USDA Economic Research Service Handbook Number 712, Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators, 1996-1997. Described on pages 122-125. Article in The Sciences of the Total Environment 203. 1997. Barnard et al. http://www.ers.usda.gov/ publications/ah712/

Contact Charles Barnard at cbarnard@econ.ag.gov.

Contact Mary Swanson, Center for Clean Products and Clean Technologies, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, 311 Conference Center Building, Knoxville, TN 37996. Email: mswanso1@UTK.EDU

Report of the Direction de l’ Espace Rural et de la Foret, Ministere de l’Agriculture et de la Peche, Paris. 1994.

Abstract: Information is required on pesticide risk indicators used in Europe in order to optimise their use to reduce the environmental impact of pesticides. The present study was performed to compare and evaluate eight pesticide risk indicators developed in Europe and to give recommendations for further use and harmonisation of these risk indicators. This paper is based on the results of the CAPER project (concerted action on pesticide risk indicators). First the indicators and their methodologies were characterised. The eight indicators differed with regard to the compartments, effects and methods used to calculate environmental impact scores. Subsequently, the environmental risk of 15 individual pesticide applications was assessed with the eight indicators and the outcomes were compared. The rankings of the 15 applications by the indicators differed when the score for the environment as a whole was concerned. This was caused by the large variety in environmental compartments taken into account by the indicators. However, for the individual compartments surface water, groundwater and soil the indicators gave similar rankings of the 15 pesticide applications. The ranking based on the indicator `kilograms of active ingredient' did not correlate with most of the rankings by the risk indicators. Indicators are regarded as useful tools for the reduction of the environmental impact of pesticides. The development of a scientific framework for indicators in farmer decision tools is needed to harmonise and increase the use of pesticide risk indicators in the European Union.

ABSTRACT PART 1: A computer-based decision support system is described which aims to encourage and enhance sound environmental management within agriculture. Part of the system focuses on the management of pesticides on the farm, and can help to ensure that the farmer adopts practices which maximize crop production and profitability without jeopardizing the environment. The approach taken looks at all aspects of farm pesticide use including crop applications, storage and waste disposal and the use of non-crop pesticides. As a whole, the system can act as a informal environmental management system. An ecorating is derived by comparing actual farm practices with what is perceived to be best practice for the site, to provide a measure of environmental performance. The first time the method is used, these indices act as benchmarks against which the success of future improvements can be judged. The system has three modes of operation. An ''assessment mode'' seeks to identify strengths and weakness in practices and regulatory compliance and to provide guidance on areas where improvements could be made. In support of this, a second mode known as the ''technical system'' allows the user to explore ''what-if'' scenarios in order to identify site-specific best practice and aims to provide answers to the issues raised in the assessement mode. The third mode is a fully integrated hypertext information system containing a range of context-sensitively mapped text on agriculture and the environment which can be used on a stand-alone basis or accessed from any part of the software system. (C) 1997 Silsoe Research Institute.

ABSTRACT PART 2: The development of a decision support system aims to encourage farmers in the UK to adopt a more environment-friendly approach to their daily activities. Part of the system concentrates on crop protection encouraging best practice and the principles of integrated pest management. The system compares actual practices on a field-by-field basis with what is perceived to be best practice and, using scoring techniques, derives numerical performance indices, known as eco-ratings, which lie on a defined scale. The conceptual framework of the system is designed such that by analysing past decisions it can help to identify strengths and weaknesses of current practices and so support future decisions and planning. This paper presents some of the evaluation work and provides examples and information on the scoring system used. The examples used illustrate the success of the system in providing the user with sufficient advice and information such that informed decisions regarding pesticide choice, application and general management can be made. An associated paper (Part 1) in this journal details the theory, design and development of the methodology. (C) 1997 Silsoe Research Institute.

Interactive software on EDF website: http://www.scorecard.org/env-releases/def/tep_gen.html

Email contact: Bill Pease@edf.org

A Method to Measure the Environmental Impact of Pesticides. New York's Food and Life Sciences Bulletin 139. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA. 1992. 8p. J. Kovach, C. Petzoldt, J. Degni and J. Tette.

