cloth)	55%
Use pest resistant varieties	52%
Use least toxic pesticides for beneficials	51%
Soil solarization/sterilization	49%
Ventilate greenhouses	47%
Use biopesticides	39%
Keep pest activity records	35%
Beneficial insect identification	30%
Adjust pesticide application to protect beneficials	30%
Adjust fertilization rates	26%
Use screening/barriers to exclude pests	21%
Use mulches	16%
Monitor pests with pheromone traps or color boards	13%
Treat retention pond water	4%
Use sanitized water foot baths	3%

Table 9. Scouting practices used by Florida ornamental nurseries, 1995.

Scouting Practice	Percentage of Firms Following Practice
General Observation During Routine Tasks	90%
Deliberate Scheduled	42%
Systematic Sampling	12%
Do Not Scout	3%

Table 10. Frequency of scouting by Florida ornamental nurseries, 1995.

Frequency of Scouting (during active periods)	Percent of Firms
More than once a week	68%
One time per week	19%
Once every two weeks	6%
Once every three weeks	1%
Once every four weeks	2%

Table 11. Application of pest control treatments as needed or on preventative schedule, by type of pest, Florida ornamental nurseries, 1995.

Type of Pest	When Pests Present	Preventative Schedule
	Percent of Firms
Disease	65%	57%
Insects	83%	45%
Nematodes	17%	11%
Weeds	66%	43%

Table 12. Biological control agents used by Florida ornamental nurseries, 1995.

Biocontrol Agent	Percent of Firms Using
Predatory Mites	9%
Wasps	3%
Beneficial Nematodes	3%
Beneficial Fungi	3%
Lady Beetles	2%
Lacewings	2%
Minute Pirate Bugs	1%
Delphastus Beetles	1%
Mealybug destroyers	0%

Table 13. Pesticide container disposal, Florida ornamental nurseries, 1995.

Disposal Method	Percent of Firms
MSW collection containers	75%
Burn on property	20%
Recycle empty plastic containers	12%
Return to distributor	4%
Bury on property	1%

Table 14. Person responsible for pest management decisions, Florida ornamental nurseries, 1995.

Person	Number of Firms	Percent of Firms
Owner or family member	175	80%
Manager	73	33%
Grower	52	24%
Pest Management Specialist	8	4%
Consultant	6	3%

Table 15. Factors considered for determining whether to treat for pests, Florida ornamental nurseries, 1995.

Factor	Percent of Firms
Pest population level	90%
Weather	68%
Degree of pest damage	57%
Pest population changing	55%
Pest life stage	49%
Projected marketing date	42%
Treatment cost	42%
Presence of predators/parasites	33%
Plant disease inoculum level	30%
Labor availability	20%

Table 16. Importance of issues for pest management in Florida ornamental nurseries, 1995.

Issue	Number Respondents Ranking			Composite Index
	1st	2nd	3rd
Improve control of pests	59	42	28	0.40
Increase salable plants	73	29	18	0.38
Reduce use of pesticides	50	33	29	0.37
Lower environmental impact	48	26	24	0.33
Lower cost of production	54	22	29	0.32
Reduce potential pesticide resistance	25	24	19	0.27
Increase ability to work in the nursery	26	19	30	0.22

Table 17. Area under production, by crop and production system type, Florida ornamental nurseries, 1995.

Crop	Open Container	Greenhouse	Open Field	All Systems	Percent of All Crops
Acres
Foliage	235	641	43	684	20%
Trees	783	8	420	428	12%
Bedding plants	80	200	0	200	6%
Woody Ornamentals	747	63	53	116	3%
Floriculture	6	48	0	48	1%
Liners	21	14	0	14	<1%
Other crops	102	13	26	40	1%
All Crops	1,974	987	543	1,530

Table 18. Annual sales classification, Florida ornamental nurseries, 1995.

Sales Range	Percent of Firms
less than $100M	37%
$100M to $499M	28%
$500M to $999M	17%
$1MM to $1.9MM	10%
$2MM or greater	7%

Table 19. Estimated sales by crop and production system specialty, Florida ornamental nurseries, 1995.