Full text:
http://www.nysipm.cornell.edu/publications/EIQ.html

Med. Fac. Landbouww. Univ. Gent. 58, 249-255. 1993. J.A.W.A.Reus and G.A. Pak.

Go to the Center for Agriculture and Environment website http://www.clm.nl.

Adaptation and use of a fuzzy expert system to assess the environmental impact of pesticides applied to field crops. Submitted to Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 1999. O. Roussel, A. Cavelier, H. M. G. van der Werf.

An Indicator of Pesticide Environmental Impact Based on a Fuzzy Expert System. Chemosphere 36 (10): 2225-2249. H.M.G. van der Werf and C. Zimmer.

See also CAPER Report, Table 1.
Contact Hayo van der Werf: Hayo.vanderWerf@roazhon.inra.fr

Soil and Crop Science Society of Florida Proceedings 44: 1-8. 1985. P.S.C Rao, A.G. Hornsby, R.E. Jessup.

Contact Arthur Hornsby at agh@gvn.ifas.ufl.edu

Information & text: http://www.pmac.net. Contact Charles Benbrook at benbrook@hillnet.com.

LIVE is a sustainable agriculture program that certifies vineyards and wineries which comply with a set of agricultural practices that are modeled after international standards of Integrated Production. Compliance practices may vary regionally. Growers are provided with a list of vineyard practices that are either prohibited or required.

Evaluation System: Performance of the grape growers participating in LIVE is evaluated annually by means of a point system (score card). A score of zero indicates conventional farming practices are used. Negative scores suggest need for improvement. Unacceptable scores must be corrected before compliance is certified. Bonus points (10-20) are given to solutions and actions aimed at improving grape quality, diversification of the agro-ecosystem (vineyard), and reducing chemical inputs (pesticides, fertilizer, fuel, etc.). Growers must achieve at least 50% of the maximum number of positive points and are disqualified by any unacceptable practices. Evaluation is based on grower-submitted records of fertilization, pesticide use, and management practices (score card). Growers are subject to unannounced inspection at least once a year for verification.

The goal of the certification system is to encourage continual improvement. To be as inclusive as possible, while not compromising program objectives, LIVE will often chose to give negative scores for questionable practices rather that to absolutely forbid them.

Uses five indicators on a 1-4 scale to create a risk profile: release rate, spatiotemporal range, bioaccumulation, biological activity and uncertainty of the evaluation. Did not perform mathematical operations on results, "since they reflect complementary aspects of risk that are partially dependent of each other. "

Identifying Future Drinking Water Contaminants. 1998 Workshop on Emerging Drinking Water Contaminants. Proceedings of the US National Research Council Workshop on Emerging Drinking Water Contaminants. National Academy Press. Washington, DC. 280 pages. In Press, 1999.

Ordering information: http://books.nap.edu/catalog/9595.html

NSW Agriculture. Orange, Australia. September 1995. 4 pages plus appendices. L. J. Penrose, W. G. Thwaite (graham.thwaite@agric.nsw.gov.au), M. Maguire and K. Morris.

Final Report: A Rating Index as a Basis for Decision Making on Pesticide Use Reduction and IPM Accreditation. Research and Development Corporation. Orange, Australia. June 1995. 28 pages plus appendices. NSW Agriculture, Horticultural. L. J. Penrose, W. G. Thwaite, M. J. Maguire.

Rating Index as a Basis for Decision Making on Pesticide Use Reduction and for Accreditation of Fruit Produced Under Integrated Pest Management. Crop Protection 13: 146-152. 1994. L. J. Penrose, W. G. Thwaite and C. C. Bower.

Contact John Vickery (jvickery@iatp.org), Ph. 612-870-3430; FAX 612-870-4846

The Pesticide Decision Tool is web-based. It facilitates use of environmental information in selecting and managing pesticides in arable crop production (field corn and soy). It is designed for use by ag. professionals, such as co-op and elevator agronomists, independent crop consultants, Soil and Water Conservation District, and university Extension specialists working with these crops.

PDT consists of a set of downloadable documents available at the PDT homepage from the PDT Document library. The tool features two approaches: 1) a screening tool for assessing the likelihood of water contamination and 2) Reference Tables for easy comparison of the environmental and agronomic characteristics of the products available for a certain type of application (e.g., preemergence herbicides, soybeans).

PDT uses screening tool software from the USDA NRCS (Windows Pesticide Screening Tool) which takes into account the properties of both soils and pesticide active ingredients to determine a rating for the relative potential for ground and surface water contamination (i.e., potential for percolation below root zone and runoff beyond edge of field, respectively). The user can go a step further and assess risk to aquatic organisms (and humans¤drinking water) by incorporating toxicology information.

The pesticide Reference Tables are spreadsheets with environmental information and other decision factors such as production cost¤and for herbicides¤crop tolerance ratings, persistence (carryover) ratings, and resistance risk ratings. For each active ingredient (trade names also given), the environmental information includes water contamination potential ratings, long-term exposure toxicity ratings for aquatic organisms, a set of on-farm exposure hazard ratings (signal word, acute toxicity, irritation), and a carcinogenicity rating. Similar tables are available for insecticides and fungicides.

A computer modelling technique developed by Australian scientists at CSIRO to minimise the impact of agricultural pesticides on rivers, lakes (surface) and groundwater. PIRI calculates an individual pesticide's impact on surrounding water bodies by taking into account its chemical properties, application and frequency, and then factoring in seasonal and soil variables, enabling prediction with 80% certainty whether traces of any pesticide used will end up in surrounding water supplies. The PIRI program was designed and written by CSIRO Mathematical and Information Sciences statisticians Dr Ray Correll and Mrs Ros Miller for intended use by farm advisors, land use planners, regulators, policy analysts. Development was supported by the Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation (LWRRDC). Drs Rai Kookana and Ray Correll are now working with several agencies in Australia, the Geneva-based UN International Atomic Energy Agency and Malaysia and Thailand. It is expected to be available in Australia in 2001.

Book and diskette. 1995. Springer, NY. 227p. A. G. Hornsby, R. D. Wauchope and A. E. Herner.

Contact Arthur Hornsby at agh@gvn.ifas.ufl.edu and R. Don Wauchope at don@tifton.cpes.peachnet.edu

RIVM Report 679101014, National Institute of Public Health and Environmental Protection (Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieuhygiene). 1994. J. B. H. J. Linders (Jan.Linders@rivm.nl), J. W. Jansma, B. J. W. G. Mensink and K. Oterman.

US EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Computer Software. 1998. http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/env_ind/index.html

Permits screening-level analysis of risk-related impacts of toxic chemical releases and transfers in the U.S., currently using data from the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), but will incorporate data from other sources in the future. The Chronic Human Health Indicator (referred to as "the Indicator") is the first of four indicators to be developed. This Indicator addresses both chronic effects and chronic exposures and takes into account the toxicity of chemicals, the quantity to which people are exposed, and the size of the population exposed to those chemicals. Three other indicators are planned: acute human health impacts and chronic and acute ecological impacts.

Develops a robust model to predict environmental impact for assessing pesticide leaching. The Hasse-diagram analysis is used in the model yielding relative ranking results both in relation to single active ingredients and in relation to ranking different scenarios of total pesticide usage. The methods are applied to investigate the agricultural use of herbicides in Denmark.

Contact: Peter B. Sorensen (PBS@DMU.dk). See also CAPER Report.

Unpublished handbook. 1993.

Responsible Choice: A Systems Approach to Growing, Packing and Marketing Fruit. A. Nathan Reed (reed@ncw.net), pages 68-78 in J.Hull, Jr. and R. Perry, eds., One Hundred and Twenty-Fifth Annual Report of the Secretary of the State Horticultural Society of Michigan for the year 1995.1995.

Summary about Responsible Choice Program: http://www.stemilt.com/story/rc.php?t=2

Poster presented at The State of North America's Private Land, a Conference held January 19-21, 1999 in Chigao, Illinois. R. L. Kellogg, R. Nehring, A. Grube (grube.arthur@epa.gov ), S. Plotkin, D. W. Goss, S. Wallace.

Full text:
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/land/pubs/pesttrend.html

European Journal of Agronomy 7:261-270. 1997. C. Bockstaller, P. Girardin and H. M. G. van der Werf.