Crop	Greenhouse	Open Container	Open Field	All Systems	Percent of All Systems
Thousands $
Foliage	57,473	6,184	1,600	65,257	47%
Woody ornamentals	1,900	23,288	430	25,618	19%
Bedding plants	13,814	3,100	0	16,914	12%
Trees	0	10,020	3,525	13,545	10%
Floriculture	6,050	0	0	6,050	4%
Liners	1,500	350	0	1,850	1%
Other	2,373	0	800	3,173	2%
Unspecified	1,050	4,253	0	5,303	4%
All Crops	84,160	47,195	6,355	137,710
Percent of All Crops	61%	34%	5%	100%	100%

Table 20. Percentage of direct costs for pest control, including materials, labor, and equipment, Florida ornamental nurseries, 1995.

Cost Range	Percent of Firms in Cost Range
0-5%	60%
6-10%	7%
11-15%	1%
16-20%	20%
Greater than 20%	1%
Don't know	11%

Table A1. Sales and labor measures, by county, Florida ornamental nurseries, 1995.

County	Number Firms Sampled	Sales ($)		Labor
		Total (thousands $)	Average Per Firm (thous.$)	Total Employees	Pest Man. Employees	Est. Total Wages (thous.$)	Average Wage ($/hr)	Average Sales/FTE (thous.$)
Alachua	11	6,620	602	150	12.5	2,000	8.46	44
Bradford	1	50	50	na	0.0	na	na	na
Broward	25	8,803	352	163	14.7	1,937	7.75	54
Citrus	5	200	40	5	0.7	na	na	38
Dade	56	68,359	1,221	1,581	105.3	21,009	6.59	43
Duval	14	8,150	582	328	25.3	5,143	7.57	25
Hillsborough	40	21,973	549	605	54.5	9,972	7.92	36
Lake	7	2,191	313	32	7.0	337	9.00	68
Manatee	6	2,050	342	69	21.0	256	5.50	30
Martin	4	5,050	1,263	118	10.0	1,877	7.56	43
Orange	24	15,410	642	249	38.1	3,578	8.67	62
Pasco	3	117	39	2	0.0	19	9.00	59
Putnam	9	1,600	178	115	6.0	71	5.33	14
Seminole	5	930	186	18	5.0	185	8.25	52
Sumter	6	580	97	14	0.3	52	7.50	41
Volusia	5	882	176	12	3.8	221	8.05	75
Total	221	142,964	647	3,460	304.0	46,656	7.47	41

Table A2. Production acreage, by county, Florida ornamental nurseries, 1995.

County	Acreage			Acres by Production System			Acres by Crops
	Total	Average per firm	Average Sales /Acre (thous.$)	Green- House	Open Container	Open Field	Foliage	Trees	Woody Ornam.	Bedding Plants	Flowers	Liners	Other Crops
Alachua	75	6.8	89	7	60	8	0	30	32	4	5	4	0
Bradford	3	2.5	20	0	3	0	0	0	3	0	0	0	0
Broward	105	4.2	84	20	58	27	30	30	32	11	0	1	0
Citrus	7	1.4	29	1	5	1	0	2	3	1	0	0	0
Dade	1,410	25.2	48	719	445	246	762	221	210	164	24	5	25
Duval	810	57.9	10	19	742	50	0	654	126	7	13	10	0
Hills- borough	614	15.4	36	95	448	71	25	78	345	30	8	12	117
Lake	21	3.0	104	9	9	4	8	9	4	0	0	0	0
Manatee	147	24.5	14	11	21	115	6	122	17	0	0	2	0
Martin	131	32.8	38	46	84	2	47	5	30	49	0	0	0
Orange	98	4.1	157	47	45	7	32	48	6	10	2	1	0
Pasco	8	2.7	15	3	1	4	3	5	1	0	0	0	0
Putnam	24	2.7	66	5	19	0	5	0	17	0	0	2	0
Seminole	23	4.6	41	5	18	0	0	2	18	3	0	0	0
Sumter	19	3.1	31	1	11	6	0	0	17	1	0	0	0
Volusia	9	1.9	94	0	7	2	0	6	3	0	0	0	0
Total	3,503	15.9	41	987	1,974	543	919	1,211	863	280	54	35	142

Table A3. Percentage of firms using pesticides or biocontrols, by county and region, Florida ornamental nurseries, 1995.

County/Region	Insecticides	Herbicides	Fungicides	Growth Regulators	Soil Fumigants	Biological Controls
Alachua	91%	82%	91%	45%	0%	18%
Bradford	100%	100%	100%	0%	0%	0%
Broward	96%	84%	84%	44%	8%	20%
Citrus	100%	100%	80%	80%	0%	20%
Dade	96%	95%	91%	45%	0%	29%
Duval	100%	71%	93%	57%	0%	7%
Hillsborough	100%	95%	93%	53%	3%	10%
Lake	100%	86%	86%	29%	14%	0%
Manatee	100%	100%	100%	17%	0%	17%
Martin	100%	100%	100%	75%	75%	25%
Orange	100%	92%	96%	50%	4%	8%
Pasco	100%	33%	100%	67%	0%	0%
Putnam	100%	67%	78%	22%	0%	0%
Seminole	100%	80%	80%	80%	0%	0%
Sumter	83%	83%	83%	67%	0%	0%
Volusia	100%	80%	100%	0%	0%	0%
North	97%	74%	89%	43%	0%	9%
Central	99%	90%	92%	50%	3%	8%
South	96%	92%	89%	46%	6%	26%

Table A4. Average number of pesticides used per firm, by county and region, ornamental nurseries in Florida, 1995.

County/Region	Insecticides	Herbicides	Fungicides	Growth Regulators
Alachua	5.9	2.1	4.2	0.5
Bradford	3.0	1.0	1.0	0.0
Broward	3.9	1.7	2.2	0.6
Citrus	2.8	1.8	2.6	1.4
Dade	6.9	2.3	5.2	1.1
Duval	6.6	2.0	3.8	1.4
Hillsborough	6.6	2.4	5.1	1.2
Lake	4.0	1.6	4.4	1.0
Manatee	6.2	3.2	3.8	0.2
Martin	14.5	5.5	6.0	1.5
Orange	6.1	1.8	4.9	1.3
Pasco	3.0	0.3	4.0	0.7
Putnam	2.9	1.8	2.0	0.2
Seminole	4.0	2.2	2.8	1.2
Sumter	2.8	1.5	2.7	0.7
Volusia	3.8	2.4	4.0	0.0
North	5.3	1.9	3.4	0.8
Central	5.5	2.1	4.4	1.0
South	6.4	2.3	4.3	1.0

---

Footnotes

1. This document is Circular 1203, one of a series of the Food and Resource Economics Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida. Publication Date: August 1998. Reviewed: June 2003. Please visit the EDIS Web site at http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu.

2. Alan W. Hodges, Coordinator of Economic Analysis, Food Resource and Economics Department; Michael J. Aerts, Assistant In, Pesticide Information, Food Science and Human Nutrition Department; Catherine A. Neal, Extension Agent IV, Multi-county, Seminole County; Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, 32611.

---

The use of trade names in this publication is solely for the purpose of providing specific information. UF/IFAS does not guarantee or warranty the products named, and references to them in this publication does not signify our approval to the exclusion of other products of suitable composition.

---

The Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) is an Equal Opportunity Institution authorized to provide research, educational information and other services only to individuals and institutions that function with non-discrimination with respect to race, creed, color, religion, age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, political opinions or affiliations. For more information on obtaining other extension publications, contact your county Cooperative Extension service.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service, University of Florida, IFAS, Florida A. & M. University Cooperative Extension Program, and Boards of County Commissioners Cooperating. Larry Arrington, Dean.

---

Copyright Information

This document is copyrighted by the University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF/IFAS) for the people of the State of Florida. UF/IFAS retains all rights under all conventions, but permits free reproduction by all agents and offices of the Cooperative Extension Service and the people of the State of Florida. Permission is granted to others to use these materials in part or in full for educational purposes, provided that full credit is given to the UF/IFAS, citing the publication, its source, and date of publication.